Robyn certainly believes in the expression "all your pizza are belong to us" even the odd crust...This week's entry For the Friday Ark and Carnival of the Cats. More cat photos as ever at Plant porn and pussycats and at Yet to be named
09 March 2007
Robyn contented and curious
Robyn certainly believes in the expression "all your pizza are belong to us" even the odd crust...This week's entry For the Friday Ark and Carnival of the Cats. More cat photos as ever at Plant porn and pussycats and at Yet to be named
08 March 2007
President's threat over Chagos Islands
Sir Anerood Jugnauth, the President of Mauritius has stated that he would be prepared to quit the Commonwealth over the issue of the Chagos Islanders. who were expelled from their homes in the Chagos archipelago during the 1960s and 1970s to make way for the US military base on Diego Garcia. He is also prepared to take the UK to the International Court of Justice over the islanders' plight.
Jugnauth also said he believed Mauritius had also suffered injustice over the issue of the Chagos Islands: "We have always claimed Chagos from the British….We were deprived of part of our territory and this is against all the United Nations resolutions." The Chagos Islands were ceded to Britain in 1814. They were administered first as part of the Seychelles and then as part of Mauritius. The Islands were retained as the British Indian Ocean Territory when Mauritius was granted independence in 1968.
Jugnauth said he did not think leaving the Commonwealth, a 53-nation grouping of mainly former British colonies, would be too high a price to pay."I won't say a very high price," he said. "We are in the Commonwealth, we get some benefit out of it, but there's not much that we get."
Click here for previous posts on the Chagos Islanders
Jugnauth also said he believed Mauritius had also suffered injustice over the issue of the Chagos Islands: "We have always claimed Chagos from the British….We were deprived of part of our territory and this is against all the United Nations resolutions." The Chagos Islands were ceded to Britain in 1814. They were administered first as part of the Seychelles and then as part of Mauritius. The Islands were retained as the British Indian Ocean Territory when Mauritius was granted independence in 1968.
Jugnauth said he did not think leaving the Commonwealth, a 53-nation grouping of mainly former British colonies, would be too high a price to pay."I won't say a very high price," he said. "We are in the Commonwealth, we get some benefit out of it, but there's not much that we get."
Click here for previous posts on the Chagos Islanders
07 March 2007
The end of the Lords as we know it?
I've only just seen the news that MPs have voted in favour of a fully elected House of Lords. In a series of votes, they also voted for an 80% elected Lords, rejected other options for lower proportions of elected members and outright abolition.
The vote is advisory, but it gives momentum to reformers who want to see see an elected second chamber. It will now be up to the government to decide whether to accommodate the wishes of the Commons in a bill to reform the Lords. Peers will themselves vote on the same options next week. The fully-elected chamber was backed by 337 MPs to 224, a majority of 113. MPs rejected a move by to ensure the remaining 92 hereditary peers were not removed until the elected peers took their seats in a reformed Lords.
Under the white paper, elected peers could serve only one term, but that would be of 15 years. Elections of a third of members every five years would mean a complete change of personnel every 15 years. Some form of proportional representation would be used, with party lists for candidates, and constituencies based on the European parliament regions. A future bill could also see the name of the upper chamber changed from the House of Lords
My first reaction is to to be glad that MPs have voted this way. It'is about time we had an elected upper chamber. I know the vote isn't binding but the Government would be crazy to ignore the commons on this matter.
The vote is advisory, but it gives momentum to reformers who want to see see an elected second chamber. It will now be up to the government to decide whether to accommodate the wishes of the Commons in a bill to reform the Lords. Peers will themselves vote on the same options next week. The fully-elected chamber was backed by 337 MPs to 224, a majority of 113. MPs rejected a move by to ensure the remaining 92 hereditary peers were not removed until the elected peers took their seats in a reformed Lords.
Under the white paper, elected peers could serve only one term, but that would be of 15 years. Elections of a third of members every five years would mean a complete change of personnel every 15 years. Some form of proportional representation would be used, with party lists for candidates, and constituencies based on the European parliament regions. A future bill could also see the name of the upper chamber changed from the House of Lords
My first reaction is to to be glad that MPs have voted this way. It'is about time we had an elected upper chamber. I know the vote isn't binding but the Government would be crazy to ignore the commons on this matter.
06 March 2007
West Ham – Insert appropriate tabloid horror headline
Call it a nightmare on Green Street; call it a Hammers Horror but West Ham has had a season that is very much an annus horribilis (although to date no castle has burnt down).
The Hammers have not won a match since December and have taken only two points so far during 2007. They are at the bottom of the Premiership table, eleven points adrift of safety and relegation seems inevitable (unless prayers to St Jude, the patron saint of hopless causes can turn things around!).
To make matters worse the team is in a morale meltdown according to a report in last Sunday’s Observer. Charges have been laid by the Premier League over breaches rules over the signing of Argentinean players Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.
And now today the press is reporting that the Metropolitan Police confirmed that is investigating a complaint about racist chants heard at last Sunday’s game against Tottenham. One of the chants apparently was: "I'd rather be a Paki than a Jew".
The FA's head of stadia, Chris Whalley, will write to the relegation-threatened club today to demand an explanation for the security and stewarding provisions it has in place. The FA will want to know why there was no intervention from stewards to put a stop to the chanting, which took place at half-time when West Ham were leading 2-0. Even if the chants were from a tiny minority of fans, we need this srt of behaviour like a hole in the head.
Last May West Ham came with in an ace of a famous FA Cup win. This season has been an unmitigated disaster. I wonder if it’s time to pull down the shutters and hope for a successful return to the Premiership next year. On a happier note Dagenham & Redbridge are 12 points clear at the top of the Conference. Barring disaster it looks like league football next season.
The Hammers have not won a match since December and have taken only two points so far during 2007. They are at the bottom of the Premiership table, eleven points adrift of safety and relegation seems inevitable (unless prayers to St Jude, the patron saint of hopless causes can turn things around!).
To make matters worse the team is in a morale meltdown according to a report in last Sunday’s Observer. Charges have been laid by the Premier League over breaches rules over the signing of Argentinean players Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano.
And now today the press is reporting that the Metropolitan Police confirmed that is investigating a complaint about racist chants heard at last Sunday’s game against Tottenham. One of the chants apparently was: "I'd rather be a Paki than a Jew".
The FA's head of stadia, Chris Whalley, will write to the relegation-threatened club today to demand an explanation for the security and stewarding provisions it has in place. The FA will want to know why there was no intervention from stewards to put a stop to the chanting, which took place at half-time when West Ham were leading 2-0. Even if the chants were from a tiny minority of fans, we need this srt of behaviour like a hole in the head.
Last May West Ham came with in an ace of a famous FA Cup win. This season has been an unmitigated disaster. I wonder if it’s time to pull down the shutters and hope for a successful return to the Premiership next year. On a happier note Dagenham & Redbridge are 12 points clear at the top of the Conference. Barring disaster it looks like league football next season.
Robyn Hitchcock - I often dream of trains
The title track of Robyn's third solo album. Also features "Man with the lightbulb head" from Fegmania
05 March 2007
Cherokees vote to expel descendants of former slaves
Members of the Cherokee nation voted yesterday to expel descendants of black slaves they once owned. In a special election to amend their constitution citizenship is to be limited to those listed as “Cherokee by blood”. The move stripped tribal membership from freedmen (those descended from slaves) and blacks who were married to Cherokees. They had enjoyed full citizenship rights for 141 years.
The ballot, which followed a ruling by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court in March 2006 confirming citizenship to freedmen descendants, will now limit citizenship to those who can trace their heritage to a “Cherokee by blood” list, part of what is known as the Dawes Rolls census created in 1906. Under that census, anybody with a trace of African-American blood, even if half Cherokee, was placed on the freedmen roll. Those with full Cherokee or mixed white and Cherokee ancestry were put on the “Cherokee by blood” roll.
Supporters say that it was a long-overdue move by Cherokees to determine their own tribal make-up. In their view freedmen were granted tribal membership under duress in an 1866 treaty with the US Government. Those who wanted to expel freedmen said that, without the vote, thousands more descendants would seek to cash in on the tribe’s revenue and welfare network.
Opponents of the vote denounced it as a racist plot to deny tribal revenue to those not deemed full-blood Cherokee, and to block them from claiming a slice of the tribal pie. A minority of the 270,000 Cherokees are descendants of freedmen. Members are entitled to a share of the $350 million annual budget from federal and tribal revenue, housing and medical support.
The vote has reopened a chapter in Native American history –that some country’s largest tribes were slave holders and sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War. Cherokees, Choctaws, Chicksaws, Creeks and Seminoles were known as the Five Civilised Tribes because they adopted many of the ways of the Confederate South, including the ownership of black slaves.
This may well not be the end of the story: In 2000 the Seminole Nation expelled its freedmen. But the federal Government, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and federal courts, refused to recognise the Seminoles as a sovereign nation. Faced with such a loss of status, they took the freedmen back.
The ballot, which followed a ruling by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court in March 2006 confirming citizenship to freedmen descendants, will now limit citizenship to those who can trace their heritage to a “Cherokee by blood” list, part of what is known as the Dawes Rolls census created in 1906. Under that census, anybody with a trace of African-American blood, even if half Cherokee, was placed on the freedmen roll. Those with full Cherokee or mixed white and Cherokee ancestry were put on the “Cherokee by blood” roll.
Supporters say that it was a long-overdue move by Cherokees to determine their own tribal make-up. In their view freedmen were granted tribal membership under duress in an 1866 treaty with the US Government. Those who wanted to expel freedmen said that, without the vote, thousands more descendants would seek to cash in on the tribe’s revenue and welfare network.
Opponents of the vote denounced it as a racist plot to deny tribal revenue to those not deemed full-blood Cherokee, and to block them from claiming a slice of the tribal pie. A minority of the 270,000 Cherokees are descendants of freedmen. Members are entitled to a share of the $350 million annual budget from federal and tribal revenue, housing and medical support.
The vote has reopened a chapter in Native American history –that some country’s largest tribes were slave holders and sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War. Cherokees, Choctaws, Chicksaws, Creeks and Seminoles were known as the Five Civilised Tribes because they adopted many of the ways of the Confederate South, including the ownership of black slaves.
This may well not be the end of the story: In 2000 the Seminole Nation expelled its freedmen. But the federal Government, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and federal courts, refused to recognise the Seminoles as a sovereign nation. Faced with such a loss of status, they took the freedmen back.
Great Firewall of China - update
Hmm the Poor Mouth now seems to be blocked. Perhaps my cats are just too subversive...
A Conversation with Oscar Wilde
Detail of the Maggie Hambling statue located in Adelaide Street, near Trafalgar Square
Great Firewall of China
The Great Firewall of China allows you to test any website and see if it is banned in China. This blog is visible in China plenty but other blogs are banned.
Thanks go to Matt An Insomniac for drawing my attention to the Great Firewall of China in the first place.
Thanks go to Matt An Insomniac for drawing my attention to the Great Firewall of China in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)