I have often wanted to write something about Iraq and US/UK policy there. However having started blogging in 2006 I imagined that most things that could be said had already been said by then. However, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto will sadly probably ensure that there is further instability in the countries from the Middle East to India. I am not an able thinker on politics, let alone geopolitics, but I find old strands of thought coming to the surface again especially with regard to the West's policy on energy.

There has been a lot that disturbed me about the US/UK invasion of Iraq. In the runup to the invasion I had really accepted the argument that if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass distruction that he cold potentially unleash on Israel, Saudi Arabia or Iran this was sufficiently dangerous to warrant an invasion. I unfortunately believed the untruths that were being propagated by our Government then but at the same time was disturbed by quite a few things:
- I was aware that Britain had no moral high ground with regard to Iraq, having helped arm Iraq against Iran in the 1980s. Our politicians and news media were very quiet when Saddam was using poison gas on their Iranian enemies.
- The Bush administration seemed to be justifying the attack on Iraq due to the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Duh... wasn't al Qaida based in Afghanistan not Iraq then? Didn't the militant islamists see Saddam Hussein as an enemy just as much as they saw the West?
- Friends in the British military privately expressed doubts about the ethics of the invasion. As they are very ethical people that I trust this was worrying.
- There was oil in Iraq but not in other places with bad regimes e.g. Zimbabwe or Myanmar.

Of course, the Iraq invasion (with the benefit of hindsight) has been disastrous. Around the time of the invasion, much of Iraq's infrastructure was ransacked by angry Iraqis with no resistance from invading forces. Terrorists have moved into Iraq. The country has been split by inter-community fighting (Shiite versus Sunni, etc). Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced including most of Iraq's ancient Christian community; before the war roughly 8% of the population.

From the UK point of view, we are engaged in two theatres - Iraq and Afghanistan. However having tried to reap the 'peace dividend' from the end of the cold war this is a huge stretch. A lot of the British military infrastructure has been either privatised or civilian techniques such as 'just in time' supply chains have driven down cost. However, cost reductions have also led to helicopters being cannibalised and a rapid ramp-up of supplies to meet an emergency is virtually impossible today. Britain's military expenditure and political commitments requiring military involvement have diverged dramatically.

We have not done ourselves any favours. Bush and Blair talked about bringing 'rule of law' and 'democracy' to Iraq. That was hypocritical particularly for the US - who have deliberately exploited legal grey areas in Guantanamo Bay and who have a shabby record with prisoners in Iraq. If 'rule of law' means you can define grey zones to do what you like what good example is that? By "standing shoulder to shoulder" with something wrong we are also culpable in the UK.

Standing back a bit, I am amazed that the US and to a lesser extent Western Europe has not learned the lessons of the early 1970s. In 1973, OPEC increased oil prices by 70% precipitating a worldwide economic crisis. Strangely the US, as world nr 1 oil producer then, was very hard hit. They assumed that they could rely on almost limitless cheap energy supplies from their own oilfields or from the Middle East. Unfortunately although gas guzzling cars went on the decline there was no major change in their energy profligacy.

Moving on more than thirty years the West has not got any more energy independence than in 1973. There is still a great dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Iraq is in a mess. Iran has not had a friendly relationship with the west. Saudi Arabia while considered an 'ally' is home to a militant brand of islamism that may topple the house of Saud. Instability in Pakistan just makes that part of the world worse. 

In 1973 the Soviet Union and allies were in enmity to the West. However. a lot has changed since then. Russia now is proven to be very energy rich especially in natural gas. Yet, despite much in common with the West for example fears of terrorism, the West's relationship to Russia has become frosty.

All in all, this looks pretty grim for the West's fossil fuel supplies. Although I think it is important anyway - due to climate change - to use less energy and to use more renewal sources, geopolitics alone ought to force this on the West urgently.

Despite the well-publicised international  initiatives of recent British governments on climate change, we are profligate in our energy usage. Much of the British housing stock is poorly insulated meaning that massive amounts of energy are wasted. Poor habits - e.g. airport conveyor belts that run continuously even when there is no luggage - make us far more wasteful than most of our neighbours in Europe. SUVs are on the increase. It is time to wake up and save energy and to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

It is interesting to see how different countries approach the design of hotel rooms. Well, that sounds nerdy but if you travel as often as me you think about these things. In the past, the UK hotel rooms seemed to be over-decorated and fussy and almost invariably overheated with radiators blasting away. In Nordic countries the designs were usually refreshingly clean in their design and very airy if light-coloured wood was used. Hotel rooms in North America are different again with high and often very wide beds.

 

Something though I have never understood is the way that in better US or UK hotels often pile up the pillows and even additional cushions. Is this to create a feeling of opulence? Personally I do not sleep well unless it is on a single pillow.

In my Vancouver hotel (OK this is Canada but a US chain) there were no less than six pillows and three cushions. Most had to be cleared away if I was to get a sleep!

Today a report from the Governments Foresight programme warns about the obesity-caused health crisis facing this country. The evidence is quite alarming:

- According to the International Obesity Taskforce, adult obesity (body mass index > 30) in England has increased threefold between 1980 and morbid obesity (BMI>40) increased threefold too.
- Childhood obesity has also increase the Economic and Social Research Council reports that 10% of six-yearolds are now obese.
- Being overweight is responsible for 90% of type 2 diabetes cases
- Being overweight is responsible for 85% of high blood pressure cases
- Obesity doubles the risk of heart attack or stroke.
- Obesity reduces life expectancy by 13 years.

This is alarming especially if the state (NHS) will pick up the tab for treating the problem some decades in the future. Suffering from being overweight is not exactly making life more pleasant (and I say that as somebody who is overweight). The health side effects are quite terrible.

Yet, I cannot understand why so many British journalists report the problem as somehow inevitable and imply that we as individuals have no sense of responsibility.

Take the BBC headline today "Obesity 'not indiduals fault'" gives the impression that we should not fight the problem as obesity is inevitable. That may not be the message of the article but the headline offers excuses. Similarly the report on the schoolrun "Schoolruns do not cause obesity" is very misleading. Walking for six minutes daily may not be sufficient to change children from being game-playing couch potatoes but the attitude behind the parents dropping the kids is the problem. So many parents drop children in cars because they fear they are not safe walking (despite no evidence of that). As a result children do not go out to play in our parks. 30 years ago public parks were full of children playing games like football and they were exercising and having fun. Today parks are empty apart from dog walkers while the children are safe sitting in front of the telly.

Even the report today I think gives the message that obesity is inevitable and not individual responsibility. This is London says

But modern life - with the easy availability of cheap unhealthy food and families relying on their cars - means it is almost impossible for many to avoid putting on weight.

Indeed, it is becoming inevitable for most because our biological instincts combined with our modern environment mean we are "destined" to pile on the pounds.

- Most people used cars sparingly and two car families were not the norm
- People walked to the shops and to schools
- People used bicycles for short journeys and for recreation
- People knew how to cook with fresh ingredients
- People ate smaller portions
- More people had physical work
- Chidren played outside in streets and parks and thereby exercised

Today think of what has changed:

- Most families have multiple cars (I'm guilty)
- Many people use cars for shopping or taking children to school (I'm guilty on the former but not the latter)
- Many people feel unsafe cycling and children are often forbidden to cycle far (not guilty)
- Many people do not use fresh ingredients and focus on ready meals or takeaway food (not guilty)
- Portions (especially of junk food) have exploded (don't think so)
- Most people have sedentary work (guilty)
- Parents feel safe if their children are playing indoors on a game console, computer or in front of the TV (not guilty)

Of course the Government has a role to play too. Other countries have invested far more in cyclepaths and footpaths - ours appear to be designed by people who never cycle - we can do the same. Schools should teach straightforward healthy cooking. The government should counter the sensational treatment of child crime cases by the media by pointing out that it is safe for children to go out.

Maybe I am a hypocrite writing this as somebody both overweight and with hypertension. However at least I see some responsibility to exercise and eat healthily.

When I was a teenager my teachers and parents told me that British journalism was probably the most objective and impartial in the world; well apart from the 'red tops'. They were obviously looking through rose-coloured spectacles, but there was probably a grain of truth in it. However, middle-aged fart that I am, I am sure that the quality of reporting has dropped in recent decades. Instead of trying to establish facts we are bombarded with opinions and almost lurid entertainment. With newspapers, stories often have thinly veiled spins to force the political views of the proprietors down our throats.

I find that the BBC falls into the same category. I really wonder if they are trying to act like a commercial station focusing on viewing figures and ratings rather than its mission 'to inform, educate and entertain'.

Two things strike me about the news media today:
a) there is an unhealthy obsession with child disappearances and murders
b) there is a very narrow selection of international news.

I have been shocked at the amount of attention given to the terrible cases of child murder like Sarah Payne a few years ago and recently the disappearance and alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann. This obsession with a very few terrible cases is in my view unhealthy and leads to parents making poor choices. Many parents think it unsafe for their children to play in a park with their friends even if they do not live in an area with much crime - our beautiful local park is often empty apart from dog walkers while in my childhood it would have been full of kids playing games. Parents think it is safer for their kids to be sedentary in front of a games console or the TV. Similarly many parents feel it is safer to drive their offspring to school rather than to let them walk or cycle. However, the dangers of having obese unfit kids are far greater than being abducted by a stranger.

It would be very interesting if the Home Office published abduction and child murder figures. In my childhood - when such news was treated with less sensationalism - there were certainly some cases like the Moors Murders. I bet the figures are not much different today and yet the media coverage is totally different. When I lived in Germany, there were also cases of crimes against children; in fact to our horror we found out that a child murderer had lived at the other end of our street. However the stories were covered as they broke and were revisited if there was real news like an arrest or court case.

 

The blanket coverage given to the Madeleine McCann case is breathtaking. To parody Churchill "never in the field of British journalism was so much written about so little by so many". The whole point is that so little is known. She disappeared, there was a failure to gather forensic evidence, there are Portuguese secrecy laws which are unfamiliar to us and a few possible sightings. So what is the justification for the column-metres of coverage? This happened again this week with the sighting of a child that looked like Madeleine in Morocco; though I admit that was one of the few newsworthy items. Inevitably one wonders if Madeleine came from a poor working class family, was black- or brown-skinned or had ugly parents whether the coverage would have been so comprehensive.

Thankfully there have been a few voices of sanity in the media. On 10 September Martin Bell writing in the Comment is free blog pointed out that the BBC had sent an army of journalists to Portugal while not maintaining a full camera team in Afghanistan. 25 British soldiers have died there this summer. In yesterday's Times Mike Hume makes the point that "The line between investigation and emotive entertainment has disappeared".

Perhaps even worse is our coverage of momentous events abroad. I recall that a quarter of a century ago we did get a fair number of stories from abroad. However today our news is dominated by the UK, the US and occasionally the Middle East. When I was living in Germany I was surprised that my parents did not read stories of terrible floods or a terrible airport fire in Düsseldorf in the Telegraph or the Mail or see anything on the TV news. But if a Germany story is not reported what about an African one?

 

When I was in Portugal I made a visit to an internet cafe because I wondered what the weather in the UK would be like when we returned. It was 26 August and I was checking the weather in the UK - just curious about what it would be like when we got back. I was shocked when the Met Office reported that 50,000 people had been displaced by floods in Uganda. I have friends in Uganda and looked on mainstream UK news websites for more information. I found precisely nothing.

The African floods hit not just Uganda but were as far west as Ghana and as far north as Sudan. Yet the news only seemed to appear in our media in mid September. As of last week 1.5 million people need emergency help. However this is apparently not very interesting.

I think our news media has a twisted coverage. While my heart goes out to families affected by crimes against their children the amount of coverage is absurd. It is obscene that far greater human tragedies in poorer places are squeezed out from our newspapers and broadcasts.

My youngest son has been keeping chickens for over a year. He had had a job at a children's farm (one where kids pay to see cute farm animals rather than one focused on food production) as part of his school work experience programme.

He took back a number of 'hens' most of which failed to lay eggs. One large Orpington failed to lay then started crowing and was duly returned, but his replacement stopped laying after a week. He was given a small "runaway" hen for free and she has consistently produced small eggs.

My wife bought four hens at a nearby freerange farm for 50p each in the early summer. They were uneconomic for the farmer but have proved regular layers for us... well except for one. One seemed a bit weak and sickly. Judging by the egg count one hen was not laying and we assumed it was the sickly-looking one. Before we left for Portugal instead of foraging for insects in the run she spent hours just lying down on the ground.

On our return our neighbour, who had fed and watered the hens in our absence, told us that she had died. Not only that but before her death she had produced a giant egg. She had obviously not died during laying as the egg was in the henhouse in the laying box and she died in the run. But it must have been traumatic!

 

On the left you see the 45 g egg from the little 'runaway' hen. In the middle is a typical egg from the hens retired from the farm - usually they are around 70 g. On the right is the giant 100 g egg from the hen that died. I have never seen such a large hen's egg. The perspective of the photo is not great but it measures 75 mm end to end.

On holiday recently we went to a shopping mall at Loures just north of Lisbon. It was a well-designed, brightly coloured shopping centre which we liked. We were very impressed by the brighly coloured and originally designed wash handbasins in the 'bogs'.

 

Instead of having individual basins with depth there was an inclined glass plate underneath the tap that drained into the wall. Under the plate were brightly coloured patterns.

 

The patterns under the glass varied from toilet to toilet. However they seemed to drain effectively and were more cheerful than the usual white ones.