Obama more popular than Christ?

In a recent New York Times editorial, Caroline Kennedy compared Barack Obama to her late father John F Kennedy suggesting that Obama can provide the same kind of inspirational leadership and a change in the direction at the top.

Today, former president Jimmy Carter compared him to Dr Martin Luther King, although he fell short of actually endorsing the presidential hopeful.

Were I Barack Obama, I would be out looking for a good bullet-proof vest before somebody compares me to John Lennon.

Democratic reform

Amid the speculation about election shenanigans in New Hampshire and voter apathy, I would like to suggest a reform of the US electoral system that is as profound as it is wide ranging.

First let us look at the urgent need for democratic reform. Many think that the current system for choosing presidential candidates is outdated with a few hamlets in New Hampshire shaping the way the country views prospective presidents and the popular vote counting for less than the states' votes. Others think it is downright dishonest, in a country where anyone can become president, a presidential candidate must have millions of dollars to even get their name on the list. Some even think the process is corrupt, a BBC article pointed out the inadequacies in the last election which made front-page news in every country except the US at the time and there is concern now over the use of electronic voting machines.

The turnout at elections has been falling, with many voters feeling disenfranchised or just plain apathetic. Clearly a new approach is needed that will allow the electorate more access to the candidates and that will make voting more user friendly and transparent.

After much thought and consultation with my friends and colleagues in the know about such matters, I have devised a new system that, I think, will address these issues of concern.

The new system must be popular, allow access to the candidates, be beyond reproach, be fair. Such a system seems almost impossible to conceive and implement but, in fact, the solution has been staring us in the face for many years now, the technology is tried and tested, the system trusted worldwide.

Ladies and Gentlemen. I present Presidential Big Brother. Yes, you heard. All of the candidates are locked in a house, for the sake of argument it could be white. They are isolated from their spin-doctors and policy shapers, and more importantly, are isolated from the news. Each week they are given a challenge, some policy matter to address, or possibly a scenario to test their performance in a crisis situation. The challenges could be based in reality, or not. It wouldn't matter as they would not be aware of the outside world. After the challenge, the people speak and the worst performer is eliminated (and thus freed to become a pundit on the panel of observers). After the required number of weeks, which would probably be extended due to immunities won for quick challenges like being able to name the leaders of America's greatest allies, the victor would be the only remaining candidate.

The people would be empowered, but would the candidates do it? I think the answer is simply "Yes". There is very little these people wouldn't do to become president, and it has to be better than kissing babies.

What is the International Space Station for?

Where's the beef.

Recently, smoking has been banned in a variety of places by many countries and states. This has generally been done as a preventative measure to stop employees from suing their employers in the future if they contract smoking-related diseases.

In light of this I have a suggestion for employers and legislators alike:

Ban the cooking of meat in restaurants.

Bear with me on this, it isn't as far away as you might think. Imagine, if you will, a devout Buddhist who has never eaten meat in his life; let's call him Bernard. For whatever reason Bernard finds employment in a family restaurant which serves lots of sizzling meat dishes and is further exposed to the smoke from cooking meats in the kitchens. Years later, Bernard is diagnosed with variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease (vCJD).

Doctors are mystified. So Bernard's lawyers set about proving that Bernard must have inhaled the prions that cause the disease, at work. They use the following steps:

Prions are in the food chain;
Prions are not damaged in any way by cooking, or even burning at normal kitchen temperatures;
The smoke from grilling meat contains small particles of that meat and therefore disease-causing prions;
Scientists do not know how many prions are needed to cause vCJD and so this is the most likely cause even at very low concentrations.
Bernard has suffered years of exposure to these "second-hand" prions and his employer has not done enough to protect him;

What other solution can there be but to ban the cooking and serving of meat in public places to protect the consumer from disease and the employer from litigation? Who knows, an internet search at a later date might even turn up this blog to show that the employer had been forewarned. In the interest of everybody's health, we should probably call for it now.

Is Fire Alive

Strange name for a blog.

Well, is it? I know the answer is most likely no, but I have never heard a really good explanation. Much of modern society and our understanding of the world is governed by arbitrary rules that we just accept. Fire possesses all of the characteristics of living things taught at school so people tend to say that it doesn't have a cellular structure and hence is not alive, but that is a very vague term. Cells vary widely in their structure and functions: some cells can reproduce and some can't; some have a nucleus, some don't; some have walls, some don't. All very vague. Fire certainly has a degree of structure-- we were all taught about the different parts of a gas flame at school. It can adapt; grow; regulate its surroundings; convert other things into fire; respond to stimuli-- just watch what happens if you stick your finger in a fire and keep it there; and fire can most definitely reproduce. Has anyone ever examined the structure further to look for more organisation?

Look anywhere for an answer to this question and you will see little debate and a smug, "We're scientists and we're telling you that fire isn't alive" kind of answer. I don't believe fire to be alive, probably through years of conditioning, but I like to keep an open mind. I actually understand what fire is, I can describe it, but I like asking awkward questions and dismissing glib answers.

OK. That's over. I don't intend to dwell on the nature of fire.