no disrespect to ms sarpong, but that’s not a sentence i thought i’d be writing this week.

today i’ve been researching her pet project, politics and the city, for something i’m writing for popgadget (coming soon!) and i came across her blog.

i was gratified by what june had written about knife crime, which is the most sensible and real thing i’ve read of all the many (many!) things i’ve read and heard on the subject recently.

she says:

“When I hear both David Cameron and Gordon Brown talk about tougher sentencing for knife crimes, I can’t help but wonder why neither of them are focusing sufficiently on what we can do to ensure these young people don’t carry knives and, more importantly, don’t use them.

It seems to me there is an erosion of the moral compass of these knife-wielding youngsters which, at it’s core, stems from an immense lack of self-esteem. This has desensitised them from caring about their own lives and therefore they do not value the lives of others.

We live in a society of instant gratification, which teaches its young to act on impulse. It’s imperative that we create a framework where disenfranchised youth realise that crime and violence are not the only options and that there are serious consequences to harming or indeed taking another life.

We need a much more effective state education system which not only demands excellence from its pupils but also focuses on their emotional wellbeing. This is a problem that we must tackle together as a nation - irrespective of race, class or region.”

obama declares himself the democratic candidate.

please give up now, hillary. (and please choose someone, anyone, else for the ticket, barack).

browsing the times website, i came across this column which made me see R.E.D.

yes, david aaronovich, let’s all pretend that prostitution is a fun and sexy lifestyle choice rather than the sad symptom of a society which reduces women to a series of body parts designed for male consumption. let’s agree that women who’ve been abused shouldn’t be encouraged to stop serving up sex on a plate, but that we should say ‘oh well, carry on then!’ instead.

that seems reasonable…

or so ANNOYING i can barely speak for spitting feathers.

one of those.

arrrgh!

*implodes*

with this article.

okay, not all of it: i do believe we shouldn’t sneer at people, even politicians, because of their age. and i know the older and the disabled get a bum deal in many ways, such as wheelchair access, which is still awful almost everywhere you go.

but america as some kind of nirvana for the elderly? i don’t buy it. i spent two weeks there in november, and the large number of over-70s i saw working really hard in the service industries (i doubt for the joy of it; most likely so they could eat) was really eye-opening, and a little bit heart-breaking, to me.

and, in other news, i have some problems with the probable end of the writers’ strike. am I the only one disappointed? the paltry DVD figure is unchanged and there’s no info about shows bought for iPods etc. the internet agreement is a step in the right direction, but worth calling an end to the strike for just that? it seems to me that the studios will still think they have won…

look at hillary! she’s thinking, “just one little nudge off the podium and this race is MINE, little boy.”

hee.

here’s an interesting article about the guy i would have chosen for prez, and keris alerted me to this video of ann coulter, fascist fearmonger and darling of the neo-cons, showing hillary clinton some lurve. is she right - could (republican) john mccain really be to the right [doh, i mean left] of hills? alarming.

super tuesday should be interesting.

i read an article in the independent before the new hampshire primary, which talked about bill ‘the comeback kid’ clinton, and how he went from second place in iowa to first place in new hampshire back in 1992. i vaguely remember hearing about that before (and it sounds familar from primary colors - i recommend the book and the film, btw):

while hillary sat outside in the car, bill was in a macdonald’s the night before the vote, meeting people and pledging to be a brilliant leader. the next day he won, and the rest is history.

BUT, argued the independent article, hillary couldn’t do that. not only is she less charismatic than bill (there’s a reason she was in the car) but she was in third place after iowa. new hampshire would more than likely seal her defeat.

oh, really?

the clintons clearly have some kind of new hampshire mojo that can not be fought.

it doesn’t mean hillary will be elected president, or even get the ‘nom’, but it’s spooky all the same.

update: i didn’t know how to phrase what i thought about hillary’s tears, then someone else did it for me (and ps: the latest news suggestion* is the questioner was a ‘plant’…)

*okay, carol? ;)

post from the past: a politicial.  

i can’t think of any british person i know who wants to talk about the american election this early in the game, at candidate pickin’ time, but (as i said on twitter) like oprah, i’m coming out for obama.

i may be the only person i know who’s interested in the result of the iowa caucuses (partly ‘cos i love saying caucuses, i have to admit) but you never know which major opinion-formers might be reading this blog in secret…   

i don’t like hillary clinton’s track record (if she’d pulled off healthcare reform and not voted for war in iraq and not cosied up to a bunch of republican homophobes by being ambivalent about gays in the military and gay marriage, then maybe i would). i think it’s time for someone new.

obama may cock it up to all hell, but let’s give him a try, whatd’ya say, iowa caucuses?

update: good work, iowa! (except for that huckabee thing).