Lord of the Rings star joins 24's CTU

Yep. It's probably mainstream rubbish, it's shallow, repeptative and fukkin bloody wicked! So - I like it. Big time.

And good news are to be announced since FOX announced that Sean Astin, previously known as a hobbit from LOTRs, will join Los Angeles CTU in the series' 5th installment. Unfortunately FOX isn't telling much about the plot - so we simply have to wait...

Sooooo mean.

Binge-Spin

Whatever the government wants to tell you - we Brits are not the only ones that have a nice old binge drinking problem.

The IHT online features an interesting article on our South Corean fellow drinkers:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/26/news/drink.php

Animal Rights Terrorists

Animal Rights activists might have a case when it comes to cosmetics.

But even that is debatable since cosmetic and medical evidence is often intertwined.

Saying that - there are no justifications whatsoever to applt violent measures and terrorism against operators and workers of animal research facilities.

It's not an easy business, and despite its importance not really appreciated in public.

IIn my opinion the government should apply the full power of the law against mindless zealots who have nothing better to do than sabotaging valuable research - aimed at saving lives and fightig deseases.

Further information:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1748664,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/0,11917,687263,00.html

Davi Brent goes to Hollywood

Ricky Gervais aka Managament Guru David Brent is about to kick of his Hollywood career in a film named 'For Your Consideration'.

Word on the street is that he will play a producer having problems to get his film successfully throug to the awards.

Great news I say - Brentism will spread around the world and become the new school of everything.

Spin Doctors

As the International Herald Tribune announces, Bush and his allies are starting a pr campaign to boost support for the Iraq engagement.

Since there might be a need to do so in the US, this certainly is the case in the UK where support - despite the London bombings, is continuously decreasing.

It's unsure however, if Blair will be able to explain the good causes for the war to Britain's critical public and if not the mere attempt to do so might have negative drawbacks for his popularity.

"Why buy a book when you can join a library."

R. Gervais

V for Music

All the hype around the Live8 concert for a really crappy day of C-rated music. The real deal probably is the V festival - with a line up that leaves Glastonbury crying in shame:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4166524.stm

No alternative to 'shoot to kill' practice

The unfortunate death of Jean Charles de Menezes has not highlighted, as many suggest in these days, the failure of the shoot to death policy employed by the police when it comes to stopping suicide bombers.

Rather it has shown how delicate and fragile the human decision making process works - especially situations with a high level of stress. Mistakes have been made because the human element failed to act in rational ways - and humans will continue to fail in those situations.

Granted, for the family and also the shocked public the de Menezes incident might be hard to believe - but it merely emphasizes how important it is to continue a high level intelligence operation to collect as much information as possible on potential terrorist threats.

It emphasizes that we cannot construct a perfect protection and that security always is an illusion. However, using this tragic case of human failure to build a case against the shoot to kill practice would be a major mistake.

Shoot to kill might be the only way to stop a person - determined to kill himself and others - from detonating a device in a crowded area. Certainly - it is the last resort, but without this option - what should we tell the police men who are pursuing a man who might have the power to kill them at will? Why should we care about protection at all?

So whom to blame for the de Menezes death? The officers that fired the bullet? Not if they really believed that Menezes was a suicide bomber. The intelligent officers who provided the wrong information? No - because the same argument applies for them. The police, who issued the shoot to kill order in general? Certainly not!

So whom - in my opinion there is only one answer - the terrorists who attacked and tried to attack London.

Guardian: Police rethink shoot to kill policy

Nuclear Crisis - Will Tehran succeed?

Iran is pursuing the nuclear bomb - that goes without question. The middle-east country has ignored the requests of the European Union not to re-start the processing and enrichment of uranium as long as the negotiations are going on. This is undermining Iran's assertions to continue talking to the UK, France and Germany about a diplomatic conclusion of the situation.
Iran is claiming to strive for the peaceful use of nuclear technologies only.

But how can one believe in this hollow statement since the Isfahan site is fully equipped to process yellow cake for the production of nuclear bombs? How can one sincerely believe that a nation steered by hardliners will resign from its well known and established plans to get the bomb that is regarded so highly in order to establish a level playing field with the countries two great enemies - Israel and the US.

The election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the pressure to re-start the countries nuclear programme (if it was ever fully stopped) coincides with the progress of Iranian scientists . This is worrying news and it is not unlikely that Tehran may be successful in preventing the US and the European Union from taking its worries in front of the security council.

An military operation seems to be unbearable. To expensive - and especially under the light of the recent terror attacks on London to hard to sell. Iran knows this and sees a glorious end to its ambition to become the most powerful Islamic country - the only one that possesses the nuclear bomb and managed to resist the 'evil' alliance of the infidels.

This is a dangerous situation - especially since time is running out. The European 3 are in risk of continuing fruitless negotiations while at the same time Iran is finishing the job. The US has all reasons to become growingly suspicious on this approach - but on the other hand has no viable alternatives to consider.

A one sided threat - like those of the US and the UK prior to the Iraq Invasion - would be laughed at in Tehran. Furthermore - the discordances between Old Europe and the Alliance has led to a bloody but successful strategy of terror - Al Qaida was no longer trying to hit the main enemy - the US or Israel - but his allies of which it is knows that the war against terror is seen critical in large parts of the public opinion.

But unity and decisive actions are now required to stop a small group of fanatics from laying their hands on the most destructive weapon there is - and preventing a war in the middle east.