I may not like the government, but I'm not blind to the good things that they do. Using the chair of the G8 to further third world debt relief is a good thing, for example. However, it is disappointing to see it being blocked by the US. Their opposition to it seems to be largely that they don't gain. This is almost as selfish as Bush saying that he won't do anything about Kyoto if it means 'even one American job is lost'. It's a massive failure to see the big picture, but that's current US politics for you.

With today came the sad news that Ivan Noble has died after battling cancer for a few years. A lot of people read his online diary detailing his experiences on the BBC Web site and it seems to have helped a lot of people going through similar experiences. His last entry was posted on Sunday, and many people have left tributes. Somtimes it is only through reading about people who have to cope with so much that we realise that most problems we may think we have are actually very minor indeed.

It's very rare that I agree with Frederick Forsyth, but his opinions on the current path to a police state are spot on. Reassuringly, most of the comments seem to be in agreement as well. It's nice to see some sense published occasionally!

You know that things are getting bad when even the anti-terrorism police are worried about the emerging police state. It is just bizarre that people don't seem to care more about this. It seems that the fear and lies spread by the government and right-wing media have duped people into thinking that somehow losing fundamental rights, such as not being locked-up without trial, will somehow save them from some fictional terrorist threat which they have yet to see any evidence of at all. It's funny how terrorists that actually did plant bombs and kill people never made us give up our rights so easily. Maybe it's because they were white eh? It's much harder to get away with locking-up white people without charge.

Channel 4 showed Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 last night. It was the first time I had seen it since the cinema and it's still just as good, although the feeling everyone had in the cinema, that Americans would be disgusted and ditch Bush at the next election, obviously wasn't there any more. It was replaced more by a sort of despairing acceptance. One can only hope that the people who need to see this film but didn't watch it at the cinema managed to catch it on telly last night. Realistically though, I think it was probably preaching to the converted. It needs to go out on BBC1 at prime time. That might get people thinking.

So, oil firms are paying towards an effort to deny climate change are they? There's a surprise. In fact the only surprising thing about the whole business is that Tony Blair seems to have softened his stance on it. As pointed out near the end of the article he has claimed in speeches that evidence of climate change is still disputed. Disputed by the US perhaps, but the fact that carbon emissions add to the greenhouse effect is completely proven - the only dispute is how much difference they make.

I would argue that any difference is enough to actually want to do something about it, and thinking of the worst case, isn't it worth planning for that? If we turn out to be over-reacting then the only 'down side' will be that we will have cut pollution. It's a win/win situation. Burying our heads in the sand and using costs as a reason not to do something easy like making cars more efficient is ridiculously short sighted, and immoral.

Meanwhile, in the world of technology, it seems that public hysteria about paedophiles is still threatening the freedom of information and ideas on the Internet. How long will it be before people are thrown into prison Belmarsh-style without even committing a crime? Look at the article - it seems that talking to kids over the Internet is enough to brand you as some sick pervert.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending paedophiles, but this sort of 'justice', where they are 'detected' before actually doing anything, is so likely to result in the persecution of the innocent that it is mad to go down this route. What if the child claims to be an adult? What if the 'paedophile' has no ill-intent but just likes talking to kids? These things would be difficult to prove, and let's face it, even if you're found completely innocent, your life will be pretty nasty if word gets out that you were investigated for paedophilia. People will assume you're guilty but just 'got away with it', and you can bet you'd be on the receiving end of some unpleasant mob mentality.

In the US media, it is interesting to see the founder of CNN point out how Fox News are so biased. One of the most scary things about the US media is Fox News. Have you ever seen it? It's like the Daily Mail, only more rabidly right-wing (if that's possible). Some of the bits I've seen would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that people actually believe them. Of course the really scary thing is that's the way that our media is going, thanks to the government allowing the purchase of British television companies by foreign owners, relaxation of how much media can be owned by one company, and constant attacks on the BBC. Go New Labour! Control that media. It seems to work in the US to get the Republicans re-elected.

Michael Howard has been talking about his plans to cut the number of refugees that Britain accepts each year and introduce some sort of quota system. This is the ugly face of the xenophobic right. Can any of us honestly refuse to allow refugees into the country, knowing full well that they will probably be killed? Who could live with that decision? Well, it seems that Michael Howard and the Tories could. Paying a bit more tax so that we can protect these people (and a 'bit' would be maybe a pound or two per person) is so abhorrent to them that they would rather see innocent people die.

The sad truth is that a lot of people think like this, thanks to the tabloids. There is a common misconception that millions of refugees are flooding into this country, taking our jobs and creating a crime wave. Of course this is nonsense, but these right-wingers don't like to let facts get in the way of their xenophobic fears. No, they would rather put up fences and watch people be persecuted in their own countries. The fact that the Tory plans would mean the UK's withdrawal from the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees, highlighting the fact that we think ourselves above such things, doesn't seem to worry them.

Michael Howard is only actually in the UK thanks to an open refugee policy of course - his father came to South Wales from Romania as a refugee in 1939. If his own plans had been in place at that time perhaps his father would have been killed? Well, nobody can say that he isn't a hypocrite. If there is one upside of this I guess it means that the only people voting Tory now will be white Europeans, thus reducing their voter base even further. After the next election hopefully we will see the end of this sort of xenophobic rubbish, when they are beaten into third place. Not that Labour are much better. For a real-life example of why stricter rules are wrong, read this story about a schoolgirl being deported. It's just wrong.

In other news, this piece from The Guardian on friendship is a very interesting (although potentially depressing, depending on your viewpoint!) read. Also, well done to Wetherspoons for banning smoking in their pubs after getting impatient with government pandering to the tobacco industry. One day we'll be able to go out and not be bothered by other people's selfish actions...

I don't think anyone is particularly surprised at the bickering that goes on about taxes in the run-up to an election. Cutting taxes seems to be the main thrust of Tory policy, but I don't think that this is what people really want. The tax burden in this country for the average working person isn't too bad. People would rather see more money going into public services than paying slightly less direct taxes but living in a world where the poor receive no help.

Keeping troops in Iraq is costing the UK nearly 2 billion pounds a year. Some people rather naively supported the war when it started and now claim they don't, but we 'have to finish the job'. How long do we give this task then? Those troops aren't going home any time soon, or at least not without leaving behind a whole lot of trouble.

We should never have invaded Iraq, but Labour and the Tories supported it. They shouldn't hide behind the costs by cutting services elsewhere - taxes should be raised to meet the costs. If the taxpayer feels some pain in the wallet then perhaps fewer people will be so bloodthirsty next time, and the government might not get away with it. To cut services that people need to pay for an illegal war is simply wrong. To believe that 4 billion can be saved by 'eliminating waste' is foolish beyond belief.

Here's another article on rabid censorship on US television that I mentioned yesterday. It mentions the BBC drama, but it's only when you read the article that you realise just how out of hand the censorship has got. Media regulators need to dismiss obviously co-ordinated complaints out of hand. A lot of the 'complaint' emails about 'Jerry Springer: The Opera' had exactly the same wording and were obviously cut--n-paste jobs. These should be ignored (as should complaints about a programme that is yet to air, come to think of it).

If right-wing Christians can decide what I am allowed to watch then I'm going to start campaigning against religious programmes. I have nothing against such things of course, but let's see how they like a taste of their own medicine...

George Monbiot has written an excellent article in today's Guardian about how the media in the US prop-up the right wing agenda. It's an interesting read. It's tempting to think that such things could never happen here, but with the government seeking to control the BBC and destroy its ability to question (just look at the Hutton report), how long is it until we have a media that is just the same?

Don't think it's a coincidence that the current government has relaxed media ownership laws - it will be a matter of time before Murdoch and other right-wing crazies own all of the media except the BBC, and you can bet that they'll try to get rid of that.

This is it - the country is slowly gearing-up for election fever. I'm quite looking forward to it as it is almost certainly going to be good news. I was out delivering party newspapers on Saturday morning and there was a good turnout despite the weather and hard work! It was very encouraging to see so many young people too - I doubt the other parties could boast of such a large percentage of younger members. We delivered to almost every house in Bath (although obviously nobody did mine as there was no paper waiting for me when I got back!) and such events are a good opportunity to get more familiar with parts of the city I don't usually go to. I didn't know Weston was quite so big!

Of course the party leaders are starting to warm up for the election too. First we had Labour's ridiculous fancy dress poster thing, now we have Charles Kennedy spelling out the LibDem position - a very sound platform that should do well. The best that Liam Fox could come up with as a criticism was a bunch of old clichés. I don't know if the Tories have launched their campaign properly, although they have been in the press a lot over the last few days talking about cutting taxes. No doubt they forgot to add 'for the rich' onto that. I would also guess that another pledge of theirs is something to do with hating foreigners, such as 'sending immigrants back home', or some such xenophobic nonsense. At least they are predictable.

Robert Kilroy-Silk might start his own party. This is good as it will further split the UKIP vote. We can only guess at what he might call his new party. Let's face it, once you've been sacked by the BBC and then left the UKIP because they're not quite racist enough for you, where is there left to go? I think he'd probably quite like to join the BNP but fortunately that is still considered a bit extreme, even by Daily Mail readers (which covers most UKIP supporters, I imagine).

Talking of right-wing crazies, there is a plan to ban Nazi symbols from Europe. Now I'm not fan of Nazi's, but I think that this ban is misguided. At least if they are out in the open you can keep an eye on them. They'll just use another symbol now - there are plenty of fascist-enough looking symbols out there after all. People forget that the Nazis didn't invent the swastika - it is a very old symbol linked to the old religions. It would be nice to reclaim it rather than ban it. It's not the symbols that have the power, it's the people behind them.

The other side of fascism and racial intolerance is of course an intolerance of free speech, sexual freedoms and other personal liberties. We can see just how much of a foothold this intolerance has in the US from news such as today's announcement that US TV network PBS is cutting a naked women from a BBC drama. The section being cut isn't at all sexually explicit or in there purely for a cheap thrill. It's there to show a dehumanising aspect of the fictional situation portrayed, and as such it is integral to the film. To cut this because of a fear of action from the Christian-right is a very scary development. For all of their criticisms of fundamentalist Muslim cultures, the US is rapidly becoming a modern-day Christian fundamentalist state. This is a very worrying trend indeed.