sparrow chat

The upcoming wedding of the UK’s Prince William and Kate Middleton is not only a chance for Brits to let their hair down and party, it’s also a wonderful business opportunity for entrepreneurs with sufficient flair to make a quick buck out of the occasion.

There will, of course, be the usual array of royal mugs, royal tea sets, royal coffee pots, and similar items on sale throughout the land. One particular commodity caught my eye, which some may perhaps consider less appropriate to the occasion.

Yes, it’s a pack of ‘Royal Condoms’, appropriately labelled, “Crown Jewels – a triumvirate of regal prophylactics.”

One would surely assume the younger royals were a little more into contraception than reliance on the old rubber overcoat. It’s to be hoped our Kate doesn’t have to lie patiently on the royal honeymoon bed waiting for her prince as he fumbles vainly in the darkness, trying to open the packet.

At five pounds for a pack of three ($7.55) these souvenirs(?) are certainly priced for the wealthier customer. A few moments web research unearths a dozen pack of similar items for a mere three pounds eighty seven ($5.99).

Still, it’s not everyday there’s a royal wedding, so why not splash out on something a bit special?

A word of warning, though. These products do carry a disclaimer:

Crown Jewels Royal Wedding Souvenir Condoms are a novelty condom not suitable for contraception or protection against STDs”^[1]

So, in fact, they’re eminently suited to the British royals – they’re overly-expensive and they don’t work.

^{[1] “Crown Jewels Condoms of Distinction” crownjewelscondoms.com}

Filed under: Royal souvenirs

Posted under Sparrow Chat

There appears to be confusion in America with regard to Libya. Some US citizens are blaming President Obama for dragging the nation into another Middle East war. Then, there are those who criticize President Obama for passing the leadership of said war over to NATO. After all, if we’re going to have another war it’s only right that America should take charge, isn’t it?

There are also members of Congress who criticize President Obama for not seeking their approval for said war. A loud wailing has been heard from ‘The Hill’: “The Constitution demands it!”

Finally, of course, there is the media, with its plethora of self-opinionated, self-styled, ‘experts’ ready and willing (for a fat fee) to stir up the viewers with veiled suggestions of President Obama selling out the country, having no ‘end game’, or some other vague critique dependent on which cable channel is footing the bill.

They’ve all conveniently forgotten one minor item in the lead up to the military action in Libya; a certain agreement entitled, “UN Resolution 1973 (2011)”.^[1]

It was not America that took the decision to interfere in Libya, it was the United Nations. America is no more, or less, than one member country of that organization, which, of course, comprises among its members the League of Arab States. It was these members, including the League of Arab States, the African Union (Libya is part of Africa), and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, that were in favor of, and voted for, military intervention.

US President Obama is keen that America should be seen as part of the United Nations, but neither running it, nor bossing it – unlike the previous US Administration, who thought they owned it.

UN Resolution 1973 (2011) also calls for the perpetrators of war crimes against civilians in Libya to be referred to the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

The previous US Administration, under George W Bush, refused to recognize the ICC. That’s hardly surprising, when one considers how many of his political compatriots could have ended up there, but US President Obama has taken an opposite stance.

“Our government has now made the decision that Americans will return to engagement at the ICC.” ~ Stephen Rapp, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, November 16, 2009.

America is not at war with Libya, therefore the US Constitution has no relevance, and Congress no reason to complain. Besides, if it all goes badly, they can hypocritically wash their hands of responsibility.

What US President Obama has done with regard to Libya i.e. assist in upholding UN Resolution 1973 (2011), is absolutely right and proper. No one nation should take a lead in enforcing UN resolutions. It must be done by an organization acceptable to all member countries.

In this instance, that organization is NATO.

^{[1] “UN Resolution 1973 (2011)” UN Security Council, Department of Public Information, March 17th 2011}

Filed under: International policing

Posted under Sparrow Chat

Yesterday afternoon, an unknown number of RAF Tornado jet fighter/bombers left RAF Marham in the south-east of England, and flew to Libya on a specific mission. That mission was aborted because, when the planes arrived over the target, civilians were spotted in the area.

It’s admirable that the mission was aborted and no civilians were killed, but an early morning BBC report stated that the planes had to refuel in the air three times due to the distance traveled.

Assuming these aircraft were equipped with additional, long range, fuel tanks the fuel payload would probably have been about 2,300 US gallons on each aeroplane. It’s probably safe to assume there were at least three aircraft involved, making a total of 6,900 gallons of aviation spirit.

Multiplied by four (the number of times the aircraft refueled, plus the original full tanks) produces a figure of 27,600 gallons of fuel for one aborted mission.

Had the mission not been aborted and the aircraft released their Sidewinder missiles (just one of the weapons systems on board the Tornado) each missile launched would have cost $84,000 (52,500 British pounds).

Sidewinder missiles are relatively cheap. The US Tomahawks cost half a million dollars apiece.

Let’s assume our Tornadoes fueled up at the local BP station before heading off on their jaunt to Libya. At US prices (around $4 a gallon) the bill for each aircraft would have been in the region of $9,200. Multiplied by three aircraft, refueled three times, the figure comes to a staggering $110,400.

And that’s a conservative figure. Don’t forget, the tanker aircraft had to call three times, and we all know fuel becomes a lot more expensive if the tow truck has to bring it out to you.

Then, of course, there’s the aircrew’s pay (time and a half after five o’clock), butties and Mars bars for the trip, wear and tear on the aircraft, etc.

They could have gone a lot cheaper by British Airways, and they wouldn’t have had to pee in a bottle.

Filed under: Jolly poor show, chaps

Posted under Sparrow Chat

The ‘madness of America’ is well-interpreted by much of the rest of the world. ‘Only in America’, is a slogan commonly used throughout Europe. The likes of Glenn Beck or Limbaugh would never be tolerated in the UK, France, or Germany – not because of any restrictive political regime, but simply that European folks demand higher standards from their media.

The latest ‘madness of America’ took place recently in the state of Utah. One would expect a state founded by a sect with the name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, to be aiming towards unity and peace. After all, that was what Jesus Christ taught, according to the Bible.

Utah is certainly taking aim, though hardly in the cause of unity and peace. It has recently added a new state symbol to its already lengthy list, comprising: a state bird (seagull), a state fossil (allosaurus), a state fruit (cherry), and a state gem (topaz), among others.

They’re all relatively harmless little items, suitable for occupying the limited brains of politicians on a hot Utah afternoon, while wiling away the time in committee conjuring yet another innocuous article to add to the long list of ‘official’ state symbols. After all, they need to justify their high salaries, and kill time till the first club brandy of the evening.^[1]

Now, however, it would appear one brandy too many has pickled the brains of Utah’s political community. Someone has come up with a new state symbol.

After the prerequisite debate, the committee took a vote and approved THIS as Utah’s latest addition to its list of state symbols:

Yes, it’s a gun. The Browning M1911 has just become the official state gun of Utah.

Congratulations, Utah. Jesus Christ would surely have approved.

^{[1] “Utah designates Browning M1911 official state firearm” BBC, March 18th 2011}

Filed under: Only in America

Posted under Sparrow Chat

Here we go again. Once more the Western world is interfering militarily in the Middle East, as the UK, France, and the US, fire dozens of missiles into Libya.

It’s a conundrum: on the one hand, criticism for allowing a brutal dictator to wreak revenge on his own people for daring to stand up to him, and on the other, the potential repercussions of another war with the Arabs.

There was a simple solution. The UN mandate authorizing this latest action was fully supported by the Arab League. Why then, once the vote was agreed, did the West not turn round to Saudi Arabia and say, “Okay, then, you’ve got your mandate. Off you go.”

The Saudis have an abundance of fighter aircraft and other military hardware; they’ve been buying them from the UK and US for years. Abdullah has no hesitation about sending Saudi jet fighters and tanks into Yemen, at the request of that country’s president, to carry out attacks on rebelling Yemeni nationals.^[1] Attacks similar to those Gaddafi is presently inflicting on the Libyan people.

Why then is the West so willing to do the Arabs’ dirty work for them?

The clue, perhaps, lies in the trigger for this military offensive against Libya. The prime mover was Sarkozy of France, closely followed by the UK’s Cameron. The US lagged behind until it became obvious that the UN was relatively united.

Sarkozy is exceedingly unpopular in his own country. Polls show his ratings with the French public to be dismal. Cameron is struggling to maintain credibility in Britain, as his austerity measures bite against the working people.

As Margaret Thatcher taught politicians, when the going gets tough the best popularity medicine is a good old war, so long as its far enough from home not to inconvenience the populace. In her case, it was with Argentina over the Falklands.

Involving the US in another Middle-Eastern war is far more likely to cause Obama political grief, hence his distancing himself from the action, even to the point of not being in the country when the first shots are fired.

As always, the excuse is humanitarian, but the true reason we’re doing the Arabs’ dirty washing for them is entirely political.

And then, of course, there’s the oil.

^{[1] “Saudi Arabia Bombs Yemen Rebels” Huffington Post, November 5th 2009}

Filed under: Same old, same old

Posted under Sparrow Chat

The ‘war on terror’, a phrase coined to good propaganda effect here in the United States by George W Bush, is not, of course, a war at all. The Iraq invasion of 2003 was a war, as is the occupation of Afghanistan. The ‘war on terror’ consists of a series of covert operations often based on intelligence as dodgy as that which was used to precipitate the attack on Iraq.

It must be quite fun to sit at a computer desk in the office of an air force base in Arizona and guide a Predator drone aircraft to kill a group of people in some remote area of Pakistan; the ultimate in video games, one might say.

Unfortunately, the game can take an ugly turn when those people are innocent civilians: tribal elders, local traders, and members of the tribal police.

Forty innocents died in this latest US unmanned drone attack, including thirteen children.

The tribal elders have vowed revenge against America:

Tribal leaders in the Pakistani region of North Waziristan have vowed revenge against the US after drones killed more than 40 people near the Afghan border.

“We are a people who wait 100 years to exact revenge. We never forgive our enemy,” the elders said in a statement.

Thursday’s attack has caused fury – most of the dead were tribal elders and police attending an open-air meeting……

“The world should try and find out how many of the 40-odd people killed in the drone attack were members of al-Qaeda,” the elders said in their statement following the attack near North Waziristan’s regional capital, Miranshah.

“It was just a jirga being held under local customs in which the prominent elders of Datta Khel sub-division, and common people were participating to resolve a dispute.

“But the Americans did not spare our elders even.

One of the elders, Malik Faridullah Wazir Khan, said he reached the scene 30 minutes after the missiles hit – four of his relatives were killed.

“The area was completely covered in blood,” he told the BBC.

“There were no bodies, only body parts – hands, legs and eyes scattered around. I could not recognise anyone. People carried away the body parts in shopping bags and clothing or with bits of wood, whatever they could find.”

He said 44 people died at the scene, including 13 children – one as young as seven.

On Thursday, Pakistan’s army chief condemned the raid by US unmanned drones in unusually strong terms, calling it “intolerable… and in complete violation of human rights”.^[1]

The ‘war on terror’ is completely out of control.

It leaves one wondering who to fear more – al Qaeda, or the US Pentagon.

^{[1] “Pakistan: Calls for revenge after US drones kill 40″ BBC, March 18th 2011}

Filed under: Man’s inhumanity to man

Posted under Sparrow Chat