Month: March 2011

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

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

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