Tributes-musical and prose-were given to Michael Jackson at the Staples Centre for his memorial. The singer had died from a cardiac arrest several days earlier. Mariah Carey, Lionel Richie, Usher and Jennifer Hudson were amongst the stars who sang at the event. Seventeen and a half thousand people filled the centre and an estimated one billion people watched on television around the world. There were other moving tributes from Magic Johnson, Brooke Shields and Jackson’s older brother, Jermaine. But the most touching of those came from Jackson’s daughter Paris Michael Katherine, who in tears, described her father as ‘the best father you could ever imagine’.

The pop singer Michael Jackson has died of a cardiac arrest. He was fifty years old. The self proclaimed ‘King of pop’ passed at away at his rented home in Los Angeles. Police are investigating the circumstances of his death, many believe-including his family-that various prescription drugs that Jackson was taking may have lead to his death. This has led to numerous doctors who may have given the Thriller singer medication, being interviewed by the police. Jackson is survived by three children, Prince Michael the I, Paris Michael Katherine, and Prince Michael the II.

Media outlets, online sites, esp. youtube have had explicit sermons of Barack Obama’s pastor Rev Wright looping for several days; a video which has the reverend equating the USA to Alquada , the government inventing the AIDS virus to wipe out the black race, as well as seeming anti-Israeli connections through Louis Farrakhan. For those who were suspicious of Obama’s idelogical allligment with his pastor, the Senators initial response of ‘well I wasn’t there when he said what he said’, didn’t hold much water. The presidential hopeful from Chicago then made a ‘key speech’ on ‘race’, which has been given mixed reviews. So what was wrong with the speech?

As has been said time and time again, Senator Obama has a way with words and in his latest speech, it seems that he believed that, he could say what he liked and that would be enough. His speech was a more or less an exposition of the past and current race issues, he managed to fit himself and his overly told family story-i.e. mother from Kansas, dad from Kenya bio. As a whole, the speech was good-good enough for the campaign trail, good enough for a sympathetic college audience, (and to some beyond his coterie of advisers that sat in the front row in the venue when he spoke). But it wasn’t good enough for those he has been bringing in his ‘rainbow’ coalition, i.e. white middle America.

His speech didn’t resonate as so many of his others have because the issue with rev Wright was an argument wasn’t just about intellect but instinct. When people saw clips of Rev Wright thundering the damnation of America, the intellectual context of what he said was irrelevant-it was frightening to some and appalling to many others on an instinctive level. What they saw and heard, not only fulfilled the stereotype that many do still hold in societies with a sizable amount of black people-i.e. the angry black man- but also crucially, those that Obama has been appealing to, the so-called Regan democrats, independents and a strand of the republican voters. What Obama had been to them , especially to the mainstream media, was a candidate who represented a post-racism and post-racist America. But as seen in Jeremiah Wright and some say Obama’s arrogant-tinged defence of his pastor (who he sees as an uncle), race is still very much an issue to not only America, but to, would you believe it, the great messiah of racial unity himself, Barack Obama.

This incident with Americas next possible pastor, to many, has filled in the blanks concerning Obama in the worst possible way that he and his advisors could even imagine. Now people can say, ‘Oh so that’s who Obama is, we didn’t really know him before, we do now’.

Hilary Clinton and John McCain, both candidates for the U.S presidency, (one already has sewn-up the nomination of their party) are both said to not only be fighting to get into the White House, but are also battling for their surrogates; Hilary is fighting for President Bill Clinton’s unofficial third term, and Senator John McCain is fighting for President Bush’s unofficial third term.

Now having a glance over this notion, it can appear quite snide, however, if thought about for than a moment, on some level there appears to be some truth. Personally I don’t believe that either H.R.Clinton’s or McCain’s desire to be in the White House is driven solely for-the-love their surrogates, but there could be a tad more about it than themselves.

Take Senator Clinton for example, her husband Bill, although widely seen to have overseen and in fact took a hands-on approach to a very successful U.S economy in the nineties- making a lot of people well off, plus the relative peace-time feel and other things-he apparently feels, the Lewisnky saga unfairly undercut his legacy concerning the White House. Hilary Clinton as president would then allow him to redress those fears by sewing up an Israeli/Palestinian deal-he arguably, with the Oslo accords and Camp David came closest to closing that deal, and now sorting out the much disliked NAFTA agreement.

On the McCain side, him and Bush, as well ideologue brothers, could help repair damage to the George Bush legacy. Much need not be said, but the Iraq war can be viewed as a minus on the Bush legacy; unresolved immigration issues-border fence etc-and an economy going south are things Bush would quickly like dealt with. Note, John McCain was very quick to (as pointed out by a friend of mine) receive Bush’s ‘endorsement’ at the White House.

Positions that these ideologue brothers are similar on? The key positions are-the Iraq war-Bush started it and Mc Cain is more than happy to finish it-even if it takes ‘one hundred years’, his words not mine. A nice end to the war, what that means, is a stable and democratic Iraq (i.e. less blood-letting) would help tie-up that part of the Bush legacy. Immigration, both are pro-immigration-arguably Mc Cain is more-so than Bush, but again it is an area unfinished under the President so the Senator can again tie that off when he settles into in the Oval Office in January, technically November. And the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ or Bush’s tax cuts, McCain has said that he will make them permanently, again another area where Bush’s theirs term is solidified in a McCain White House.

Never has a thing been so undemocratic and uneconomical like the House of Lords, a place where the people who make the laws are appointed through nepotism and class rather than elected by democratic mandate. Britain prides itself as a beacon of democracy and freedom, yet it is one of two or so states in the world without a written constitution and also without a fully elected legislature.

According to various media outlets, Prince Andrew has criticized President Bush and his administration for not heeding advice of the British, over the look of post-war Iraq. Much was made in the British media, of the prince’s ‘unprecedented’ attack on Bush; the attack seen not only as unconventional but also an apparent ‘split within the alliance’.

This is complete fantasy; Prince Andrew is actually not insulting the U.S political establishment, but insulting the public. How? This comment is arrogance of royal proportions. Iraq has been in chaos since the very day ‘the alliance’ rolled on Babylonia, and to be even more precise, the U.K and the U.S knew of the very issues that Prince Andrew claims to be concerned about, before the invasion happened. So why now, why five years after does the prince ‘exclusively’ need to tell us, and the American political establishment that Iraq is in a mess? It is all about image. The prince is not upset about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died, the thousands of American and the alliance soldiers killed, the suicide bombings, or the death squads that rule parts of Iraq. He is upset about the damage to the pompous image of the British establishment from the latest mid-east fall out.

If I were an American, I would be thinking that the prince’s comments are pretty rich; It is the very same industry-the military/weapons manufacturers-that the prince is so intertwined with, that have profited so well from this war, and now the prince complains slyly about the damage to the image of the Brit establishment. Give me a fucking break. (Don’t bite the hand that feeds you Andy.)

And what can be said of the particular media outlets that not only just carried the prince story but also added in their tuppence? Well, they are just like the prince; they don’t not care about the war dead but damage to their image. Damage, which they helped to bring about.

Another anti-Putin Russian dies in the U.K, in circumstances that are far from normal; this time a ‘heart attack’ was the killer, happening to the billionaire in his Surrey home. And once more the specter of an apparent Russian assassination appears on U.K soil.

To its credit, the U.K political establishment, specifically, the Foreign Office has been taking steps to show its dislike of what happened to Litvinenko; but these steps-the expulsion of some junior diplomats and the closing of the British Council subsidiaries in Russia is wholly in adequate. Russia needs to be hit where it hurts, its wallet-meaning economic measures than the British should take diplomatic measures. And let us remind ourselves why such action is necessary. A British man (of Russian descent), Alexander Litvinenko was assassinated in London the year before last ,by being given a radioactive substance, polonium-210. Traces of this where found in several parts of London where the unfortunate Litvinenko had been, exposing millions of Londoners to poisoning-If this wasn’t terrorism, then I don’t what was.

How many more people need to be assassinated by radioactive substances or die of a ‘heart attack’ for the British government to take appropriate measures, to not only protect its citizens and visitors from this terrorism but assert Biritain’s territorial integrity?. For if the Russians feel it appropriate for them to bring down those who they dislike by such evil methods, let it be done elsewhere, no right minded person, and hopefully includes British officials think that the south east, Surrey, central London or any other part of these islands should be a political playground ground for the Kremlin.

“Students go to uni wanting to change the world, they then come out of uni and realize they have to be a part of it”. Or something like that. For the student is the ultimate idealist, seeking to make a society into uptoia, believing the best in people, hoping that tomorrow can always be better than today. And the realism apparently occurs at some point soon after leaving uni.

Prince Charles and Steven Spielberg have in one way or another snubbed the Beijing Olympics; Darfur and human rights issues have apparently been the basis of their reasoning. And what can be certain is, before the torch is finally lit in the Olympic stadium, even more prominent individuals will step away from China’s hosting of the Games.

So what has idealism got to do with it? Well, the idealist, a stereotypical student for example, would hope and believe the international community would have an epiphany and refuse to send athletes to participate in an Olympic games which is being hosted by a country not thought of to be a bastion of democracy, and seems pretty chuffed about what’s happening in Darfur. Now, the realist on other hand believes that money, not principle is behind the hosting of the Games and that no country will refuse to send athletes to Beijing. Yes, it would be ideal for the games to be boycotted and it would be real to assume it wouldn’t. But what can be said however is that idealism and realism need not be seen as being poles apart, diametrically opposed and from different galaxies, but that in fact, they can be two sides of the same coin, complimentary, and inseparable, ying and yang if you will.

There will be no ‘Virgin Rocks’; Richard Branson’s offer to take over Northern Rock was apparently not the best deal for the taxpayer. Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling will become the managing directors of the bank, hoping to give it strength before putting the bank back on the market.

What a fiasco. It has taken the government this long to come to a decision of nationalisation; you would think that after taking so long that they would have at least worked out when best to release this news. They couldn’t even do that. The news broke late on Sunday-their thinking probably being, that releasing the news on the Friday would thwart the Sunday papers. The problem with that is it is so blatantly opportunistic it will give Fleets Streets editor’s drive to pull out related embarrassing stories next Sunday, a time I am sure the government would have thought that the Sunday papers would be filled with everything but Northern Rock. Now they have released it on the Sunday evening, the papers will have it tomorrow and the story will run and run and run. But obviously this article is not about what the media tactics of Downing Streets spin-doctors were, but it does emphasise one of the problems of the government nationalising the bank-indecision. They obviously couldn’t decide when to release the news, nor could they decide on what to do with the bank. I am totally opposed to nationalising the bank, the free market should have been allowed to deal with Northern Rock. However, if the government is going to do something, then they should do it properly and decisively. They have done neither.

At the last election, Labour had a campaign slogan, which said ‘Forward not back’, the argument being Labour was the party going forward and the Conservatives were going backwards. The Northern Rock debacle has actually shown it is Labour going back, from New Labour to Old.

Israel, more accurately, the Olmert government (well what’s left of it) had had enough. Hamas and its daily rocket launches needed to be stopped, how? By turning off electricity to the Gaza strip, leaving its one and a half million inhabitants in darkness and powerless, literally.

The reasoning for Mr. Olmert’s tactic was made clear; Hamas should stop its rocket attacks on Israel. The problems and ramifications will be explained in another article, what should be said is this, there is no way Hamas will stop its attacks now, nor will the Palestinians move back to the political center where Fatah supposedly are; Mr. Olmert has in fact strengthened the will of Hamas and seeming it couldn’t get any deeper, further deepened the Palestinians hatred for Israelis and more importantly the recreated state of Israel. This was a flawed decision, from a flawed Premier; as hated by the Palestinians, and respected by Israelis he his, it’s a pretty good bet that the former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would not have done this. One joke doing the rounds in some Israeli circles is that Ariel Sharon’s physical state (he’s has been in a coma for the last two years) shows that ‘the people don’t him, and God doesn’t want him either’. A cruel ‘joke’, and yet the truth is, Sharon seems to be needed more now than ever.

As said before the ramification of the Olmert-electro tactic will be gone into another time, onto another former Prime Minister, the ever-humble Tony Blair. Never a man to shy away from the limelight, he made sure to secure the position as the pr man for the quartet-EU, Russia, UN, US-before he ‘stepped down’ (a really annoying euphemism for resigned) as Prime Minister of the U.K. Specifically his brief was to do with the welfare of the Palestinians through monitoring their economic institutions. When the power was cut off in Gaza, this wasn’t to one house, it was to a region, the consequences of this, it is pretty apparent, will continue for a long while. The economy of Gaza ‘tanked’. What a sight it was, Palestinians going through the damaged border into Egypt to purchase goods, including livestock. Where was the outrage, where was the international condemnation and even more to the point where was Mr. Humility himself, Tony Blair, the man who is meant to be looking out for Palestinian economic interests? ‘World leaders’ and the relevant institutions stayed not only silent, but signaled their approval of the Olmert-electro method, through their silence. Not even a revised version of the tired statement used when flashes of the eternal Israeli-Palestinian incident occurs; “we urge Israel to show restraint, and that Palestinians show their commitment to peace by renouncing violence, so that in the end there is a secure Israel, with a viable Palestinian state, both states living in peace side by side” and so on. No statement at all. Not even a revised one.

Back to Blair’s vanity, he is the quartet’s front man because it was the thing at that time which could do his ego justice; Mr. Blair would probably have said something like “I really believed in it at the time”. You would have thought that the Olmert-electro incident would have been eye-catching enough for Blair to have said at least something. But he, just like the institutions he spins for, was silent. Silent for as long was necessary for people to get this message, they have no interest in the lives Palestinians. If Mr. Blair really was doing the job as described, then not only would he have said something cornering the incident (I know words don’t mean much where politics and politicians are concerned, and what Palestinians need is electricity not words) he would have pressured Israel to not to take that inhumane action. I say because I suspect that Blair was aware of what Olmert was going to do; not a hard thing to believe, as, it is widely known, that the U.K knew of Israel’s plan to go after Hezbollah in Lebanon, before they blitzed Beirut.

The Israel-Palestinian issue, is one that it is way too important for vanity to dictate players on that stage, Mr. Blair should resign, or should I say ‘step down’ and let someone, who is keen doing the given job. An economist would be nice, someone who knows what they’re talking about.