(Sings) More than a woman…

…more than a woman to me-ee-ee.

So I was thinking. Steady on, you might hurt yourself, says you. Well, says I, that’s as maybe.

What I thunk, was that this is meant to be a goal oriented blog-type thingummy, and I have been treating it as a bit of health-kick site. Which is fine, but it’s not a health-kick site – it’s a site about me. Read the URL. Yeah, me.

So why haven’t I posted anything for a few days? Coz I had nothing health/weight related to say that was of great interest. D’oh!

What I missed was reporting on my lovely experiences with the latest release of Ubuntu, the beta of Windows 7, the inaugeration of Barack Obama, you know – everything else in the world!

So, I will now attempt to rectify this over the next few days, and come up with another couple of goals – I have some stuff in mind.

In fact, here’s one – be more charitable and helpful. The recent Israeli invasion of Gaza has left hundreds of people – many of them women and children – injured and homeless. The BBC has thus far refused to run any sort of promotion of the Disaster Emergency Committee appeal for donations to this cause, for fear of no longer appearing impartial.

Question : If CHILDREN are IN NEED of help, why is this outside the remit of the BBC? It’s not political, it’s not partisan, it’s the lives and needs of real people.

As a licence fee payer, I demand….oh, no, wait. I’m turning in to one of those people that drove Russell Brand from the Big British Castle. Hmmm. Because even though I pay for my portion of the BBC, I don’t control the whole thing. Unfortunately.

In any case, go here to donate. And remember, supporting Palestinian people is not the same as supporting Hamas – in just the same way as donating to Children In Need is not the same as supporting whoever is in office at the time.

Decision 08 – Obama vs Clinton

Now, in a way, this means nothing to me – I live in the UK, and whoever the Americans elect is there concern. But I thought I’d have a go anyway.

From what I’ve seen of these two (who are the Democratic [kinda like Labour] candidates – John McCain has already clinched the Republican [bit like the Tories] vote) , the media is tending to present Barack Obama as the sane one, and Hillary Clinton as a bit of a loony.

Much has been made of Obama being a young black man, potentially the first black president in American history. He’s being pushed as a bit of a black JFK, with the looks and the smarts, and the ability to relate to the younger generation. Clinton, as noted in a Saturday Night live sketch, is popular with elderly white women.

I think that perhaps that is a bit harsh, but nevertheless, I can see the benefits of choosing Obama over Clinton. One benefit is that he seems to be more in control of what he wants to do with the healthcare system. Another is that he’s not directly related to a former president.

What’s so bad about being related to a former president? Three words – GEORGE WALKER BUSH. Isn’t that enough?

Some have attempted to belittle Obama, saying he is not suitable because of his background – he has been raised at varying times as both Christian and Muslim, and the suggestion is that no-one wants a Muslim as president of America. Obama denies being a practicing Muslim.

But even if he were practicing, is it so bad? Basic Muslim and Christian values are identical, it’s only the extremists (on both sides) that cause problems. And wouldn’t someone who has first hand experience of Muslims would probably have a great deal more success in dealings with the Middle East.

And Clinton has a scary smile. And screwed up healthcare last time. And is married to Bill Clinton…