matthewsmusings

Britain out in the cold [cartoon]

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 06:53:37 -0800

Twenty Nine Popular Baby Names

Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:11:00 -0800

Since World War I only five girls' names and twenty four boys' names have remained in their respective lists of the top hundred names registered in the UK each year. They are, for the girls:

Sarah
Elizabeth
Catherine
Helen
Maria

And for the boys:

Thomas
James
Daniel
Michael
Alexander
Christopher
Joseph
William
Andrew
George
David
Robert
John
Mohammed
Charles
Edward
Stephen
Richard
Peter
Anthony
Paul
Patrick
Philip
Martin

Some remarkable ommisions in both lists.

Source: Top 100 baby names. - Office for National Statistics.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Increasing Income Inequality and the Low Paid

Sat, 12 Nov 2011 04:46:00 -0800

Recently there has been considerable focus on the increasing inequality between those on middle incomes and the the most wealthy, the so-called 'one percent', however let's take a look at the at the other end of the scale.

Agricultural workers have, for centuries, been amongst the lowest paid, full time, adult workers in the country; this has been consistent enough that they can be considered an archetype for the low income earner. Indeed their wages have been so low that there has been an Agricultural Minimum Wage (AMW) since WWI, this provides good series of incomes for low paid workers. In 1950 the AMW for an ordinary worker on basic hours was £4 14s, today it is £237.90.

In 1948 the National Assistance Act was passed to provide an absolute minimum income for those not entitled to other benefits, and, despite subsequent name changes, this safety net remains in place as Income Support. In 1950 this was £1 10s for a single person and today's equivalent is £67.50, both amounts usually supplemented by an amount equal to their rent.

Data on wages data has been collected since the late 19th century and from this we see that median earnings have increased from £7 1s 8d to £498.80.

To compare all these figures and see how they have increased or declined relative to one another it is useful to select one series as a base and calculate the others as percentages of it, in this case we will use AMW.

	Safety net	AMW	Median earnings
1950	21%	66%	100%
2011	14%	48%	100%

From this we can see that low paid workers, represented by agricultural labourers, have seen their wages decline compared to median wage earners, whereas they were receiving 2/3rds of that of those on middle incomes, now they are getting less than half.

The very poorest, those collected in the safety net of what was National Assistance and is now Income Support have faired even worse, their income has declined even compared to the low paid; we can see that the value of their income has declined by a third when compared to average earnings.

It is difficult to see how we can tolerate an income structure where the lowest paid are being systematically left behind and those unable to fend for themselves have been all but abandoned by successive governments desperate to secure the votes of Middle England. I believe the time has come for a national discussion about what the minimum standard of living should be for anyone, about the morality of relative poverty and how large or small these gaps should be, and what we are going to do about it.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Responding to "Return of the Renditioned"

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:47:00 -0700

On 7th September, 2011, Foreign Policy published a piece by Katherine Hawkins titled "Return of the Renditioned" examining the fate of some of those subject to the CIA's programme of 'extraordinary rendition', on the face of it this was a neutral article however a few things caused me to think about the language used and how it influences the reader. I had intended to respon with just a couple of tweets though it ended up taking a lot more than that to express myself.

The following is my largely unedited response at the time:

I have some basic issues with this piece, Return of the Renditioned, by Katherine Hawkins in Foreign Policy.

There is, in a number of cases, the small matter of presumption of guilt; none of these detainees has been convicted in a proper court. Indeed in many cases the evidence amounts to suspicion reinforced by confessions coerced under torture, or being named by others, also under torture.

Then we come to the symbology used.

Firstly, arrest. The word arrest implies legal detention. The CIA, a foreign intelligence service, cannot detain citizens of another country, on the territory of a third, and then transfer them elsewhere; they do not have international jurisdiction despite what internal legal justifications are made by their government. These detentions were abduction, pure and simple.

Secondly, rendition. The use of the word, rendition, without explanation is also problematic. What does it mean? It is used in a technical way as if it was some formal process yet it is no such thing; it is the transfer, in contravention of fundamental legal protections, extradition treaties and border control laws, of those abductees.

The third symbol is one that is absent, all these detainees are the victims of multiple crimes: abduction, unlawful imprisonment, torture and, in some cases, murder. And it is that symbol, victim of crime, that is missing. Our societies have become steadily more attuned to the rights of victims of crime and so, by refusing to use that symbol for these people, this article, like many others, excludes them from being assigned the response we give to victims of crime.

Without understanding the symbols these detainees are being made to wear and which are denied to them we cannot learn the lessons nor make the decisions required both to deal justly with the errors of the past and to prevent repetition of those follies in the future.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Sami Kishawi: Facebook and the Egyptian Revolution

Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:26:11 -0700

Permalink | Leave a comment »

My email to Messrs Hunt and Cameron on Media Ownership and #Hackgate

Tue, 05 Jul 2011 09:44:00 -0700

Dear Mr Cameron and Mr Hunt,

Media control is already over-concentrated in this country already without allowing News Corporation to acquire all of BSkyB. This concentration of editorial control threatens our democracy and mere undertakings do nothing to protect the public.

Given the the latest revelations it seems clear that there are executives of News Corporation who cannot be trusted to tell the truth or to keep their word.

Therefore I call upon you:

1. to reconsider any proposed agreement with News Corporation,

2. to refuse to grant News Corporation, its owners executives and associates, any further control of British media until the deal has been reviewed by the competition commission and a full judicial inquiry into the hacking scandal is conducted and completed,

3. to review the state of competition in British media and to reconsider the law governing cross-media ownership.

Yours sincerely

etc.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

A Referendum Fallen

Sat, 07 May 2011 00:02:00 -0700

There is no denying that the proposal to move to AV has been well and truly defeated for a variety of reasons and we reformers must consider why if we are to move forward.

"AV, not for me"
Firstly, there are those who looked genuinely at the proposal, did not like what they saw and voted against. If these people are to be convinced, if that is at all possible, then the proposal must be one they can support. We should not be fooled into thinking that voters make up their minds solely on the facts, however, most do not want to go back to school and be educated about the merits of various systems.

"A miserable little compromise"
There is no doubt that Nick Clegg description of AV damaged the Liberal Democrat campaign for a yes vot. As with tuition fees those of us who are Lib Dems were hoodwinked into supporting something to which we, not only did not support but, had actively exprssed our oppostion.

"AV, is that the same as Fair Votes?"
We all remember the movement and its public protests captured the media's attention and the public's imagination. We did not sustain that momentum and failed to connect Fair Votes to AV.

"The Daily Mail says vote No"
The Daily Mail was always likely tosay that, however we should no beforehand who our friends and enemies are likely to be in the media. We must ensure we set the ground rules beforehand and not be blindsided by attitudes such as the BBC's very partial version of impartality.

"So who's your leader?"
We did not have an obvious figurehead and, as a cosequence, our campaign was disorganised. The No campaign did, voters saw David Cameron as its leader even though that position was nominally held by Margaret Beckett and as a consequence most Conservative voters lined up squarely behind it to tick No. As expected Lib Dems were behind Yes2AV and probably brought many of their voters with them. Labour however were ambivalent though it has to be said those who were opposed campaigned more actively than those in favour. In the future we must present a united front with a clear leader and a clear message.

These are solely my thoughts and no doubt readers will have their own, I invite your contributions.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Intervening in Libya: A legal and moral question

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:51:00 -0800

I hate to say this but if Qaddafi is using his military to suppress an armed rebellion in Libya then he probably has a legal right to so do however if he is is wilfully destroying property, causing suffering or civilian loss of life out of proportion to any military necessity then we, principally through the UNSC, have a right and, maybe, an obligation to intervene to stop such activities. Where our moral authority is suspect, however, is down to the various in all the inter- and intra-state conflicts in which we remain silent or do nothing.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Weddings, Religion and lifestyle Choice

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:27:51 -0700

This article in the Huffington Post about President Obama’s Christianity being a lifestyle choice got me thinking; if someone were to claim that ones faith is a ‘lifestyle choice’ and thus the state should not recognise church weddings there would be an outcry, yet it is the same people who would likely raise Cain over such a statement are those who seek to oppose same sex weddings using the same justification.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Thoughts on Taxation and Public Spending During Austerity

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:49:36 -0700

Now is not the time for ideologically motivated cuts and changes but effective ones, we must bear in mind the effect that measures have on the economy.

We know that households with the lowest income spend the highest proportion of that income and spend it locally. This argument, aside from any moral one, demonstrates that it is good economics to minimise such cuts. Money spent locally serves to keep local businesses afloat, this in turn, maintains income for local authorities that they raise through business rates that can then be spent on local services, a lot of which will be in the form of wages, a virtuous circle. This also helps to prevent whole areas from slipping into decline and becoming more than just a local problem.

Conversely we should be looking to cut programmes that provide little reinvestment and little recycling of the money spent. Does this include Trident? I don’t know, I’d like to think so but may be that’s my heart ruling my head. I remain morally opposed to the possession of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Careful analysis of every spending programme should be undertaken before deciding what to cut.

The other side of the coin is taxation. Where is there room to raise revenue without damaging the economy? Again, we should be careful not to overtax small employers, they tend to employ locally and keep money within the community. However measures should also be taken to encourage them to pay more than the bare minimum as lower wages require government subsidies in benefits and taxation to turn them into living incomes. Taxation may have a part to play in this and should not be ignored.

There is a national sense of moral indignation that the very industries that helped to get us into this mess are the ones that are seen to be profiting most. Should the government take advantage of this to raise money with a punitive levy? I argue that it should not, such a levy should only be imposed if there are sound reasons for doing so.

We should ask whether it would damage the national economy. There is no reason to believe that it should provided the institutions involved are not taxed out of existence. We should ask whether it will raise a sufficient amount of money to make it worthwhile. If the Financial sector can afford to pay £10bn in bonuses, presumably as a reward for increasing profitability, the it seems likely that a not inconsiderable sum can be raised. Finally we should ask whether a scheme can be devised that taxes firms fairly and leaves little wriggle room so that those firms behave the least responsibly and those who have profited the most from recent troubles are those that pay the most. I believe such a scheme can be devised however that should be left to hard-headed experts not hot-headed political types.

We should also look to use the taxation scheme to prevent our national economy becoming over dependent on certain large sectors that, despite their seeming solidity, may become unstable leading to another crisis. It cannot be healthy that 23% of the invested capital in the UK is tied up in the financial sector (or any other sector for that matter), taxation could be used to push markets into investing in different sectors.

We should be aiming to come out of this period with a more balanced economy and one that is agile and able to take advantage of new and as yet unrecognised industries as well as those we have already identified as emergent sectors.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Labour's Record on Child Poverty

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:12:29 -0700

Gregg McClymont seeks to paint Labour’s record on child poverty as one of unalloyed success and to accept, without reservation, Jane Waldfogel’s assessment in her book “Britain’s War on Poverty”, Russell Sage Foundation (April 2010). These claims, I argue, fall short of reality.

Was Labour’s programme innovative? Tax credits were hardly so, they had been around for over twenty years in the United States, similarly the other measures outlined were proven successes elsewhere. Was it radical? It was a change certainly, and a welcome one but that does not make it radical, there are no indelible institutions or practices that have arisen as a result. Was it ambitious? Certainly, and in some ways overly so; it was this very over-ambition that led to its downfall.

To say that Britain halved its child poverty rate whilst, at the same time, saying that the government chose a particularly hard measure. It must have been obvious to the author that any claim of halving child poverty can only be true if the measure chosen is an entirely different one to the accepted measure and, indeed, to the one chosen by that same Labour government, indeed the article goes halfway to saying so yet still chooses to put this claim in boldface.

The reasons for choosing the measure that the government did were not ones of wanting to choose a particularly hard one to achieve, they are ones of expediency; it is a simple one being tracked against income, it was the middle choice of the three most often published percentages (indeed of the ones the government chooses to publish itself) and it avoids the criticism levelled at measures of absolute poverty. This is discussed more fully, together with criticisms of the measure, in “The government’s child poverty target: how much progress has been made?” by Brewer, Clark and Goodman, Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2002.

The achievements of the first Labour government led by Tony Blair should be recognised, even if one criticizes the use of simple measures, the percentage of children living in households below 60% of CMI (AHC) fell from 34% to 31% and during Blair’s second government from 31% to 28% however, after the third general election win, during the partly Blair and mostly Brown governments it was allowed to rise back up to 30% (2009 figures). This additional 2% represents some quarter of a million children and why Brown’s government apparently chose to abandon what had been such a key commitment is not clear. It is possible they simply took their eye off the ball or perhaps, having seen that further reductions were becoming progressively harder to make they simply and quietly shunted it to one side and got on with trying to do other things.

Claiming that it is Labour’s actions that have forced the conservatives to address poverty is to put the cart before the horse. Society had already come round to the idea that poverty levels were already to high, indeed this can be seen as one reason that Labour were elected in the first place. The change in the Conservative party has more to do with a return to its traditional approach of paternalist ‘One Nation’ conservatism and a rejection of the excesses of Thatcherism.

These last Labour governments can, however, make no such claims about inequality. Inequality has increased under all of them and it is a failure to recognise that there has been a growing grassroots objection to the level of inequality in our society and to its increase that has put Labour in opposition.

Labour politicians must accept that child poverty, as measured in the way that they themselves chose went up under that last government, they cannot keep quibbling about what that phrase means exactly, they must accept the fact for what it is and move on.

Unless and until Labour recognises its own failings and owns up to them in a way that the public will trust then it is not likely to regain their confidence. The next Labour leader will not be able to ask the electorate to look at the achievements of 1997 to 2001 and pretend that 2005 to 2010 did not happen, they will have to make the case for a credible alternative to the policies of the current government, policies that are already working to reduce inequality by taking people out of income tax and policies that will have done more over the next four and a half years. In this spirit the shapers of Labour’s future policy would do well to read the rest of Waldfogel’s book, in particular her recommendations for future reforms.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The Oklo Fossil Reactors (updated)

Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:57:00 -0700

Earlier today I was reading about the fossil remnants of the natural nuclear reactors in Oklo in Gabon. It got me thinking, could one envisage a geology in which a runaway reaction could take place? And, if so, what would be the results, both geological and environmental, and how would we detect the fossil remnant?

Update Dr Robert Loss, the author of the above site, was good enough to contact me with an answer to why a runaway didn't happen at Oklo, how it would have self controlled if it had and why an actual explosion is extremely unlikely to have happened anywhere in the world.

The way that OKLO worked is when the reactions started the all important water flushing through the reactors ( which acted as a reaction regulator and coolant ) would get hot and be driven away from the reactors faster than it could be replaced. With much of the water gone the reactions would stop - then slowly the water would come back and restart the reaction again. This meant the reaction could not run away. Remember the reactors never got hot enough to melt rock so the temperatures were low (~300ºC).

Would it be possible to create a run away reaction. Maybe it could have got hot enough to melt rock but then that would physically destroy the ore body well before it got to a super critical phase. The other major factor is that to make a nuclear explosion the concentration of 235U needs to be MUCH higher than was ever available of earth or naturally occurring anywhere in nature.

Shucks, that shoots down my 'Mass Extinction by Natural Nuclear Catastrophe' hypothesis (© me). I suppose such thinking will have to remain in the realm of Science Fiction.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The Taliban's Gun Locker

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:13:28 -0700

Having read What’s Inside a Taliban Gun Locker? I feel the need to raise a couple of questions that CJ Chivers avoids in discussing why older weapons remain on the Battlefield in greater numbers in Helmand.

Human geography: are their reasons of economic necessity or personal defence why such rifles may have been retained in Helmand? That is, has there been a more widespread need to protect one’s less than legitimate activities, such as poppy growing, and, is the area historically less lawless resulting in a desire by the ordinary citizen to retain less valuable, but still serviceable, weapons for reasons of personal defence?
Tactical expediency: does the battlefield in Helmand favour the longer range that these longer barrelled rifles possess, compared to assault rifles? If more engagements are fought in flatter, more open terrain here than elsewhere in Afghanistan then importation of older bolt action rifles into this province may desirable for the insurgents.

N.b. these longer effective ranges for the bolt action rifles are only so when compared to the AK47 and it’s derivatives. Even the comparatively short barrelled AR15/M16/M4 variants fielded by some ISAF forces have as good an effective range as the older rifles, particularly when equipped with optics, and others have generally longer ranges.

There are, no doubt, other reasons as well. Am I asking to much to see some journalism rather than just mil-porn from the NYT?

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Dear Labour

Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:58:00 -0700

Dear Labour, particularly its leadership candidates and, most particularly of all, Ed Miliband,

I first joined the Liberal Party in 1982 as a student and have remained a Liberal ever since as we have evolved to our present form, as a consequence I need no lessons from your leadership candidates in what being a Liberal means when it appears that they don not know themselves.

I joined because Liberals had principles that were aligned with my own, principles that continue to this day in the Liberal Democrats. Principles of justice, fairness and reform in society, in the electoral system, in local democracy and in foreign policy.

I joined because Liberals stood in opposition to the old ways of doing things, to us vs. them, to bigotry.

I joined because Liberals sought to represent everybody not just one or two sections of society.

I joined because I believe that, given the opportunity and the tools and the information, people can govern for themselves, can make the the best decisions, can make the most of their opportunities, can make life better for themselves and their neighbours in the widest sense of that word.

All these reasons hold true today and more.

I also joined because, despite my respect for many Labour Party policies and principles, we simply did not have enough in common. It is sad to observe that many of the things that I most admired about the Labour Party have been abandoned not because they were proved wrong or became outdated but in the pursuit of power.

Now I can look back on nearly three decades of campaigning for what I believe in with a certain amount of pride, I can look on at Liberal Democrat ministers implementing Liberal Democrat policies and I can look forward to those guiding Liberal principles that made me join this party shaping our future.

It is for these reasons, and more, that I shall not be joining the Labour party.

yours most sincerely

Matthew

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Internet Killed Israeli PR (video)

Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:17:00 -0700

A parody video I reposted to vimeo because Israel blocked the youtube version.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Orientalism and Occidentalism

Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:04:00 -0700

Originally posted at Occidentalism's Cost: War?

There is a substantial difference.

Orientalism refers to a coherent set of views held by generalised western culture about all those from the 'east', whether they be Egyptians, Japanese or anything in between.

Occidentalism, in contrast is fragmented by country and culture; one can observe different occidentalisms in Turkey Israel Pakistan India China and so on. Even within the 'Arab world' perceptions of the west and it's values vary so much that one realises the phrase Occidentalism is, in fact, invalid and a product of our Orientalism.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Failure in Disaster Response

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:45:00 -0700

Originally posted at http://www.humanitarian.info/2010/07/16/a-feature-not-a-bug/

Whilst there are many that support the exiting framework of disaster response (existing indigenous power structures, the power of corporations seeking to profit, the entrenched practices of donor governments, agencies and NGOs, the media, etc), the ultimate responsibility is ours, that is the citizens of the global north. It is our individual donations, our contributions through taxation and, above all, our complicity that permits this to happen.

We are content to let those who run the organisations to which we donate to carry on as they want, we do not hold our representatives to account for our governments' response and we quietly absorb the messages that we are given. We accept that those best placed to understand the needs of the affected country and its citizens and to lead the relief and recovery efforts are from our own countries and that they are obviously better than indigenous leaders and governments.

Here is the crux of the issue. It is covert racism that enables us to tolerate this state of affairs, we intrinsically believe that our way is best, that ‘they’ are unable to govern themselves, to choose their own representatives, to run their own businesses, to know what is good for them. Until we recognise this and deal with it we will continue to be complicit in the failure to respond appropriately to disasters.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Higher Education Reforms

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 01:48:00 -0700

Originally posted in the discussion on the Independent’s website.

As a society we should acknowledge that everyone has a right to an education and that it is in our best interests that enabling each person to fulfil their potential is in our collective interest.

Two year degrees are, as a rule, not a sensible idea, twenty one months is insufficient time for the intellectual development that goes hand in hand with acquiring the academic qualification. That is not to say their should not be room for flexibility, if a student wishes to take more classes in a shorter time or less in a longer period then why should they not have that option? Many students will experience periods when they are able to take on a heavier load whilst at other times competing pressures may make it preferable to commit to less academic work.

Graduates already pay, on average, more tax through there income taxes however we are not in a position to be able to fund all higher education through general taxation. I would prefer to see a range of options made available such that any student feels they can afford to take on any course without fear of incurring an unbearable financial burden. It should be up to the student to choose from a from what is available rather than the state imposing solutions; loans may be appropriate to some whilst a graduate tax will be for others, some may be in a position to afford everything up front whilst the safety net of state support should be there for those who require it. The important thing to recognise is that dogma and ideology do not provide a good basis for addressing individual needs.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The Labour Leadership Candidates considered as a set of Headteacher's notes

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:02:00 -0700

Found whilst clearing out the desk of Mr Brown, the previous head.

Diane Abbot – NUT rep., need I say more?! Doesn’t she know that unions are old hat now? We got top marks from OFSTED for her Citizenship lessons on equality, sends her boy to private school though, ha! Always going on about pupil’s rights, they need to do what they are told and so does she.

Ed Balls – Smart Alec. Ms Harman, the caretaker, is demanding I fire him or make him change his name, she reckons he is the cause of more graffiti around the school than anyone else, I promised that I would have a word with him about it but she said she meant about him not by him. He seems to think everyone likes him which is a bit of a surprise because he’s a little toe rag, bit of a bully too, by all accounts. Turned up dressed as a Nazi at the staff party at his previous school, is kind to animals though.

Andy Burnham – The Quiet One. Too clever by half. Odd characteristics for a P.E. teacher! Not afraid to speak his mind when something offends his principles are involved, n.b. must use my principles reduction speech next staff development day. Came to us from the fast-track programme and is definitely a high flyer, already has his NPQH, I think he’s after my job.

David Miliband – Mr Smooth. Ex-pupil here. Staff room rumour amongst the ladies is that he appears in adult movies on the side. Has a love hate relationship with the staff of the town’s kheyder. I keep hearing that he’s telling all and sundry that it is time I retired and that none of the pupils trust me. This. Must. Stop.

Ed Miliband – Get this boy out of the staffroom NOW. He’s still in sixth form, just because his elder brother teaches here does not mean the little swot has the run of the place.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The UK enquiry into Torture and Rendition

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:54:02 -0700

Launching an investigation into the UK’s involvement in torture and rendition is the single best thing that the coalition government has done. I state this because the most important thing a government can do is defend the fundamental human rights of those under its care and authority and no rights are more fundamental than the right to life and to protection from torture. Let us hope it gets to the bottom of the our country’s involvement in these practices, that those involved are prosecuted and that we live up to all our transnational obligations.

It has been said that because the previous government did not lay out clear rules then those involved ought not to be prosecuted, I disagree. The UK clearly outlawed torture in all its forms over twenty years ago. On ratifying the Convention Against Torture in 1988 the government of the day included in the Criminal Justice Act (1988) a section clearly outlawing torture and defining torture as “inflict[ing] severe pain or suffering on another”, it has always been left to the courts to decide precisely what acts meet such a definition. Additionally the Convention makes it clear there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify torture and the only defence provided for in the 1988 Act exists only to protect doctors where treatment might include inflicting such pain or suffering.

Are we to contend that no one should be prosecuted because they were not what exactly constituted torture?

That would be to provide anyone with a defence of almost any crime by simply stating that they did not know that the particular act they did counted because no one had told them. No, we cannot allow this; from the lowest, most base participant in torture through the middle managers who passed orders down and reports up to those who gave the orders at the highest level and the politicians, if any, who authorised these practices, we must seek to hold them accountable for their actions and inactions. It is only by doing so that we can restore our credibility and reputation, anything less would be to weasel out of our responsibilities and obligations inviting international contempt, something we simply cannot afford.

Finally, we must act and act decisively because it is the right thing to do.

Permalink | Leave a comment »