Editorial Bear

Oh Tony, Tony, Tony Blair.
Don't ever think that we don't care.
You're shuffling off the centre stage,
Before you get to Thatcher's age.

(She was 65.)

Back in the nineties, we all knew,
The next PM, it would be you.
I wrote a story 'bout it too.
Although it didn't feature you.

Much.

Paul Daniels said: "He wins? I quit!"
But he's still here, the lying git.
But Tony, dude, that's long ago,
When ladies thought of you: "Tres beau."

"He's a bit of all right," they said.

And Britain's suffered no great loss.
In the decade since you've been boss,
You've aged a bit since then, old mate,
At least you haven't gained much weight.

Maybe a couple of pounds?

During your reign in Number 10,
Just five minutes from old Big Ben,
You've ruled the nation, true and fair,
And haven't quite lost ALL your hair.

Just a bit.

You introduced Minimum Wage,
In Northern Ireland, turned a page,
You helped Saddam come a cropper,
But told us all one big whopper...

About the WMD's.

America? They loved you, Blair
All tall and charming - with great hair!
They thought you charming, wise and bright,
Compared to George, by God they're right!

He didn't have Alastair Campbell, of course.

But now, dear Tony... Time to go,
It's time to end the Tony Show.
Your decade's up, you've had your day,
Now that git Brown is here to stay.

Depending on if he wins the leadership contest or not.

What will you do now, Mr Blair?
What use will be your coiffered hair?
Your open palms and tasteful ties,
And Ali Campbell's packs of lies?

'Alleged' packs of lies.

I'm sure a new career awaits,
You'd make a fortune in the States!
But do make sure your pension's safe,
Now Gordon Brown is on the case.

'Cos he'll nick it.

Forget what the loony left or radical right tell you. America and Islam CAN find peace.

My friend Sarah, while on holiday in Marrakech, took this snap. Proof indeed that America and Islam can coexist peacefully. With a side order of fries and a Coca Cola.

The left wing targeted private gun ownership. If guns weren't available in shops or stores, the shooter at Virginia Tech wouldn't have had any weapons to commit his murders with. Hence, ban all guns and stop all shootings.

This is a very worthy, but inaccurate assessment. Cho Sueng Hui, the 23 year old gunman, obtained his two weapons illegally. Their serial numbers were scratched off. Whether he bought them on the black market, or from some dodgy criminal in an alleyway, the fact is that banning handguns would not have stopped this tragedy. There are hundreds of millions of guns floating around in the United States. Gun control can only control the registered and recorded ones.

What gun control might have done, however, was to have prevented other shootings. The Colombine massacre, for example, was committed with two legally purchased 12 bore shotguns (obtained by the gunman's friend) and a Tec-9 semi-automatic bought from a second hand gun store. If handguns and shotguns were pretty much illegal (as they are in the UK) the boys in question wouldn't have had those weapons.

What they would have had, however, were the pipe bombs they'd made from gas cylinders and fireworks. One of the gunmen set up an explosive in Colombine school cafeteria. Police say, if it had detonated, it could have killed 250 people and destroyed the building.

So take the guns away and murders will still carry on.

Gun control is fundamentally flawed, as I have mentioned above. Out of the millions of guns floating around America, a significant number (15% apparently) are unregistered and illegal. These are the guns floating around in the hands of criminals. This minority of guns causes the majority of crimes and banning the 85% of registered weapons will do nothing to curb the circulation of illegal firearms.

In fact, statistics show gun control can have a negative impact on crime figures.

The problem is in America itself. Despite a century of advancement, the country is still very much like the Wild West. Guns are everywhere. Effective gun control, like we've got in the UK, would take decades to really work.

Statistics suggest that 9 children under the age of 19 die from gunshots every single day in the United States. If private gun ownership was banned, would that figure be reduced?

But more importantly, would the American right wing be willing to sacrifice the "security" of private gun ownership to prevent these deaths?

In a country in which most states still allow people to carry concealed weapons (at least the cowboys had 'em on show) I think the answer to that question is a resounding no.

The right wing barked in defence of private gun ownership even before the smoke was clearing from Virginia Tech. The problems wasn't guns, they yelled. It was the shooter. An immigrant.

Cho Sueng Hui was a South Korean.

In the cultural melting pot of America, there's nothing that inflames a right winger more than an illegal alien. Except, perhaps, a legal one who commits a crime like this.

Across several right wing sites, the cry is a ban on immigration. All immigration. No more marriage visas, work visas or student visas. People can come to visit Disneyland, but then they're gone again.

Fortunately, it appears to only be a limited number of people who've adopted this lunatic suggestion. They seem totally unaware than the idea of banning immigration would have had as much effect on the Virginia Tech shootings as banning handguns would.

Cho Sueng Hui was South Korean, certainly. But he'd been in the United States since 1992. He was a legal, permanent resident and unless the right wing wanted to follow up their immigration ban by exporting every non-US citizen currently in the country, he'd have still been in America to commit the shootings even while the borders were closed.

Just like banning handguns will only effect the law-abiding citizens who purchase and register their weapons (leaving millions of guns floating around in the hands of criminals) a total ban on legal immigration would only target those entering the country legally.

Millions would still pass over the 5,000 miles of undefended US border along Mexico and Canada. And thousands more would arrive on tourist visas and then never choose to leave. Illegal immigration would continue - probably at an accelerated pace, as more and more people are forced to break immigration laws just to enter America.

Separating families and loved ones. Reducing access to skilled migrant workers. Taking millions of dollars of revenue out of the American higher education system. Banning all immigration would have a terrible effect on America and do nothing to achieve the right wing's aims.

Sheer lunacy.

And what's worse, such right wing posturing makes America's position in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly untenable. If America shuts it's doors to other countries, why on Earth should America feel it's appropriate to play it's part in the international community.

Like a dog chasing it's tail, the few right wingers who want to totally ban immigration to America simply find themselves spinning in circles.

Yet recent events consistently seem to indicate that Iran is not the victim of invasive western aggression, like President Ahmadinejad portrays the country to be. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already refused to allow UN Inspectors the chance to examine his 'innocent' nuclear processing plants - and now his soldiers have kidnapped 15 British troops. See the story here.

The kidnapped Royal Navy sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters, checking local shipping to crack down on smuggling. The Iranians entered Iraqi water and confronted the Brits. I assume the 'kidnapping' itself was facilitated by our troop's reluctance to fire on their kidnappers and spark off a conflict. Their restraint saved Iranian lives at the risk of their own. True Brit Grit.

This kidnapping is further evidence that Iran's behaviour remains consistantly mischevious.

I honestly believe Ahmadinejad's masterplan is to simply keep niggling at the United States or Britain until one of the two countries find themselves forced to react aggressively.

If Ahmadinejad's taunting gets the desired reaction, America or Britain will be viewed as 'overreacting' and Iran will get to play the 'innocent' victim of 'western aggression.' Given the growing popularity of the anti-war stance in Britain and America, I'm worried niave people will fail to see that it's Iran behind the diplomatic fireworks - not Bush or Blair.

President Ahmadinejad is a cunning, immoral man who seems to want to lead his country into a war it cannot win - no matter what price his people must pay.

All we can hope is that our diplomats show the same restraint our kidnapped troops did - and resist the urge to react to Iran's provocative behaviour.