Mic Wright begins this irregular series that takes columnists to task:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1992062,00.html

Zoe Williams sometimes acts like a drunken stand up, who, finding that her audience no longer laughs at her jokes, resorts to self-aggrandisement and petty abuse. In this rant, for which she is no doubt handsomely rewarded, she lays into all those women who feel the need to diet. “Why“, she wonders “would otherwise intelligent women, educated to a high standard, interested in global politics, etc, etc, worry about something so meaningless as their weight?”

It appears that Zoe, dressed in a fetching chiffon scarf in her byline picture and often seen desperately clasping a glass of wine in the pages of G2, has reached a state of Zen where her physical appearance no longer concerns her. Or perhaps it is because she, unlike the “vain and stupid” women who fixate on their weight, simply has the world’s fastest metabolism or a partner who couldn’t care less what she looks like because of her enormous and incredible intellect. Either of these assertions may be true. However, her attack on those women who do feel the need to worry about their weight is illogical and insensitive, based on shock tactics and flimsy assertions.

She opens her subsidised rant with a sarcastic attack on Times columnist India Knight and film producer Neris Thomas, who recently published a new diet book: “It must be an intelligent book, since they are both manifestly intelligent, as attested by their high professional status (Knight is a writer and Thomas a film producer). And yet it is also, undeniably about dieting. Riddle-me-ree.” Williams’ contention is that “women, who fixate on their weight, unless we’re dealing with eating disorders, are not intelligent”. In her heavy handed assessment, worrying about your weight immediately precludes you being an intelligent person. This is a bizarre statement which fails to define what she considers “fixated”. Weight is not a meaningless issue. In a society that is increasingly overweight it is a health issue and Williams’ example of India Knight is particularly strange.

Knight’s book details a diet in which she shrank from a size 22 to a size 14 – this is hardly the realm of size zero models and anorexia. Neither is it a question of ridiculous fussing from a woman who is a bit worried about her love handles, it was an issue of self esteem and well being. Size 22 is unhealthily large and Knight slimmed down for her health and to take control of her self-image. It was not a question of the “industrial narcissism” which Williams purports to attack. By deploying the sacred f-word, “feminism”, Williams attempt to bolster her argument as an attack on women’s complicity with society’s objectification of them but her targeting systems have gone askew. Rather than looking at the excessive focus on shape and weight that litters the tabloid press and the celebrity magazines, she puts Knight and ordinary women in her sights, declaring that an understandable desire to be fit, healthy and not overweight is a sign of stupidity. Her approach is ill thought out and scattershot and when she ponders “maybe this sounds needlessly aggressive” the only possible answer is: yes, it really does.

The Sparrow considers the state of the union...

Three hundred years ago today the Scottish Parliament ratified the treaty that hastened its own end; January 16^th 1707. The act declared: "The two kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1^st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land."

It was a momentous achievement (although far from popular north of the border), paving the way for peace at home and the building of the Empire. Three Hundred years on, however, the union is at its weakest ebb since the defeat of the last Jacobite uprising in 1746. Discontent in Scotland is common but this time it is matched by growing dissatisfaction in England.

For the Scots, losing the independence they had fought for over the centuries was an insult. Make a trip to Scotland and you will find the long shadow of it's pre-union past falling over you, with Bannockburn and Robert the Bruce held in the kind of reverence that England fans hold 1966. It is an independent country in attitude and always has been, even if the laws were made in London.

In 1999 in an attempt to make the Union fairer and pacify the protests for a Scottish Parliament, the Labour Government devolved some power to a new Scottish Assembly. Far from making the system fairer, however, this parliament has led to a system with even more imbalances.

The West Loathian question is one of the key issues. It is the name given to the problem that Scottish MPs can vote on matters that do not affect Scotland. The Prime minister has been known to rely on their votes to pass bills for England that a majority of English MPs have rejected. One of the cornerstones of Westminster democracy is the fact that all MPs can vote in all votes (with the exception of the Speaker and Tellers). To change the rules would mean making different classes of MP.

The problem seems to be coming to a head since Gordon Brown is a Scottish MP who as Prime Minister would have power to create laws and bills that rule over England, yet would not effect his own constituency. Add to this the fact that Scottish constituencies now have two MPs, one for Westminster and one for Hollyrood, and you have a sufficiently confusing and unfair system to cause an even greater desire for change, as opposed to pacifying it.

The Scottish Nationalist Party has been gaining popularity before the forthcoming Scottish Parliamentary elections this May, and their raison d'etre is the abolition of the act of union and the establishment of Scotland as an independent country again.

While in the past conditions have not been right for them to gain both popular support at home and a desire for change on both sides of the border, it seems that this may be the year that they finally break through. If they do they will seek a referendum in Scotland on independence and, should that win approval of the people must then appeal to Parliament at Westminster to dissolve the Union.

This makes matters complicated, because the Scots MPs at Westminster would be surely inclined to vote to keep their jobs, rather than for independence, however surely true democracy dictates that in the situation of an elected Scottish Parliament holding a referendum and demanding independence, the only just thing to do is give it to them.

It seems that for Mr Blair, the question of what could be his lasting legacy may have been taken out of his hands completely, and he may forever be remembered for presiding over the break up of the Union. A fitting way to end a shambolic decade at the top.

King Crow gets in a flap over ITV Play's deceitfulness...

The overnight television quiz is the preserve of isomniacs, maniacs and the truly desperate but they should at least have a fair chance of winning as they cradle the receiver and paw at the redial button. Not if ITV Play has anything to do with it. The ITV channel created purely to further prove the axiom that a fool and his money are easily parted, has been found in breach of the broadcasting code by Ofcom following a quiz about items commonly found in a woman's handbag.

On September 21^st 2005, the dead eyed host invited viewers to "identify things you find in a woman's handbag." When, after the usual hyperactive shouting and seemingly pointless countdowns, the game ended, only seven of the 13 prizes for revealing correct answers had been won. The remaining answers included "balaclava" and "rawl/rawl plugs" - a trade name for wall plugs. One can only assume that the producers had interviewed former members of the provisional IRA and DIY fanatics.

Ofcom found ITV Play in breach of rule 2.11 of the broadcasting code, which states "competitions should be conducted fairly" and concluded that: "The inclusion of these answers was unreasonable and the competition was not conducted farirly." It is its first ruling against the channel but it is not likely to be the last. Other answers on that night included "rubber band", "directions", "false teeth", "contact lenses", "driving licence" and "plane tickets". Viewers were lured into using their underevolved fingers by the sample answer "mobile phone".

ITV claimed that the full list of answers was reviewed by a senior producer and the channel's business manager prior to broadcast. These people are either a) idiots or b) married to very unconventional women. It did concede however that the answers in question "whilst not impossible, were unlikely to readily identified and were therefore inappropriate" - translation: "We had no idea that anyone with the intelligence to complain would be awake at that hour."

Presented by frightening automatons barking idiotic phrases in sparsely decorated studios, these shows are the programmed equivalent of ambulance chaser ads and are just as cynical. More people should follow the example of the woman who called into the station and responded to the host's bleating for an answer with a deadpan statement: "I can't believe you get paid for this."

The Sparrow puts the case for military intervention in Darfur...

If this is the first article you've read about Darfur, chances are you've spent the last few years napping in the mossy fluff that gathers under a rock. It's by no means the first, and by no means the most definitive, however the fact that over two years since the crisis in Darfur was labelled a genocide articles are still being written about how little has been done is both shocking and shameful.

In July 2003 the Janjaweed, an Arab militia launched a campaign of terror in the Darfur region of Sudan, destroying villages and killing and raping on a scale not seen since the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Since then an estimated four hundred thousand have been killed, with over two million more displaced, and often living in terrible conditions in refugee camps on the border with neighbouring Chad. The crisis hangs over the people in these camps, with some of the most disturbing imagery from recent years being the Children's drawings that illustrate the murder and rape they have seen at such a young age.

In the mean time, the west has postured, and postured some more, and talked, and talked some more. An African Union peacekeeping force in the region has played it's part in trying to control the crisis, however without the funds and the man power that the west can offer, the crisis continues to rage on. Last summer, the UN finally seemed to be taking the action that was necessary, assigning 17,600 UN peacekeepers to the region, to defend the population, however the Sudanese government, long believed to be unofficially assisting the Janjaweed, has refused this saying that they are not needed and the 7,000 strong African Union force can do the job.

So what should be the next course of action for the international community? Many people think that we should sit on the sidelines, while agreeing that it's terrible, the spectre of Iraq looms too large for them to endorse any kind of intervention. Intervention, however is the only way that an end can be brought to this crisis. This is not another Iraq, where the coalition invaded a large country that was at peace, albeit with bad human rights, and occupied it. This is a different situation and needs different strategies for intervention, but intervention none the less. The UN needs to authorise the use of force to get it's troops on the ground, the Sudanese won't accept them peacefully, so if they need to be protected by an attachment of NATO troops, so be it, the only way to stop the genocide getting worse is to get well trained troops on the ground to protect the people, and follow that up with maximum possible humanitarian aid to the effected area.

I am, in almost all cases, against military intervention. In Iraq it was not about the people of Iraq, it was about Oil and regime change, in Vietnam it was about fear of communism, these are not justifiable grounds to intervene, these are pet peeves. In Darfur, however, there is no ulterior motive, the only reason to intervene is also the most important reason why the UN should, and that is the fact that hundreds of thousands of civilians are being killed. The argument for intervention is based solely on humanitarian grounds, and the shameful thing is that for most of the world's big countries, that just isn't enough.

After the extent of the genocide in Rwanda was discovered, the international community was full of comments about how this could never be allowed to happen again, and yet here we are, a little over a decade later, another genocide, another nation. It is the responsibility of the United Nations, and every nation that claims to be civilised to step in and stop this bloodshed from getting any worse, failure to do so is a gross dereliction of duty from everyone who holds office in any of these nations.

Monday, Monday! To get you started this fine morning (hmmm...well, maybe not) we present the first installment of the Peacock's best of the web:

The Notorious Bettie (Web) Page is a new blog following one girl’s travels through the minefield that is modern dating. Out of practice and confused by it all, Bettie is looking for her perfect man, who ‘…looks like Colin Firth, is definitely NOT called Colin and shags like a porn star.’ Is she looking in the right places? Will she manage to stay upright in her silly shoes? Most importantly, what is the Matetrix …? Tune in to find out!

At the other end of the dating spectrum is Babymother, who has just given birth to her second baby. Her posts are always well written (only to be expected, really, coming from such a distinguished blogging family) and her latest offerings, covering the difficult birth of The Babeling, are no exception. Humorous, interesting, and so much more than just a baby blog, Babymother is definitely worth a read.

From the sublime to the ridiculous (so to speak): Mikeachim at Fevered Mutterings is King of the Absurd. His tagline promises that ‘At some point, it’ll all start to make sense…’ – but in fact that would be rather a shame. His posts are witty and off-the-wall; even the humble meme tag is turned into a work of art in his capable hands. There’s a school of thought that says that he should be writing full-time; but then we’d probably lose out on his wonderful blog posts – rock…hard place….anyone…?

A writer in a somewhat different vein, Cigarette-Sigh writes Tales From a Town Called Malice. Mainly character-based, his stories are full of rich imagery and heartbreaking situations; and although at first glance the tales all seem to be quite different, the common strand running throughout is love. Whether lost, gained, unwanted, desired or just desperately needed, there’s no escaping its presence.

Finally, from dating, babies, prose and fiction to unrequited love, secrets, lies and desperate truths, PostSecret has it all in spades. An ongoing community art project in which people send in homemade postcards depicting their deepest, darkest secrets, it is a must-read every Sunday. Once you’ve started reading, there’s no going back, and it will only be a matter of time before you send in your own card – go on, you know you want to…

Thanks for stopping by today.

There'll be more from the Pigeon on Monday. Please keep commenting on today's articles and feel free to email kingofthecrows@gmail.com with article ideas and suggestions for next week's podcast.

Yours fist fighting with Rockin' Robin,

King Crow x