Head to head: Smoking and driving ban

Safety campaigners in the United Kingdom are calling on government officials to ban smoking while behind the wheel. Supporters of the proposal say that smoking behind the wheel should be considered an offence, and believe a ban on smoking while driving will significantly lower the number of road accidents in the UK. Critics on the other hand, state that legislation revolving around smoking is spiraling out of control and soon enough smokers will have no options aside from quitting, to sustain their habit.

Simon Ettinghausen, from the Local Authority Road Safety Association, stated that "Driving is quite a complicated task which requires the driver to give their full attention to the road. Anything which distracts from that in any way is a risk." Ettinghausen also stated that he is not against smoking, rather he is against smoking and driving as the combination creates a whole new situation for those involved.

On the other hand, Simon Clark, of the Pro-Smoking organization Forest stated, "Is it really a danger?...There needs to be evidence that it is dangerous. The anti-smoking lobby have jumped on this and said 'oh yes we must ban smoking in cars'. They want to make it more difficult for people to smoke." Clark has been a vocal opponent of the anti-smoking legislation in the United Kingdom for a while now.

Clark's argument seems completely futile to me, as the government does not at all need to produce results to strengthen their legislature. Simply put, if they want to pass a bill, especially a bill regarding a controversial subject such as smoking, they can do so. Today it seems all signs are pointing to the fact that doing anything aside from watching the road while driving is dangerous, so why should the government have any trouble passing a bill that relates directly to public safety? England in particular has shown a dedication to reducing their number of smokers, specifically the younger generation (bar-goers), so this bill seems to push even further down this road. While I do tend to agree with Etinghausen, I also agree that people should have their own prerogative when choosing what habits they do and do not follow, but should their habits prove to harm others (second-hand smoke), they should be eliminated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6653327.stm

Blair will stand down on 27 June

Tony Blair has announced that he will step down as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on June 27th of this year. Blair made the announcement to a group of party activists, after informing his cabinet of his decision to step down. Blair admitted that his government had not always been up to his high expectations, but that he had been "blessed" to lead "the greatest nation on earth." Blair will stay on Downing Street, the street on which the official residence of the Prime Minister is located, until the Labour Party - a largely left-leaning party, elects a new leader. Blair has been Prime Minister for 10 years and believes his time was "long enough" for him to make a significant impact. Blair's government worked strongly on improving healthcare, more job opportunities for the underpriveldged, improving health and education, lowering crime, and improving economic conditions, but also acknoweldges that his government was indeed highly aspirational, perhaps too aspirational, at times. Blair supported the co
ntroversial American invasion of Iraq, stating that he believes he should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the UK's oldest ally. Blair will remain infamous for staying dedicated to his original party platform, and for always putting emphasis and importance on social reform.

I believe that Tony Blair has had a successful tenure as the United Kingdom's Prime Minister, and is as straight forward as politicans get, this belief largely coming from the fact that he has always remained loyal to what he originally told the general public he would focus on. Blair's focus on social reform in the United Kingdom has been excellent, and I fondly recall reading many accounts of him taking action whether it be related to healthcare, civil services, or otherwise. Blair is an even-minded politician and is someone

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6639945.stm

King Herod's ancient tomb 'found'

An archaeologist from Israel has publicly stated that he believes he has discovered Ancient King Herod's tomb. Herod was the ruler of Judea in 1st century BC. Ehud Netzer, a professor from the Hebrew University in Israel said he found the tomb, which is located slightly south of Jerusalem, at a site called Herodium. Herod was known to have administered the Massacre of the Innocent, and was one of the bloodiest Roman rulers of all-time. Prof. Netzer had been working around Herodium since 1972, and only recently notified archaeologists of his thoughts on where exactly the tomb might be located. Historical accounts by scholars such as Josephus Flavius, from as far back as the 1st century BC were used to locate the tomb. A passage was written about a grand staircase being built for Herod's funeral procession, and this is what led to the eventual discovery. If the find is indeed what it is believed to be, this could be one of the most significant archaeological finds in recent history.

Archaeology is quite an interesting topic, and is an essential part of discovering the roots of any major culture. I can only imagine the thrill that some archaeologists feel when they make a major discovery, such as this one. Hopefully this turns out to be King Herod's tomb as then we can read even further into what truly went on during ancient times. Archaeology can be used as a great tool to inquiring into the past, and with constant dedication to this practice I would imagine that many, many more stories will be uncovered and studied by all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6633979.stm

LA police reassigned over clashes

A senior policeman in Los Angeles has been demoted after giving an order to fire 140 rubber bullets into a crowd of demonstrators. The man's deputy officer and 60 other officers involved in the shooting were also reassigned. The May Day march was said to be peaceful until a few agitators threw bottles and rocks at police officers and other marchers. TV footage, however, proved to send a different message, when a police officer was seen shoving and forcibly moving people several hundred meters away from the demonstrations. Outrage in the city led to Los Angeles' mayor having to return from a trip overseas prematurely. Los Angeles' police chief, William Bratton, has stated that the marchers were ordered to disperse once the crowd was growing restless, however the orders were issued in English, to a largely Spanish speaking crowd. The policemen/women who were involved in the conflicts were all highly trained riot control officers, and the second-in-charge deputy was a veteran of the force for 40 years.

As soon as I read this story, the first thing that I thought of was obviously the Rodney King incident 16 years ago. While this incident isn't nearly as brutal as King's, it seems to immediately bring up thoughts of that controversy in my head. As someone who lived around Los Angeles for most of my life, I can say that demonstrations are frequent and almost always vary in terms of how violent they get. It seems like a very brash move on the part of the police in this case, to fire rubber bullets into the crowd. This is simply a case of poor decision making, no matter how restless the crowd became I fail to see why the LAPD would issue such orders. Bratton's statement of how the commands were issued in English but were understood have been the highlight of my day thus far. An absolutely massive portion of Los Angeles' population is Spanish speaking, could the LAPD riot control squad not have found someone to yell in Spanish? This is a terrible case of miscommunication, and to me it seems very much like the media is safeguarding this case, in order to protect LAPD's already delicate position. And although riots can spread like wildfire, especially in an area like the one the demonstration was located in, I feel like other decisions could have been made that were far more appropriate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6633745.stm

Bush to meet Congress over Iraq

US President George W Bush is planning to meet with Democrats in order to find a way to fund the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This news comes to us a day after Bush vetoed a bill that would have linked war funding to the eventual withdrawal of US troops from said lands. After vetoing the bill, Bush stated that setting a withdrawal deadline would be like "setting a date for failure." The bill was largely supported by the Democratic majority US Congress, but Bush's veto of it came as no surprise. Bush also stated that signing the bill would "....send a signal that America will not keep its commitments." Democratic speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized Bush, saying that he was far too stubborn to sign any bill that isn't essentially a blank cheque. The Senate voted on the bill Bush vetoed last week, and voted largely along party lines (51 to 46). The veto also marked the four year anniversary of a Bush speech; one in which he stated that the mission in Iraq was accomplished.

This is a situation that seems to be occuring relatively often at this point in time. It is difficult to appease any side in this situation as the two party's ideologies are so different. From the democratic point of view, you can't sign a bill that will support the war even further and pump even more funds into the operations, but you also don't want to undercut the thousands of troops overseas risking their lives every day. From a Republican point of view, Bush has quite clearly stated that he does not want to pull out of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until the job is done, but at some point you need to cut your losses. I do not believe this is what needs to be done right now, as it seems suicide bombings and mass killings are becoming commonplace in Iraq. Unfortunately the Americans find themselves in a very tricky situation, hopefully some good will come out of Bush's meetings with Congress and the Democrats in a few days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6616361.stm

Five get life over UK Bomb Plot

Five men have been jailed for life after being convicted in a UK bomb plot that has reportedly been linked to Al-Qaeda. Plans of targetting a shopping centre, nightclub, and a gas network were released by the men in their nearly year-long trial. The judge said that his men betrayed their country and what they were doing was 'despicable'. A variety of political leaders have called for the investigation to be furthered into the July 7th terrorist attacks in London. It has also been proven that the men were not religious extremists, although they had past links to Muslim groups, rather they were 'artists of terror', men who simply wanted to cause a rucus. The group purchased 600 kg of amonium nitrate, an essential ingredient in home bomb-making kits. The trial proved to be one of the longest terrorist trials in British history, with over 3,644 witnesses giving statements which led to it lasting for over 13 months.

This is a very inspiring story to read as it obviously shows the dedication that major countries have devoted to cracking down on terrorism, and the resources they are willing to spend doing so. Obviously this case has seemed to be extremely drawn out, but the closure it provides is excellent. A strong message is being sent to potential terrorist threats by establishing cases such as these. Since terrorism is such a high priority in international securities at this point, any and all terrorist groups must be wary of committing serious acts such as these, for fear of being sent away for life. It is also interesting to see that such lengthy sentences were given to the men involved, although thir plans were never even followed through with. This strengthens the dedication that nations are paying to the process of eliminating terrorism, in my eyes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6195914.stm

New Hampshire Senate Approves Civil Unions

A bill authorizing civil unions for gays has been passed in New Hampshire, becoming the first state to authorize same-sex unions without the threat of a court order. The Senate passed the bill 14-10, after which it was sent to Governor John Lynch who stated a week ago that he will be signing the bill. Democratic Senator Joe Foster stated that "We're making this move not because some court some place is telling us that we must...We do so today because it is the right thing to do." Two years ago, a study panel unanimously agreed that the consideration of same-sex marriage was completely out of the question, so this proves to be quite a turn-around. New Hampshire will join New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont to be the first few states to offer civil unions in the United States next month.

This is a hot topic, especially in Canada where same-sex marriage is allowed by the government. In my eyes it is completely fine for same-sex marriage to be endorsed by any government, I feel that the idea of same-sex marriage in now way hampers the running of any nation and there seems to be no logical explanation for not allowing same-sex marriage, aside from it being outside the norms of modern society's views on civil unions. It is promising to see that some states are leaning more towards this ideology today, and I hope that more states change their legislature to support same-sex marriage in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-NY-Civil-Unions.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin