An open letter to President Obama

Dear Mr President,

                               While it is clearly a topic which causes great pain for yourself, and the nation as a whole, you need to stop the rot before it really is too late. I am concerned with the specifics of the way in which you, personally, have handled the revelations about information gathering and the Snowden case.

 

President Bush started the whole FISA fiasco with his executive order, which you decried whilst campaigning, and once in power you perpetuated that fiasco and thus made it your own. You are a lawyer, sir, and should be ashamed that you did not work out the illegalities of these situations.

President Nixon was impeached for wiretapping an office, Bush and the NSA cronies wiretapped the whole nation. You took power and perpetuated that crime, adding further gross acts of espionage in and on other countries to the list. Impeached for one office (Nixon), avoided prosecution by deceit (Bush), what, sir, are your crimes that will be remembered?

 

I guess none, as it is not a crime to not fix the mess, not expose the truth, or not prevent breaches of the very amendments and rights that make your nation free. Snowden did try to get the mess fixed, did try to expose the truth, and did attempt to stop those breaches ... obviously he must be a criminal. If you do not see how wrong that is, Mr President, reading further will not help you.

 

Basics of the matter:

 

Let us start with Snowden:

He was in your military, in the CIA, worked as a spy, dealt in intelligence, and finished his career as an analyst working with full access to the NSA and the data collections systems put in place. He attempted to report his findings and concerns, nothing happened officially, though he does claim he was warned to drop his investigations several times.

Let us turn to you now, Mr President:

As President, you, Barack Hussein Obama II, are supposedly the person responsible for the entire forces of the United States, and both military and civilian branches of government. You are often quoted as being "the most powerful man in the world" due to your "control" of the largest military force and nuclear arsenal in the world. This, however, is not quite true, as you well know. In 1947 control of the armed forces was passed from President to Secretary of Defense, a position nominated by the president which has to be confirmed by the United States Senate.

I am guessing, therefore, that a president has no jurisdiction over the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), but would hope that they are fully capable of performing their role. I am also guessing that a president has to, at least mostly, follow the law - and encourage others to do so too.

Legal aspects:

U.S. law is fairly clear on whistleblowing, as it is on how the OSC is instrumental in ensuring whistleblowers are not persecuted. The four main structures which the OSC acts under are:  the Civil Service Reform Act; the Whistleblower Protection Act; the Hatch Act; and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

These acts provide the backbone for OSC actions and protections, and are instrumental in their policy and goals that: "Whenever misdeeds take place in a Federal agency, there are employees who know that it has occurred, and who are outraged by it. What is needed is a means to assure them that they will not suffer if they help uncover and correct administrative abuses … These conscientious civil servants deserve statutory protection …"

The OSC claims that any offences in certain categories come under it's purview, this is taken from the OSC poster (rev. 12/05):

                           Whistleblowing
A "whistleblower" discloses information he or she

reasonably believes evidences:

• A violation of any law, rule     • An abuse of authority

or regulation                               • A substantial and specific danger
• Gross mismanagement             to public health
• A gross waste of funds             • A substantial and specific danger

                                                    to public safety

The OSC is also tasked with providing protections to certain parties and groups of workers. Furthermore, it also extends it's reach and "provides a secure channel through which current and former federal employees and applicants for federal employment may make confidential disclosures". The next part of the disclosure poster then goes on to say that the "OSC evaluates the disclosures to determine whether there is a substantial likelihood that one of the categories listed above has been disclosed." This appears, at least at first, to be a reasonable way to enforce the policies in the four  acts which make up the backbone of the OSC.

Any former, current, or prospective employee is covered as long as they are probably going to meet the criteria. This does not cover the armed forces, as they are not federal employees. The Hatch Act does, however, apply to all DoD civil servants, and Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) employees who are directly supporting of the U.S. Coastguard.

As I said, Mr President, "at first", let me explain why. The third part of the poster is indeed a chilling reversal, and would deter any sane person from whistleblowing as it states: "If such a determination is made, OSC has the authority to require the head of the agency to investigate the matter." This is entirely ludicrous, be it through lack of foresight, or other reasons, this is unacceptable. If I am raising a concern that the FBI is illegally wiretapping and the director has been shown to be complicit, having that same director investigate is surely a stupid course of action to take. An outside body should be investigating, as per the WPO for the DoD.

So, there are structures in place to protect whistleblowers of; Wall street, federal government, the DHS (partly), U.S.Workers in the public sector, and U.S.Forces civilian employees. Military personnel are covered by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, Title 10 U.S.C. § 1034, and enforced through the DoD Inspector General (IG).

Statements by you, Mr President:

Your political statements, Mr President, are gravely misleading to anyone who reads them. You endorse whistleblowing for NSOs, yet the guy you put in place as SoD does not! You say that

"Barack Obama endorsed new protections for national security officers who blow the whistle on abusive, corrupt or illegal behavior [...] Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other top Bush appointees wrote an unusually tough letter to Congress last year asserting that the bill protecting whistleblowers would threaten national security, violate the Constitution and undermine the government's ability to safeguard legitimate secrets. [...] Advocacy groups were cheered when an Obama aide promised the National Whistleblower Center in May 2007 that the candidate supported protecting whistleblowers "under the framework" of the House bill."(R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick, Washington Post Staff Writers, Wednesday, February 18, 2009)

and later, when it is clear that you might suffer politically by trying to continue to support whistleblowing you turn around and backpedal.

"Will Barack Obama, a champion of whistleblower protection when he was a state senator, act as strongly to protect them when they blow the whistle on his administration?" [...] "As an Illinois senator, Obama was responsible for passing legislation to protect government employees who come forward and risk their jobs to expose waste, corruption and national security lapses." (Will Obama Keep His Promise to Federal Whistleblowers? ABC News, Megan Churhmach and Rhonda Schwartz, August 4, 2009.)

And worst of all, your own words, Mr President, said when talking about protecting whistleblowers during your 2008 campaign: "acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled." You have some serious un-stifling to do. No-one else can do it; you caused this mess, now fix it.

Your irresponsible actions, Mr President:

It is without doubt that you have, at best, misled your nation. Yes, in both senses, as a failed leader in this matter, and in the sense of diverting the nations attention away from your actions by scapegoating the very whistleblower you have said you would protect.

Your hasty actions, without full information or not, have been defended and continued actions upon those flawed decisions have compounded the errors from a basic embarrasment to a fully-fledged emarrasment of epic proportions. It was wrong of you to condemn a whistleblower who has served you well, and it was certainly wrong of you to not intervene and force actions to investigate these matters.

You have shown yourself to be weak by not defending whistleblowers, destroyed years of entente between countries, exposed thousands of your employees to the realisation they have been illegally surveilling their fellow citizens, and pushed back the trust of those around your country by many years.

You sir, are a hypocrite. Snowden should be given amnesty, he should be protected by the Contractor Disclosure Program and the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) and you, sir, should have made sure that the Secretary of Defense complied with these DoD IG directorates.

Above all else, Mr President, you should have had the interests of the people foremost in your mind. It is not in the interests of the people to take away any and all restraints on wiretapping, surveillance, privacy or disclosure. Any good leader knows that he has to put the welfare of their charges first, even when change might be against their own instincts. It is not in the best interests of your country to be shown to be deceitful spying invasive people who will gladly infiltrate every aspect of  communication - even on their allies.

My final thoughts:

You sir, are ultimately responsible for the actions of those below you in rank, those around you in government, every federal employee, every soldier sailor and airman, every civilian and member of your public - it is your responsibilty to ensure that justice and sense prevail, whether it is distasteful or not, whether it goes against you politically or not, and whether it is decent and right or not.

Like it or not Snowden was one of those you should have been protecting. Claiming "national security" rather than "amnesty and let's investigate and discuss" is your failing Mr President, not his, nor anyone else.

Give Snowden amnesty, or a Presidential pardon. Investigate the agencies and departments that took simple necessary actions to extremes, but most of all Mr President, stop being someone you are not. Either never say you will support whistleblowers and that you lied, or stand up and do the right thing. Snowden is the one celebrated by those you have spied upon, indeed by anyone who believes in any modicum of decency.

Snowden has done more for the credibility of your country abroad than you can admit, but people who really do believe in the statement on the DoD IG site should make sure that these happen. I leave you with that statement and the words you spoke yourself, in the hope that you will do the right thing.

"Whistleblowing is not a ‘nice to have’ function; it is essential to the national security and defense mission of the Federal government." Department of Defense Whistleblower Program

"We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process." The Office of the President-Elect.

Lastly, Mr President, we have the reason for my calling you a hypocrite:

"[talking about FISA] We might not have known how this program had been abused by the Bush administration. That, in addition, we might not have any leverage to ensure that going forward, the program wasn't violating the basic privacies and civil liberties of the American people. [...] I decided that it was better to go ahead and support the program as currently constituted,  knowing that I will be sworn in with your help, on January 20th, and then I can go and make sure the program is working exactly as it should be." Your own words in 2008

The program was NOT working exactly as it should be, FISA was not in place, Snowden was YOUR whistleblower who had the evidence you needed to affect that change to MAKE it work exactly as it should be. Yes, it was OK for you to go ahead when it was a political tool showing how bad Bush was and how you were going to make sure it was stopped, but then you got into power and now it was you in charge and someone else needed to make sure YOU did not abuse it. Well, you ARE abusing it - the evidence is clear.

Repent, Reward and Reform - Sir, Mr President, Sir!

Fine Art: is it real or just an illusion?

Fraud, misplaced help or vandalism - or could it be that the artist just was not that good?

I am appalled by the ridiculously obvious mistakes and "strangenesses" found in many works of art adorning our museum walls. After watching another program about Vermeer's technique, this latest from the Penn & Teller team, I only got 13 minutes in before downloading the pic in case I wanted to compare notes on what they said to the painting. After looking at the picture for a minute or two, I was appalled by what I saw and incensed by the way people worship shit. Some spend more money on one painting than 20 average people could earn throughout their whole lifetime.
(£1,950,000 per person based on 65 years working @ £30,000 per annum, leaving school at 15, dying off at 80 years old)

I realise that there were/are a few very good forgers who could paint Van Cock or Reubens "better" than the original artists - I say that because they perfect the techniques of the artist in such incredible detail as to be able to recreate their style at any given time in their life to a level which probably is too perfect. Every artist has good and bad days, and styles will vary from the backgrounds to the foreground and to brush techniques used throughout. It's a bit like learning to play in Santana's style or Rory Gallagher's (one is easier to play than the other, probably not the one you would expect either!).

It is common knowledge that a large percentage of works in museums today could well be fakes. When I say large, it has been reported as 2% at it's lowest range, to up to 15% of ALL art works. I doubt it is so high, but imagine 2% is probably right, though who knows whether it is the tip of the iceberg or the whole amount - I am certainly no art expert.

I have, however, spent many hours studying a work of art in as fine a detail as I can, the Google Art Project and some individual museums such as the National Portrait Gallery and the Guggenheim have outstanding high detail imagery. Some are not so high quality, it often depends on popularity and appeal. I found one image of the Girl with the Pearl Earring (Vermeer) at 70 megapixels, while the other one of his works I was interested in tonight, The Milkmaid, was only available up to 40 megapixels.

The Milkmaid - Johannes Vermeer (c. 1660)
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
(click above link to view there)

At first glance the picture is great, with no obvious areas of concern. That is, until one looks closer. A 12 megapixel (MP) image may seem massive, but it is not really. Most mobile (cell) phone cameras do around 10 megapixels (MP), and these are squished using compression into a .jpg file between 1 and 3 megabytes (MB). They can even be smaller, depending on how few colours and shades are in the picture.

Zooming in on a 12MP version, the bad quality and blocky pixellation hides all the flaws and blemishes. It is not until we get up to 40MP that the detail starts to be visible properly.

Now, I am not an artist. I can draw stick men, but they are not that good. I can, however, spot a bit of shit when I see it. Here are some slices of the painting - they are rather large images, but bear with me as it will be worth it!

So, here is the first image, a closeup of the centre of the picture, pouring the milk; taken from a 70MP version from Google Art Project - though they are now trying to claim cultural reign over all the world by calling it the "Google Cultural Institute" (shame no-one told the web designer as the page title is still Google Arts Project lol).

As you can see, without clicking it, it still looks fine. Let's enlarge it a bit ...

 Now, is it me, or is there something not quite right with this picture? Or maybe even several things not right with it? The original is 410 x 455 mm, or 16.14" x 17.9". That means this slice of the pic is around 220 mm wide. On my screen it is 180, yours may be bigger or smaller.

So, we have it at almost the size intended by the artist, and from that you can see that painting the detail would not have been easy. There are, however, some niggles for me. This painting has been edited! IMHO :¬)

What makes me say that? well, this does ...

1. Inaccurate brush strokes of a spastic
2. Missing colouring from the coverup in 4.
3. Not sure about this one, but would the jug not be the same colour inside as out? Maybe in the low light it was how Vermeer saw it.
4. Obvious cover-up, not even properly matched to the wall colour on the far-left (or right) of the image
5. I suspect this is even below the standard set for GCSE art.
6. Mistake? Looks like it, though it appears as if it may just be shadow painted by Vermeer, try turning your arm to look like that - your hand cannot maintain that position if you twist your arm to match.
7. Another dodgy blue bit
8. If this is the best Vermeer can do for an elbow, then he should have been shot
9. Ah! There's her elbow, so what was all that mess in 8. ?

So, firstly apologies for the size of that one!

I realise these may have been corrections to stance by Vermeer, but as everyone keeps banging on about "how he achieved such perfection", be it through mirrors, pin-hole lenses, camera obscura or whatever, that is still a load of old dodgy stuff!

And there are so many more that look a little like this, taken to extremes we have the Mad Bearded Monkey Man Christ picture created by an old lady in the Santuario de la Misericordia church in Borja, Spain   

I am not saying The Milkmaid is as bad as that, but hey, something dodgy has been done to it - or is it just me?

Dear Mr Putin

Dear Mr Putin,

Please stop this ridiculous invasion of Ukraine. You are in trouble at home, and as so many other politicians before you, you feel that invading another country will unite your countrymen behind you - and give you enough time to fix your home affairs.

You are going down the same path as Hitler. I have researched Ukraine's history and watched her growth since her independence, an independence that you describe as "not quite legal". Was it legal for you to invade her in her early years or during the Second World War? Was the Holodomor legal? Did they ask to be part of the Russian Empire or of the USSR? No, they did not, you forced yourselves upon them.

You have raped and murdered enough Ukrainians over the last 300 years; you have kept her your slave and prisoner, mistreated her, starved her, beaten her, and tried to keep her under your yoke. Get over it, she is free and you are a tyrannical narcissistic ego-maniac.

Get the fuck out, stay out, apologise, and learn some social responsibility you foolish man.

Russia is the most eastern country of Europe. Stop trying to make your own little kingdom, and come and join the rest of Europe in a truly European Union. Why do you reject us all so much? Why are you scared of getting involved in our affairs?

Think of it like this, if you DID join us, we would not need the US anywhere nearly as much, and they would be forced to get on with you. We would have a population so large it would be able to challenge China, the US, and ANY market in the world.

Your pointless and misdirected attempt to remain some "superpower" on your own is pathetic and causes shit for us all. NATO and the UN should already be there stopping your troops and getting you out - indeed, if I had a gun and was a little younger, I would be over there now making sure my cousins, nieces and nephews were not being killed by your stupid actions.

Take care that this is not something that you cannot reverse, we are seeing your true colours and there will be no leeway in future. Let us hope your own people overthrow you like they overthrew your puppet in Kiev.

Your puppet gets overthrown, you invade Ukraine - get out, you childish мудак!

I have relapsed ...

I used to be addicted to certain TV programs, well, I used to miss them when I could not watch them, and would watch 3 or 4 episodes at once to catch up - as soon as I possibly could. Sometimes that would mean working until 21:00 at the factory, then driving home for an hour, and finally settling in to watch the 3 or 4 programs I had missed. As you can imagine that left little time for sleep. Weekends were spent chatting or gaming online, or editing Wikipedia while catching up on the other 5 or 6 programmes I had missed.

Now, that may seem like wasted time - indeed if it were XFactor, Dancing with Muppets, or I'm a Twat Get Me Out of Here, I would agree. Unfortunately these were more interesting things, such as science documentaries, the Mars Rover landing live on NASA TV, Historical docs (indeed most docs), with a couple of progs like QI and NCIS for entertainment.

Since the back (well the arthritis) and subluxations took over my life, leading to a gradual loss of the freedoms most people enjoy and subsequently having to retire early, I found myself in a difficult place. Exercise became increasingly more difficult, walking became restrictive, and after I was unable to drive (due to loss of income) I was only left with my bicycle. That was great, because I could ride much further in the ten minutes my back allowed me to move, and riding used different muscles and position, which took strain off my back. Even struggling through things came to a stop as I deteriorated, and eventually I became unable to even ride my bicycle as the pins and needles from the subluxations got worse and worse. My back only went out once every two months, but the time between was getting less and less, and it was obvious that I could not carry on forcing myself to keep going through the pain as it was only leading to quicker deterioration. I ended up spending more and more time at the computer, and mainly laying down on the settee under painkillers so strong that even talking was problematic - apparently I "sounded like you're drunk", at 11 in the morning when I rang my team leader one time.

Laying down for two or three hours twice a day sounds great, and it sort of is for the first three months, especially as it stops the pain - but it was a difficult choice to choose that and lowered pain medication over losing control of one’s life by missing appointments, forgetting to do basic household tasks, and even melting a pan one day because I passed out while waiting for it to boil. So I did as much as I could, I had reduced my meds, lain down for a third of my waking hours to rest my back, which hurt more due to the meds reduction, and stopped stressful exercise. I still had to use my bike for going to meetings/appointments and emergencies like running out of electricity after 22:00, at which point it's either cycle four miles to get some, or wait until the next morning. Not so good when it's -3 degrees and you have electric storage heaters. If I wait until the morning, then that's 24 hours with no heat, as the radiators will be cold until midnight, when the economy7 kicks in and the heaters go on.

And so it was ok for a while. I laid down a lot, it's fucking boring after 20 mins, and I can't hold a book due to my shoulders, so I would just lay there until I was ok enough to try and sit at the pc again, or carry on doing the housework. And so that original time frame got expanded:

2 x 3or4 hrs. x 7 days =  40-50 hours a week spent laid down while awake.

Of course there are never enough documentaries on TV anyway, but definitely not enough to fill that amount of time. I started watching other shows. I would initially give them 2 episodes to see how they did, and then decide whether or not I would continue. My portfolio grew! Within a year I was watching, and had an invested interest in, at least 12 more shows. Suddenly my life was no longer a sponge for knowledge, but a sponge for socio-economic observations. Trends, hopes and wishes of fans, I started to pay much more interest in the links to shows, especially trendings through twitter & facefuck, as well as through fan forums on producers sites (NBC, CBS, BBC, ITV, A&E etc.), as I regard fan sites and MyFavProgWikis as both demeaning and, quite frankly, too anal.

I guess NCIS took hold most at first, I found myself trawling through earlier episodes to get a full list of Gibbs' rules to help a request on the forum, as well as making sure all the progs I was following were accurately portrayed on Wikipedia. It was a difficult time though; I had been spending a lot of time editing Wikipedia in the previous few years, and had made a nice little niche for myself doing things I loved on there for anything up to 7 or 8 hours a day. I was basically working there full-time, and did overtime whenever my back allowed. Having to reduce my time editing, copyediting, working on the robotics project, and looking after the 2000+ pages on my watchlist was a VERY difficult decision to make - I ended up with maybe 4 or 5 hours a week being the most I could manage, mainly after I made an important error on a very important copyedit when under my strong painkillers. 

Boredom sets in ...

 So, life became watching a lot of mainly American TV - NCIS, NCIS:LA, CSIs, The Simpsons (really? u need a link?), Family Guy, American Dad, the list goes on. At one point I had 72 programmes I was trying to watch, but British TV is so shit at continuity. One minute Kate was alive, then she was dead, then she was alive again, just like the 90s when Picard would reference something that had happened and it would happen three episodes later, or when you would watch the first part of a two-parter and have to wait up to as many as 6 episodes to see the second part - indeed sometimes it would never be shown as it had already been on but I had missed it. Showing things out of order because of slack in other areas, or keeping an exciting episode for a time when it wouldn't clash with a football match was a BBC, and indeed most of them in the end, classic cock-up.

Oh, the disappointment! So many shows cancelled, so many petitions to sign, so much hatred towards TV executives and writers ... people are so amusing. And then I thought "You know what, let's take this experiment a little further, get involved!". I started with a programme I was invested in already, NCIS. Gibbs. (Oh, sorry that was the answer to "Why?" that you were asking) If there is one character that I know would rescue Chuck Norris when the shit finally hits the fan and he gets in too deep, it's Gibbs (time would reveal another, but I will get on to that later).

I started by involving myself in the CBS forum, as I have mentioned previously. I made a couple of posts, looked around and then started to join in some of the ongoing shenanigans - some wordplay game and then the post came calling for us to try and assemble as many of Gibbs' rules as we could. Not an easy task I might add. They are few and far between, maybe one or two per season, and only mentioned in one line of dialogue. I got into it, watching old episodes, trying to find as many as I could. It was surprisingly fun.

So there I was, two years ago, losing all that. I couldn't watch TV as much, I had to stop editing Wikipedia, I couldn't cycle, my friends stopped visiting and involving me in events, I had no transport, I had lost my job, and I was spending hours laying down bored shitless, or watch TV. I realised that I had become so involved in my experiment that I had stopped experimenting and had just become part of it all. I started to get excited when programmes were coming around, and was even sad and disappointed when things got cancelled, their season ended, or went on hiatus mid-season (as a lot of American series do now).

Addiction sets in ...

In hindsight, I really should have known I was turning from experimenter to addict when I filled in the petition for Firefly to not be cancelled, or the other one I signed for FlashForward. I should have realised, when I started to watch hundreds of old documentaries, black & white films, and even got to the stage where I had watched so many films, I started to watch batches of speciality topics, Kurosawa, Eastwood, Stephen Chow, Film Noir, the list goes on. I even started to watch old TV series to fill in gaps, Star Trek (all), Smiley (and Le Carre in general), even The Goodies and Dad's Army.

TV is addictive, but I guess like an undercover policeman if you stay in it for too long you can end up finding it difficult to get out. It becomes part of your raison d'etre and the withdrawals are immense. I went to visit family three years ago, and was taken off-guard with swollen legs after flying. It was bad enough that I was cut off from TV for that time, and would not be able to watch much TV whilst there as it was the USA - all the programmes would be the latest episodes, and UK TV is usually six months behind. NCIS, Person of Interest (and John Reece, the only other person who could rescue Chuck Norris, as mentioned earlier), CSI, all would be out-of-sync. Not only that, but when I got back I was going to have to watch two and a bit weeks of catch up TV - and then I had to extend because my legs were still not right before flying again and risking them swelling again. Person of Interest was new, and was proving to be one of the best TV shows I had seen in the past ten years. I was gutted, and I also realised I was an addict.

So, I have admitted I am an addict, the next step is obvious. Enjoy It! My back is never going to get right, I have accepted I am somewhat disabled and adjusted accordingly, and so I did with my TV. I have it back to just watching, and I can go without it for weeks without it affecting me. I do get distracted from time to time, and this week has been one. I have broken my vows, lost my token, re-offended, relapsed, call it what you will.

This is not the same as when Michael Schumacher (get well soon) returned to F1. That was different, it was like a long-lost friend returning to the fold, and it made F1 worth watching again for a couple of years - as well as putting my decision on hold while I tried to decide who to take up the banner for (Button and TBA [either Raikkonnnnennn, Massa, or maybe Grosjean) - and there is just ONE thing to blame:

Relapse!

24 ... Jack Ryan is Back! Bastard! All those feelings came flooding back when it was announced a few months ago, I got excited when everything had started with the production process, and began to feel a growing sense of joy as the weeks counted down. I was beside myself when the preview was announced, and couldn't wait to watch it on YouTube! Now, I should mention that my TV broke just before Christmas, and I have had to watch everything on my PC. Reduced because of the breaks to lie down due to my back, or stand up every 40 mins to stop my legs swelling up.

"I can watch VirginAnywhere, all the TV channels of my package online - 24, on my PC, simulcast with the US @01:00 BST ! EXCELLENT!" I said to myself ...

DISASTER! Virgin don’t have Sky1 on the package anymore (if they ever did) ! NOOOOOOOOOO! I am desperate to watch the first 2 episodes and then the preview (I don't want any spoilers!). I am disappointed, angry, hurt, a bit lost, sad, an empty feeling inside, feel like I am missing out on something, mind racing on how I can get to watch it ...

I am a relapsed addict without even getting my fix (of 24) - just the thought of it was enough. How bizarre is that!

As Titch would say, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

With only a few days before the start of this year’s F1 season (Australia 14 March), I am amazed at how car development has progressed.

This year’s changes are so radical compared to previous years, it will be a totally different kettle of rabbits (I know, but how different are rabbits to fish?).

* 8 speed gearbox
* brake and throttle by wire
* V8s -> V6 turbos
* 33% less fuel allowed (now limited to 100kg)
* ERS -> 250% of the last few seasons - from 60kw (max 6.7 sec) to 150kw (max 30 secs)
* Two electric motors, the second is to facilitate heat recovery from the turbo (the first is part of the ERS) and can be applied simultaneously, or directed to be stored in the battery-pack
* single exhaust exiting over the gearbox - no more blown diffusers (Yaaaaay! Red Bull won't like that lol)
* front lowered to prevent driver->car-nose impact (dildo/vacuum-cleaner/U.G.L.Y. noses are attracting attention from some, though Timothy Peter Kimberlin mistakenly claimed it was applied to the whole car "they [the cars] look like dildos")
* 5 second penalties for minor offences (this one is my personal fav)

And lastly, and by no means leastly, the fucking stupid rule about double points in the last race ... Bernie must have been on something that day.

I am also disappointed that Brazil has lost its "last race of the season" status. Brazil was such a nervous time for everyone - rain, crashes, heat, a technically difficult track - which always produced such dramatic season finales over the years, it is a shame that Abu Dhabi is now last.

All in all it is going to be great. I suspect that most races will see at least half the pack drop out with some problem or another during the first four or five races, as there is so little testing that these races will be about endurance testing teams have not been able to do on a completed car. Red Bull have already tried to bring mind games in by only finishing 18 laps during testing, while Mercedes look like their car could go to the moon and back.

My dilemma is who to support. I used to be a Fittipaldi fan until I watched Senna. Michael R. Schumacher driving at Monaco in his first race turned my head inside out and his rainmeister driving had me excited anytime the presenters said "looks like a spot of rain". When he had his 3 year hiatus I felt empty inside watching races, but I would cheer on anyone who looked like they would take out Lewis Hamilton (usually he did that himself tho lol). I guess Button. The cars have changed so much I don't believe any one driver in the current field can make me feel the way Fittipaldi Senna and Schumi did. They drove when cars needed a good driver to make them snap into shape, and watching them always got me excited. Any one of them could take a mediocre car from the middle of the grid and make it act like it was the best car in the race.

And then there is which car/team to support. I do not believe in supporting a team, normally. The only exclusion to this rule was Brawn GP. Ross Brawn made an amazing step in taking that massive risk to run a team, and the car was brilliant. It was like the old days had come back again, and they won!

I suspect I will hear myself shouting these phrases at the TV this year:

Come on Jenson! Go Button! … That’s it Kimi, go for it! ... Maybe I’ll even spare a little bit of love for Lotus, though it is the wrong Lotus I think? (not sure due to the fighting between them all over the team name, and I doubt any of them deserve it!)