If you are going to live in Italy get used to having to put your picture and a "marca da bollo" on any and every scrap of paper, and you will need lots of these, also get used to carrying ID all the time, it's compulsory and you can be taken to the police station if you can't produce ID and kept there for 48 hours or until someone comes to witness for you and present your documents.

To this end, he is an incorrigible tinkerer. .... Take his recent Shirley Bassey-sampling single, Diamonds From Sierra Leone. It started life as simply Diamonds, a chest-puffing anthem....
But then Q-Tip.... alerted West to the issues surrounding conflict diamonds. Having boned up on the subject, West promptly changed the title and themed the video accordingly but it was too late to alter the lyrics. The result is a curious compromise, a protest song in name only[...].

Diamonds has been a headache for its maker, too. Negative reactions from West's core fanbase stung him into dropping four of the album's more outre songs, including one that features John Mayer and a harpsichord, and replacing them with more conventional hip-hop tracks. Never one to understate his case, he proclaims on the crunching, martial Crack Music: "This is black music, nigga!"

"All this is saying is, OK I see now, the 'hood does not quite want Shirley Bassey yet, so let me still give them this. Crack Music was made after Diamonds. After black people were like, 'I don't know about this one.' It was like me reaching too high for the cookie jar." [...]

Oh, my aching sides! Artistic integrity at it's most hiphopcritical.

Similarly, see the genuine concern of Universal Records as a marketable asset goes a-wandering on the eve of an album release...

A Universal spokeswoman said: "She should be overjoyed with the album's chart position, but she has now returned to America and is proving impossible to track down.

"Anxious record company bosses and her management company have been trying to contact her for nearly a week to no avail. She has simply disappeared."

The company said it had gone "to great lengths to protect Madeleine from burn-out through too much promotional work".

"But it would seem that despite these efforts Ms Peyroux has had enough," said the spokeswoman.

"She is that rare thing, an artist more interested in her music than in the glitz and glamour of showbusiness."

Procurement launched amid fresh criticism
Sarah Arnott, Computing 17 Aug 2005

The government has taken the first steps in the technology procurement
for its national biometric identity cards programme.

But experts are already questioning the maturity of the biometric
systems at the heart of the proposals.

The legislation required for the scheme is not yet law, but the Home
Office last week issued the first notice alerting potential suppliers,
to ensure the procurement can start as soon as the bill is passed.

The formal tender will include the creation of a national identity
register, biometric technology, and the production and distribution of
cards.

The scheme will create a gold standard of identification to help fight
fraud, terrorism and illegal immigration, according to the government.

But biometric technology is not accurate enough to support such a claim,
says Neil Fisher, director of security solutions at defence technology
supplier QinetiQ.

'Telecoms systems are judged on an availability of 99.999 per cent, but
even that level of accuracy of biometrics, across the whole population,
would mean 6,000 people in the country being mistaken, and no biometric
technology is anywhere close to that reliable yet,' Fisher told
Computing.

'Unless there is a strategy to overcome that lack of accuracy, the
system will be flawed as soon as it starts,' he added.

Plans to include multiple biometrics - two eyes, 10 fingers and one face
- offer some improvement, but checking all 13 will be a long and
expensive process, says Graham Titterington, principal analyst at Ovum.

And the belief that biometrics mean no one will be able to register
twice is incorrect.

'At the moment, the whole reliability of biometrics is up in the air.
There have been lots of studies done with very different results,' said
Titterington.

'The government needs a dose of reality because its trust in the system
is unfounded and doesn't match up with experience.

'The plan is working on the assumption that, by the time it is live, the
technology will have come on in leaps and bounds. But that is not a
reasonable basis from which to start.' [...]

http://www.vnunet.com/computing/news/2141259/biometric-flaws-mar-start-id

EPA

WHAT makes a suicide-bomber? Long before the attacks that killed 52 people in London on July 7th, Britain’s security services had a clear pattern (they have patterns that are anything else but clear?) in their minds. A man who may drink beer, play football, chase girls and lead a life that is indistinguishable from those of most other young Britons starts looking around for something less ordinary. At that point, he comes under the influence of a charismatic imam (what is a 'charismatic' imam?), who rails (they dont rail, they preach) against the ill-treatment of Muslims around the world and suggests a straightforward (how is suicide straightforward?) route to self-fulfilment. He may eventually board a plane to Israel or a train to London, with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible.

Trying to prevent rebellious (mischaracterises suicide bombers as being motivated by a naughty teenage motivation trivializes suicide bombers and their motivations) impulses from taking hold is a difficult thing for a parent to do, let alone a government. So Britain’s Labour government is looking instead at clamping down on (stopping) the people who inspire terrorists. Many of these people, it thinks, are foreign-born, and therefore the state ought to be able to deal with them, without the liberties that British citizens enjoy getting in the way. That was the impulse (use a synonym since you used it earlier) behind a plan launched by Charles Clarke, the home secretary (interior minister), to define what counts as unacceptable behaviour by Muslims in Britain. It was also behind the 12-point plan that Tony Blair, the prime minister, announced on August 5th, while Mr Clarke was on holiday, before he too headed for the beach. (went on holiday)

Mr Blair’s agenda is wide-ranging and vague. It includes speeding up the deportation of foreign-born radicals,(dishonest use of english: 'people who speak against the government' or 'dissenting voices') extending a proposed ban on glorifying terrorism to cover people who justify or glorify terrorism anywhere in the world, holding pre-trial hearings to allow sensitive (dishonest use of english, should use 'secret') evidence to be admitted (these have already been dubbed “secret courts”), banning some Islamist (religious bias. use 'political' then question why BNP faces no sanctions) organisations from Britain, and closing troublesome (dishonest english; infers speech is dangerous. delete word) places of worship.

That was more than enough to frighten libertarians. “Just having undergraduate debates about whether it is ever right to take up arms could get you into this,” reckons Shami Chakrabati, director of Liberty, a pressure group (dishonest use of english. 'Pressure group' infers that Liberty is on the outside of society putting pressure on HMG, when in fact, they are a 'lobby group' or 'lobby' just like any other). But then the attorney-general raised the temperature (inflamatory language. revise) further, by letting it be known that radical (delete) imams might be charged with treason, an ancient crime in English law that dates back to an era when having sex with the king’s consort was a capital offence.

Part of this is politicking. “Everything the prime minister said will go down well in Conservative associations,” notes Edward Garnier, the shadow home affairs minister with the main opposition Conservative Party. The treason idea was quickly scotched (dropped), though not before it had inspired some headlines.

But Mr Blair’s insistence that “the rules of the game are changing”, plus a nagging suspicion that Britain’s legal system might be less well equipped to deal with Islamic extremism (dishonest use of english; you mean 'free speech') than those of other European countries, has left the government looking for ways to make Britain a bit more like France (innapropriate ambush humor). The French have both experience of Islamic extremism and a reputation for toughness—they have long been exasperated by what they see as excessive tolerance of radical Islam in Britain. The French government has promised a new anti-terrorism law by the end of this month, designed to strengthen the hardline approach it has adopted in recent years (see article).

According to Mr Blair, the first step towards a tougher approach in Britain is to find a way around (use honest english: 'a way to nullify' or 'a way to cancel') the 1998 Human Rights Act. That’s (informal contraction. delete) odd, because the other members of the Council of Europe are also bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (which British civil servants played a big part in drafting). Though Mr Blair says that Article 3, which prohibits torture, makes it difficult to deport undesirables (use honest english. you will be deporting PEOPLE not 'UNDESIREABLES' the latter is a prejorative and introduces bias into the article.) to countries where their toenails might be pulled out, (torture) this has not prevented other signatories to the convention from doing so. So what is Britain’s problem? (flippant. 'So what is preventing Britian from implimenting these measures')

First, though the convention is the same everywhere, Britain’s adversarial legal system means that it works differently there. Defendants typically have the right to appeal at several stages of the legal process. That makes appeals against extradition protracted and expensive. In 2001, it took an average of eight months to extradite someone to Britain, but 18 months to send someone the other way. Contested hearings cost around £125,000 ($223,000). An attempt two years ago to streamline the process has not altered its fundamentally fractious nature. In France, by contrast, deporting suspects to countries with patchy human-rights records causes little fuss (is easy). Rights of appeal are more restricted and deportees may not be able to appeal until after they have left the country, by which time it might be too late. “Often you send a fellow back to Algeria and that’s the last you hear of him,” says Clive Walker, who studies terrorism laws at Leeds University.

Second, Britain has a long tradition of sheltering firebrands, (use plain english. this is a 'free speech' issue and nothing more) which is reflected in the law. Victorian London was an excellent place for foreign radicals to set up shop—whether they were scholarly types like Karl Marx, who plotted the overthrow of capitalism from the reading room of the British Museum, or militants like Johann Most, a German anarchist who was allowed to wander the streets despite penning a guide called “The Science of Revolutionary Warfare”. Ancient laws on free speech, a light touch from the censor and a lack of legal distinctions between citizens and non-citizens have appealed to African National Congress supporters and Islamist radicals (when 'The Caliphate' is established, no doubt this language will change to 'supporters of Islam'? This is how 'African National Congress radicals' turns into 'ANC supporters'. 'Radicals' is a loaded word and should be used only in the context of criticising its use in speech or writing, and never to describe people who merely excersise their right to free speech.) alike. If the government really wanted (wants) to overturn this tradition, it would need extensive legislation.

A more straightforward (another) option is to get agreements from foreign countries not to harm anyone who is extradited from Britain. It already has one such agreement with Jordan, and is seeking similar undertakings from nine other countries. On August 11th, police arrested ten foreign nationals in south-east England and the Midlands, with a view to deporting them. It will provide the first test of how judges respond to Mr Blair’s hectoring. (??? use simple english)

None of this helps much where the culprits ('culprits'? does this refer to people excersising their right to free speech? Or maybe The Economist thinks that free speech is only for journalists? These people can in no way be described as 'culprits'. They are 'defendants' at the very least and, 'victims' depending on who is doing the talking.) are British-born, however. For them, the government proposes to use more control orders—a new legal device that deprives people of some liberties without actually locking them up. Mr Blair also said that the government would look at stripping naturalised Brits of their citizenship if they support terrorists. In practice that is difficult: unless someone has dual nationality, revoking their citizenship means making them stateless.

Some have suggested that the flurry of announcements, coupled with a lack of detail on how they might work, is really aimed at scaring the firebrands away (doshonest use of english; this really means 'supressing free speech'). If so, it might be working. Omar Bakri Mohammed, a Syrian-born imam who could be caught out by the new laws, recently left Britain to visit his mother. He told reporters he would be coming back (not to foment terror (this is a libel. he has never 'fomented terror'), but to have a heart operation on the state-run National Health Service). On August 12th, however—following Mr Mohammed's brief detention by the Lebanese authorities—the British government said that he would be barred from returning as his presence was not “conducive to the public good”.

American newspapers and the international news agency Reuters today reported that the university was planning a new research project entitled "origins of life in the universe" in a move which propelled the university into the conflict over the teaching of creationism in schools.
[...]

"This is ... a stunning admission that the current theories do not explain [the origin of life], and [have] not refuted the idea that things are the product of intelligent cause," John West, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a thinktank that backs intelligent design theory, told Reuters.
[...]

Well, I wouldn't go that far, John. Most scientists already know the origins of life are unknown, which is why this study might help more than simply saying 'Well, we reckon pixies did it. And fossils are just there to fuck with our heads.'

Some other views...

[...]But the university's bias against a God-created world is already showing. Harvard has announced it is assembling a team of researchers, with a budget of $1 million a year, to investigate the origins of life. News reports say the project begins with an admission that some mysteries about life's origins cannot be explained. Still, Harvard chemistry professor David Liu is quoted by Associated Press as saying he expects the research team "will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

Actually, they are; dinosaurs are mentioned 25 times in the Old Testament. The reason the actual word dinosaur doesn’t appear in the Bible is simple: it did not exist when the Bible was written. The first complete English translation of the Bible appeared in 1380. The word dinosaur is a relatively new word coined by the English anatomist, Richard Owen in 1841, well over 500 years after the Bible had already been translated from Hebrew.

However, the Hebrew word meaning “great lizard” is found throughout the Old Testament, including the creation account.
[...]

Brought to you by the Museum of Earth History, Arkansas.

Which brings us to thee great bandwagon-jumper, George Monbiot.
There's no point reading what he says. But let's anyway...

He points out that: "As G Thomas Sharp, chairman of the Creation Truth Foundation, admitted to the Chicago Tribune, "if we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period"."

Because... It is important to many creationists that man and dinosaur lived simultaneously because they believe there was no death in the world until Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden. If the Genesis story is false, they say, then there would be no need for Jesus Christ to redeem the sins of the world. Thus, at the Museum of Earth History, Genesis dictates gentle, vegetarian dinosaurs sharing Eden with Adam and Eve [...]

(In passing, CTF says ...

The West has become Pagan!
It is now a matter of historical record that Western thought and culture has come under the total domination of a “scientific” based mind-set called evolutionary materialism. In his recent book The New Paganism, Dr. Harold Linsell said that, for the most part, American thought and life is no longer influenced by the Hebrew-Christian ethic.

[...] Wow! If only it were true. Anyway...)

So George concludes... "It seems to me that we are the happy ones. We, alone among organisms, who perceive eternity, and know that the world will carry on without us."