What's the point?

Again? Seriously?

Often when people discuss terrorism, especially western governments, they'll say its a waste of time; terrorism doesn't work. Is that a lie though?

I'm usually fairly sympathetic to the things that make terrorists do what they do. These people (normally) aren't psychopaths, they do have some strange moral code, but they don't do what they do and think it's wrong. Terrorists often believe they are doing something right, but I don't think you can make any sort of serious argument that killing someone or some group of people is actually a right thing to do.

It might not be right to kill people, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

Every time terrorists have achieved something or influenced change it has been with political or public help. The Irish Republican Army were only successful in that there was a public will for an independent Ireland. The provisional Irish Republican Army were only successful in encouraging change in that there was public dissatisfaction with the British presence in the six counties, not universal, but some public dissatisfaction which in turn creates a political will.

Nelson Mandela, who was a terrorist by any modern definition, was successful because of the public dissatisfaction which existed and the political will he created.

The latest dissident republican attacks probably won't work. I don't think there is a public appetite in Northern Ireland for more bloodshed - from either side of the divide. There is certainly no political will to support these attacks. At best they'll achieve nothing (and hopefully no one else will be killed) and at worst they'll ruin all the progress that has been made.

What is the point?

Shagger got fucked up.

Allan McGregor got in a fight, eh?

McGregor as we all know is a huge character over at Ibrox, the fans love him and he's often a target of abuse from rival fans - probably because he's actually a decent 'keeper. I used to not care about McGregor either way until his Scotland shambles. I don't really have much time for him now. Here though, I must come out in his defence. Maybe I actually think more of him after hearing this story, until we get more detail anyway.

There's not much to go on for detail other than the story in the record. However, unless he actually started whatever "incident" he was in this time he should be lauded for being out on that fateful Saturday night. There's much more we don't know here than we actually do know about the situation surrounding the incident; he was alone, he got X-rays to check for fractured eye sockets and cheekbones and Walter Smith is angry are about the limits of our knowledge on this one.

But wait, we also know he was at a party for a Celtic player. The Record's Rangers source has said: "Walter Smith was not happy. He is incredulous that any Rangers player, let alone one with Allan McGregor's reputation, would present themselves at a party for a Celtic player, with all the potential for chaos that involves."

I will take for granted that McGregor was attacked without provocation. Wouldn't the Rangers manager be better taking an approach along the lines of "It saddens me that my player can't go to a party without being attacked, either because he attended a party for a player from our local rivals or because he attended a party for an ROI under-21 international"

In the event the incident was nothing to do with the party, we should at least take the opportunity to show to that section of narrow minded Old Firm fans they are out of touch. It's always been the case that Old Firm players have had some sort of off the park friendships, but here we have one of Ibrox's favourite sons attending a party for the other half.

I want to ask Watty, why does it matter that he presented himself at a party for a Celtic player and not just for a friend?

Your kingdom for a share.

It looks like the Tories are offering to sell you a cheap share in return for your vote. It seems like a good plan. When they get sold back to the open market you should have an option to get some cheap, they are your shares after all.

I make no secret of my anti-Conservative politics. I'm not a mad socialist or anything like that, but out of the major parties they are my least favourite. I actually think there is room for the free market in the same society as the welfare state. I like the basic ideas of capitalism, akin to how I like the basic ideas of universal health care and other social welfare solutions.

But back on topic. When I heard about the share plan I thought "that's a really good idea" and I got worried. I don't want a Tory government and this seems like it might help them get there. Then I thought about it, and I realised just what kind of topsy turvy Robin Hood they're playing at here.

Only Plato and Hume really get away with dialogue format, but I'm going to give it a bash;

Tory Government(TG): Hey public, want some cheap shares?!

General Public(GP): Well yeah, who wouldn't??

TG: I'll tell you who wouldn't, Labour and the Lib Dems...

GP: But if we vote for you we'll get cheap shares?

TG: Hell yeah. It'll be like when we sold off British Gas and BT.

GP: Cool... wait... the government already own a load of bank shares, right?

TG: Well, yeah. We're gonna sell them to you and give you a discount :)

GP: But you would represent me and everyone else as the government, yeah?

TG: We will, when you vote us in. Then it's share-a-palooza, baby!

GP: So, (we) the government bought the shares with (our) tax money, yeah?

TG: Yeah, those stinky Labour folk wasted your money on them...

GP: So you used MY money to buy them... and now you think you're doing ME a FAVOUR by letting me use MORE OF MY MONEY to buy them back when I de facto OWN THAT SHIT ALREADY?!

TG: Well, when you put it like that...

Let all go vote Conservative!