My Little World10

ok this probably will have real spoilers for the new harry potter book - you've had 2 days, get a move on

so what did i think? i thought it was good, the thing about harry potter is its more about the journey than the end, once you get to the end you don't want to have finished - same as any good book really

i think we all knew what was coming - we knew harry would face voldemort and win in the end - the question was whether he died himself, i didn't think he would despite rowlings hinting she saw a purpose in doing it and true enough he didn't, it was that gleam of triumph in dumbledore's eyes in the fourth book that she admitted was important that saved him - he was killed, but he couldn't be killed by voldemort so he didn't die - handy eh?

i was expecting more from the snape aspect, but i thought it came out the best way possible - i think everybody knew that snape was a good guy and while we expected a big showdown none came, because we all really knew where his loyalties lied - the theory that he had a thing for harry's mother had been kicking around for years and it was true, so snape isn't really in the book apart from when he gets killed by voldemort - although he cut off george's ear, which you could tell was aimed to be non-fatal (or at a death eater as it turned out)  - i loved the tie in that the more astute readers understood in the 5/6th books - about the boy telling lily about dementors, despite the fact that james didn't get on with her til they had nearly finished school - it was snape, just proving the long held theory - i wouldve struggled not to smile if i was rowling hearing those theories several books before the end

i can't really imagine alan rickman as snape in the last film, he's not evil in it, he's more human - such a big change in character, simply because it's viewed from a different perspective - i think the film is going to be hard work for him

a lot of the book's plot revolves around dumbledore's past and these strange deathly hallows, which i thought was refreshing considering the theories around the title - much better than the horcruxes, and it tied in the invisibility cloak and everything - i really did like the way the whole series fitted in (something which ive found lost doesn't do - how can it)

i did think some of it was a bit forced, as i mentioned yesterday a bit episodic and the whole 'oh let's go here' and they get lucky, felt a bit contrite to me - the malfoy manor or gringotts bit for example - but overall i still think it was worth the read

some scenes are better than others, the final battle is pretty cool, hopefully they will do a good job on that in the film - although i didn't think much of the scenes in the latest one (5th), hogwarts getting totally trashed seemed right somehow

it is a little confusing with all this talk of ultra powerful wands and the deathly hallows, along with hiding from death and horcruxes etc, but then i'd rather it went that way than they just went off and found horcruxes - also i liked how we find out the RAB bit (cliffhanger in book 6) pretty soon in, everyone knew who it was and the eventual saving of muggle borns from umbridge is quite endearing, as is the kreacher turning good aspect it's not explained how he ended up back in hogwarts but what the hell

there weren't really any twists - i think the time had passed for twists, it was more of a puzzle as you go through the book trying to understand what it all means, dumbledore deliberately slowing them down to prevent reckless action, (although his foresight did seem to be somewhat excessive) so that harry would be in the right frame of mind at the end  

so yes there were no twists snape was told by dumbledore to set up the ambush when harry left, which was a bit of a let down really - im not sure if it was my imagination that made me suspect people or her style of writing, either way my theory about lupin or bill was very wrong

however i was quite sure lupin would be dying, and as soon as i heard lupin ask harry to be godfather to his baby you know what's going to happen - this is actually where i fully believed harry wouldn't die at the end, he would end up being the kid's godfather like sirius was to him after his parents died, a shame about tonks, but lupin i felt was destined to die, so he could be with his fallen friends and end his painful life - tonks living on through her son i guess

who else did i think would die? one of the weasleys i was sure of, i didn't think ron or ginny, and my first guess was a twin or bill - why bill? i don't know, unless percy did something noble at the minstry rather than reconciling at the end i didn't think it would be him, charlie is barely even seen so bill or a twin seemed about right - a twin because there's two of them was my reasoning i guess and it turned out fred died - harsh, rowling certainly didn't mollycoddle her audience in this one, and i am a bit annoyed about his death because it would be nice to see what happened to george and their joke shop, doesn't seem right that there's just one of them now - need closure dammit!

hedwig's death was pretty cruel, i think it was used to show that this book wasn't going to hold back - she killed a close companion very early, even if it was just an owl, (i do have a strong affinity for pets though) - i also see a bit of symbolism, harry had left the dursleys forever and hedwig had been his friend at the dursleys, and hogwarts, both of which he wouldn't be going back to - seems apt, although very harsh - couldve just let her fly off if she wasn't in the story

i felt the hardest pang at dobby's death - don't know why, just seemed so unnecessary - he was totally innocent and happy and got cut down, harsh, he died a heroes death though which is always some comfort

who else died? mad-eye, which was a knock on the feeling of security which was totally absent from the book (i applaud rowling for that) - i half expected him to reappear, when there was a bloke in diagon alley with a bandage over one eye i thought that had to be him - alas rowling stopped with her sneaky clues in this book, we have got wise

i think that's it actually, colin creevey died at the end too - another lamb to the slaughter, she certainly doesnt hold back does she lol

snape died, naturally - that was written years ago in foot high letters, but for the good guys that's about it - i was glad hagrid didn't die, and all the teachers survived

rowling said she killed off two extra characters and gave one a reprieve in an interview - who are these people? presumably working out who got added is slightly easier - it depends when she made the changes, i felt lupin was always going to die, and by extention tonks, as they had to orphan the boy, dobby's death is pretty integral to the story so i'd say his death was planned, so that leaves hedwig fred or mad-eye essentially, unless she's talking about minor good guys like ted tonks - i'd say hedwig was an addition, it's not dwelled on much, and perhaps fred as this is barely mentioned as it happens at the end - but then i always knew a weasley would have to die, and it was responsible for mrs weasleys response, and likewise mad-eye's death was integral at a lower level, although i can see the part about his defences on grimmauld place and the magical eye being tacked in - who knows i hope she says in the future

as for who got let off? could be anyone i suppose, she wrote the epilogue years ago and that had the main three, ginny and malfoy, oh and neville (that was highly obvious) in so it could really be anyone but those six - hagrid? a teacher? mrs weasley? - i doubt her actually, you kill her it's like killing a whole family in one go, maybe that's why she changed it - i want to know! i hope she does explain one day, i doubt she'll do it soon though 

so what about that epilogue? nineteen years later - very corny, happy ending all round which brings up a strange feeling, it shows harry and ginny with their young family and likewise ron and hermy, we knew they survived at the end so why do it? - it was very hard imagining them as 36 year olds, i hardly think of myself as an adult even though im in my twenties, and as she didn't describe their appearances in the future it's a weird feeling (although at 17/18 they wouldve been adult size anyway but you get what i mean - or not)

it's nice to know everything turned out well, although i wouldve preferred more detail about weasleys, (worried about george - even though i hate their film portrayal), it just leaves this kind of empty feeling in you, yay everybodys happy now but you are hungry for more - it's open ended but it's not if you get what i mean, could have a sequel, but unlikely (clever trap)  -either way it's an interesting way to end, even if it was corny

yes it is finally in my grubby little mitts - the last potter book, the one i long to read but don't want to finish, if you get what i mean - spoilers! don't say i haven't warned you if you've stumbled in here (they are mild though)

i have only read 400 odd pages so far so i have no idea if he dies or not - this is hardly a spoiler, he was hardly likely to die much before the end was he?

it's good, very good - very very different from the other books, harry isn't a boy any more, i saw all these pics of round faced little boys with glasses on - he ain't that any more

i wouldn't say it's 'dark' per se - there's a lot of death and the main feeling is fear running through the whole story, especially at the beginning, i was pretty shocked by the whole affair for the first few hundred pages (i actually shuddered - although it may have been hunger) before it got a bit more comfortable, not upset but it was kind of strange because there was this ever looming threat - i see now why she had to kill dumbledore, removing him really exposes the good guys and means that no-one is safe

there are also links to the previous books, running back right to the first - small snippets of info in them which crop up constantly - i'm impressed by how the whole plot starts to fit together quite nicely - answering a few questions as the books goes 

i admit there has been a bit of 'here and there' - constantly going to different places, throwing in the next crucial part of the plot by pure luck on the characters part, not that this hasn't been in the other books but considering this one isn't set in hogwarts they travel around a lot and just happen to get lucky, although not always but it does seem a bit disjointed to coin a phrase i used in appraising the latest film, there's also a lot of content, throwing in everything from different races to ministry workers etc which crams it in a bit 

however i am enjoying it, one of the best i think and i still have no clue where the story is going which is always good - currently i am suspecting bill and lupin as traitors for some reason, although i think they might be red herrings - or im just paranoid thanks to 6 books worth of the stuff 

ive already gone way past the 2 deaths figure so i have no idea if any more will die, it seems harsh to kill off major characters right at the end because previously the characters like cedric, sirius, dumbledore had the next book to be mourned, if they die at the end of this then that's it, bye bye, so i hope nothing too major occurs - obviously we know good will triumph (id laugh if it didn't though) - personally im thinking more bad guys need to start dying about now

yes once again i have ben trawling the internet to become enraged about american ignorance once again

guess what it is this time! - bad teeth, i noticed this in the simpsons years ago (the big book of british smiles) and having been looking over forums where americans post insane facts about my country which they presumably just made up, i saw one mention our bad teeth

so i delved a little deeper and found an online 'debate'

it is enjoyable seeing fellow Brits ripping it out of yanks - why there are yanks on a british newspaper site i don't know but basically a lot of yanks have said us Brits all have terrible teeth (in their experience apparently) - they mostly claim it's unhygienic and that we roll around in our own filth, the british counter argument is that yanks are all obese, ignorant of everything beyond their own borders and obsessed with the perfect image

i believe it boils down to mentality - the americans seem to have cared for their perfect white teeth since the early 20th century, we however were flattened by the war and were in a pretty bad way until the 80s, dental health care not really being a priority for the many workers on strike throughout the 70s

however as technology has improved and dental care grown since we introduced public health services after the war (ironically dental care is now impossible to get for free) the majority of us young 'uns have had braces and electric toothbrushes - my teeth are pretty straight, not flawless but perfectly acceptable and they aren't pure white, but aren't rotten either (teeth arent naturally white you know) - so the best way for me to find out would be too check if a few americans thought i have bad teeth, unfortunately (well, fortunately really) they don't leave their own shores much so i will have to check this out when i go there

so the stereotype refers to the older generations - plus 40 i'd say, who often do have bad teeth - a result of our having to suffer through a rather large war, and the fact that americans are ridiculously vain about their teeth - needing them 'hollywood' straight and white 

so does the stereotype stand? - sort of, id never really appreciated that most older people do have bad teeth, as all the people my age don't - so it's a bit of a dead stereotype now, however if yanks decide that my teeth are bad then they remain conceited little shits

i leave you with this piece of hilarity from james in washington dc  

"As an American-born resident of London, I hold the steretype is based on fact. Brits have terrible teeth! As a few have pointed out, Americans are obese. As a whole, we are also more wasteful and harder workers than the Britsih [British?]" - i don't know where he's got that idea from, perhaps the lack of public holidays - yanks have 11 'federal' holidays, we have 8 bank holidays - apparently yanks don't like taking holidays off but that's their problem, we aint stupid, and i'm fairly certain productivity levels in Britain are one of the highest in the west, americans lag behind us and the germans i'm sure - altho i doubt the lazy spaniards can be beaten with their constant napping...

"There may be a serious weight problem in the US, it does not, however, negate the essential helath benefits connected with regular dental hygene and dentist appointments. Despite the absurd claims of Brits being unconcerned with appearances (the short skirts, bleached hair, and orange spray-on tans up and down Oxford Circus beg to differ), Americans are encouraged to care for their teeth for non-cosmetic reasons. Admittedly as a result, straight white teeth is now the norm and thus, perhaps vainly, expected of the population at large, but looking more attractive is a small "price to pay" to a few more years without dentures. The obesity argument, besides being entirely off topic, is not a particularly strong one either. Twenty minutes in the dentist chair twice a year and 2 minute sof brushing a day is an easy way to improve your health and appearance. While not particularly positive, the amount of work necessary for the average American fatty to get physically fit would be far more intensive. The question then, for the purposes of THIS discussion, is "Why won't the Brits invest 40 minutes per annum and 2 minutes a day to look and feel better and live longer (not flossing regularly has been linked ot heart disease, gum disease leads to high blood pressure)?"

- as i have just pointed out dental care is now much better here, has been for at least 20 years, healthy teeth are now the norm and so your argument is not only retarded but ignorant and bigoted, so we now have great teeth with which to bite the heads of young american girls off but you are still obese?? perhaps you should listen to your own advice...but it's harder to lose weight so thats unfair...i would like to hit this yank, and many others i'm sure

lalala rant over 

yes once again i have been idiotic enough to watch the bloody harry potter movie, why i do this i don't know but i figure each time is a new director and even more to point out errors, well not strictly errors but annoying changes

i can't resist watching them i guess, i shouldn't really contribute to the money it makes but damn it i'm curious, plus i'd just read the book so had it in my head already (in prep for the book, not this pile of wank)

the differences between this film and the book are vast, so i'm not going to go into them - likewise there are many things that just don't look right to me, whether it be characters, places or events and i'll probably just sound like a broken record - this is the problem of converting books to films and i have to accept it's never going to look like my imagination - though i doubt the 'order of the phoenix' looked like that in anyone's imagination

so purely looking from a film critic point of view this was still shite - the film felt rushed and disjointed, it's hard for me to look away from the book but the events are barely in order and there are so many gaps that it struggles to make much sense - why take so much out when it's just pretty much changing the whole plot? - i'm being anal i know but i really don't think any fan of the book can appreciate this...pause  

back - what was i going on about? oh yeah - well i'm struggling to get my annoyance out withou referring to book points

Dumbledore - has always annoyed me in the films, Gambon is far too agressive and doesn't portray the power of the character that you get in the books, Gambon is a good actor but i don't think there are many actors who could portray him well - he is basically a god like figure and much of it comes from description in the book etc and while Gambon probably does it his way to make a good performance it's not comparable to the book

most of the characters appearances look wrong to me, but then that would involve finding appropriate looking actors, rather than just good actors which i can live with

i think the whole film hinges on umbridge, it's basically the central focus of the story, and the book uses a variety of plots, something which is hard to put in a film - my view of the film is that it's about umbridge taking over the school and the resistance against it (the da), with a fairly unlinked fight scene at the end, which is hardly epic

it's not an awful film, ive seen much worse but if you like the books then i wouldn't bother watching this, it doesn't 'ruin' the book but is so far away from it that you need to consider it as a film rather than a book made into a film 

new harry potter book and the speculation is killing me - bookies just slashed odds on harry dying, i don't want to know the end so im just going to have to buy the bloody thing on the 21st which is next saturday to avoid spoilers

so what is a 'deathly hallow'? or even a hallow - most uses refer to holiness, hallows can be relics in religion or making something holy etc and that's all ive ever heard in reference to them - but i found this on wiki which makes a bit more sense:

"The word "hallows" has been used in legends to represent important and powerful objects. The Tuatha de Danaan in Ireland possessed six hallows"

"...As the legend evolved through the centuries, these hallows became the Four Treasures or Hallows of Ireland: the Spear of Lugh, Stone of Fal, the Sword of Light of Nuada, and The Dagda's Cauldron. These were adapted to become the four suits in the Rider-Waite Tarot cards deck (swords, batons, coins and cups), and also took on the representation of the four classical elements of earth, air, fire and water."

Rowling has said nothing about the meaning for fear of revelations, but this seems a fair guess - considering Rowling's use of historical and mythological symbolism, which often provides the more astute with clues it would seem likely that these deathly hallows will indeed be treasures, presumably 'horcruxes' which are pretty deathly - of course they may be something else to throw us off the scent, but i wouldn't be surprised if they were 4 or 6 treasure items either way - this article with swords, cauldrons and tarot cards fits too well to not have a link somewhere, Rowling loves the old magical stuff (philosopher's stones and basilisks for example)

plus dumbledore reckoned there were six horcruxes, and 2 were destroyed by book 6 so that leaves 4 - interesting tie in to the wiki article, no?

i have also wondered if the locket in book 5 mentioned very briefly is the slytherin locket that harry needs - you'd think they would've noticed such an important thing if it was it, it has a big snaky S on it - but anyway, mundungus was nicking stuff in 6 so it may well create a plot point 

you are kidding me! every time i try to write an article this bloody thing doesn't load and i lose a section of writing!

well anyway i said i won't speculate on who will die - what's the point, we can't tell

i also talked about Dumbledore's brother Aberforth thinking he might be an illiterate squib and he could be the one to use magic late in life (Rowling interview) and i believe she said there weren't new characters (may be wrong, she may have said this regarding certain plot points) - but then i realised he had been accused of performing charms on a goat so that's unlikely - the character could be expanded though

lost my train of thought now, stupid blogspirit

new harry potter book and the speculation is killing me - bookies just slashed odds on harry dying, i don't want to know the end so im just going to have to buy the bloody thing on the 21st which is next saturday to avoid spoilers

so what is a 'deathly hallow'? or even a hallow - most uses refer to holiness, hallows can be relics in religion or making something holy etc and that's all ive ever heard in reference to them - but i found this on wiki which makes a bit more sense:

"The word "hallows" has been used in legends to represent important and powerful objects. The Tuatha de Danaan in Ireland possessed six hallows"

"...As the legend evolved through the centuries, these hallows became the Four Treasures or Hallows of Ireland: the Spear of Lugh, Stone of Fal, the Sword of Light of Nuada, and The Dagda's Cauldron. These were adapted to become the four suits in the Rider-Waite Tarot cards deck (swords, batons, coins and cups), and also took on the representation of the four classical elements of earth, air, fire and water."

Rowling has said nothing about the meaning for fear of revelations, but this seems a fair guess - considering Rowling's use of historical and mythological symbolism, which often provides the more astute with clues it would seem likely that these deathly hallows will indeed be treasures, presumably 'horcruxes' which are pretty deathly - of course they may be something else to throw us off the scent, but i wouldn't be surprised if they were 4 or 6 treasure items either way - this article with swords, cauldrons and tarot cards fits too well to not have a link somewhere, Rowling loves the old magical stuff (philosopher's stones and basilisks for example)

plus dumbledore reckoned there were six horcruxes, and 2 were destroyed by book 6 so that leaves 4 - interesting tie in to the wiki article, no?

i have also wondered if the locket in book 5 mentioned very briefly is the slytherin locket that harry needs - you'd think they would've noticed such an important thing if it was it, it has a big snaky S on it - but anyway, mundungus was nicking stuff in 6 so it may well create a plot point 

i am referring to the legend that is jamie carragher - liverpool centre back and all round hero, i'm not even a reds fan but i accept his and his teams greatness far more than chelsea or arsenal - united i grudgingly respect

he has recently claimed that he is considering dropping out of international duty, simply because he never gets picked - i believe this is fair enough, he's 29 and never plays even though he is usually in the squad and as he is a senior player with a succession of club trophies to his name i can see why he is pissed at the national side

he is a great player and has unfortunately been overlooked for rio and terry, which isn't a huge upset, they're probably better play makers, jamie is more of an all-out defender more useful when we play tough attacking sides - as we are technically 5th in the world and there are probably only about 20 sides in the world which would hassle us with attacking play i would always favour terry and rio - i think the biggest problem has come when mclaren decided to play ledley king as a back up instead of him, and then even played wes brown (who is shite) at right back - despite jamie being able to play any defence role, it would certainly rile me if wes brown got preference over me

so obviously people on bbc 606 have come out saying 'you should be honoured to be called up for your country' despite the fact that jamie has been repeatedly overlooked and never used - now if jermaine jenas did this i would not be siding with him, he never plays for england and is always called up (for no reason i can see) and he is shit, and young - jamie has a right to say 'i've had enough of this, i'm getting on a bit, time to focus on the place where i'm needed most'

why should a senior player like jamie be forced to go to mclaren's little training sessions and lessons in how to play like a second rate country when he won't even play? paul scholes did the same thing a few years ago, and he was a first team player, he struggled to play alongside gerrard and fat frank and decided to focus on united, and he and united are far better for it, jamie should do the same

jamie carragher is no bottler, he would love to play for his country im sure but he has been badly treated by the managers and i believe he will make a good choice in dropping out of international duty 

i just saw an interview with j k rowling and it turns out she's really nice - not that i had imagined her nasty or anything but she just struck me as quite shy and retiting and quite sad at the end of the series

a bit like me, i'm really looking forward to the new book in a few weeks but at the same time i'm sad because it'll probably be the last in the harry potter legacy and it's something which defined my childhood - the first book came out when i was 11, so being the same age as the characters in the first few books (obviously i outpaced it as it spanned 7 years in 10) i  have always really associated with the story so it may sound a bit sad but harry potter really was a big part of my childhood

i never really appreciated the films, partly as they weren't made for several years after and i think i missed that due to age, and i always thought they ruined the books imagery and didn't really fit the ideas in my head - rowling said she liked the films but i don't know if she does, i suppose it's very flattering to have your work made into a film and making sure it was all british and that you have to accept that it's never going to be perfect, films will never totally convey the imagery within the mind so maybe she was happy with the films, but i'll always prefer the books

but anyway i have to get up early so i'll just say i have much respect for her, thankyou for one of the key influences in my childhood and i salute you, j k rowling! 

yes it is my 300th post! rock on! it's also the 4th of july - how apt, i feel obliged to engage in some yank bashing

the americans havent done much of late that i've got annoyed at so i'm going for some stock stuff - conservapedia?? i may have ranted about this insane crime against humanity but it's just so funny

basically conservapedia is a conservative wikipedia, of the creationist, republican viewpoint - check the (real) wiki page for more info - but i will give a few quotes:

Conservapedia Commandments

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages..
6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.
7. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account. Advertisements are prohibited

 ok 1 and 2 are fine (if petty), 3 isn't too bad - 'family friendly' is a very ambiguous term and the sort of censorship the site uses is ridiculous

4 i can deal with as the whole bce and ce thing doesnt exist in britain, but i dislike the argument about jesus - the whole ce thing is pc gone mad - im not petty enough to care that it refers to christianity, gregorian calendar (invented by christians) is fair enough for me

5/6/7 pretty fine - so wherein lies the problem? a bit on the right wing side but i accept they exist

apparently wikipedia is an anti-american, anti-christian, evil liberal site - the basis for this argument is several points - anti-americanism is shown by the acceptance of british spelling, or even 'english' spelling - sorry what's the name of the language?? apparently this is anti-american because the site is american run and dominated by americans - true, but wiki is an international venture and even i will accept the use of american spellings as an alternative - otherwise it's just fascism - and there are many pages from britain/australia/new zealand and all our other little colonies who use english properly

dammit! - my connection failed as i tried to save my ranting - and don't say it was god punishing me you fascists! - anyway it went along the lines of me mocking them for not believing in evolution - maybe ill update it back later

edit: haha ive just been reading conservapedia and found a quote from tony blair saying how insane extremist muslims are - i naturally thought this was false knowing my prime minister - so i checked on bbc and the guardian, and it was true! but of course this was his final days and he finally said what ive been wanting to hear for 6 years - ive always had respect for tony, he made mistakes but he was a good leader and unfortunately politics dictates that you can't get away with pissing off the muslims when you're in charge - im impressed he said it as he's now a diplomat in the middle east, i just wish he's told everyone to stand up for our rights before - but of course that's why he stayed in power for 10 years and why ill never get in power, but still i'm impressed - he's got some balls!

edit: im just going to do this all night, it's hilarious - any british person should find this funny: On the other hand, Blair's policies were decidedly liberal by American standards: they have included increases in taxation, increases in government spending (particularly on public schools and Britain's socialized healthcare system), the introduction of an increased minimum wage, and support for the homosexual agenda.

i know not all americans are total conservative nuts, (the ones who vote democrat for example) but seriously what is wrong with your country?? this is the view we get of you because it's fascinating to us to see what are essentially fascists running around in droves in the most powerful country in the world, with the idea that such a thing as 'liberalism' still exists as it did in the nineteenth century for us - i am well aware this is a site with only 9000 members (half of which are blocked hehe) but like i say our 'liberal' media - ie all of it by their standards, tends to focus on these whackos who believe the bible is fact - i will stop myself posting the whole site and end with my favourite fact off all time "[america] is the only western civilisation where the majority of the population considers religion a major part of their lives" - i doubt they even understand why this is so shocking to us 'liberals' - viva south park!  

am i a hypocrite? probably, most of us are to some degree - but i ask this on a specific issue, the smoking ban which has come into effect in england today - and seems to be popular with the majority

i support the ban, it means no more smoke in pubs/clubs which i mainly hate for the stink left on my clothes rather than the health issue, although coughing is never fun 

the thing is i am always vocal about 'nanny state' measures, i don't like the government taking too much interest in our private lives, i don't like the idea of id cards, banning certain substances, and censorship in general but yet im happy for smoking to be banned for my own personal gain

as far as my own gain goes i feel i'm with the majority here anyway, and likewise this measure has been implemented throughout europe, america, australia and nz so i don't deem it as excessive or exclusive but it is a restriction

to me this isn't about a person's 'right to smoke' - i wouldn't support a total ban, despite hating the bloody things because if people really want to do it then why not (this therefore puts me in the pro-cannabis bracket by default even though i dont smoke it) - this is about the rest of us - 70% of the population (apparently) don't smoke, and yet if only a few smoke in a pub it lingers and the results are the stink and fumes - the majoirty gain from this, and considering lots of pubs (i mostly go to sports pubs)  dont allow ppl to smoke at the bar to protect staff i feel this measure is justified

what about our 'rights'? why do we have to tolerate your death sticks, you don't have to put up with anything from us - like i said i wouldnt go so far as to ban the lot, and i can agree with an 18 rating - no higher though

then there;s the argument - 'a pub can make itself non-smoking' or 'go to a non-smoking pub' - the fact is that not that many pubs go non-smoking as they lose business - most ppl have at least one smoking friend so then they may feel obligated to go to a smoking pub to be socialable - the only non-smoking pubs i know have very strong bases of punters and generally something decent going for it (like good food)

i need to cut this short... some people have also whinged about alcohol and its related problems - i will admit alcohol has far worse problems however it would be pretty stupid to ban alcohol from a pub - the smoking ban is not total - in fact it's really a bit of a non-issue - it doesnt deal with crime, or drunk driving, or public order, it just improves the situation in a pub for a lot of people, as it is not an outright ban i don't feel this is the same as alcohol

my mother smokes and drinks way too heavily and i hate it, but i would never want the government to force her to quit as much as i want her to it's not up to them to decide - and so i feel im not a hypocrite, these are my views and i just wanted to put them down and i actually feel like i answered myself for once