* I was watching BBC2 last night with a number of friends to view the last of the programs on liberty and freedom. The program was highlighting two basic political approaches since world war 2. These being the imposition of a political system which has as its end some sort of utopian society. This political approach permits the use of violence and terrorism (ends justify means) because of the beneficial outcome (yeah right). The second approach has been the libertarian position of allowing individuals to pursue their own ends within given parameters (of course). The first approach is illustrated by soviet russia the second by the USA.
The second approach was developed over the years to incorporate the imposition of democracy, market economics and the belief that individuals will always pursue their own aims without regard for the welfare of others. This approach was used in the reconstruction of the Russian economy and society after the fall of communism where it was a resounding success, oops sorry a big disaster.
These ideas despite the fact that they did not appear to work have continued in america and britain, a particular case being Tony bollocks Blair e.g. Iraq which has been a resounding success, oops sorry a really big disaster and a cause of great shame in the UK.
When mr Blair appeared on the screen a number of friends began acting ' a man spitting on the floor' routine. One of those present remarked that Tony bollocks Blair seemed to have been born in order to illustrate the proverb, ' the road to hell is paved with good intentions'. This was not just Iraq my friend thought but in almost everything he has done. Whatever his hand has touched is now swirling round the plughole. I thought that possibly Northern Ireland seemed to be progressing O.K.
This was allowed by most but the proponent said 'just wait'. here's hoping he's wrong.

* Couples getting married. After the interesting discussion by my partner and her friends I decided to research by a quick poll round acquaintances, whether there seemed to be anything in the theory that couples who have been living together who then get married will seperate soon after. I decided that 4 years of co-habitation before marrying was a reasonable rule of thumb. To my surprise it appears that this is in fact the case (given that the sample is small) and 18 months does seem to be the persistence limit after marriage.
I decided to ask my partner what she thought on this issue. It seems that it is regarded as a fact amongst her acquaintances. She was of the opinion that one or other of the partners usually the woman notices that the other partner is getting twitchy and showing less interest in them. In order to avoid losing the partner they then push the idea of marriage. The other partner goes along with this as they don't feel ready to split. They get married, this brings on the impending crisis and hey presto divorce.
I'd love some stats on this if anyone has or knows of any. So beware of partners who push for marriage they've detected drift and you can now save money by saying no.