Not an original concept, I know. Just recording things.

Music (Explained with cows)

Punk
You should have two cows. But the government stole your cows. And the aristocracy exploited your cows. And the police oppressed your cows.

Hardcore Punk
Should have two cows. Government. Police. Aristocracy. Bad Things. Cows.

Emo

You should have two cows. But a football jock stole your cows. And your ex-girlfriend exploited your cows. And mainstream society oppressed your cows.

Pop Punk

You now have the two cows you should always have had, because you sold out.

Post Punk
You should have two cows. You want to put them in a garden. But it's starting to rain.

Goth
You have two crows.

Heavy Metal
You have two cows. Swoc owt Hail Satan eveh uoy.

Grunge
You have two cows. One is really successful, and the other is stupid. The successful cow can't take the pressure of being a successful cow, and kills itself. Everyone suspects the stupid cow.

Indie Rock
You have two cows. Because your friends all have two cows.

Post Rock
You have two cows. Because John Peel had two cows.

Prog Rock
You have two cows. You milk them with a trowel.

So, this is post number 300. I thought I'd mark it as a seperate entry. I've been blogging for more or less four years, with some periods where I haven't written regularly. I am aware that the majority of my posts are fairly self-indulgent - I seem to share few interests with my actual friends. But I still think it has been worthwhile to document, to varying degrees my opinions on things that matter to me and that I care about, if only for my own future use. And occassionaly, I hope I manage to be entertaining or interesting.

I've been thinking about the Passage of Time recently. I've now been here in Oxford for five and a half years, and I think I have made the most of at least some of the opportunities that has afforded me, certainly since about 2005. When I first started writing here, I had never thought of myself as a comedian, and never had any ambitions in that respect. My views on the world and my politics were half-formed. I wasn't even as knowledgeable about subjects I've been interested in since before uni, like pro-wrestling and metal. I find myself feeling quite pleased with how I've grown since 2004 (and earlier), and I'm glad I will always have this resource to document how that came to be.

I think I can say, without fear of exaggeration, that yesterday's 12-hour Imps show is one of the best things I've ever done. I am so pleased with how it all turned out - the quality of the shows was high, the execution was smooth, and the audience were large enough. Sure, I may have had a tendency to micro-manage every last minute detail, but it really was worth it.

Main results: We took £600 (after costs were paid for), which will be going to the Oxford Night Shelter within the week. I did ten of the shows (as, I should mention, did Bex), because of hardcoreness.

Additional results: I only said one truly wrong thing (stillborn tree). I came out of the shows with several sketch ideas. I am deeply in love with all my Brothers and Sisters Imp. I put Oldham in a wardrobe. I got to be Martin Sheen (pretending to be a woman all these years). A member of my family saw me do improv.

It has cost me quite a lot of sleep however, and mentally, I was quite tired come 10pm last night. I have developed a twitch in the muscle attached to my left elbow, which I would imagine is due to a sleep shortage. Or possibly to lupus.

(It's never lupus).

I have felt quite sorry for Gordon Brown since he came to power. I don't think he's really ever had the chance to introduce the legislative agenda he may have wanted to for a variety of predominantly exogenous reasons. Floods, terrorist attacks, financial crisis, funding scandals and administrative blunders have all conspired to distract the government away from any meaningful reform - I'm struggling to think of one. There has been incompetence along the way, granted, but bad luck has definitely played its part.

However, I will quickly lose my sympathy if he continues to stall on the issue of introducing equal employment rights for agency workers. Here there is a clear opportunity to introduce a reform not only straight out of the Labour manifesto, but also straight out of the progressive politics textbook.

The idea that two people doing the same job should be differently compensated in clearly unfair. It's unfair if we're talking men vs. women, or a whites vs. blacks, and its unfair when the only distinguishing difference is entry route.

More interestingly, the argument from industry that the law would damage competitiveness is misleading - it's a false competetiveness. It would be the same loss of competitiveness that occured when slavery was abolished - true, costs would rise, but they should never have been that low in the first place. Moreover, flexible labour markets are beneficial, and short-term contracts have a useful role to play. But when an agency works stays at a firm past the short-term, not only do these arguments enter less ethical grounds, but the benefits of lower-paid agency work may diminish.

As with the debate over the effects on industry and productivity of minimum wage laws (and unions, for that matter), the actual effects may be a lot more ambigious. So wages go up. But so do motivating factors, such as the psychological effects of receiving a just reward and belonging to a team. Could these outweigh the increase in labour costs? Presumably the non-agency workers are being better paid and better treated for a reason. Remember also, firms make investments in workers that are costly, such as training and experience. Losing a skilful, experienced worker is bad for the firm. But inadequate compensation for their time and effort may result in exactly this. That it doesn't is likely a testament to an absence of other options - the reason people sign up with agencies in the first place - but then clearly this is a form of exploitation.

I think it's often a good idea to be wary of obviously populist economic policies. But in this case, the populist view is also the right one.

Told some jokes tonight, and by no means got a bad reaction. For those that missed it, here were some of the highlights:

I woke up with the alarm this morning. I don't have a regular bed-side alarm, but I do have a regular and persistent burglar. He comes along, every morning, at 7am. The alarm sends him away, I turn it off and fall back to sleep, and he comes back nine minutes later, so that works out well.

There was a large box waiting for me downstairs. I opened it up, and inside there was a small box, which I tore open and found a parcel, which I ripped apart, and found an envelope, which I opened and pulled out a letter that read: Dear Mr Holmes, your subscription to this time-wasting service is drawing to an end. If you would like to renew your subscription, please fill out the enclosed form using letters cut out from a 1989 copy of the Financial Times.

I packed my Russian doll collection up, in reverse order to save on space.

The headline on one of the pages was one of those about the moral decline of the country. It said "Morning after pill at 12". I thought to myself: technically, that's the afternoon.

I used to get picked on at school for of my height, because I didn't have one. To make me feel even worse, I had two older brother who were both very tall. Very tall indeed. They were both slightly taller than each other.

And this.

I guess you had to have been there. Which you weren't. So thanks.

I wanted to add a few furter thoughts on the row surrounding Dr Rowan Williams after I mentioned it briefly last time.

I don't think I disagree with his main point - that in some circumstances it might make more practical sense to allow elements of Sharia law to be carried out if those involved are all willing.

I think this already happens in some Islamic communities, and that if it is going to happen anyway, it would be safer if it happened in the open (see drugs, prostitution).

I think its especially worth noting that we already have elements of Sharia law in the UK, especially in areas of finance and business. Most of Sharia law isn't about stoning homosexuals or jailing women for being raped. And I don't think that those aspects of fundamentalist Islamic laws where what was being advocated in any case.

I don't think he ever suggested that we should adopt two completely distinct legal systems. That said, I think the idea that there is currently one law that applies to the people in the UK is laughable.

I think, for the amount of news attention it is getting, it is worth remembering that as Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams is not actually empowered to actually change the legal system of the country, and as such should probably be able to express any opinions he may have on the matter without people asking for his resignation.

I would also like to point out the following.

We have an old Senator from a border state as Republican nominee well ahead in the conference season. He espouses some traditional conservative views, but is disliked by the religious right. He has a lot of appeal across the political spectrum.

We have a close two horse race for the Democratic nomination that is likely to go to the conference. One is a charismatic and youthful politician, from a non-white Caucasian ethnic background. The other is more of an establishment figure who has had first hand experience working in the White House. The presumptive nominee for a long time, there are many within the party would have been happy to see the nomination go to anyone else.

I can't help feeling I've seen this before. Is there any chance McCain helped a nuclear powerstation when he was younger?

I am the most correct person in the world.

I am also slightly baffled as to what would happen if one person wanted a case tried under UK law, and another wanted it tried under Sharia law.