In case you haven't had chance to see it, the SNL Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric sketch, is almost tragic in how similar it was to the real thing. You see, here is a woman who can never be in power. That must happen: NEVER.

Lacuna Coil are playing the Cardiac early in November. This is great news. It is certainly time, after six years, that Cristina Scabbia and I confront our feelings for each other: my undying love for her, and her complete ignorance and potential indifference for me. We must confront this head-on, if we're ever going to have a future.

Please, enjoy Turisas' Rasputin.

Last night, I got offered a ticket to see Dragonforce. I would not likely have gone on my own accord, power metal generally being a little too poppy and melodic for me to be too interested in (unless it's Maiden). But some people at work were going, and it makes a pleasant change to have company at a metal gig.

The thing Dragonforce do really well is play fast. Their guitarists, especially Herman Li, are incredibly talented, and some of the soloing was amazing to watch. The vocalist is a pretty decent singer too (an actual singer!), and the galloping drum sound is sure to get all heads nodding along. They look like there are having a lot of fun, charging round the stage, pulling faces at the front row as this pull off these complex solos, the singer apparently drunk enough that he lost his place in the set and announced that the next song was the one they'd just finished, much to everyones amusement. However, after a while - and two hours is definitely a while - this can get a little repetitive. They would have been better off cutting maybe 45 minutes from the set. They certainly would have been better NOT playing that awful Aerosmith-like ballad in the middle. That said, you haven't lived until you've seen a couple of hundred metalheads, horns in the air, waving from side to side.

Also, why is it OK for frontmen (even drunk frontmen) to berate the crowd for not jumping around and cheering for the entire length of their show? Am I crazy for thinking that the amount of appreciation given to a band shoild be proportional to how much I liked them, not how much I'm told I should like them. Crowds aren't responsible for how good a gig is. I'd like to try that in my job, telling clients they should like my report more (you cunts). I do get that it's a stage act. But seriously, you're not Dave Mustaine.

The real triumph of the gig was Turisas. Marching on stage in full red warpaint and Viking garb, their stomping folk-flavoured metal was far better than the act they were supporting. They had a violinist, and an accordian player - who, by the way, I think I fell in love with. That was back when I thought she was a guy. The prettiest guy in the world - and they covered Boney M's Ra Ra Rasputin, and played a host of their other songs (BATTLE METAL!). The very defintion of crowd-pleasing. And Craig-pleasing.

Obviously I can tell that she is a girl. But it was harder with her wearing facepaint, from 50 yards away.

Just so we are clear, you can not say "I believe in free markets" and then say "except in this case, the markets weren't working properly", especially when the next sentence is, "so a government investment of £700 billion is justified". That is exactly the same sort of nonsense as people who say "I believe in free speech, except when it is offensive to someone".

Here is the thing - markets don't work properly. Even Adam Smith didn't think so. It's a theoretical construct that free markets lead to desirable outcomes. For them to do so you need at least the following things - everyone to be fully informed about every aspect of every choice they make, no-one's choices to have any detrimental effect on any other party, and no-one to have any market power (for example, the ability to set prices). These things never happen, and they never will.

This is not to say that markets can't be made to work better (through regulation), nor is it to say that government intervention replaces market forces - the two often work hand in hand. Governments can level the playing field to ensure equity, while well-functioning market mechanisms (through prices) can more efficiently allocate goods and services.

I think many with more lefty-bent have realised that sometimes, there are good and bad ways to tax, that government spending is often inefficient and that markets can work better than social planners. This should be a similarly eye-opening moment for free-market enthusiasts. Because the things that make market function poorly are inherent to human nature, so there's always going to be a minimal level of government presence. After this last year, I think it is clear that we are not yet there.

Of all the glorious news to wake up to, the demise (sadly only from political life) of Ruth Kelly is the number one and best.

I have no internet at home at present, as AOL require up to 20 days to move our account. It takes 40 times as long to move an AOL account from one house to another as it does to move the entire contents of that house the same distance. Today I'm distorting statistics for fun. I'm thinking of becoming a journalist.

Anyway, until that happens, posts will be sporadic. Unlike, you know, before.

With all the excitement of the US presidential race over the past 10 days, I'd like to add this. Joe Biden's son is called Beau. Beau Biden. I'd like to suggest that the senior senator from Delaware may not be what you would call an "ideas man".

That said I'm copyrighting Hraig Holmes. No-one else can now use that for their son. I'm looking at you, Craig Crolmes.

I'd never really noticed until this morning, but news services are able to change the tone of a story about a government initiative by simply changing from "government money" to "taxpayers' money". The implication behind their usage are quite different. The first is fairly netural, and could even be seen as a positive if it implies that the government is shifting some of its resources towards the new activity. The second is far more negative - implying the wasting of money that is still our own.

On the BBC's Breakfast this morning, while discussing the new aid package to homeowners, the business and financial analyst (whose name escapes me) corrected himself from "government money" to "taxpayers' money", which is fundamentally like correcting yourself from "evening meal" to "dinner". It did reveal a narrative on the story a lot less impartial than I would expect.

They also interviewed a prospective first-time buyer who bemoaned the support (from taxpayers' money) being proposed for current homeowners close to losing their home, while she was unable to afford to get into the housing market (because her after-tax income was not high enough). She forgot a number of things. Firstly, the government is also offering borrowing support for first-time buyers, also funded by taxpayers' money (including that of current homeowners, and more importantly, the wealthy households that aren't in danger of losing their home). Secondly, offering support like this will stimulate activity in the housing market. Homebuilders have massively cut back on all new builds in the short term. Unless they can be persuaded that people will start buying again, the supply of new houses will be low for a long time. This keeps prices high. The new government package reduces the risks to homeowners of buying homes, and will hopefully improve sales.

I just realised that last bit raised another issue. House prices are falling. This has mainly been due to a fall in demand, partially driven by a lack of available credit and tougher borrowing conditions. The problem for first time buyers like the lady interviewed is that this hasn't made buying a house any easier as they haven't fallen enough given the new conditions imposed on people looking for mortgages. Two things could happen. Demand could continue to fall, which will lower prices, but at the expense of many jobs. Alternatively, the government could support homeowners to stop demand falling, hopefully encouraging confidence in the housing market and pushing homebuilders to start investing again. The lower price that would result will allow more people back onto the market, even if credit conditions do not improve immediately.

Update on self: Back from holiday, was nice, moved into new flat.