I passed a sad landmark last Sunday. It has been ten years since a friend of mine from high school, Ed Matthews, died. He had turned 16 two months before, and he took his own life on December 27th 1999.

I do think of him on occassion. We met at the start of year 11 (September 1998), and quickly became good friends through sharing a lot of the same classess. Ed's importance on my life and on my character really can't be overstated. I was an awkward boy, short in confidence outside my group of friends. Ed was massively popular. He was cheeky and playful - he would disrupt a class with a joke, but in such a way that he rarely got in real trouble. I attribute, at least in part, my future interest in comedy and performing to him.

People would joke that we were identical twins (despite only having bright blond hair in common) and I loved hearing that, because I secretly doubted I was half as interesting or funny or as enigmatic as he was. He was a teenager who refused to care what anyone thought of him, in a way that most people only bluster about. He wasn't interested in the politics of the school yard - he had time for you if you were interesting and fun, regardless of who you were friends with. He brought out the best in everyone around him. I think he made me comfortable with myself, and helped me embrace who I was and what I was interested in, and care much less about how I was seen. If I can pass only one attitude to any children I might have, it will be that.

Of course, I was fifteen. I considered him one of my best friends, but when he killed himself, part of the shock was because I knew nothing that might be troubling him. He never even called. He just went and did it. I know a little of what happened now, the falling out with the unbelieveable overreaction. He left a note in his pocket for when it was found. On it was written his name, his address and the sentence "everyone likes a considerate suicide." His last joke.

Sometimes I feel angry at him. Sometimes, thinking back, it barely seems like that Christmas holiday happened to me at all - so much has changed since then. But mostly when I remeber us daring each other to lie on the book shelves at the back on the class until the teacher noticed, or him hopping around on his BMX, or the last time I saw him (Christmas Eve 1999, laughing and waving), I think what I do is miss him. The answer to all the unanswerable questions drives me crazy.

Hilarious.

"Hey Zach, if you play your song Killing in the Name Of on the radio, you won't swear will you?"

"Oh, no".

"You'll just say 'I won't do what you tell me', instead of 'Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me'."

"Oh, yes".

"Well, I believe you, because I have no reason to think, based on this little exchange, that you would ever not do something that you were told to do. No reason at all".

I'm supporting the Rage Against The Machine for Christmas Number 1 campaign, not because I think it sends a powerful message (it does not) or because I care about who tops the Christmas chart (I do not), but in the name of SHENANIGANS. I am pro-frippery. And also vastly amused that Cowell would call this bit of fun 'cynical', given how he makes a living.

Buy the track or don't buy the track. But do make a donation to Shelter, who do amazing work for a group of people it would be easier to forget about: "You'll never silence the voice of the voiceless".

UPDATE: Cowell again bemoaned the campaign earlier, calling its organisers "miserable". He also said it's denying Joe "his moment". Firstly, he's had plenty of moments, including the one where he won the talent contest that he entered and got a million pound recording contract. Secondly, there's the implication of entitlement. The fact that Cowell sees the Christmas number one spot as something that should be granted to everyone who wins his show is just another reason to get on board.

John Hutton, as Defence Minister:

"The individuals transferred to Afghanistan are members of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a proscribed organisation with links to al-Qaeda....

...The US government have explained to us that those individuals were moved to Afghanistan because of a lack of relevant linguists to interrogate them effectively in Iraq...

...The US has categorised them as unlawful enemy combatants and continues to review their status on a regular basis...

...We have been assured that the detainees are held in a humane, safe and secure environment that meets international standards that are consistent with cultural and religious norms."

Let's play a game called Spot Everything That Is Wrong With The Above. It's round one in a game called Spot Everything That Is Wrong With UK/US Counter-Terrorism Policies. To highlight a few:

- America pretty much decided their affiliation without a trial. Reprieve (a human rights charity) dispute this status for at least one of the detainees.

- Does "review their status" mean check they are still barely alive? Or check their assumptions weren't wrong?

- The relevant linguists explanation is the weakest explanation for anything ever.

- Perhaps the word "linguists" was a typo. For the word, "violent psychopaths".

- Assurances as to the high quality of conditions of imprisonment from the people you ask to covertly torture suspects don't carry much credibility.

- What do cultural norms mean for secret prisons? Because I'm fairly sure the cultural norm of a secret prison is nothing good.

- Aslo, what do religious norms mean for secret prisons? Muslims are allowed to pray five times a day? I think if I were in a secret prison, I'd be praying a lot more often than that.

I was reminded tonight, pottering around YouTube for guitar songs to copy, the first time I heard my favourite REM song - from their 2001 unplugged set: Cuyahoga.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the only argument for vegetarianism I'm interested in. It is a very good one, and I recommend giving it consideration. I, personally, try to have vegetarian lunches, or vegetarian dinner if I had meat at lunch.

I have no desire to stop eating meat entirely, but I think moderation can have a massive impact. We should all share the costs of climate change, and going without chicken on that Caeser salad should be right at the top of the list. Interestingly, this is exactly the opposite situation for me when it comes to alcohol, but the same result - I have no real desire to drink (and would happily go completely straight edge) but do so in moderation in social situations where, quite frankly, it's almost seen as offensive not to (happily, I've learned how to have a drink in hand and remain sober). I wish I could always have Coke, but I also wish to avoid unnecessary dramas.

By the way, I don't count fish in this (neither as a food nor as an alcoholic drink). They don't live on land, we don't cut down rainforests to build aquariums. Although that would be more pleasant.

On Friday, I had a moment where I suddenly thought, "you know what? I actually might finish my D.Phil. And it might be good."

Had a good weekend. First time in a long time I've had a weekend off. I could get used to it. Not allowed, though.

Oh, come on, the BBC. Why would you do this? Tomorrow: What do you think about homosexuality? Saturday: What should be the punishment for convicted paedophiles? Sunday: Do you like the Peter Mandelson? Monday: Whose better: Allah or God? Tuesday...

There really isn't any need.

I think this about covers my view on this distasteful subject. Also the expression, "I could care less".

Dear viewers of the X-Factor,

Many of you apparently came to a realisation only last night, after Simon Cowell elected not to eliminate the double act of John and Edward from the competition after weeks of deriding their performances and stating publically that their victory in this competition would destoy the programme and would encourage him to leave the country. You have apparently developed a sense of cynicism for the first time (a cynicism oddly absent in the way you have previously embraced this popularity competition mascarading as a talent contest) that Cowell only did this because he calculated he can make more money from the circus that surrounds those two boys than Lucie Jones. Indeed, it could be argued that by taking such a public stance against the two, he has himself increased their value as a commodity.

I am inclined to agree with this assessment. Please, however, do not confuse this with sympathy for your outrage.

Most of you will continue to watch this meaningless exercise. You like to claim that the programme discovers the some of the most exceptional singers in the country. That it does that on a yearly basis makes me inclined to think that there is a plentiful supply of such individuals who can be easily slotted into the producers desired show format. Most can hold a tune, but I've yet to see why we need one more of them, and why we need to spend so much time finding such a minor contribution to popular music. Once again, we as a nation and a culture have confused being good at something with being exceptional. This is how mediocrity wins.

Here's what you should do. If you care about music so much, leave the house and go and support real musicians. Go to local gigs. Buy their CDs. Tell your friends. That all this time and energy spent on one sideshow act in the name of finding the country's next top musician is troubling at best (and downright perverted at worst). We live in an age of vast informational resources. We could each discover ten great acts in one-twentieth of the time it takes for this show to runs its course. So, stop moaning, and consider doing that instead.

Of course, if you don't care about music, may I recommend you watch the X-Factor. It is the programme for you.

Yours sincerely,

Craig

Going to a wrestling show tonight. Dragon Gate is one of the larger Japanese indy promotions, and to be honest one of my least favourite. That said, live puro ten minutes down the road from me (its at the Regal on Cowley Road) is rare - this, to my knowledge is the only UK show any Japanese promotion is putting on this year, so its proximity is too much of a reason not to go.

It should be fun at least - the Dragon Gate guys may be weak at putting together coherent wrestling matches, but they can fly around all over the place which should be a spectacle. The atmosphere will probably be fairly contagious too - UK fans, wrestling starved as we are, are usually great, providing they don't try to imitate the more annoying tendencies of US indy fans (chants of "this is awesome" after two minutes of action). More on this, later.

What's the point of having scientific advisors if you only listen to them if they confirm your priors or support your political position? If you're never going to change anything, even if a respected scientist says you're basing your position on nonsense, why even bother having an advisory body?

I'm so tired of this empty debate about drugs. All governments ever say they are going to do is "fight against illegal substances", ignoring the fact that they are only illegal because they called them that. What we're trying to say is that there's hypocrisy in the distinction between those currently legal and those currently illegal, despite many of them being less personally and socially harmful (by a number of different measures) than nicotine and alcohol. If you can't get past an argument more sophisticated than "they're illegal because they're illegal", you're not the right people for this job.

So we're are three nights into the show, and it's going well. I would say, although its open to debate, that they have been improving each night, certainly from a personal level, and also with things like the degree of mind-meld and reincorporation. There were several times last night when I realised we were all thinking the same things, which makes driving an improvised storyline that much easier, and look that much better. That said, last night was also more silly and over-the-top than previous nights, which means that perhaps, whilst enjoyable for ourselves and entertaining for the audience, may not have been the best (or deepest) improv.

John and Sarah Lloyd attended last night, and said they thought it was so well improvised, it was possible to forget that it wasn't scripted. This is a huge compliment, although also creates problems, which we may need to deal with. Reviews have been good, generally. Aside from a savaging in the Oxford Student, based on what was admittedly not the greatest press preview, the Cherwell review was good (although the star rating reflected the perceived likelihood that a improvised show varies in quality) and OTR put up two here. It's a shame no-one was in to review Wednesday or Thursday's show, as they were our best yet.

Anyway, tickets are mostly sold, though some remain, especially for Saturday. If you haven't had chance yet, do come: 9.30pm, tonight and tomorrow, Burton Taylor Studio Theatre.

Excitingly, I have had a paper accepted for publication in the Journal of Public Economics. This would be my first one. Go me. The world will now have to brace itself for the revolutionary impact of "Quasi-hyperbolic discounting and retirement: a comment" (forthcoming).

I'm as Pro-bama as the next guy, but seriously, what on Earth?

Edit: Actually, reading this is an impressive argument. My initial thoughts were based on the fact that its still early days. Maybe that misunderstands the purpose and nature of the prize.