Syrian tragedy shaped by lessons of Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Afghanistan

Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Afghanistan; four different routes to regime change in the Middle East with four different outcomes:

• Iraq - direct military intervention and withdrawal has left the country in a sectarian limbo
• Libya - ‘arms length’ military assistance to the rebels has removed the regime but left an uncertain legacy
• Egypt - seemingly a relatively peaceful 'transition' has revealed the real power resides in the background with Generals reluctant to see democracy
• Afghanistan - meanwhile grinds away relentlessly in the background

The less than perfect outcomes of these upheavals are only small pieces of the jigsaw.

In the much bigger picture many other factors are shaping the ability of the international community to respond to the unfolding tragedy in Syria.

Russia and China have sided with the Assad regime, rendering the UN largely toothless. Iran shares a border with Syria and the nuclear face off between the Iranians and the US led international community continues; the hawkish presence of the Israelis is ever present. On top of this the Saudis have made no secret of their desire to see the rebels armed; the region is more unstable now than it has been for quite some time.

The result for Syria is that there is no decisive response from the international community to the situation and it is now a long battle of rhetoric and diplomacy to be followed by some inevitable horse trading.

As we watch with horror the death of children, with medics powerless to help because they lack supplies, and hear of the death of journalists that provide eyewitness accounts that brings such footage to life, we can’t help but feel that we’ve seen this all before and we will see it again and again and again…

The Assad regime's actions too are influenced by takeaways from Iraq and Libya. The judicially sanctioned execution of Saddam and the mob justice meted out to Ghaddafi send a powerful message if it is to avoid a similar endgame: it must kill the rebellion.

Whitney Houston: peerless, penniless & dead @ 48

The death of Whitney Houston and the circumstances surrounding her passing is one that we see dished up by the entertainment business all too frequently.

A stunning vocal talent, with the ability to deliver a spine tingling performance as a whisper or a scream and anything in between, Whitney's greatness was never better underlined than by her ability to transcend America's old racial divide and cut through to the mainstream white audience.

Drugs are an 'accepted' part of the music scene, and music has done much to drive the drug culture in developed nations. Whether performance enhancing pharmaceuticals or illegal narcotics, drugs are seldom absent from the entertainment industry. Despite this, a perfect 1980s pop princess is not an obvious candidate for such a sad ending.

But drugs are not the whole story. The precise role of the' entourage' is often paradoxical; the consultants, advisers and other hangers on seem perfectly able to help the talent dispose of a fortune and then be quite incapable of preventing the death of the goose that lays the golden egg.

That said, how much is musical genius fueled by an appetite for chemical recreation? And how much is it intermeshed with the capacity for self-destruction? Whitney's end shares deep resonances with the demise of other such musical icons.

To the Houstons, Winehouses and Jacksons; the Joplins, Hendrixes and Morrisons; the Bolans, Kossoffs and Joneses; the Elvises, Hollidays, Parkers, and the countless others, thanks for the music.

Check out this report at Fox News that covers some of the background to Whitney Houston's death.

If there are 367 types of pasta why do supermarkets only sell the same few?

"Consumer choice". That's the trite, hackneyed key phrase that should make every consumer wary.

PR people defending difficult positions frequently roll this stock phrase out to deflect criticism or media probing. But it's not limited to business. We also hear it from politicians as well as spokespeople of XYZ BigCorps.

Energy companies like to offer us lots of tariffs of which we can make head nor tail when we need to carry out like-for-like comparisons. Telecoms companies. satellite and cable TV providers and airlines are just some of the others that like to confuse us and then dress it up as consumer choice.

The question of pasta is quite interesting. I learned from the BBC's National Lottery draw warm up quiz show recently that there are at least 367 different types of pasta.

While some of these may be speciality or artisan types an awful lot of them are not. If the supermarkets are interested in delivering choice to consumers, why do they only stock the same few pasta types?

I would suggest the real reason is that XYZ BigCorps only offer consumers choice when it is in their interests to do so. If you hear the phrase "offering greater choice" be sure to prick up your ears and pay special attention as you know that the real motive is anything but the best interests of consumers.

Prepare for a world without jobs - make your own work

The employment numbers prove it: 79,000 less people employed and an increase of 101,000 in self-employment over the last year in the UK. This takes the total number in self-employment to 4.07 million.

This is strong evidence for what I suspect is the future of work: a world with fewer permanent employed roles and with a greater proportion of 'economically active' individuals running their own businesses.

Inspired - or is it forced - to make my own work after two redundancies within three and a half years, one of the drivers for me was to regain dominion over my own future and prevent my fate from being 'somebody else's business decision'.

Going it on your own and starting your own business is not for everyone. I don't believe this is a simple function of intellect or skill set. It is complex and I suspect that some of us are pre-disposed or conditioned through long experience to be 'employment institutionalized' - that is we cannot see ourselves as anything other than employed by somebody else's company.

However if you are determined and want to escape the routine of...

- Moaning about the job you have
- Moaning about the job you don't have

...working for yourself, being your own boss and taking your destiny into your own hands is perhaps the most personally and vocationally rewarding thing you will ever do.

Don't get mad about being or not being in the employ of an organization. Get on with it yourself. You may surprise yourself at what you can achieve.

The purpose of governments

Democracy 'best solution' for organising society?

Most of us believe that for human society to thrive it requires a framework. Democratically elected governments are widely accepted to provide the best solution.

Increasingly it seems that one of the true purposes of democratically elected governments is to provide the framework that enables citizens to be financially exploited, 'milked' for the benefit of corporations.

Profiteering by 'Big Six' UK energy companies

As an example, the recent revelation that the 'Big Six' energy companies operating in the UK have delivered profits of £15bn for 2011 is truly shocking.

Rising energy costs inescapable

With global energy prices volatile, and at the mercy of market speculation and geopolitical instability, price rises are inevitable, an inescapable reality.

The economy is in tatters, uncertainty is widespread, and there is a real prospect of widespread economic chaos and civil disorder if Greece defaults and precipitates a Eurozone meltdown.

Static incomes, rising inflation, increasing numbers of households in fuel poverty and senior citizens faced with the choice of 'eat or heat'... ...the factors that feed into the issue seem to multiply.

The purpose of governments

Without the support of citizens governments have no mandate to govern. Consequently to substantiate their very existence, one of the key purposes of governments is to protect citizens.

If it is an implicit function of government to protect citizens, it must act to defend the interests of the population that it is supposed to serve. The UK government must curtail the ability of the energy companies to operate a cartel and profiteer.

Anti-trust in the USA

The United States has used anti-trust laws to curtail the activities of big business when it threatens to obtain too great an influence. Notable examples include Microsoft unbundling Internet Explorer from Windows and Standard Oil (the fore runner of Esso or Exxon Corporation) from having too much control of the gasoline market in the early 20th century.

No trust in the UK government?

Where is the UK government when citizens need it to protect energy prices from greedy energy companies? Energy is just one example. What about the finance sector and supermarkets?Increasingly the UK seems incapable of defending citizens from the predatory behaviour of big business.

US News Corporation: UK operations all downside

Tonight on BBC2's Newsnight Rupert Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff, author of "The Man Who Owns the News", gave a strong indication that the mood inside the group's US parent sees the UK operation as poisonous and all downside.

Some think that the recent Metropolitan Police investigation and arrest of journalists from The Sun is disproportionate; however many that have been victims of the paper's uncompromising style may actually feel that the fevered level of police activity is entirely in keeping with the paparazzi standards the paper does so much to perpetuate.

Could it be that "your super soar away Sun" is not willing to die by the sword that it has done so much to forge?