I'm sure you've all noticed by now that the festive season is in full swing. Christmas songs played everywhere, decorations up, television adverts tinsel strewn, and we even had some snow yesterday in some parts of the country. Pre-Christmas sales have begun in the high street as people run out to find last minute gifts for their loved ones.

I like Christmas. I really do. It's a nice time of year. Having said that, there are two major criticisms I have of it.

There's the old cliché - it's too commercialised these days. I'm not so sure about "these days" ; I think it's been like that for a long, long time. I liked a line from the latest episode of South Park - "People stood in long lines, sometimes waiting hours or more, because Christmas needs to be bought from a store."

I won't dwell on the commercial aspect because it's something that everyone is aware of, it's merely a matter of how much this affects you, and that's extremely subjective. However, the other criticism I have of Christmas is a lot more fundamental. I don't believe in Christ.

I was brought up to be a Catholic, but I'm certainly not that way now. Why then do I celebrate the time of year that is, along with Easter, central to the Christian faith? I'm not knocking Christianity - though I certainly could - but it's just not for me.

Around 12 hours ago an event happened that is far more suitable for celebrations. It's not something arbitrary like New Year - which I also like, but have misgivings about - nor is it religion based like Christmas. The Winter Solstice, the shortest day of the year (apologies to any southern hemisphere readers, please feel free to substitute any instances of 'winter' with 'summer').

A lot of people will tell you that the Winter Solstice is a pagan festival, and that's why the date for Christmas was chosen as the 25th of December, since people were partying anyway. Whilst it is true that pagans did celebrate it, you can't get away from the fact that is a scientific, astronomical FACT. Why didn't we choose this date as the start of the year? Why did we choose to wait 10 more days?

On a more spiritual level, the solstice is yet one more reminder of the cyclicity of nature. Just as night follows day, over the course of the year night and day battle for supremacy, neither one reigning for long. The Winter Solstice is the moment of greatest yin, but the seed of yang has been planted and the days start growing longer once more.

Surely this is cause for celebration.

As an aside, a nice clear sky last night, post midnight, gave amazing views of the stars, with Saturn readily visible below Gemini. Saturn should be visible for a couple more months, and it's well worth looking out for.

On BBC2 tonight they showed this faux documentary/drama about a Doctor being taken to court for illegal research on embryonic stem cells. Following this there was a half hour debate, before the results of a viewer phone vote decided whether the jury would find the Dr guilty or innocent.

The cutoff period for study of embryonic stem cells is 14 days, because apparently after this the embryo starts to develop sentience. This cut off is extremely arbitrary, especially considering abortions are legal in this country up to 24 weeks after conception...

The main point of issue was the morality of using embryos for therapeutic stem cells - i.e. treating a patient. Reproductive stem cell research - cloning a whole human - is, in my opinion, something that should be completely outlawed.

I believe it is right for therapeutic stem cell research to take place, as the potential benefits are enormous. We have this developing technology, and we should fully explore the opportunities open to us.

The result of the viewer vote was 81% say Not Guilty. Strangely enough, the show ended with the Dr being completely acquitted by the court, and promptly arrested by and FBI agent and extrudited to the US. I'm not too sure what point the BBC were trying to make there.

On the front page of today's Independent, there's an article detailing how the viewing figures for the BBC have dropped to an all time low. In particular BBC2 has lost a great deal of viewers to Channel 4, following C4's winning bid for terrestrial rights to The Simpsons. The reason for this drop is being attributed to multi channel viewing, but I'm not so sure.

For those of us with Sky or cable, how many channels do you get? I'm not aware of the number personally, but it certainly runs into triple figures. Out of those, however, how many actually have something worth watching? Very, very few. That's the main problem with television these days - we have a lot of choice, but it's like choosing the method of your own execution. What we need is less channels, and more quality programming.

The BBC channels are best for this quality, with some well made documentaries and comedy shows. Channel 4 is also good for original programmes, and even Five makes an effort, often showing documentaries in the early evening. The worst culprit for "cheap telly" is ITV, with endless 'reality' shows and costume dramas.

The BBC is a truly Great British institution. The drop in viewing figures should not prevent it from renewing its charter in 2006. Do you really want ALL channels to have advert breaks?

So, it got to number one easily enough, outselling the rest of the top 40. Not that it's really much of an achievement; anyone who buys singles are being serious ripped off. It's also a really, really poor remake - nobody sounds like they're in tune. Look guys, there's a reason nobody remembers Band Aid II...

However, I did catch the programme the other night on TV showing the making of the new single, and I have to say I was quite impressed. The attitude of most of the people taking part was spot on, and Bob Geldof has put an awful lot of effort into making a difference.

Also on the programme was Richard Curtis, talking about his new project, "Making Poverty History". It's an extremely worthwhile cause, and I think everyone should sign up to it. With Britain as head of the EU and G8 next year, it's time to make a difference. There's absolutely no reason why anyone in the world should be living in such abject poverty as they do in certain places in Africa, especially when you see fat cat "businessmen" rolling around in vats of liquid gold.

Anyone can make a difference. It's about time we all started doing it.

Dreams are interesting things. There's a few different categories of them according to many psychoanalysts, such as safety-valve dreams (were you do things you'd never do in real life), problem solving dreams etc. Some say they're a product of our mind organising recent memories. Some say they're prophetic and precognitive.

Last night I dreamt that I had to find out what Tom Chaplin from Keane had done with the Jeng Ming Dynasty vase when he was younger, else a bottle of contact lens solution would kill me.

Work that one out.

For years now we've been told that global warming is occuring, mostly due to the greenhouse effect. A quick reminder for those of you that missed this in school - as carbon dioxide builds up, supposedly from the burning of fossil fuels etc, it creates a blanket around the Earth that allows the Sun's rays to enter, but not to leave, much in the same way as a greenhouse. It's been drummed into us that this is our fault! We caused this! We cut down the rainforests, the lungs of the Earth!

Well, it's not really as simple as that. For one, cutting down the rainforests certainly won't have contributed to global warming, though it is a terrible thing to do to such a lush environment and habitat. More importantly, global warming has nothing to do with humans.

I'm unsure of the exact figure, but didn't we come out of an ice age around 10,000 years ago? Did humans cause the warming then? How about previous ice ages? Are we responsible there too? Of course not. It's climate change; it happens.

The Kyoto treaty, I believe, is still worthwhile. Whether pollution damages the planet is irrelevant - it certainly damages us.

One of the major problems we face in today's electronic world is the lack of nuance. When face to face with someone we can put all kinds of meaning into the words we say, by stressing certain words, using different tones of voice, and we use a great deal of body language. Yet more and more of us are communicating via the written word every day, through emails, instant messaging, irc and the great destroyer of the English language, SMS.

Of course, people have tried to bring these nuances to text through certain abbreviations, emoticons and other means. Sometimes they even work. Sometimes.

So what does this have to do with 'heh', I hear you ask? Actually, I don't hear you ask. Currently I hear Blink182 on the radio. Such is the way of the written word however. Anyway, to not completely lose sight of the point, take a look at this little excerpt from an irc log of mine.

[16:19] heh, really shoulda got her number
[16:19] i know where she lives
[16:19] it should still be in the phone box

Now, I think most people would agree that this little exchange is quite amusing, but how do you react to it? Think carefully. The wrong response could form a lasting impression about you that you really don't want people to have... A typical response would be a "lol". Let's examine this. Lol. Laughing out loud. Did it really make you laugh out loud? Chances are, no. Too many times people say "lol" without meaning it - that's what kids say, or even worse, AOLers...

For much the same reason, "rofl" and "lmao" are out - reserve these for the very special occasions where, if you actually had weak bones, laughing would indeed cause your arse to become separated from the rest of your body.

The best response you could possibly give is "heh". Think about it. It's not a "hehe" which indicates outright laughter. It's an acknowledgement that humour is present, without losing your cool. You're not saying it's the funniest thing you've ever heard; conversely, you're not saying it isn't. Keep the cards close to your chest, give nothing away. People will respect you for it. You're the cool one. Heh.