A few days ago it was reported that the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, remarked that US aid efforts in South East Asia would help them win the war on terror.

"It turns out that the majority of those nations affected were Muslim nations," Powell said. "We'd be doing it regardless of religion, but I think ... [U.S. aid] does give the Muslim world and the rest of the world ... an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action."

This is just typical of the Bush administration. The tsunami is perhaps the worst natural disaster in recent memory and we should all do what we can to help in the aftermath of such a cataclysm. To politicise such an act is abhorrent enough, but to bring in race, religion and the incredibly stupid "War on Terror" into it, is even worse. 50% of Americans have a lot to answer for.

On a related note, the nanny state rears its head once more. The BBC have postponed a docu-drama about a supervolcano erupting in London. Consider that in the past week or so, Bruce Almighty has been shown without complaint on Sky Movies, in which there is one scene where the eponymous neo-deity pulls the moon closer to Earth, causing a tsunami in South East Asia. Rather than rescheduling, Sky simply issued a warning before each screening that, in light of recent events, some scenes may cause distress. Perhaps the BBC should take note.

We're quite lucky here in Britain. We have sprawling urban areas pumping out thick pollutants into the air, but equally we have some stunning natural scenery. If you'd seen the recent television programme "British Isles" you may even have seen some of it. One of the best places we have are up in Cumbria - The Lake District.

The Lake District is something everyone should see, and fully explore. Indeed, volunteer rangers give free guided walks around the park, enabling everyone to sample the delights of the natural world. Yet these, along with a magazine, informative talks and slide shows are to be axed by the National Park. Why? Because they attract too many white people.

Apparently, not enough people from ethnic minorities or inner city slums are going on these walks. How incredibly assinine this is! It's yet another example of political wrongdoings - sorry, I mean 'correctness' - gone too far.

There's this argument that PC types have, called 'Positive Discrimination'. They favour the minorities over the majority to make sure they're well represented. For an example of this, I cite the ratification process for societies at the university I attended. The committee needed to include at least one woman and often one other minority - LBG, black, whatever. The same sort of thing occurs in the job sector too, with companies needing to show they have a good quota of minorities amongst their staff.

This isn't positive. It's discrimination against the white male. It's every bit as bad as discrimination against black people, against women, against asians. A job should go to the best person for that role, regardless of their skin colour or background. Positive discrimination makes their skin colour or background the issue.

We should do what we can to encourage all people to see the beauty of the world we live in, not discourage those that do.

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.

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.