Crazy Diamonds

  Three days ago, the internet exploded with testimonials and tributes to the late, great paragon of rock music virtue - which, of course, means vice by anyone else's standards - that was Kurt Cobain. 

  This man, who took his own life at the age of just twenty-seven, was an inspiration to many of contemporary rock's greatest stars. Bands of the size and stature of Muse, Blink-182, Nickelback (come on guys, their early stuff was post-grunge, don't be like that) and, of course, the Foo Fighters draw huge inspiration from the Aberdeen-born singer-songwriter. The King of Grunge will be remembered forever as a legend of the rock world, and rightly so.

  As I write this, I am listening to the album Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd. Whilst this record didn't claim the sales figures of Dark Side of the Moon or spawn a feature film like The Wall, I personally think it represents the pinnacle of the band's musical achievement - and so do Richard Wright and David Gilmour, so that's all right. 

  The reason I mention this is because this album draws heavily on the theme of loss, specifically the loss of the band's original lead singer Syd Barrett whose drug addictions had accelerated a mental decline which left him unable to make the music which had driven him so much in his early years. Barrett died in 2006, aged 60, 38 years after leaving the band. Death, when it came, was probably more of a release than anything else.

  Two stars of rock music, born twenty years apart, who lead such similar lives in their early years, but whose fates were so ultimately different. To use Cobain's own words, one burned out, the other faded away.

  The loss of both men was tragic, but in a different way. The brief, fiery career of Kurt Cobain was cut short untimely by his struggles with depression and heroin addiction, depriving the world of surely many more outpourings of musical genius to come. Barrett, meanwhile, destroyed his own, already unstable mind so completely with LSD and a lethal cocktail of other drugs that his career simply melted away - the masterwork of the Floyd's early material giving way to weak efforts to replicate his early success, and then to nothing as he locked himself away from the world. 

  Which is a better way to go? I can't help but feel Cobain's exit was by far the better. The spectre of a fate like Barrett's ahead of him - failure, decline, seclusion and ultimately a withering away - it is not hard to see how the grunge pioneer reached the conclusion he did. And, perhaps as a direct result, Cobain's name lives on, world-famous, while Barrett's - sadly - remains known only to a decreasing few.

  I'm not entirely certain whether this post has a point. I'm not convinced it really needs to. But if there is a moral to the story, as it were, then it's this: we should remember Cobain and Barrett equally, as men whose lives were taken from them before their time, and whose careers as exceptional musicians were curtailed long before they could fulfill their potential. Remember both their names - for they were two of the best of us. And they both deserve it.

  But most of all, remember this: Shine on, all you crazy diamonds. 

Where There's Smoke...

  The House of Commons has just passed a resolution allowing the government to impose a blanket ban on smoking in cars containing children. Just to be clear, this emphatically does not mean that a ban has been created - it merely enables the government, at any point in the future, to do so. This is quite likely to occur in the fairly near future, as failure to do so would be highly damaging politically, but as of yet, no. Just to be clear: you may continue to poison your children's lungs for a little while to come. 

  Now, it would be fair to say that I broadly support this move. I do think that children need to be protected from dangerous chemicals, of which tobacco smoke is one, and government's major responsibility is to prevent harm to the citizens of the country which is governs. It is a sad, sad thing that legislation is even necessary in this area - seriously, why the Hell is anyone smoking in front of their kids anyway? - but NHS statistics suggest that 430,000 children are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke in their family cars. So yes, this move was an unfortunate necessity.

  But...

  There's always a but, isn't there? And in this case it's a big one, because this move DOES impinge on civil liberties - there's no question of that. You can argue the toss one way or the other as to whether this particular impingement is justifiable - and as I say, I would consider that it is - but it represents what is a creeping attempt to curtail the freedoms of the people. Now, as a once radical anti-smoker, it will likely come as a shock to many who know me when I say I think the ban on smoking in pubs should be overturned. I agree that in restaurants, shops etc. it is reasonable but pubs are traditionally places where people go for their leisure time - and if they want to smoke, why legislate to stop them? There might be those who don't wish to breath in the smoke, of course, but it would be a fairly simple matter to put a screen of some kind up to create a smoking area if a pub wants to attract both smokers and non-smokers. In any case, this kind of decision should rest with the landlord - not the government.

  The reason I support the new move is because the protection of children has to be legally enforced. Simply put, children should not be exposed to dangerous chemicals until they are old enough to take that decision for themselves. Adults, though, should be free to do what they wish provided it does not cause undue harm to non-consenting persons. So yes, legalise marijuana. Yes, allow smoking in designated smokers' pubs. Yes, allow people to continue gorging themselves on fast food if that is their choice. If health problems result from this, then they should be made to pick up the tab, but it is firmly not government's job to tell adults what they can and can't do in situations where it hurts no-one else. Civil liberties are important, and we must begin the process of clawing them back from the state.

  Otherwise, when they come for the really important ones - freedom of expression, assembly, religion etc. - we'll be so used to it no-one will think twice.