Irish Seize The Day

Harlequins 27 London Irish 28
All was proceeding so well when I left at half time to attend a birthdy get together that when Arathorn text messaged the final score to me later on, I could hardly believe my eyes.

London Irish kicked the game off and immediately secured a penalty from a Quins infringement. A few minutes later, Harlequins scored a penalty of their own. From that point onwards, right until half time, they dominated the game, with London Irish by and large being kept well clear of the try line. Quins, as ever, defended very well and were scything in attack. Danny Care once more showed what a fine player he has turned into as he broke free of four tackles to be brought down just shy of the Irish try-line.

Right on half time, Quins fell asleep and Irish picked up a long kick across the pitch to score a try right in the corner. Unlike Chris Malone from that position earlier on, however, Irish could not score the conversion so the half ended 20 - 8 in Quins' favour. As I left the ground, I reflected that not only would London Irish have to start playing really well if they were to have any hope of winning but Harlequins would have to start playing badly.

And, well, that rather appears to have happened. After the game, Dean Richards said:

"We were outstanding in the first half. We played some superb rugby but we shouldn't have allowed them to score just before half-time... We allowed them
to build up the pressure and they caused us problems... Against a team like London Irish that pressure is going to tell and we have nobody else to blame but ourselves."

Oh well. Full credit to London Irish for not giving up. As for Harlequins, they will have to pick themselves up quickly because this coming Thursday we play Worcester Warriors and then next Sunday, Ospreys in the Anglo-Welsh Cup. Three games in eight days in September / October. Most unusual in rugby union.

Sticking Neck Out Time:
Next Game: Worcester Warriors
Result: Away Win
Rationale: Quins will be angry with themselves after the Irish defeat and will be fired up to dispose of Worcester

Brideshead Revisited: Prelude

The Venerable Bede posted about it a month ago and yesterday I finally got round to following his link to the trailer for the new Brideshead Revisited film. Bede is not impressed:

'She welcomed him into her home...' flashes across the screen as an ominous rock track builds the tension. I keep expecting to see Jason Bourne instead of Anthony Blanche.'

Here is the trailer:

The Jason Bourne comment is perfectly placed - the trailer is conducted at a rather breathless pace, one that is more suitable to an action adventure film rather than a period drama. The music starts well, but I have to ask what on earth is a rock track doing there. Soundtracks ought to compliment the images being shown, not fight against them. And as for Emma Thompson's reference to the 'vacation'. Humph! One good piece of news, though; contrary to what was reported here, it seems like Aloysius may be in the film after all. Is it him that Sebastian Flyte is holding in the scene with Michael Gambon (Lord Marchmain)? I wait with baited breath to see the picture and find out.

Shania Twain Kicks Keynes' Butt

Who would have thought it - Shania Twain predicted the credit crunch. Don't believe me? Watch her video for "Ka Ching" and sing along with the lyrics below.

We live in a greedy little world
That teaches every little boy and girl
To earn as much as they can possibly
Then turn around and
Spend it foolishly
We've created us a credit card mess
We spend the money we don't possess
Our religion is to go and blow it all
So it's shoppin' every Sunday at the mall

All we ever want is more
A lot more than we had before
So take me to the nearest store

Can you hear it ring
It makes you wanna sing
It's such a beautiful thing--Ka-ching!
Lots of diamond rings
The happiness it brings
You'll live like a king
With lots of money and things

When you're broke go and get a loan
Take out another mortgage on your home
Consolidate so you can afford
To go and spend some more when you get bored

All we ever want is more
A lot more than we had before
So take me to the nearest store

Can you hear it ring
It makes you wanna sing
It's such a beautiful thing--Ka-ching!
Lots of diamond rings
The happiness it brings
You'll live like a king
With lots of money and things

Let's swing
Dig deeper in your pocket
Oh, yeah, ha
Come on I know you've got it
Dig deeper in your wallet
Oh

All we ever want is more
A lot more than we had before
So take me to the nearest store

Can you hear it ring
It makes you wanna sing
It's such a beautiful thing--Ka-ching!
Lots of diamond rings
The happiness it brings
You'll live like a king
With lots of money and things

Can you hear it ring
It makes you wanna sing
You'll live like a king
With lots of money and things
Ka-ching!

Laborious

Just before the Labour Party conference, J. K. Rowling donated a million pounds to the party as a reward for its work on child poverty. Well, I never knew that she was a supporter of Labour, but, given that Harry Potter attended a private school, I suppose I should not have been surprised.

Flashing forward to Gordon Brown's key note speech, I have to admit that I cringed when I saw his wife's appearance. Is the man so unpopular with his party that he has to use her to make it love him again? Really, she had no business being on that stage. Sarah Brown is the Prime Minister's wife. She holds no office within the party. Her presence was an act of undignified desperation.

As for the speech itself, of the parts which I have seen quoted, the 'novice' jibe was well done - especially as it applied to both Miliband and Cameron. One cannot but commend the various policy announcements although they are not all that they seem.

For example, while it is very good for cancer sufferers to have free prescriptions, why should they be privilaged above people with AIDS? And giving free computers and internet access to low income families so that they stand a better chance of getting a job is very nice, but why not use the £300 million that this will cost to improve libraries and the like. The Prime Minister must know that these free computers will not be used solely, perhaps in some cases at all, for finding work.

The problem with Gordon Brown's speech is that while it contained some good announcements there was nothing to make me hopeful that the one thing Brown has a plan to succeed in the area where he has really failed - the economy.

The Mystery Consultation

Damian Thompson declaims against the liberal 'Magic Circle' of the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales a post titled In The Fight Against Futurechurch: blogging:

The Catholic bishops' Magic Circle wants to close down this blog. In fact, it has a whole list of Catholic blogs it would like to suppress. Why? "Misleading information," say the bishops. I don't think so. It's accurate information they don't want to leak out.

Thompson goes on to discuss the various topics that traditionalist bloggers have posted about which have been 'like hand grenades thrown into the headquarters of Futurechurch'. The one subject I would like to see discussed is the alleged consultation that the bishops said they carried out prior to the removal of the various holy days of obligation to their nearest Sunday two years ago. In red is part of Cardinal Murphy O'Connor's statement on the matter from 2006 and in black my response:

We have responded to requests from Diocesan Councils of Priests and many others, deeply concerned at the diminishing observance of these [holy] days.
Who are these 'many others' exactly?? Individual priests? Lay people? The matter was never discussed in my church and I am, by the way, a member of the parish council - one which actually discusses things rather than rubber stamps dictats from on high.

My full post on the issue is here. In 2008 does any one know who these 'many others' are? The knowledge of them wouldn't change my mind regarding what a mistake it was to transfer the holy days, but it would at least give the bishops' conference decision a little more credibility. Something that today they could do with.

All Guns Blazing

My local football club is Arsenal FC. Because they are so popular, tickets to their games are very difficult to come by. Over the years, I have seen them play perhaps 5 or 6 times. When I was young, it was still possible to walk up to the ticket office during the week or on Saturday to buy a ticket for a league game, but no more. So, in recent years, I have relied on the kindness of friends and acquaintances to lend me their season tickets. The last time this happened was a two or three years ago during Arsenal's last year at their Highbury stadium. They then move five minutes and a couple of roads away to a spanking new stadium in Ashburton Grove.

The Emirates Stadium, as it is called after the club's principle sponsor, is a mighty bowl which, as I was told by one Arsenal fan yesterday, looks just like a space ship. It is full of glass and light which makes it look very modern indeed. I reached the stadium via a huge bridge that looks like it has been built for giants. I wonder if this is how the Anglo-Saxons felt when they saw the Roman ruins?

The game I had come to see was the third round League Cup tie between the Gunners and Sheffield United of the Championship (old Division Two). This is the only kind of game a member of the general public can hope to see now - one which does not appeal to most Arsenal fan because the team will be a second string one. That didn't worry me, however, for even Arsenal's second or third team would be pretty nifty and I was there as much to see the stadium on the inside as I was the football.

If the Emirates Stadium on the outside is impressive, it was more than matched by what I found on the inside. Above is Arsene Wenger, Arsenal's manager, giving an interview on the big screen, but the real sight to behold was this one.

Here are the players of both sides warming up. Note the presence of two goals at either end. Now, if they were incorporated into the game, that would make it a lot more interesting! It might also help that poor referee at the weekend who gave a goal when the ball crossed the dead ball line four yards away from the net!

The ground filled up slowly until just a few minutes before kick off. The pitch was immaculate and a real pleasure to look at. I have to compliment also the seating at the Emirates stadium. There was plenty of room for my long legs and the seats themselves were padded! What a luxury. In the photograph above, you can see a slice of the players' tunnel and, the brown seats above it, the area where the press sit. At half-time, those seats emptied, presumably for the reporters to go and file the first draft of their copy. Or get drunk at the free bar. I visited Twickenham recently and we went on a stadium tour. The guide told us that the gentlemen of the press have a free bar whenever there is a game on! Somewhere above the press area is my former boss, whose job I now do. No, I did not usurp him in the Macedonian manner. He got a promotion and then so did I. He is a big Arsenal fan so even turned up for this match. We kept in touch via the medium of text during the game.

As for the game, I remember in the 80s there was a song about the Vietnam war by someone whose name I forget, anyway, the title of it was 19 - the average age of the American soldiers. The average of the Arsenal team might have been a bit lower last night because, in an already young side, they had a couple of 16 year olds. I don't know what kind of team Sheffield put out, but they must have fancied themselves to cause an upset against such an inexperienced home side.

Not a bit of it. Right from the kick-off, Arsenal dominated the game. Their youngsters were rough diamonds but still possessed more than enough skill to control and bamboozle Sheffield Utd. It was fun to watch, but provided a salutary lesson about the gulf in class between the Championship and Premier League.

Arsenal went up 3 - 0 by half time. I text messaged the Former Boss (FB) to say that it could have been six. By the end of the game, Arsenal had duly obliged, as it ended 6 - 0! Why did I not put money on it?! If Arsenal did not have such an obsession with dribbling the ball into the penalty area and making sure every goal was scored beautifully, I am sure they could have won by 8 or 9.

Among the key features of the game was the man seated in front of me who jumped up every time Arsenal looked like scoring, which made actually seeing any of the goals rather difficult. An honourable exception, I think, was the fifth, which came out of nowhere, surprising even him. Ha! A word must, of course, be said about the chanting. It was not of the highest quality, being very coarse and direct. The tribalism of football was at no time more evident as when Arsenal were six - nill up and fans were still standing up to show how much they hate Tottenham Hotspur. Why?

Anyway, the chanting was pretty good natured, even if essentially cruel ('We can see you leaving' to Sheffield Utd fans after 5 - 0). All-in-all, I have to say that I enjoyed myself immensely. Arsenal have a really wonderful stadium, and an exciting young team to watch. They won't win the league title with it - despite all the current evidence, Manchester United will (!) - but no doubt they will play beautifully all the way.

Alexander The not so Great?

On a recent trip to British Museum, I came across a book called Alexander the Great Failure. As you can imagine, that kind of talk is heresy round here and I do not encourage anyone to think in those terms. Despite this, I would have - in the interest of balance - bought the book, but in a rare fit of economic sensibleness (that I hope will pass soon), I decided that since it cost £20 it would be better to wait until the paperback version appears.

Here is the blurb from Amazon.co.uk

Alexander the Great's empire stretched across three continents and his achievements changed the nature of the ancient world. But for all his military prowess and success as a conqueror, John Grainger argues that he was one of history's great failures. Alexander's arrogance was largely responsible for his own premature death; and he was personally culpable for the failure of his imperial enterprise. For Alexander was king of a society where the king was absolutely central to the well-being of society as a whole. When the king failed, the Macedonian kingdom imploded, something which had happened every generation for two centuries before him, and happened again when he died. For the good of his people, Alexander needed an adult successor, and both refused to provide one, and killed off any man who could be seen as one. The consequence was fifty years of warfare after his death and the destruction of his empire. The work of Philip II, Alexander's father, in extending and developing the kingdom of the Macedonians was the foundation for Alexander's career of conquest. Philip's murder in 336 BC brought Alexander to the kingship in the first undisputed royal succession on record.

Right-

For arrogance read heroism

For personally culpable read disloyalty of his army / subjects

For adult successor [he] refused to provide one read Roxane's pregnancy

For he killed off any [potential successor] read Perdiccas, Craterus, Antipater etc etc

For the consequence was... read of his marshalls' failure to come an agreement

As you can see, I know where I stand with this book already!

On another note, a very interesting titbit of information that I read the other day was that the ancient Greeks did not expect their heroes to act in a morally righteous fashion. A person was a hero because he did great deeds. Great here means awesome. This is the key to understanding Alexander. He was obsessed by The Iliad and so himself as a new Achilles. Truth to tell, he was a bad king but was a brilliant hero - which is just what he set out to be.

Pius XII The Hound of Hitler

Last week, I read Gerard Noel's book, Pius XII The Hound of Hitler. The Catholic Herald review of a few weeks ago revealed that Noel blames Pius for contributing to the start of the Great War and World War II. This led to a most amusing letter, which I mentioned on Cally's Kitchen here.

So, what did Noel really say? Well, in regards the Great War, Pius' - or Eugenio Pacelli's - contribution so-called was the Serbian Concordat signed by Serbia and the Vatican. It upset Serbia's relationship with the Austro-Hungarian empire which made the commencement of hostilities between the two sides that much easier or more likely after the death of the Arch-Duke Ferdinand.

For my part, although Noel explains his thinking clearly enough, I was not convinced by his argument. I can well believe that the Serbian Concordat did not help matters but was it as significant as Noel thinks it was? Well, he never goes further than to say that it contributed to the start of World War I, but that is a fairly meangingless phrase. Any number of events no doubt contributed to the start of the war but in themselves are not worthy of especial attention. Without further evidence, I would count the Serbian Concordat among them.

As for World War II, Noel blames the Concordat with the Nazis, signed in 1933. This was no doubt an ignominious moment for the Vatican because the Concordat brought an end to effective Catholic resistance to the Nazis in Germany, but whether it contributed meaningfully to World War II is quite another matter. Again, it no doubt did not help matters and no doubt made a contribution of sorts, but then, so did many other greater events. My impression is that Noel places greater emphasis on these two concordats to buttress an already decided upon argument.

Pius XII was a man of deep contradictions. He was the last triumphalist Pope. A man of deep, saintly, spirituality and austerity. But he was also a neurotic, prone to nightmares and indecision. Noel brings all these aspects of his character out wonderfully well. The genius of the book, however, is to highlight how important to Pius was his secretary, Sister Pasqualina; without her, it seems, Pius would not have been half the man that he was. This Bavarian nun ruled his life (being nicknamed la popessa by Vatican wags) to great effect. Their relationship is inspirational.

Noel's book also looks at the seedier side of Vatican policy in the age of Pius XII. For example, it tells how the Church negotiated with the Mafia on behalf of President Roosevelt, allowed its banker to invest millions of lire in unethical companies (e.g. birth control and armaments firms) and failed to stop gun toting Franciscan friars running wild in Sicily. Thank goodness we have Our Lord's word that the gates of hell will not prevail against Holy Mother Church because after reading what some prelates got up to and how Pius failed to stop it, one's faith is not damaged but there is a definite blush in the face.

Of course, the big question behind Pius XII The Hound of Hitler is why he did not condemn Nazism. The simple answer to this is that he rightly felt it would cost lives to do so. This is precisely what happened when other Catholic leaders spoke out (e.g. the Dutch bishops. As a result of their condemnation, St Edith Stein was taken to Auschwitz). As you might imagine, Pius did not do nothing. In fact, the Vatican saved the lives of over three quarters of a million Jews during the war. How many did Churchill and Roosevelt save during the war?

At the end of his book, Noel provides an apologia for Pius. Well, if it was a defence of the Pope I would hate to read a Noelian attack on him. I must read it again to better get the measure of it, but my first impression is that it is one of the worst apologias that I have ever read. In short, Noel says that the reason why Pius was not so bad after all is because the Church made him what he was. Well, if nothing else, it was an interesting variant on the parents-are-to-blame conclusion.

For all its faults, Pius XII The Hound of Hitler is one of the best books I have read this year. Noel may be right or wrong in some of what he says, but his honesty really sticks out. You very strongly get the impression that he neither wants to canonise or denegrate Pius XII but understand him. This book is a must read.

A Close Day in the West Country

Gloucester 24 Harlequins 20I wasn't at the game yesterday, so here is what the papers have said.

The Times reports that in the first half, the match went Harlequins way. But there was a familiar problem...

Quins silenced the home crowd with two tries in the opening quarter. Mike Brown beat Willie Walker on the outside to score and then an up-and-under from the full-back fell for Danny Care to pick up and score. Chris Malone did kick a penalty but missed with four other kicks which ultimately cost his side.

According to Dean Richards in the Telegraph, Dean Ryan, the Gloucester Director-of-Rugby, has been watching football managers at work.

Richards was far from happy afterwards: “I came in at half-time and [Gloucester coach] Dean Ryan was lambasting the referee and then we lose the penalty count 8-0 in the second half. Perhaps we are being too polite. It cost us last year, but if that’s what it takes we will have to start.”

Finally, the Guardian describes how close the game was till the very end.

At 21-20 nerves were jangling, until Barkley stepped forward to add the final points.

The Duchess

A few nights ago, I went to see The Duchess at the local cinema. Set at the end of the eighteenth century, it stars Kiera Knightly as Georgiana Cavendish, the Duchess of Devonshire and Ralph Fiennes as her husband, William, the fifth duke of Devonshire.

The plot is this: William Cavendish is in need of an heir. Georgiana (whose name is pronounced George - ana [rhyming with hay - na]) looks like a fertile young woman, so he agrees to marry her. Unfortunately, a son is not immediately forthcoming: only daughters, so William goes off to play with his dogs. Oh yes, and with his mistress. Not unsurprisingly, Georgiana takes umbrage at this and demands that she be allowed to have her own lover. She has one already lined up - the future prime minister, Charles Grey. William is so incensed with this demand that he goes into a rage and rapes her. It produces the son he has been waiting for. Georgiana is already a hit in high and popular society. She campaigns for Grey's party, the Whigs, in between of gambling and drinking. She has her affair with Charles Grey, anyway, and it produces a girl. The film ends with the fate of the child.

Kiera Knightly

The film critic Mark Kermode used to call her Ikea Knightly because he thought her acting was so wooden but in his review of The Duchess, he praised her performance as Georgiana, calling it Knightly's first good performance. I would disagree. She was also good in Pride and Prejudice. Georgiana builds upon Lizzie Bennett. How so? Well, Elizabeth Bennett's character is established from the start of the film. The story unravels rather than develops it. The Georgiana that we see at the start of The Duchess, however, is not the same woman that we see at the end. At the beginning of the film she is young, carefree and innocent. By the end, as well as being grown up (obviously) she has become worldly wise, careworn and - in a manner of speaking - defeated. Knightly portrays the change in Georgiana's character very well.

Ralph Fiennes

Fiennes is a great actor but I cannot say much about his performance. He sleep walks through the film. It isn't that he is bad but that I just didn't think that there was much for him to do. His character, William Cavendish, is, to be honest, boring. At the start of the film, he is moody because he is in urgent need of an heir. Once he gets one, he carries on being moody because his wife is foolish enough to demand a kind of equality with him. Although he beats her (not literally) into submission, he remains moody, anyway. As the focus is on Georgiana, we see nothing of why William needs an heir, why he insists on bringing a mistress into his house or why he only finds any pleasure in his dogs. He remains a one dimensional character. With that said, the low key way in which Fiennes plays him makes William Cavendish very interesting to watch. It is true that he is not at all a nice man (and that is before the rape of his wife), but he is never portrayed as a villain; just as a man with the weight of his own cares on him. A great shame that they were not explored.

The production values of The Duchess are high - as befitting the eighteenth century. Most excellent, however, was the score by Rachel Portman. A wonderful compliment to the action.

One of the Seminarians of Orthfully Catholic went to see the film. As the review is so short, I hope they don't mind if I quote it in full:

I went to see this film last night and highly recommend it as an interesting insight into Georgian aristocratic family politics but was rather distressed by the fact that the BBFC had seen fit to certify it with a 12a meaning anyone under the age of 12 can see it with someone over the age of 12. I counted four 'sex scenes' of which one was an encounter between two women, one rape and one adulterous. This material should not be shown to anyone under the age of 18 never mind 12. Parents be warned if your children show an interest in the film.

I certainly agree with the recommendation. As has been pointed out elsewhere, The Duchess speaks not only to Georgian politics but to the life and times of Princess Diana (the tag line on the film's poster says 'there were three in their marriage').

In terms of the 12A rating, I would disagree strongly that the film should be an 18. Of the four sex scenes mentioned, the lesbian one referred to above is hardly a sex scene at all. In it, Georgiana's best friend, Lady Elizabeth Foster attempts to teach Georgiana what a good lover is like. So, she sits behind Georgiana on her bed and while speaking (in non-pornographic terms) kisses her on the shoulder and, if I remember rightly, loosens Georgiana's night dress. In the movement of Elizabeth's hands one could certainly argue that there is the implication of lesbianism but the scene ends fairly quickly. This subtlety, I would argue, justifies the lower rating. Admittedly, the rape scene is more graphic (although not as much as a similar scene in The Other Boleyn Girl) although is not dwelt upon. The adulterous sex scene between Georgiana and Charles Grey is not a sex scene at all as it takes place after the act. If the Seminarian really believes that The Duchess should be an 18, he has lead a sheltered life so far as films are concerned. For better or worse, an 18 rating would bring the BBFC into disrepute. Having said all that, I would agree that parents should be mindful if an under 12 asked to see the film. If you took your youngster, be prepared to talk about the picture afterwards so that they understand what they have seen.

Sex scenes aside, The Duchess appears to have watered down other aspects of Georgiana's life. After watching the film, I read the blurb for the biography on which the film is based. Apparently, as well as being an adulterer, Georgiana was a compulsive gambler and drug addict. The gambling is glossed over and drug addiction not, as far as I can remember, referred to at all. Perhaps the writers feel that Georgiana would have appeared as a less sympathetic character if they had been highlighted?

Anyway, as I said above, I heartily recommend this film. A good film. Not spectacular, but with few weak points and none that really damage it. I must mention again that the music is splendid.

Two Out Of Two

Harlequins 31 Bristol 13
A nice walk to the Stoop from Richmond under the Autumn Sun found me watching the last twenty minutes of the Liverpool-Manchester United game and enduring the not so nice final score of 2 - 1 to Liverpool.
That was the day's first and last disappointment. Harlequins opened the scoring against Bristol today and were rarely troubled on their try-line let alone went behind in this error ridden game. The fly-halfs had trouble hitting the mark, players slipped and passes went awry. On the good side, Quins scrum half Danny Care had an excellent game, scoring one try and being involved with a couple of others. He was also very gobby towards the Bristol players which was also to his credit.

Last Saturday, I said that I was very looking forward to seeing fly-half Waisea Luveniyali in action again. Unfortunately, Nick Evans's deputy had a bad day at the proverbial office, putting away only three out of nine kicking chances. That will have to improve against Gloucester next week.
Pundits have made Bristol and Newcastle relegation candidates this year. Regarding Bristol, it is certain that they will have to make lots of improvements to their game if they are to avoid the drop. They had nothing up front and were very prone to errors, for example, in their ball handling. At half time, the score was 12 - 6. Adrian Jarvis, who left Harlequins for Bristol in the close season, was to be thanked for keeping them in the game. But a kicker needs his team to give him the scoring opportunities and in the second half, Bristol failed Jarvis badly. Their sole try came with about a minute left when it was of no consequence.
Next Game: Gloucester (A)

Prediction: Home Win

Gloucester are a team that Quins aspire to be but just aren't yet.

Lissa Lou: Designer of the Future

It looks like my two year old niece, Lissa Lou, has a career with Lockheed Martin waiting for her!

L-M Stealth bomber

Lissa Lou's Stealth bomber prototype

Addendum: You may have noticed a change in name above. Gilraen has told me that, actually, Cass Cass's sister is the designer of the stealth bomber. Maybe Cass Cass will grow up to be a pilot!

Mrs Palin Speaks

Right, it's time for some politics. Sarah Palin. The new Segolénè Royal. Apart from the, er, politics, that is. Last night, according to the Daily Telegraph, she gave her first 'major interview' to ABC Television in America. by major read unscripted.

With the Telegraph's wholly regrettable Americanisations reversed, here is Palin on...

Georgia

The Alaska governor categorised the recent Russian invasion of Georgia as "unacceptable". She said that if Georgia become a member of Nato, then war with Russia might be necessary in order to protect a US ally.

My first thought on reading this was 'blimey'. War with Russia does not sound like a very appetising prospect. But, of course, if NATO has a policy of defending its allies (I am sure Mrs Palin meant to say 'NATO ally' and not 'US ally'. Hmm) then it should see it through. The worst thing about politicians is when they say they will do something and then fail to do it. Viz. Those who said the Rwanda genocide mustn't happen happen again and are now standing by as it does in Darfur.

Going Overseas

[Mrs Palin] received her first passport earlier this year to visit US troops in Kuwait and Germany and has less than two years as governor of a state with a population of 646,000.

Well, the passport issue is great as it allows one to indulge in that old canard about the stupidity of Americans for staying in their own country and, by extension, not knowing where sundry foreign nations are. Of course, we neglect to mention the stupidity of certain classes of our own people, but never mind. When you live somewhere as large and varied as America, I could well see it as a viable option never to go overseas. Regarding Mrs Palin's experience, isn't that just two years less than Mr Obama's?

Statesman

She was forced to admit she had not met any foreign heads of state, but said she was sure nor had plenty of other vice-presidential candidates.

Why would she have met any??! I do hope that she wasn't really 'forced to admit' this as it seems a silly line of questioning.

Bush Doctrine

When asked if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine (of pre-emptive warfare), she was unaware what it meant.

I have to confess, I did not know what it meant, either.

Being A Blues Sister

[Mrs Palin said] in an Alaskan church that the war in Iraq was a "task from God". Mrs Palin said she was referring to a famous quote from Abraham Lincoln.

Now, that's what I call a good comeback.

Not A Dry Eye in the (White) House

Saying she had no doubts about her readiness to be vice-president, or president should Mr McCain be incapacitated, she said: "I answered 'yes' [to McCain] because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink."

The comment about 'the mission that we're on' will scare the life out of The Guardian and its pea brained bleeding heart readers which will be worth the price of the comment alone. As for being ready to succeed John McCain, I know someone said you can't learn on-the-job if you are Vice-President, but I think they were wrong. Of course you can. That's all you can do in that role.

For Your Eyes Only - Ian Fleming

For Your Eyes Only is a collection of short stories.

From A View To A Kill
Initally, I thought this was a fragment, but then I realised that the 'from' was not in italics. In this story, James Bond is called to investigate the death of an intelligence despatch driver in France. The driver was found in undergrowth after being shot in the back at high speed - the secret documents he was carrying gone. Visiting the murder scene, Bond discovers some suspicious looking scrapes on a woodland tree - as if a motorbike had been pushed that way. Bond launches a one man stake-out and not long later watches as a mound in the ground is lifted up. Soviet agents emerge with a motorbike. They wear snowshoes to avoid leaving any footprints and carry the motorbike between them.

Wanting to catch the agents alive, Bond does not attempt to gain entry to the spies' hideaway. Instead, he takes the place of the next despatch rider. The assassin rides up behind him, but this time, it is he who is despatched. With the help of British soldiers, Bond then takes on the other members of the cell. Unfortunately for interrorgators, they are all killed.

My other first thought was that the title of the book referred to when Bond is watching the Soviet agents during his stake out, but of course, there is no killing being done at that point. The title ought to a read then, From A View, To A Kill: Bond's stake-out to his killing of the assassin. Either way, it is a neat little story.

For Your Eyes Only
M. was best man at the wedding of Colonel Havelock. When the Colonel and his wife are murdered M. sends Bond to kill the assassins.

Two things about For Your Eyes Only make this story stand out. (I) The engagement with contemporary politics. Not that it is unique to this story, but insofar as it seems to ride off the back of particular events, rather than an ongoing geo-political situation, the story really stood out for me. (II) M.'s crisis of conscience, which I refer to below.

The killers of the Havelocks are agents of a man named von Hammerstein who is in the employ of Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista. In 1960, the year that For Your Eyes Only was published, the real Batista had just been forced from office by Fidel Casto's communist insurgents (in 1958). In the book, the end of Batista's rule is just round the corner; seeing the writing on the wall, von Hammerstein gives his agents the money to buy the Havelocks' property by any means necessary. When they refuse to sell it, the agents kill them with the promise that they will continue 'negotiations' with the Havelocks' daughter, Judy.

This murder comes to Bond's attention because M. was the best man at the Havelocks' wedding. This leads to the second interesting thing about the story - M. wants the assassins dead, but he knows he cannot simply order it to be done. Unable to let the matter go, he has a crisis of conscience. Thankfully, Bond comes to the rescue. He has nothing against the killers but can see that if they were allowed to live, they might continue to cause great harm (and very likely kill the Havelocks' daughter).

Bond heads off to America and is just about to assassinate von Hammerstein and his men when he is met by Judy Havelock. She is a feisty woman, but eventually allows Bond to help her. The assassination takes place in spectacular style as Judy kills von Hammerstein as he dives into his swimming pool. In the ensuing gunfight, she is injured. Her feistiness flees from her and, rather unfortunately, she immediately becomes just another damsel in distress for Bond to help (and a rather pitiful one at that). Maybe women would be like that, but having built Judy Havelock to be something more, it seems a bit rum that Fleming should then knock her down so.

Quantum of Solace

The Governor paused and looked reflectively over at Bond. He said: "You're not married, but I think it's the same with all relationships between a man and a woman. They can survive anything so long as some kind of basic humanity exists between the two people. When all kindness has gone, when one person obviously and sincerely doesn't care if the other is alive or dead, then it's just no good. That particular insult to the ego - worse, to the instinct of self-preservation - can never be forgiven. I've noticed this in hundreds of marriages. I've seen flagrant infidelities patched up, I've seen crimes and even murder forgiven by the other party, let alone bankruptcy and every other form of social crime. Incurable disease, blindness, disaster - all these can be overcome. But never the death of common humanity in one of the partners. I've thought about this and I've invented a rather high-sounding title for this basic factor in human relations. I have called it the Law of the Quantum of Solace.

And that is what Quantum of Solace is about: the death of a relationship. A desperately sad story; dark and extremely bitter.

Risico
Rome. Bond is double crossed and makes friends with his enemy. Features Lisl Baum - 'a luxus whore' which I think is the best description of anyone that I have read in a long time. Obviously it is not a very nice way to describe someone, but the combination of the highly unusual ('luxus' Is it even a real word?) and archaic ('whore') make it stand out. It certainly makes up for the title, which comes out of one of Fleming's less satisfying attempts to recreate a form of regional patois: "In this piznizz is much risico."

The Hildebrand Rarity
Bond joins an extremely rich and extremely nasty businessman as they search for a extremely spiked rare fish. This story is most notable for the name of the businessman - Milton Krest. He turns up in the film Licence To Kill. In the book, Krest uses a whip (made from the tail of a stingray) on his wife Elizabeth. That element also turns up in Licence To Kill, but this time in the hands of the villainous Sanchez (Robert Davi). In Licence To Kill, Krest is very rich but also a bit of a fool. He is killed when Sanchez locks him in a decompression chamber and smashes the glass. In The Hildbrand Rarity, Krest meets an equally painful death when the rare fish - spikes and all - is rammed into his mouth. This story also features one of Fleming's few - and if the quality of this assertion is anything to go by - mentions of the Catholic Church. The story takes place off the Seychelle islands. Why are the Seychellois afraid of the sea? Very few of them even swim. The reason for this? "The Roman Catholic Church." says Krest, "Doesn't like them taking their clothes off. Bloody nonsense, but there it is." Bloody nonsense, indeed. Or, if true, bloody stupid.

From Gloucester to Rome

A new blog on the block! Well, new to me - Pellegrinaggio: Crossing the Ponte Sisto. And guess what, this blog is part of that blogging holy grail: it combines Catholicism with Rugby Union. My cup overfloweth.

Unfortunately, the writer is a supporter of Gloucester Rugby. Well, now, you can't have everything. Just like Gloucester, in fact, who lost at home to Leicester Tigers at the weekend. Not that that will impinge on their final league placing. Gloucester have finished first in the Premiership for the last two seasons. It can only be a matter of time before they break their duck in the play-offs.

Goldfinger - Ian Fleming

With Goldfinger I reached the half way point in my reading of Ian Fleming's Bond novels. The Bond of Dr. No was a slightly weaker, more vulnerable character as he recovered from the poison administered to him by Rosa Klebb in From Russia With Love, but in Goldfinger, he is back to full strength. Kind of, because at the start of the book we find Bond taking one of his occasional time outs to contemplate the heady subject of death; assassination.

These reflections (as he stares down the barrel of his whiskey glass) do not last long, however, as he soon renews an old acquaintance and accepts an offer to investigate how a gentleman named Auric Goldfinger manages to be such a successful card player. He cheats, of course, and in the course of an afternoon's work, and in the company of Goldfinger's beautiful young secretary, Jill Masterton, Bond brings an end to the cheat's run of wins.

Bond returns to London, but it is not long before he and Goldfinger are reunited. The Bank of England believes Goldfinger is smuggling gold out of Britain. Bond is assigned to find out how. The investigation begins on a golf course in Ramsgate before moving on through France to Geneva. Bond's drive through France was, for me, one of the highlights of the book as it evoked memories of visits I have made to France as well as a train journey L. and I once took from Venice to Ljubljana in Slovenia. The train passed up and down the wall of a long valley. It was dusk and there were bonfires and farmlights glittering on the valley floor below.

It is on his way through France and Bond meets his girl - Tilly Masterton, sister of Jill. Following his card game humiliation, Goldfinger took out his anger on Jill by painting her gold. Fleming explains that the painting killed her because it stopped the pores of the body from 'breathing'. I wonder if this is correct or dramatic licence? Either way, her sister was killed and Tilly is out for revenge.

Unfortunately, they both end up captured. Yet not killed. In common with most Bond villains, Goldfinger refuses to press home his advantage. Instead, promising to kill them later, he takes Bond and Tilly into his service as secretaries as he prepares to form an alliance with the major criminal gangs of America. Their objective - to break into and rob Fort Knox.

The idea that anyone could break into Fort Knox is, frankly, a silly one, but Fleming just about pulls it off so that you are not left shaking your head as Goldfinger reveals his plan to the assembled mob leaders. Amongst them is the woman with the most absurd name that I have met so far in a James Bond novel: Pussy Galore. Here, she is the leader of a (deep breath) gang of acrobatic lesbian catburglers called the Cement Mixers. Like Tiffany Case (Diamonds Are Forever), Pussy has an aversion to men. This is explained as being due to her being sexually abused by her uncle when young. This is a variation on the Honeychile Ryder (Dr. No) character who was raped, which in turn, takes us back to Tiffany Case, who was gang-raped. Of course, being an Ian Fleming novel, these elements are presented as reasons why the characters are the way that they are and play no real part at all in the development of the story.

Fleming's treatment of lesbianism is slightly different as it leads directly to Tilly Masterton's death. Tilly is also a lesbian and falls in love with Pussy Galore right from the moment of their first meeting. When Goldfinger storms Fort Knox, he is ambushed by the American Army, under the leadership of Felix Leiter, whom Bond has been able to contact. Bond tries to lead Masterton to safety, but she refuses to go with him. Breaking free of his grip, she runs back to Pussy Galore, only to fall when Oddjob breaks her neck with his razor sharp bowler hat. The scene ends with one of Bond's typically laconic and cruel remarks, "Poor little bitch. She didn't think much of men... I could have got her away if she'd only followed me." Less harsh than his treatment of the dead Vesper Lynd, but still hard.

The assault on Fort Knox is over very quickly. The denouement of Goldfinger takes place in an aeroplane. Goldfinger takes Bond hostage and again means to kill him later. He doesn't do so, of course, and in the end, there is only one winner. And that winner, James Bond, proving that lesbianism really is at best only a misdirection or at worst a conceit, settles down with Pussy Galore. I doubt that I will ever write a more accurate summary of a Bond book than that.

Stewards in a stew

It's a funny old world in Formula One. Two weeks ago, Ferrarri's Felipe Massa was prematurely let out of his pit and almost crashed into Adrian Sutil's Force India car. As Massa had gained no advantage by the move, the stewards decided that a fine would be an appropriate punishment, rather than a deduction of points or places.

Fast forward to this afternoon, and as he challenges Massa's team mate Kimi Raikkonen for the lead in the Belgium Grand Prix, Lewis Hamilton cuts a corner and comes out in front of his rival. Realising that he has gained an unfair advantage, Hamilton immediately lets Raikkonen overtake him.

The battle continued and as the rain came down, Raikkonen crashed, handing Hamilton the win. But the stewards have now decided that as he did gain the most briefest of advantages, he should be given a 25 second penalty, thus demoting him to third in the final rankings.

Well, where exactly is the justice in that? Hamilton made a mistake, rectified it immediately and the race continued. McLaren will appeal against the steward's decision, and so they should. After their leniancy in the matter of Massa in Valencia two weeks ago, the stewards have made themselves look silly and, I think, rather biassed.

Saracens 21 Harlequins 24

A great start to the new Premiership season by Harlequins. Saracens are just the kind of team that Quins need to beat if they are to challenge for the top four play-offs this season and yesterday they did so, even if in a nail biting way.

Neither side took this game by the scruff of the neck and dominated it. Both had their moments of control so that the game ebbed and flowed like a turbulent river. In the end, however, it was Harlequins who made the most of their possession and held on after a last gasp Saracens attack to get the win.

I was only at Twickenham because a Saracens supporting friend couldn't make the game, so gave me his ticket. Sitting among the Sarries supporters was not so bad, although a few were guilty of appalling gamesmanship when they sounded their horns as Waisea Luveniyali readied himself for a penalty kick.

Speaking of Luveniyali, he came on to replace Nick Evans at fly-half. Evans, the All-Black to whom so much attention has been given, had a good game, though he missed his first penalty before hobbling off with a sore knee or thigh (depending on your source). Luveniyali was an impressive replacement and, even though Evans is the All-Black, I hope we get to see the Fijian again next Saturday.

Earlier in the afternoon, London Irish scored a great victory over a lacklustre Wasps side. It was not a powerful performance by Irish but more than enough to defeat a Wasps side seemingly not yet awake to the new season.

A word about the ELVS. From where I was sitting, it was hard to see what was going on at the mauls. But both Wasps and Harlequins got caught out by the kicking to touch behind the 22. The most mysterious moment of the afternoon, however, was when Saracens kicked to touch - I was sure from outside their 22 - and the Quins player who caught the ball decided 'I don't fancy taking the line-out from where the ball went out, I will just advance ten metres forward.'. I am sure one of the new ELVS was being followed here, but goodness only knows which.

Now, Stick Your Neck Out Time:

Next Game: Bristol
Prediction: Home Win

Twos Better Than One?

Iain Dale congratulates the Green Party on having elected (finally) a single leader, saying, "They have finally grown up and realised that co-leaders do not work."

Tell that to the Spartans who, with their two kings, became one of the two great powers of ancient Greece and, even more so, to the two consuls of the Roman Republic. When the Republic fell, it was not because of the consular system but because the generals had become too powerful and the inability of the Senate to deal with them.

It was a game of two halves, Aristotle

It really is the little things in life that please one the most. For example, looking at the Graeco-Persian wars of the Sixth and Fourth century BC as if they were a football match. These conflicts probably kicked off the animosity that exists these days between the West and Middle-East. And no wonder, for Greece gave the Persian Empire such a thorough beating in both home and away legs of the match that the Middle-east has probably been smarting ever since. Let's take a closer look at what happened.

Before I continue, a note of caution. As Our Man of the Antonii pointed out to me yesterday, to describe the Graeco-Persian wars as a football match between Greece and Persia implies that Greece was in the sixth and fourth century a country, of course, it wasn't. When they were abroad, the 'Greeks' might have told someone they were from Greece, but in their own land they were Athenians, Thebans, Spartans etc.

Home Leg (Greece) 490 - 479BC

September 490BC The Battle of Marathon

Under the management of Darius I, the Persian Army crossed the Aegean Sea and landed on the Greek mainland. He was met by a numerically inferior army from Athens. But as Real Madrid found out in the early 2000s, it is no use having Galacticos if you don't have the tactics. The Persians had the Immortals, Mede Cavalry and Phygian spearmen. But it was the Athenians had the plan - and delightfully simple it was too: Perceiving the centre of the Persian line to be its weak point, the Athenians ran towards it. More heavily armoured than the Persians, they broke it. The Persians ran scared and were beat. 1 - 0 to Greece.

19th August 480BC The Battle of Thermopylae

Darius I had since died and the Persian Army was now under the rule of Xerxes. He led the Persians to their first - and what would prove to be their only - win on Greek soil. King Leonidas of Sparta lead 300 Spartans and other assorted Greek soldiers to the 'hot gates' to hold the Thermopylae pass against Xerxes army. Watching the wave after wave Persian attack must have been like watching Manchester United against some lower league club in the third round of the League Cup - except for when we lose. Unfortunately, Leonidas couldn't do a Southend, and he and his brave men were eventually overcome. 1 - 1. Stranger, go tell the Spartans that we lie here / Obedient to the 4 4 2 formation.

August / September (?) 480BC The Bay of Artemision

I wasn't sure whether to include this one because it wasn't strictly speaking a battle. More like a warm up that went spectacularly wrong for the Persians. So, there was the Greek Navy, waiting for its chance to go to battle against the Persian force when along comes some exceptionally bad weather. The weather, though, is the gods' present to the Greeks because it destroys the Persian Navy. Ships of antiquity were simply not big enough to withstand the kind of terrible conditions at sea that bad weather brings and many of the Persian ships are broken up by the rocks of Artemision. If Artemision derives its name from Artemis, it is appropriately named on this occasion. I am including this devastating event on the grounds that the Persian ships that survived were mopped up by the Greeks. 2 -1.

September 480BC The Battle of Salamis

This battle took place in the strait between the Peloponnese and Attica. I'm not very good at describing complicated tactics, so let's say it was like Route One football. With Xerxes watching from the shore, the remains of the Persian Navy (still a major force) pursued a seemingly harried Greek fleet into a thin stretch of water between Salamis and Piraeus. But the Greeks were leading the Persians into a trap. The invaders had too many vessels and they soon got clogged up. Imagine a goalkeeper hoofing the ball upfield when his team has a 3 3 4 formation. All those strikers would surely get in each others way and the opposition could pick the ball out of the mess and counter attack. This is what the Greeks did. They stopped running and started ramming to deadly effect. The Persians were beat and Xerxes did a runner back to Persia. 3 - 1.

Spring 479BC The Battle of Plataea

Xerxes may have gone, but he left behind his captain Mardonios to carry on the fight. Once again, tactics won the day here. The two sides had been manoeuvering for two weeks when Pausanias - the Spartan regent in charge of the Greek army - allowed his forces to become stretched out. Not unreasonably, Mardonios thought this was his moment to strike. He did. But he reckoned without the Greeks ability to form up quickly. The Persians had the greater army, but the Greeks had the hoplites. Pausanias was about to be sacked by mainforce. 4 - 1.

c.27th August 479BC The Battle of Mykale

Deep into injury time, King Leotykhidas of Sparta pursued the fleeing Persian fleet and caught up with it on the island of Mykale. There, he burned their ships and killed the men. No need for extra time. 5 - 1.

Away Leg (Persia)

May 334BC The Battle of the Granicus River

Alexander the Great's invasion of the Persian Empire was ostensibly carried out to revenge Greece upon the Persians for their own invasion 160 years earlier. Of course, there was a lot more to it than that - as evidenced by the fact that as many Greeks fought against Alexander (as mercenaries) as with him. Anyway, at the Granicus, Alexander climbed up a river bank, took an arrow in the ribs and almost had his head cut off but survived to score an impressive first major victory against Darius III's army. The Great King himself, however, was not present, regarding this battle much as major football teams do first round ties in minor cup competitions. 0 - 1 (6 - 1 agg)

November 333BC The Battle of Issus

Now, Darius III came. He came, he saw, he picked the best land for his army to attack Alexander's force and was broken by a stunning run down the right by Alexander's men. Think Ryan Giggs against Arsenal in the 1999 FA Cup Semi Final. 0 - 2 (7 - 1 agg)


331BC The Battle of Gaugamela

The big one. Despite his two previous defeats, if Darius III had won this battle, he would have kept his kingdom. He didn't. He lost both it and - very soon after - his life as well. In actual fact, Darius III displays some character traits that are uncannily like those of Kevin Keegan for like King Kev he had a tendency to walk out when the going gets tough. At both Issus and Gaugamela, when Darius saw that the Macedonians had gained the upper hand, he leapt onto his chariot and was off. 0 - 3 and 8 - 1 on aggregate. A stunning success for Greece.

The Battle of Actium: Geography

Thanks to Google Earth, we can see where the Battle of Actium took place - western Greece, in the Ionian Sea. If you click on the photograph above, you can see in the north 'Macedonia (FYROM)'. This is not Alexander's Macedonia. In his day, the FYROM was called Paionia, the southern part of which was conquered by Alexander's dad, Philip II before Alexander himself finished the job off.

FYROM stands for the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia and is not on friendly terms with Greece. For more on this topic, see my post here. Alexander's Macedonia lies to the south of the FYROM. If modern day Greece is not on good terms with the FYROM, it shows that nothing has changed because ancient Greece looked down on Macedonia as well, regarding it as an uncouth and semi barbarous place.

Here is a close up of the bay of Actium.

Octavian and Agrippa's encircled the bay, only for Mark Antony and Cleopatra's ships to break through their lines. They then headed south and east back to Alexandria. Speaking of Marcus Agrippa, he is the reason why Octavian became Augustus. Octavian's military skills were negligable but Agrippa's very good indeed. But Agrippa not only excelled on the battle field. He built the first Pantheon temple in Rome as well as aquaducts (the Pantheon temple that we see today was rebuilt by Hadrian in the second century AD).

The Battle of Actium

Today is the 2039th anniversary of the Battle of Actium. On this day in 31BC, the army of Octavian - lead by Marcus Agrippa - beat the combined forces of Mark Antony and Cleopatra. It wasn't much of a battle, really, with Antony deserting his army and hightailing it back to Alexandria to be with Cleopatra. Octavian caught up with them a year later. He did not stay to talk about old times.

With Antony and Cleopatra's death, the Ptolemaic line of kings and queens of Egypt ended (having been started by Ptolemy I Soter, Alexander the Great's general) three hundred years earlier. The Republic of Rome also ended as Octavian became sole ruler of the Empire.

At the time, Romans probably did not realise that the Republic was no more as Octavian ruled under the forms of Republican government. So, for example, he was described not as an emperor bu as 'princeps' (First Citizen) with the official position of consul.

Octavian's decision to work within the Republican system means that the early Roman Empire is called the Principate. It would be nearly three hundred years before the emperors finally cast off all pretence at being one of the people. The man who turned the Principate into the Dominate (after dominus lord) was Diocletian (who reigned between 284 and 305). A great symbol of his style of government comes from the fact that it was he who introduced the practice of prostrating oneself before the emperor. Adoro, I think it was called: adoration. Six hundred years earlier, Alexander the Great inherited this practice from the Persian Empire (in Greek, it was called proskynesis) but was never able to impose it successfully on his Macedonian subjects who were used to being close to their king.