Rugby & national anthems

A good sporting weekend - a possible renaissance for English rugby with Johnny Wilkinson's fairy-tale return and a fantastic spectacle from the Welsh and Irish.

But as always I am embarrassed when it comes to the national anthems.

• France - The Marseillaises
The marching song of the revolution, and possibly the best of all anthem tunes.
The words are pretty militaristic but at least they get in:
'Tremble tyrants and traitors
The shame of all good men'

• Scotland - Flower of Scotland.
A hymn of revival from a repressed nation who have been at the shitty end of the stick from England for centuries:
'But we can still rise up
And be a nation again'.

Ireland - Amhrain na bh Flann.
As above, although the anthem of the Republic is usually also followed by 'Ireland's Call' to placate those from Ulster :
'From a land beyond the waves
Sworn to be free
No more our ancient land
Shall shelter despot or slave'.

Wales - Land Of My Fathers.
Great tune, a bit sentimental but certainly nothing offensive.
'Land of poets - land of the free'.

Italy - Can't find the words I'm afraid but it seems like a jolly tune.

England - God Save The Queen
Er - that's about it really - I seem to remember some dodgy lines buried in later verses about 'popish knaves' and 'rebellious Scots'. Nothing you would remotely want to take any kind of pride in.

Why are we still using this crap ? Even Jerusalem would be better with its daft religious connotations. And actually 'roll out the barrel' would probably be better still.

30th January - Democracy Day ?

Yesterday was the anniversary of the execution of Charles I in 1649. The first and only legal public execution of an English monarch as opposed to the mafia-style whacking of a rival that was commonplace in the middle ages.

As usual it passed by largely un-noticed. In France and the USA there are public holidays to mark the turning points in their political history. But in this country our Civil War is massively under-played, as if there was something embarrassing and un-English about it.

History of course is written by the victors. And the victors of the Civil War ultimately were the compromisers - moderate royalists and moderate parliamentarians. The royalists outraged at the king's preference for secret deals with Presbyterian Scots, Irish Catholics and even the French, just about anyone other than his own people, and the parliamentarian gentry and middle class scarred at the threat of actual democracy from below posed by the radical republicans and levellers.

The compromise was a protracted one that took about thirty years to work out. It spanned the restoration of the monarchy with Charles II, and ultimately the invitation of William II to come over from Holland and take the job as king when James II showed too many signs of following in Charles I's footsteps. This coup in 1689 is celebrated as the 'glorious revolution when of course it was actually neither of these things. But it does mark the settlement of a 'constitutional monarchy' with which we have been stuck ever since.

And of course the compromisers had a natural desire to play down the idea that there was any kind of conflict. As if the present day arrangements that pass for a constitution were the outcome of a gentlemens' agreement rather than centuries of struggle and conflict. In particular the Civil War(s) were almost fifty years of bloody and traumatic battles that touched every part of the country and every aspect of daily life.

As you might have guessed by now, the civil war has always been something of a passion of mine. It is the most significant period in English history, when for the first time we saw the ideas of democracy raised, and even implemented in the short-lived English Republic and Commonwealth.

So, let's start the campaign for the 30th January to be a public holiday in this country - Democracy Day. A celebration of the birth of democratic ideas ,and of the concept that no authority is above the law and the elected representatives of the people.

Amazing isn't it that to float such an idea is still controversial some 350 years after the event ?

Why bible studies ?

Eldest daughter had some homework this weekend to research the story of Abraham.

Which begs the question - why ?

For the moral lessons we can learn ?
My Old Testament knowledge isn't great but I do remember that God tested Abraham by asking him if he would sacrifice his own son' he passed because apparently he was willing to do so. Neither God nor Abraham come out very well from that one. The only moral lessons to be learnt are if you are some sort of child-killing pyschopath, and even then the defence "the voices told me to do it" will not keep you out of the loony bin.

Because it's part of our cultural heritage ?
Well ok maybe. I suppose these days it can't do any harm to learn that Christianity, Islam and Judaism all share a common starting point. But using the same argument we shown also learn about the Greek, Roman, Celtic. Saxon and Norse gods as well. After all our calendar and language has much more to do with these than any Judao-Christian tradition.

Because the bible is great literature ?
Have any of the people who argue this even read the King James Edition with the endless lists of 'begetting and smiting". Also the characterisation is lousy and the plot preposterous.

No - the reason schools insist on teaching bible studies is because we can't let go of the idea that we are a 'Christian ' country or that morality can't be taught without reference to religion.

Wrong on both counts - I am afraid.

Being A Liberal Takes Bottle

A convicted paedophile was spared a prison sentence yesterday because of a government directive to judges that UK prisons are full and of course the 'hang em & flog em' brigade are up in arms.

Actually in this instance they are right, but for the wrong reasons. The paedophile should have gone to prison but he didn't not because the government are mamby-pamby liberals or because they haven't built enough prisons.

No, it's because they are too trigger happy when it comes to sentencing policies.

It started with Michael Howard, the Tory Home Secretary who proclaimed in 1993 that 'prison works' and brought in stiffer sentencing guidelines. Since then the prison population has increased by 85%, but unfortunately he was wrong. Prison doesn't work - just under two thirds of prisoners re-offend within three years of their release.

But no subsequent politicians have the courage to question this received wisdom, particularly New Labour ones who are so keen to show that they are even tougher on crime than the Tories. So we continue to fill up our prisons with petty criminals and drug addicts at a cost of something like £40k per prisoner per year. And we do so at an alarming rate, for every 10,000 in the UK there are 148 prisoners - this is the worst rate in Europe compared to 85 per 10,000 in France and Germany.

To remedy this and to start ensuring that prisons are for the people that really belong there requires a bit of genuine bravery on the part of politicians. It is very easy to be a macho vigilante and proclaim yourself tough on crime, but it takes a bit more nerve to think about it intelligently. With the political compass oscillating so wildly that the traditional 'principles' of Tory and Labour have disappeared these days, mouthing platitudes about crime is an easy way of gaining popular support. But playing to the lowest common denominator is a dangerous game - remember the hysteria about paedophiles and the mobs who petrol bombed paediatricians' offices ?

To change this means having the nerve to think the un-thinkable and stand up to knee-jerk reactions: Decriminalise soft drugs and prostitution. Overhaul the remand system (only 1 in 5 prisoners held on remand are actually convicted). Look at alternatives to imprisoning those who fail to pay fines. And have a sentencing system that prioritises crimes against the person over crimes against property.

That's just for starters. Then we might have some room in prison for people who actually belong there.

Secret Fanatics In High Places.

Christian churches are uniting in saying that they would rather see kids up for adoption in children's' homes rather than with same-sex parents. And Ruth Kelly is in the headlines again.

Not this time for taking her son out of the state system and sending him to a fee-paying Catholic school. But because she has said that Catholic adoption agencies should be exempted from the recent legislation that prevents discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Ruth Kelly is 'Minister for Communities' (?!?). She is also a member of Opus Dei.

Just because Opus Dei is the subject of a bad novel and an even worse film, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and that it isn't as sinister as it is portrayed. It is a highly secretive organisation that holds to a fundamentalist and very reactionary version of Catholicism. Founded under Franco's Fascist regime in Spain, it recruits lay Catholics in prominent positions to use their influence to do 'God's work'.

With a military-like structure and discipline, they are a modern day equivalent of Loyola's Jesuit vanguard in the sixteenth century counter-reformation. (Ironic given that modern Jesuits are now very much on the left of church, having adopted the liberation theology of social justice).

So just where do Ruth Kelly's loyalties lie ?

With the constituents she represents ? With the governments whose policy of non-discrimination she presumably subscribed to at some point ? With the wider community of all (and no) faiths that she is minister of ? Or with the shadowy and fanatical organisation she has taken vows with ?

Now re-read all of the above and substitute 'Moslem' for 'Catholic' and ask yourself if Ruth Kelly would still be Minister for Communities.

Big Brother - racism & the class struggle (yes really)

It's a crazy fucked-up world when a dumbed down reality TV show in the UK can provoke the burning of effigies in India in protest at racism from the contestants towards Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty.

There's debate whether the attitudes of some of the white contestants are racism or ignorance. Well actually they are both - here's a few random examples:

• Indians are thin because they are always ill from the food they eat.
• Worrying about eating food prepared by the Indian star because Indians eat with their hand and 'you don't know where their hands have been'.
• Telling Silpa to 'fuck off home'.
• Mispronouncing her name, or referring to her as "the Indian' (or "Paki' at one point).
• Asking her if she had a house or a shack back in India.
• Constantly taking the piss out of her accent (ironic when Shilpa is far more eloquent than her deriders)

Not the worst sort of racism - I'm sure most British Asians could cite far more offensive things - but racism nonetheless.

But maybe something positive can come out of this.

One bye-product of these reality shows has been the elevation of 'ordinary' people like Jade Goody to the status of celebrities.In fact what lies behind this is a caricature of 'ordinariness' as ignorance, and then turning it into a charming virtue.

Which is why I think Julie Burchill is wrong to defend 'chav culture'. Yes there is some snobbery behind the ridicule of 'chavs', which is really just a euphemism for what in the states would be called white trash. But to defend chav-ism from the point of view of sticking up for ordinary people is to give a distorted and patronising view of what it is to be working class.

It may buck a convenient stereotype, but working class people also read books hold opinions, and are just as capable of abstract thought as middle class liberals. If,for all sorts of reasons the school system fails someone, a lack of education still shouldn't be be worn with pride. It may be a cliche but knowledge is power and that's why it has been, and still is, a battle to get a decent education. It's no accident that trade union banners have carried the slogan 'educate - agitate - organise' for over a hundred years.

Apparently the bookies are making Shilpa the favourite to win the show - I can't say I am a fan, she seems a spoilt celebrity-princess much like any other. But at least she has exposed that ignorance is not charming, it's ugly and should be challenged.

Tesco homes.

Tesco is to build 250 'affordable' flats in South London. A certain proportion will be reserved for Tesco's own employees, and later whenever the flats are subsequently sold, they will first be advertised to Tesco workers.

There is a housing crisis in the UK, particularly in London and the South East. Ever since Thatcher came up with the idea of a 'property owning democracy' and got councils to sell off their housing stock, ambitions have been raised that cannot be fulfilled. House prices have risen at a rate that have far out stripped earnings. And councils have stopped building new houses - the 'notorious' Militant Liverpool City Council were the last to do so. Many low paid and not so low paid people under 35 are faced with either living at home or paying ridiculous amounts to landlords in the largely unregulated private rental sector.

So is this philanthropy* on Tesco's part ?

*(That's a Victorian concept by the way the modern management-speak bollocks would call it "investing in the ethical capital of the brand.")

No.

Tesco are not in the philanthropy business. You don't get to have 34% of the grocery market with a charitable outlook. When you can buy a pair of jeans for under £5 there is a reason - Tesco's squeeze their suppliers dry. Whether they are a Welsh hill farmer or a textile firm in India, somebody is suffering to ensure that "every little counts". If you want to know more check out www.tescopoly.org - good luck though because from time to time Tesco try to take the site down.

The truth is that cleverly anticipating the out of town superstore concept, Tesco brought up a lot of land which because of its increasingly monopolistic position it will be prevented from using for more stores, so it is looking for other ways to develop. And of course to have their employees living in company housing gives them even more leverage over their already poorly paid and badly treated staff.

The concept of 'tied-houses' is yet another way that we are truly turning the clock back over century. And for every enlightened owner like Robert Owen who built model towns for his workers, there were twenty others who built slum houses from which workers were evicted if they got at all uppity.

Future archaelogy

To the British Museum for the "Past From Above' exhibition, aerial photography by Georg Gester from archaeological sites around the world.

Incredible to see the obvious things likes monuments and structures, but even more so to see earthworks and man-made landscapes that would otherwise just not register from the ground.

I don't think that any of the sites were younger than 1,ooo years old and it makes me wonder what structures from today will still be visible in 1,ooo years from now. Or maybe more to the point, what would we want to be visible.

For some reason I can't help but think of Bluewater shopping centre at Dartford in Kent. Personally I think it's a monstrosity, but carved as it is out of old gravel pits I'm afraid it will probably leave a permanent scar that will be visible for a long time. And hideous though it is, and much as I hate visiting it, perhaps it is apt that it should endure. It may well be as symbolic of our own consumer society as Stonehenge is of our Bronze Age predecessors.

There is a running joke in archaeology that if we don't know how to interpret something that makes no sense from the perspective of our own world view, we decide that it has 'ritual significance'. Hopefully our decedents will have evolved sufficiently that they decide that shopping was a ritual activity.

Five shameful years.

The US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay was five years old yesterday.

Despite the operations there being condemned by the Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the western world has become so desensitized to its existence that it rarely merits comment these days. But it should be an indelible stain on all our consciences.

There was a slogan going round of 'not in my name' at the start of the war. Maybe this seems like liberal sentimentality, but it was never more applicable than in the case of Guantanamo.

Our leaders tell us that our safety is assured by the use of such places and that however distasteful we may find them, for us to criticise them is just ungrateful squeamishness. And so acceptance of inhumane practices enters in the consensus of what is morally acceptable, if it is done in the name of western democracy.

For the first time in centuries, moral philosophers are again seriously debating whether the use of torture can be morally justified in the cause of the greater good.But even on a practical level I have yet to see any good use made of intelligence gained from the 700+ unconvicted detainees who have passed through the camp.

It is a matter of record that information obtained under torture is often highly questionable. Witness the confession of one of the Tipton Three (UK citizens detained at the camp); he confessed to being in a training camp in Afghanistan whilst in fact he was proven to have actually been working at the time at Currys in the West Midlands !

Contrast all of this with conduct of the Nuremburg trials fifty years ago. Having defeated Nazism, the allies were at pains to maintain the moral high ground by giving due legal process to their former enemies. The process was not perfect, but it would have been unthinkable that no charges brought, or open investigations started for five years after the conflict.

I personally don't feel any safer because of the detention and torture of the men at Guantanamo; and I don't feel that anything done there is about justice for the victims of 9/11, or of the Taliban in Afghanistan, or of Saddam in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter. When these arguments are used by our leaders to justify their actions, I think it is entirely appropriate to say ' not in my name'.

US air strikes in Somalia

US AC-130 gunships strafe a village in a dirt-poor corner of Africa that most Americans couldn't find on a map.

27 unidentified people are killed, and more hearts and minds doubtless won over to the cause of anti-american islamic fundamentalism.

It's hardly a surgical attempt to eliminate the al-Qaida suspects that are supposedly in hiding there. The AC-130 was first used in Vietnam; it's main purpose is to lay down an intensive carpet of 'suppressive' gun fire and the aircraft therefore bristles with 20mm and 40mm cannons and Gatling guns. Ironically during the previous disastrous 'Blackhawk down' operations in Somalia, Clinton rejected the use of so blunt an instrument because of the risk of collateral damage.

And it is this 'collateral damage' that means another swathe of people in the Muslim world with a passionate hatred of the US, and the west in general.

I grew up in the shadow of the final stages of the Cold War.

My generation faced the possibility of global destruction because of an escalation of a dangerous game of brinkmanship between two empires. But I don't remember having a sense that we were hated by ordinary Soviet citizens. In fact because we had a sense that mankind was trapped between the two superpowers, the effect was a radicalising one.

Twenty years on, and my children's' generation are growing up in a world where a sense of genuine hatred is all too visible. And the effect of this is not radicalisation but paranoia and knee jerk xenophobia.

Remember the scenes after 9/11 when Middle - America kept asking ' why do they hate us so ?'

Surely no one needs to answer that now.

But is it art ?

To Tate Modern this weekend.

As is often the case, watching the people is at least as enjoyable as looking at the art.

The main attraction is the installation by Carsten Holler - swirly metal and glass tubes that are also slides. Adults and kids alike seem to be queuing up for some time to take their turn to experience the ride.

All those poe-faced, middle class media-types who would shudder at the thought of a day trip to Alton Towers or Chessington World of Adventures obviously feel that their fun is legitimised by it being in an art gallery.

Looking at their faces as they go down the slides, some of the adults seem to be surrendering to the moment and are screaming and laughing as they spin down the height of the four floors of the turbine hall. Others manage to maintain the earnest and reverential look that is felt to be appropriate in a gallery.

I have seen it argued that public funding of the arts is a means by which the working class subsidises the middle class in their pleasures. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this but this is certainly some truth in it. The argument seems particularly appropriate when the middle class are given the chance to experience a 'chav day out' under the guise of supporting art.

(Dis)honours System

One of the most unique and talented British boxers for generations, 'Prince' Naseem Hamid has had his MBE taken away. Looks like the same arrogance that made his boxing style so distinctive has also led him to believe, like so many obnoxious celebrities, that he is above the law.

He's certainly not a likable character - after seriously injuring some people in a car crash caused by his dangerous driving, he fled the science and has since shown no remorse , despite some time in prison.

Meanwhile, the honours system seems bankrupt and I can't really see why anyone wants to be associated with the British Empire.

So does any of this really matter ?

Well, let's have a quick look at some other disgraced public figures who have kept their honours:

Lord Archer - corrupt politician and pathological liar

Dame Shirley Porter - corrupt politician who rigged voting in Westminster Council

Sir Mark Thatcher - corrupt businessman who also helped stage a coup in Equatorial Guinea

Anyone see a pattern here ?

New Year - same old hypocrisy.

A bit of decency from a surprising source:

John Prescott has condemned the handling of Saddam's execution, where apparently the guards taunted him with abuse and Shia slogans, before recording his final momemnts on a phone camera, which are now doing the rounds on the internet. This contrasts with Blair's refusal to break his self-imposed silence whilst on holiday in the West Indies.

It also makes plain what the execution was about; revenge.

This is not to say that you can blame the Shias, Kurds and other opponents persecuted by Saddam from wanting this revenge. There is no getting away from the fact that he was an evil bastard who only got the same fate as his victims.

BUT let's not kid ourselves that this was international justice.

It was a show trial by a puppet government that chose not to publicise how Saddam's regime was able to get away with tyranny for so long - because the US and UK bank-rolled it for years as an ally against Iran.

Happy Winterval / Yule

Tomorrow is the Winter Solstice.

And at this time there are the usual requests to remember the 'true meaning of Christmas'.

I suppose that to Christians this means the nativity story and the more general desire for a traditional Christmas, after all this is 'still a Christian country'. Traditional meaning to most people something like a scene from Dickens or if you prefer, a tin of Quality Street.

There is a tinge of xenophobia and racism in this of course. When people say a 'Christian country', there is also the implication of racism. There are no black or brown faces on the Quality Street to complicate the traditional Christmas.

And along with a bit of racism, this attitude shows quite a bit of ignorance.

There is no evidence I know of that specifically links the birth of Jesus to 25th December. But for many milena all cultures seem to have felt the need for a mid-Winter festival.

Maybe there was an early recognition of Seasonally Affected Disorder. But certainly in Western Europe, people have been marking mid-winter with festivals that involve feasting, giving presents and generally have a bit of a piss-up, since long before Christianity was on the scene.Archaeologists are now of the opinion Stonehenge is aligned with the setting sun on the Winter solstice (and not the Summer solstice as neo-Druids seem to believe). The Ancient British had the festival of Samhain, and the Saxons and Vikings had Yule. It was the Romans, using Christianity as the ideological glue to hold together their rapidly disintegrating empire. who adopted the old festivals and 'Christianised' them. (They did exactly the same with Easter / Eosta).

So eat, drink , be merry and make a prat of yourself at the office party, it's what we've been doing for the previous six thousand years at least.

Bullying the bottom of the pile.

New Labour again puts the boot in on those at the bottom of the pile. John Hutton is determined to tackle the problem of the ‘lazy and feckless’ long term employed who are not taking work in areas where there are unskilled job vacancies.

At the same time the government is running an ad campaign promoting zero tolerance to any benefit claimants who take additional part-time work. It follows on from the campaign a couple of years ago when we were urged to shop anyone we know who was fiddling benefits.

But let’s get this into perspective.

Job seekers allowance is £57:45 a week, in real terms it is worth roughly half what the equivalent benefit was worth in 1979. And the long-term unemployed that Hutton wants to target who have not worked for more than six years, represent 100,000 people.

My arithmetic makes that about £300 million a year. I can only guess, but let’s say that 20% (???) of that represents fraudulent claims – that’s £60 million a year.

On the other hand - tax evasion costs £75 BILLION a year.

And (legitimate) tax avoidance costs £10 BILLION a year.

I don’t remember seeing an advertising campaign asking you to shop anyone you know who fiddles their tax. Those who choose to live off of trust funds are not described as ‘lazy and feckless’ but instead are celebrated in Hello, Tatler and Country Life.

And whilst the Daily Mails rants about advice centres that help claimants ensure that they get their full entitlements, tax advisers are considered a perfect legitimate part of the accountancy profession.

So let’s not kid ourselves this isn’t about getting back ‘lost money’. It is New Labour sticking it to those least able to answer back whilst Middle England cheers them on.

Ipswich Serial Killer

Five women found murdered in Ipswich (so far).

Over the years we’ve had Jack The Ripper, the Yorkshire Ripper and now, the Suffolk Ripper. The sensationalism is timeless and the media know that these stories tap into a primeval taste for murder and illicit sex. They give a glimpse into a dark and tragic world that is at the same time right under our noses, and is also far removed from most people’s lives.

The handling of the case this time does seem to show marginally more sensitivity than that of the Yorkshire Ripper, whose victims were initially seen as ‘just prostitutes’ and almost expendable until ‘ordinary women‘ were at risk.

I am not sure if this progress implies more understanding or whether it has something to do with the victims being young and good looking, a couple have even been described as ‘well spoken’.

But there is still no preparedness to get to grips with the issues of prostitution and drug use that made these women so vulnerable. No politician seems to have the guts to come out and call for the decriminalisation of street prostitution, or for a policy that permits the possession of drugs in quantities for personal use. And yet this is the inescapable logic of breaking the tragic cycle that propelled these women into victims.

Society seems to want knee-jerk reactions and simplistic morals. And we come to believe that what we don’t approve of should also be illegal: Even if that is at the expense of criminalising the victims.

The predator who killed these women may have done so because they were prostitutes or may be because they were simply women who were vulnerable and available.

But either way, it is our attitude to prostitution and drug use that put them in his path.

Pinochet dead - good riddance.

By dying yesterday Pinochet managed to elude justice for one last time.

Of course he had already managed to con Jack Straw in to believing that he was unfit to stand trial (and so avoided extradition), and he had managed to get a spurious constitutional immunity in Chile by being declared a senator for life. I didn’t wish some summary justice for him, or his disappearance, but a public trial, as was denied so many of his opponents.

Growing up on the left in the eighties, Pinochet was THE universal hate figure. A few personal memories of the Pinochet era:

• Meeting Chilean exiles in the UK in the miners’ support groups. In particular Mario, an air force technician who had organised committees of servicemen loyal to the Allende government at the time of Pinochet’s coup. He escaped from Chile when he hid in the cargo-hold of a military aircraft at freezing temperatures .

• Being given a cassette of the music of Victor Jara, the Chilean Bob Dylan, arrested and tortured for three days, before being killed and his body dumped by a roadside.

• Attending a fringe meeting at Labour Party Young Socialist’s conference where members of the Chilean Socialist Youth movement spoke. Their faces were concealed to avoid identification because they planned to return to the interior.

• Picketing the private nursing home in a leafy London suburb where Pinochet sought sanctuary whilst fighting extradition.

And now, on his death, we have the same old arguments again put forward in Pinochet’s defence:

• He was simply a loyal soldier
But the role of the military in Chile has always been in the streets against their own people, not on the battlefield.

• He was a patriot
So much so, that he embezzled something like $28 million. Like Al Capone, it was the tax dodging that caught up with him.

• He was the saviour of his country from communism.
The US might not have like the fact that Allende was a socialist, but (inconveniently) he was democratically elected.

The only honest defence that can be made for Pinochet is “he may be a bastard but at least he’s our bastard”. This of course may be sufficient for his former allies in the US and UK but not for the 35,000 victims of his regime.

Keep it simple - my favourite things.

I like simple things. I don't like clutter. And less is definitely more.

So here are a few random simple things that I enjoy:

• Wing Chun - of all the martial arts it has the shortest syllabus and smallest range of techniques. What it does have is simple and direct. But it will take a lifetime of study to really understand it - there is more than enough to both fascinate and infuriate.

•Harley Davidsons - primitive, big clunky engineering. I don't do the chrome and tassles thing. Bikes should be raw and stripped down - if it doesn't help you stop or go, then get rid of it.

• BB King - classic blues with maybe four bar structure, three cords and lead breaks with a standard blues scale. He says he doesn't play guitar and sing at the same time because he gets confused.

• Steve Earle - country music at its best, nothing that can't be played with one accoustic guitar, but has the ability to get the hairs at the back of your neck going. Check out 'Goodbye' if you don't believe me.

• Ernest Hemingway - not a word wasted. No lengthy descriptions of scene or character, narrative and dialogue do it all. And if you haven't lived it, don't write it.

• Kleftiko - Greek roasted lamb in olive oil, garlic and rosemary, serve with Greek salad and roasted potatoes.

• Hawksmoor Churches - clean and neo-classic lines that are my favourite London architecture. You can keep all that gothic and baroque stuff.

• My CWC watch - as issued to the British Army. Simple black face. Swiss made. Who wants a computer on their wrist ?

• Our 18th Century corner cabinet - one of the few antiques we own. Very plain wall cabinet with a curved face to the door. None of that fancy engraving or marquetry.

• P47 Thunderbolt - I'm no plane spotter but this is as close as you can get to a Harley that flies.

• Celtic La Tene Art - simple swirls and spiral shapes that lend themselves to complex and endless designs. The same goes for early early Islamic Art too.

Tony's toys.

Tony's latest whitepaper says that New Labour's Trident updating programme will reduce the number of missiles in Britain's independent nuclear arsenal from 200 to 160. Costs will be kept down to a mere £25 billion.

Which begs the question; what is it all for ?

The argument that deterrents keep the peace was always spurious; even during the Cold War there seemed to be more danger from some escalated nuclear accident than from a deliberate threat from the Soviets to bomb London.

But if the logic of deterrents makes any sense at all then it can only apply to a rational opponent.

But Tony and Dubya repeatedly tell us that our opponents these day are madmen in rogue states. Applying deterrents to this 'axis of evil' is based on the same logic that says that psychopathic serial killers would think twice if only we had the death penalty.

I can't believe that serious strategists don't see this. So the only other possible explanations for New Labour's defence policy are:

• An underlying inferiority complex about Britain's status in the world.

• The desire to show that they are at least as nationalistic and belligerent as the Tories.

• To define themselves as something other than Old Labour with all it's CND connotations.

• Blair's personal sense of historic destiny as a statesman with a role on the world stage.

All explanations would be true to form but personally I prefer the latter. Which makes Trident a very expensive and dangerous toy to placate a mid-life crisis. Tony would be better advised to opt for the traditional therapy in these circumstances; start watching Top Gear and get himself a little sports car.

Saying Sorry For Slavery

To mark the bicentenary of its abolition, Tony Blair has said that Britain’s slave trade was ‘regrettable’. Not quite the apology or reparation that has stirred so much controversy.

Everyone’s apologising for past sins these days, even the Pope (for the repression of women for centuries). But I’m not sure that I buy into the idea of collective and/or inherited guilt. And I don’t know how you compensate for crimes against peoples that span generations.

There may even be a kind of racism in thinking this way. Having seen the Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum last year I found it difficult to look modern Germans in the eye. But in truth the only thing that links liberal young Germans today with the SS generation is their German-ness. Do they bear some sort of genetic stain of Nazism ?

The story of slavery is a horror that should be known and commemorated. How many tourist that visit the Jane Austen theme park that is Bath, with its Georgian crescents and assembly rooms, know the sinister reason for its splendour ? The eighteenth century town was built as a demonstration of the wealth that the slave trade brought to the West Country, and the respectability of the slave traders. We should know that modern Britain was largely built on slavery. Britain was the first industrial nation, and its economic take-off was made possible by wealth accumulated from the slave trade.

But in apportioning blame, who was more culpable the agricultural labourer in Britain, or the West African slave trader who captured the slaves and sold them to the Europeans ? By the logic of inherited collective guilt, their descendants in Nigeria and Ghana should apologise to African-Americans.

We should also remember that slavery disappeared because of a fight not the inevitable march of progress. Although the abolitionists may be revered today, at the time slavers argued fiercely that slavery was actually benevolent and an economic necessity. Much like those who now argue that sweat shops and free trade zones in developing countries are in the interests of those who are exploited. Rather than apologising for the past it would be more meaningful if we looked at slavery today; glamorous designer brands that use child labour in developing countries, human traffic in the sex industry or the exploitation of migrant labour.

God Bless America !

Thanksgiving yesterday. That other holiday of sentimentality, over-indulgence …and turkey.

The holiday commemorates the puritan settlers in Massachusetts being provided with food to survive their first New England winter. It would seem that the pilgrims were not particularly effective farmers and had to depend on the neighbouring Wampanoag Indians to provide the food.

This generosity was then repaid by stealing their land, killing many of them in wars of conquest and introducing them to smallpox and syphilis, both unknown until the Europeans arrival. The event was later decreed a public holiday by George Washington to give thanks (to God, not the Indians) for the founding of the nation

But it is a classic instance of history being re-written. This started after the North won the civil war and has been continued by the neo-cons of the Religious Right.

The first settlers in the area that became the USA were not puritans fleeing religious persecutions but Elizabethan merchants and adventurers (with only a whisker of legality separating them from pirates), and disgraced libertine courtiers. And that’s just the White Anglo Saxon Protestants. No mention of the (Catholic) French or Spanish, or the African slaves and European indentured servants who were the basis of the colonial economy.

And when the thirteen colonies became a nation and a constitution was written; the pilgrims were of far less significance than the patrician merchants and planters of Virginia and the Carolinas. Their ideology was more influenced by the rationalism of the Enlightenment than Puritan Protestantism.

Alarm bells start to ring when any nation claims that it has a special mission ‘under God”. This ‘manifest destiny’ has been used to justify:

• Acts of genocide against the native peoples of America.
• The Monroe Doctrine’s claim to intervene in the affairs of neighbouring nations.
• The Cold War and wars against independent nations like Vietnam
• The crusade against Islam.

What no bowing ?

A weekend workshop for my Sifu (martial arts teacher) at the weekend. He lives out of the country these days so I only get to see him a couple of times a year, and it is a chance to catch up with him and with the guys from other associated schools. When we meet up, one thing you won’t see is any bowing or saluting. But plenty of laughter, handshakes, back slapping and bear hugs. This sometimes shocks people from outside our martial arts ‘family’.

We respect tradition, but in the spirit not the letter. Ours are traditional kung-fu schools, not commercial franchises. We don’t have set class times; people drop in and train as hard, as often or as little as they want. We don’t line up and have a teacher bark orders at the students like a drill sergeant. Teacher and senior students will quietly observe, monitor, teach and correct. We don’t have uniforms either; they are a kind of caricature of oriental dress, a bit like thinking all Englishmen wear bowler hats or Frenchmen berets.

All that shouting, bowing and funny pyjamas do not make a traditional kwoon or dojo (school/training place). Many of the schools that do have them are fast-food ‘McMartial Arts’ franchises. Students are rushed through the ‘syllabus’ as quickly as possible to reach a spurious grade so that they can themselves become teachers, open their own schools, and set up a pyramid selling structure.

Martial arts training is about brotherhood and respect. Whatever style you practice you are playing a high intensity exercise with some risk of accidental injury. As my teacher says, if you're going to train it’s best to do it amongst friends to avoid misunderstandings and outbreaks of stupidity. There’s no room for phoney rituals that have no feeling behind them, you can often see bows snapped out as a form of ritual intimidation. Better to give genuine greetings to you training partners that actually means something to you and to him; the 'other guy' is supposed to be a brother to train with, not an enemy to be defeated.

Milton Friedman (Fascist Collaborator) dies..

The granddaddy of neo-liberalism Milton Friedman died yesterday.

He wasn't simply a harmless old academic with some discredited ideas about inflation and money supply. I do resent the fact that he made possible the Right misappropriating the words 'liberal' and 'libertarianism'. Terms used to cover such bizarre ideas as the abolishing of licensing of the medical profession. But more seriously I can’t absolve him from responsibility for how his ideas were implemented by right wing politicians.

He called the Great Depression of the 30’s the 'Great Adjustment' and this sums up his disdain for the inevitable losers under his view of the economy's natural order. Over twenty years on, and the consequences of the implementing his ideas can still be seen in devastated former mining communities in the North of England that have never recovered from their ' adjustment'.

But the greatest stain on his memory is his co-operation with Pinochet military dictatorship. The regime in Chile provided a showcase for the ultra-free market philosophies of Friedman and the Chicago school. I can't imagine what mental acrobatics he must have used to reconcile his 'libertarianism' with a military coup to overthrow the elected Allende government and the murder and torture of thousands of oppositionists.

Queen's Speech

I’m not going to comment on the content of the Queen’s Speech. It’s pretty much the paranoia-fuelled, little Englander stuff we have come to expect from New Labour.

But I do have a problem with the fact that we have to endure a Queen’s Speech at all.

It’s just another reminder of how we are not a grown-up, twenty first century democracy, and that the outlining of the government’s legislative plans for the next session of parliament is delivered in the form an archaic farce.

Although it’s actually not as harmless that:

The presence of the queen in our legislative assembly at all is a reminder of that little-understood quirk in our ‘un-written constitution'; Crown Prerogative.

When a British government acts in the name of the Crown it effectively puts itself outside of the control or censure of parliament. This is not some obscure legal nit-picking, it means that the government doesn’t have to get parliament’s approval for example when it declares war, or in its diplomatic relations with foreign countries, or when it deals in matters of national security. Worrying isn’t it ?

If you can bring yourself to listen to the speech, it is striking that everything is prefaced with the phrases ‘my government will’ or ‘my government intends’. Not ‘our government’ but ‘mine’. Just to remind us all where we stand. Not citizens but subjects.

Oliver Cromwell’s statue might stand outside of the House Of Commons but we seem to have lost the spirit of 1649.

Don't talk about Fight Club.

First rule of fight club - don't talk about fight club.
Second rule of fight club - DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB.

And so, despite devoting a fair chunk of my free time to the study of martial arts for most of my adult life, I try to avoid discussing it with non-practitioners. This isn't some sort of elitism it just avoids at best stupid questions, and at worst ugly misunderstandings and machismo.

But today I came in to work with a black eye - not a big deal, just one of those unavoidable accidental bye-products of training - and I couldn't avoid the interrogation.

Typical stupid questions, along with some stupid and not-so stupid answers:

• What belt have you got ?
Snakeskin with a Harley Davidson buckle. Our (Chinese) style doesn't use belts. Others (usually Japanese or Korean ) do, but even then they are a relatively recent invention for Western consumption. You can usually get a black belt in three or four years and most people who know will tell you that is the beginning not the end.

• What's better Thai Boxing, Judo, Karate or your sysytem ?
Rugby Union, Rugby League, the NFL or Aussie Rules ? How can you compare them ? A Judoka is certainly better at Judo than I am. But they are schools / styles of training not fighting - when you fight you just fight you don't 'do' your martial art. But if you train properly your training will automatically come out. There are no bad martial arts, just bad martial artists.

• You've been training all those years - could you fight one of those guys from the UFC ?
You've been playing golf all your life - could you beat Tiger Woods ? Those guys are professional athletes in the prime of life, I am a middle aged guy who does this for a hobby. Even so UFC is a sport (albeit a very tough one) not a martial art, and there are still rules that they must keep to. Who knows ? It doesn't keep me awake at night.

• What would you do if (insert crazy scenario of your choice) someone came at you with a chain saw ?
It's martial arts not magic. You can't fight without getting hit any more than you can swim without getting wet.

• Have you ever made practical use of your martial arts ?
I'm using it right now to keep my cool in answering these stupid questions. It's about much more than fighting - like coping with pressure, self control and multi-tasking. As regards fighting - well I'd rather not put it to the test. But we do regularly face grown men offering us some kind of threat, whilst most people don't ever have a physical confrontation once they leave the playground. Maybe that helps in a practical situation. But even so, the Chinese say in fighting; firstly courage, secondly strength, and thirdly, kung-fu.

* So is it some sort of spiritual thing ?

Personally I tend to think that mumbo-jumbo is mumbo-jumbo whether it comes in the form of Western Christianity or Eastern mysticism. But on the otherhand for a few hours every week you are immersed in something totally absorbing that takes you away from mortgages, cashflows, deadlines and arguments with traffic wardens. Maybe you could call that a spiritual thing. But I'm sure that the guys who make models out of matchsticks have the same thing going for them. Or even train-spotters. In the final analysis it's a hobby and you enjoy it - do you really need anything more ?

Christmas cheer on credit.

Farepak have gone bust, taking with them the savings of some of the poorest people in the country, who will now be faced with a grim Christmas. Probably it's not a name that is familiar to most people. They ran a savings scheme to provide food hampers and gift vouchers through a pyramid selling scheme of agents. The scheme does sound like something from Dickens rather than the 21st century, but it gives a glimpse into the under belly of the economy.

In the same category are catalogue companies which use local agents. In the internet era, they are not about the convenience of home shopping, but a means of providing credit to those that in other circumstances would not be able to get any.

More sinister still are the finance companies offering debt consolidation or credit to those who have previously been denied a loan from a mainstream lender. They advertise on digital tv channels often in the day-time slot, when ad time is cheap and the target audience of the long term unemployed are most likely to be watching. But the dark side of this is sky- high interest rates and debt recovery by intimidation. Only their corporate gloss separates them from the individual loan-sharks to be found on every estate.

It's an ironic and fucked-up feature of Capitalism that the less you need credit, the easier it is to get it. But if it is any comfort to the poor, apparently God agrees that they only have themselves to blame:

"For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away."

Matthew 25.29

Remembrance

The BBC's Jon Snow is getting some flak for his refusal to wear a poppy whilst reading the news. He says that it is a personal choice and resents what he calls 'poppy-fascism'.

I have mixed feelings on this. There is something poignant about Remembrance Day, but there is also an association with flag-waving and militarism. And like the revival of St George's flag, there is a sense of nationalism and a pressure to conform.

I know that Remembrance covers veterans from all wars, but inevitably it is still the two world wars that stir the emotions most. I don't think that this is simply because of the sheer scale of loss from these conflicts. It is that those who faught were very much civillians in uniform rather than professional servicemen. Ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. To remember them with marching bands and military parades is somehow to miss the point.

Like many families we have the bronze memorial plaque sent to the next of kin of those who died in the First World War. Ours is of my great uncle, Albert. I was given it when I was a kid, and sadly as the years have gone by, there are no living relatives left who can tell me anything about him - he exists only as a name.

A few years ago I tried to research Albert's past by contacting the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and his regimental association. I have visited France often and am always moved by the cemetaries there; whether it is the unimaginable scale of the graves at the Somme or Verdun battlefields, or just one of the numerous small graveyards that are scattered amongst country villages. I imagined myself visiting Albert's grave in such a place. In fact, what I found out was both more haunting and more ironic.

Albert had served as private in the Hampshire Regiment and he was killed in action in February 1917, aged 19. He has no known grave but is commerated at the Commonwealth memorial just outside Basra, in what was known at that time as Mesopotamia and is now more familiar to us as Iraq. The memorial has only recently been restored as it was damaged when it was in the middle of a tank battle in the First Gulf War.

Even amongst the horror and carnage of the First World War, the Mesopotamian Campaign stands out as a tragic waste. Faught for no clear strategic purpose; it was one of the last adventures of empire, in which poorly-led, disease-ridden and ill-equipped British and Indian troops struggled against the conditions of fighting in the desert.

The lowest point came with a disasterous siege at Kut-al-Amara in 1915-16, when the British garrison surrendered. It rates as one of the largest mass surrenders in military history. There was a public outcry at the mismanagement of the campign, and the fate of the prisoners of war in Turkish camps whose treatment was not unlike those in Japanese camps in the Second World War.

So I will be taking a few moments to remember Albert and others like him tomorrow, but without any sense of nationalism, and, like Jon Snow I resent any pressure to wear my feelings on my sleeve.

A bloody nose for Bush.

YeeHaaa !!!

The Democrats have taken control of the House, and at the moment the Senate is too close to call. The only possible interpretation of this is that American people have voiced their disapproval of Bush's Iraq adventure.

But let's not get carried away - the Democrats are hardly a party of radicals. But the most important thing is that they are NOT the Republicans and will cramp the style of the Bush administration for the next two years. And no further adventures in Iran.

I'm getting used to that kind of thinking - low expectations, because British politics has gone pretty much the same way as the US; now there's only a wafer of fundamental difference between the Tories, New Labour and the Lib-Dems.

And before anyone here in Britain gets smug about the deficiencies of the US system: they have a written constitution, the separation of powers, and a system of checks and balances. As prime minister, Blair has more real power than Bush does as president; he has used his parliamentary majority to railroad legislation and prevent criticism of the government. The US system of mid-terms is at least intended to curtail this.

Right now I think that Steve Earle's words, written at the time of a previous election, probably sums up best what we really need:

It's Christmastime in Washington
The Democrats rehearsed
Gettin' into gear for four more years
Things not gettin' worse
The Republicans drink whiskey neat
And thanked their lucky stars
They said, 'He cannot seek another term
They'll be no more FDRs'
I sat home in Tennessee
Staring at the screen
With an uneasy feeling in my chest
And I'm wonderin' what it means

Chorus:
So come back Woody Guthrie
Come back to us now
Tear your eyes from paradise
And rise again somehow
If you run into Jesus
Maybe he can help you out
Come back Woody Guthrie to us now

I followed in your footsteps once
Back in my travelin' days
Somewhere I failed to find your trail
Now I'm stumblin' through the haze
But there's killers on the highway now
And a man can't get around
So I sold my soul for wheels that roll
Now I'm stuck here in this town

Chorus

There's foxes in the hen house
Cows out in the corn
The unions have been busted
Their proud red banners torn
To listen to the radio
You'd think that all was well
But you and me and Cisco know
It's going straight to hell

So come back, Emma Goldman
Rise up, old Joe Hill
The barracades are goin' up
They cannot break our will
Come back to us, Malcolm X
And Martin Luther King
We're marching into Selma
As the bells of freedom ring

Chorus

One for the 'hang 'em & flog 'em' brigade

Ronald Castree appeared in court in Oldham today, charged with the murder of Lesley Molseed in 1975. The 11 year old was sexually assaulted and stabbed a dozen times.

An instance of brilliant and relentless police work and the application of state of the art forensic science ?

Well maybe, but unfortunately they already had the wrong bloke in prison for sixteen years for the crime before his conviction was overturned.

Stefan Kiszko, a tax clerk who lived with his mother and suffered from a developmental condition probably conformed to the stereotypical police view of a 'nonce' and was accordingly fitted up. It wasn't until 1992 that evidence confirmed that he was innocent.

But this was a bit late for Stefan who died within a year of his release and for his mother who having campaigned on his behalf, also died months later.

I can't imagine a worse nightmare than being imprisoned as an innocent man for such a crime. Except perhaps being executed as one, as happens on a regular basis in the US.

Not just a bigot but a hypocrite too.

I see that the Rev. Ted Haggard, vocal opponent of gay marriage in the US, has admitted that he brought methamphetamine and went with a male prostitute.

As a result Pastor Ted has now had to resign as head of the 30 million strong National Association of Evangelicals. That's a lot of pissed off Christian bigots (and Republicans too).

Excellent.

Justice for Saddam ?

So Saddam got the verdict and martyrdom that I am sure both he and George Bush wanted. Undoubtedly he's was a war criminal and a tyrant. You could say that he has it coming.

But so did former apartheid South African President Botha who died (of natural causes) last week. And he's getting a state funeral.

So let's not kid ourselves that this about justice - it's about politics. War criminals are generally ok so long as they're on the 'right side'; be it Botha, Pinochet, or even Saddam when he was America's champion against Iran a few years ago. But with the US mid-term elections next week, a convenient execution will look like Bush's crusade has been justified. Republicans' flagging fortunes will probably get a boost.

But in the cynical terms of 'real-poloitik' it may prove not be too smart. Parallels are going to be drawn with the Nuremburg trials but these are a bit thin - there was no on-going Nazi insurgency as the background, nor talk of a planned withdraw by the occupying forces.

And ethically:


Well I'm not a pacifist; I tend to think that human life is precious rather than 'sacred'. Sometimes violence is the only unavoidable answer. But I would have less of a problem with the killing of someone in defence of myself or others, or even an act of personal revenge, than I would have in giving my silent support to judicial execution.


There is something peculiarly obscene in state killing. It gives the lie to any moral authority that a state can claim to have beyond that of private individuals, and it implies the consent of the citizens of that state. And the United States record on the death penalty strikes at the heart of everything that is wrong with that nation. The same nation that flaunts the idea that it was created 'under God' with some special moral purpose, also ranks in the world's top three state-killers along with China and Saudia Arabia.

That's the same nation that boasts the largest number of Christian church-goers. As Bill Hicks observed it's ironic that these 'pro-lifers' who picket abortion clinics are comfortable with the death penalty and defend it against us godless liberal types.

Paranoid in times like this

Sometimes being paranoid is the best form of defence.

We have 4.2 million CCTV cameras watching us in the UK; that means there is one for every 14 of us. That is the highest per capita number in the world.

We have a DNA database that covers 5% of the population. It is not drawn from criminal records but from anybody whose record has ever been part of an investigation, including a large number of children. That constitutes the largest database in the world, the next largest is Austria with 1% of their population.

The Daily Mail response is that if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to fear. But history shows that even in democracies laws can quickly change and the innocent become criminalised.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, journeyman, all-round renaissance man and founding father of the United States in the days before that nation lost the plot:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

Right now I think the best advice is to stay informed and watch your back.