After an appeal by all of the living Secretary of States (including supposed hawks like Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice) and most of the military top brass, recalcitrant senators finally saw sense and ratified the New START treaty, which, importantly, allows US inspectors to inspect the Russian nuclear arsenal again, in an anti-proliferation drive. Yet many shrill conservatives (probably like the one running for deputy treasurer in Stark County last November – he had to be a Republican, didn’t he) raise hue and cry that this a capitulation to Russia and that Barack Obama has “bullied” Congress (interestingly, Obama is either a “do-nothing” president or he is a bully, but there is no middle ground - as you would expect from demagogues). Obama even through wavering Republican senators the bone of $85bn programme for the nuclear labs that examine the warheads. In the end, it was a comfortable victory of 71 to 26, four more than the minimum needed for foreign policy treaties, proving that Congress doesn’t always have to be the opposite of progress, contrary to the joke.
Indeed, the last two years have seen the most active Congress in living memory, operating like a normal parliament in Western democracies, instead of an overblown anachronism, designed for 13 states, with a further 37 grafted on. Moreover, important deals were done in the so-called ‘lame-duck session’, in addition to New START, such as ending tacit homosexual discrimination in the army (14,000 forced out over 17 years is a law that clearly needs replacing) and tax cuts for many Americans. Conservative commentators fume that the politicians signing these deals have no legitimacy as several will be leaving come January 4th. But voters gave these people a mandate until 4th January 2011 and any laws they pass have full legitimacy until that date. Then again, Republicans have never been too bothered about the democratic process, just so long as they gain power by it.

After Vince Cable's indiscretions, the government will show bias towards Rupert Murdoch to prove that they are not biased against him. The Daily Telegraph has scored a pyrrhic victory - a major scoop that will now serve them very ill indeed as News Corp swallows up Sky. Murdoch wins. Cable loses. The Telegraph loses. Everyone loses.

When Sepp Blatter wades into controversy again, more than a flutter, rather a flotilla of outrage sets out against him. Following on from the bribes for World Cup hosting debacle, Blatter tries to defend the awarding to the first non-democratic countries since Mexico in 1986. Told of Qatar’s strict laws against homosexuality, he flippantly remarks that gays should “refrain from affection,” before moving on as if the issue was as absent as the democracy in these countries. John Amaechi, gay NBA star, is fired up by this, but maybe should have used a better turn of phrase – “if sport is to be more about grown men playing with balls…”
On a sidebar note, Barcelona, disgracing their strips with Qatar 2022 as part of the vote-trading deal that failed for one side, with Spain-Portugal losing out, prove that they need a crucial word to be added before their famous motto. Now, they are are “Not more than a club.”
If the minds of corrupt Swiss crooks are locked in the past, then at least most of the US House of Representatives takes a more common-sense viewpoint. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has cleared the first stage to being officially repealed. Some commanders, the type who blamed the failure of Dutch UN peacekeepers to protect Srbenica as a result of the tolerance of homosexuality in Dutch culture, are against it; they are a little more media-savvy than in the past, but not much, those such as John McCain (American Hero Trademark) calling it a distraction, as if Marines and the like will suddenly go doo-lally and their rifles droopy. The repeal is an entirely logical, liberal and civilised step. As Representative Jared Polis said, it is “the only law in the country that requires people to be dishonest or be fired if they choose to be honest.” One thing is certain – if the American military is going to be weakened, it will not be from this.

The Cancun conference has been hailed as a breakthrough, although it is merely keeping the show on the road, rather than letting the political will for environmental sustainability careen into a ditch. The Americans are pleased because they have arm-wrestled the Chinese into agreeing checks on pollution, which the latter's delegation was much opposed to last year at Copenhagen.
But it is not enough. Politicians have generally accepted that a two degree celsius rise in global temperature is inevitable (ignoring redcuing emissions 15% below 1990 levels as was the last major agreement). How long before that slips to four degrees? It is like a morbidly obese person being told that they need to change their diet of cheap, unhealthy food if they are to avoid dying. Governments cannot commit to carbon reduction beyond tokenism. It is time for the liposuction option. Prevention has failed, time for (painful) cure. Governments must come up with away to pump sulphur into the atmosphere (the 'hose' solution). This will not trap the sunlight but block it out altogether, as extremely large volcanic eruptions do, such as Krakatoa. The oceans will continue to acidify but at least mankind will be spared catastrophic temperature increases.

Message in a bottle on the seas of time.

Last week, Sir Elton Hercules John listed ten things that he likes at 50 that he didn’t like when he was 25 and the ‘Today’ programme enjoined listeners to contribute their lists should they have sufficient perspective. Being only 28, not many items that were mentally verboten at 25 have seen their restrictions lifted. But earlier this year, Reginald Kenneth Dwight engaged some celebrity friends to participate with him in a project of catharsis, by writing a letter to their 16 year-old selves. It could be heartfelt as in John’s case or flippant as with Peter Kay. Given the most recent exercise is not so appropriate to my age, a gap of twelve years is a significant chunk of life and it does get you thinking about how you would have dealt with certain issues differently; as memory is an imperfect record of history, this also reflects on where you see yourself now in how you handle issues as you remember them. Youth may indeed be wasted on the young, but, by the same measure, experience is wasted on the elderly.

Hello Alex,
Hmm, how should I begin? Well, this isn’t your average correspondence on your birthday but it may (or, possibly, may not) be the best present you will get today. Slipping the leashes of time and risking all the dangers of paradox, I, that is you, have sent word from the future – 2010 to be precise. You may be thinking why ruin the thrill of finding out what life brings? That’s as may be, but for the next two years, little will go right apart from growing up and even then maturity will be elusive.
You are not as unattractive as you think you are and have been made out to be. Your current circumstances are not what life is like, indeed far from it. Over the next two years, many people will seek to do you down – unjustly – do not let their hubris become your nemesis. It is not an accurate depiction of who you are and though the cruelty may be directed at you from different people in different groups, these people do not represent a true cross-section of society in general. Remember, they are immature as well. The best way to ignore the jibes is to treat them as lies.
Despite the burden of abuse others try to saddle you with, there are some girls who want to be in a relationship with you. As this is not a real private letter, I will not name names, but suffice to say what you dismiss as tricks of the mind or the light are indeed real. You don’t acknowledge this yet because you have been conditioned to see yourself in the worst possible light. They will not necessarily be better off pairing up with another boy. Moreover, if a member of the fairer sex passes on her devotion to you via a proxy, it is not false, nor is it a temporary loss of reason. Don’t puff yourself up with pride on reading this, but by the same token don’t brood that you are worthless should your ideas not go as you had thought. And play it smooth and by that I do not mean ambivalent, which can be just as bad as being overly effusive. Rather, invite them out to somewhere low-key, such as café or the cinema and take it from there. After all, you want to do things with them – that’s the point of a relationship. One final pointer on this subject – should it go the way of the pear, don’t take it too badly; this is a time of experimentation for everyone at this stage of life. Give it, maximum, a month of mourning and then move on.
With regard to invasive qustions about your persoanl life, don't feel the need to answer your inquisitors as fulsomely as possible out of politeness. Instead, rebuke them with "Think what you want to think," for, have no fear, they will, irrespective of your comments.
On the other tack, don’t be rude for the sake of being rude – it may seem funny and may induce laughter from others, but it can deeply hurtful, as you full well know. You’re not alone. Children developing their sense of humour often grab for the easiest verbal tools available, but being offensive because you can is not the way forward. Even if it looks like a handy defence mechanism to employ, it should only be used in that capacity and sparingly. Along similar lines, don’t guy your English (or indeed any other) teachers with facetious essays. You will only get marked down, receiving credit for ‘slick writing’ and nothing else. Slick writing is not enough. It needs to be used to marshal an argument. Using a word processor to type out your essays will help too, instead of persisting with handwriting.
Read the texts in your subjects. Read around them as well – your parents are paying for those geography and economic magazines, so put them to good use.
Take five disciplines for A-Level, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you don’t shirk your responsibilities to do yourself proud. Of course, you can pass by doing next to nothing but that really isn’t good enough and will inculcate bad practices for university.
Similarly, don’t stay up to two in the morning or later on weekdays – you’ll have plenty of time to be fragged the next day at university, but sometimes with opportunities to have a lie-in as well. This means you will regulate your sleeping patterns and not always have to go to bed in the afternoon after school. Try to cut down on television – it is not as must-see as you think and you will stop watching Eastenders in the year 2001, so why not regain your time by starting three years early?
In your university choices, do take a year out and do go for the University of Kent. Other universities may provide the same, but you will meet a group of people who will reaffirm your faith in human beings and yourself and nail the mistaken impression that what you are experiencing is all there is.
Spend as much time with the cats that grew up with you, especially Hanny. If she steps on your papers in your room, so be it because you’ll miss her when she’s gone. You’ll value the time that you spent together in the years after. This applies to humans too, but your first coming to terms with the death of a loved one will be the pets.
One final thing – you were right in your subconscious, things will get better.

Take care and let’s see if I feel better in twelve years time.

Your older self.

Hoary Pooter strikes again

For reassurance when casting a teen drama, those in charge of the auditions tended to place greater weight on acting ability than age, avoiding all the pitfalls of compromising the thesp’s schoolwork and any callowness derived from immaturity. Hence in the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the actors was portraying a character almost half her age, while many of her colleagues were far from being minors, stretching visual credibility for the purpose of good and hassle-free recital.
The child stars of Harry Potter initially seemed to buck this trend, all being recruited at the age of 11 and meant to age in lockstep with their onscreen personas but the ideal of producing one film every year was not faithfully kept. J K Rowling could get away with it as her medium was words, not pictures (an action that failed to mollify the more ardent fans). Thus Daniel Radcliffe et al are not the ages they pretend to be anymore (though it hasn’t damaged Tom Cruise’s career) and it shows, but not ridiculously so.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is divided into two parts. Everyone deludes themselves that this is because there was so much content in the last book, it would result in a bladder-breaking experience (popping out to the toilet is not what you paid for your ticket), which as with all the best delusions has a hint of truth in it. If this was the case then Part2 would be shown in January once Part 1 had left the multiplexes, not next summer. The division is Hollywood’s way of clawing every last dime out of a franchise coming to an end and so Part 2’s release will coincide with the DVD release of Part 1, as well as garnering extra revenue in its own right, by being all the more keenly anticipated.
The first Harry Potter movies were largely self-contained tales but HPATDH Pt 1, as with its immediate predecessor, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, thumbs its nose at the convention for sequels, serving instead as preludes to the instalment after. This leads to this penultimate film emerging as a slow-burn, building to an atmospheric crescendo, engaging you to tune in next time. Characterisation and moods are foremost as the scriptwriters have more time to play then having to cram a whole novel into the confines of a movie, with all being set against some striking (and, on certain occasions, unexpected) scenery). A few set pieces of genuine dramatic tension keep the proceedings rolling and, as in any war, characters on both sides fall in the conflict. The presiding theme over much of the land is Orwellian, 1984 (a critique of British attitudes as much as more obviously totalitarian states) fitted out for 2010. There is an ironic twist in a witch-hunt here where in the show trial those deemed not to be a witch are prosecuted and, ultimately, executed. And amid all the sword-and-sorcery, Christianity is obliquely recognised, yet all questions about its compatibility with even the ‘good’ magic on show are not even acknowledged, in keeping with Rowling’s world view.
Those of a more perceptive nature may recognise that given the persecutions occurring, the title of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince gives a clue as to how the denouement will turn out. Even though the plot is not very coherent, it wends and weaves a charming spell and certainly whets the appetite for the final instalment.

Bad times

I’m really disappointed that Chris Hughton has been sacked from Newcastle United. He was not only decent and talented, but was committed to the club. Long-tern club success is secured by long-term managerial appointments. Moreover, whatever measure of success, if any, the succeeding manager achieves, there is a right way to treat people and Hughton was abused. This is a man who from a temporary position became a permanent manager on comparatively small wages and won the Championship with more than 100 points. Aston Villa and Sunderland have been crushed and Chelsea and Arsenal have suffered home defeats at the hands of Newcastle. Indeed, Ancelotti’s Chelsea had never beaten Hughton’s NUFC in the two times they have met. Some are saying that if you lie down with dogs expect to get fleas, but you would have thought that the leadership of the club would have learnt their lesson from the past and become Pavlovian dogs. Think of a swear word and Mike Ashley in some way defines almost all of them. Hughton’s realistic target of survival was never going to be enough for the owner, who wants European football as quickly as possible so he can sell the club for a profit rather than build the club up. Who is to say Hughton would not have achieved that, given they were only a few points off a European position? If it gets Ashley out though, it can’t happen soon enough. Chris, you will be missed. In the long-run, this will hurt Newcastle United more than you. I can imagine the job offers will not be long in coming.

A few weeks ago in the sport section of The Daily Telegraph Jonathan Liew expostulated a formidable attack on BBC presenter Colin Murray. Part of me at the time felt ‘here we go again, another right-wing attack on the BBC’, but I must admit my opinion was lowered on Colin Murray, who is Adrian Chiles replacement on Match of the Day 2. Maybe my standards are low; though it was not a falling of the scales, my respect for Murray suffered a diminution.
Yesterday, in the afternoon on Radio 5 (Live), an interview with a star name was trailed by Murray. The name left me baffled as Murray proudly trumpeted the imminent arrival of ‘Brian Murs’. Was this a relative of X-Factor runner-up Olly Murs? Soon the pieces of evidence started to fall into place. It was ex-rugby union international Brian Moore, was Murray’s Northern Ireland burr had slurred the surname. I’m all for regional accents, but they have to be understandable – Alan Green doesn’t have this problem. Is Murray’s favourite Bond actor Roger Mur(s)? Then on Match of the Day 2 later, Murray had the gall to take the mickey out of Mark Bright for one particular pronunciation. Maybe Liew was harsh, but he probably had a point.

A gift from one mafia to another

So, against all expectations after Vladimir Putin refused to fly in, Russia won the right to host the 2018 World Cup and along with Qatar in 2022, Sepp Blatter secures his ‘legacy’ after the South African World Cup. In the end, England had no divine right to host it and media coverage probably counted against it, along with the inevitable politicking and tactical voting.
On Russia Today, the TV channel, a Slavic journalist analysing the result said what the British media did would never happen in Russia. The media of our island would counter that we are actually a free press, unlike in the lands ruled by the Kremlin. Moscow could retort that its media are genuinely patriotic (in contrast to its pettifogging British equivalent) and really backed their own bid. If you wanted to bring disaster to a World Cup hosting attempt, the efforts of the British media could not be faulted. One Sunday rag stung the head of the FA, forcing Lord Triesmann to resign in embarrassment, leaving the organisation leaderless, after his deputy had quit just weeks before. Another Sunday journal and the BBC then went and got suspended or alienated the other members of the Executive Committee. Short-term personal gain for long-term national pain. Of course, FIFA are corrupt to the core and it would be best for global footy if it was torn down and everything begun afresh. But when they have the whip-hand over the bids, it is ludicrous. Do your exposes when they no longer pose a threat to England’s chances. In this climate, the fans of Birmingham City invading the pitch after beating Aston Villa in the League Cup was a sideshow, just reinforcing what many still think about English hooliganism, however erroneous – it would have been a shrug of the shoulders and “what’s new?”
If Russia was kind of the least worst choice after England (a bankrupt Iberia would have had to impoverish its own people to bring about the World Cup and the Low Countries would have been a bit too low-key for a World Cup extravaganza, not withstanding Blatter’s edict that, after South Korea-Japan, joint bids would not be favoured), then Qatar, which will tear down it stadiums after the event, is a joke. The absurdity of such a tiny country just across the Persian Gulf from a bellicose Iran staging the World Cup appeals to my sense of the absurd. Monty Python would have been hard pressed to come up with better. Moreover, to cope with the stifling summer heat all the stadiums will have to have roofs to accomodate air-conditoned comfort. Sapporo's ground in 2002, despite being the scene of an England victory over Argentina, did not go down well with many fans. To compound this air of the ridiculous, Qatar has never qualified for the World Cup finals and not even had the near miss of its neighbour Bahrain. South Africa can now expect a companion to share its shame at being eliminated at the first round. Who knows, a war in the region might mean the Qatar contract comes to nothing, which could spell meltdown for FIFA faster than an Iranian nuclear reactor.
All in all, it will now be 2026 before England gets another chance to bring football back to the mother country. But in context, France had to wait a similar three score years between hosting and Italy 56 long years. And look at Brazil, one of the world’s most popular and certainly its most successful, all five of its World Cup triumphs happening abroad. It last hosted the event back in 1950. It now gets the chance to do it in 2014, the aggressive slum clearance in Rio de Janeiro demonstrating its commitment. If England suffered the same fate as this great footballing country, then 2030 would be its year.