The earthquake in Haiti is a human tragedy. Not just for those killed outright, or perhaps lingeringly under the rubble, but also for the survivors who now have no homes, no shelter, no food and are waiting for help to arrive.

It also shows the fragility of city life.

With houses and hospitals demolished, a multitude of roads blocked, electricity and other networks severed, the rescuers’ difficulties are profound. The possibility exists that even if food, medicines, blankets, tents etc arrive in good time there is no way to distribute them effectively – even with the best will in the world.

I am lucky to live in a country where such disasters do not occur.

The attack on the Togolese national team bus in Cabinda, Angola which has triggered their government’s decision to order them home is, of course, shocking. My sympathies go to those who have lost their lives or been injured, and to their families.

The shootings do, though, raise a question about why Angola was chosen as the host nation but moreover why, when that country was given the nod, Cabinda was allocated as a venue for some of the games.

It seems that, while elsewhere in Angola is more or less trouble free, Cabinda was well known as a dangerous area. Would it not have been wiser to avoid it?

Still, the milk, not to mention the blood, has been spilt now.

What I will say is this. The absolute necessity after any such event, whether it be terrorist attack, a criminal endeavour or even an act of foreign enemy is to carry on regardless. This is what Londoners did during the Blitz, what Birmingham, Manchester, Warrington and London did after IRA bombings.

Despite the fact that they would not perhaps have been in the correct frame of mind to take part in football matches the Togolese players may have wished to do this. Their government, as is its right, has taken the view that they should not place themselves in more danger.

(Aside:- where does this rate on FIFA’s dictum that governments should not interfere with the affairs of their footballing authorities?)

Togo’s government’s position should not be that of the tournament organisers, however. If the tournament had not gone ahead it would have sent a signal to any group of nutters that they could prevent international sporting events from occurring – or even being scheduled. That is surely not an outcome to be preferred.

The suitability of South Africa to host this summer’s World Cup ought not to be affected by any of this. Yes, Angola borders South Africa but I believe that border is hundreds of miles from where the matches are to take place and security ought not to be unduly affected on that score.

PS. Unlike the past few occasions the African Cup Of Nations does not seem to be available on any of the BBC channels.

Pity. I had been looking forward to it.

Later edited to add:- Angola does not have a border with South Africa. (I was confusing it with Namibia, which does. They’re both up the left side a bit.)

See my previous rants about politicians and poppies here and here.

Well. This year Jack Straw sported one in the House of Commons on the 20^th October!

That’s ridiculous. It’s at least 20 days before Remembrance Sunday (or 27 if it’s the Sunday after the 11th November.)

Doesn’t the Queen get to pick which Sunday it will be if the 11th is on a Wednesday?

Edited to add. I spotted Gordon Brown with one at Prime Minister’s Questions on the 21^st (yesterday) yet on the lunchtime news yesterday it said Dame Vera Lynn was to launch this year’s poppy appeal.

How come politicians get there first?

Re-edited: The Conservative spokeswoman on last night’s Question Time on BBC 1 had on a quite ridiculous effort: not the standard issue at all. It was as if she was saying my poppy’s bigger than your poppy and so I’m better than you. (Or more patriotic; or something.) It was actually more like the special ones the Queen wears. I’d have been more impressed if she’d had on a normal one like the general public buys – no green leaf. That would have been enough of a contrast with the other panellists.

There has been a lot of talk in the football world about “simulation” – or diving as it’s more commonly known in Britain – ever since the Eduardo incident in last week’s Champion’s League tie.

Arsenal’s manager Arséne Wenger has sought to defend his player on the grounds that Eduardo suffered a horrific tackle two seasons ago and therefore has a tendency to pull out of challenges.

Why, then, did you pick him, Arséne? (Do you not have a duty to protect him from such terrors?) Also, he won’t be much cop on the field if he goes around avoiding tackles. And hasn’t your saying so made him a target?

Much comment too has been made on the fact that had the referee spotted Eduardo’s dive he would only have received a yellow card. With the simulation charge and guilty finding he faces a two match ban. This is said to be unfair.

Which only goes to show how much bollocks the average football person talks.

For which is worse? Trying to deceive the referee and failing; or actually succeeding in conning the official?

The greater punishment is just. It ought to be higher for the latter.

After all, attempted murder is a lesser charge than homicide.

“This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German government a final note stating that unless we heard from them by 11.00 a.m. that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us.

I have to tell you that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.”

- Neville Chamberlain, 3rd September, 1939.
(The above link also leads on to the BBC audio file of the speech.)

Don’t you just love that use of the word “note?” (Chamberlain’s pronunciation made it sound more like “nit.”)

Not demand, not insistence.

Note.

How British, how understated, how public school. How ineffectual.

That note certainly put the wind right up the buggers, and no mistake.

Today is the anniversary of the main triggering of the calamity that overshadowed the second half of the Twentieth Century and hence loomed large in the childhoods of people, like me, born years after the events it precipitated.

Germany attacked Poland.

Though the war in Asia had been going on for some time following Japan’s invasion of Manchuria it was this European outbreak that signalled catastrophe would be a global affair.

Chou En-Lai (Zhou Enlai) is reported to have said when he was asked what he thought were the implications of the French revolution that, “It is too early to say.”

The same is true of World War 2.

I’ve no idea whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, was guilty of that offence or not. There are certainly grounds for believing he was innocent, high among them the fact that the main witness against him is said to be living the high life in Australia bankrolled by US government money. Megrahi was also quite probably sacrificed by the Libyan leader, Colonel Ghadaffi, for the sake of normalising relations with Britain and the US at the time.

There are many aspects to the whole murky affair which are strange; not the least of which is Kenny MacAskill’s – in best Rev I M Jolly mode – peculiar invocation of a higher power. The only conclusion to be drawn overall is that nobody’s hands are clean.

However, and this is the key point, even if Megrahi was/is guilty, to show him compassion is to demonstrate a sense of morality, of decency, way above that of someone who places a bomb on an aeroplane in an attempt to kill everyone on it. That a provision for such a release exists in the Scottish justice system is something to be proud of.

In this regard the phrase “to temper justice with mercy” comes to mind. Surprisingly, as it’s more the sort of thing to be found in the New, it comes from the Old Testament; which tends to be more fire and brimstone, not to mention vengeful, on the whole.

Some of the American relatives of those killed on the plane have stated in interviews that, in letting Megrahi out of jail, justice has not been done. Well, it has; as the Scottish system allows for compassionate release. 28 out of 31 such appeals have now been granted in Scotland in recent times. (One of the three not allowed was an earlier one for Megrahi when his condition was not so serious as it now seems to be.)

In any case, to keep someone in prison when they have an illness that is terminal smacks to me of vengeance rather than justice. If vengeance was the equivalent of justice then the law would sanction vendettas.

There has also been a lot of outrage expressed over the reception afforded to Megrahi on his return to Libya. (Insert alert about reprehensible cultural stereotyping here.) Personally, I thought that for middle Eastern types the greeting was remarkably restrained.

The waving of saltires has been commented on in disapproving terms. The thing that struck me there was, who’d have thought there were any saltires at all in Tripoli?

But… especially to those Americans who are complaining about Megrahi’s welcome home. You do exactly the same!

Remember my prediction that Barack Obama would be plagued by Republicans questioning his right to be President from the moment of his inauguration?
I was taken to task by someone in a comment for the temerity of my suggestion.

However, I have now been borne out not just once, but twice*. And he’s only been President for six months!

*For, apparently [thanks to Almax for alerting me to this – unfortunately Alastair's (extremely good) blog is restricted to 35 readers] there are folk saying Obama wasn’t born a US citizen and so is an illegal commander-in-chief. They are called Birthers and want to see his birth certificate.

This is part of what Almax wrote:-
“In the land of the cranks free there’s now a certain amount of steam behind a campaign based on the proposition that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and therefore cannot constitutionally be President.

The proponents of this view are called ‘Birthers’ and they have taken to erecting billboards like the one above, demanding to see the President’s birth certificate.
The latest development is that one of the Birthers, United States Army Major Stefan Frederick Cook has, via his lawyer, the superbly-named Orly Taitz, filed legal proceedings in the District Court of Georgia, for a restraining order to prevent the Government deploying him to Afghanistan.
While there might be lots of good reasons for not going to Afghanistan (eg I’m scared, mammy), here is the one advanced by Cook and Taitz -
‘Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Cook would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.’
Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. Hawaii became a US State in 1959.
Here is the birth certificate in question, which naturally Birthers say is a fake.

Well, that might be a fake, but slightly more awkward is this August 1961 entry in the Honolulu Advertiser -

Some Birthers say that Government agents engaged in time-travel shenanigans and recently warped themselves back to ‘61 to insert this notice ex post facto.
America? Dontchaluvit?”

In the greatest democracy in the world^© it would seem some Americans are not democrats at all. Even with a small d.

My blog’s stats spiked yesterday.

It was the highest number of unique visitors I’ve ever had.

Such a shame that it was because people were looking for items about Gordon Lennon.

It does say a lot about the man, though, and the way people have responded to the tributes paid to him.

I’d just finished looking at my blog’s stats for today – which made me feel a bit like this post’s title – and clicked over by accident to Yahoo’s news page and discovered this.

I’m obviously (as are we all) now living inside a Science Fiction novel.

Tell me when the aliens land.