I must mark the passing of Gore Vidal.

As I have only read two of his novels, Myra Breckinridge and Julian, I knew him mostly from his appearances on television which were always entertaining and informative and in which he showed himself to be an unusual citizen of the US (at least from the perspective of this side of the Atlantic) since he was sharply critical of many aspects of his native country’s political and cultural life – a stance which is arguably more patriotic than that of someone who accepts and follows unquestioningly. He dubbed the US the United States of Amnesia, bemoaning the lack of historical knowledge the majority of his countrymen have of their own political system. He was in a position to know, having been brought up right in the heart of government when as a twelve year old he acted as guide to his blind grandfather – the first ever Senator for Oklahoma – through the corridors of Congress.

It is probably as a novelist dedicated to illuminating that history his countrymen are too blindly unaware of that he will be best remembered though various of his television and other appearances remain to give a flavour of his wit and perspicacity.

Most of his books from that US historical cycle are somewhere on my TBR shelves. So many books, so little time.

Eugene Louis Vidal, Jr. (Eugene Luther Gore Vidal) 3/10/1935 – 31/7/2012. So it goes.

The lead story on the lunchtime BBC news today (18/2/12) concerned Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. There followed some guy (from the Armed Services Institute?) talking about the ramifications of that on the likes of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc as regards proliferation.

The second story on the guardian‘s front page was headlined US believes strike on Iran is inevitable later this year.

Looks like Cowdenbeath are a banker for the Division 2 title this year, then. (With a side order of Armageddon.)

Seriously, though. What are these guys on? Remember Mr Irresponsible during the 2010 General Election campaign? It seems now like that was a prediction rather than an idle slip of the tongue.

How can I put this?

Iran poses no threat whatsoever to the UK. Still less does it pose a threat to the US. I’ll give you it may be a (possible) threat to Israel but its posture there may be rhetorical rather than real. However, there is no way it could invade either the UK or US; nor could it overthrow their governments.

And if it is in the process of acquiring nuclear weapons why might that be?

It has seen its neighbour, Iraq, attacked, on the flimsiest of pretexts, mainly by the US and the UK – and thereafter thoroughly destabilised. It does not want the same happening to it. It knows Israel has nuclear weapons almost certainly targeted on it; it also knows North Korea has such a “deterrent” and is treated more carefully as a result. In its mind developing nuclear weapons might be a rational response to its current circumstances. We (the UK, along with the US) have a history of interfering with the region that goes back a long way. If I were them I wouldn’t trust us either.

The ratcheting up of the Iranian situation reminds me of the run-up to the (second) Iraq war. Drip by drip of increasingly ludicrous assertions. (A much heightened version of this sort of thing was evident in the German press in the summer of 1939.)

I don’t much go for the idea that we could be the bad guys but, in the absence of any attack by Iran on us (or, at a push, Israel) that would be the case here; as it was in Iraq.

Moreover, and again as with Iraq, it would be thoroughly counterproductive.

The ramifications of an attack on Iran would only confirm the idea that the “West” sees Muslims as a whole as targets and though it would take time might make recent terrorist attacks seem like a garden party. Any occupation of Iran would make our involvement in Iraq seem like a picnic and Vietnam a cakewalk.

Do we really want that?

When I heard that Severiano Ballesteros had been taken poorly again I had forebodings and it was only a day later that the news of his death came. At the age of 54 this seems cruelly early.

He was one of those sporstmen whose fame transcended his sport. The evident joy with which he carried out his work stood out against the majority of professional sportsmen, and even more so in retrospect. His fist pump at the Road Hole in the final round when he won the Open at St Andrews epitomised this (though admittedly it is easy to be joyful when you’re winning.)

His greatest contribution to the game of golf was to boost the standing of the game in Europe. It is possible that without him the European Tour would not have garnered such success and also that the Ryder Cup might have fallen into abeyance as the US used to win it more or less all the time (certainly retained it) until the conversion of the contest into the US vs Europe rather than US vs the UK and Ireland.

When his game declined – possibly as a result of the onset of the illness which has now claimed him – it was a disappointment even to non-golfers.

His apparent recovery in 2009 from a brain tumour was good news. Sadly it wasn’t to last.

Severiano Ballesteros Sota, 9/4/11 – 7/5/11. So it goes.

Did anyone else find the scenes of rejoicing in the US over the death of Osama Bin Laden a little premature? Not to mention a trifle unseemly?

In many parts it was greeted in much the same way a victory in a sporting contest might have been and whatever the “War on Terror” was or is it is far from sporting.

Yes he was a bad lot and totally against almost all that we in the West take for granted yet his demise came about in exactly the same way as his crimes were committed; in effect it was an extra-judicial execution. While there may have been no other way to remove his menace and his capture might have led to problematic scenarios involving the taking of hostages to be used as pawns in an attempt to have him freed – in effect President Obama had no choice – the fact remains that he was not subject to what ought to be our overriding principle; that a person has to be tried in court before being deprived of liberty or life.

It always bears saying; if we are no better than them then we are in fact worse. Or we are, at best, hypocrites.

And this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. It might not even be the end of the beginning.

The circumstances that led to Bin Laden taking up the cudgels against the USA in particular and its hangers-on in general are still in existence and his umbrella organisation will still act as a focus for disaffected individuals and those with an axe (or a suicide bomb) to grind.

Free State Stadium, Maungang/Bloemfontein, 27/6/10

Well, this humiliation was coming.

Here, after dismal performances against the USA, Algeria and (despite some whistling in the dark) Slovenia, a bunch of over-blown, over-paid, cosseted individuals who perhaps believe their own hype too much but played as if they’d never seen each other before were roundly horsed by an opposition who worked together as a team and actually looked as if they knew what they were doing.

Yes, the ball was over the line from Frank Lampard’s shot but it wasn’t a goal. It wasn’t a goal because the ref didn’t give it. End of debate.

And forget about goal line technology. It’s not needed. For big games like this the fifth ref – as introduced in the Europa League this season – would surely have spotted this one.

Back to the game.

There was a telling stat which unrolled a few minutes before Germany scored.

Shots: Germany 4 England 0.

Yet England had had the greater share of possession. They simply couldn’t do anything with it.

At half time I was thinking that Argentina would probably take both of them. Germany’s confidence will have an almighty boost now, though. A 4-1 win does that to you. And we’ll see how Argentina fare against Mexico tonight.

As far as England is concerned, was it a case of good players not living up to their potential?

Maybe it’s really that they’re not actually very good, that in their club sides they are surrounded by people of other nationalities who make them look better than they are.

Anyway, I can relax and enjoy the competition now. No more references to 1966 to spoil it.

Green Point Stadium, Cape Town, 18/6/10

Well; this was dire. Apart from Algeria, of course. At least they could pass to each other.

Emile Heskey in this game managed to redefine the epithet “donkey” as applied to a football player. The ball kept bouncing off him at all sorts of odd angles as if he was composed entirely of sharp edges. “Donkey” is way too complimentary. I couldn’t understand why Crouch wasn’t sent on to replace him at half time.

During the second half my thoughts kept going back to 1986 when England’s start was even worse than this. (Yes that is possble.) They reached the quarters then, if you recall.

A more chilling parallel is with 1990. They drew their first two games that year. Surely they can’t reach the semis with this team?

Accordingly I fully expect them to hump Slovenia on Wednesday.

TV bloke’s moment to make you splutter?

Adrian Chiles before the game moaning that England never seem to get any luck.

Oh really, Adrian?

Have England ever been drawn in a group of death? (As opposed to a deathly group, that is.)

I didn’t see their second half but congratulations to the US for their comeback.

Royal Bafokeng Stadium, Rustenburg, 12/6/10

Honours even, then. Possibly a fair result.

Contrary to the TV pundits I thought it was a thoroughly disjointed and lack-lustre performance from England in the first half – which the US dominated even if they didn’t work Robert Green enough. (As it turned out working him once was enough.)

Rooney was anonymous, Lampard was anonymous – I don’t recall him being on the ball at all till the second half.

The US, by contrast, seemed to have an idea of what they were trying to do: at least their passes were crisp and reaching their team mates.

It was noticeable that after the US goal the commentator suddenly remembered that the US pushed Brazil hard in the final of last year’s Confederations Cup.

In the second half things opened up a bit late on, Rooney began to make an impact on the game, but neither side looked totally convincing.

So. Did we see potential winners tonight?

Let’s put it this way.

I don’t think Brazil, Spain, Argentina or even Holland will be quaking in their boots.

Edited to add: I see from the highlights that Lampard was involved in the goal – but that was his only contribution to the first half.

With the event looming ever nearer, let us examine the record of “one of the favourites for the World Cup.”

1930: Thought it was beneath them/couldn’t be bothered.

1934: Thought it was beneath them/couldn’t be bothered.

1938: Thought it was beneath them/couldn’t be bothered.

1950: Discovered it wasn’t. Quite the reverse.
Eliminated in first round, famously, in Belo Horizonte, losing to USA 1-0.
An omen? (Also lost 1-0 to Spain.)

1954: Quarter-final, lost to Uruguay 4-2.

1958: First round play-off. Lost to USSR 1-0.

1962: Quarter-final, lost to Brazil 3-1.

1966: Downhill, with a following wind, a suspicious late switch of semi-final venue, not to mention a compliant Azerbaijani linesman, (take a bow, Tofik Bakhramov) drew in final 2-2 with West Germany, then “scored” twice in extra time.

1970: Quarter-final, drew 2-2 with West Germany; lost 3-2 after extra time.

1974: DNQ!

1978: DNQ!

1982: Drew 0-0 in second round (effectively the quarter-finals) not only with West Germany but also with Spain. Eliminated.

1986: Quarter-final, lost 2-1 to Argentina (or, if you like, to the hand of God.)

1990: Semi-final! (which they only reached because Cameroon couldn’t be bothered to sit on a lead.) Drew 1-1 with West Germany after “best goalkeeper in the world” cannot take two steps backwards at a free kick. (1-1 aet.) Lost on penalties.

1994: DNQ!

1998: Second round. Drew 2-2 with Argentina. (2-2 aet.) Lost on penalties.

2002: Quarter-finals. Lost 2-1 to Brazil. Yet another “best goalkeeper in the world” couldn’t stop a lobbed free kick.

2006: Quarter-finals. Drew 0-0 with Portugal. (0-0 aet.) Lost on penalties.

Out of seventeen tournaments only one final – and that at home.

Six no-shows, two first round failures, one (or two) second round exits, four (or five) quarter-final defeats, one loss at the semis stage.

It’s obviously going to be a skoosh, lads.

I noted it mentally at the time but let it pass. However, Call me Dave’€™s remarks last night brought it to mind again.

His posturing over Georgia would have gone beyond recklessness if it were to be repeated in office. [I have to say here that David Milliband was as bad back then. Don’€™t they have advisers who know about this stuff?]

But not only did Call me Dave get it wrong over Georgia and thereby possibly antagonise Russia, he now wants to target nuclear weapons on Iran and China. Note Nick Clegg’€™s startled reaction in the clip.

Iran!

Iran which does not have nuclear weapons (any more than Iraq had: anyone with knowledge of the Middle Eastern psyche knows what I’€™m talking about here) and which therefore our threatening them with amounts to bullying. And nobody likes a bully.

And China!

China: with whom we have no quarrel and which has more than enough capacity to make ours seem piddling and which, therefore, it makes no sense to threaten.

Quite apart from the fact that the UK most likely can not or will not use its nuclear weapons without prior US approval and we probably only have them because the French do too (as Yes, Minister put it once) what on Earth was he thinking? Or did he just let his mouth run away with him?

Either way such talk is dangerous and does not bode well for the country’€™s international relations under a Call me Dave premiership. For you can be sure the relevant authorities in Moscow, Tehran and Beijing (not to mention elsewhere) will have taken due note. Mehdi Hassan in the New Statesman makes much the same point.

So, Dave, I’€™m not going to call you Dave.

I’€™m going to call you irresponsible.

Inhabitants of the US tend to refer to themselves as American. This is of course factually correct as their country does lie within that continent (or those two continents if you prefer.)

However, they also tend to appropriate the phrase for themselves, to use it to mean a citizen of the United States. This is an implicit dismissal of the other countries in their hemisphere – possibly a linguistic reflection, or extension, of the Monroe Doctrine which explicitly regards the Americas as the USA’€™s backyard. The doctrine dresses itself up as anti-colonial but was of course in itself nothing but imperialist by appropriating to the US the right to interfere in the affairs of other continental – and Caribbean – states. (This right has sometimes been exerted whether the recipients of the benefit desired it or not.)

The terminology is also prevalent, though, on this side of the Atlantic. I may have used it myself at times, however much I try always to refer to the US or USA rather than “€œAmerica.”

I believe, though, that it is a source of irritation to Canadians in particular and also I suspect to Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Costa Ricans, El Salvadoreans, Nicaraguans, Belizeans and Panamanians. Not to mention Uruguayans, Brazilians, Chileans, Bolivians, Colombians, Ecuadorians, Argentines, Peruvians, Venezuelans, Surinamese, Guyanese and Paraguayans – even French Guianese – all of whom are American in the wider sense.

I have seen the proposal that the description Columbian – after the continent’€™s “discoverer”€ – be used to replace American in the narrower sense. This would be the supreme irony, as what was Columbus if not a European imperialist?

It is unlikely to catch on, though, as US citizens would doubtless not wish to be confused with their fellow continentals from South America, ie Colombians.

As other options this would leave us with the rather unwieldy United Statesian. This could be shortened to USian (which may, though, be misread as Usian,) or Uessian, or even in these days of cavalier spelling, Youessian.

Any of these would at least have the merit of being specific (as well as unimperialist.)