Alistair Darling and his Amazing Eyebrows: Intelligent Design Theory Finally Vindicated

If Labour lose the next general election in Britain, what will you miss most? I like to think that I am not alone in saying that what I would really miss are Alistair Darling’s Astonishing Eyebrows. What I could never work out was: how does he find the time to run the British economy? Combing, grooming and dying those amazing eyebrows is surely a full time job in itself. And what evolutionary explanation could there possibly be for nature to have produced such an extravagant facial phenomenon? I fear even Richard Dawkins would struggle to account for the ostentatious presence of those two mutant caterpillars. Does Darling use them to sense the vibrations of his prey in the total darkness of his subterranean hunting grounds? Or are they the result of some form of sexual selection, like the peacock’s tail, that Darling and his ancestors have used to hypnotise, bewilder and seduce the female of the species? No. They are an evolutionary mystery, irreducibly complex, like the bacterial flagellum. In fact, those eyebrows may well turn out to be the natural phenomenon that finally destroys the Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis that is nowadays so fashionable, because many will conclude that a wonder such as this could only be the result of Intelligent Design.

The Best Country in the World: France

Previously we discussed the best cities in the world. Now the time has come to discuss what country has the highest quality of life. Where, all things considered, is the best place to live in the world? One strong candidate is Australia – it's sunny, it's rich, it's safe, it's friendly, it’s beautiful, everything works, it's optimistic, the cost of living is not outrageous, the restaurants are good, healthcare is good. If you like beach life and outdoor activities you are sorted. One disadvantage is that it's very far away from everywhere. Also, it doesn't have much in the way of history or culture. Because of this, Australia is the admirable runner-up.

The winner is France.

If you like architecture, France has the best selection of cathedrals, palaces and castles in the world.
If you like urban life, Paris is (when all joking is put aside) the best city in the world.
If you prefer rural life, France has the most beautiful villages in the world.
If you like skiing or hiking and wilderness, there are the French Alps.
If you like sun and beaches, there is the Cote d'Azur.
France has the best food in the world and the best restaurants in the world.
France has the best cafes in the world. It's got the best wine in the world, and the best cheese in the world.
Family life is very strong, with low divorce rates and so forth. People tend to live near all their relatives, and be close to them. The whole country is designed to make parenting easy.
France has the best healthcare system in the world.
It has a brilliant infrastructure - flawless motorways. Or if you prefer trains, it's got the best trains in the world as well.
If culture is your thing then France has the best museums and art galleries in the world. They love ideas and debate and art.
French is the most beautiful language in the world. No question about it.
The people are stylish, and well-dressed.
The women are beautiful, and if you go to a beach, they aren't wearing anything.
France has the same smug, bourgeois prosperity as places like Belgium and Switzerland, but it also has an edge to it - it's not boring or predictable.
France is also near lots of places - if you want to pop over to Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy or wherever, you can be there in no time. You get good vacation time as well.

France combines all the virtues of Northern European countries (well-organised, productive, good social services) with all the virtues of Southern European countries (a passion for life, romantic, good weather, strong family ties, good food and wine).

France is the best country in the world. Scientists agree.

(Interesting fact about the above famous photograph of Paris: It was posed. It was a set up. But do you see the guy with the glasses to the left walking by in the background? He wasn’t part of the set up. He was just some Irish bloke who happened to be walking by at the time. He had never travelled out of Ireland before, but was going to Rome on a pilgrimage and had stopped over in Paris. I think he was from Killester.)

Mystery: why does this website have so many readers in the Philippines?

A big hello to everyone in the Philippines. I hope you are all well. Congratulations on your excellent taste in websites. It has been a long-standing ambition of mine to make it big in your beautiful archipelago nation. And according to Google Analytics, I can now strike this particular item off my list of Things To Do Before I Die.

Tax the rich until they scream for mercy

The politics of envy? BRING IT ON! We should tax the rich until they do us all a favour and take their “talent” elsewhere.

Those who have an immoderate love of money are imprisoned by their immoderation. Like all addictions, it damages the addict as much as anyone else.

Monbiot gets it right: “Extreme wealth invariably leads to captivity. Its victims live in an open prison … Everywhere on earth they live behind walls and razor wire, guarded by cameras, dogs, watch towers and sensors. The walls that shut the world out also shut them in.” Extreme wealth also means that one will inevitably be surrounded by flatterers, sycophants and greedy hangers-on, making it harder to find true friends and true love.

This might all be fine if the addiction of the super-wealthy did not damage society as a whole. But extreme inequality of wealth damages not just the wealthy, but also the non-wealthy, who become poisoned by their envy of the wealthy. I’ve previously discussed how economic inequality led to the global credit crunch. High levels of economic inequality mean that in order to try and keep up with the wealthy, the nearly-wealthy need to spend more and more. And then the nearly-nearly-wealthy need to spend more in order to try and keep up with the nearly-wealthy. And so on down the scale. This leads to a cascade effect on expenditure. Over the last thirty years in the West, median incomes have not been increasing much, while the incomes of the richest ten percent have exploded, which means that the only way for the non-wealthy to try and keep up is to borrow more and more money. That’s exactly what happened. And the rest, as they say, is economic history. In the West, it tends to be the countries with the highest levels of inequality that have the highest levels of personal debt.

So it is now patently clear that very rich people destroy societies, and that is why we need to make sure that the wealthy go somewhere else and ruin someone else’s society.

But unfortunately it’s not that as easy as you might think to get rid of these avaricious bastards. As Monbiot adds: “It's a bitter blow. When the government proposed a windfall tax on bonuses and a 50p top rate of income tax, thousands of bankers and corporate executives promised to leave the country and move to Switzerland. Now we discover that the policy has failed: the number of financiers applying for a Swiss work permit fell by 7% last year. The government must try harder to rid this country of its antisocial elements … The universal public response, as Tracey Emin found when she announced that she couldn't possibly survive here on her scanty millions, is ‘Go on, then – jump’”.

Why are men unfaithful?

A READER WRITES: “I enjoyed your piece on celebrity scandals. But why are so many successful men so unfaithful to their wives e.g. Tiger Woods, Ashley Cole and John Terry? Should women like me stay away from successful men?”

BB SAYS: “A man is only as faithful as his options” – Chris Rock

To women, it can sometimes feel that they need to make a choice between going out with a boring, mediocre guy who will be faithful to them, or a successful, exciting guy who will be unfaithful to them.

But actually you could say that it is even worse than that - there are no shortage of of boring, mediocre guys who will also be unfaithful to you. It’s just that no one writes about them in magazines. So you might as well go off with a successful one if you get the chance. At least then you might have a few thrills in your life.

However, in reality it is not as bad as all that either. We hear about the successful guys who are unfaithful, but we don’t pay any attention to the many who are faithful and well-behaved. So, although the media can make it appear as though all successful men are unfaithful, it’s not entirely true – it’s just that we focus on those ones, because they are more fun to focus on.

But if you are a good judge of character, and are not taken in by superficialities, then, unless you are unlucky, you will probably end up with a guy who will be faithful to you. On the other hand, if you are an idiot, you will in all likelihood end up with a jerk. People tend to get the partner they deserve. Not always, but generally. As James Joyce once said “Always see a man's weakness in his wife”. The same is true of the fairer sex “Spot a woman’s weakness in her husband”.

What is Great in Christianity

A READER WRITES: “I read your sneering review of the Bible. Can you really find nothing of any value in the Bible or in the Christian tradition?”

BB SAYS: The two great traditions at the heart of Western Civilisation are, on the one hand, the classical tradition of Ancient Greece and Rome, and on the other hand, the Christian tradition. Or, if you like, Athens and Jerusalem. Or perhaps: Philosophy and Theology. The tension between these two traditions has been the central dynamic throughout the course of Western history.

The four great virtues advocated by the classical philosophical tradition of Ancient Greece are Wisdom, Courage, Moderation and Justice. These are the four virtues that, according to Greek philosophy, are required in order to live a good life. But there is another great virtue that, I think, is missing from the classical list, and that virtue is Love, or compassion, or charity, or humanity. I submit that the absence of this virtue is a weakness of classical Greece and Rome, and that it is Christianity that has done most to put this virtue at the centre of Western Civilisation.

The great command of Jesus is “Love your neighbour as yourself”. The other great commandment of Jesus is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might”. Now, how can an atheist love God, since the atheist says he does not believe that God exists?

Well, according to the greatest Christian theologian of all time, Aquinas, God is Truth. “God is truth itself: I am the way, the truth, and the life". Thus, to love God is, in the final analysis, to love Truth, to pursue the highest Truth. And this is also the central task of classical philosophy, since philosophy means the love or the quest for truth, knowledge and wisdom. I therefore suggest that, at their highest levels, the task of philosophy and the task of theology are one and the same.

So love is the central Christian message, as is clear from the following immortal words of Paul:

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; Does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”

To the four classical virtues, Christianity adds another three, making seven in all: Wisdom, Courage, Moderation, Justice, Faith, Hope, and (the greatest of all) Love.

Now, atheists frequently ridicule Faith and Hope. But it is well to remember that life is hard, and full of suffering, and that when life grinds you down, Faith and Hope are frequently what we must turn to. In the darkest hour, you will search for a long time before you find better words than these to heal a broken heart:

“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.”

Or these:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

I want to be clear that this is not an argument for the superiority of Christianity. I am just suggesting that those who regard themselves as atheists or humanists or philosophers, need not be blind to what is best in Christianity, just as they need not be blind to what is best in the other great religious traditions.

Freud versus Diogenes the Cynic on Work and Love

According to Freud, love and work are all that are required in order to have a fulfilling life. “Love and work... work and love, that's all there is”. They are “the cornerstones of our humanness”. It follows from this that if you have neither work nor love, then you have no life.

One can understand what Freud was getting at. Many of us have, at some stage in our lives, had neither love nor work, and few of us would deny that these were challenging, if not excruciatingly difficult, periods.

On the other hand, if you have love but no work, or work but no love, then you may just about get by. And if you are lucky enough to have both, then you are, as they say, well set up.

What about the Ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes the Cynic? He was a different kettle of fish altogether. His basic philosophy was: if you want nothing, then you have everything you want. He was the first Bohemian, the original hippie, the quintessential drop out. He lived in a tub, and went around with a bowl (see picture above). He believed that one should live a dog’s life.

So what was Diogenes’s attitude to work and love?

Well, he never did anything much. In one famous anecdote Alexander the Great was returning to Greece after conquering Asia. Alexander saw a little crumpled, dishevelled heap on the side of the road. It was none other than Diogenes the Cynic. Feeling generous, Alexander went up to the poor wretch, announced himself, and told Diogenes he would grant him whatever he wished. Diogenes said: ‘Actually, there is something you could do for me. Could you move slightly to the left, as you are blocking my view of the landscape’.

On another occasion Diogenes was found masturbating furiously in the village square, in full view of everyone. When someone went up to him and reprimanded him for his disgraceful behaviour, Diogenes replied: ‘If only I could make my stomach full just by rubbing it.’

Words to live by.

So that’s Diogenes the Cynic. He didn’t need work or love in order to lead a fulfilling life.

So fuck you Freud.

Celebrity Scandal: Cheryl Cole and Tiger Woods

Apparently Cheryl Cole was spotted in LA without her wedding ring. Rumour has it that her husband’s most recent infidelities were the last straw. In her latest smash hit Cheryl sang:

“We’ve got to fight, fight, fight, fight, fight for this love –
If it’s worth having it’s worth fighting for.”

Can you spot the key word in that lyric? The key word is “if.” IF it’s worth having THEN it is worth fighting for. But if it’s NOT worth having then it is NOT worth fighting for. So is it worth having? This seems to be the questions that young Cheryl is asking herself at the moment.

In other celebrity gossip, Tiger Woods made a public statement in which he instructed us all that:

“I cheated. What I did is not acceptable, and I am the only person to blame.” He went on to angrily insist that his wife Elin deserves “praise, not blame”.

Er, memo to Tiger: Nobody is blaming your wife for anything. Everyone is blaming you. Nobody is even remotely suggesting that anyone but you is the person to blame. So what on earth are you on about?

Anyway, the general public find consolation in these celebrity scandals. We think to ourselves: “They may be more beautiful, more wealthy, more successful and more famous than me, but their lives are still a mess”. This makes it easier for us to cope with our own mediocre and modest lives.

But it is true that wealth, beauty and fame are not much use without wisdom. As the great philosopher Spinoza once said:

“He whose honour is rooted in popular approval must, day by day, anxiously strive, act, and scheme in order to retain his reputation. For the populace is variable and inconstant, so that, if a reputation be not kept up, it quickly withers away. Everyone wishes to catch popular applause for himself, and readily represses the fame of others. The object of the strife being estimated as the greatest of all goods, each combatant is seized with a fierce desire to put down his rivals in every possible way, till he who at last comes out victorious is more proud of having done harm to others than of having done good to himself. This sort of honour, then, is really empty, being nothing.”

How much yearly income would you need in order to feel rich?

How much yearly household income would you need in order to feel rich? Before reading on, think about if for a moment and come up with a figure.

In the US a large survey was conducted by Target Point Consulting, and the answer was discovered: on average people would need about double their current yearly income in order to feel rich. For example, people who have a current household income of 50,000 said they would feel rich if they had a yearly income of 100,000. People who had a current income of 100,000 said they would feel rich if they had an income of 200,000. People with a yearly income of 150,000? They'd need 300,000 before they'd feel rich. And so on.

Conclusion: It doesn't matter how much you earn you will never, NEVER feel rich. People say they need double their current income, pretty much regardless of what their current income is. This makes sense, since people are much more likely to notice people who are better off than themselves, than people who are worse off than themselves. It's human nature.

Twitter to Blogs: “You are so yesterday”

Just when I thought I had got to the bottom of this whole blog thing, along comes Twitter to mess with my head. What is the point of it? People keep saying to me “Websites and blogs are so old fashioned, Brian. You need to move on to Twitter. That’s where all the young, funky people are hanging out these days. Blogs are for fuddy duddies. You might as well be a medieval monk writing an illuminated manuscript on calfskin, or chipping out cuneiform characters onto a clay tablet in Ancient Sumeria.”

I’ve lost count of the amount of people who have come up to me and said this. It could be as many as zero. Possibly even less.

Personally I’m a bit worried about Twitter. I hear it could be dangerous for one’s mental health. Apparently the “King of Tweeting” Stephen Fry, went into a depressed sulk when someone dared to call his tweets “a bit boring”. But the sulk was only temporary, and Fry is now back tweeting like the bejaysus. This modern day Oscar Wilde has been using the latest “killer app” to share his wit with over a million followers: “To the airport. My damned book almost certainly hasn't been writing itself while I've been here in Barcelona. Curses.” “Breakfast with Horace Luke and John Wang of HTC. Amazing fellows.” “Must be bedtime. Ner-night”. “Happier than a happy person can be that LGG won 3 Brit awards. Raa raa uh-uh aah”. “Flying later. V excited about the Mobile World Congress” “Some models of iPad will have 3G as well as WiFi”.

I dunno. When I read web content of this quality, it makes me want to give up blogging in despair.

[Incidentally, for those of you who aren’t quite as in the with the in-crowd as national treasure Stephen Fry, LGG stands for Lady Gaga, who is a pop star.]

Anyway, I am going to approach Twitter with an open mind. Stay tuned for my final verdict, which I will publish next week.

City of the Year – Amsterdam

I’m still reviewing the year that was. The great appraisal is not over yet. Oh no. Not by a LONG shot. I’m only getting started. And I don’t care how many readers I lose on account of it. I’m sticking with this no matter what. The year is not going to review itself you know. Somebody around here has got to do it. And if it’s worth doing at all, then it’s worth doing properly. The way things are going, I’d say this Review of the Year could well run into next year.

Anyway. Amsterdam. City of the Year. Van Gogh. Bikes. Prostitutes. Rembrandt. Canals. Vermeer. The Enlightenement. Polders and Dykes. Spinoza. Abortion on demand. Tulip bubbles. A refuge for Descartes. Heineken. The Dutch. The tallest people in the world on average. Those crazy Dutch. How do they do it. Windmills. Euthanasia. Trams. Sex shows (apparently about as erotic as watching two elderly elephants humping each other. Possibly even less erotic). Protestantism. Cannabis (although instead of smoking this, you could always try spinning around in one spot for two minutes, in manner of 8 year old child. The high! The giddiness! The nausea! And it’s all completely free! And it’s legal even outside the Netherlands!).

Apparently the Dutch are so well-behaved that they are closing down prisons. They can’t find any criminals to put in them. In order to save jobs in their prisons, they are thinking of importing criminals from other countries. That’s what happens if you make everything legal: everyone behaves themselves and people who work in prisons find themselves out of a job. I always knew this great liberal, tolerant experiment thing would end in tears. The Netherlands is the evidence for that.

Bordeaux versus Burgundy

Having read my review of Rioja, a couple of readers asked if I have any more views to offer on wine. For example, where do I stand on the perennial Bordeaux versus Burgundy debate?

In order to research this properly I tasted a couple of samples of each type of wine. And below are the results.

BORDEAUX

Chateau Bauduc Bordeaux Superieur 2006: A fruity little wine, though not necessarily homosexual. Bisexual perhaps. This gender-bending Bordeaux positively exudes sexual ambiguity. One suspects that it would be prepared to get up on anything. Especially if it thinks nobody is watching.

Château Cardinal Villemaurine Saint Emilion Grand Cru 2004: An intellectual wine. Always has its head stuck in a book. Needs to get out more. Rational to the point of passionless. The Doctor Spock of wines. A real “know it all”. Not much fun to be around at all at all.

BURGUNDY

Charles Thomas Nuits-Saint-Georges 2005: A neurotic wine. Terribly introverted. Painfully shy and self-absorbed. Has the air of a burgundy that has spent a lot of time on the psychiatrist’s couch. And with very little to show for it as well.

SANTENAY VIEILLES VIGNES 2000: Fleshy and rich with pineapple, peach and apricot aromas as well as suggestions of tuberculosis and gonorrhoea. Smooth and ripe and expressive in the mouth. Would only recommend it for experienced wine drinkers who want to try something daring. Wear a condom.

So what’ll it be boy? Bordeaux or Burgundy? I’m sticking with Rioja.

Do YOU have a problem? Leave an anonymous comment, or send your problem in confidence to brianbarrington@gmail.com

The Global Balance of Power in the Twenty First Century

A READER WRITES: Samuel Huntington had his “clash of civilisations”, Francis Fukayama had his “end of history”. Brian Barrington, please turn your own analytical skills to geopolitics and share with us your insights.

BB SAYS: Interesting question. What predictions can be made about the “Great Game” for international influence in the 21st century? Well, we are moving from a unipolar world into a multi-polar world. Yes. It’s true. Remember where you heard it first readers. Because I’m damn sure that wherever you heard it first, it sure as hell wasn’t here.

In the 21st century the three major global centres of power will be the US, China and Europe. The US is still the most powerful place in the world. But China is catching up. That’s my view anyway. So remember where you read this first too: China is doing all sorts of great stuff over there. It’s very much the global dark horse. When are people going to start noticing the rise of China? Isn’t it about time that the media woke up and started noticing this new geopolitical phenomenon? Why should it be left to bloggers like me to point it out?

And what about Europe? Collectively, its economy is currently a bit bigger than that of the US or China, but it is more politically fragmented. The cosseted citizens of Europe don’t want more union – they’d prefer to let the future be largely decided by the US and China, while they wallow in whatever it is that Europeans like to wallow in. But Europe has what I like to call soft power. Europe’s system is admired, and it exercises influence as a result of that – via the EU. So Europe will have some power, but less than the US or China. Europe will be an economic giant, a political dwarf, and a military worm.

The major second tier powers will be Japan, Russia and above all India. These regions and others will be able to play the three powerful centres off each other. The US, China and Europe will compete ferociously for access to resources and markets, as well as for influence, in these other regions.

Latin America will integrate – led by Brazil. It will try to imitate EU integration, in a bid to liberate itself from US dominance. Similar integration will be attempted in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. These regions will start to master the art of playing the big powers off each other for their own advantage. They will develop rapidly.

And the troublesome Middle East? Almost uniquely among geopolitical analysts, I am reasonably sanguine about the prospects for the Middle East. Underneath the surface these societies are modernising. Life-expectancies have been increasing, as have literacy and incomes. Islamic extremism is a sign of weakness and vulnerability rather than strength – the fanatics realise how threatened they are by modernity. Despite media appearances, the Muslim world is modernising, and will continue to modernise, on its own terms, and not be dictated to by the West, or by anyone else. But like developing countries elsewhere, Middle Eastern countries will try to model themselves on China, and ape its method of development.

The boundary between the “developed” world and the “developing” world will become ever more blurred. The United Nations will become ever less important, as will the G7. The G20 will be where all the major global decisions are made.

International wars will become less and less common, because it is counter-productive for countries to start them – it is too costly, and too dangerous. If the country being invaded has any WMDs, it is simply too risky to invade it. And all but the most screwed up countries can have WMDs these days. Even a basket-case like North Korea has nuclear weapons, and therefore cannot be attacked. So the number of countries in the world that can safely be attacked is declining all the time, and hence so are the number of international wars.

So, I am optimistic about the twenty first century. The biggest risk is an international trade war, leading to catastrophic economic collapse, followed by the disintegration of civilisation, combined with climate change disasters, and the unleashing of weapons of mass destruction. But apart from that possibility, I am enormously optimistic.

I intend to come back here in 2099 and see how well I’ve done with my predictions.

David McWilliams should stop stealing his ideas from this blog

Last week I pointed out that Ireland actually has a much higher debt burden than Greece because total debt consists of public debt AND private debt – and Ireland’s private debt is much higher than Greece’s. Imagine my surprise when I looked at today’s Irish Independent, only to find David McWilliams making the exact same point.

What can weak eurozone economies like Ireland do to get out of the mess they are in? There are essentially four options:

1. Leave the euro, return to the punt, and then devalue. This would be a political and economic nightmare for Ireland in particular. Most of our debt is denominated in euros, so if we returned to the punt and devalued, the real cost of paying back those debts would escalate. We would be totally bankrupt, like Iceland. It would also be a PR disaster for the country - and perceptions matter, especially for FDI.

2. Default on our debt. Another not very attractive option. Again, look at Iceland. We would be subjected to merciless financial bullying from stronger economies.

3. Further radical cuts in expenditure, and increases in taxes, leading to massive further increase in unemployment, emigration, deflation, with all the misery and social unrest that this would entail. This is the current strategy of the Irish government. It means that the country would suffer the contemporary equivalent of a Great Depression.

4. A bailout by the richer Eurozone countries. Politically difficult for the richer countries, to say the least.

What we are likely to get is a mixture of two, three and four i.e. in return for the bailout, the governments of the bailed-out countries will hand complete control of their economies over to Brussels, Frankfurt and Berlin – and the subsequent cuts in expenditure and increases in taxes will be decided and monitored from there. Debt for equity swaps at the Irish banks could reduce our external debt burden – this basically means handing ownership of worthless Irish banks over to foreign banks, in return for them writing down the money they are owed. So, in addition to handing over entire control of Irish economic government to Europe, Ireland would also hand over entire ownership of its banking system to Europe.

The only alternative interesting suggestion I have heard for dealing with the weak Eurozone economies was from a professor of economics at Harvard.

“Allow Greece [and the other countries] to take a temporary leave of absence from the Euro with the right and the obligation to return at a more competitive exchange rate. More specifically, Greece would shift its currency from the euro to the drachma, with an initial exchange rate of one euro to one drachma. Bank balances and obligations would remain in euros. Wages and prices would be set in drachma … If the agreement called for Greece to return at an exchange rate of 1.3 drachmas per euro, the Greek currency would immediately fall by about 30 per cent relative to the euro and other non-euro currencies. If there is little or no induced inflation in Greece, Greek products would be substantially more competitive in both domestic and foreign markets.”

This would allow Greek real wages to decrease, without nominal wages decreasing, thus regaining competitiveness. The same could be done in other weak Eurozone economies. Decreasing nominal wages is almost impossible without severe social unrest.

The Power of Female Beauty celebrated in the Black Eyed Peas’ song “My Humps”

Amongst the most influential celebrations of the power of female beauty in recent art is the Black Eyed Peas’ foot-stomper “My Humps”. For women, their beauty is their power. Men are in a thrall to women because of it – on its account men will do anything, endure anything, suffer any level of humiliation.

All of which raises an interesting feminist question – should women exploit this power to the full? Is that the feminist thing to do? Or is it inherently sexist that women need to rely on this in order to get what they want from life? Should authentic feminists (among whom I count myself) strive to attain a world in which it is not necessary for women to use their beauty in order to get what they want?

It’s a tricky question, and I don’t have all the answers. All I would say to women is: use your beauty wisely.

In the meantime ponder the timeless lyrics of this majestic tune:

What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside that trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get, you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
What you gon' do with all that ass?
All that ass inside them jeans?
I'm a make, make, make, make you scream
Make you scream, make you scream.
Cos of my hump (ha), my hump, my hump, my hump (what).
My hump, my hump, my hump (ha), my lovely lady lumps (Check it out)

She's got me spending.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me and spending time on me.
She's got me spendin'.
(Oh) Spendin' all your money on me, up on me, on me

Omar Khayyam and the Secret of Life

The secret of life is only known to a handful of happy souls who live on Mount Olympus, and gaze down on the rest of us mere mortals. Socrates. Diogenes the Cynic. Lao Tzu. Buddha. Montaigne. Spinoza. These happy few, these band of brothers. What do they feel, when they look at the rest of us losers and no-hopers, striving in vain to attain the heights of wisdom that they have reached? Do they feel contempt? I doubt it . Pity and compassion? Perhaps occasionally. Indifference? Much of the time. But most of all I would say they are amused by us and our foolish antics.

One such demi-god, one who belongs to the elect group of those who know the secret of life, is the Muslim poet Omar Khayyam, who lived in Persia from 1048-1131 AD. The below fragments of his poetry are taken from Peter Avery’s superb contemporary translation. I would ignore the Edward Fitzgerald translation:

They say lovers and drunkards go to hell,
A controversial dictum not easy to accept:
If the lover and drunkard are for hell,
Tomorrow Paradise will be empty.

What of your entering and leaving the world?
A fly appeared, and disappeared.
Many like you come and many go,
Snatch your share before you are snatched away.

Drink wine, you will lie long enough under the ground,
Without companion, friend or comrade.
Take care you tell no one this hidden secret,
‘No lily that withers will bloom again’.

Drink wine, this is life eternal,
This, all that youth will give you:
It is the season for wine, roses and friends drinking together.
Be happy for this moment – it is all life is.

Though you may have lain with a mistress all your life,
Tasted the sweets of the world all your life;
Still the end of the affair will be your departure –
It was a dream that you dreamed all your life.

My rule of life is to drink and be merry,
To be free from belief and unbelief is my religion:
I asked the Bride of Destiny her bride-price,
“Your joyous heart” she said.

I need a jug of wine and a book of poetry,
Half a loaf for a bite to eat,
Then you and I, seated in a deserted spot,
Will have more wealth than a Sultan’s realm.

Rise up my love and solve our problem by your beauty,
Bring a jug of wine to clear our heart
So that we may drink together
Before wine-jugs are made of our clay.

The year’s caravan goes by swiftly,
Seize the cheerful moment:
Why sorrow, child, over tomorrow’s grief for friends?
Bring out the cup – the night passes.

If we don’t clap hands together as one,
We cannot tread down sorrow with our feet in joy:
Let us go and be happy before the breath of dawn –
Many a day will break when we breathe no more.

When the drunken nightingale found his way into the garden
He discovered the face of the rose and the wine-cup laughing;
He came to whisper in my ear excitedly,
“Seek out these, life once gone cannot be sought again”.

My controversial profile photo

Some readers who know me have expressed a degree of scepticism about the profile photo of myself on this page. Apparently I look implausibly handsome, tanned and healthy. Many claim that I do not look at all like this in real life. There have been mutterings of “false advertising” and grumblings about “rampant vanity”. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the picture has been photoshopped.

Whilst I will concede that the photo in question is perhaps not the least flattering snap that exists of me, I vehemently reject the charge of photoshopping. But once rumours like this start, they quickly get out of control. Even by denying the charge I suspect I am already on the back foot, and fighting a futile battle against the rapid emergence of yet another urban myth.

How to Live Well according to Montaigne

How to live well? That is the most important question facing all of us: how can I make the most of the life that I have been given? It is the great philosophers who have made the best attempts to answer this conundrum. Amongst the greatest of these philosophers is the French thinker Montaigne (1533 – 1592), who invented the essay. Montaigne just wrote down whatever happened to be in his head. In some respects, he was the original blogger. But unlike most bloggers, what he wrote down was interesting.

Sarah Bakewell has given us a lovely book about him entitled “How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer”. Elegantly, humourously and simply written, it confidently blends biography with philosophy. It is my non-fiction book of the year.

Below are a dozen of the tips from Montaigne on how to live well. Listed on their own, these tips might be considered somewhat trite, but in his essays each one is examined in detail and the subtle implications are teased out:

1. Do not worry about death.
2. Do something no one has done before.
3. Live temperately. All things in moderation.
4. Question everything. “All I know is that I know nothing, and I’m not even sure about that”.
5. Wake from the sleep of habit.
6. Pay attention.
7. Read a lot, forget most of what you read, and be slow-witted.
8. Use little tricks.
9. See the world.
10. Do a good job, but not too good a job.
11. Be ordinary and imperfect.
12. Let life be its own answer.

When reading the life-advice provided in wisdom literature one is frequently tempted to say: “But that is obvious! Everyone knows that!”

Well, if it is all really so obvious, and if everyone really knows it, then why do so many of us fail to live up to it?

Anti-humour- the new craze that’s sweeping the globe

Q: How many Italian immigrants does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One.

Q: How do you know if a Frenchman has been inside your house?
A: You don't, really, unless you were there to see him or your neighbour saw him and then told you about it later. I wouldn't worry about it really.

A Catholic priest and a Jew are walking down an alley. Both have silly belief systems and they aren't even embarrassed about it.

A blonde, a brunette, and a redhead are in a plane that is going to crash. There is engine trouble, and one of the wings catches fire. The plane starts to go down. Luckily, there are enough parachutes for everyone. Evacuation is orderly.

A man walks into a pub.
He is an alcoholic whose drink problem is destroying his family.

Knock, knock.
Who's there?
The police. I'm afraid there's been an accident. Your husband is in hospital.

Two men are sitting in a pub.
One man turns to the other and says: 'Last night I saw lots of strange men coming in and out of your wife's house.'
The other man replies: 'Yes, she has become a prostitute to subsidise her drug habit.'

Two cows are in a field. Suddenly, from behind a bush, a rabbit leaps out and runs away. One cow looks round a bit, eats some grass and then wanders off.

A Meditation on Google Earth

Anyone else out there obsessed with Google Earth? People who know me will be aware that I have a habit of reading the atlas for hours on end, pouring over maps of faraway places, imagining what they are like. So you can guess how I excited I get about Google Earth. Since it came along I have visited the Antarctic, gone on a road trip across America, taken in the view from the top of Mount Everest, flown over the Sahara desert, explored the valleys of the Hindu Kush, island hopped in the Caribbean, strolled through the streets of Paris at evening, and gone on a cruise up the Yangtze River starting at Shanghai. Pictured above is an image of New York from Google Earth. Why, only last weekend I took a tour of the Alps in the morning (really quite beautiful), before flying down to Tuscany in the afternoon to have a poke around some of its stunning Renaissance towns. My adventures haven't even been confined to planet earth - I've also glided over the surface of the moon, and wandered through the galaxies using Google Sky. By zooming in on the night sky you get a sense of how big the universe is. It’s very big indeed. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that it is better to not think too much about just how big it is.

All of this raises a tricky question: is there any need to travel anywhere any more? Why bother? I think the only remaining reason to travel is the smells. And Google are doubtless working on an application that will bring us the aromas of every location on the planet - Google Scent. Once that is available, there really will be no need for me to ever leave my bedroom again, and humanity will have attained its ultimate end.

Isn't it a little bit sad that there is nothing left to imagine any more? Never again will we dream of remote, mysterious places, because all those places are right in front of our eyes anytime we want them.

Abolish Valentine’s Day (Again)

Last year my call to abolish Valentine’s day was very popular and received widespread support. Or at least that is what I was led to believe at the time. But I note with dismay that Valentine’s Day has not yet been abolished, despite my reasonable demand. This leads me to fear that this website may not have quite the influence and global power I once believed it had. Nevertheless, we shouldn’t let a minor setback like this throw us off course. I am undeterred by this. So, here is the post again:

“No holiday in human history has caused more misery and stress than Valentine’s Day (with the possible exception of Aztec feast days, when priests ripped the beating hearts out of hundreds of terrified captives).

Valentine’s day is an unpleasant day of the year for everyone. It’s an unpleasant day of the year for people who are going out with someone, as they have to set out for an overpriced dinner, and warily compare themselves to other couples in order to see who is most in love. Valentine’s day is also deeply unpleasant for single people. If you go out to a night-club on the weekend before Valentine’s Day, you will see crowds of single people desperately looking to score, so that they might just have a date on the awful day.

It’s common knowledge that Valentine’s day is yet another marketing scam - people get fleeced on flowers, cards and other crap. Now even the anti-Valentine's Day movement has turned into a cliched marketing scam. Valentine’s Day makes people miserable. Abolishing it would increase the sum of human joy and happiness. We should liberate ourselves from the tyrannical hold of this loathsome occasion.”

Most Played Songs on My iTunes over the Last Year

I really have to bite the bullet here, and just come out with the truth, no matter how embarrassing. I wonder is there anyone out there who could do this honestly and not feel a little mortified about one or two of the songs that crop up? Anyway, here, in reverse order, are the twelve most played songs on my iTunes from last year. If you want to find out about the latest cutting edge music, er, you’re in the wrong place. But doing this is a revealing exercise. It’s a good way of finding out what music you really like, as opposed to what music you think you really like. I’m sure the below list reveals something about who I am. But what?

12. Wish You Were Here – Wyclef Jean

11. Crazy In Love – Beyonce

10. Mr Brightside - Killers

9. You Make it Easy – Air

8. Today – Smashing Pumpkins

7. Last Night – The Strokes

6. Paradise by the Dashboard Light - Meatloaf

5. There is a Light that Never Goes Out – The Smiths

4. At the River – Groove Armada

3. Nancy Boy – Placebo

2. Somewhere Only We Know – Keane (Sweet Jesus! This really is the second most listened to song on my iTunes! The evidence is there. There is no way to deny it. How is it possible that I have listened to this song more than, say, a masterwork like Meatloaf's “Paradise by the Dashboard Light”?)

1. Just Like Heaven – The Cure

Greece: Making Ireland look good?

Speaking as a philosopher, it’s slightly disconcerting to watch the land of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle turned into an international laughing-stock. But speaking as an Irishman, I am relieved that the Greeks are distracting attention from us, and even making us look good, at least if “international perception” is anything to go by.

But what’s really going on here? The government deficit in Greece is about the same as Ireland’s – so the government in Ireland is over-spending by the same amount as the Greek government. So what’s the difference? Why so much fuss about Greece? Well, Ireland is starting from a lower total national debt, so the Irish government can afford to borrow these large amounts for a few more years, unlike the Greeks. So overall, Ireland is in a better position than Greece right?

Well, hang on a second there. Ireland’s national debt, its total GOVERNMENT debt, its PUBLIC debt, is less than Greece’s, as a proportion of GDP. All well and good. But a country’s TOTAL debt is public debt PLUS private debt. Ireland’s total external debt (public debt plus private debt owed to foreigners) is 1.8 trillion, as opposed to Greece’s, which is a mere 86 billion. So external debt per capita in Greece is $3,953, compared to $448,032 per head in Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_debt_by_country

Now external debt is a complex thing, but these figures make the basic point quite clearly: Ireland’s PRIVATE debt is much, much, much higher than Greece’s. Overall, Ireland is more in debt to foreigners than Greece. The average Greek citizen is not imprisoned by private debt, unlike the average Irish citizen. This explains why the Greek populace is kicking up more of a stink than the Irish populace – their personal debt and household debt is much lower, so they are not debt slaves. As Ambrose Bierce once said “Debt is an ingenious substitute for the slave driver’s whip”. And a whole generation of young Irish people have been turned into debt slaves. Our best and brightest, our most dilligent and responsible young people, have been totally sold out.

Sure, the Greek government and public sector is making a total mess of things, but their private banks have not screwed things up – and that’s much more important. That’s not because Greek banks are really clever – it was just lethargy on their part. Clever bankers screw countries up - they make lots of money for themselves, and then get bailed out by everyone else. It has been Ireland’s misfortune to have lots of clever bankers.

Much of Ireland’s private debt will now be transferred into public debt – via NAMA and other mechanisms. This will cost a lot. My namesake Kathy Barrington of the "Sunday Business Post" reckons the Irish bank bailout will cost the state around 30 billion euro. That’s a conservative estimate. Morgan Kelly thinks more like 50 billion euro.

Much of Greece’s national debt has been financed by private Greek savings, in the same way that Japan’s has. That’s why Greek external debt is so small. Compared to Ireland, the Greeks don’t owe foreigners anything, because, unlike Ireland, they didn’t go on a deranged binge borrowing money from foreigners. In Ireland, the borrowing binge was spearheaded by Sean Fitzpatrick at Anglo-Irish Bank, and Michael Fingleton at Irish Nationwide, with the other banks eventually going along for the ride.

Book of the Year – The Bible

This long-awaited book did not disappoint. It’s got it all. Genocide. Incest. Torture. Tempestuous homosexual love-affairs. People coming back from the dead. Whatever it is you are into, you’ll find it somewhere in here. Not suitable for children though.

I thought that the first part of the Bible was the best. At the beginning of the second part of the book (called “The New Testament”) I felt the writer took a wrong turn, and presented us with a plot line so implausible it makes Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” look like a masterpiece of verisimilitude. And the lead character in this part of the book is such a loathsomely prissy goody two shoes that I find it impossible to believe he will hold much appeal for the general public.

So yeah. The Bible. A mixed bag. If you liked “Harry Potter” then you’ll love this. Definitely worth a look.

George Lee and Charlie Bird: Two tadpoles in a petri dish

So Charlie Bird went to Washington and didn’t like the sensation of being a small fish in a big pond. And George Lee went to the Dail and didn’t like the sensation of being a small fish in a puddle. So it appears they are both now attempting to swim their way back to RTE – where they can return to being two tadpoles in a petri dish.

Poor old George Lee couldn’t make up his mind which taxpayer’s tit he wanted to suck on (if you’ll excuse the shift in metaphor). Would he opt for the cosy gentlemen’s club of Dail Eireann, with its backslapping bonhomie and life of comfortable obscurity? Or would he opt for Montrose, where his sense of self-importance would be sustained by a compulsory yearly payment of 160 euro from every household in the country?

Who knows what will happen next? We’re all on the edge of our seats, waiting to see the next episode of this squalid national non-drama.

Welcome back

The blog is back! Just in time to miss the Irish Blog Awards for a second year running. But here’s the interesting thing: during its Sabbatical, this website got almost as many hits as it did when I was updating it on a daily basis. I find that remarkable. For example, on February the fifth 2010, for some bizarre reason, I got a MASSIVE amount of hits. Millions of them. Maybe even trillions of them. I don’t recall the exact figure but whatever it was, it was phenomenal. Now my question is: Why? Why did this happen on February 5th? What’s so great about February the 5th? Why, according to Google Analytics, did people in Zimbabwe, Mississippi, Oman, and Peru all suddenly decide to read this website on February the 5th?

And my other question is: why should I bother updating my website if I get almost as many hits when I don’t even bother my arse with it?

Well, here is the answer: the quantity of readers has not declined, but I suspect that the quality of the readers has. All I’ve been getting is freaks and fly-by-night fair-weather friends. In a bid to reverse this disturbing trend, I have decided to make a comeback. This website wants serious readers. This website wants readers who are worth having. This website, to put it frankly, wants YOU.

Over the next while I’ll be conducting a review of the previous year. So sit back, crack open a beer, give yourself a pat on the back, and enjoy the show.

My Year in Film

Avatar. James Cameron’s 3rd extravaganza. I felt like I was there! On Pandora in the Alpha Centauri star system! Looking for unobtanium! Avatar is even better than Titanic. And who would have thought that was possible? *[please see end of this post for acknowledgements]

The Men Who Stare at Goats. I went to see this because I wanted to see the latest Coen Brothers film. But, as Coen Brothers films go, I thought this one was disappointing and not up to their usual standards at all. And that’s because “The Men Who Stare At Goats” is not a Coen Brothers film. It’s by someone else. But I thought it was the Coen Brother’s latest film. I call that false advertising on the part of the people who were promoting this film. Except nobody advertised it as a Coen Brothers film. Anyway, it wasn’t until the film was over that I learned that this film has no connection whatsoever with the Coen Brothers. What else can I say about it? George Clooney is in it. It’s the worst film of the year. It’s about how crazy American right-wingers are – about how nuts they are. Well, we all know that already. We don’t need a film to tell us that American right-wingers are deluded and detached from reality.

Inglourious Basterds . The first scene is Tarantino at his best. Brilliant tension as the Gestapo dude interrogates the French guy. The rest of it is puerile, standard Tarantino fare.

Gran Torino – At this stage, Clint Eastwood is proving himself to be one of the great directors. This is the latest in a string of wonderful films from the world’s favourite tough guy.

Precious – I found this film deeply moving. And I haven’t even seen it. That’s how deeply, nay profoundly, moving this film is – you don’t even have to have seen it in order to be deeply moved by it. Incredible.

Film of the Year: It’s Complicated. In a mediocre year for films, “It’s Complicated” stood out as an instant classic. Three legendary actors at the top of the their game. And as for Meryl Streep. What can we say? Is there any role this woman cannot play? Such versatility! The film is laugh out loud funny. You could tell the audience was really enjoying it. I don’t understand why the reviews were so lacklustre.

Other Film of the Year. Looking for Eric. Britain’s greatest film director, Ken Loach, hits another bull's eye with this stunning portrayal of a troubled postman with an obsession with Eric Cantona. Really quite marvellous.

[* Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Michael Treacy for drawing my attention to the "unobtanium" cinematic trope and for trying to explain to me what a "cinematic trope" is, while drunk]

Wine of the Year: Rioja

Rioja doesn’t have any notions about itself. Unlike so many other wines, Rioja is not up its own arse. If you don’t like the superficial pizzazz of Italian wines, or the pretentious fussiness of French wines, or the plodding sameness of New World wines, then Rioja is the tipple for you. In many respects, I feel Rioja wines resemble this website. Rioja is uncomplicated yet substantial. It’s a serious wine. But it’s not humourless. I like my wines heavy, but agile and flexible. I want big fruity, flavours. I want the depth of oak. I want wines that bring me closer to nature. Rioja is not antiseptic. It’s not made by computers. It’s rough around the edges, but it’s also deeply civilised. It’s wild at heart, but it’s not completely out of control. I want wines that are simple, but not simplistic. I don’t want my wines to ask me too many questions, to set me too many challenges. I don’t want clever conversation. I don’t want to work that hard. I want a wine, not a crossword puzzle. I don’t like wines that are impertinent. A wine should not smack of adolescence. It should be solid rather than frivolous. It should be confident in itself. It should feel no need to go out of its way to impress. I don’t like wines that do little tap-dances, or that try to dazzle with summersaults. There’s nothing worse than an insecure wine. I like my wines to have been around the block. I want wines that have a scandalous history but a well-behaved, respectable present. But I don’t like my wines to be docile either. Nobody wants to drink a servile wine. Nobody wants a wine that has nothing to say for itself. Well, I reckon Rioja has it all. It has the balance just right. The wine of the year.