2013-05-23T10:34:29-04:00 Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=philip-white Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Philip White Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3239986 2013-05-08T16:24:15-04:00 2013-05-09T07:51:35-04:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/
While perusing the website of The Atlantic (to which I subscribe) I noticed that one of the top ten posts was this little gem on potential government regulation...not of firearms, which is the most contentious topic in American politics, but of caffeine.

The writer does a fine job of explaining why the FDA is thinking of investigating and regulating caffeinated products. Now, my own tipple of choice is not one of the synthetic caffeine drinks that contain enough of the stuff to kill a horse, but rather good ol' java. My wife thinks I love my Gaggia Classic and MDF grinder a little too much, and she's probably right. But the ability to get a double-shot pick-me-up with freshly roasted beans (thanks, Kansas City's finest, the Roasterie) without leaving the house is both a path to Re-Caffeination Happy Land and a welcome excuse to get my eyes off my laptop screen. And, while my meager skills won't get me an invite to the World Barista Championships any time soon, I enjoy the process of grinding, tamping and sipping.

Yes, I am an aspiring espresso geek who is too spoiled to have any hope of surviving another Great Depression. But hey, everyone needs a hobby, right, and I like it that mine is an unregulated one. At least for now.

The first indicator I encountered that my age old right to drink espresso might be under threat (there must be a section of the Bill of Rights or US Constitution that covers this, surely) was on a trip to California last year. I ordered a couple of iced Americanos at a Starbucks in San Diego and when the green-aproned employee called my name, I went up to collect my drink and my wife's. A sign on the counter diverted my eyes away from the awaiting Caffeine Delivery Mechanism (henceforth, CDM). A promo for a new seasonal coffee? Maybe some manner of sugary temptation to get me back to the till? Nope. Instead a terrifyingly-worded warning that the beverage I was about to consume contained a compound "known to the [Nanny] State of California to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity."

A while ago, a libertarian friend warned me that the Obama administration "is coming for whatever you're into next." My day of reckoning was upon me.

Once safely back in Kansas, where such hyper-interventionist, Prop 65 silliness is thankfully not entertained, I forgot about the overbearing sign, at least once I'd e-mailed a pic of it and a mocking caption to a few friends who share my love of the Good Bean and share my suspicion of over-regulation.

But the article from Mr. Hamblin at The Atlantic has reopened my worry vault. I salute his balanced reporting, but fret over future regulation from the federal government. Will I have to obtain a license to buy a pound of espresso beans? Sign a waiver before I pay? Start some kind of speakeasy where my friends and family can enjoy a cup o' Joe on my now-illegal equipment away from the ever-watchful gaze of Big Brother at the National Central Bureau for the Synergized Prevention of Caffeinated Enjoyment and Merriment?

Certainly, I think it's a crazy choice for parents to get their kids hooked on a daily diet of caffeinated beverages, whether those be in a can or a coffee pot. I'm certainly not giving double espressos to my three- and six-year-old sons because I don't think kids should consume more caffeine than is in the occasional piece of dark chocolate. Personally, I will also stick to the natural sources of caffeine - i.e. tea and coffee - instead of downing sickly sweet artificial CDMs (like the pretentious acronym?). But, to follow my friend's line of live-and-let-live thinking, it should remain a choice. If the US government starts meddling with this then, what, indeed, is next?

(Side note: In this fine book, David Liss describes better than anyone the sensation of caffeine hitting the nervous system. Just one of the many reasons to read his work).]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3180493 2013-04-29T16:36:15-04:00 2013-04-30T09:33:39-04:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/
Now, my reaction isn't surprising, given that I wrote a book about Sir Winston. But it goes far beyond my appreciation for the man who led Britain through her darkest hour and into her finest.

The pound is a reminder to Brussels that Britain is still, in the best ways, the same country that Churchill gave his all to preserve. While the Tory Europhiles (step forward, Mr. Heseltine and co.) wanted to let the Euro technocrats consign our currency to the history books in favor of the gold-starred monstrosity of the Euro and Tony Blair would surely have done the same, several things stood in their way.

Chief among these was arguably Gordon Brown's finest political act: his Five Tests. These were conditions that the British economy had to meet before the then Chancellor of the Exchequer would permit Britain to join (see: capitulate to) the single currency. I'd like to believe that, despite his failings as Prime Brown is a man who understood the economic catastrophe that would be unleashed if he let Blair do away with the pound.

Because it's not just about getting to choose pictures to put on your country's notes and coins - though I believe that both American and Brits agree this is important, given the historical giants whose images these countries put on their currency (as did Jesus, and, ahem, John Maynard Keynes per this Daniel Hannan video).

In fact, the ability to make such decisions, to name your coins, to set their value, etc. is a key marker of how much influence a government and the people who elected them have over their country.

Certainly British author David Downing is aware of how important currency is not just in domestic affairs, but also on the world stage. In the wonderful conclusion to the John Russell series, Masaryk Station, Downing's protagonist ruminates on the currency reform that America, Britain and France initiate in their occupation zones within postwar Germany in 1948. Echoing Keynes, Russell tells one of his CIA handlers, "Whoever controls the currency runs the economy, and whoever controls the economy runs the country. If Washington leaves Berlin out, then they're handing it to the Russians."

And how did the Soviets respond to the currency reform? In the same manner any authoritarian regime reacts to a threat to its power and legitimacy - by attempting to reassert control in the most dramatic fashion possible. In the case of 1948, this took the shape of the Berlin Blockade, whereby Russia locked down all road, rail and water travel between its zone in the East and the British, French and American zones in the West. The goal was twofold: force the Western allies to abandon the currency change or quit Berlin. Thanks to the imagination and resolve of General Lucius Clay, George Marshall, Harry Truman, Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, they failed on both counts.

Downing incorporates such geopolitical elements into his narrative in a way that gives readers deeper insight and encourages them to read more. His unsentimental appraisal of the actions of the prime movers before, during and after WW2 - through the cynical, battle-weary eyes of Russell - means that while Downing's work is fictional, it is also a clear-sighted appraisal of the times. There are of course many in-depth studies of the Cold War and the Berlin Blockade, but if you want the characterization of a master writer combined with the insight of a novelist who clearly knows his history, Masaryk Station is a fine starting point.

The issue of who makes currency decisions and what bitter harvests these choices reap at home anf abroad is no less relevant almost 70 years on from the fateful time Downing describes.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3092211 2013-04-16T10:30:12-04:00 2013-04-17T05:34:38-04:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/
In the wake of the Boston bombing, I'm afraid to say the answer to all three questions is "No."

As soon as the news broke of the awful events at the marathon, the blogosphere, Twitter and Facebook lit up with theories about who was to blame. Maybe it was North Korean, Syria or Iran. Perhaps an isolated, unstable person like James Holmes, the alleged Aurora shooter. But wait, it's Tax Day in the US, and Patriots' Day. The Tea Party is calling for lower taxes and less government. That's it! It must have been the work of subversive "right wing" forces! Draw line to Timothy McVeigh. Case closed.

Really? Has our determination to politicize, polarize and polemicize every aspect of American society gone this far? I know we're all into playing the blame game, of pointing fingers, of pushing responsibility onto anyone else but ourselves. But to start pointing fingers to either side of the political spectrum in the wake of such a tragedy is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.

The next (il)logical leap for some commentators is to not only blame so-called "right wing extremists" but to finger Conservatism itself as being reactionary, hateful and destructive. If those who are right of center weren't directly responsible, they're still on the hook, according to some. New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof tweeted, "Explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment."

Now, the bomber and his or her co-conspirators may end up being tied to an extremist group. I'm not ruling that out, but my point is this knee-jerk "look left, look right, assign blame without thinking" approach has got to stop. By demonizing right or left, and/or seeking to label a political philosophy that we don't agree with as "evil" instead of wrong-headed, is profoundly destructive. As we bemoan gridlock in Washington (Nicholas Kristof was correct about that), shake our heads as we see Republicans' and Democrats' inability to pass a solid budget and our confidence level in Congress slips further, to 13%, why are we so determined to heal kindling on the partisan fire?

The Facebook posts I read during the 2012 Presidential election are a prime example of prejudices, labeling and judgment played out in the social media sphere. If it wasn't for the vain self-promotion of my book (vain self-promotion for book alert!) I would have quit the site in the run up. Supporters of the GOP and the Dems were just as bad as each other. In some ways, the Twitter hate-fest was worse due to more frequent outbursts and anonymous profiles that further abdicate accountability. Out of the overflow of the heart, the Facebook status update and tweet speak.

How can we blame our politicians for criticizing, obstructing and ostracizing each other, when we, the ones who elect them, are just as bad? They're merely a reflection of our failings. Until we speak and type with respect, accept that it's OK in a democracy for others to hold different opinions, and stop applying irresponsible labels - "right wing," "left wing" "Communist," "fascist," "Nazi" - government won't get better. And neither will we.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2999418 2013-04-02T11:39:53-04:00 2013-04-03T07:32:22-04:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/ Wall Street Journal blog post by Pete Du Pont, in which he argues that President Barack Obama would do well to put Ronald Reagan's "peace through strength" mantra into practice.

But what of David Cameron and the British military? Surely a Conservative Prime Minister has preserved Britain as a global force to be reckoned with, even after the follies of his predecessor in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Not so much. Despite William Hague's belief that a strong, capable Army, Navy and Royal Air Force is necessary to protect us from traditional threats and combat the malevolence of terrorists, the Conservative Party seems to have either disregarded Reagan's theory or confused it for "strength through weakness." First there was the 8% cut in 2010, then the decommissioning of the HMS Ark Royal aircraft carrier, and the removal of the Desert Rats' tanks. By the time Cameron and co are up for reelection, they'll have pensioned off thousands of troops.

And the Prime Minister may not stop there if he returns to Number 10 Downing Street, recently refusing to eliminate the possibility of further weakening British forces if he wins reelection in 2015.

Reagan's "peace through strength" stance (best expressed in this 1986 speech) is not some obscure American concept, but rather has its roots in Winston Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' address in 1946. In it, Churchill stated that Stalin and his cronies would only push Communism westward if they thought Britain and America were too weak to prevent it. "I am convinced," Churchill said, "that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness." Remember that the actual title of this talk was not the 'Iron Curtain' speech, but actually "The Sinews of Peace." Contrary to the claims of revisionist detractors, it was peace, not war, that Churchill wanted. And he knew that to withstand Communism, Britain must stand strong and stand with its "special relationship" partners - the United States, Canada, Australia et al - in good times and in ill.

Of course, the world of combat is not the same as it was under Churchill, Thatcher or even Blair. Military forces must be increasingly fast and mobile, drones are fast replacing manned fighter planes and the need for a large-scale ground invasion as in the Gulf War is, thankfully, receding.

Yet saber-rattling Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, strongman Russian President Vladimir Putin and even posturing North Korean President Kim Jong-Un will be merely encouraged to test our resolve by the sight of Britain's military spending and personnel cuts. As Harry Truman once told his secretary of State about Soviet Russia, "Only one language do they understand: 'How many divisions do you have?' (cue the silly comments blaming Churchill, FDR and Truman for starting the Cold War).

Again, there's no longer a need to have a bigger army than your enemies and potential foes, as in Truman's day. But the essence of his comment remains valid, and the need to retain a capable, versatile Army, Navy and Air Force remains. As does the importance of Britain and America standing side by side against the forces of tyranny, (rather than, for example, the Obama administration backing Argentina over the Falklands non-issue and insisting on calling the islands "the Malvinas.").

Your move, Mr. Cameron.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2808724 2013-03-04T23:05:25-05:00 2013-05-04T05:12:01-04:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/ Winston Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' address (actually named 'The Sinews of Peace'), which he called "the most important speech of my career". And he'd given one or two of those.

Churchill's speech in the unlikely venue of Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, was panned at the time for blasting Soviet Russia, whom many in Britain and the US still considered an ally, for warning of the potential of World War Three and for calling out the divisions between the Communist East and democratic West. Of course, Churchill's illustration of the "iron curtain" (a term he made popular but did not invent) was later embodied in the defining symbol of the Cold War - the Berlin Wall. And you can hardly watch a news broadcast on foreign affairs without hearing Churchill's term for the bond between the US and the British Commonwealth, the "special relationship" (though quite how "special" it is right now is debatable.)

But is the speech still worth listening to and reading about, all these years later? After all, we'll be celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Berlin Wall next year and though Communism remains a force, it is hardly the global menace that Churchill spoke of. Despite these facts, I believe Churchill's "most important" speech should indeed be studied, and not merely as a historical relic. Here are a few reasons why:

1) Leadership
When he spoke in Fulton in March 1946, Churchill was no longer Prime Minister. The Conservative Party was punished for things that happened before Winston became head of a coalition government - not least the appeasement of Baldwin and Chamberlain and the poor standard of living many Britons had during their tenure. While the Tories campaigned on the strength of Churchill's war leadership, the Labour Party looked forward, creating a manifesto that addressed the postwar housing shortage, rebuilding wartime damage and, for good or for ill, extending socialized medicine.

But though he had lost his post of prime minister, Churchill's role of statesman was not over. He recognized that his stark warning about Communism would be unpopular, as did Harry Truman, who later disingenuously denied reading the speech before Churchill delivered it.

Yet Churchill recognized that to truly lead you must be willing to risk unpopularity, even ridicule, to tell hard truths. And what he said at Fulton - about the perils of expansionist Communism, about the need for the US, Britain and the rest of the English-speaking peoples to stand together in good times and in ill - was certainly truth. As predicted, Churchill was derided as an imperialist, an old Tory, and, by Stalin himself, as a warmonger. And yet, after braving hundreds of protesters yelling "GI Joe is home to stay, Winnie, Winnie, go away" to give another bold speech days later at New York's Waldorf Astoria hotel, Churchill stood his ground, stating that "I do not wish to withdraw or modify a single word."

2) Bipartisanship
Churchill strongly disagreed with the direction in which Clement Atlee's Labour Party was taking Britain after World War Two, unleashing the full power of his rhetoric upon them time and again in the Commons. And yet, he advised Atlee and his foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, behind the scenes on relations with the Soviet Union, and made himself available whenever they called upon his decades of experience.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Churchill over-estimated the extent of his relationship with Truman, more so than he had his friendship with FDR. But whatever their differences, the two were of a similar mind on Communism and recognized that it was a bigger issue than party lines could contain. Churchill, a Conservative and Truman, a Democrat, were willing to work together to tackle a problem bigger than both of them, and bigger than their domestic political ideologies. The international statesmen and women of today would do well to look to this example.


3) Determination in the face of adversity

Churchill's greatest triumph - seeing Hitler defeated - was soon sullied by his greatest political defeat. At the age of 71 and worn thin by the pressures of the war years, it would've been understandable if Churchill had spent the rest of his days painting, laying bricks and holding court at Chartwell. But yet he saw it as his obligation to serve Britain, its allies and the world in illuminating the ills of Communism and the need for a strong transatlantic partnership to prevent these from overcoming the principles of liberal democracy to which he'd given everything.

Yes, he did mope around for a few weeks after the election debacle, glum about the loss of 10 Downing Street and of his seat at the Potsdam power table. But when the clouds cleared Churchill picked himself off and made use of his two most potent weapons - his pen and his voice - in crafting and delivering may have indeed been the most important speech of his career. He had expressed his aim in World War Two in one word: "victory." His post-war goal can also be encapsulated in a single word: "peace."]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2412304 2013-01-05T13:47:53-05:00 2013-03-07T05:12:01-05:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/
Here are my top five picks for the year just gone:

1) Of Monsters and Men - My Head is An Animal

This one smacked me upside the head. Folk pop from Iceland? Singing about furry paws, kings and lionhearts? Weird, check. Unexpected? Check. The best debut of 2012? Without a doubt. Love Nanna's lilting vocals, her call and return exchanges with Raggi, the horns and bells - basically, everything about this record. Why do we persist in glorifying miserable songs (from Nirvana, Radiohead, etc)? We need more musical joy, and with songs like Mountain Sound and Little Talks, Of Monsters and Men bring it.

2) BT - If the Stars are Eternal, So Are You and I

There are several classically trained electronic music pioneers, but none of them comes close to Mr. Brian Transeau, aka BT, for range, creativity and talent. I've been a BT fan since he released Ima in the mid 90s and defined the sound of trance. Since then he released the acclaimed score for the film Monster and the equally cinematic This Binary Universe, a beautiful collection of sonic landscapes and electronic sound poems. IFSAESAYAI (how about that for an acronym?) is the heir to the latter, combining slowly building melodies with mournful guitar plucking and synth sweeps that Robert Moog would be proud of. This is the soundtrack to my next book.

3) Mumford and Sons - Babel (deluxe edition)

A test of a good band is how closely their live performances (vocals particularly) resemble the mastered, edited studio versions of their songs. Having driven four hours each way to see M&S in Nebraska this summer (and nearly dying after foolishly drifting off at the wheel at 2 am on the way home) and watching them on a baking hot night in Kansas City last summer, I can attest that Marcus Mumford and his band of merry banjo-plucking, bass-strumming, key-plonking men pass this assessment. The hoedown stormers (Whispers in the Dark, I Will Wait) are easy to like, but it's the depth of feeling in the slower songs (The Ghosts that We Knew, for example) that give this second LP longevity on my beloved Technics turntable. Oh, and their version of Simon & Garfunkel's The Boxer blows the original out of the water.

4) The Lumineers - The Lumineers

"Lovely girl won't you stay, stay with me..." The Lumineers is that rare group that combines catchy, ear-worm lyrics with fine musical composition and impassioned delivery. Sure, the hits on the record (Ho, Hey and Stubborn Love) are EVERYWHERE, but don't let the band's commercial success put you off. They're the real deal.

5) BT - Morceau Subrosa

Is it gratuitous to put two albums from the same artist on a 'best of' list? Yes. But this 45-minute meditation is reason enough for me to urge you to start listening to music for music's sake, with your eyes closed. Too often we relegate music to mere background noise to work, exercise or travel and that's fine, but emotive, immensely detailed compositions like Morceau Subrosa deserve our full attention. When you're done listening, do an internet search for 'microsound' and geek out on musical composition terms you may not understand (I sure as heck don't), but explain what he's doing on this album. Some enlightened soul once explained music as 'controlled sound.' If that's the case, Morceau Subrosa is on another creative level.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2377662 2012-12-28T16:50:34-05:00 2013-02-27T05:12:02-05:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/ Classics: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Complete Sherlock Holmes (Heirloom Collection)

Prompted by my appreciation of the excellent trio of Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman and Andrew Scott in Sherlock, I began to search for a one-stop gathering of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories about the detective. Several years ago, Easton Press released an elegant three-volume, leather-bound set, but my budget wouldn't stretch to that. So it was with glee that I discovered this new box set from Thomas & Mercer. The binding is solid, the illustrations whimsical and the box itself, with two Sherlock quotes ("The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes" and "It is a capital offense to theorise before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.") an attractive edition to any bibliophile's shelves.

Contemporary Fiction: Alan Furst, Mission to Paris

This year I went a little nuts with World War II, Cold War and Putin-era Russia novels, devouring David Downing's entire back catalogue (not literally - that'd lead to horrible indigestion), Alex Dryden's Finn series and much of John Le Carre's work. Yet the writing of Alan Furst stands alone in the genre, and Mission to Paris is his best book for at least five years. In it, actor Frederic Stahl is sent to the French capital to make a film, and is unwittingly swept up in espionage involving the Nazis, the US and his host country. Furst shows off his intimate knowledge of Paris - he lived there for several years - with evocative descriptions, and his ability to raise and lower tension at just the right time to keep you hooked until the end.

Politics - Douglas Carswell, The End of Politics

Carswell is a small-government Conservative, but it would be unwise for a prospective reader to dismiss The End of Politics as a right-leaning missive, because it isn't. In addition to his political work, Carswell is a proven writer, contributing to The Spectator, The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times, amongst others, and composing insightful daily blog posts. In this book, he explains the chronic ailments of today's Western governments - their bloated size, their unrestrained spending and their increasing distance from the will of the electorate - and then explores how technology can help right the ship. The End of Politics is bold, witty and practical - and let's hope to goodness its author is right to be optimistic, as the political wafflers Stateside keep filling our newspapers and heads with endless talk of the "fiscal cliff."

Sports - Chris Dixon, Ghost Wave



OK, this is cheating, as Ghost Wave was published in 2011. But I only came across it this year, and enjoyed this crisply written, informative book immensely - surprising, considering it's about giant waves and I fear sharks and drowning in equal measure. Part of the appeal, as with Felix Baumgartner's leap from the stratosphere, is that Dixon provides a window into a world of big wave surfing that is far removed from the predictable and safe realm that most people inhabit. He portrays a passionate group who take on the heavy, fast-moving slabs of water at California's Cortes Bank not because they seek attention or commercial reward but because they are compelled to push themselves to do what they love to the limits of their ability.

History - Aida Donald, Citizen Soldier

It takes rare gifts to condense the life of a President into 240 pages without stooping to mere summary, and Aida Donald has them. Her central contention is that Truman's military service in World War I, time spent working on the family farm in Missouri, and experience as a local administrator forged the determination, hard work ethic and resilience needed to not only ascend to the Presidency, but to also make the fateful decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, contend with the spread of Communism, and survive two splits in his party to win the 1948 election. Donald describes the making of the man in vivid detail, blending original research and secondary sources in a quick read that's a great first stop for anyone wanting to learn more about the Man from Missouri.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2304757 2012-12-14T21:54:53-05:00 2013-02-13T05:12:01-05:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/ Sherlock series two, The Reichenbach Fall. Much as I appreciate the talents of Benedict Cumberbatch, I was again blown away by the incendiary Andrew Scott as the fiendish James Moriaty.

The next morning, I spent an espresso-fueled few minutes Googling (yep, it's a verb now, people) Scott, and stumbled across his new ITV show, The Town. Off I trot the online ITV Player to watch the first of the three episodes. Darn it. Seriously, evil web overlords? I'm in the wrong region to watch this video? Ugghh.

I shouldn't really have been surprised - this has happened at least twice a week since I moved to Kansas City 11 years ago. Something to do with my IP address not jiving with UK websites, regional copyright, blah blah. To quote Moriarty, "It's all so boring, isn't it?" Yes, it is.

But this time I would not be denied. Quick internet search, found an 'IP cloaking device' - which I'm still hoping will actually make me invisible when I need to be - signed up for $8 a month, and I was good to go.

The first thing that struck me about The Town was the dread that Scott's character, Mark, feels at returning to his boyhood home after having escaped from the no-hope town to London some years before. Within hours of returning a slovenly friend comes to the door of his now-deceased parents' house, mumbles his condolences and then tells him to come out for a night of beer and, if he's up for it, pot, with the old gang. Mark reluctantly goes along and instantly regrets it. A girl he barely knew in school fawns over him when all he's interested in is his grief, then he finds out that his old flame has married and had a child. So he drinks himself silly, goes to a crappy nightclub after the pub closes and ends the evening throwing up in front of his ex-girlfriend's house.

Now, the part about the ex and the throwing up are not experiences I've had on trips back to England and my friends are all successful in their careers, but many aspects of Mark's feelings about the old town ring true. There are still the people who seem stuck in a time warp, and who consider it the highest point of achievement to drink more than their mates, see a different girl each weekend, and maybe get in a fight for a little extra excitement. The suspicion about those who've gotten away and done something - not just me, I'm not that vain - but everyone who has cut loose is certainly something I empathize with. In episode two Scott sneers, "Gosh, everyone knows each other here, don't they?" This is a far cry from the anonymity of the big city he has embraced in recent years. It's not familiarity that's the problem, but the prying, the snooping, the inability to craft a new narrative for yourself.

Now, on some level, I love going back to southwest England, or "The Shire" as my friends and I call it as a hat tip to Mr. Tolkien. Stourhead Gardens is one of my favorite places, I would move my family to Bath in a moment if we could afford it and North Cornwall is, summer crowds notwithstanding, idyllic. I also treasure the few pints of some lavishly-named ale, like Firkin Fox, that I share with friends in a pub that doesn't have wall-to-wall TVs, as do the horrendous American sports bars that hang a sign with a pseudo-British name, have Guinness on tap and think that makes their cookie-cutter joint have Old World charm. I wish I didn't live 4,000 miles from my family.

But yet, there's something all too familiar about Mark's reluctant return to his home town in, err, The Town. He likes to wear shirts and suits that, heaven forbid, actually fit his body type, and is mocked behind his back for probably being "gay" because of his fashion sense. He tells his ex-girlfriend that he can't accept that she's given up her dreams of being a singer and has "ended up like this." He immediately regrets his words and she is offended, but he has hit the mark with an all-too-true observation - it's oh so easy to surrender your dreams to small-town paralysis (James Joyce, eat your heart out). Not that getting married and having a child and/or staying in the place where you were born are bad life choices, but giving up on your passion is (even though, as we see in episode two, Alice is no Adele).

As Scott's character soon discovers, there aren't many fulfilling jobs for ambitious young people in his old stomping ground - he's reduced to taking a two-week temping gig at the drab council office. It is, in fact, the desire for something better that led this fictional character and me to leave our small towns in the first place. The thought of going back and trying to ply my writer's trade for worthwhile compensation is, frankly, horrifying, given the dearth of opportunity for such things.

Beyond The Town prompting all too many "holy crap, this is exactly how I feel when I go back"
reactions, the acting is superb. Martin Clunes is very good as the pompous mayor, and the rest of the supporting cast is balanced just right. But it's Scott's show. It's no surprise that he was chosen to play Moriarty, or that he has won two Laurence Olivier awards and a Best Supporting Actor Bafta. Even when still, there is a kinetic energy about him, a barely-concealed rage just waiting to burst out. In The Town he is not a villain, but his unpredictability as the grieving Mark is just as compelling as his on-the-edge portrayal of Sherlock Holmes' nemesis.

In a recent interview, Scott talked about not wanting to be pigeon-holed as a bad guy, but with such rare talent, not least the stage actor's ability to, at times, convey powerful emotions through nothing more than a facial expression or hand gesture, he should have no worries there.

The Town might not garner worldwide attention like Sherlock. But let's hope that TV, theatre and film producers keep calling on Scott. He richly deserves the same accolades and opportunities as his mega-star Sherlock cast mates.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1955622 2012-10-10T15:41:49-04:00 2012-12-10T05:12:02-05:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/ did very well, boldly communicating his vision for the party, how to build on current successes - such as the establishment of independent schools, and - how to do better, including bold plans on Britain crime, terrorism and, of course, the still-stagnant economy.

But despite Cameron exceeding expectations at the podium, he was upstaged by a man who might one day take his place (though of course, he won't overtly admit this): Mayor of London Boris Johnson. Boris swept into Birmingham with a large entourage, his trademark blond mop tousled further by the autumnal breeze and his voluminous personality pulling in all those in the near vicinity. Buoyed by his starring role as cheermeister at the Olympics and Paralympics, the launch of his well-received book and, of course, a hard-fought win over nemesis Ken Livingstone in the mayoral election, Hurricane Boris blew into the conference centre threatening to destroy all in its path.

And yet, by the time he took the podium for the pre-speech teaser (as only Boris can do, at a welcome reception the night before the main event) he was atypically reserved, disciplined (aside for the odd imaginative meandering) and even follically presentable. He didn't do away with his Borisness - wit, irreverence, unnatural confidence - but managed to keep his exuberance in check enough to come across as a, gulp, statesman. The question was whether he could repeat the feat the following morning. And, much to the chagrin of the Cameroons who view him as a usurper and a loose cannon, he did.

The audience in the crowded hall laughed at his jokes not because they were obliged to, but because Boris is genuinely funny. They were inspired by his bold policy statements about Britain's future as "a creative, confident, can-do country" because he has vision, and doesn't worry about towing the party line. He instinctively knows what is important to this country, and can explain this in clear, jargon-free terms. Furthermore, Boris can simplify the principals of the party he represents as mayor: "I am a Conservative. I believe in a low tax, low regulation economy."

More so than any other current British politician, there is something distinctly Churchillian about Boris, though Winston's wit was less overt. Yes, the Mayor does on occasion go off tilting at windmills as Churchill did. And true, he is certainly not lacking in ego. But on the big things - including keeping the EU's greedy hands off the City of London's assets, the need to do better for the middle class ("the backbone of London"), and supporting entrepreneurship, Boris is quite correct. As Churchill's career proved, this is perhaps the defining assessment of any politician's body of work.

Much like the Churchill that Peter Clarke brilliantly portrays in his book, Mr. Churchill's Profession, Boris has made his living by his pen. And, as with Winston, he actually writes, or at least is a significant contributor to, his own speeches (or, in some cases, just speaks extemporaneously). Cameron cannot claim that, nor can his counterpart across the Atlantic, whose inauguration address was, for good or for ill, crafted by a 27-year-old in a Washington DC Starbucks. (Yes, blogging police, I've used this example before.) The reason that Boris's rhetoric resonates is because there is a consistency between his writing, his off-microphone conversation and his public addresses. In all settings, Boris is Boris, and people can either take him or leave him.

Because he refuses to deliver one of the bland, homogenized, PR firm-approved borefests that are the crutch of his peers, Boris is free to inject his oversized personality into his words, which connects him with those in attendance and people watching from home. And, like Churchill, he doesn't back timidly away from saying what needs to be said, even when he knows it might be unpopular. Nor does he "wish to withdraw or modify a single word" (as Churchill said at an address following his 'Iron Curtain' speech in March 1946, which was largely unpopular at the time) when criticism comes. He also believes in the potential of Britain, enthusiastically conveying what Iain Martin of the Daily Telegraph rightly calls "a Reaganite sense of optimism."

And now for the non-Churchill side of 'The Mop.' With his unkempt hair, his publicity stunts and his inevitable post-speech gag reels, Boris projects a certain flippancy that leads to people dismissing him as an intellectual lightweight (a perception Churchill, with his more reserved, classical speaking style certainly did not face).

Yet anyone who appreciates the literary allusions in his speeches, reads his erudite blog posts for the Telegraph (which, again, he writes himself instead of relying on some junior staffer) and understands his positive impact as former editor of The Spectator - the very opposite of a lightweight publication - knows that Boris is, in fact, a well-read, eloquent and intellectually dynamic man. If anything, the comedian in Boris is arguably a persona he uses to disarm his doubters and opponents. As a speaker, the jokes hold the attention of a society that has lost all ability to concentrate in the Age of Distraction. And if they're still listening at the end, one could argue, perhaps listeners/viewers picked up something of value along the way.

And as for the charge that Boris just toys with the role of mayor or is just a self-interested showman, his two speeches this week show that when it comes to politics, Boris can be more substance than show (OK, mostly, jokes aside). He can explain policy. He can take on the resurgent Labour Party. When Cameron's time is over, this newfound focus that the Mayor of London has added to his formidable arsenal may well put him over the top. Unless, of course, Tory delegates play it safe with the eminently capable, sensible and moderate Michael Gove, aka the anti-Boris.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1720466 2012-07-30T14:54:37-04:00 2012-09-29T05:12:39-04:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/ this fine article in Time for more details.

The second is the United States. Certainly, it is also a country with a large population (more than 300 million), but sheer number of people is not the primary reason for its Olympic dominance. Having played two sports at the US college level, basketball and football (our kind, irritatingly still called "soccer" Stateside) and lived here for 11 years, I've compiled several reasons why the US will continue to produce the likes of Michael Phelps, LeBron James, Hope Solo and Ryan Lochte for the foreseeable future:

1) College Sports
When I first visited the US in 1999, I stayed at two small (less than 2,000 students) colleges in Ohio. I was amazed to find that both had a full-size swimming pool, synthetic running track, indoor and outdoor tennis and basketball facilities, an American Football stadium and a weight room you'd expect to see at an Olympic training facility. Turns out that this is the norm at hundreds of American colleges and universities, and merely increases in scope for the big schools such as the University of Texas, which crammed over 100,000 fans into its stadium for an American football game last year and where the athletics program generates around $150 million in annual revenue.

The conference that Texas teams compete in, the Big 12, is certainly big in the plus side of the balance sheet, recently inking a new television deal with ESPN/Fox worth $2.6 billion. And the Big 12 is just one of several top conferences in the college sports system, which feeds the professional leagues of the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL and MLS through draft systems. Though not every college sport is played in front of 100,000 fans, each is hotly contested and the top athletes receive full scholarships that pay for their education.

During the championship week in collegiate American football (Bowl Week) the country is hopped up on gridiron while they're freebasing turkey and stuffing around the Thanksgiving holiday and 21.9 million people watched the college basketball final in spring 2012. The level of competition is so high that the athletics championships regularly boast performances that would shame many countries' Olympic trials and events such as the Kansas and Penn Relays draw some of the world's top sprinters. Simply put, the collegiate sports system fosters, nay demands, excellence. Outside of rowing, what British university sports foster the same?

2) Youth System
In 2011, more than three million American children played organized football (soccer). The leagues they play in are well coordinated and most training facilities are somewhere on the good-to-out-of-this-world spectrum. There are two world-class complexes within 20 minutes of my house in the Kansas City metro, and one attracts 13,000 youth players, 2,000 coaches, and 800 teams each year. So it's no surprise that the US women's team enters the 2012 Olympics as a favorite and the men's team continues to rise in the world rankings. And football isn't anywhere near as popular as American football, baseball or basketball (though, of course, the first two are not Olympic events).

Once kids get to high school at age 14, the best athletes play in packed arenas for their schools and may also compete for traveling teams in setups like the AAU for basketball, where current superstars like LeBron James make their name on the national stage. Indeed, high school football and basketball are covered by ESPN and other national TV networks, and sports magazines and websites devote endless column inches to ranking high school prospects and covering which colleges the players will attend.

Other Olympic sports in which you'd struggle to find a local facility in certain parts of Britain - including rowing and gymnastics - also have abundant training centers in America. My wife and I sometimes (read, often) make fun of our peers who complain that they're little more than taxi drivers who ferry their kids between umpteen sporting activities each week. Yet such parental involvement and the resulting financial backing (when new kit is needed or, for traveling teams, when parents pay annual fees), certainly fuels mass participation and, in the long run, results on the world stage.

3) Coaching
Britain has a great coaching network for football and rugby, and an improving one for athletics, rowing and some other sports. But, on the whole, the sports coaching system pales in comparison to that of the US. Of course there are the big-name coaches: Chris Carmichael for the endurance athletes, Bob Bowman for swimmers and Chinese gymnastics wiz Liang Chow, who now trains American hopefuls in Iowa. But it's not just sports-specific coaching that the US excels in.

One of the reasons that A dominates the medals table every four years is that it leads the world in strength and conditioning training. Every high school and college has a weight room, and many private gyms are staffed by trainers with qualifications such as CSCS and master's degrees in exercise science and a rigorous education program. (The meat market gyms where posers do endless curls and crunches, not so much.)

When I write "weight room" this does not mean a hotel gym-like space with a bunch of fancy cardio equipment and machines that target individual muscle groups. I'm referring to Olympic-style lifting performed with weights, bars, dumbbells and squat racks, and not a whole lot else. Movements such as snatches and clean and jerks develop total body power and strength that can be applied to almost any sport.

While schools may have vanity muscle-focused gyms as well, the young athletes who train in the real weight rooms are performing functional, technical lifts that boost sports performance. And they have the best coaches to instruct them how to get results.

Even the small college I attended had an elite strength coach, Mr. Tom Cross. You wouldn't expect giant, 18-stone American Football linemen to be in awe of a 70-something man who stands five-foot-seven, but those who entered the sweat- and pain-inducing world of "The Real Cross Training" (as a T-shirt he designed bluntly put it) quaked before the demands of his program and the Sir Alex Ferguson-esque rebukes he directed at those who weren't displaying correct lifting form.

Still, when the 2,000-student school placed second at the collegiate weightlifting championships - besting some of the big universities mentioned earlier - the football and soccer teams made the playoffs year after year and the basketball team won a national title, nobody could argue with the impact of Cross's coaching. And there are hundreds of Tom Cross-style coaches in the US, readying not just college athletes but also the next American Olympic champions for success. Some of them go even further than incorporating Olympic lifts, like Lochte's strength coach, who had his charge flipping giant tyres and dragging anchor chains in the Florida heat to gain power (I'll save you two minutes, check out this YouTube video).

4) Facilities
I've already mentioned the incredible college sports facilities in the US, and touched on the high quality of youth soccer pitches. But this only tells a small part of the story with regard to sports infrastructure here. While I was in secondary school in England, I played national league basketball, and yet could not find an indoor court to practice on. So I made do with running two miles each way to an outdoor court that got as slick as an ice hockey rink when it rained and with changing trains twice to practice with my team in Bristol. Admittedly, this was in the rural West Country, but it is illustrative of how British kids often struggle to find facilities to practice, football and rugby notwithstanding.

In the US, there is seemingly a basketball court on every corner, and youngsters wishing/needing to play indoors can find what they need at church, at school (where, unlike at my grammar school, kids are encouraged to practice outside of PE lessons rather than prohibited) or at a local gym/recreational center. And this provision extends far beyond basketball - tennis courts, swimming pools and many other facilities for all manner of sports are readily accessible across the country. City councils invest, private organizations invest, churches invest, even individual neighborhoods invest.

Not every sporting challenge can be solved by money, but if Britain wants to improve its Olympic performance, a few national centers of excellence just aren't going to get it done. University sports may not be the place to focus our energies as we don't have draft systems and the club system is more developed in the UK than in the US, but what we do need is widespread investment in facilities, improved training for sport-specific and strength and conditioning coaches, and enhanced youth sports networks. Not just to win more medals, but to give our kids the chance to participate and excel in a wide range of sports that can get them out of the Playstation Generation couch potato trap.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1655524 2012-07-10T10:15:15-04:00 2012-09-09T05:12:04-04:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/ The Blind Spy, the third volume of Alex Dryden's series of novels on Putin's Russia, has been out in the UK for some time, but has just been released as a U.S. hardcover by Ecco. For me, the 18-month delay was worth the wait.

Dryden's opening book, Red to Black, focused on the British spy Finn and his forbidden love, the KGB colonel Anna Resnikov. Proving that great fiction writers don't care so much for their characters that they prevent them from harm, Dryden dramatically offed Finn in the final pages, as his protagonist dug deeper and deeper into the shadowy world of illicit Russian billions and the illegal activities that both fueled and profited from them.

Book two, Moscow Sting, saw Resnikov defecting to the United States with her son, Finn, after their cover in France was blown by a bitter and confused ex-CIA agent, Logan Halloran. He had offered her location to the Russians, British and Americans, and it was the American private security firm Cougar -- created with more than a nod to Blackwater and its ilk -- that paid top dollar. Though she had little choice in the matter, Resnikov is happy to work with Cougar and its dominant, brilliant and larger-than-life supremo, Burt Miller, who may just be more powerful than the CIA Director he frequently works with, for her own ends. Though she is driven by revenge for Finn's death, she has realized that Putin's Moscow is rotten to the core, and will stop at nothing to bring about change in her homeland.

In The Blind Spy, Resnikov's involvement with Cougar is intensified. She has successfully brought an influential countryman and former member of Putin's inner circle, a man known only as his cover name, Mikhail, over to the intelligence firm. And rather than sit back as a consultant, she has reluctantly given up her son, who is being raised by ex-operatives on a farm in Connecticut, so she can focus full-time on bringing down Putin's administration. At her insistence, she is acting as a field operative in Ukraine, attempting to discover how Russia's attempts to stamp out nascent democracy in the former Soviet state and bring it back under Moscow's control.

To complicate matters, Miller is allowing Halloran to work in the same area. In addition to being aware of his betrayal, Resnikov was the unwilling subject of his affections during her first few months in the U.S., and is now trying to focus on her work in spite of his continued ardor and loose-cannon personality. She also has to contend with a leak in either Cougar or the CIA that compromises her safety in the Crimea, and the ire of the KGB, which will stop at nothing to capture her and make her pay for her defection. Their point man for this is Balthasar, a formidable operative whose blindness is more than compensated for by intuition and an uncanny knack for sensing the motivations of those around him.

When reading such a book, I have to be convinced that the author is credible, and when it comes to Putin-era Russia, there is no question that Dryden knows his stuff. From detailed descriptions of time and place to a masterful understanding of what makes today's Russia tick, he creates a realistic and, at times, terrifying portrayal. Dryden's development of his heroine is also first-rate. While he mentions her physical beauty and the impact of it on male colleagues too often, Dryden has expertly drawn a complex, conflicted and intriguing character who is living trapped between the Russia of her past, the America of her present and the unknown destination of her future. At first I struggled to reconcile her decision to give up the son who was the living reminder of her great love, Finn, and yet as Dryden's narrative progressed, it became clear that his was necessary for his safety and to her success in the field. Dryden could have fallen into the trap of sentimentality here or its opposite, callousness, but he avoids both, showing a mother who loves her son with all her being, but also exists to secure a better world for him to grow up in.

Another interesting element of the book is the relationship between Resnikov and the spy chief, Burt Miller. He is somewhat Churchillian in body and spirit -- a large man who laughs easily yet has a granite core, a fierce intellect who can be undone by his equally big ego, an eager conversationalist whose mouth only reveals a tenth of what his brain is scheming. At times, Resnikov seems to view him as a father figure, yet in other moments she suspects he is just using her to further Cougar's aims and therefore his ever-growing personal fortune. Which is it? Right up to the final page, this doesn't get resolved.

Dryden's exploration of the company Miller helms is also fascinating. While it is clear that Cougar is a money making operation -- as Miller himself frequently voices and flaunts with yachts and other fancy possessions which, ironically, seem to match the expensive toys of the Russian oligarchs Finn was trying to bring down in Red to Black -- it also appears to be a force for good in some ways. As the CIA is cutting back its operations in Ukraine while the Russian menace looms, Cougar is increasing its efforts. The CIA Director and head of British intelligence are running joint operations with the Russians and the French administration is cozying up to Moscow in an effort to advance its economy, and, though itself motivated by money, Cougar is free of the shackles of international diplomacy and inter-government trade. Dryden does not portray Cougar as a malevolent entity as some writers have with private intelligence groups, but neither does he heroize its members or intentions.

As is the case with John le Carré, Dryden shows that there are no truly "good guys" -- each person in his narrative is, like the rest of us, a mess of contradictions and self-delusions that manifest themselves in unexpected and sometimes inexplicable ways. The only real "bad guys" in The Blind Spy seem to be the puppet masters in the Kremlin, though the examples of Resnikov, Mikhail and others in the story show that just because a country is corrupt and undemocratic does not mean its citizens are all complicit in its abuses.

Which brings us to another Russian whose present actions and future aims stem from unclear motives -- Balthasar. Until the final pages, Dryden wants the reader to believe that this spy who is blind is the inspiration for the novel's title. And yet, as Resnikov struggles to stay alive, the CIA is duped into a huge mistake by the KGB and Balthasar makes his fateful choice, Dryden shows that in this world of intrigue, double crossing and big money, there is more to perceiving than merely seeing.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1582861 2012-06-10T19:00:00-04:00 2012-08-10T05:12:07-04:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/ Frau Nein' for her refusal to be dragged into European policies that would over-extend Germany. Her strong leadership was compared by some to that of Margaret Thatcher, a new 'Iron Lady' for our fiscally turbulent times.

How things have changed. Merkel has become 'Frau Ja', at least when it comes to her plans for the EU to snatch what little self-determination its member states now retain.

At a joint press conference with David Cameron on 7 June, Merkel went far beyond her recent statements regarding Germany's willingness to cede sovereignty to a new, all-powerful iteration of the European Union. That's no longer enough. Now, according to Merkel, all EU member states must give up representative government, national interest and all semblance of liberty and freedom to the Brussels bureaucrats. In her own words:

"We need more Europe, a budget union, and we need a political union first and foremost. We must, step by step, cede responsibilities to Europe."

If you've been poisoned, does the emergency room doctor prescribe you more poison as the remedy? If you're morbidly obese, should you be rushed to an all-you-can-eat buffet and forced to gorge yourself to help you lose weight? Nor should the remedy for the ailments of the European Union, and they are many, be "more Europe"!

If this was the extent of Merkel's folly, it would be concerning enough, but the German leader had more to say about her phantasmagoric vision for the EU:

"We don't have a European public - domestically, every country has different priorities. A European public, a European audience needs to be created."

So, let me get this straight: It's a bad thing for a country to have its own priorities? For its politicians to do what is their raison d'être in any democracy, namely representing the wishes of their constituents in an elected parliament? Apparently democracy is well past its 'sell by' date and such things would just be selfish, at least according to Merkel and her EU cohorts.

One of my issues with the EU from the beginning was its attempt to homogenize the distinct culture, heritage and history that makes each European nation what it is. Merkel's new plans make it clear that common currency was just the first move in the endgame of also removing individuality from each EU member's economic and banking policies. Self-determination be damned. Never mind that the makeup of every European nation's economy is (heaven forbid!) completely different, or that a chancellor of the exchequer (or equivalent) of the elected party should have the right to declare a budget plan for his or her country alone.

Beyond the practical implications, there is also something profoundly patronising about Merkel's attitude. It's like parents who give their newly licensed teenager keys to a car that they have purchased, only to snatch them away when the youngster's driving is deemed irresponsible. The difference, of course, is that these parents have the right to do such a thing, as they are the decision makers in the house and have paid for the car.

In contrast, for all Germany's financial contributions to prop up the collapsing roof of the EU's house of cards, Merkel does not have the right to discipline the supposedly misbehaving leaders of elected governments across the Continent. She was elected to rule Germany and just Germany and, while it's the modus operandi of the EU to meddle in its member states' affairs far beyond its jurisdiction, she has gone too far this time. The "fiskalpakt" would just be the conduit to a complete political takeover - something that no true British patriot can entertain.

And what of David Cameron? The prime minister is making all the right noises to satisfy Euro-skeptics in the Conservative Party and beyond. In response to Merkel's comments, he said:

"If you think you can just establish a European Parliament and a flag and everyone will be loyal to it, that's nonsense."

Good on you, Dave. I just hope you mean what you say, and are not merely paying lip service to boost your flagging polling numbers.

Cameron also shot down Merkel's call for "party families" across national boundaries - borders that would be effectively erased if she had her druthers. In response to this proposal, Cameron said, "The idea we're going to have genuinely European-wide parties when countries have so many institutions, traditions and thoughts is unrealistic."

Again, top marks for defiant rhetoric. But what Cameron must avoid is the dithering that Winston Churchill once called "merely a frothing of words." Instead, we must see tangible, decisive action from our prime minister, who should heed Churchill's timeless appraisal of Britain's ideal role in the European community: "We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed..." The first step to guaranteeing British interests, no matter what Nick Clegg thinks about it, must be to call a referendum on Britain's EU membership.

Let the voice of the British people roar a collective "Nein" to the German chancellor, Jose Manuel Barroso and the other would-be masters of our fate, through the ballot boxes they will relegate to history if we let them.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1566848 2012-06-04T00:06:45-04:00 2012-08-03T05:12:17-04:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/ Downton Abbey, to Sherlock, to the Mini Cooper.

No such consensus among my countrymen, it seems. A confrontational relative recently asked me the classic doubter's question: "Why do we need the monarchy?" and then listed the standard grievances against our first family: a drain on taxpayers' already drained incomes, an anachronism, a symbol of class division and undeserved privilege. As a retort, I started to ramble on about the Windsors symbolizing permanence and stability, but when I heard myself, I realised this was a stock response with little feeling behind it. That evening, I pondered what the monarchy really means to me. I came up with a single word: sovereignty.

Ours is an independent nation and, while Parliament runs it, the Queen is the embodiment of this independence. In the United States, the President is the head of state, but, rather than our Prime Minister holding an equivalent position, it is Her Majesty. Indeed, as MEP Daniel Hannan has written, her image on our coinage is of great significance - every time we use pounds in a transaction we are affirming that we are a sovereign country, rather than one that has deferred to the starry-eyed crest emblazoned across the Euro.

Beyond its currency value, the pound is a talisman that demonstrates our defiance of the ever far-reaching tentacles of the EU's power. Brussels meddles in our affairs in so many ways, from the significant - such as wiping out government cuts with the significant increase to the EU budget - to the petty. Each of these measures is a manifestation that the British people did not endorse (or, indeed, have the chance to endorse or reject) at the ballot box. After all, with the example of Ireland clear in our minds, we see that when a country votes against EU policy the first time, the EU 'parliament' just forces another vote with millions of pounds pumped into the "Yes" campaign, until the desired result is achieved. And then it's reinforced, following similar big money campaigning for the "Yay" side and selling out from politicians in almost every political group.

Meanwhile, EU leaders such as Jose Manuel Barroso continue to demonstrate their contempt for democracy and Angela Merkel has stated her willingness to give away Germany's sovereignty, as she verbally bullies Greece into accepting the EU paymaster's punitive bailout terms. Apparently the concepts of irony and hypocrisy are lost on her, given the free-spending and colossal waste of the EU itself and Germany's flushing of billions upon billions down the EU plug hole.

As we celebrate the life and reign of our Queen, we have the chance to avoid the economic subjugation of the Greeks. The chance to protect the legacy of our past and secure an independent and prosperous future. And what must we do? Resist tyrannical policies such as the EU transaction tax (i.e. the 'let's bleed the City of London dry and redistribute its wealth tax'). Hold the referendum that each of our major political parties promised, and of which David Cameron seems so scared. Refuse to allow those in the corridors of power to give away the liberty that our fathers and grandfathers risked their lives to protect. Are we in danger from an armed foe like they faced? Of course not. But we do face a supra-national body that wishes to impose its demands on us, without giving us the choice to say yes or no at the ballot box. Is this not, in essence, the same country that Queen Elizabeth swore to rule and protect 60 years ago? If it is, then why do we not stand up and say a definitive "no" to EU encroachment?

One thing is for certain: the same Americans who revere our monarchy value their democratic rights even more, and would never permit an external party like the EU to impose its will upon them. Too many Brits dismiss our transatlantic cousins' flag waving as obnoxious nationalism. They are mistaken. Patriotism, loyalty to ones' country and a commitment to the ideals of liberty, freedom and self-determination are alive and well in America. Those beliefs were born in Britain, and I hope we shall continue to hold them dear for another 60 years and beyond, preventing our Queen from becoming the symbol of a nation that threw away everything positive that she stands for.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1557895 2012-05-30T23:32:24-04:00 2012-07-30T05:12:13-04:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/ Zoo Station (book one) hooked me on the first page b) I made more time to read fiction that at any point in the past five years of get up-research-write-parent-go to bed-repeat c) Downing is a master of plot, characterisation and pace.

In book five, Lehrter Station, we find Russell, the half British, half American journalist who risked everything to stay in Hitler's Berlin and only fled when his luck finally ran out and Gestapo closed in, returning to find the city and the life he knew before World War II in rubble. Though his son, Paul, has survived the war and is now living in London (along with a Jewish orphan Russell's partner, Effi, took in during the war, Russell's sister-in-law and her son) many of his friends are gone, as is the city's moral fabric. The Nazi regime is no more and British and American administrators, the Red Army and NKVD, and criminal bosses are competing to fill the void.

As with each book in this series, Berlin's train stations are, as the titles suggest, indicative of the world their passengers inhabit. Here's a fine passage that describes what Russell sees on one rail journey:

"The next train was tightly packed, its passengers almost bursting out through the opening doors. Shoving his way on board, Russell found himself standing with his face almost pressed to the glass and forced to confront Berlin's ruin. The gouged and pitted flak towers were still there, and beyond them the deforested Tiergarten, a sea of stumps in which small islands of cultivation were now sprouting. The air on the train offered stark proof of the continuing soap shortage."

Russell himself is no less conflicted than the city he has called home for the best part of twenty years. Part of him longs to be back in London with his son, while another is determined to make a go of it in Berlin with Effi alongside him. And now, in late 1945, he doesn't really have a choice but to stay - Russian intelligence has called in the payback for getting him and his family out of the city as the Third Reich crumbled around them.

The protagonist is not a Jason Bourne-style hero, who inspires confidence that he can handle any situation. Instead, Russell is a forty-something everyman, who relies on his wits, ability to read people and, often, dumb luck, to stay alive. This is part of his appeal - it's easier to identify with a real, vulnerable person like Russell than a trained killing machine like Bourne (though, I must confess, I do enjoy the movies about the latter). Through five books, Downing has developed the character of Russell so that I agonise with him through his moral dilemmas without pitying him, and understand why he does certain things without his actions being predictable. Russell gets in enough scrapes to maintain suspense and, at times, a feeling of dread, but his daily comings and goings are just as revealing and interesting.

One of Downing's greatest skills is to convey the complexity of Russell and Effi's emotions, the chaotic backdrop of postwar Berlin, and the balancing act of Russell's dealings with the German, Soviet, British and American authorities while retaining a sense of purpose and clarity in his narrative. There is so much going on in the background that a lesser writer would become distracted and let the plot drift. Not so with Downing, who keeps the focus on Russell's dealings with his Soviet overlords, search for two possible survivors of the Holocaust, and close calls with a German crime boss.

Well written historical fiction can often tell us more about the mood of a people and the feel of a time and place than journalism or history, and this is the case with Lehrter Station. Downing often accomplishes such revelation subtly through observation, and sometimes encapsulates it in overt statements from Russell or Effi. One late night conversation between them offers us her perceptive appraisal:

"In London it felt like people were only thinking of the future, that they wanted to put the war behind them. But it's not like that here. The fighting's over, but not the war. That poor girl in Joachim's room - if she started weeping she'd never stop. The fight we saw at the station, Miriam's father half-killed by Poles, not to mention the Russians' plans for you. I know the Nazis are gone but..."

Through the eyes of this couple, we see that in "peacetime" Berlin it's not easy to separate the villains from the heroes, if the latter even exist. Everyone is on the take, from the American soldiers trading black market goods with criminals, to the British soldiers hiring young German prostitutes, to the Red Army troops raping their way across the city. Downing explores Berliners' mixed motives without shying away from difficult appraisals, such as the mindset and actions of Jews who've survived the Final Solution.

This was one of the most fascinating elements of Lehrter Station. Some Jews, like the father of the teenager Miriam Rosenfeld who John and Effi are searching for, have broken minds and bodies. Others are committed to starting over in Palestine or to struggling on in Berlin, where they get more generous rations and preferential housing. At the other end of the continuum are those pursuing vengeance, like the Ghosts of Treblinka movement, whose members cut Jewish stars into the forearms of the Nazis they kill. It would be easy for Downing to lapse into cliché here but instead he gives us a portrayal of rough, real humanity with all its ambiguities. He prompted me to examine my own moral compass, and to project how I would treat people who killed my friends and family members. Could I forgive, or would I seek retribution?

The previous four volumes of the John Russell series were all compelling and well written, but Lehrter Station surpasses them because of the sheer degree of difficulty involved and the sprezzaturra with which Downing pulls it off. In a recent interview, the Guildford-based scribe revealed he's working on the next installment. I will be pre-ordering it the day it's available, and eagerly await the World War I series he's planning. Downing is a master at work.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1540892 2012-05-23T18:12:22-04:00 2012-07-23T05:12:05-04:00

Philip White http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-white/
OK, enough of my mock gravitas and Biblical allusions, though judging by the outrage across the blogosphere this week, many British bibliophiles fear that their beloved hard and paperbacks are doomed by the appearance of Amazon's Kindle e-reader on the shelves of Waterstone's. Or should I write "Waterstones", as the chain recently (and controversially) removed the apostrophe from its name for search engine optimisation purposes, drawing the ire of the Apostrophe Society, which, I have to say, is one of my favourite associations, along with Monty Python's Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things.

Despite the uproar, it's not like Waterstone's - yes, like the Apostrophe Society, I refuse to validate the punctuation obliteration - is new to selling e-books. In fact, electronic versions have been outselling hardbacks four to one on its website for quite some time. The move to introduce the Kindle into stores does, though, represent a volte-face for Waterstone's head honcho James Daunt, who once called Amazon "a ruthless, moneymaking devil."

So what changed Mr. Daunt's anti-Amazon stance? One assumes that, like the chief of any company, he wants to increase profits rather than decrease them. Business basics, right? So perhaps he figures that by bringing Kindle power users into Waterstone's, the chain's employees can engage these potential customers and convince them to make in-store purchases. Rolling out free wi-fi is to each shop will not just attract those who want to download books, but also e-commuters and others who want to use their wi-fi only tablets and laptops in a quiet location. This has worked well for Barnes & Noble in the US, which has also added Starbucks coffee to its list of wares to temp would-be book buyers. There must be some measure of pragmatism behind Daunt's decision.

The next point to consider is the myth that e-books are "bad for authors," as many writers have claimed. In fact, a standard publishing contract in the US entitles an author to between 20 and 25 percent of the sales price, rather than the sliding scale on hardbacks that typically runs between 10 and 12.5 percent. Of course, royalties don't kick in until the individual sells enough copies to balance out whatever advance they received, and the e-book price is typically lower than its hardback equivalent. But still, the royalty amount per copy on a hot title such as Hilary Mantel's Bring Up the Bodies - currently £11.99 for the e-book and £11.60 for the hardback on amazon.co.uk - can be greater for the electronic version. And for authors, any unit moved is one more step toward getting into royalty territory and, hopefully, exceeding the publisher's expectations to the point that the next deal will be more lucrative.

Furthermore, the presence of Kindle devices and the ability to download e-books at Waterstone's is not going to dissuade dedicated traditionalists from purchasing a physical copy. True, e-books don't take up shelf space, are more convenient for traveling and make it easy to pinpoint a certain word or phrase. But reading on an electronic device fundamentally alters the relationship between the reader and their books. Yes, you can add "notes" by typing them into the Kindle, iPad or other tablet, or highlight favourite passages, but it's not the same as adding your own hand-scrawled marginalia to a beloved, oft-referred-to volume. And while Amazon and others have enabled digital "lending" for e-books, it will never be a valid substitute for pushing a book into the hands of an unsuspecting friend and telling them, "You have to read this." To say nothing of the cathartic process of wandering aimlessly for an hour among the shelves at a used, independent and, in some cases, chain bookstore, where, heaven forbid, the employees actually know something about what they're selling and can make intelligent suggestions that aren't based on algorithms. Thankfully, the presence of the Kindle at Waterstone's will not remove this particular pleasure for out-of-step, hardback- buying fogies like me, assuming that the chain can avoid the grim fate of Borders.]]>