Le Tour de France: My fun look at the first week!

Ok, so the first week of Le Tour is done and dusted, and what have we discovered, if anything?  As always, at this relatively early stage there are more questions than answers, but I'm going to have a go at trying to answer a few of the more pertinent ones that have jumped out at me!  As well as that I'm going to dish out my 1st week awards - good and bad - and try to make a few precarious predictions as to where this years race might be headed!

So where do we start?  Of course, we start with the main man and that man this week has been Britain's Chris Froome.

Well, Chris is well placed, in yellow where he likes to be, but does he look as strong as he has done at this stage in 2013 & 2015 when he won his first two overall victories?

That's a hard one.  On the face of it one might be tempted to suggest that his position is precarious by comparison to 2013 & 15.  At this stage in 2013 he had a lead of 2m2s and in 2015 1m59s over Colombian ace Nairo Quintana, the man most people expect to be his main rival once again.  So by pure numbers it's easy to suggest that Froomey is struggling and is set for a big fall come the high Alps in the final week of the race.  In both of his Tour wins Froomey has hit the first week hard, and in particular the Pyrenees, where he has typically opened significant time gaps over Quintana and his other main rivals.  This year however, although he did win Saturdays mountain stage it was only by a matter of seconds and not the minutes that perhaps we are used to seeing.  Does this mean that he is on the back foot already and has only way to go as the Tour rages on - backwards?

I don't think so!  If you listen to Chris speak, as well as how Dave 'the Maestro' Brailsford talks about him, I think it's fair to say that the 2016 version of Chris Froome is a much more relaxed, chilled and realistic animal.  If it's possible at 31 years of age, I think Chris has finally grown into his role as a (budding) cycling legend and seems to be able to handle the stresses, strains and demands of being the Tour favourite in a much better manner than perhaps we've seen previously.  He himself has pointed to his normally dominant first week and must be fully aware of the relative disparity in the comparative time gaps this year and the potential consequences as the race develops.  But Team Sky are also a very different animal this year compared with their previous winning years with both Froomey and initially Wiggins (in 2012) when the Sky train was all dominant and, despite all the success, gained only scorn amongst sections of the press (particularly in France) for the manner of their victories.  However, this year Team Sky have also grown into their role as (arguably) the top team at this years tour.  The Sky train is still there, but it is no longer the rigid (and boring?) locomotive that we've seen before.  The development of Brailsford's Team Sky and by proxy, Chris Froome, has come about as a result of their experiences over the past few years.  Their learning curve has been steep indeed, and one would be hard pressed to suggest that they haven't taken on board any of the lessons learned since the team's inception in 2010.

We saw the first indications that the 2016 version of Team Sky was perhaps somewhat different from previous versions in the Dauphine where the riders seemed to have much freedom to explore their own races whilst still maintaining the basic remit of protecting their team leader, Froomey, and winning the day, which they duly did.  The evolution of the team and it's riders has continued this week with riders appearing in breakaways as well as adopting different tactics in the early mountain stages where Sergio Henao, for example, has certainly been given his head to try and ride his own race, in stark contrast to 2011 when Froome was held back under team orders to guide eventual winner, Bradley Wiggins, over the high Alps.

Criticisms of Froomey being a boring, robotic rider in previous years have surely been laid to rest this year after his extravagant downhill attack and eventual stage win in Saturday's stage, if not by his elbowing of a Colombian fan who got too close on the ascent!  I think Chris is riding well within himself and has preserved his legs (relatively) and energies for what is still to come.

The first week has seen the peleton cover just over half the distance of this years Tour, some 1769kms.  The coming week features 2 more mountain stages, including on Thursday a mountain top finish of the legendary Mont Ventoux and on Friday the first of this years TT's, which is a longish, relatively hilly day with an uphill gradient to finish, all of which should suit Froomey well.  Whilst Quintana has undoubtedly improved his time-trialling the 37.5km TT should see Froome putting a bit more time into Quintana.  The big test though will surely come on the ascent of Mont Ventoux where we can reasonably expect Quintana and the other GC contenders to all have a bash at taking Froomey's crown!  However, Ventoux is a climb Froomey knows well having won there in 2013 on the way to his first overall victory.  If he does make the first move on Thursday I can see him running the show again and stretching his lead further over a somewhat reticent 2016 Quintana.

One would think that if Quintana truly has designs on this years Tour he would need to attack early on on Mont Ventoux to try and test Froome's endurance to it's max.  But I've sensed a certain reluctance in Quintana so far to really put himself on the line, for example on Saturday when he failed to chase Froome down, despite being on his wheel, as they topped the mountain and instead he sat up and waited for Valverde to arrive before he began his chase.  Does that indicate a lack of confidence in his own ability?  Or maybe he's not sure of his own physical capabilities coming into this years Tour having not raced for some time, despite successes earlier in the year when he beat Froome (e.g. Tour of Romandie).  Maybe that lack of racing the past few months will be telling in the final wash?  Or maybe I'm reading too much into it all and he's really is just biding his time.  By the end of this week we shall all know a lot more.

But what of the rest of the peleton?

Froome aside, the other big stories this week are perhaps also British.  The return to form, after a seemingly long absence, of Mark Cavendish with 3 fantastic wins this week.  Cav's post race interviews are always a mix of emotion, angst, muttered phrases and either beaming smiles or black scowls, but they are always entertaining!  If I, for one, had been doubting Cav's ability to get back to his best after a long performance hiatus, then it must be said that Cav himself never shared in those doubts and is now perhaps as good as he's ever been and has, this week, overtaken Bernard Hinault's total Tour victories with a staggering 29 wins!  He has more chances this week, though with the Olympics just round the corner one has to question whether we will see Cav racing all the way to the Champs Elysees this year.

Britain's other big successes this week have been Fridays amazing mountain stage win by 35 year old youngster Steve Cummings of Team Dimension Data (Cav's team) and the second placing overall (some 16secs behind Froomey) and white jersey holder (best young rider) of Adam Yates (Orica Bike Exchange)!  Cummings win was arguably the best and biggest win of his career and comes at a time when most are digging out their pipe and slippers but Cummings, bucking the trend, just seems to be getting better and better!  Has he found the secret of eternal youth I ask?  And so for Cummings this week I give the Never Say Die Award which is also known as the Cher 'I can turn back time' Award!

At 23 years old and being well into the final year of his contract at Orica Adam Yates is probably this years hot young thing and must have new offers of employment filling his inbox every morning!  His form so far this Tour has been quite staggering given that his chin is a mass of stitches after the inflatable flamme rouge collapsed on top of him during Friday's stage!  He has managed to stick with all the big guns in the mountains so far, however, it must be said without setting the peleton on fire.  Nevertheless, he could well be Britain's next grand tour winner (after Froome) in the making and for this reason I award him the Week One Hottie Award, an honour he is sure to live up to in the coming fortnight!

Other winners and losers this week include the Evergreen Peter Sagan (evergreen because he is destined to spend the rest of the Tour in green) who can surely gain worthwhile employment, once his cycling career is over, as a cartoon voice-over character; Alberto Contador, who followed up a very heavy fall on the opening day by trying to outdo himself the next day by tumbling over again, and in the end abandoned the race during Sunday's stage.  Contador's days of challenging the best during the grand tours are now probably behind him and if he decides to continue next year (perhaps with the new Bahrain team) then it may well be in more of a support role!  BMC's Richie Porte also had his share of bad luck losing time on his GC rivals with a mechanical failure some 5kms out during Monday's (I think!) stage and his chances of pushing for overall victory seemed to have dissipated in the process!  Marcel Kittel, who looked so great earlier in the year, looks a bit below par but still managed to win Tuesday's stage ahead of Sagan, but does look to be second best this year to a rejuvenated Cav!  Andre Griepel has been way off the pace despite having had good lead out trains for most of the sprint stages and is languishing in the sprinters wilderness right now!  Best Newcomer Award goes to British sprinter Dan McClay riding in his first Tour and who has managed to finish in the top 10 of every sprint stage thus far!  Keep it up Dan!  And talking of Dan's, it wouldn't be right to finish without giving a mention to Ireland's Dan Martin who is showing that maybe he does have the makings of a GC contender after all.  The Etix man is running hotter than ever after finishing to second in last month's Dauphine and finally seems to demonstrating that he has the confidence to stick with and even attack the top GC guys in the high mountains.  But for both him and Adam Yates, the final's weeks high Alps tests will be the true test of their mettle and will show whether they really can compete with the very best over a 3 week grand tour!

Ok, I'll be back next week with another round up of Tour news!  In the meantime, enjoy this weeks racing and get on your bike!

A Personal Tribute: Muhammad Ali

I woke up this morning to the saddest of news, something that by now we are all aware of; the passing of Muhammad Ali.  This is my own personal tribute to an amazing man.

Throughout my life my biggest heroes have all been sports people; David Hemery, Brendan Foster, Steve Ovett, Alan Minter, Paula Radcliffe, Chris Froome, Bradley Wiggins, Teofilio Stevenson, Jimmy Connors, Henry Cooper, Miguel Indurain, Abebe Bikila, Kip Keino and many, many more including of course, Muhammed Ali.  As a kid, some of earliest memories are of sporting occasions and sporting achievements and Ali was as much a part of my childhood as my school teachers.

I was born in 1960, the year 18 year old Cassius Clay won Gold at the Rome Olympics.  By the time I was 5 or 6 I was fully aware of Cassius Clay, his outlandish talent and the audacity of his victory over Sonny Liston in 1964.  But even then I was aware that this was a man whose talents had already transcended the sporting arena.  As a 7 year old I remember being spellbound with anticipation at the upcoming Mexico Olympics during the summer of 1968.  My father had given me a book on the history of the Olympic Games and I read enraptured about the heroes of bygone days; Fanny Blankers-Koen, Emile Zatopek, Jonny Weissmuller, Lord Burghley, Bob Hayes, Paavo Nurmi, Dorando Pietri among many more, including Jesse Owens and Cassius Clay.

And it whilst reading this book that I first became aware that sports can sometimes become intertwined with politics.  It was the story of Jesse Owens at the Berlin Games of 1936 that brought this fact to light for me.  Maybe I didn't grasp all the political intricacies of Jesse Owens achievements, but I do recall becoming aware, perhaps for the first time, that there was political mileage to be had out of the colour of ones skin as well as the depth of one's talents and achievements.

In that book (which sadly fell apart due to overuse) I recall a picture of a young Cassius along with a brief description of the man's victory in Rome.  Up until that point I had considered that the Olympics was the pinnacle of world sport (which indeed it was, still is for many) and so I began to understand that in some sporting arenas there was something more, something higher than the Olympics; my introduction to the difference between amateur and professional sport.

Again, as a kid I didn't quite understand the significance when Clay changed his name to Muhammed Ali.  Civil rights, Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammad and slave names were a long way from my understanding, but looking back the fact that I was even aware of the names, the concepts and the philosophy behind his name change were probably landmarks in my social understanding and education.  The same could also be said of Ali's refusal to be inducted into the draft in 1967.

The Vietnam War was impossible to escape during the late 60's, early 70's.  The news, when I was allowed to see it, was awash with images of War that I didn't understand, of the mass protests in the US and the controversy it all wrought.  And into this powderkeg stepped Ali, a conscientious objector; a fighter who didn't want to fight!  I'm sure his decision then had more than a lasting influence on my young thinking.  Here was a man who was plainly not a coward, and was saying that he didn't want to kill anyone who'd done him no personal harm.  'It was wrong,' he had said.  The message rung a bell in my head that resonates still.

On the Left Ali-Frazier 1; on right with legendary sports writer Howard Cosell (left) and basketball star
Wilt Chamberlain (right)

Much later he told reporters, "I never thought of myself as great when I refused to go into the army.  All I did was stand up for what I believed."  Strong words that affected my thinking and without knowing it at the time, probably influenced my unconscious decision to become a combative pacifist; combative in sport, in life, but not in person, just like Ali.

When, years later, he returned to the ring, I remember watching his fights live on TV.  Often they were in the early hours, and my parents would wake me up to watch him trounce fighter after fighter, all in (not so) vivid black and white.  In those days he was by far the biggest star in the world, the most recognisable face, the most famous name and all his fights were screened live.  Of course it's the big fights that stand out; the three Frazier fights including the Thriller in Manila and the biggest one of them all, the Rumble in the Jungle against the fearsome George Foreman.  But sandwiched in between there were other fights (not all of which he won) that linger in my memory still; the Ken Norton fights, Joe Bugner, Trevor Berbick, Duane Bobick, Ernie Shavers, Jerry Quarry, and then later fights against Larry Holmes and (lesser?) champions such as Leon Spinks, Tony Tubbs & Tony Tucker.  

But Ali was much more than a fighter, he was the world's first global sports star and his personality was every bit as big as his best punch.  The interviews on British TV with Michael Parkinson are legendary as were his famed predictions, often put to verse, before his fights!  Everything about Ali was larger than life and he spawned many books, many stories (some true, some probably not) and probably more news print pages than any sports star ever.  The definitive biography of Ali is thought to be that of Thomas Hauser and it is indeed a thoroughly entertaining read.  And if that is the definitive book, then without doubt the definitive film is Taylor Hackford's Oscar winning documentary 'When we were Kings,' about the background to the greatest fight of all time, the Rumble in the Jungle.  But for another perspective, one that shows a different, much darker side of Ali's personality try Ghosts of Manila by Mark Kram.

For me Ali is an icon and his passing leaves a hole in my life.  He's been as ever present as any family member and I've lived his pleasures and agonies as much as any fan can.  In the latter years of his life I have actively avoided stories about his decline, preferring to remember him as he was; larger than life, full of wit and charm, an inspiration on so many levels to so many people.

You will be sadly missed.  RIP Muhammad Ali

Sources mentioned:
Ghost of Manila: The fateful Blood feud between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier, by Mark Kram
Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times, by Thomas Hauser
When we were Kings, documentary by Taylor Hackford

Super Sunday! What a great day's sport!

Wow!  I'm an old bugger now and can only reminisce about my own sporting prowess, such as it was, so these days I'm a fully fledged and totally committed armchair sports fan and yesterday was truly a day and a half!  The World T20 Final, Leicester edging ever closer to the Premiership, Lewis Hamilton blowing yet another pole position, Peter Sagan doing a wheelie across the line in the RVV Tour of Flanders, Lizzie Armistead winning the women's race.......wow and double wow!  I can tell you my ass was numb by the end of the day, but it was worth every little tingle!

Starting off with football, I'd been to the local bar on the Saturday evening for El Clasico (Barca - Real) which we all know was won by Real 2-1 with Ronaldo scoring the winner, but to be honest it wasn't a clasico this time.   The end result was great for Zidane's new look Madrid and, of course, finally ended Barca's amazing 39 match unbeaten run (a club record  - no surprise) on a day that was dedicated to one of the all time greats, the late Johaan Cruyff who sadly passed away last week.  But sitting in a Valencia bar, after they'd just lost, again, against Las Palmas probably had something to do with the rather muted atmosphere for the match.  Well, that, and the fact that Madrid won (if you're not a Madridista in Spain then you're an anti-Madridista) all contributed to a rather lack-lustre match for me.

In the PL wins for Man City, Chelsea and Arsenal would normally have pissed me off no end, but this year not so much, simply because they're all so far behind a scintillating Leicester side (who I think have the backing of most of the UK now) and so just don't stand a chance of winning the league, which is a huge bonus!!  Come on the Foxes!!  You can do it!!

But for real drama yesterday, one needed to look no further than the World T20 Final in Kolkata where poor old Ben Stokes got walloped all over the ground by a pumped up Carlos Braithwaite for an amazing climax to what has been an amazing tournament.  And I must complement BBC radio for their excellent coverage on radio 5L which brought the atmosphere into my living room like never before.

And then onto Bahrain for the second Grand Prix of the season where once again Nico Rosberg dominated the whole weekend, his only blip being the loss of pole to Lewis Hamilton, but on a track made for overtaking the end result was hardly in doubt, and made all the more probable within 5 seconds of the start when Hamilton's second poor start in a row put paid to his chances before they'd reached turn 1, lap 1.  Too much partying Lewis!  Time to get your head out the bottle and back in the game I think!

And finally onto cycling where the awesomely talented Peter Sagan raced clear of the peleton in the final kilometres to win (I think) his first Ronde Van Vlaanderen in the Tour of Flanders and to continue what has already been a great season for the current World Road Race Champion.  The women's race too was won by Britain's World Champ Lizzie Armistead who seems to be having an even better start to the season than Sagan.  With all the big Tours yet to come this years cycling is shaping up to be yet another corker and I, for one, cannot wait for it all to kick off.

Sagunto: City of Ages. Pt.1. When Hannibal attacks.....

Sagunto - City of Ages

Part 1 - When Hannibal attacks….

The modern city of Sagunto holds a unique place in the historical and cultural heritage not just of Valenciana, but of Spain itself and, in a wider context, of the Mediterranean as a whole.  It sits on the Mediterranean coast some 30km north of Valencia and has historical origins going back over 2500 years to before the Roman occupation began in the area c.219 BC.  

The most compelling reason explaining the initial settlement here, as early as the 5th century BC, is the strong strategic position that the slopes and ridges of (what is now called) Castle Hill provided and where today the extensive remains of Castle Murviedro, the centrepoint of ancient life in the area, can still be explored.  With the Espadán mountains to the north, the Calderona mountains to the west, the fertile plain (the Horta Nord) of Valencia to the south and the ocean to the east, the first walled settlement, unfortunately named Arse, was in a strategically strong defensive position that allowed it to dominate the locality.  This fact is backed up by local archaeological evidence where from over 20 contemporary Iberian sites, Arse-Sagunto was clearly the largest.  Furthermore, with a flourishing port established at Grau Vell, the early inhabitants were able to exploit existing trade routes around the Mediterranean coast, particularly with the Phoenicians (from North Africa) and Hellenics (the Greeks) spreading their influence far beyond the Iberian peninsula.

The castle battlements line the top of the mountain looking much like a sleeping crocodile from afar.

Today the remains of the castle can be seen from every approach road into Sagunto as they tower over the city like a benevolent protector.  They stretch for approximately 800m atop the last ridge of the Calderona mountains with the castle walls running in an east-west direction.  However, any description of the castle, with it’s vast and varied history telling of the many alterations, repairs and restructuring undertaken in turn by the Romans, Muslims and Christians cannot ever encompass the true story of this amazing fortress.  

Following the signs for the ‘historic centre’ you wind your way through the modern houses and pisos to the old town with it’s distinctly Medieval flavour and ancient cobbled streets that lead you inevitably upwards towards Castle Murviedro.  On the way you pass by the excellent and aesthetically pleasing Museum of Archaeology for Arse-Saguntum and Castle Murviedro sited in La Casa del Mestre Peña (Master Peña’s House) and housing artefacts and collections from over 400 years of archaeological excavations.  

As you continue up the hill, passing by numerous quaint café’s, restaurants and souvenir shops the castle begins to dominate the vista more and more.  

When the castle itself first comes into unobstructed view, sprawling across the rocky promontory high above, the immediate feeling it conjures is one of heroic bygone days, of mythical heroes steeped in romance and mystery, of courageous, embattled defenders withstanding the onslaught of relentless, fearsome invaders as they throw themselves at the walls in the vain hope of gaining a foothold, whatever the cost, on the impressive walls or a first step onto the towering bastions, to etch their name forever into folklore, their story told around campfires for generations afterwards.  

It is not hard to stand at the base of the walls and be filled with a sense of awe for the courage and resolve of the men and women, defenders and attackers both, who sacrificed everything for the glory, advancement and future of their people and families.  It is a fearsome castle to behold, making one feel small, almost insignificant, besides the seemingly impregnable walls and all the blood that has been spilled here over the centuries.  

The site of the original Iberian settlement took the rather unfortunate name (for English speakers at least) of Arse, which it kept until adopting the Romanised name of Saguntum probably sometime in the early 2nd century BC.  Arse, built by the Celt-Iberian tribe, the Edetani, is thought to have covered about 8-10 hectares and was protected by a double defensive enclosure consisting of an outer wall (usually the biggest structure) and an inner perimeter wall and perhaps provided shelter and probably housing several thousand people.  Today the only part of the Iberian settlement that remains is a small section of the inner wall which can be seen at Tres Pouels (Three Little Wells), just outside the existing castle walls at the western end.  This wall was constructed of cyclopean limestone boulders, probably quarried locally, which were basically large, roughly worked polygonal blocks which would have had their exterior faces hammer-dressed in situ by masons and then assembled without mortar in an amazing feat of engineering when you consider the difficulty of transporting rocks of such a size to the location (each rock must weigh several tons), and the staggering precision and longevity of the construction itself.

As fearsome as the ramparts are today the exact scale of the structure facing Hannibal and his army in 219BC is unknown but they are thought to have been substantial.  The siege itself lasted 8 months, with Hannibal’s army destroying the castle defences bit by bit until finally, the end came.  

However, this wasn’t a mindless foray by an overeager young Commander hoping to merely stoke up the enmity with the Romans and maybe make a name for himself along the way.  Hannibal was a man with a plan and Sagunto was just the first step on what was to be a very long road.  For several years before Hannibal had been sending envoys across the Pyrenees into Gaul, and further still across the Alps into Cisalpine Gaul, to survey putative routes for his future Italian campaign and to sound out possible anti-Roman feelings among the native peoples en route.  So by the time Hannibal laid siege to Saguntum the plans for his monumental expedition were already well formed in his head.  Revenge would be sweet!

The lessons of the loss of the First Punic War were ingrained well into Hannibal by his father, Hamilcar, and so Hannibal was well aware that his people’s main weakness, when compared with Rome, was their lack of a native army.  The Carthaginians were a nation of traders and their armies had always been mercenaries, so that when, following the death of his father in battle and brother-in-law, Hasdrubal (assassinated), and at the age of 24, Hannibal gained command of the Carthaginian forces in Iberia, he purposefully set out to build a new type of army.  Using his (doubtless) immense personality and force of will Hannibal firstly consolidated the military and economic gains of his predecessors, then construed to pull those ‘conquered’ Iberian tribes south of the Ebro river under his banner making them allies and, in so doing, procuring the best parts of their armies for himself and to further his own precocious ambitions.

He then trained this army in almost constant warfare for nearly 3 years against any remaining Iberian peoples, engendering the loyalty of his multi-cultural band to his banner, so that by the time they arrived at Sagunto they were a well-oiled military machine.

Having been watching the Carthaginian progress from afar the Romans were more than a little disconcerted at what they saw.  With Hasdrubal having built upon Hamilcar’s initial successes the Romans now sought to stifle the progress of the Carthaginians in Iberia which, in the long-term, they themselves coveted.  Yet with insufficient military resources available to mount any sort of campaign in Iberia, the Romans thought to tie Hasdrubal to a treaty which limited the extent of his (and Carthage’s) ambitions to land (and hence, tribes) south of the Iberus and furthermore, it compelled both sides to ‘avoid’ annoying each other’s allies in the region.

Sagunto, which lay far south of the Iberus, (so in theory within Hasdrubal’s agreed territory) was a protectorate of Rome and, as the wealthiest city on the Iberian Mediterranean coast, was considered an important ally.  Hannibal would have been well aware of this and of the potential consequences of violating the treaty.  But his hatred for Rome and all things Roman was awe-consuming.

Having sworn an oath of enmity against the Romans at the age of 9 (which he honoured till his death in c.181BC) in the wake of the economic and social hardships suffered by the Carthaginian people and imposed by the Romans after the First Punic War, Hannibal had pre-meditatively set out to provoke his hated enemy.  And as we know, he more than succeeded.  

The Saguntines had pleaded with their Roman protectors to send help, but the Romans were preoccupied elsewhere with the Gauls and Ilyricans and had no manpower to spare and their pleas only received a mute response, such that when Hannibal finally offered terms the Saguntines knew there would be no Roman salvation for the city.

However, Hannibal’s terms were harsh, but after 8 months fighting and many lives lost he was in no mood to be generous.  He had insisted that the city be evacuated, the population to leave unarmed and with only two garments apiece.  When they refused these terms, returning to their homes to begin destroying what valuables they had left, Hannibal, upon entering the city, put every adult to death; a sorry end for what had been a stoic and brave resistance.

Having plundered the city, Hannibal returned to New Carthage, modern day Cartegeña, to regather his resources and recuperate before beginning his epic journey in May 218BC.  The Romans voiced their disapproval by sending emissaries to Carthage to demand Hannibal be turned over to them for justice.  When the Carthaginian Council refused, War was declared and the Second Punic War had begun.

Masked avenger Donald Trump rides to the rescue with sidekick Sarah Palin to kick ISIS ass!

Well howdy boys!  I’m back on the Donny wagon and Boy! don’t it feel good, because I’m a big fan of Donald Donny ‘don’t you just lurve my fly-away hair’ Trump!  And what’s more it seems I’m not alone!

I’m dumb-founded that our Donny is still the Republican front runner and now he’s got the ex-Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, whistling Dixie ‘long side him and don’t they just look pretty as a picture together?  Both smiling sweetly.  Both pro-gun.  Both pro-2nd Amendment.  Both gonna be pissed off when Clinton wins!  I hope….

And as much as I’d like Hilary Clinton to not only, of course win the Democratic nomination, but to then follow it up by trouncing Trump in the election proper, I've got a sneaking feeling it ain't gonna be that easy.  American politics is strange animal and making a prediction so far in advance is dodgy at best.  So I won’t be doing that!  Instead I’m going to look at potentially rather an odd parallel between this on-going, fledgling Presidential campaign and that of 2000 between Al Gore And George Jr.

Now, as we all know, Al Gore was defeated by ‘Dubya’ and, as you may recall, the world was then led into 8 glorious years of gung-ho, Republican ‘yeh-hah politics and foreign policy the price of which, both economically and militarily, the world is still paying.  And no, I’m not forgetting that 9/11 brought on the War on terror, but that is an argument/discussion for another day, so for now it’s shelved; just run with me here……

The 2000 campaign came In the wake of the Columbine massacre in April 1999, with Gore subsequently losing one of the closest and most controversial Presidential races in decades, some say as a direct consequence of his intent to push gun control measures and in so doing galvanising into action the most powerful and influential lobby in Washington; the NRA.  

Who can forget Charlton Heston, then President of the NRA, at their July 2000 Convention, as he made his chilling and highly creepy ‘my cold dead hands’ speech, growling ‘The NRA are back!’ and in so doing putting an end to Gore’s contentions.  

If we’d listened more closely at the time we might have heard Dubya’s War machine starting up.  

Now, more than a decade later we have another Democrat, Obama, once again pushing gun control measures after a 2015 in the US that saw on average, more than one mass shooting a day.  The mind boggles!  Truly!

Obama is plainly an emotional man, as witnessed by his tears for the dead children of Newtown, and consequently this is an issue he feels strongly about.  He’s a family man and I understand that perfectly.  Outside of the US most of us understand his feelings perfectly and recoil in horror together with Obama every time another mass shooting occurs.  Most non-Americans just don’t understand this obsession with Americans and guns, and somehow freedom always seems to get jammed in there somewhere, along with the 2nd Amendment and ‘the right bear arms,’ and we non-Americans just cannot see the how freedom, guns and dead children can go together now matter how you mix them up.  Ultimately, we empathise with Obama’s plight and sympathise with those who’ve suffered and see the only way to make the equation anything like balanced is to remove guns from it, or at least make them harder to get.  It’s just common-sense.  

Afetr all, the right to hold a gun doesn’t make any one man more free than another who chooses not to hold one.  It just makes them more dangerous.  

What have all these gun-toting red-necks got to be scared of anyway?  An even playing field perhaps?  But the facts remain that the vast majority of US gun-related deaths occur in black neighbourhoods, not in the white.  If the guns are taken out of the hands of the streets gangs, the mentally ill, and the criminal element then surely that is good thing.  Right?  No-one has ever said that any good, mentally sound, coherent and honest person may not own a gun.  In fact, if I’d want anyone to have a gun, it would be that person!  And when you wash away all the jargon I think that’s basically what Obama would like things to be like.  And for me that all sounds quite reasonable.

So can Obama use any Executive power he may have with which to push through any changes?

I don’t think so.  The Republican dominated Congress and the NRA are already galvanised and according to the Washington Post this may be the beginning of problems for Hilary Clinton similar to those experienced by Gore in 2000.  

And after all is said and done, what was America’s response to Obama’s proposal to use his Executive powers to curb the gun laws and to 20 dead children?  

The biggest ever retail sales day on guns!  The day after the Newtown killings!  

Once again, the mind boggles!

And now we have Sarah Palin endorsing our Donny because, and I quote, we want ‘a  Commander-in-Chief who will let our warriors do their job and go kick ISIS ass.  To secure our borders and secure our jobs,’  

Here's our Sarah....looking remarkably like Adam
Richman!  Strange that!  Sorry Adam!

Well, I think she was pitching for the Secretary of State’s position in Donny’s putative government by the way she was calling Iran ‘the enemy’ and promising to kick ISIS ass.  Presumably as SecState this would be easily accomplished by riding rough-shod over any international borders, trampling areas of political sensitivity and shitting on Middle-Eastern feelings and territory.  

That’s right folks!  Let’s make America great again!

Let’s endorse a foreign policy that will engender hatred for all things American.  I shudder think of the possibility of a President Donny sitting down over canapés with Vladimir Putin trying to sort the Syrian problem out.  

Now there’s a couple of really understanding fellas, you’d have to say!  I can see it now…...‘No, you go first Vlad, please!’  ‘Oh no, I couldn’t Donny.  You must go first.  Is Russian tradition.’

I don’t think so!  I think it’s Nukes at dawn and fuck everybody else!  That’s what I think.   

Sorry Donald Trump, but you really are an Ass!

Do you know what the really amazing thing about Donald 'some of my best friends are coloured!' Trump is?

Nuttin'!

That's right, folks!  A big fat zero!

This truly is a man without a single redeeming feature that I can discern.   And the only surprising fact about him is that there are enough idiots out there who think that this poor excuse for an American statesman is a viable candidate for the Presidency!  Poor old Abe is must be turning in his grave!

On his absolutely terrific website our Donny starts off by informing us all about how much danger the average 'corn-fed, white' American is in from your average American Muslim!  According to the Center for Security Policy 25% of US Muslims think that "violence against Americans in the US is justified as part of the global jihad," and 51% want free choice as to whether they wish to live under Sharia Law or not.

Ok, those are the facts according to this particular poll.  And let's be fair; those are some pretty troubling statistics.  Now, it would seem blindingly obvious to me - but then I don't have Trump's rump to bounce ideas off of so I might come up a bit short - but isn't the Muslim community in America right now feeling just a little bit isolated?  And perhaps slightly victimised?  Criminalised perhaps?  Just for being Muslim?  In the land of the free?

The land of the free!

Can that be right?

Now, I'm no politician - not telling any lies there then! - but if someone in my group/neighbourhood is feeling a bit lonely, on the fringes of things, you know, then I'd go out of my way to make that person feel welcome and part of the group.  I'd try to bring them into the fold, make them feel part of the group.

Makes sense, yeah?

If someone feels separated from the rest there is a tendency to lack trust; it's only natural.  If one stretches the distance between any two points and it always becomes harder to see what occurs on the one side from the other.  Pull even further apart and the differences between the two points become blurred and faded and eventually unrecognisable.  But should the two points pull closer together then.......

In a much bigger way, surely the way to deal with problems bubbling up in the US Muslim community is to bring them into the fold in the same way and not to push them away.  Bring them closer, try to find out why there are such feelings of disenfranchisement, what drives this vehicle we call radicalisation?  And then try to sort through the differences.

Our hero on the campaign trail!

But young Mr Trump wants to isolate these guys even further by banning all Muslims from entering the US indefinitely, or, as he put it, "until our countries representatives can sort our what is going on."

So that's when then Donny?  When Daesh are all dust?  Or when the Middle East has been shut down permanently and where there were once mud huts housing savages there shall now be bright shiny Taco Bells and Burger Kings?  Or when George Armstrong Custer rises from the grave to ride headlong into Jerusalem at the head of a righteous army of mini, bumped-up Trumps, all high on on the heady words of their hallowed leader!

"Let's make America great again!"

"Let's make America great again!"

"Let's make America great again!"

But, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so if America is feeling hungry for a taste of Trump pie and the Republicans decide to run with this poor, misunderstood....shit, I'm gonna say it!....racist, bigot, then you'd better be ready for the next CSP poll to read a whole lot worse than the last one!  And if you think America's in too many Wars now, then just give your good old boy a chance and see how many more countries he'd piss off in 4 years!

I can tell you.....it'd be a lot!  Cos he's an Ass!  And if you, or anyone you know votes for that Ass, well then, you're an Ass too!

The exit strategy DC ignored! Don't go in the first place!

Last night's Commons vote in favour of bombing Daesh in Syria was, unsurprisingly, passed with our Dave claiming a clear mandate by the margin of the victory gained.  Reports this morning state that within an hour of the result, RAF Tornados were were let loose on oil installations in Daesh held territory in eastern Syria, with Defence Secretary Michael Fallon confirming that they flew from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.

So Britain's in!  In truth, from the moment the first bomb was set off outside the Stade de France there was never any other way that Cameron would have had it.  Standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies!  That's the British way lads!  Hurrah!

And yes, whilst it may well be the British way, the seeming lack of a clear and coherent allied strategy and, what's more, no exit strategy to boot, one can't help thinking that dear old JC might have hit the nail on the proverbial head when he suggested Davey-boy was 'rushing headlong into a War' without any plan as to what comes afterwards.

The arguments 'for' are well trodden and, I would guess, that even though they are largely understood and appreciated by the public at large, I would strongly suggest that the majority do NOT want this 'mission' (for want of a worse word) undertaken in their name.  For myself, I'm flabbergasted that more isn't being done to pull the financial teeth of Daesh, and if it is being done, then why aren't we being told about it?  Surely naming and shaming the countries, corporations, banks and individuals who are profiting out of doing business with Daesh would be a tremendous coup.

Yesterday we had Russia accusing Turkey of buying this tainted oil, an accusation strongly denied by Turkish President Erdogan.  Once again, surely we should be told the truth.  I've no doubt that the Security Services of many nations know exactly who these racketeers are; so let's bring it into the open, why not?

Well, I'd hazard a guess as to why not, and that would be that for many, be they any of the above who benefit, it could prove to be an embarrassment for one or more of the allies.  That's the problem with War.  Whilst those on the ground suffer, die and starve, someone else sits somewhere else counting their ill-gotten gains, gilded in an amoral cage made of financial favours, political deceit and out-right greed.  That anyone should profit out of War is bad enough, but to propagate it in order to profit is a sin of the highest order.

The BBC yesterday said that they understood smuggled Daesh oil may well be being sold and marketed within Turkey, as well as further afield.  Such knowledge is invaluable, but is it the truth?  For a NATO ally and a nation that wishes to join the EEC this should be bad news.  If Turkey is complicit in this trade then there should be consequences.  If not, but it is going within their borders then some serious questions need to be asked and answered of the Turkish security forces.  If the BBC can uncover this, then quite frankly, where the  f*&k were you guys?  

Dave also tells us that there are 70,000 moderate Syrians willing to do the donkey work once our bombs have tenderised the enemy sufficiently.  But he doesn't seem to be able to explain where or who these moderates are.  From recent past experience, surely arming, training and supplying other faceless, nameless groups, who may well be jihadists themselves of one colour or another, is a lesson in futility.  When it's all done and dusted can we just ask for our guns back?  Pretty please?

So imagine Daesh are gone now, but were left with vast reaches of the Middle East with no infrastructure, no viable cities, no nothing apart from groups of wildly, victorious 'rebels,' armed to the teeth, bearing their own grudges against who? the West, other Muslims, Jews, anyone who tries to tell them how to live their lives?   Just take your pick!

It's a disaster waiting to happen.

If you haven't seen Charlie Wilson's War, then this next reference might pass you by, because as the Cabinet pat each other on their backs for the all good work they've done and continue to do, I'm sitting here thinking, 'we'll see!'

I can see the West turning their backs once again.  Sure, the refineries need re-building, so we'll send the boys in, get them up and running again making sure, mais bien sur, that the vast majority of the oil flows back into the coffers of the hailed liberators, the profits lining the pockets of the legitimate enterprises that 'are struggling to get this country back on it's feet,' whilst at the same time investing the morally won profits in a nice little mansion in the Hamptons, 'you know, a little bit of security for my Grand kids!'

But what about the kids left homeless, school-less, parent-less in Syria?  What about them?

What amazes me is how millions, in whatever currency you choose, can be spent daily to exterminate these enemies of Democracy, but trying to get the cost of a single bomb out of them afterwards to build a school, or a hospital, or a new mosque, is all but impossible.  I just don't understand the logic.  And then we ask what is it that's radicalising these kids?

Making martyrs out of Daesh is not going to help anyone.  They seem to be becoming like Hydra from the Marvel films.  'Cut off one head and 2 more will appear!'  They need to be rendered harmless and that can only be done by restricting their finances and stopping the flow of weapons.  If they've only got a couple of pea-shooters left then I think we can say that the problem has been dealt with.

The only reliable ground forces that I can see though, appear to be the 20,000 or so Kurdish Peshmerger fighters currently being bombed by both the Turkish and the Russians!  So how can we really expect the Kurds to take up the mantle seriously when, as soon as it's done, they go back to be harried left, right and centre by the aforementioned?  The state boundaries drawn up in the Middle East, largely by the French and British in the wake of WW2, just do not work.  The Kurds need to be promised, as do all the indigenous peoples of the region, a viable homeland of their own, where they, the Palestinians, Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, whoever, can live, free from persecution, to follow and build their lives as they wish, not as we tell them to do.  Western style Democracies do not work in the Middle East simply because the electorate do not follow political leaders, preferring to take their onus from religious leaders.  If that how they wish to be governed/live then we should be strong enough to say 'go for it, mate.  I'm with you all the way!'

And controversially, I would also include a homeland for those who wish to live the Muslim Sharia life.  To my way of thinking they are as entitled as we are to live how they wish.  They would just need to be .... restricted, shall we say, in their ambitions!

Does this mean then, that multi-cultural societies cannot develop or survive in the Middle-East?

Possibly.  Only time and sufficient wisdom on all sides will provide an adequate answer.  However, I would suggest that they could and should flourish.  The Ottomans, seen historically more often as great bureaucrats rather than the great conquerors they undoubtedly were, were, of course, also famous for their religious tolerance, and as a consequence multi-faith, multi-cultural, peaceful societies were largely the norm in the Middle East during their reign.  I'm not suggesting that we bring back the Ottomans, merely that we can use their historical example perhaps, as a way of developing more understanding in heterogenous societies.

Of course, for any multi-cultural society to work it takes tolerance and understanding, qualities it is much easier to possess if one has food on the table, money in ones pocket and a smile on ones face!  Hence, in the rich West, we see tolerance practised much more widely; we see people striving to understand what drives those different from ourselves because we have the time and the money to indulge those interests.  Those cowering under a daily bombardment should be forgiven if they can see only their own point of view!  But if we can give the long-suffering children of the Middle-East the same chances that we would wish for our own children, but allowing them at the same time, to express those chances as they see fit, then I think we would all find that we are not so different, after all.