Author Archives: Elizaphanian

About Elizaphanian

Rector of West Mersea

Some thoughts post-Saturday night (football)

Posted on by

I’m starting to really lose faith with Capello. The best thing about his coaching is that he learns from mistakes – hence the frequently inspired changes for the better in England’s second half performances – but I’m worried that he is going to stick with the formation that served him well in qualification, and which isn’t going to be up to it at the more elite level of the knock-out rounds in the world cup. NB this is true even if Capello sticks with the formation for the next two games and we get resounding victories.

Let me expand further: it’s all about Heskey. Now, I happen to admire Heskey and I have absolutely no qualms about him being in the squad. I would use him, however, as a back-up for Rooney. This is not simply because his scoring record is so appalling, but because of the impact on the rest of the team.

When Capello started out in the qualifying campaign, Rooney was used as the split-striker (an enganche, a beautiful word I discovered recently), and it made perfect sense to have him playing off Heskey. Against the standard of opposition in our qualifying group, it worked well. However, in this last season, Rooney has made the lead striker role his own, to great effect. Much the most frustrating thing for me on Saturday night (other than watching it on ITV HD and therefore missing the England goal!) was seeing Rooney occupied in deep midfield, when the gaps between the US central defence were crying out for his industry and goal-scoring. Rooney needs to play as our lead striker – our best player in his best position.

Sticking with Heskey as the lead striker means that there is a severe knock-on effect for our ability to score goals all through the side, which goes beyond Rooney. It means that Gerrard is also not played in the position he plays for Liverpool (behind Torres) and he is less of a threat. It also meant, on Saturday night, that Gerrard and Lampard shared the midfield and, although they did better in that game than they have achieved before, it also means that Lampard isn’t able to play his natural game, as he needs to have half an eye on staying back if Gerrard goes forward etc.

Put simply, Capello needs to drop Heskey and push some of our best goal-scorers into more effective positions (not least because we need to outscore the US if we are to top the group and avoid Germany in the next round).

I don’t expect to see it change though.
All this and I haven’t said anything about the debacle of choosing Milner on the left and never bringing on Joe Cole. Barmy.

Diamonds and Pearls

Posted on by

(A Courier article)

I’ve been talking a little bit about values – about how we value the world and the many wonderful things in it – and about how to understand what theologians call ‘idolatry’, which is simply what happens when we get our priorities wrong. I want this week to talk about some of the pressures that lead us to get our values muddled, and to do that I want to share talk about diamonds.

Everybody knows that diamonds are a girl’s best friend. Everybody also knows that they are a girl’s best friend because they are incredibly valuable, and can be counted on to remain committed to the girl even if the boy ups and leaves. Why, though, are diamonds valuable? After all, they are basically just a stone, a rock, something that is dug up from the ground. Yes, when they are cut and polished they can look very pretty, but why should that make them valuable? Yes, they are extremely hard, and therefore useful in industrial processes (and industrial processes can now manufacture diamonds at will), but why should that make them valuable? Most of all, why are diamonds seen as more valuable than rubies and emeralds and sapphires – all at least as beautiful, and in fact much rarer.

The simple answer is: Advertising. In 1947 an advertising agency working for De Beers (who used to control over 80% of the diamond market – imagine Murdoch controlling not just Sky and the Times but BBC, ITV, the Daily Mirror and even our humble Courier and you get an idea of how dominant De Beers was) came up with a new advertising slogan, “A Diamond is Forever”, and began to associate the purchase of diamonds with the idea of eternal love. All the talk about ‘how to make one month’s salary last a lifetime’ and how to show the seriousness of your love for your fiancee – all this was created for marketing purposes. After all, why should the giving of a clear lump of carbon symbolise love? Why couldn’t it be rubies (red for the heart)? Or something else completely different, like the keys to a house, or a portrait, or a meal?

My point here is simply that the cultural significance of diamonds is something that was created, and created not all that long ago. Yes, there is some intrinsic value to a diamond, but not much, and certainly not as much as our culture gives. In other words, I see diamonds as a perfect example of the way in which our values can be distorted by wordly pressures. We as individuals value diamonds because our culture as a whole has accepted the advertising slogans about diamonds. It’s all an illusion.

Of course, it isn’t just with diamonds that we go along with peer pressure and value what other people value. It applies to what we eat and how we dress, how we travel and how we entertain ourselves. We do it with most of our choices, and doing so actually makes life easier and more convenient for everyone. Imagine what it would be like if there were no shared values! There wouldn’t be much of a community left. Yet alongside the positive ‘social glue’ there is the danger that who we are, who we are meant to be, gets squashed by the majority.

For in the end, if we simply go along with the crowd, we stand to lose all that is most essential in our own lives. We gain the world, but lose our own soul. When Jesus talks about this, he uses the language of ‘living in the Kingdom’. He said “the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great price, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.” (Matthew 13.45) In other words, rather than simply going with the flow, and accepting the values that the wider society have given to us, finding heaven involves finding the one thing that needs to be given a higher value than anything else in our lives. Once we have that in place – and we can give up everything else in order to get it – then we get everything else as well, in its proper place. We see the world clearly, and we have our lives in proportion.

I believe that our present way of life has rather too much of diamonds, and not enough of pearls. We have accepted certain things as having a very high value – such as economic growth and technological progress – but we have ended up giving them too much value. As a result, we are destroying the ecological basis for our existence, and losing our humanity in the process. We need to recover a proper sense of priorities, and remember what it means to be human.

District 9

Posted on by

Probably the best sci-fi film of at least the last ten years, a highly intelligent, sharply observed and meaningful movie which packs a hefty emotional punch. Obviously, if your preference in alien films involves Arnie and a big gun, this might be a bit disappointing (although the action-packed third act is very exciting), but if you want an original vision that is fully realised and executed, you won’t go far wrong. Marvellous. 5/5

Ghost (Robert Harris)

Posted on by

Got this to read because I saw the trailer for the movie, and thought it looked intriguing. Fascinating plot – and consideration of what ghost-writing involves – and a satisfying ending, albeit a little predictable. At some stage I’ll have to do a rant on attitudes to the Iraq war, but not today.

Heavy Rain (PS3)

Posted on by

Now this was a step in the right direction for me – although a sluggish and annoying beginning (annoying because I didn’t find the control system intuitive, and it caused problems later on) – the basic conceit for this ‘game’ is fascinating, and I felt it worked well. Essentially, you play different characters in what is essentially a ‘track down a serial killer’ movie – and it works. I’ve only played it through fully once – and to be honest I’ll probably not bother playing through alternative timelines, I’ll just look them up on the web – but as a taster of the way the technology is moving, this was absorbing, characterful and exciting. Recommended for the more cerebral game player.
(For more info on what the game is about, go here.)

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (PS3)

Posted on by

OK, 2nd PS3 game that I’ve played through (came with the box) and…. it’s alright, quite fun, would make a good, sub-Indiana Jones movie (with much higher body count). Thing is, lots of the little tricks that hook game players into keeping going (like accumulating treasures) just had no interest for me. So: clearly a very good game, just not intelligent enough for me.

The end of 24

Posted on by

After musing the other day about the endings of stories, a few thought about the ending of 24 from last night (the ending not just of this series, but of 24 as a whole).

24 has suffered somewhat in recent series from the diminishing returns produced by simply escalating the threats – after all, where can you go once a nuclear bomb has been detonated on US soil? – but I actually felt that these last episodes benefited from a smaller-scale threat, viz. That a peace treaty wouldn’t end up being signed. It also benefited from wonderfully pitched performance from Gregory Itzin as Wormtongue, seducing the President on to the dark side.

Best of all, though, was the resolution for Jack’s own character. I felt that he had crossed a line earlier in the season, when he had carried out an execution, and there was a great moment when he hovered above the abyss before returning to his own moral centre – a moral centre which proved to be the crucial factor for the President’s own momentous decision. Things are nicely set up for possible movies – the 24 episode, ‘real time’ format is surely now played out to exhaustion for these characters.

On not talking about agw

Posted on by

I thought this was interesting, especially this quote:

“I very specifically avoided that whole area [climate change] for two reasons. The first is that I thought I could create a compelling enough sense of urgency without going into that topic, and the second reason is that I had worked with this enough in various life settings to discover that there are people on both sides of that story that hold very strong beliefs around that material…”

That is the same decision I made about my own book, although, since ‘climategate’, I am wondering whether to say something more. It’s very difficult to have a conversation that doesn’t generate more heat than light – on which subject, an interesting guest post at Byron’s place today.