There is a famous old Chinese curse that goes:
'May you live in interesting times'.

I'm not sure what, if anything, we've all done to deserve it, but I think these could certainly be said to be very interesting times.

The United States, and the world at large, waits anxiously to see what the George W. Bush administration will actually bring. Tension is even higher than usual in the Middle East, as the forthcoming Israeli election threatens to usher in a government committed to confrontation with Palestine; and in Britain, the party leaders are firing the opening salvoes in a General Election campaign that hasn't officially begun yet, even though everyone expects the election to be in the spring.

And while all that was going on, human tragedy struck in central America. The dreadful earthquake in El Salvador may have claimed as many as 1,200 lives, and desperate efforts to find survivors buried in the rubble are continuing as I write.

But on Sunday afternoon, none of this was the main story on the BBC radio news. Instead, solemn newscasters brought their listeners urgent updates on the story of an old lady who had stumbled and fallen whilst on an outing. Fortunately, the old lady's daughter had been on hand to help her to her feet. Though just a little shaken, the old lady had soon recovered her composure and continued with her day out.

Not much of a news story, you might think, and I'd agree. But I left out a couple of details: the old lady was the Queen Mother, and the daughter who helped her back on to her feet was the Queen. Her other daughter, Princess Margaret, has been in hospital, apparently because she'd lost her appetite. The BBC, and Britain's newspapers, have been at pains to give us plentiful reports on her condition too. You will, I'm sure, be as fascinated as I was to learn that Princess Margaret ate a jam tart on Friday, and progressed to chocolate cake on Sunday.

And the most annoying thing about it all is this: the broadcasters and newspapers give priority to this stuff for a perfectly valid reason. A lot of people in Britain really DO seem to be interested. Any hope that Britons might ever get the Royal Family in some sort of sane perspective was firmly extinguished in 1997 when Princess Diana died. A sad event, sure, but to judge by the outbreak of mass hysteria in Britain, you'd have thought that the imminent demolition of the Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass had been announced for real.

It is impressive to see the Queen Mother still active, albeit a little unsteadily, at the age of 100; but personally, I'm far more impressed by those very old people who soldier on in far less privileged circumstances. I wish neither the Queen Mum or Margaret any harm; I just cannot for the life of me understand why they and their relatives are so important to so many people. What are they actually for? It can't be just their value as a tourist attraction - we don't get that emotional over Madame Tussaud's. Are they just like some kind of national security blanket, comforting just because of their familiarity?

Whatever, I sincerely hope the Queen Mother sails serenely on into her second century, if only because the outbreak of sentimentality when she finally does depart the planet will probably rival that which greeted Diana's demise in terms of mawkish excess.

But even if everyone at Buckingham Palace is in good health, another tedious outbreak of royal hysteria is due next year, when the Queen will celebrate 50 years as monarch. Her Silver Jubilee in 1977 did at least inspire one of my favourite records of all time: The Sex Pistols' magnificent 'God Save The Queen'. I can but hope that somewhere in Britain, a band is lurking with a similarly incendiary anti-anthem for the Golden Jubilee.

And if you ask me, they should get Margaret up to Bradford and take her out for a curry. Just the smell always gives me a healthy appetite.

Bad news for those of you who've been taking part in the SETI project. Professor Stephen Hawking is sceptical about whether that search for extra-terrestrial intelligence is actually likely to find anyone for the human race to talk to. Speaking (via his voice synthesiser) at a conference in Bombay, Professor Hawking said that he didn't really believe there was a more intelligent race than mankind anywhere out in space.

He argued:
'If that's so, then why haven't they spread through the galaxies and visited us? Or could it be that they are letting us stew in our own primitive juices? I doubt that they would be so considerate to a lower life-form'.

The Professor also offered some predictions for the future. He believes that babies will be incubated outside the human body before the end of the 21st century. He also forecast that:
'someone will design improved humans somewhere'

because humanity will need to improve its physical and mental capabilities in order to cope with the demands of space travel. He was, however, careful to add:
'I'm not advocating human genetic engineering as a good thing. I'm just saying that it is likely to happen in the next million years whether we like it or not'.

But if that seems rather ominous, Professor Hawking did have some cautiously optimistic words of encouragement for those of us who like the idea of hitch-hilking around the galaxy. He said:
'If we don't destroy ourselves in the next 100 years, I expect we will spread out to planets in the nearby solar system and then to nearby stars'.

So it sounds as if now is probably a good time to get on with that Guide Entry you've been planning to write for ages, but somehow never quite got around to. A real-life Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy may be needed by space travellers sooner rather than later...

Finally, let's get right back down to earth in the company of Oasis, currently playing a few shows in South America. Among the places they've played was Rio de Janeiro, where Noel Gallagher explained their presence with typical frankness.

At a press conference at the 'Rock In Rio' festival last weekend, Noel admitted:
'I could put my professional hat on and say that it's really important to come and play for these people, for the social aspect of 'Rock In Rio'. Or I could be honest and say that it's f***ing really cold in England, and it's really warm here.'

Noel also revealed that the band have written enough songs for a new album, no doubt helped by the fact that all the members of the group bar drummer Andy White are now contributing material. He added:
'We would like to make a pure rock'n'roll record. Just record it live, no overdubs. Just get the best performances and put it out like that. Now whether that happens, I don't know...'

Now, if I were a keen Oasis fan, I think I'd find that rather worrying. To their credit, the band have never tried to disguise the fact that they are enormously influenced by The Beatles - and Noel's remarks sound uncannily similar to some of those made by The Beatles in early 1969, when they were working on what eventually became the 'Let It Be' album. They, too, planned a back-to-basics approach to recording - so much so that they even recorded a few songs, including the single 'Get Back', 'live' on the roof of the offices of their record company, Apple.

But it all went horribly wrong. Most of the sessions went so badly, with so much bad feeling between the band members, that the Beatles shelved the tapes and started again, recording their final album 'Abbey Road' later in the year. Producer Phil Spector was called in to do some reconstructive surgery on the tapes recorded earlier in the year, and the results were released as the 'Let It Be' album in 1970; but by the time the album appeared, The Beatles had split up.

Could history be repeating itself here? We'll see. But if Oasis make a sudden, unannounced appearance on a roof somewhere soon, then it'll look pretty certain that the end is in sight.

Ormondroyd

15.01.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page