Monday, 3 February 2014

Kim Kallstrom: Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger admits 'I would not have signed him' had he known about midfielder's back injury




Arsène Wenger admitted on Sunday night that he would not have signed Kim Kallstrom had he known about the midfielder’s injury before the final hours of the transfer window.Kallstrom will be out for at least one month with a back injury which Wenger learned of at 5pm on Friday, with six hours of the window remaining. Wenger conceded on Sunday – following his side’s 2-0 home win over Crystal Palace that sent them back to the top of the table – that he had no alternative but to complete the deal, because it was too late to find any fit midfielders in time.

“It crossed my mind,” Wenger said, when asked whether he had thought about pulling out of the transfer. “But I would not have signed him if we’d had two or three more days to do something. It was 5pm on Friday night, so it was sign him or nobody. We had to sign him in these conditions. We might need the players in March or April, you know, so it is difficult.”Kallstrom will be out for one month, at the very least, with a microfracture in his vertebra, missing league games against Liverpool and Manchester United, an FA Cup tie against Liverpool and the first leg of their Champions League last-16 fixture against Bayern Munich.

“That is the best-case scenario,” Wenger said of a month’s absence. “I’m sure that, if you’ve played football, you might have played with a microfracture of a vertebrae without knowing you had it. You don’t even notice it.”

Wenger confirmed that it was a free loan from Spartak Moscow, who will be paying Kallstrom’s wages for the next six weeks. Although Wenger said that Kallstrom had been signed to plug a short-term gap, which he will now not be able to do, he was still confident about the signing.

“We will only know if we’re wrong or right at the end of the season. But I made the decision because, across midfield, we have had players who have suffered injuries. [Mathieu] Flamini, [Jack] Wilshere, [Mikel] Arteta, [Santi] Cazorla, they have all missed, through injuries, part of the season. A few of them might miss the next part together. It’s true that we have not sorted that problem out in the next four to six weeks.”

Wenger was speaking after Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain had scored both goals in the win over Palace and the manager said that, after six months out with a knee injury, the midfielder was “still a bit short”.Wenger insisted Arsenal have the quality to win the league. “We are today where we are,” he said, “that cannot be a coincidence. You cannot be lucky over 24 games, that is for sure.

“Today we needed to be patient, intelligent and use our opportunities that most of the time come in the second half. That is what we did.”

Arsenal still face some scepticism about their title challenge and Wenger said that was just down to habits. “In the last seven years you have engraved that in your brain. It’s hard to get out now. I can understand that.”

Tony Pulis said that the difference between the sides was the “ big moment” when Cameron Jerome could not score a free header at the far post seconds after Arsenal had gone in front.

France’s politics of hatred: Move towards traditional family values risks being hijacked by anti-Semites and homophobic nationalists

Hundreds of thousands of pro-family and anti-government demonstrators marched through Paris yesterday amid claims from a minister that France faced a return of the “sombre” and “disturbing” political divisions of the 1930s.The stark warning by the interior minister, Manuel Valls, jarred with the prosperous, well-behaved ranks of most of yesterday’s marchers, including thousands of elderly people and families with children in push-chairs.
However, two groups of hard-right thugs were arrested as they attempted to join the protest. Scuffles broke out on the Avenue Raspail last night between riot police and about  200 hard-right youths giving Hitler salutes. They threw beer bottles at the police, who responded with tear gas.
Yesterday’s warning by Mr Valls of “sombre forces” at work in France followed a similar but smaller demonstration last week which dissolved into running battles with riot police. Several large sections of protesters on that march carried anti-Semitic banners and chanted “Jews out of France”. There was no sign of such banners at yesterday’s demonstration – nominally the 15th protest against the law passed last summer which made gay marriage legal in France. Yesterday’s march, which attracted about 200,000 people (the organisers claimed 500,000 attended), turned instead into a much wider protest against the alleged “familyphobe” policies of the left-wing government of President François Hollande.
Many marchers said they were protesting against the “conspiracy” of the government, and the “gay” and “feminist” lobbies, to brainwash primary school pupils into forgetting that they were boys and girls. In recent months an apparently baseless conviction that something called “gender theory” is to be imposed in France has been created by a de facto alliance of fundamentalist Catholics and ultra-right wing, anti-Semitic and anti-gay nationalists.One banner on yesterday’s march read, bizarrely: “Gender. Never, never, never.” Another read: “The school should instruct. Only the family should educate.”
Mr Valls said in a newspaper interview yesterday: “We are witnessing a union of extremes, never before seen in France… [Last week] was the first time for a long time that people have screamed their hatred of Jews in the street.
“A block of protest is forming, a rebellion which is anti-elite, anti-state, anti-tax, anti-parliament, anti-press … but also, and above all, anti-Semitic, racist and homophobe.”
Mr Valls is playing with fire. Most of the people on yesterday’s march – and many of the protesters at last week’s “day of anger” – were radical Catholics or conservatives: anti-gay, perhaps, but not  anti-Semite or anti-Republican.
One protester, Alain, 67, a businessman, said: “Valls thinks that he can contain these protests by painting us all as dangerous extremists. When I was young, every left-winger was accused of being a communist. Now, to this government and the mainstream media, every right-winger is a fascist.”
And yet Mr Valls also has a point. France’s economic sufferings are fusing with contempt for President Hollande to dissolve barriers between radical, but respectable, conservatism and violent, new extremes (even more extreme than the National Front). This, in itself, is reminiscent of the poisonous politics of France in the 1930s.Centre-right and even far-right politicians, such as the National Front’s Marine Le Pen, are torn between condemning and trying to channel the new radicalism. One name connects a number of recent events or phenomena, including the rise of the anti-Semitic comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’Bala and the anti-Jewish banners and chanting on last week’s march. It also arises in connection with a recent obscene internet and text campaign which persuaded hundreds of French parents that the government wanted primary school children to masturbate in class.
The common factor is Alain Soral, a 55-year-old Franco-Swiss ex-communist who preaches a new and virulent form of French nationalism. His declared aim is to unite poor people – white, brown and black – in a revolt against the “dictatorship” of capitalists, progressives, Jews and gays. Mr Soral, an avowed anti-Semite and “national socialist”, is Dieudonné’s political guru. He was long regarded as a marginal figure. No more.
Mr Valls accused him yesterday of creating a new “abscess of rampant hatred” in France. “Alain Soral, through his use of the net, the networks he has created, is uniting and federating an unprecedented front of extremes,” Mr Valls said.
Mr Soral had no connection with yesterday’s march. It was mischievous of Mr Valls to imply that he did. But many of yesterday’s marchers nevertheless swallow wholesale the distortions pedalled by Mr Soral and by Catholic extremists in recent months on “la théorie du genre” – or gender theory. They demanded the withdrawal of a pilot programme in four areas of France which seeks to steer primary school boys and girls away from gender stereotypes.
This apparently modest programme consists of trying to persuade girls that they can perfectly well drive tractors and boys that they can be ballet dancers if they want to. Harmless? Not as far as the marchers were concerned.
Adèle, 42, demonstrating with her three small children yesterday, said: “What they are really trying to do is to destroy the family. It is all part of the same plan as the gay marriage law, to impose a completely new set of values on French society.”
It was this programme which was the subject of the obscene rumour spread by text and online a few days ago by Mr Soral’s lieutenant, Farida Belghoul. Texts, tweets and emails persuaded hundreds of mostly black and Muslim parents that there would be masturbation and cross-dressing in primary schools.
More moderate protesters against gender theory have been slow to repudiate the nonsense disseminated by Mr Soral and his friends.
Béatrice Bourges is the spokeswoman for Printemps Français (“French Spring”) one of the more radical groups behind yesterday’s march – and last week’s. She is currently on hunger strike demanding the impeachment of Mr Hollande by the national assembly.
She accuses the President of “bringing France to its knees” morally as well as economically – not because of his alleged affair with an actress but by “perverting the school system” to “destroy our families”.
One of France’s most popular conservative columnists, Ivan Rioufol, of Le Figaro, accused Ms Bourges and other radical Catholics this week of “undermining their own credibility” and “playing into the hands” of the government by failing to erect firewalls between their movement and racist, “plot-obsessed” extremists.
Ms Bourges told The Independent that she tried to stop the anti-Semitic outbreaks last week. She said she had “never met this man Soral”. But she refused to repudiate the campaign which persuaded hundreds of parents to take their children out of school.
“It performed a useful function in drawing attention to the dangers of gender theory and what the government is trying to do to the family in this country,” she said.

Ardersier offshore 'super hub' gets OK

The Port of Ardersier has been given consent by the Highland Council to turn the former oil fabrication yard on the Moray Firth into a “super-hub” for offshore wind.
The 160-hectare (400 acres) vacant site will be redeveloped into a manufacturing, assembly, operations and maintenance base.
The site, located 15 miles east of Inverness in northern Scotland, has a 1km deep-water quay and is ideally placed to service projects off Scotland’s east coast.
The Port of Ardersier Ltd, previously known as Whiteness Property, is now awaiting the green light from the Scottish government and regulators Marine Scotland and Transport Scotland for the offshore elements.
It is anticipated that these consents, a marine licence and a harbour revision order, could be in place in the coming weeks.
Last year Highlands and Islands Enterprise director

Making sense of the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman

I woke up this morning and pawed at my phone, lazily flicking through my news feed to osmotically absorb some pre-shower knowledge, when a wall of grief and lamentation hit me.
Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead in his bathroom, aged 46, surrounded by heroin-related ephemera. You've no doubt come to read this story on the back of hundreds of others, all laying out the facts and expressing sadness at the loss of such an incredible performer. You're right to feel sad; it's a stupid, tragic waste of life. This much is obvious.
In the moments before I told a close friend of mine the news, I grappled with how to best convey it. And after having seen headline after headline proclaiming the facts in the coldest, simplest way possible, I decided to simply blurt out, "Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead a few hours ago from an overdose". She took it the same way I did: quite badly. Not heaving, racking sobs, nor a call for smelling salts after having a turn near an antique sideboard, but a kind of quiet ennui. You know the kind; where you walk to work, or the kitchen, or wherever you happen to be headed, occasionally shaking your head and muttering "...damn it" to yourself. 
The internet, however, is a democracy. A filthy, fetid, unsettling democracy where pessimism, contrarianism and being an absolute arsehole is a given. So when expressing your three out of ten on the grieving scale today, you're almost certainly going to be thrown the following curveball from said quarter: why are you grieving? People die all the time. You didn't even know him. Why are famous people so important to you? There are wars going on! Get some perspective! And so on, and so forth, they'll batter away on their keyboards, no doubt flecked with spit and Dorito crumbs. And that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, just as you're entitled to want to reply to such admonishments by taking said keyboards and using them to 'get your pummel on', as absolutely nobody would ever put it.
Well, here's why I think these deaths affect us so much.
Wars rarely give us faces, or individuals, or personal stories. Wars give us numbers, and numbers are abstract. For example: the death toll in the ongoing Syrian nightmare is close to 100,000. The human brain isn't capable of putting a face on each of those numbers. Imagine getting on a train, and going from your home to another station half an hour away. Now imagine getting off at your destination. Your brain, no doubt, turned itself off for much of the trip, only taking in the crucial details. It's part of how we make sense of, and cope with, the world at large; by picking and choosing. 
It's a muscle, and we have little control over it. Now imagine taking in and processing and pouring over everything seen on that trip. Every tree, every building, every piece of graffiti. Every traffic light, every person on the train. Everything. Your brain instead decides to boil the entire trip down from billions of coruscating, fluctuating, infinitely complex details to a single thing: train trip. It's the same with deaths. Get above a certain number, and the brain pans out and makes things abstract. It's a coping mechanism, really.
But Philip Seymour Hoffman? If you're a cinema-goer, he's been in your life for years. He's portrayed the highly personable Dustin in Twister, the charmingly manic Brandt in The Big Lebowski, the tangled Scotty in Boogie Nights, the indelibly lovable Joseph Turner White inState and Main, the horrendously complex Truman Capote in Capote, the staggeringly dense Caden Cotard in Synecdoche, New York, and the magically true Lancaster Dodd in The Master, to name a few. 
So don't let anyone tell you that you don't know him, or that he didn't mean anything to you, or that his death isn't really affecting you. Performance delivered at the calibre Hoffman delivered every minute he was onscreen is true; acting is, when done right, just that: truth. He found the truth in his roles and drove it through the screen and punctured the part of you that feels, and perceives, and endures. He spoke to us, and he shan't be speaking to us anymore. But he's left a vast body of work, one that will be enjoyed and poured over for years to come.
He also left behind three young children and a partner. In short, he left behind a family, who are no doubt now going through the worst kind of grief, one being scrutinized and shared by the public. And I've seen an overwhelming amount of the following sentiment: he chose drugs over his family. The notion that one chooses to be addicted is at best naive and at worst idiotic; many factors can drive one to drugs, but the part of the brain that gets addicted... it's primal, and it's awful, and you can't reason with it. It becomes a constant struggle, and one shouldn't be berated or vilified for falling in such a battle. But addiction doesn't discriminate between rich and poor. And drugs can find a stranglehold anywhere. Yesterday, the Sun Herald revisited a now iconic and tragic photo taken of a 15-year-old boy being shot up with heroin back in the '90s in Sydney. Within hours, across the globe, a beloved performer with a family, friends and legions of fans would die from an overdose. That 15-year-old, Andrew Johnson, is now a 31-year-old homeless man addicted to heroin. The notion that this could happen to literally anyone, even those with infinite potential and abundant opportunities, might also explain why these deaths hit home so hard: they scare us. And they should. They're reminders. They're lessons. And you're allowed to feel them, and react to them, however you choose.
I don't really have much more to say. I know people who struggle with addiction, and who've been affected by drugs. I guess I'm inclined to fall back on an old truism, but one that I sincerely believe: take care of people around you. If you see someone struggling, or if they come to you for help, don't berate them. They're sick, and they're worth helping. Addiction is an illness, and the death of a seemingly stable creative juggernaut and father of three, wanting for nothing (at least outwardly) should be a stark reminder that love and vigilance are vital allies.

Knowing your place

It's 10 years since parenting educator Michael Grose wrote When First Borns Rule the World and Last Borns Want to Change It. Recently, he's been considering a sequel titled ''When birth order doesn't apply''.
Birth-order theory, which has been around since the late 1800s, posits that the family position you are born into, leaves an indelible mark on your behaviour and personality. First borns turn into responsible leaders, middle children into diplomatic negotiators and last borns become charming challengers of authority. These stark differences in personality are explained by differences in parental attention and interaction with siblings.
Common changes in family structure, such as an increase in single-parent households, step-families, blended families and smaller family sizes with one or two children, can create mixed effects. "If there's a big gap before the youngest is born, that last born can become like a first born, receiving similar levels of parental attention," Grose says. "If the first born is a boy and the second born a girl, and if the age gap between them is small, the girl can end up more like a first born, due to girls' earlier maturation. In blended families, you can get children jostling to keep their position. The position a child is most reluctant to give up is being the youngest."
It's not that birth order is irrelevant, Grose says, it's just one filter to apply to family dynamics. "Regardless of family size or structure, you'll still get children trying to carve out their niche - if someone is already the responsible one good at school, then the next child will specialise in something else. And there'll still be the influence of parental experience, with first-time parents prone to placing more pressure and anxiety on themselves and their first child." Parenting tips, such as ''ease up on your first born'' and ''make sure you spend one-to-one time with middle children, who can feel ignored'', still count as sound, commonsense advice.
Is birth-order effect real? While decades of research exists that seems to confirm the effects of birth order, much of it is flawed by failing to take into account confounding factors such as family size and socio-economic factors, according to Dr Joshua Hartshorne, a postdoctoral fellow at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"There is compelling evidence though, that eldest siblings tend to be (very, very slightly) smarter than their younger siblings. There is also recent evidence that eldest siblings do better in school, and that younger siblings are more likely to be risk takers and get into trouble at earlier ages."
Hartshorne's research has demonstrated that birth order affects relationship choices. "In two large surveys, we found that people are more likely to form close platonic and romantic relationships with other people of the same birth order. First borns were more likely to associate with first borns, middle borns with middle borns, last borns with last borns, and only children with only children. This is most likely due to effects of birth order on personality. Contrary to popular perceptions, same personalities attract."


Beating the baby blues



“It is believed that at the baby’s birth a ‘guilt chip’ is inserted into every mother.”

This is a quote from a new book about dealing with the depression that can affect one in ten women either during pregnancy or after the birth of their child. It’s a line that’s funny enough to raise a smile – unless you’re a woman with post natal depression (PND) who’s afraid that her depressive symptoms have harmed her baby. Mothers can feel guilt for lots of reasons but for a woman with PND it often comes from a fear that her depression has broken the mother-baby bond, causing psychological damage to her child as a result, says psychiatrist Gordon Parker, Scientia Professor of Psychiatry at the University of NSW and one of the authors of Overcoming the Baby Blues, a new book about coping with depression in pregnancy or after the birth.



This guilt, along with the stigma that still clings to mental illness, can discourage many women from getting the help they need to get well, he argues.
Advertisement

“But even if a mother has depression for the first few weeks or months after the birth, once she’s recovered the bond can be restored,” he says. “What stops some women from getting treatment is the fear of having the baby taken away if there are doubts about her ability to cope. Yet it’s only in extreme cases of mental illness that government services are likely to be called in and while this intervention is rare, it’s generally supportive.”

PND often comes as a complete surprise, affecting women who’ve had no problems with depression before.

“It seems to come out of nowhere but when you take a history you often find that someone in the family had a problem with depression so there’s often a genetic predisposition that loads the gun while hormonal changes in pregnancy fire the bullet,” says Parker, Professorial Fellow at the Black Dog Institute.

Along with genes, other risk factors include hormonal influences including a thyroid imbalance or being prone to PMS, having a traumatic delivery or a caesarean and extreme fatigue or insomnia after the birth.

Women who tend to be perfectionist or anxious can also become depressed if life with a new baby feels out of control, he says.

As for women who have experienced depressive episodes before they become pregnant, in his experience they often manage to get through pregnancy without medication – although they’re still at risk of developing post-natal depression.

“Women often say ‘I’m thinking of getting pregnant – should I stop taking medication?’ If they have serious and difficult to treat depressive episodes I’d advise them to stay on it. But with milder depression, my approach is to taper them off their medication and only reintroduce an anti-depressant if depression re-emerges,” he says.

That’s not to say that pregnancy guarantees a good mood that lasts for nine months - many normal aspects of pregnancy can make women feel down like lack of sleep, fatigue and trying to adjust to a changing body.

“Women often sleep poorly during pregnancy not because they’re depressed but because they’re pregnant and poor sleep can lead to depression-like symptoms or increased levels of body chemicals that can cause these symptoms,” he says. “So when symptoms of low mood appear in pregnancy it’s important to talk to your doctor to find out what’s going on – is it depression, the pregnancy itself or just disturbed sleep?”

Overcoming Baby Blues by Professor Gordon Parker, Kerrie Eyers and Professor Philip Boyce is published by Allen & Unwin, $27.99

How make-up changes us

Make-up makes its mark. It affects how we are perceived and how we perceive ourselves.
But, is it as important as cosmetics companies might have us believe?
A new infographic offers insight into the impact of make-up over time.
The graphic (which you can see in full below), created for cosmetics retailer Space NK, shows the first recorded use of make-up was 1400BC.The chart also shows that eye make-up - ahead of foundation and lipstick - is seen as making the most beneficial difference to appearance, women who wear make-up tend to earn more and we spend an average of $230,000 on cometic products over our lifetime.
It shows that, at least in one experiment, women wearing make-up were hit on in bars 33 per cent more often, and that make-up, by heightening contrast, can make us appear more feminine and youthful.
Make-up not only changes others' perception of us, according to the research, it also changes our perception of ourselves.
When women wear make-up they tend to see themselves in a more objective light and are likely to feel more self-confident and sociable.
War paint is our friend, it seems.
The information in the chart makes a compelling argument for buying make-up, which presumably is the point. However, it inadvertently accentuates concerning aspects of our culture.
In a survey of British teenagers, appearance was rated above support of family and having a rewarding job when it came to factors affecting self-esteem.
Similarly worrying was a survey of US women in which 50 per cent of respondents had negative feelings about their physical appearance without make-up.
Although clearly not its aim, the new graphic highlights a fundamental flaw in how many women view themselves. Make-up is great fun and there is nothing wrong with enhancing our best bits, but using it as the basis for self-worth is problematic.
Perhaps we need to address the shaky foundations of our self-worth instead of simply covering up the problem, so to speak.
It's always worth remembering that, despite cosmetic and beauty campaigns suggesting otherwise, appearance is not the most important thing if we're talking about living a good life. Feeling good about ourselves is.
Studies show that confidence and the ability to smile with sincerity have greater impact than appearance when it comes to success in work, in love, and our sense of well-being.
One study of a group of women over 30 years found that those who displayed genuinely happy smiles reported happier marriages and greater well-being.
The smiling women were also judged to be more competent and positive by strangers than those who didn't.
Basing our self-esteem on feeling good in our skin and on the ability to beam from within - now that's a good base for a foundation.