Whenever I’m feeling low (as I do at the moment), Frank Zappa’s cool and reasoned arguments in the face of America’s moral majority (represented by John Lofton) never fails to raise my spirits.

I don’t usually write about soccer on this blog but the hand of Henry debate stretches far beyond the usual parameters of sport into moral questions of right vs wrong; guilt vs innocence, truth vs lies and big business vs the little guys.

The immediate reaction of Irish fans to the blatant hand ball prior to France’s decisive goal was of disgust and rage, In some quarters this led to a furious rejection of all things French – wine, kisses , letters, you name it.

Thierry Henry, the man at the centre of the storm, is trying to avoid a Maradona effect, whereby his career would be forever blighted by this case of creative cheating. He claims that it was an instinctive reaction and not deliberate although if you watch the replay, the first looks like carelessness but the second is a blatant scoop to keep the ball in play.

John Henry in the traditional folk song and Thierry Henry of the mediocre national squad are both villains and both are desperate men. Thierry has cleverly described calls by Ireland’s call for a replay as fair and reasonable safe in the knowledge that FIFA were guaranteed to reject this demand.

England’s ex-golden boy Gary Linekar and a top Guardian sports critic have commented that the onus should be on players to own up to crimes of this magnitude and confess to the referee at once. With the stakes so high this in pie in the sky stuff. Some have suggested that the referee’s blind eye was deliberate and with the newly emerging scandal about match rigging, this can’t be entirely ruled out.

But when the dust has settled, I think the key issue to come out of this squalid affair is the FIFA cannot continue to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to use video technology to avoid such major controversies. With the World Cup in South Africa looming, what sense does it make that millions watching at home can immediately witness an injustice but one individual is left to make a snap decision based on what he sees in real time.

Admittedly, this may slow the game down a little – I can see the risk that players will make a TV mime to the ref every time there’s a foul, offside claim or penalty dispute. But for the sake of the game, a trial period should be set to establish a system whereby a fourth official is able to whisper into the ear of the man in black : “You might want to look at this!”

Well worth reading a great (and rare)  interview with Cormac McCarthy in the Wall Street Journal on the eve of the release of the movie version of The Road.

McCarthy comes across as someone with a finely tuned bullshit detector. He drew upon his own relationship with his young son for his post apocalyptic masterpiece. I was particularly touched by what he said when asked about the reaction to the novel from other fathers:

“I have the same letter from about six different people. One from Australia, one from Germany, one from England, but they all said the same thing. They said, “I started reading your book after dinner and I finished it 3:45 the next morning, and I got up and went upstairs and I got my kids up and I just sat there in the bed and held them.”

In her book ‘Slanted and Enchanted : The Evolution of Indie Culture’, Kaya Oakes sets out to find out exactly what ‘indie’ means these days.

Oakes’ qualifications for this mission are that she teaches writing at the University of California, Berkeley and is a co-founder of the Kitchen Sink magazine (“for people who think too much”) where she is now senior editor.

Oakes’ well honed journalistic skills mean that she is able to give a pretty good, if slightly stodgy, overview of the topic. I think the writing should have been livelier and some of the conclusions struck me as overly clichéd and predictable. When she writes things like how there is a need to find “an identity in the increasingly consumerist and conservative culture of the late eighties“, it reads too much like a sociological text-book.

Also, since most of her examples come from in and around the Bay Area, she doesn’t  really give enough insights into how indie perceptions vary throughout America. When she does venture further afield she stays in safe hipster territory of cities like Brooklyn, Portland, Olympia and Seattle.  This is a weakness because I’m sure the youth culture in these cities are a world away from that of middle America. Oakes admits herself, for example, that  Berkeley has “general tolerance for freakishness in young people” which means the kids regard creativity and experimentation as a right rather than a luxury.

On a more positive note, Oakes deserves credit for  broadening the narrative of ‘indie culture’ beyond the already well documented underground music culture. So, whilst the descriptions of Post-Punk, Indie Rock and the Riot Grrrl phenomenon take up over a third of the book, she also covers  fanzines, comix and home-made crafts. She shows how fanzines and small presses played a significant role in the creation of independent culture in the eighties and nineties.  As one of the  main players, Lawrence Livermore, says: “zines were the MySpace of those days”.

And,after a day at the 2008 Renegade Craft Fair in (you guessed it !) San Francisco she concludes that “crafting is a kind of backlash against the accelerated nature of consumer culture in the 21st century”.

At the start of the book, Oakes quotes the assertion by one of her students that “indie’s really just hipsters in skinny jeans”. This she rightly regards as proof that corporate America has effectively co-opted indie values and used them as a basis for  niche marketing. Despite this, she argues persuasively that the disdain for the business orientated mainstream and faith in DIY remains as strong as ever.

The resistance to indie as a brand is reflected in the Kitchen Sink magazine section on music reviews (Louder Than Words) where editor Jeff Johnson maintains defiantly that “we resist the commodification of what interests us”.

Oakes ends on the upbeat reflection that despite the exploitation of indie culture there is strong evidence that individuals are able to change and adapt in the present economic climate. She ends by asserting that  “independence means rebellion, risk, tenacity, innovation and resistance to convention.”. Amen to that.

Woody Allen’s once quipped  ”I’m not afraid of dying; I just don’t want to be there when it happens”. This is a similar rationale that you also find in a corny joke I remember hearing, on the Dave Allen Show I think, when one man says to another – “I’d like to know where I’m going to die” – “What for?” asks the other. The man replies “Because I won’t go there!”

Behind this black humour lies the very real fear of the when, where and how we will die. These are not happy thoughts, of course, and for the sake of sanity they are questions most people (myself included) prefer to put to the back of their minds.

I admire the philosophy of my mother who at the ripe old age of 81 has just bought a new car and continues to plan holidays and excursions as if she had another 30 years to live (given her stubbornness and hardy constitution, who’s to say she’s wrong!).

There will come a time, however, when the inevitable must be faced and so I was moved by bravery of a couple from Berkshire, who this week chose to end their lives despite the fact that they were still in relatively good heath.

Dennis and Flora Milner, who were aged 83 and 81 respectively,  wrote to the BBC explaining their decision : “we can no longer attain the desired and acceptable level to support an enjoyable and worthwhile life”.

Daughter Chrissy, who knew what they planned to do (but not when) gave a short and dignified interview in which she said that it was her parents’ intention to have a “good death” at the end of their happy and devoted  life together. A BBC booklet ‘planning a good death’ is available but obviously the advice doesn’t include suicide.

UK legislation currently classifies any assisted suicide as a criminal offence.  For this reason, many choose to go to Swiss clinics where it is legal.  This option is only available to those who have the financial means and can come to terms to dying a long way from their homes.

The moral questions and dilemmas highlighted by the Milners story are huge, but , as Chrissy Milner says,  there needs to be an urgent debate with a view to adding clear and rational legislation to the statute books. The work of the organisation  Dignity in Dying is vitally important in putting pressure on the government and highlighting the plight of ordinary people who don’t want to end their lives in degrading and painful circumstances.

Image = Plate 37 from William Blake’s ‘Jerusalem’