Er, we’re the same age (well, born in the same month anyway). And are therefore of the same generation. Here’s what the Pew Research Center has to say about us…

President George W. Bush’s 60th birthday, celebrated today, July 6, 2006, places him among the leading ranks of the nation’s 75 million baby boomers as they march into their senior years. A Pew Research Center survey finds many boomers are looking ahead to their own retirement while balancing a full plate of family responsibilities — either raising minor children or providing financial and other forms of support to adult children or to aging parents. The baby boomers currently range in age from 41 through 60 and, like middle-aged generations before them, they are in a stage of life when it is natural to give more than to take when it comes to family relationships. However, changing demographics within families have prolonged for boomers this period of being “sandwiched” between the needs of their parents and their children. In the past year, 50% of all boomers were raising one or more young children and/or providing primary financial support to one or more adult children, while another 17% whose only children are ages 18 and older were providing some financial assistance to at least one such child. In addition, the survey finds that two-in-ten boomers were providing some financial help to a parent. Few boomers bear all these responsibilities simultaneously; about 13% are providing some financial support to a parent at the same time as they are also either raising a minor child or supporting an adult child…

In Latin at least seven words are needed to express the sentence “If only you two thieves had drowned yourselves”, but in Greek only four.

Robert Graves and Alan Hodges, Reader over your shoulder: An intelligent layman’s guide to literature, Jonathan Cape, 1947, page 5.

There’s a nice saying in Irish –“tosnu maith leath na hoibre”, which basically means “a good start is half the labour”. Every writer knows that in his/her bones: if you can figure out how to start a piece, then you’re half-way there.

I thought of this today when reading Steve Shapin’s lovely opening to his London Review of Books review of Don’t You Have Time to Think?: The Letters of Richard Feynman. Here it is:

Should you win the Nobel Prize in physics, a lot of people will get in touch. Some of them will be former students (wishing you well); some will be colleagues (saying they wish you well). Presidents and prime ministers, who have no clue what it is you’ve done, will write, expressing the nation’s gratitude for whatever it is you’ve done. Childhood friends will write, saying they knew that nerdiness presaged Nobelity. Old schoolteachers will write, basking in reflected glory and taking their share of credit. The in-laws will write, implicitly retracting their former low opinion of their child’s choice. From all over the world complete strangers will write, requesting photographs and autographs and asking for validation of a totally original unified field theory that somehow escaped Einstein’s attention. Fathers of miserably lonely adolescent geeks will write, wondering whether it will turn out all right. And so too will the adolescent geeks themselves, asking what you were like at their age and whether you think they’ve got a genuine vocation for science…

Nice, isn’t it?

Woody Allen, on The Nietsche Diet Book…

No philosopher came close to solving the problem of guilt and weight until Descartes divided mind and body in two, so that the body could gorge itself while the mind thought, Who cares, it’s not me. The great question of philosophy remains: If life is meaningless, what can be done about alphabet soup? It was Leibniz who first said that fat consisted of monads. Leibniz dieted and exercised but never did get rid of his monads—at least, not the ones that adhered to his thighs. Spinoza, on the other hand, dined sparingly because he believed that God existed in everything and it’s intimidating to wolf down a knish if you think you’re ladling mustard onto the First Cause of All Things…

Lovely column by Richard Williams. Sample:

In the aftermath of a punishing defeat, no man should be called to account for his impromptu remarks. But when Frank Lampard said on Saturday night that England had “deserved” to win the match in which defeat had just eliminated them from the World Cup, he was inadvertently exposing the problem at the heart of the team’s consistent inability to scale the highest peaks.

David Beckham had used the same word earlier in the campaign. England would get to the World Cup final, the captain said, because they “deserved” to be there. Since no deeper analysis was forthcoming, his listeners were left to infer that the evidence in support of his contention might have included any or all of the following: England’s historic role as the game’s mother country; the vast popularity of the Premiership at home and abroad; the inflated pay and celebrity status of its players; and the attention lavished on the public appearances of their wives and girlfriends…

Williams has been consistently accurate and detached about the reality distortion field which surrounded the England team from the outset.

… leave nothing to chance. In fact they will stop at nothing. For example, they even used database technology to brief their goalie. You think I jest? Well, read this:

The full story of Lehmann’s preparation emerged yesterday. He won the 1997 Uefa Cup with Schalke against Internazionale after making a penalty save. His manager at Schalke was Huub Stevens, who is responsible for a personal database of 13,000 penalty kicks. Lehmann used this archive against Inter and, prior to the Argentina game, he telephoned Stevens.

The 36-year-old goalkeeper already had the benefit of the German FA’s database – they had copied Stevens’ approach – and having collated the information about who takes Argentina’s penalties and how they take them, Germany’s goalkeeping coach Andreas Kopke wrote it on a piece of paper ripped from a hotel notepad. On it was written details such as “[Julio] Cruz – stand tall, don’t move, dive right”.

For Argentina’s second penalty-taker, Roberto Ayala, it said: “Ayala – look at shooting foot, left low.” Sure enough, Ayala placed the ball low to Lehmann’s left and it was advantage Germany.

When Maxi Rodríguez walked up to strike the third, Lehmann knew it would be “hard, right”. He went the correct way and was unlucky not to make the save. But after Borowski had made it 4-2, Esteban Cambiasso had to score to keep Argentina in the tournament. Lehmann’s notes said: “Wait, stand tall, left corner.” He duly made an impressive stop to his left.

Honestly — databases! It’s just not cricket.

This is what a day looks like. An original — and oh so simple — idea. Thanks to Quentin for the link.

Er, surprise, surprise. Rob Smyth (whose live Blog I have enjoyed) signs off.

The pantomime villain Ronaldo wins it with an excellent penalty, to Robinson’s left, and it’s the same, same old story for England. Gerrard and Lampard took awful penalties, but there was big controvery over Jamie Carragher’s miss. Lampard and Gerrard are motionless, broken, it’s horrible and a little poignant. Rio is crying violently; fate has merked him, and it’s harsh because, quietly, he had an excellent tournament. Ultimately, however, England found their level – the quarter-finals – and all the bluster and blame and bull****, particularly over Rooney’s sending off, we will get over the next few days can’t disguise it: that dullard idiot Eriksson has trousered £4m a year to do something that you or I could have done. I’m off to drown sorrows I didn’t realise I’d have at this result. Thanks for your emails – Rob.

Now for the next act in the pantomime — the tabloids which fuelled the preposterous fantasy that England could win the Cup, turn inwards — on Eriksson, the robotic manager; on the players; on the referees; on the Portuguese manager with his absurd Evelyn Waugh moustache; and on anybody else even remotely responsible for the defeat. Except, of course themselves.

Later… I’m not terribly interested in football, and am conscious of the fact that I’m pretty ignorant about it. So when I first saw England play and thought they looked terribly pedestrian I kept my views to myself. After all, what do I know about it? But having watched the France-Brazil game tonight it really does seem extraordinary that large numbers of apparently sensible people believed that the England squad was in the same league as France or Brazil. Now that England is out, I guess we can expect lots of people coming out of the woodwork saying that they had known all along that Eriksson & Co weren’t up to scratch. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. And of course, Eriksson had a contract ensuring that, whatever happened, he would cry all the way to the bank.

Well, well. According to the New York Times,

Lawrence J. Ellison, chief executive of the Oracle Corporation and one of the world’s wealthiest people, has decided not to donate $115 million to Harvard as he announced he would last year, the company confirmed yesterday.

Harvard had planned to use the donation, which would have been the largest single philanthropic donation the university had ever received, to establish the Ellison Institute for World Health, a research organization devoted to examining the efficiency of global health projects.

Mr. Ellison decided to cancel his plans for the donation after the resignation in February of Lawrence H. Summers, the president of Harvard, amid a storm of controversy.

Mr. Summers’s five-year tenure at Harvard was characterized by attempts to change the university’s culture and by a personal style that alienated some professors. He also had missteps, like his remarks suggesting that “intrinsic aptitude” could help explain why fewer women than men reached the highest ranks of science and math in universities.

“Larry Summers was the brainchild of this project,” Bob Wynne, a spokesman for Oracle, said yesterday. “His departure is what caused Larry Ellison to decide against making the donation.”

After watching the (excellent) World Cup match between France and Spain (which France won convincingly), I sent a text message to a friend currently holidaying in Santander saying “I guess the Spanish Samaritans will be leaving the phone off the hook tonight”.

Back came the reply: “Difficult night for the Basques — wanting both sides to lose”.