Umberto Eco recently gave a lecture at the newly opened Biblioteca Alexandrina in Alexandria, Egypt on the subject of memory, specifically written memory and the effect of online writing on books.

As could be expected from such a great scholar as Eco, he raises many interesting points. For example the contrast of the 'mineral memory' of the early Egyptian civilisation as preserved on obelisks, monuments and temples to the 'vegetal memory' of the nomadic civilisations of the Jewish/Islamic tradition which instead treated books and scrolls with reverence.

But the most interesting part of the article for me dealt with the philosphical difference between books and online texts, and to what extent online writing can provide an 'open' system as opposed to the inevitable 'closed' linear form of the book. His comparison principally related to fiction. For example, an online reader could in principle be able to experience alternative versions of the same story through hypertextual jumps in the same way as a jazz standard could be heard in an infinite number of ways as a musician improvises through a set of predefined scales.

Hypertextual fiction sounds a bit fanciful to me, but in non-fiction terms it strikes me that blogging is already providing an analogue.

An objective story is interpreted in a number of different ways by first-tier sources such as news agencies and newspapers. These are then commented on by a broad range of commentators across the blogosphere. A reader has the freedom to move through a choice of commentaries via hypertext links to generate a point of view on the original story. The reader's choice of links could influence the portrayal of the story from a political or cultural point of view, for example. Newspapers gave this option of open-ness to people in the past but only in a limited way. Convenience or lack of funds would prevent most people from having access to multiple written points of view in the past. Blogging gives people easy access to any number of immediately accessible opinions limited only by the amount of time the reader wishes to dedicate to them.

In spite of my left-leaning politics, the ease of access to well-argued right-wing points of view has been a revelation to me and has been a major factor in reawakening my interest in politics. In many ways I prefer to read the better written and argued of the right-wing blogs as they continually make me reassess my assumptions to ensure that I am not merely knee-jerking my way into a predictable line of thinking. If I was to buy one newspaper though, it would be a left-leaning one which would limit my exposure to other points of view.

In this way I think the weblog revolution offers a true step forward in political dialogue and argument, subverting the real-world partisan barriers to debate for the many with open minds, who are ready to leave no stones unturned in the search for battle-hardened convictions which have earned their stripes in the hack-and-slash of open debate.

Q Magazine, the best-selling music magazine in the UK, recently published its top 1001 songs of all time. Big deal you say. Another excuse to trail out the old favourites - 'Stairway...' at number one, 'Bohemian Rhaspody' a nailed on each way bet, but hang on a minute!. Here's the top ten:-

1. One - U2
2. I Say A Little Prayer - Aretha Franklin
3. Smells Like Teen Spirit - Nirvana
4. A Day In The Life - The Beatles
5. In The Ghetto - Elvis Presley
6. My Name Is - Eminem
7. Creep - Radiohead
8. Independent Women Part 1 - Destiny's Child
9. Live Forever - Oasis
10. River Deep Mountain High - Ike and Tina Turner

???!

Where did these come from?? I've can only remember 3, 4 and at a push 7 figuring in the top 100 of any such charts in the past.

What is behind such a bizarre list? I wouldn't expect 'One' to normally be in the top five of a list of best U2 tracks, similarly with 'In The Ghetto', and the least said about Destiny's Child and Eminem the better.

The issue is not, however, whether the choices are 'bad' or not - that's a matter of personal opinion, and given how much music is out there and the divergence in musical taste, such lists are always on a hiding to nothing. The interesting thing is how this list diverges so significantly from all other lists I've ever seen.

Maybe the reason for this lies partly in the source of the pool. They were voted for by Q journalists and a selection of chosen musicians rather than the general public. An enlightening quote also came from Q's editor-in-chief Paul Trynka:

"Our writers and experts weren't asked to name the most historic songs of all time - rather it was the songs they enjoy hearing songs you can use every day, whether that be on your Walkman or your brand new iPod."

I find this quite interesting. I think many polls couched in such terms as " What is the best song of all time?" make people try to make objective judgments rather than trusting their own gut feelings. This could lead to a bias towards the traditional favourites. For example, a person may like 'Stairway to Heaven' no more than many other songs which aren't so revered, but when asked what is the 'best' track may be nudged into selecting this one. Let's face it, the question's an unfair on to start with. It encourages such bias.

I wonder if the way people listen to music these days is changing things. Will the MP3 culture, and listening to customised selections of music through media players change the nature of how we evaluate music? The results of this poll may give such an idea some credence.

Last week's visit to the UK by George Bush left me with an unexpected range of emotions.

In spite of my extreme distaste for the Bush administration's policies, I don't believe, however, that stopping Bush from coming to the UK would be a good idea. What is the alternative? Would having him confined to the US make him more or less understanding of the fact that the rest of the world does not necessarily yearn to be American? The more outside contact he has and the more he gets to visit and speak to representatives of other points of view the better.

Tony Blair may have supported the war on Iraq, but to assume on this basis that he is simply a poodle and can have no influence is a very gross simplification. The UK's position over a potential conflict in Iran is clearly more on the Franco-German side of the divide, for example. Bush knows that if America's greatest ally were to fail to put it's hat in the ring, this would greatly undermine the regime's credibility at home. There is also some evidence that Blair may have Bush's ear over the Israel-Palestine issues, based on the language used in the Banqueting House speech and others in the wake of 9/11, which is a foot in the door which must be exploited at this critical juncture.

Unfortunately, the street protests were never going to emulate the potency of those held before the war. There are so many reasons to hate Bush that it proved impossible to impart a strong focus into the main demonstrations. There wasn't even a clear message as to what the protesters wanted this time. Did they want the US out of Iraq, or did they want them to stay and finish what they started? In the end the protesters came across as hating a man rather than his policies, and appeared spiteful as opposed to righteously angry.

Have any concessions been won to curb the excesses of the Bush regime in the course of the visit in exchange for the President's acquisition of a fancy photo album, ripe for exploitation in the coming election campaign? Nothing tangible at this stage, although that doesn't necessarily mean much. Subtle changes in positioning on geopolitical issues will only reveal themselves over time.

I was born into a world in which England were the reigning world soccer champions. By the time I was old enough to appreciate such things, the glory had disappeared, lost to the first in a series of humiliating defeats at the hands of Germany which punctuate my life history as tortuous milestones.

I don't remember England being world champions at any sport more important than lawn bowls or team darts in spite of England's great pride and obsession with all things sporting. I have followed England in every major sporting tournament, all of which have ended with tears of disappointment. Until yesterday.

England dragged themselves sweating, bleeding, and by the skin of their teeth to a well deserved title as world rugby champions. In a game that teetered along a knife edge from start to finish, Johnny Wilkinson's boot finally decided things one minute from the end of extra time.

Yesterday's game was a rite of passage, a rebirth of England's sporting self-respect, and as such it was fitting that it should have been so tough both physically and psychologically. It will inspire English teams for years to come, not only at international level, but also at the grassroots and, most importantly, in our schools. We can now shake the albatross of 'losing gracefully' from our necks and concentrate on the business of emulating this success in other sports.

Many will tell you that 1066 is the most famous date in English history. To our shame, however, the date most prominent in our national psyche is still 1966, the year we won the soccer world cup. Now at last we can give this date, tired from overuse, its proper historical resting place and think of November 22nd 2003 as the day England's sporting pride was restored. Let's hope it inspires many more great victories in the years to come from a generation of children who can grow up with the memory of yesterday's victory to spur them on.