Alex Massie

What is the point of airport security? It's most important job, it seems to me, is not to deter or even prevent terrorism but to remind the public that there is a terrorist threat. If this was true before the Knicker-Bomber it's even more clearly the case now. That's not just because Mr Abdulmutallab was able to board his flight to Detroit but because it's apparent, if this was ever in doubt, that just three things have improved airline security since 9/11: reinforced cockpit doors, the increased vigilance of other passengers and the incompetence shown by at least some of the would-be bombers. The rest is just security theatre. (See Bruce Schneier for more on this.) Tedious and dispiriting and muddle-headed as it is, however, this security theatre does serve a purpose.

So, dear and gentle reader*, here's wishing you a splendid and very merry Christmas. Thanks for being here this year and for all your comments and contributions to this blog. It's not the same without you. Anyway, here are Shane and Kirsty performing one of the few Christmas songs worth a damn.   *Not actually a description that fits all of you but, hey, season of goodwill to all men and all that...

It's that time of year. There'll be only a little blogging here until Christmas is done for one more time. So here, as the season demands, is a wee quiz to keep you occupied. You could, I suppose, google some of the answers but where's the fun or satisfaction in that? So don't google. No prizes save the glory I'm afraid: It's Just For Fun. But if you feel like emailing me your answers that would be fine. Otherwise, tough as this must seem, you'll have to wait until the New Year before the answers are published. Have at it... 1.  What's the connection between Dartford, St Pancras North, Beaconsfield and Edinburgh South? 2. Can you identify a dog's skipper, a military bridge, a fish and an oil field? Where might you find them together? 3.

Just realised that today is the twentieth anniversary of Samuel Beckett's death. Only twenty years! Seems like it should be longer, somehow, since the finest cricketer to have won the Nobel prize for literature finally gave in to the temptation of not going on. Then again, most of the old boy's best work did belong to a much earlier age... Here's a clip of John Hurt as Krapp. The subtitles are in Finnish.

On the one hand you have Jacques Kallis, on the other Chris Gayle. Together they remind one that there are many ways to play the game. And, also, that individual brilliance may manifest itself in ways that do not always help the team as much as quieter, more sustained application might. That may seem a churlish observation since one has just watched Chris Gayle score 102 off a mere 70 deliveries. And in some ways it is churlish, not least because Gayle's innings was one of the most thrilling one has seen in years. In terms of deliveries faced it was the fifth fastest century ever; if he could ever bat a full session he might one day score a 100 before lunch. There's the rub: in 149 innings for the West Indies, Gayle has lasted more than 100 deliveries just 33 times.

Having endured a miserable time of it last time he was in England, there was a typically Kallisian probability that the bugger would grind his way to a century today. And so he did. It had everything you'd expect from a Kallis innings - which is both a compliment and thin praise indeed. Naturally the commentators were united in praising the South African as a true modern great, "up there with the best of them". But is this true? No-one ever said of Kallis, as Cardus did of Woolley, that his batting is the stuff of "soft airs and fresh flavours" nor does it even contain "the brevity of summer" which also accounted for Woolley's loveliness. For the truth is that Kallis is not a lovely batsman. He possesses many virtues but chief among them is his quiet efficiency.