Alex Massie

Bad news from Washington where Christopher Hitchens has announced that he's being treated for cancer of the oesophagus. Not good, not least because the survival rates aren't too pretty. As Christopher put it: "I have been advised by my physician that I must undergo a course of chemotherapy on my esophagus. This advice seems persuasive to me. I regret having had to cancel so many engagements at such short notice." Well, it would seem persuasive wouldn't it? One trusts and hopes he will rout it as utterly and completely as he enjoys setting about his foes in print. If you've not read them before, you can spend a very enjoyable afternoon browsing Hitch's back-catalogue of literary essays for the Atlantic. And of course there's his memoir too.

Meanwhile, good sense vis a vis the criminal justice system is going viral at an alarming rate. At the Scottish Parliament MSPs voted  - 63-61 - to reject a (typically illiberal) Labour amendment (backed by the Tories too) that would have imposed mandatory six month prison terms for anyone found carrying a knife in a public place. And now they've only gone and endorsed a proposal that creates the presumption that prison sentences of fewer than three months are generally to be avoided on the reasonable grounds that they don't do much good for or to anyone. It's probably necessary, alas, to point out that opposing mandatory minimum sentences for carrying a blade does not mean one supports blade-carrying or stabbing.

Yes, it might well, nay would, have changed the momentum of the game*. No, video technology is not needed (not least because it hasn't improved any game in which it has been introduced). And anyway, to adapt Wodehouse, what you gain on the roundabouts of 1966 you lose on the swings of 2010. Consider this, then, an open thread to moan about the World Cup:   *I didn't actually see it since I was playing cricket. Against Langholm. We won. I took, rather astonishingly, two wickets. It should have been three. Or even four. But that would be greedy and massively above and beyond expectations.

A terrific, if gloomy, Afghanistan dispatch from William Dalrymple, published by our friends over at the New Statesman. I don't know how useful comparisons with the First Afghan War are but the psychology of occupation is a different matter: The following morning in Jalalabad, we went to a jirga, or assembly of tribal elders, to which the greybeards of Gandamak had come under a flag of truce to discuss what had happened the day before. The story was typical of many I heard about the current government, and revealed how a mixture of corruption, incompetence and insensitivity has helped give an opening for the return of the once-hated Taliban.

Yesterday there was some chatter that the smart thing would be for General Stanley McChrystal to offer his resignation but for President Barack Obama to decline it. That had the advantage of cuteness, but I'm not sure it was ever feasible and not least because, as best I can tell, the more military-minded an observer is the more certain they were that the general had to go. It is not, evidently, an ideal situation. Of course it isn't, it's Afghanistan. Nevertheless, from both a political and military perspective replacing McChrystal with General David Petraeus is as close to a win-win result as its possible to salvage from this clusterfuck brouhaha. It covers the President on both fronts.

Like many people, I've rarely been wholly convinced by George Osborne. So let it be said that this budget was perhaps his finest hour. Happily, there is something for everyone to complain about. It would be wrong if this were not the case. I suppose Osborne could have avoided putting up VAT (to 20%) had he not exempted the National Health Service from the consequences of his axe-wielding. Politically, however, one can see why this was a gamble too far. Nevertheless, this was, on the face of it, a good budget. Four out of every five pounds in savings come from spending restraint, not tax rises and this seems to strike the right balance.