David Charles is busy...

Cycling to the Sahara

2012-02-23T13:25:00.001Z

It is 1,279 miles from my house in London to the Saharan desert. I know what you're thinking - not far, eh?


My house	The Sahara

So I decided to cycle there.

I'm going to be doing all the usual live action twittering - @dcisbusy for that. Plus I'll be posting stories and photographs from the road up here whenever I can access an internet portal.

I'll (bike service permitting) be leaving tomorrow afternoon in time to catch the graveyard ferry from Newhaven to Dieppe in Normandy. It should look something like this:

But the beauty of cycling is in its unpredictability - starting now, as I nervously await the result of my bike service...

A massacre you haven't heard of yet: Camp Ashraf, Iraq

2012-01-22T14:38:00.000Z

What is Camp Ashraf?

Camp Ashraf is a community of 3,400 Iranian exiles and refugees who fled their country in the years following Iran's Islamic revolution. It is located 60km north of Baghdad, in Iraq.

http://ncr-iran.org/images/stories/2009/ashraf/asharf_map_300.jpg

Who lives there?

The camp is famous (or infamous) as a centre for the banned Iranian opposition group the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), also known as the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK). It has been described as the Iranian opposition's “headquarters”. The PMOI supports free elections, gender equality and equal rights for ethnic and religious minorities. The PMOI also advocates a free-market economy and peace in the Middle East.

In 1979, the PMOI were targeted in Iran by the new theocratic government of Ayatollah Khomeini. The PMOI fought back with their own terrorist attacks on the Iranian Islamic government. In the face of continued repression, the PMOI leadership eventually fled, first to France and then to Iraq where they established Camp Ashraf.

The PMOI were welcomed into Iraq by Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. Iraq, with Western backing, was at that time engaged in war with Iran. Saddam funded and armed the PMOI at Camp Ashraf: they had a common enemy in Iran.

Following the overthrow of Saddam, the US forces took responsibility for the security of Camp Ashraf. They granted the inhabitants “Protected Person” status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since the end of the US occupation, however, the Iraqi government has moved closer to Iran, putting the future of Camp Ashraf in doubt. The UK government takes the view that the Camp Ashraf “Protected Person” status no longer applies because the country is no longer in a state of war.

The PMOI were designated a terrorist organisation by the US in 1997, as a show of support for a (comparatively) moderate Iranian government at the time. The PMOI were also listed as terrorists by the EU in 2002, but this ruling was overturned in 2009. The PMOI are no longer considered a terrorist organisation by the EU or by the UK.

In May 2005, a Human Rights Watch report claimed that the PMOI were committing severe human rights violations against former PMOI members. This claim has been repudiated by the PMOI and a number of independent authorities, but the charge still stands.

There is no question that – as with all political groups across the world – there is much fault to be found within the PMOI. However, it would be a grievous mistake to confuse the protection of Camp Ashraf with politics. This is a mistake that could cost many lives.

The massacre of 2011

In April 2011, following a similar attack in 2009, Camp Ashraf was attacked by Iraqi forces. At least 47 residents were killed in these attacks and hundreds wounded. To compound these atrocities, the camp is currently under an Iraqi blockade, which prevents medical supplies from reaching the wounded. As a result of this blockade, at least 12 injured residents have died from treatable wounds in the past year. As recently as the 11th of January 2012, Iraqi forces prevented the entry of five special beds for paralysed patients.

The commander responsible for the 2011 massacre is being investigated by a Spanish court for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against international community.

The attack was documented in gruesome detail by the residents, sometimes recording at the cost of their own lives.

The massacre of 2012?

The Iranian government has been pressing Iraq to close Camp Ashraf, as its residents and the PMOI pose a direct ideological threat to the current theocratic regime in Iran. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has responded favourably to this pressure and vowed to close the camp by April 2012.

“Iraqis consider the [PMOI] as terrorists and criminals and don’t want this criminal group to remain on their soil… In April there will no longer be a Camp Ashraf.”

- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki

Maliki had previously promised that he would close the camp by the end of 2011. This threat has been postponed thanks to a last-minute arrangement with the UN. The UN was granted a six-month extension by Maliki, during which time the residents of Camp Ashraf will be transferred to a former US military base (ironically named “Camp Liberty”) and have their refugee status assessed by the UN.

On the 29th of December 2011, the first residents started to move to the new camp, as a “gesture of goodwill” according to PMOI leader Maryam Rajavi. However, these people have been prevented from transferring their assets and vehicles to their new homes. Furthermore, only a small area of the camp has been allocated to the refugees and cooking and water facilities are far worse than at Camp Ashraf. Camp Liberty is at risk of becoming a prison, surrounded by Iraqi police and armed forces.

Given the Iraqi government's record of massacre at Camp Ashraf, it is hard to imagine that the closure of the camp will pass off without bloodshed.

What can be done?

To prevent a massacre, there must be independent monitoring of the camp. Until 2009, this was the responsibility of the US forces based in Iraq. With the end of the US occupation, that protection is no longer there and Camp Ashraf is at the mercy of the Iraqi military. The people of Camp Ashraf have no means of physical protection.

The people of Camp Ashraf do not have UN refugee status. They do hold protected persons status, conferred under the Fourth Geneva Convention by the occupying US army. However, this status only applies under conditions of war. Therefore the people of Camp Ashraf have no protection under international law.

The removal of these two protections, physical and legal, means that the people of Camp Ashraf are increasingly vulnerable.

The solution is clear: for the UN to confer refugee status on camp as a whole and, in the meantime, to station a monitoring team on the ground to prevent a massacre. Then every member of the camp could be granted asylum in a democratic country – and not sent back to Iran to face punishment from the regime there. However, this simple solution is complicated by the status of PMOI as a terrorist organisation in the US.

Furthermore, the UN process of according refugee status will take a long time. The people of Camp Ashraf don't have a long time – they have only weeks, until April. In April, remember, Prime Minister Maliki has promised the end of Camp Ashraf, one way or another.

The Iran Liberty Association, the writing of this article and a metaphor

The Iran Liberty Association is a group that aims to promote human rights in Iran and to support Iranian refugees. They are very active on the streets of London. Five years ago, I was approached by a man from Iran Liberty on Tottenham Court Road, asking for my help. I must have given this man my contact details because, earlier this week, he phoned me back to see if we could meet up.

So I went to see him and, as we sat in the sunshine of Camden Lock, he told his story of Camp Ashraf. He showed me a video of the 2011 Iraqi attack on Camp Ashraf and he explained how the residents of the camp needed help raising funds to expedite their case at the UN, to bring their story to the world's media and to help prevent another massacre. He emphasised the importance of the people at the camp, describing them as intellectuals and defenders of freedom who formed the backbone of Iranian opposition to the oppressive regime in Tehran under President Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs.

There has been some suggestion on Internet message boards that Iran Liberty and Camp Ashraf are somehow fabrications, that they are a way of extracting money from unsuspecting wooly-headed liberals. A cursory investigation will convince even the most cynical that Camp Ashraf does indeed exist, is home to Iranian dissidents and is being targeted by Iraqi forces at the behest of the current government in Iran. Sources as diverse as The Daily Mail, the BBC and Amnesty International attest to this.

I am unable and (at least partially) unwilling to become too deeply embroiled in the political battles of a country so far from my own, that I understand so little, but I did promise that I would tell people about Camp Ashraf on my blog. This is where this article has grown from.

Also at our meeting was a gentleman who'd flown from Paris to contribute to the urgent Camp Ashraf campaign. He was a writer and poet, far more experienced than me, and he gave me as a parting gift a short story of his. I hope he won't mind if I share a quote with you.

The story is about a man who is staring into a goldfish bowl at a tiny little fish. The man watches as the fish explores his bowl, with its seaweed, pebbles and shells. But the little fish seems agitated, not quite content with his home. Day by day, hour by hour, the fish grows bigger and bigger and he starts to see the bowl as more like a cage than a home. Eventually, the fish grows so large that the bowl can't contain him any more. The man watches on as, with an almighty push of his fully-grown fins, the fish breaks clear of the water and out of his cage-bowl:

“The cage turns upside down. Its water pours into the room. You're busy flapping your wings. The water completely covers the room. It rises. It reaches the ceiling. When you've leapt through the windowpane, the sky is blue. You are lost among the clouds. And now I'm swimming in the waters of the room. I rise up. I move down. I near the walls of a glass and stare at someone who is staring at me from the other side. My fins are growing larger.”

The metaphor is strong, I think. For me, it shows how, when one group gains power and freedom, they may well drown their neighbours, but they also show the way.

The Mundane and the Sublime: What library data says about the human condition

2011-11-04T13:36:00.001Z

Today, I stumbled upon a list of the most common books stored in public libraries.

It strikes me, looking at the list, that these are our most precious books (in the Western tradition). These are the ones that have been chosen to be protected for eternity by our libraries.

As the list-makers say, these are "the intellectual works that have been judged to be worth owning by the 'purchase vote' of libraries around the globe."

The data is from 2005, but I don't think it will have changed much. Here's the top ten:

The Holy Bible [various]
US Census [various]
Mother Goose
Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri
Odyssey by Homer
Iliad by Homer
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Lord of the Rings [trilogy] by J. R. R. Tolkien
Hamlet by William Shakespeare
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

####

Now, for comparison, here's the top ten most loaned books from US libraries in 2009.

Run for Your Life by James Patterson & Michael Ledwidge
Cross Country by James Patterson
Finger Lickin' Fifteen by Janet Evanovich
The 8th Confession by James Patterson & Maxine Paetro
Plum Spooky by Janet Evanovich
Swimsuit by James Patterson & Maxine Paetro
The Shack by William P. Young
The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown
First Family by David Baldacci
The Associate by John Grisham

####

Now you might feel a certain depression looking down this list.

But I like it: the two lists represent the beautiful dichotomy of our humanity.

They represent the two worlds we have to manage every day, the two worlds of the mundane and the sublime. Only monks can spend all their time contemplating sublimity, the rest of us have spreadsheets and nappies and traffic jams to worry about.

But it's nice to know that, when we need them, our libraries guarantee the wonders of literature.

Like Mother Goose.

Most common books in US libraries (2005) This is actually a top 1001. It makes for fascinating reading.
Most loaned books from US libraries (2009) If you need a dose of mundanity, pick up one of these.

Bike around Britain @ 72,000 mph

2011-10-01T09:16:00.005+01:00

In July - September 2011, I cycled around Britain. I took a photo every 10 miles, so here they all are, sped up to 72,000 miles per hour. "Quite Amazing".

Cycling by http://www.twitter.com/dcisbusy.
Music by Abandoned Rugs: http://www.facebook.com/abandonedrugs and http://www.youtube.com/abandonedrugs.

9 Precious Ps of Long Distance Bike Rides (and other expeditions)

2011-07-21T11:33:00.000+01:00

Patience

You can't rush around Britain. Even if you rush one day, you've still got hundreds, thousands of miles still to go. There's no point. If you try and rush, then you'll just lose heart (and probably do yourself an injury). You've also got to keep your patience when things go wrong. When it rains, when your bike breaks in half, when you get lost. It doesn't matter. Just calm down and ask someone to help you.

Perseverance & Persistence

There is nothing remarkable in a philatelist who has collected one stamp. Long distance bike rides are the same. There is nothing remarkable in one day's ride, it is only by persisting through day after day after day of rain and pain that you'll reach your goal.

Prosperity

I don't mean you have to be super-rich to go on a long expedition. But you do need to have money. Taking three months off work to do something like this is already a big financial commitment. And you don't want to be scared of spending money on a lot of food, between £10 and £20 per day, even if you go to supermarkets. If you're not wild camping, then that's another £20 to £40 per day on accommodation. You'll also want to put aside a few hundred pounds for bike repairs and maintenance, just in case. You could easily find yourself £1000 out of pocket without even thinking about it.

Physical Fitness

This is an important one, but also a misleading one. Cycling gets you fit. But: cycling long distances every day will not feel good and you won't feel fit, at least to begin with. You'll probably feel rubbish. Personally, I'm five days in and I can hardly walk, my knees are in pain and my neck and back ache. Anticipate it and forget about it.

Planning & Preparation

Planning, the art of plotting out a route or coming up with a cycling concept, is hugely overrated. The chances are that all your plans will be thrown off the bike as soon as you get on it. Preparation, on the other hand, the art of ensuring that you have the right equipment to be able to handle these capricious changes of plan, is worth investing time and resources in.

Purpose & Pride

If you don't have a strong purpose for doing your bike ride, then you might find it mentally tough to keep going. However, you'll soon find that pride takes over. As long as you can't think up an excuse to all those people back home you told about your expedition, then your pride will keep you purposelessly pedaling.

And so back to my purposeless pedaling!

p.s. I'm in Burnham Deepdale, in Norfolk. Done about 325 miles so far...

Cycling around Britain: #1 ...ha ha ha!

2011-07-19T10:26:00.001+01:00

It wasn't a dark and stormy night. It didn't have to be: I was lying in a field of nettles, my feet above my head and a slug in my face.

This, my friends, is the glamour of attempting to cycle around Britain (...ha ha ha!) without a tent or a proper map.

I say "...ha ha ha!" because really this doesn't feel much like an attempt to cycle around Britain, more like a race to see which will break first: my body, my bike or my mind.

So where do we stand on that score?

1: The Bike

The first to break was my bike. The rack, on which one of my bags is strapped, snapped off. I heard a clunking noise from behind me and stopped. I looked around at my bag and stared. For a minute or two I couldn't figure out what had happened. The bag and the rack were still attached to one another. That was good. But the bag was somehow further away than it should be. Slowly it dawned on me.

So I got out the trusty gorilla tape (stronger than duck tape) and Heath Robinsonned the rack to the bike. It's behaved perfectly ever since.

2: The Body

Second to break has been my body. Both knees are destroyed, but in fascinatingly different ways. The right has reverted rather truculently to the old injury that I did cycling to Bordeaux two years ago. But the left, always inventive, has found a couple of tendons around the back and is attempting to saw them away from the muscle. This means that I can't go faster than about 10mph (except, lethally, downhill) and I can't go up hill at all.

I am lucky that cycling and walking use two completely different sets of muscles. So, while my knees scorn any attempt at cyclopic locomotion, they are sweet as pie when it comes to perambulation around town. It's at that point that my quads kick up a fuss and I spent a happy ten minutes this morning staring at my calves while they twitched and spasmed quite joyfully. I was only sitting on a park bench.

3: The Mind

This is the most insidious and the most dangerous. Furthermore, the other two, bike and body, feed it with self-pitying cream cakes of depression and pointlessness.

Every little thing becomes a test of mental resolution. From struggling with the bungee ropes on the rack, to being unable to get the plastic wrapper from a lipsalve. From the prospect of the weather, to the sound of a mournful song on the radio in a cafe. From finding a bite to eat, to finding a place to sleep.

And what makes it worse is that, with a broken bike or a broken body, there is no dishonour in going home. With a broken mind, there is no excuse.

That's when I remember Ed Stafford's walk along the length of the Amazon. He hated it. Absolutely hated the whole damned thing. He got depressed, he got shot at, he got infected with strange parsasites. But did he go home? No.

See you in Lowestoft then!

p.s. I'm currently in Woodbridge. I've done 150 miles so far. Hurrah.

Lies, damned lies and real unemployment statistics

2011-07-10T11:19:00.086+01:00

Unemployment is falling, the Office for National Statistics tells us. They say a lot of other things as well, but that's all we hear from the government and in the press: unemployment is falling.

Unemployment, the ONS tells us, has fallen to 2.43 million, after the largest quarterly fall since August 2000. Or, as The Guardian put it last month: "UK unemployment falling at fastest pace in a decade". Great news, you might think.

But the ONS also reports other figures. One of those is economic inactivity in the workforce, i.e. among 16 to 64 year-olds. That figure is up 0.1% to 23.3% of the workforce. That's right: almost a quarter of the working population, don't work. 9.37 million people.

Of these, 2.29 million are students inactive in the labour market. So they can be knocked off the total, assuming that they are at least doing something productive.

That leaves us with 7.08 million people not working, out of a workforce of about 40 million.

[Of these, incidentally, only 1.49 million are claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. You can look at this figure in one of two ways:

The Daily Mail way - "5.5 million can't even be bothered to look for a job!"
The Independent way - "5.5 million are being failed by the welfare state."]

But there are also 1.21 million people who are underemployed. In other words, 1.21 million people forced to work part-time because they can't find full-time work. This is the highest figure since records began in 1992.

So, in total, there are 8.29 million people of working age in Britain who are either out of work or unable to find full-time work. That is 20.6% of the working population, a fifth.

In August 2010, this figure was 8.12 million people or 20.2% of the workforce*.

Now you can judge for yourself whether unemployment is falling or not. Don't just listen to the headlines, look at the figures.

April 2011: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12
August 2010: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0810.pdf

*This is made up of 9.35m economically inactive; 2.3m students and 1.07m underemployed. In August, the ONS changed the way the number of economic inactive people were calculated, by raising the working age threshold for women from 59 to 64. Figures before August 2010, therefore, are not comparable with current figures.

Sleep Long: Be Awesome

2011-07-10T10:26:00.001+01:00

Sleep 10 hours or more every night and you will reap huge benefits on your physical and mental performance and, not surprisingly, you'll feel great! (You'll also be less likely to get fat and die...)

Now, I'm not just making this up - science told me. Volume 34, Issue 7 of Sleep, in fact. More precisely, a snappily titled article, "The Effects of Sleep Extension on the Athletic Performance of Collegiate Basketball Players".

A-ha. Basketball players, you notice. Yes, the fact that their free throw and 3-point field goal percentages both increased by 9%, might seem to be rather sport-specific, but they were also faster in sprints and had faster reaction times. Not only that, but their mood was also elevated, with increased vigour and decreased fatigue and the players reported increased physical and mental well-being.

That's the carrot, anyway. So why not try to sleep a couple of hours longer at night for a couple of weeks and see what happens? It might be hard at first, but persevere.

And if you prefer the stick to the carrot:

Short sleep duration is associated with obesity.
Short sleep duration is associated with greater risk of death.

Off you go now - to bed with you!

You can access the articles here:
Sleep extension benefits: http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=28194
Sleep and obesity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18239586
Sleep and mortality: http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=27780

How to Write a Real Novel in 30 days: Part 3

2011-07-09T16:48:00.003+01:00

I have finished!

I have created, from scratch, a fully edited novel of 80,000 words, in 114.75 hours, over the course of 31 (44) days.

An Admission
Some of you might be thinking: he's been going longer than 30 days! And you would be right. I started writing this novel on the 27th of May. Today is the 9th of July, so that makes 44 days.

However: I only worked on the novel for 31 out of those 44 days.

[The reasons for this are varied. I took a few days off to hitch-hike up to the Lake District, raising money for Macmillan Cancer Support. I took a few more days off to be ill. Another couple of days here and there for various reasons that I won't bother mentioning. Suffice to say, excuses should never be a part of a writer's conversation.]

So, by my reckoning, I'm only 1 day over budget. Not bad for a first attempt.

Anyway, in 31 or 44 days, it all happened in two phases.

Phase One: Write like crazy

I wrote in a straight line, from 0 to 65,000 words in 71.75 hours of writing time, over the course of 21 (25) days.

At the end of each day's writing, I transferred everything from my electronic typewriter to my computer. Sometimes I broke these chunks into scenes, sometimes I didn't bother. But, thanks to the concentrated writing each day, I spent even my hours of leisure thinking about the problems of the novel. Quite often I'd think of some way out that I'd write the next day. Occasionally, and increasingly towards the end of the novel, I'd think of something that I wanted to have in the final chapter, some loose end that would need tying up, and I'd note this down for later.

By the end of Phase One, I had broken down the massive chunks of writing (about 3,000 words a day) into scenes. I had also decided that I wanted the novel to fall into five parts, plus an epilogue. Some of these parts arrived better formed than others. For example: most of the parts had about 13 scenes in them. Part II, however, had 27. This was ridiculous, especially as it was the shortest part in terms of words!

It would need a lot of editing in Phase Two.

Phase Two: Edit like crazy

I went back to the beginning and re-wrote, edited and generally tidied up the rough stuff of Phase One. This took me 43 hours, over the course of 10 (19) days.

There were quite a lot of things that didn't quite make sense. So I had to write new scenes and completely redevelop some existing scenes. This made the novel grow quite substantially.

As an indication, by the end of Phase One, my novel looked like this:

Part I: 14,000 words
Part II: 10,000 words
Part III: 14,000 words
Part IV: 10,000 words
Part V: 17,000 words

By the end of Phase Two, it was looking like this:

Part I: 14,000 words
Part II: 17,000 words
Part III: 14,500 words
Part IV: 16,500 words
Part V: 19,000 words

As you can see, Parts II and IV expanded by two thirds between the first draft and the first edit. The other sections also increased in size, but more modestly.

The reason why Part I didn't grow was because I actually started editing this Part during Phase One. The first draft of Part I was only 10,000 words in length, so it too grew significantly during the editing process.

Reflections on the 30-day process

The process, I believe, is devastatingly effective, but only if you can dedicate the hours to it. I spent between 3 and 5 hours every day that I worked.

Essentially, I worked for 21 days straight on Phase One, then took a week-long break, then spent 10 days straight on Phase Two. I would not necessarily recommend this week-long break, but it didn't seem to hold me back too much. Perhaps it helped, perhaps it didn't. I won't know until I try and do this again.

One thing I probably would not recommend is starting to edit before you've finished the first draft. I did this with Part I. Although I felt at the time that it was helping me, in retrospect, I'm not sure it did. But again: who knows?

I do know for certain that some parts of the novel came very easily and some parts were difficult. Parts II and IV, notably, took longer to edit and required more smoothing out of the plot. Parts I, III and V were much more coherent from the first draft.

I think this is no coincidence. These parts contained much more of the action of the novel, rather than reaction and set-up. Action is no doubt easier to write: with action, you can write with the flow, whereas reaction is more circumspect and much harder to keep interesting.

So why bother with reaction at all? Because the reader needs a break! Also because I like to write novels that are a little more thoughtful than most smash-bang thrillers. So, while this novel is a thriller, it is perhaps a little more considered than Dan Brown.

Personally, I think this is a good thing; financially, it's a disaster!

What's next?

I'm still not entirely happy with the novel, after only one full edit. So I am going to spend the next 5 days doing a second edit to the whole novel, making sure that the plot is logically consistent. Then I am going to hand the whole thing over to my editors and first readers. So I fully expect to have finished this project after just 36 (or, if you like, 49) days.

Then I'm going to cycle around Britain...

And now? Over to you! I'd love to hear from anyone who'd like to have a thrash at this crazy, wild, magical 30-day real-novel-writing technique!

Not so bad after all: British sport on the world stage

2011-07-05T10:28:00.002+01:00

I was listening to a comedy show on the radio last night and they were taking the piss out of British sporting success. Very funny, I'm sure. But it all sounded a little hackneyed. What about our golfers? What about our rugby players? What about Formula 1?

'We British don't like winning; it's so common...' they joked.

Tommy-rot, I thought, and so looked up a few things on Wikipedia.

Here's a list of recent (last 10 years) major British sporting success:

Rugby Union: 2003 World Cup
Cricket: 2010 World Twenty20
Golf: US Open 2010 (McDowell), 2011 (McIlroy)
Formula 1: Champions 2008 (Hamilton), 2009 (Button)
Heavyweight Boxing: 2002 WBC, IBF (Lewis), 2011 WBA (Haye)
Olympics Medal Table: 4th place 2008

The only major sports that are perhaps letting us down are Tennis (no Grand Slams since 1936) and Football (only one major championship, in 1966). But even those have not exactly lacked success.

We've had a player in the ATP Men's Tour Top 20 for fourteen of the last fifteen years, with Tim Henman and now Andy Murray.

In football, national success has been hard to come by, but Liverpool and Manchester United have both won the Champions League in the last ten years.

Not so bad after all.

Gourmet-a-tron Mexican Spice Mix

2011-07-01T11:57:00.000+01:00

Anything tastes good with this. I know: I've tried it with Tesco Value "Mince".

Ingredients

This usually makes about one spice pot's worth of spice mix. I'm pretty careless with the quantities; it's not precise.

2 tbsp chilli powder
1 tbsp paprika
1.5 tsp onion powder
0.5 tsp garlic powder
0.5 tsp cayenne pepper
0.5 tsp cumin
0.25 tsp chilli flakes

You can add some salt and sugar if you want extra flavour-zing. I normally throw in a dash of salt, perhaps a teaspoon.

Mixing

The way I mix this is to throw all the ingredients into a bowl, then funnel the contents into the spice pot and shake the pot until well mixed. Simple and effective.

Use

I shake a generous load all over mince and then fry. I like it spicy and flavoursome so one pot-load usually only lasts me about four 500g meals. But it's worth it.

Get Your Feet Wet!

2011-06-30T18:23:00.000+01:00

Ahhh.........!

Hitchhiking to the Lake District: Photos

2011-06-29T12:06:00.005+01:00

From Edgware Station in North London, through service stations in London and Derby to Ilkley.

But then a lengthy hiatus after Skipton, where I tried and failed to hitch on a barge. Walking was quicker...

Once in Keswick, though, I was in the elements. Deer, lakes and open-air sleeping arrangements.

But the next day, low-level cloud hung around the slopes of Scafell Pike and ascent was impossible (or at least improbable, given my cheap trainers).

So I popped home again, hitching through the Lake District, Warrington and thence home.

Lovely!

How to Hitch-hike

2011-06-28T09:34:00.000+01:00

Terrified by the prospect of standing on the side of the road with your thumb out? Well, here are some tips on hitching.

If you've never hitched before, don't panic. How hard can it be? You just stick your thumb out and smile!

The hitchwiki website has a treasure trove of tips for new-comers and old-timers alike: http://hitchwiki.org/en/Main_Page

For what it's worth, here are my own All Star tips and tricks:

Take a large (A4 minimum) sketch pad for writing signs.
Take several thick black marker pens (other colours optional). And I mean several - don't rely on only one. It will run out and you'll be stuffed.
Take a small road map of the UK. Like this one. Don't lose it, like I did.
Pack a mac. Preferably a bright red one with reflective tabs. Be seen!
By all means stand by the side of a road with your thumb out, but for real pro-hitching, try to get lifts between service stations. It might not be glamorous, but it does mean you can approach people personally, they can hear about your quest and see that you're not a psycho. Service stations also have toilets, food and water.
Don't be afraid of going in the wrong direction. If you find yourself in the doldrums, then just pick up a lift going anywhere and try from there.
Don't, under any circumstances, take your ipod or other anti-social entertainment device. For god's sake, talk to your kind hosts!
Take snacks for the road. Nuts are good, so is chocolate. I wouldn't take a hip-flask, though. Try, at least, to look respectable.
If you're not confident, travel with a buddy you trust. Three really is a crowd for hitching. Lone drivers might be reluctant to pick up a crowd and three people are difficult to accommodate in lorries.
Hitch in daylight. Night hitching is probably safe, but it's much harder. No one can see you, there are less drivers on the road - and the ones that do and are, are knackered and just want to get home.

But if there's one golden rule I've learnt over and over again, it is this:

Don't, under any circumstances, ever give up.

Last weekend I hitched to the Lake District and back in 36 hours. One particularly dark moment served to illuminate this rule better than most. I was stuck in Skipton. No one was stopping for me, several young ruffians had shouted at me, sworn and given me the finger. I trudged miserably up the road, in the misting rain, for about three hours.

I'd given up. I wasn't even sticking out my thumb.

Then a van pulled over to the side of the road ahead of me. He must be checking a map, I thought, and I trudged slowly onward. I was just walking past him, when I noticed his window was wound down. Then I saw him looking at me, but I'd still given up. He moved to speak to me. He's probably lost, he probably wants to ask me directions, I think.

Then this happens:

"Were you the lad with a sign to Kendal earlier?"
"Er... Yeah?"
"What? Have you given up on that?"
"Er... No?"
And he jerked his thumb to the back of his van. "Hop in then."

And he drove me all the way to Keswick: never, ever, under any circumstances, give up.

Money

2011-06-27T20:45:00.000+01:00

Money's a funny thing. It seems to be the most important thing in all the world, essential to feeding and loving and living. Then, just when it seems more important than ever, you realise that it isn't at all.

But surely money...

gives you power.
makes you feel good.
makes other people respect you.

Well, yeah it does. But it's a short-cut.

It is easier to buy your power than it is to influence others by your actions. It is easier to spend on instant gratification than it is to spend your life content. It is easier to earn money than it is to earn the respect of others.

But this isn't what I'm most concerned with. I couldn't really care less if you want to spend money on power, happiness or respect. No: I'm worried because money is boring.

Here are some choices, with money or with imagination:

We could go to the cinema tonight. Or we could jump in the Serpentine and make out on the island.
We could go to a restaurant for dinner. Or we could rummage around the fruit and veg market after closing and cook up some free food on an open fire in the woods.
I could join a gym and work-out in front of a mirror. Or I could go for a run in Epping Forest, get covered in mud and see how high I can climb a tree.

Boring is the enemy and money is the friend of boring.

If you think about it, it's obvious: money is what (stereotypical) accountants like best. Anyone who wants to live like a (stereotypical) accountant is welcome to their money, but me? Naw thanks.

This boredom can be overcome, of course it can. I'm sure you can think of a hundred interesting things to do with a hundred pounds. But how many people actually spend a hundred nicker on fitting out the local bus shelter with velcro so that all the morning commuters get their suits stuck on the sides?

Of course we don't. That's because money is part of a system and that system is boring. You can't package up a sunset or a tree mud or a lake. People have tried, oh boy have they tried, but some things are beyond market forces.

Money is part of a boring system so we can only spend it on boring things. Rent, restaurants, retail. Drink it on a Saturday night, then dance it away at a club - who ever thought we'd pay to dance?

Do you think Zorba would have paid to dance?

Grow your own charitable donation

2011-06-24T20:41:00.000+01:00

Last week I found out why a friend of mine has long hair. I'd never thought to ask before. I'd assumed he actually liked his long, luscious locks. Sure he looks like a big girl, but I thought it rude to make disparaging comments. I like to think I'm fairly non-judgemental when it comes to my friends' hair. At least to their face.

Turns out I should have pointed and laughed, then I would have found out earlier why he has really long hair.

I like to think the conversation would have gone like this:

ME: Ha ha ha! You look like a girl! Ha ha ha!
FRIEND: What? Because I have long hair?
ME: Ha ha ha!
FRIEND: Don't you like my hair?
ME: Ha ha ha!
FRIEND: What's wrong with long hair?
ME: Ha ha ha!
FRIEND: Seriously, Dave. I thought you'd be fairly non-judgemental when it came to hair.
ME: Ha ha ha!
FRIEND: At least to my face.
ME: Ha ha ha! Why have you got girl's hair? It looks so stupid! Ha ha ha!
FRIEND: I'm growing it.
ME: Ha ha ha! Yeah, but WHY, man? You look like a girl!
FRIEND: I'm gonna donate it to kids with cancer.
ME: ...
FRIEND: What are you doing for kids with cancer, Dave?

I am leaving civilisation for a few months soon. This seems like the perfect opportunity to grow my hair. I need 6" of long, luscious locks, about down to my chin, for a decent wig. I currently have about 1".

If you also want to possess the ultimate put-down response to people who take the piss out of your hair style, then why not join me? Check out http://www.littleprincesses.org.uk/Donate/Hair.aspx for more information.

How to Write a Real Novel in 30 Days: Part 2

2011-06-20T14:39:00.001+01:00

I'm 22 days into my ambitious plan to write a real novel, fully drafted and edited, in 30 days. Part 1 is here.

So how am I doing?

Well, this was always going to be a method-in-progress so here are some updates to how I've been doing it, and then I'll come onto how I'm doing, if you see what I mean.

The method: a novel in crisis

1. Don't get ill.

I managed to contract a cold at the beginning of last week, which knocked me out for four days or so. I only managed to squeeze out about 5,000 words over that time, about 5,000 words down on where I should have been.

More importantly for the project, however, was the ensuing loss of focus. Without focus or the feeling that I knew what I was doing and where I was going, the novel would be dead. This was a serious problem.

2. The mid-novel collapse.

It could have been a coincidence that I felt this death of the novel at the same time as I had a cold. The feeling came on at around 45,000 words, which should have been at a pivotal point in the story. It should have been just as the middle is developing and boiling up nicely for the denouement. But I just didn't know which way to turn. I didn't know what my fifth chapter needed to set up the ending.

3. How to resurrect a novel in crisis.

So on Thursday last week I changed focus. I did two things. Firstly, I decided that I would skip chapter five. It wasn't going anywhere, so I'd write something that was going somewhere and then go back to chapter five later, when I'd discovered what it needed to set up. In other words: I'd write the ending.

The second thing I did was to set a new deadline and a new target and focus on that. I decided that I'd finish the sixth and final chapter in 10,000 words, on Sunday. This re-energised my writing and my focus. Suddenly I knew what I was doing again. The novel was back.

So what happened?

Well, two things happened. Firstly, I finished the sixth chapter today, on Monday. That's one day after my deadline, but instead of writing 10,000 words, I have written nearly 17,000. So I think one day slippage is allowed. The total word count now stands at 65,000.

Secondly, by writing the last chapter (there will be a short epilogue, but this is the end of the story proper), I did find out what needed to be in chapter five.

This highlights one of the problems with the NaNoWriMo style of plotting. How can your setup work smoothly if you haven't written the ending yet? That might sound perverse, but, by reversing the writing order, my ending will be far more believable because I know exactly what my ending (i.e. chapter six) requires in its setup (i.e. chapter five). This should save me a lot of time in the editing process.

So what now?

Tomorrow I am going to write the epilogue and then I am going to spend the last week of my 30 days editing the beast down. This will include the writing of chapter five. Again, I am going to edit the ending before the setup, so that the passage of the novel is seamless.

The final word count is going to be about 80,000 words. I am finding, as I edit the earlier chapters, that the pre-edit word count grows about 20%. This is because I have to write in extra scenes to keep the novel flowing logically. Plus there's chapter five to be written, almost in its entirety.

Stay tuned for Part 3. Will I really have a fully drafted and edited novel after only 30 days?

Bob Dylan live at London Feis 18 June 2011

2011-06-19T09:03:00.004+01:00

Quite simply: the best Dylan show I've ever heard. Okay so that's only out of two, but it was also right up there with all the live recordings I've heard: The Rolling Thunder Revue of 1975, the Halloween Show in 1964, 1965 at the BBC, and even the infamous 1966 tour of England.

Honestly. Every time you hear Dylan live there's a moment's hesitation before you realise what the hell he's playing and then - bear grins. He's not content with being a Dylan jukebox on stage; he played a couple of songs straight, but most of them were twisted and refracted in ways that threw new meaning on the lyrics.

Even the ones he did straight featured extensive carnivalesque organ solos. Seriously, I've never seen Dylan looking so relaxed. He was having a ball up there. Compared to 2003, when I last saw him, there was so much energy, so much playful creativity, so much identity up there on stage. And the old boy's 70!

Forget the sunshades, forget the pixie boots and the skinny jeans, forget everything; the reason Bob Dylan is an inspiration was embodied last night. He has been working professionally for about 50 years, he has published 34 studio albums, he tours constantly (102 shows last year) and yet still he is innovating every night. I mean, I don't know if he ever actually said this, but it sums up just about the best lesson anyone can learn from the man:

I write ten songs a day and throw nine of them away.

If you can do that, then surely, whatever you do, you'll be set up. Forget the fashion, hard work is where it's at.

And please listen to this before it gets pulled off the internet for copyright infringement. It is a gut-twisting rendition of 'Forgetful Heart', from 'Together Through Life', only Dylan's 33rd studio album. He still got it:

http://vlog.xuite.net/play/MXFTMWxiLTM1NTM0ODcuZmx2

Setlist

1. Gonna Change My Way Of Thinking (Bob on keyboard): Totally baffled 90% of the crowd. Gleefully mischievous.
2. It's All Over Now, Baby Blue (Bob center stage on harp)
3. Things Have Changed (Bob on guitar): I can't remember why this was so good, but so good it was.
4. Tangled Up In Blue (Bob center stage on harp): Ballad style, stretched out, languid and missing a number of verses. No Italian poets that I noticed.
5. Summer Days (Bob on keyboard): Guitar lick twisted with a sour note that could have been ironic, given the weather up above.
6. Simple Twist Of Fate (Bob on guitar): Yes it was beautiful. Done as a straight-faced romantic ballad.
7. Cold Irons Bound (Bob center stage on harp)
8. A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall (Bob center stage without harp then keyboard): Slowed down to a contemplative funereal march. More sorrowful than apocalyptic vision.
9. Highway 61 Revisited (Bob on keyboard)
10. Forgetful Heart (Bob center stage on harp, Donnie on viola): Drenched in pathos. See essential-viewing video above.
11. Thunder On The Mountain (Bob on keyboard)
12. Ballad Of A Thin Man (Bob center stage on harp)

13. Like A Rolling Stone (Bob on keyboard): Bob's sop to the singalong crowd - and how we loved it.
14. All Along The Watchtower (Bob on keyboard): Recaptured from Jimi Hendrix, thank goodness!
15. Blowin' In The Wind (Bob on guitar, Donnie on violin): In a nursery rhyme style. All the patronising preaching gone, replaced by whimsical wisdom. Thank you and good night.

For those who like to keep an eye on these things, we had:

1963 x 2
1965 x 4
1967
1975 x 2
1979
1997
2000
2001
2006
2009

Which shows you what he thinks of his 80s production...

David Charles: Vanity Project

2011-06-16T14:08:00.000+01:00

I was sucked into doing this after accidentally searching for my own name, without quotation marks, on Google. I was astonished to see that I am on the first page.

I can think of no good reason for this, other than the fact that I've run a blog for a number of years and that it is hosted with Google themselves. I've done a few things here and there, but nothing to really imprint my (absurdly common) name on the collective consciousness of the world.

search: david charles

Fascinated, I looked on the other big search engines to see if this was indeed a case of Google favouritism. Here are the results:

Google (84% share of the search market):

10th result. Bottom of the 1st page.

Yahoo (6%):

91st result. Top of the 10th page. That's more like the mediocrity I was expecting!

Baidu (Chinese language search engine. 4%):

Nowhere to be found in the first 25 pages, or 250 results. Why not? Have I been censored?

Bing (4%):

42nd result. 5th page. Solid mediocrity.

Ask (<1%):

9th result. 1st page. Suspiciously similar to the Google results. No complaints.

Aol (<1%):

10th result. 1st page. Have you been copying at the back there?

O Vanity, you spoil me!

Where it really gets interesting (for me) is when you start throwing in random words. Because I've written quite a lot over the years, on quite a number of diverse subjects, random words send me catapulting up the league table.

david charles travel

#1 and #2 on Google.
#6 on Yahoo!

david charles supermarket

#1 - #3 on Google.
#3 and #4 on Yahoo!

david charles cycling

#1 - #4 on Google.
#3, #5 and #7 on Yahoo!

david charles palestine

#1 - #6 on Google.
#1 on Yahoo!

david charles hitch hiking

7 of the top 8 on Google. Only Larry David at #6 keeps me from a Beatles-esque domination of the charts.
#1, #2 and #9 on Yahoo!

Now those are not really that random. I have written quite extensively about those topics. You would expect me to score pretty highly on them. But what about these?

david charles lights

#3 - #5 on Google.

david charles massive

#2 on Google.

david charles teenager

#5 on Google.

Yahoo!, however, dismisses my name from it's pages. It does seem to be better at picking up relevance, dare I say it.

And yes, that last one there was a random word from: http://watchout4snakes.com/creativitytools/RandomWord/RandomWordPlus.aspx

MacAulay & Co: The Programme

2011-06-15T21:29:00.001+01:00

For those of you who missed it, here's a link to ME, live on BBC Radio Scotland with MacAulay & Co:
David Charles on BBC Radio Scotland

Highlights:

RG: "Did anyone stop who looked like Rutger Hauer?"
DC: Who the f*** is Rutger Hauer? "Ha ha ha..."

DC: "I've met squaddies, religious fanatics, mine investors, hydroelectric dam insurers..."
FM: "Perverts?"

FM: "Is there a passing wind policy? What's the protocol?"

FM: "Thanks very much for joining us this morning."
DC: "Plea..."

Me & Hitch-hiking on BBC Radio Scotland - Tomorrow!

2011-06-14T16:00:00.000+01:00

I always knew fame would come some day, but I never imagined it would come like this. After two very countable feature appearances on Iranian PressTV and Singaporean StarSports, and after countless featureless appearances in the background of Midsomer Murders, I've finally made it. The BBC has called.

Tomorrow, at approximately 10:30am, I shall haul my heavily medicated vocal chords into the BBC studios to pass down some authoritative tips on how to hitch-hike to Fred MacAulay of BBC Radio Scotland.

But enough! Here is the link to the programme:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074hh3

It is on air from 10:30 on the 15th of June 2011, but you can always listen again, up to 7 days after.

So if you ever wondered how to get from London to Ben Nevis and back for free, or what to do when you're stranded 150 miles away from your hotel in a foreign country, or how to raise loads of money for charity this summer - then now's your chance!

How to Write a Real Novel in 30 Days: Part 1

2011-06-08T12:43:00.000+01:00

This isn't just a pie in the sky blog post. This is something that is actually happening, right now. I've been holding off writing this first part for a couple of weeks, just to make sure that writing a real novel in thirty days is possible.

What do I mean by a 'real novel'?

What I'm not talking about is a NaNoWriMo novel, where you blast out 1,667 words a day to end up, at the end of the month, with 50,000 words of complete and utter nonsense. That's not, in my opinion, a real novel. NaNoWriMo is good for people who find it hard to get words out onto paper. For people who aspire to create something ready for publication, it's not a path I'd recommend.

NaNoWriMo digression, or: why my novel will be different

I have done NaNoWriMo. I did it last year and, sure enough, I ended up with 50,000 words of garbage. There were some good ideas in there, but it was all over the place and would have taken me months to figure out what was good and what was not. Then I would have had to have re-written it all and added another 30,000 words before it was in a position to be anywhere near getting published.

How do I know that it would have taken me months to sort that jumble out? Well, in 2009, I started writing a novel in a NaNoWriMo-ish way. I decided to write 1,000 words a day for 50 days. This was how I started my first novel and it was a very good way to get me writing. However, the end product was a bit of a mess and it took me almost a year and a half to batter it into some kind of shape.

This is too long for me. I have a life. I can't afford to spend a year and a half slaving over one novel. I am young and impulsive. I want to write my books in a month.

That means:

A manuscript of at least 70,000 words.
Of internally consistent and complete plot.
Thoroughly edited.
Ready for external editors, if not quite publication.

Won't this just produce internally consistent garbage?

Not necessarily. I think there are actually some good reasons for writing a novel in a month. Here are some of them:

It keeps an energy and a unity to the piece. Compressing the work into just one month means that I live every minute of every day with my characters. The ideas keep coming, even when I'm away from my bed (which is where I write, if you must know). If I only wrote ten minutes a day on the bus, then I'd be likely to lose the feel of my book. I believe that 30 days of intense work will actually create a better book.
Spending any longer on a novel (I know) and I start to fantasise about executing all my characters in a variety of masochistic ways, before turning the electric cattle prod on myself. I believe that a 30-day novel will retain my enthusiasm and enrich my writing.
30 days is a deadline. When things have deadlines, they get done.

I'm sure you can think of more.

How am I doing it?

This is the really interesting part. This is the first time I've attempted something like this (NaNoWriMo not withstanding), so I'm finding out as I go along. But here's how it's gone so far.

1. Get things moving.

The first thing that needs to happen is inspiration, something to get the book rolling. This always comes to me in the form of a particularly strong, tension-filled scene. I give that particular metaphorical stone a good push and then chase it down to the bottom of the hill. Hopefully, by the time it's got there, I've found another cliff-edge and it just keeps on rolling. [See #3, below, for the cliff-edges.]

2. Set targets.

I'm aiming to write about 80,000 words for my novel, so I write 3,000 words a day - without fail. I've divided my book up into 7 chapters and each chapter I am finishing in 3 days (I know the maths doesn't add up, see #4, below).

This gives the work a unity and a natural rhythm. Using the rhetorical rule of three, I'm able to construct my chapters very tightly, writing a great beginning on day one, a tense middle on day two and a cliff-hanger ending on day three, which propels me into the next chapter.

3. Make stuff happen.

This is both the easiest and the hardest thing to do, I find.

It is the easiest because, once things start happening, the writing flows out and I can easily do my 3,000 words in about 90 minutes. It is the hardest because, as a fairly timid soul, I'm scared of things happening.

To make sure I stay on track, I try to make something happen every 500-1,500 words. This isn't a hard and fast rule because every novel has its own rhythm and moments of calm are essential to heighten tension in other parts of the plot. But things do need to keep moving.

I have a habit of having my characters sit around and chat, so, when I see that happening, I introduce a man with a knife, or a police siren, or a lie.

4. Edit, edit, edit.

The writing, though, is not the thing. If the writing was the thing, then this would be nothing more than NaNoWriMo on steroids. No, the difference with this 30-day novel is that, after having written my 3,000 daily words, I knuckle down with editing.

This is what really takes the time. As I edit, I write all the missing scenes that are needed to transform the text from a NaNoWriMo-esque hodge-podge into a well-balanced novel.

It is my intention to have edited each of my chapters twice before the end of the month. This will get the text into a readable state for my friendly editors.

Progress report

So far, on day ten, I have written just over 30,000 words, comprising the first three chapters.

I have edited by hand, in red pen, the first two chapters and I have started the painful process of tapping these edits onto the computer.

I have a good, solid idea of where the plot is going and I'm still excited about it. Thank god.

For the next few weeks I'm going to have to spend even more time on editing. The writing is going really well at the moment, but, as I mentioned above: the editing is the thing.

Wish me luck!

Get More Sex #3: Politics

2011-06-04T15:32:00.000+01:00

Great news for anarchists!

Sexual activity is higher among self-defined political liberals than among moderates or conservatives, and it is highest among those who describe themselves as 'extreme liberals'.

On the other hand, sexual activity is also above average among 'extreme conservatives'.

Here are the cold, hard statistics. First is the number of sexual encounters per year for the group, followed by the same number adjusted for differences in age, race, and marital status.

Extreme liberal: 73 / 72 sexual encounters per year.
Liberal: 62 / 62
Slight liberal: 63 / 60
Moderate: 60 / 60
Slight conservative: 55 / 54
Conservative: 52 / 54
Extreme conservative: 59 / 62

These politics are also reflected in the fact that the most sexually active Americans are far more likely than average to approve of premarital or extramarital sex, to see positive benefits in pornography, to watch X-rated films, and to favor giving birth control pills to teenagers.

But it isn't always liberal attitudes that match up with having a lot of sex. People who own guns also have higher-than-average sexual frequency.

More: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_n2_v20/ai_20302952/?tag=content;col1

Get More Sex #2: Religion

2011-06-03T14:54:00.001+01:00

Religion can be a minefield when it comes to having sex. But what are the stats?

A US study shows that Jews and agnostics are 20% more sexually active than Catholics and Protestants.

They also found that Baptists have slightly more sex than the national average, while Presbyterians and Lutherans are slightly below average.

But why? God only knows. I mean, I could speculate that it's because there's more shame and guilt associated with the Christian religions, but really I have no idea. Hell-fire and damnation tends to dampen the passions, somewhat.

Another study found that observant married Jewish women reported having sex three to six times per week more than twice as often as married women in general. Ooo-whee!

But there's more! Statistics have also shown that people who rarely go to church have 31% more sex than people who regularly go to church. Not sure about people who never go to church.

Extremely devout people are also less likely to masturbate and use vibrators. Those who attend church regularly are less likely to become sexually active, to have multiple and casual partners, and to have extra-marital affairs.

More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-20/sex-statistics-who-does-it-the-most/#

Get More Sex #1: Wealth

2011-06-02T16:52:00.000+01:00

If you want to have more sex, get rich or get poor.

People on very low incomes and those on very high incomes have sex more frequently than anybody else. Men earning a middle class income of £45,000 (US$75,000) per year average twelve fewer days of sex a year than men who earn about £15,000 (US$25,000) annually. Ouch.

I would hate to speculate why this might be, but I will nevertheless.

Low GDP has long been associated with high birth-rate in developing countries. But why? One possible answer is evolutionary.

A low income means an uncertain future for your progeny, compared to the future of sons and daughters of a person with plenty of money coming in. Poverty means inhibited access to medical care, education, food and many other things necessary to a secure life.

Therefore, in the absence of increasing wages, we have loads more sex in the hope that plenty of descendants will survive to pass on our genes through sheer statistical weight of numbers.

So why do the rich get loads of sex too?

One answer is that wealth has long been associated with desirability. If you're rich and powerful, you are intoxicatingly attractive to the opposite sex, particularly to women if you are a man.

This doesn't mean that men are any less shallow than women, just that we tend to go for a luscious child-bearing physique over a big bank balance.

Thanks to http://taraparkerpope.com/ for the fact.