Daniel Finkelstein, The Times Associate Editor, doesn’t think so. In another fulsome encomium to the late David Bowie, he writes: “…pop, with Bowie at its head, saw that consumerism isn’t base and philistine. It can be the ally of artistic endeavour. Commerce, liberty and art, arm-in-arm. That was the great David Bowie.”
The Church of England hasn’t been into canonisations for a while but, judging by the front-page eulogies in the press, an exception may be made in David Bowie’s case.
Allow me first to declare a personal interest in David Bowie: there is none. When he was alive I knew he had something to do either with pop music or the drug trade, not that there’s much difference between the two.
This morning I rang my friend Dave to ask him a few things, but found him unable to talk. He’s in deep mourning for David Bowie, whose death, mumbled Dave, courageously fighting tears, is “a great loss”.
Dave also referred to his deceased namesake as “a music legend”, which humbled me deeply. I thought no name of a music legend, from Bach to Offenbach, would fail to ring a bell with me but now, thanks to Dave, I know I was wrong.
The way German Muslims chose to celebrate New Year’s Eve rather diminishes one’s confidence in their acceptance of sexual equality.
Nor can one be entirely sure that Muslims in general are imbued with the Western ethos governing matters of the flesh. Our Muslim friends don’t seem to get their heads around the fact that here in the West men ask for permission before having sex with women.
Whether the permission is conveyed semantically or semiotically doesn’t really matter – the woman must be a willing and therefore equal partner.
It’s distressing to see a boy cry when he’s old enough to be a man. Yet my friend Barack Hussein’s tears were so convincing that even old cynical me couldn’t stop laughing.
What caused Obama’s lachrymose display was the 2012 shooting at a primary school in which 20 children and six adults were killed.
There’s something fatuous and dishonest about arguing for or against Brexit simply on the basis of economics.
The EU is a political, not, as its champions claim, an economic construct. Economic tools are used there only as auxiliary means of either bribery or blackmail.
Hence logically any argument about Brexit should proceed from constitutional and sovereignty premises first, second and tenth.
Britain has values, declared Dave in his uncompromising New Year message. And these are the values that are well and truly… well, non-negotiable.
Unfortunately, the text released to the public has been edited so tightly that both the subtleties of meaning and the thunder of delivery have been lost.
The friend I'm talking about is the columnist Edward Lukas. I can only profess my friendship for Mr Lukas vicariously, for I've never had the pleasure of meeting him.
And the demise I mention has nothing to do with his dying, an event I hope won't happen for many years. No, it's just that after his article The EU's Empire Is a Mess but We Must Stick by It I'm not sure I feel very friendly towards Mr Lukas.
In her Christmas address, Her Majesty said nothing much, but she said it well. Staying away from any specifics, she struck a note of Christian hope:
“It is true that the world has had to confront moments of darkness this year, but the Gospel of John contains a verse of great hope, often read at Christmas carol services: ‘The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it’.”