The aftermath of the Harbhajan Singh- Andrew Symonds clash continues to roll on. Now it has experienced even vice-regal and prime ministerial intervention, with both those leaders calling for more grace in accepting the umpire's decision and treating fellow players as human beings. Some of this talk of grace and courtesy has the air of a halycon day which never actually happened. Be that as it may, the current crop of Australian cricketers, who for some time appeared to get a very lenient deal from umpires for misconduct on-field, has actively employed 'mental disintegration' as a key tactic. The line between valid remarks and outright sledging and bullying is very thin and it is easy to see young players forgetting it altogether.
The spectacle of several players from both Australia and India seated at the bar table of an Adelaide Federal Court room must surely be a wake-up call for the game. Clearly something was amiss, a perception heightened by the fact not one player was in shirt and tie - most members of the public would risk ejection from a court room in such attire and few witnesses would be so lax as to turn up in a tracksuit as both Ricky Ponting and Harbhajan appeared to do. However, perhaps the lack of respect for the surroundings was fitting given the appaling behaviour of the ICC and the BCCI, which seem to veer from one mindless crisis to the next.
The ICC has clearly been caught off-guard. Its umpiring panel is now run in a semi-professional manner, but the referees administering code of conduct infringements are different shades of amateur. No other sport would conduct legalistic tribunal hearings with an official with no legal training, as Mike Proctor, referee at the Sydney Test, admitted. For some reason, the ICC's most experienced referee, Ranjan Madugalle, was not available to referee the series initially. Given the tension expected following the Symonds controversy in India, one would have thought the ICC may have pre-empted trouble.
The prosecution of the case against Harbhajan has betrayed a lack of process and understanding. First, the evidence was not viewed sufficiently to establish the correct charge. Harbhajan was ultimately fined for abusive language, a Level 2 offence, but he was originally convicted of racial vilification, a Level 3 offence carrying a three match ban. Second, Proctor dismissed the contrary testimony of Sachin Tendulkar, a strange move in the absence of objective evidence. Then, having set up a formal appeal tribunal under former NZ High Court Justice Hansen, the ICC made one final blunder to discredit its own competency. It somehow failed to provide Justice Hansen with Harbhajan's disciplinary record. Hansen then mitigated the punishment based on the evidence before him, rather than all the facts that should have been taken into account at sentencing.
The net result of this is that ICC incompetence has fuelled Indian hysteria at perceived injustice and caused the BCCI to throw its considerable financial weight around with various threats about cancelling the tour. The apparent approval of the Sri Lankan board does not help matters.
This latest episode merely confirms the fact that the ICC has a woeful record in handling major issues on the global cricketing stage. The World Cup in the West Indies scheduled games in the Caribbean and then told the crowd to behave like it was at Lords. The final ended in farce, with Sri Lanka batting out the overs in the dark. That finale has proven an apt metaphor for the crisis that followed. The fact that the ICC still allows Zimbabwe to compete, and only dropped them from Test cricket when it became manifestly clear its team could not compete, shows a total lack of ethics and basic understanding of humanity beyond the corporate dollar and regional politics. If the BCCI wants to build bridges with the other unions in England, Australia and New Zealand, it would be best served working for the complete suspension of Zimbabwe until its cricket organisation returns to normality. At present, the Zimbabwe Cricket Union is an adjunct of Mugabe's ZANU-PF party, and hence allowing it to play is recognition of Mugabe's government.
All the cricket nations need to discover a spirited way to compete and cooperate, that encourages fair play and tolerance. They need to work together to balance spreading the game with commercialism, so that we marvel at the feats of players and not make hysterical appeals to nationalist sentiment.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Fear of the past masks fear of the present and future
The report that Kevin Rudd has earmarked the opening of Parliament on February 12 as the due season for an apology to the stolen generation has set off some predictable caterwauling from the self-styled conservative element about intergenerational guilt and false priorities. The faux argument about an apology being inextricably linked to compensation seems to be rebuffed by the conspicious lack of actions against state governments who have issued similar apologies for past mistreatment. The real reason for the garbage associated with any call for an apology has to do with insecurity and a failure of political and moral leadership. The problem for self-styled conservatives in the mould of Howard and Nelson is that it is in their self-interest to encourage such false beliefs and insecurities to deflect attention from both social inequity and the pressures created by their free market brand of economics. If the punters cannot be bound together by a positive sense of the tribe's achievements but are forced to consider their possibly murky past, they may realise that men such as Howard and Nelson may not necessarily act in a bona fide manner and that such actions have a direct, detrimental effect on their lives.
The kernel of opposition to an apology is that the present generation is not responsible. This is a wilful misrepresentation of the issue. Rudd's proposed apology is on behalf of the nation, for acts performed on the orders of the state in the name of the citizens of that nation. It is a collective acknowledgement that such actions were in many cases detrimental to the people involved and the nation no longer believes such policies to be appropriate. For the Howard-Nelson clique, apparently pride in the achievement of one's forebears is perfectly acceptable, but regret at their actions is not. By making the apology issue personal, they actually undermine their project to develop a national mythology, enshrining the Anzac spirit at Gallipoli as the epitome of Australian virtue. It shows maturity to face up to one's mistakes, swallow one's pride and apologise for harm caused.
Instead, we are told that at least half the population is being misled so we behave like historical kindergarten kids. A society that cannot accept fault is on a collision course with disaster. With challenges such as climate change, an ageing population, diminishing resources and burgeoning health costs, surely our society is best served by encouraging us to think about how we do things, what effect our actions have on the present and future generations, and not just whether it suits us or makes us feel uncomfortable to think beyond the plasmascreen and picket fence.
Conservatism should be about preserving the institutions that make the country great and upholding the values that improve the country further. It should not be about misleading individuals with tales of ill-founded guilt or compensation-seeking bogeymen while pushing through reforms that undermine those very institutions and values.
The kernel of opposition to an apology is that the present generation is not responsible. This is a wilful misrepresentation of the issue. Rudd's proposed apology is on behalf of the nation, for acts performed on the orders of the state in the name of the citizens of that nation. It is a collective acknowledgement that such actions were in many cases detrimental to the people involved and the nation no longer believes such policies to be appropriate. For the Howard-Nelson clique, apparently pride in the achievement of one's forebears is perfectly acceptable, but regret at their actions is not. By making the apology issue personal, they actually undermine their project to develop a national mythology, enshrining the Anzac spirit at Gallipoli as the epitome of Australian virtue. It shows maturity to face up to one's mistakes, swallow one's pride and apologise for harm caused.
Instead, we are told that at least half the population is being misled so we behave like historical kindergarten kids. A society that cannot accept fault is on a collision course with disaster. With challenges such as climate change, an ageing population, diminishing resources and burgeoning health costs, surely our society is best served by encouraging us to think about how we do things, what effect our actions have on the present and future generations, and not just whether it suits us or makes us feel uncomfortable to think beyond the plasmascreen and picket fence.
Conservatism should be about preserving the institutions that make the country great and upholding the values that improve the country further. It should not be about misleading individuals with tales of ill-founded guilt or compensation-seeking bogeymen while pushing through reforms that undermine those very institutions and values.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The New Segregationists
Heath Ledger's premature death is a tragedy for his family and for his many fans, colleagues and admirers of his work. Who knows what masterly performances he may have given us, with some acclaiming him to be a young Jack Nicholson. A further tragedy is the bizarre behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church, who plan to picket Ledger's funeral on the basis that he was a 'fag-enabler' through his role in Brokeback Mountain. These petty-minded firebrands are making a mockery of the American ideals of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. One presumes that when Reagan and Bush went on ad infinitum about 'freedom', that was what they had in mind.
The Westboro insurgents present the Christian Right and those seeking its support for their presidential ambitions with a choice. They can draw a line in the sand and say that these proclaimed defenders of decency are a blight on civil society or they can adopt a craven position of expedient acquiesence. Westboro's rhetoric is reminiscent of the criticism levelled against whites who sympathised with oppressed blacks, a newspeak rendering of 'nigger-lover', a term so loaded in American discourse it can only be printed as 'n*****'. However taking a firm hand against such abuses does not seem to be on the agenda in a political climate where no one even mentions Governor Huckabee's evocation of the Confederate flag issue - code for slavery and all manner of inhumanity - during his South Carolina campaign.
In fact, the entire project of the Christian Right is reminiscent of the old segregationists. Segregationist policy was premised on Jim Crow laws mandating 'separate but equal' treatment for black and white. This fudge meant that as long as one provided facilities for both black and white patrons, one complied with the language of equality. In reality, Jim Crow was a vehicle to hide racist policy behind a legalistic veneer, upheld by the US Supreme Court for nearly sixty years. The Christian Right's shameless manipulation of its churches to deliver electoral success evokes such as a legalistic fudge. Under the Internal Revenue Code, churches can only retain tax-exempt status by not endorsing or opposing specific candidates. To get around this injunction, many churches publish the equivalent of how-to-vote guides detailing candidates positions on a broad range of issues. However, the key vehicle is the use of questions on abortion and marriage. The last US election was held in conjunction with marriage-related referenda in at least a dozen states. The implicit aim was to encourage voter turnout on these issues and hence maximise Republicans chances of re-election nationwide.
Interestingly, the only instance this blog has noted of criticism being levied at a church for involvement in politics was against an anti-war rector. However, not satisfied with this position of formalistic legality, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma proposed amending the law in 2006 to allow churches to endorse candidates and maintain tax-exempt status. If such proposals were to come to pass, the American political system may look more like the Puritan English Commonwealth of Cromwell than the Jeffersonian Republic.
The Westboro insurgents present the Christian Right and those seeking its support for their presidential ambitions with a choice. They can draw a line in the sand and say that these proclaimed defenders of decency are a blight on civil society or they can adopt a craven position of expedient acquiesence. Westboro's rhetoric is reminiscent of the criticism levelled against whites who sympathised with oppressed blacks, a newspeak rendering of 'nigger-lover', a term so loaded in American discourse it can only be printed as 'n*****'. However taking a firm hand against such abuses does not seem to be on the agenda in a political climate where no one even mentions Governor Huckabee's evocation of the Confederate flag issue - code for slavery and all manner of inhumanity - during his South Carolina campaign.
In fact, the entire project of the Christian Right is reminiscent of the old segregationists. Segregationist policy was premised on Jim Crow laws mandating 'separate but equal' treatment for black and white. This fudge meant that as long as one provided facilities for both black and white patrons, one complied with the language of equality. In reality, Jim Crow was a vehicle to hide racist policy behind a legalistic veneer, upheld by the US Supreme Court for nearly sixty years. The Christian Right's shameless manipulation of its churches to deliver electoral success evokes such as a legalistic fudge. Under the Internal Revenue Code, churches can only retain tax-exempt status by not endorsing or opposing specific candidates. To get around this injunction, many churches publish the equivalent of how-to-vote guides detailing candidates positions on a broad range of issues. However, the key vehicle is the use of questions on abortion and marriage. The last US election was held in conjunction with marriage-related referenda in at least a dozen states. The implicit aim was to encourage voter turnout on these issues and hence maximise Republicans chances of re-election nationwide.
Interestingly, the only instance this blog has noted of criticism being levied at a church for involvement in politics was against an anti-war rector. However, not satisfied with this position of formalistic legality, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma proposed amending the law in 2006 to allow churches to endorse candidates and maintain tax-exempt status. If such proposals were to come to pass, the American political system may look more like the Puritan English Commonwealth of Cromwell than the Jeffersonian Republic.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Lame excuse for a bunch of lame ducks
The good burghers of the Liberal party are going to stick their collective heads together and ponder where everything is going wrong. In a unique inversion of recent Liberal machinations, the Federal leadership in the person of Brendan Nelson is not invited. In explaining the omission of His Hairship, Victorian Liberal leader (and now senior budgie-smuggler following the post-election demise of Peter Debnam) Ted Bailleu said that Nelson had not been elected when the invitations went out.
That seemed a little trite, given that Queensland's bunch of herded cats changed its leader after the elevation of Nelson to the Federal leadership. The new leader, Mark McArdle, appears to have been invited. Precisely what advice Mr McArdle, the compromise one step removed from the old Athenian 'draw straws' method could offer remains moot. Given the Nationals are trying to absorb the Liberals, it probably is not going to be on the subject of electoral viability. Furthermore, the newly minted Western Australian opposition leader, Troy Buswell, gets the pleasure of a phone-hook up. Troy-boy was elected last week, presumably on the basis of polls which showed that people want to vote for the Libs, it is just that the leadership is mediocre at best. After saying he needed more experience, the next story was Buswell's election. Apparently he needed only a couple of hours.
Apparently Nelson will call his own meeting later in the year to discuss the party's future direction. Which is fine, except it looks horribly like his fellow leaders are plotting whether they actually think he is in their best interests and that he announced his conference in response to theirs. That an octet of leadership with the collective colour of a miso-soup menu left him off their bill and that Nelson could not put a stop to this meeting and re-direct discussions onto his agenda shows a remarkable loss of coherency in the party and a marked lack of respect for the leader. Perhaps Liberal state leaders are left in a quandary: having determined public service provision was not their bag, and with the federal parties encroaching on their areas of traditional responsibility, they do not actually know where they fit in the modern political landscape. In that light, it would make sense to have a provincial level conference of leaders. However, given the discussion is about the essential role played by Liberal parties at all levels of the process, both practically and philosophically, and that Nelson has considerably more experience of anything close to power than most of his counterparts, his omission sends a not so subtle message.
That seemed a little trite, given that Queensland's bunch of herded cats changed its leader after the elevation of Nelson to the Federal leadership. The new leader, Mark McArdle, appears to have been invited. Precisely what advice Mr McArdle, the compromise one step removed from the old Athenian 'draw straws' method could offer remains moot. Given the Nationals are trying to absorb the Liberals, it probably is not going to be on the subject of electoral viability. Furthermore, the newly minted Western Australian opposition leader, Troy Buswell, gets the pleasure of a phone-hook up. Troy-boy was elected last week, presumably on the basis of polls which showed that people want to vote for the Libs, it is just that the leadership is mediocre at best. After saying he needed more experience, the next story was Buswell's election. Apparently he needed only a couple of hours.
Apparently Nelson will call his own meeting later in the year to discuss the party's future direction. Which is fine, except it looks horribly like his fellow leaders are plotting whether they actually think he is in their best interests and that he announced his conference in response to theirs. That an octet of leadership with the collective colour of a miso-soup menu left him off their bill and that Nelson could not put a stop to this meeting and re-direct discussions onto his agenda shows a remarkable loss of coherency in the party and a marked lack of respect for the leader. Perhaps Liberal state leaders are left in a quandary: having determined public service provision was not their bag, and with the federal parties encroaching on their areas of traditional responsibility, they do not actually know where they fit in the modern political landscape. In that light, it would make sense to have a provincial level conference of leaders. However, given the discussion is about the essential role played by Liberal parties at all levels of the process, both practically and philosophically, and that Nelson has considerably more experience of anything close to power than most of his counterparts, his omission sends a not so subtle message.
Republican primaries - a race where the first prize is defeat?
It is now a truth universally acknowledged that the US Presidential election is a race in want of a frontrunner. The Republicans want to find someone who fits their base and electability conditions in the mould of Bush (the Younger), while the Democrats desire a latter-day (Bill) Clinton. The irony is that the very models themselves are the subject of widespread opprobrium.
From Peregrine's distant vista, it appears that American voters favour candidates with gubernatorial experience. Being a governor requires a blend of popular familiarity and demonstrated competence. This dynamic is probably indicative of hardening party allegiances and the role of mega-media campaigning, replete with brief images and soundbite policy snippets. Senators rely on building local rapport within their state, but not so much on the machinery of electioneering. Many occupy their seats forever. Senators read an awful lot of legislation, but do not actually run much outside their own election. Note that two of the Democrats, Obama and Edwards have a net total of two terms of senatorial experience.
Of course, the American course of electoral honours only has so much influence on the voters. Beneath that litmus test of ability come a multitude of other issues. Race, religious persuasion, moral values and management and military credentials all feed in to determine voter allegiance, both for and against. Given the incredible diversity of the US, a race without a clear candidate that fits the profile is bound to throw up all sort of electoral college permutations. Add the issue of fundraising and the picture is further complicated.
The Republican electoral machine relies on a large number of poor whites voting on racial and religious lines against their own economic interests. With the entry of illegal immigration into the electoral mix, race issues are bound to come to the fore in the manner that gay marriage brought religious issues to the surface. Huckabee, Romney and Thompson are in battle for these votes, a battle Huckabee is winning. However, Thompson's presence in the race should dilute Huckabee's advantage and keep McCain's conviction and experience platform running. If Thompson drops out, Huckabee will get a lot more votes from the Republican base.
Romney's strategy to run on the economy (and target the empty fields of Wyoming and Nevada) means his true opponents are probably McCain and Guiliani. Guiliani and Romney have a lot of money to roll into campaigning, whereas McCain is on a tightrope given his poor showing. One thing is clear: Guiliani must get close in Florida otherwise he will simply lack the numbers. McCain needs to capitalise on his media attention to convince enough self-interested Republicans that he is electable.
Following the gubernatorial formula, Romney becomes a dark horse, although his candidacy depends on acceptance of his widely-commented Mormon faith. If he can overcome this prejudice, which is pretty unlikely given the depth of feeling among evangelicals, a Democrat victory would be assured because their energised turnout would easily overcome a lukewarm base. Hence he will not win the nomination. Huckabee's position depends on him winning states like Florida and Texas, because he has not got a candle in the west or north-east.
The big question is will McCain have enough money to take on a fresh foe in Guiliani. Romney and McCain will probably have to win either California or Florida to offset Guiliani's appeal in the north-east. Despite looking for all purposes dead, Guiliani's decision to conserve his energies gives him a good chance to gain late momentum. But he must convert Florida. One suspects that McCain, having campaigned hard and got a lot of attention, will hold Guiliani on national security. A poor finish by McCain in Florida would be dangerous, a poor finish for Guiliani could be catastrophic.
One interesting point is that Guiliani's moral record, Romney's Mormonism and McCain's bipartisanship make all of them dubious propositions in the South, where the majority of Republican states lie. Huckabee's popularist policy makes him a hot potato for Northern Republicans enconscened in Wall Street. Thompson, the other conservative white meat, lacks the vigour for a full tilt campaign. It appears the Republicans best chance lies with McCain: the maverick may finally get to have a tilt at the Democrats.
If McCain is the nominee, he will face hesistant supporters unconvinced on his social and moral stands, and against the tide on immigration. The Democrats will be waiting to avenge the Bush years, typified by the Bush debacle.
From Peregrine's distant vista, it appears that American voters favour candidates with gubernatorial experience. Being a governor requires a blend of popular familiarity and demonstrated competence. This dynamic is probably indicative of hardening party allegiances and the role of mega-media campaigning, replete with brief images and soundbite policy snippets. Senators rely on building local rapport within their state, but not so much on the machinery of electioneering. Many occupy their seats forever. Senators read an awful lot of legislation, but do not actually run much outside their own election. Note that two of the Democrats, Obama and Edwards have a net total of two terms of senatorial experience.
Of course, the American course of electoral honours only has so much influence on the voters. Beneath that litmus test of ability come a multitude of other issues. Race, religious persuasion, moral values and management and military credentials all feed in to determine voter allegiance, both for and against. Given the incredible diversity of the US, a race without a clear candidate that fits the profile is bound to throw up all sort of electoral college permutations. Add the issue of fundraising and the picture is further complicated.
The Republican electoral machine relies on a large number of poor whites voting on racial and religious lines against their own economic interests. With the entry of illegal immigration into the electoral mix, race issues are bound to come to the fore in the manner that gay marriage brought religious issues to the surface. Huckabee, Romney and Thompson are in battle for these votes, a battle Huckabee is winning. However, Thompson's presence in the race should dilute Huckabee's advantage and keep McCain's conviction and experience platform running. If Thompson drops out, Huckabee will get a lot more votes from the Republican base.
Romney's strategy to run on the economy (and target the empty fields of Wyoming and Nevada) means his true opponents are probably McCain and Guiliani. Guiliani and Romney have a lot of money to roll into campaigning, whereas McCain is on a tightrope given his poor showing. One thing is clear: Guiliani must get close in Florida otherwise he will simply lack the numbers. McCain needs to capitalise on his media attention to convince enough self-interested Republicans that he is electable.
Following the gubernatorial formula, Romney becomes a dark horse, although his candidacy depends on acceptance of his widely-commented Mormon faith. If he can overcome this prejudice, which is pretty unlikely given the depth of feeling among evangelicals, a Democrat victory would be assured because their energised turnout would easily overcome a lukewarm base. Hence he will not win the nomination. Huckabee's position depends on him winning states like Florida and Texas, because he has not got a candle in the west or north-east.
The big question is will McCain have enough money to take on a fresh foe in Guiliani. Romney and McCain will probably have to win either California or Florida to offset Guiliani's appeal in the north-east. Despite looking for all purposes dead, Guiliani's decision to conserve his energies gives him a good chance to gain late momentum. But he must convert Florida. One suspects that McCain, having campaigned hard and got a lot of attention, will hold Guiliani on national security. A poor finish by McCain in Florida would be dangerous, a poor finish for Guiliani could be catastrophic.
One interesting point is that Guiliani's moral record, Romney's Mormonism and McCain's bipartisanship make all of them dubious propositions in the South, where the majority of Republican states lie. Huckabee's popularist policy makes him a hot potato for Northern Republicans enconscened in Wall Street. Thompson, the other conservative white meat, lacks the vigour for a full tilt campaign. It appears the Republicans best chance lies with McCain: the maverick may finally get to have a tilt at the Democrats.
If McCain is the nominee, he will face hesistant supporters unconvinced on his social and moral stands, and against the tide on immigration. The Democrats will be waiting to avenge the Bush years, typified by the Bush debacle.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Heavy artillery key to Australia's streak
Australia faces a Herculaean task to win the Third Test and become the side with the most Test wins in succession. As any all-conquering side such as the Melbourne Storm or Sydney Kings might tell you, winning a lot of games in succession only puts you closer to your next loss. Despite that somewhat gloomy axiom, Australia's dominance of the Test cricket scene has an inherent weakness. It relies on imposing its will on the opposition by a strategy of all-out attack. In a batsman-friendly era where bowlers are fairly mediocre, bats so dense as to seemingly exert their own gravitational pull on the ball and boundaries so short that Darren Lehmann's locks look luscious in comparison, this strategy is generally a winning one.
However, if the ball swings, bounces excessively or does anything beyond the parameters regarded as normal, the penchant for attack becomes self-defeating. Australia's kamikaze approach in the first innings bears this out. The divine wind for India sprang up from the east and they made full use of it. The normally cannon-fodder line of half volley outside off-stump became a Psiren call to the grave, as such level-headed souls as Mike Hussey perished driving through the off-side. That Michael Clarke still has a clear weakness against swing bowling (and a bizarre impetuousity to take off when hitting the ball to backward point) adds another wobble to the equation. Ten years ago, perhaps fifteen, Australia would have contented itself with a score of say, 4 for 200 after day 2. Caution, however, is in short supply in the dominating mindset and hence the entire side lasted a paltry fifty overs.
If Australia are to complete the streak, they will have to win in spite of the manner in which they won sixteen Tests, not because of it. Already in this innings, Rogers and Jaques have perished courtesy of Pathan's rejuvenated movement. The pitch itself possesses relatively few terrors at this stage and is as benign a fourth-innings surface seen since Gilchrist and Langer won the Hobart Test against Pakistan. The dangers, much like with the original kamikaze, are in the air and in the psychological disturbance those raids create. Australia's relentless charge is reminiscent of the great conquest of Sulemain, the Ottoman emperor who took the Turks all the way to the gates of Vienna. However Sulemain's campaign relied on its great cannons for its success. When the rain fell, the cannons became stuck in the mud, rendered useless by the elements. The Austrian army escaped, and the Turkish charge was halted.
To win tomorrow, Australia will have to bat judiciously, seeing off the swinging ball and making the most of tiring bowlers. Both sides have found it hard to remove middle-order batsmen once the swing slows and the wind dies down. If Australia have sufficient wickets in hand to capitalise on those opportunities, they may well find themselves in rarefied run-chasing territory.
However, if the ball swings, bounces excessively or does anything beyond the parameters regarded as normal, the penchant for attack becomes self-defeating. Australia's kamikaze approach in the first innings bears this out. The divine wind for India sprang up from the east and they made full use of it. The normally cannon-fodder line of half volley outside off-stump became a Psiren call to the grave, as such level-headed souls as Mike Hussey perished driving through the off-side. That Michael Clarke still has a clear weakness against swing bowling (and a bizarre impetuousity to take off when hitting the ball to backward point) adds another wobble to the equation. Ten years ago, perhaps fifteen, Australia would have contented itself with a score of say, 4 for 200 after day 2. Caution, however, is in short supply in the dominating mindset and hence the entire side lasted a paltry fifty overs.
If Australia are to complete the streak, they will have to win in spite of the manner in which they won sixteen Tests, not because of it. Already in this innings, Rogers and Jaques have perished courtesy of Pathan's rejuvenated movement. The pitch itself possesses relatively few terrors at this stage and is as benign a fourth-innings surface seen since Gilchrist and Langer won the Hobart Test against Pakistan. The dangers, much like with the original kamikaze, are in the air and in the psychological disturbance those raids create. Australia's relentless charge is reminiscent of the great conquest of Sulemain, the Ottoman emperor who took the Turks all the way to the gates of Vienna. However Sulemain's campaign relied on its great cannons for its success. When the rain fell, the cannons became stuck in the mud, rendered useless by the elements. The Austrian army escaped, and the Turkish charge was halted.
To win tomorrow, Australia will have to bat judiciously, seeing off the swinging ball and making the most of tiring bowlers. Both sides have found it hard to remove middle-order batsmen once the swing slows and the wind dies down. If Australia have sufficient wickets in hand to capitalise on those opportunities, they may well find themselves in rarefied run-chasing territory.
On YouTube everyone can hear you scream, just ask Marcos Baghdatis
Just when communicating had reached new heights, things have gone a step further. We have now become accustomed to the incredible utility of email to send both professional and personal correspondence. It has become second nature to 'google', tapping into the meta-searching oracle of the modern age. These changes, while revolutionary, give all but the most careless users control over their information and reputation. Individuals can maintain a level of privacy without taking too many precautions.
The next wave of social networking sites changes the equation. Sites such as MySpace, Facebook and YouTube offer users a tremendous opportunity to tap into the global information stream and gain instant notoriety. The massive increase in processing capacity means that videoclips are now the media of the moment. The important detail here is that video can be both in the form of a deliberately devised skit or simply filming the activities of others. It appears this has happened to the (Greek) Cypriot tennis player Marcos Baghdatis, who has some fairly unsavoury friends who have recently developed a taste for pepper spray.
Clearly, there is a very high potential here for embarassing footage to see the light of day. An individual's control over their own image is greatly reduced. This may lead to greater accountability and accompanying caution by figures in public life. It is almost certain that many of these clips will end up in court. Lawmakers will shortly be faced with the challenge of how to handle possibly defamatory images of individuals taken and or published without their consent.
The next wave of social networking sites changes the equation. Sites such as MySpace, Facebook and YouTube offer users a tremendous opportunity to tap into the global information stream and gain instant notoriety. The massive increase in processing capacity means that videoclips are now the media of the moment. The important detail here is that video can be both in the form of a deliberately devised skit or simply filming the activities of others. It appears this has happened to the (Greek) Cypriot tennis player Marcos Baghdatis, who has some fairly unsavoury friends who have recently developed a taste for pepper spray.
Clearly, there is a very high potential here for embarassing footage to see the light of day. An individual's control over their own image is greatly reduced. This may lead to greater accountability and accompanying caution by figures in public life. It is almost certain that many of these clips will end up in court. Lawmakers will shortly be faced with the challenge of how to handle possibly defamatory images of individuals taken and or published without their consent.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
None of the above makes a late run to challenge Hillary
The extraordinary machinations that make up the American political system may be about to turn the strangest result of all. In the bid to gain relevance, states have moved their primaries ever forward to the point where practically the entire race will be decided on one afternoon. The piqued Democratic and Republican parties have responded to this by penalising a number of states their seats at the September conferences to elect their party nominees. One such state is Michigan, which being without either historical or democratic reasons for its early primary, has provoked the Democratic party into voiding its entire one-hundred and fifty-six delegate representation. As there are no votes on the floor available, Obama and Edwards have pulled out, while Clinton will not campaign. Voters have the option to vote 'uncommitted', which translates to 'none of the above'.
Obama and Edwards have hit upon the unique idea of rather than handing a cheap win to Clinton, or possibly even a nonentity such as Kucnich (however worthy his programme might be), they are advocating Democratic voters vote 'uncommitted'. Uncommitted seems the perfect word to describe an American polity where the Democrats are locked in an acrimonious struggle, while the Republicans have one frontrunner in hiding hoarding his campaign cash, one yet to win anything beyond the backwoods of Wyoming and two others seemingly at war with the party. If anyone knows how this lot will play out, please give me a call with next week's lotto numbers.
Peregrine now believes that Clinton and Obama represent a true generational contest between opposing schools of philosophical thought. Clinton stands for the first generation postmodernist school of feminist power, playing on her standing with women voters and the politics of struggle for minority rights dating back to the Civil Rights era. Obama stands for the second generation, post-identity politics. Rather than run as a black candidate, Obama is running as a Democratic idealist, a self-confessed 'hopemonger'. Interestingly, Obama's reaching across the black-white divide continues a trend begun by Bush, with his open appeal to Hispanic voters and promotion of Rice and Powell to the Secretary of State position.
On the Republican side, Huckabee represents the party's adoption of a predominantly Baptist support base taken to its logical conclusion. Or illogical conclusion if President Huckabee, the Baptist preacher, has to deal with Pakistan. A hokey name may be the least of his worries. McCain has finally begun to mention his role in backing climate change action, which must surely be his best card in being the surrogate Schwarzenegger. One suspects that Schwarzenegger may play a key role in McCain's election chances, particularly with the California primary. As a conviction politician, McCain may command as many votes from respect as outright support, as rivals such as Romney and Guiliani are severely lacking in this department.
Obama and Edwards have hit upon the unique idea of rather than handing a cheap win to Clinton, or possibly even a nonentity such as Kucnich (however worthy his programme might be), they are advocating Democratic voters vote 'uncommitted'. Uncommitted seems the perfect word to describe an American polity where the Democrats are locked in an acrimonious struggle, while the Republicans have one frontrunner in hiding hoarding his campaign cash, one yet to win anything beyond the backwoods of Wyoming and two others seemingly at war with the party. If anyone knows how this lot will play out, please give me a call with next week's lotto numbers.
Peregrine now believes that Clinton and Obama represent a true generational contest between opposing schools of philosophical thought. Clinton stands for the first generation postmodernist school of feminist power, playing on her standing with women voters and the politics of struggle for minority rights dating back to the Civil Rights era. Obama stands for the second generation, post-identity politics. Rather than run as a black candidate, Obama is running as a Democratic idealist, a self-confessed 'hopemonger'. Interestingly, Obama's reaching across the black-white divide continues a trend begun by Bush, with his open appeal to Hispanic voters and promotion of Rice and Powell to the Secretary of State position.
On the Republican side, Huckabee represents the party's adoption of a predominantly Baptist support base taken to its logical conclusion. Or illogical conclusion if President Huckabee, the Baptist preacher, has to deal with Pakistan. A hokey name may be the least of his worries. McCain has finally begun to mention his role in backing climate change action, which must surely be his best card in being the surrogate Schwarzenegger. One suspects that Schwarzenegger may play a key role in McCain's election chances, particularly with the California primary. As a conviction politician, McCain may command as many votes from respect as outright support, as rivals such as Romney and Guiliani are severely lacking in this department.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Can Hillary Clinton discover her inner Rudd?
The new narrative of the US election is that Clinton is back. Obama's charge has been halted like the Ottoman conquest at the gates of Vienna and all is right with the logic of experience over aspiration. Except that the narrative changes so quickly it would dazzle a chameleon. Yes, Hillary Clinton did narrowly beat Barack Obama. There is much debate in the US over whether this was due to voter turnout among older women (very high for Hillary), much lower among young people (bad for Barack). One interesting stat is that exit polls state men voted 40/29 for Obama, which by my reckoning means that Hillary is going to have a big problem with the male vote.
My argument is that the mechanics of the actual result are less important than the core character of the campaign. Certainly Obama relies on a traditionally flaky set of demographics (young people and black voters), but by the same token he may be able to inspire energy in them to stand up and be counted when the candidacy is in doubt. The worst case for Obama is that his vote in Iowa was simply an echo of the Oprah effect, in which case he is in deep trouble against Clinton. Obama's big test will come in the Southern primaries and also depend on the involvement of Bill Clinton drawing on his traditional support from black voters.
There is an understandable tendency in the Australian media to compare Obama's campaign with Kevin Rudd's. Both on paper look like a serious of well-meaning, heartfelt statements centering on key themes. However, what comes across from the limited sampling of Obama's policies is that, even for an American audience, they are thin on the ground. Obama characters simply do not exist in Australian politics, because parties must at least run on something to gain election. Obama runs on hope, reclaiming the American dream and other appeals simultaneously to national pride and pesonal circumstance. It is reminiscent of 'the glory of Rome', although unlike Rome's clear pursuit of glory through military conquest, how Obama can lead America to that juncture remains unclear. Obama's success depends on no one actually questioning his credentials on issues such as Iraq, running as the anti-war candidate, or his comparative lack of experience in contrast to his opponents.
The real relevance of Rudd's success lies with Hillary Clinton. This blog last month described Clinton's candidature as like a Kevin07 reinvention without the self-deprecation. Faced with polls predicting oblivion (and a 10-15% loss would be oblivion), Hillary showed enough emotion to start rumours that she is actually a human being and not a political robot. Clinton is in an unusual position of being both the alternative and the figure of division. Turn her candidacy one way and she is the experienced, moderate force for change. Turn it the other and she is the reviled figure of Whitewater and Lewinsky, a sign of everything wrong with the morals of the nation. At the minute, Clinton's campaign is about the Democratic party base's belief in her electability. If she wins the nomination, the election could easily become a referendum on Clinton herself and the legacy of Bill Clinton.
In order to win this referendum, Hillary needs to show she has changed. She needs to demonstrate she is not the cold, calculating figure who apparently lacks the common touch of her husband. Rudd was similarly derided by his own party as someone the punters did not want a bar of. Now he is seen in the bar itself, partaking of a XXXX or two. The question remains whether Clinton's will for the presidency has clouded her intentions. If she can translate that will into a positive programme that can demonstrably illustrate how people's lives will be improved, she will go a long way towards curing the concerns over her past voting record and previous incarnation as Bill's wife. Clinton needs to demonstrate her private self-deprecating style in public, otherwise she runs the risk of becoming an American Simon Crean. Alas, poor Simon, was a personable man in person and in private, but in the glare of cameras came across like a rabbit in the headlights. Worse, a smarmy rabbit.
Crean engendered such desperation in his party that they replaced him with the risky and risk-taking Mark Latham. It is not beyond the realms that disenchanted Democrats would desert in droves to Obama. He would at least give them hope.
My argument is that the mechanics of the actual result are less important than the core character of the campaign. Certainly Obama relies on a traditionally flaky set of demographics (young people and black voters), but by the same token he may be able to inspire energy in them to stand up and be counted when the candidacy is in doubt. The worst case for Obama is that his vote in Iowa was simply an echo of the Oprah effect, in which case he is in deep trouble against Clinton. Obama's big test will come in the Southern primaries and also depend on the involvement of Bill Clinton drawing on his traditional support from black voters.
There is an understandable tendency in the Australian media to compare Obama's campaign with Kevin Rudd's. Both on paper look like a serious of well-meaning, heartfelt statements centering on key themes. However, what comes across from the limited sampling of Obama's policies is that, even for an American audience, they are thin on the ground. Obama characters simply do not exist in Australian politics, because parties must at least run on something to gain election. Obama runs on hope, reclaiming the American dream and other appeals simultaneously to national pride and pesonal circumstance. It is reminiscent of 'the glory of Rome', although unlike Rome's clear pursuit of glory through military conquest, how Obama can lead America to that juncture remains unclear. Obama's success depends on no one actually questioning his credentials on issues such as Iraq, running as the anti-war candidate, or his comparative lack of experience in contrast to his opponents.
The real relevance of Rudd's success lies with Hillary Clinton. This blog last month described Clinton's candidature as like a Kevin07 reinvention without the self-deprecation. Faced with polls predicting oblivion (and a 10-15% loss would be oblivion), Hillary showed enough emotion to start rumours that she is actually a human being and not a political robot. Clinton is in an unusual position of being both the alternative and the figure of division. Turn her candidacy one way and she is the experienced, moderate force for change. Turn it the other and she is the reviled figure of Whitewater and Lewinsky, a sign of everything wrong with the morals of the nation. At the minute, Clinton's campaign is about the Democratic party base's belief in her electability. If she wins the nomination, the election could easily become a referendum on Clinton herself and the legacy of Bill Clinton.
In order to win this referendum, Hillary needs to show she has changed. She needs to demonstrate she is not the cold, calculating figure who apparently lacks the common touch of her husband. Rudd was similarly derided by his own party as someone the punters did not want a bar of. Now he is seen in the bar itself, partaking of a XXXX or two. The question remains whether Clinton's will for the presidency has clouded her intentions. If she can translate that will into a positive programme that can demonstrably illustrate how people's lives will be improved, she will go a long way towards curing the concerns over her past voting record and previous incarnation as Bill's wife. Clinton needs to demonstrate her private self-deprecating style in public, otherwise she runs the risk of becoming an American Simon Crean. Alas, poor Simon, was a personable man in person and in private, but in the glare of cameras came across like a rabbit in the headlights. Worse, a smarmy rabbit.
Crean engendered such desperation in his party that they replaced him with the risky and risk-taking Mark Latham. It is not beyond the realms that disenchanted Democrats would desert in droves to Obama. He would at least give them hope.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The problem is more complex than Ponting
Cricket now appears to be in a state of rapidly escalating conflict. The main battle appears to be between the BCCI and vocal sections of the Indian media on one hand and the Australian cricket team on the other. Whereas first India was in apoplexy over perceived bias in umpiring decisions and the racial charge levelled against Harbajhan Singh and his subsequent ban, the outrage has now spread here with respected SMH cricket columnist Peter Roebuck's call for Ponting to be sacked, along with seemingly half his side.
The Australian team is partly to blame for this mess purely for its stubborn failure to recognise a large proportion of people cheer for its opponents simply because they see the team as arrogant and overtly aggressive. This has been a problem since Steve Waugh's era of psychological warfare. It was build around Hayden's imposing bulk and tendency to use expletives, plus Warne's boorish behaviour and McGrath's on-field crankiness. Ponting's snarling performance in England when run out by a substitute (a practice Australia later adopted) reinforced the view on the world stage. The Australian team's persistent tendency to target opponents through the media has further added to this resentment. The fact that Darren Lehmann was suspended for racial abuse for two one-day matches seemed to confirm this reputation.
All of this, plus continual criticism about team tactics such as late declarations and apparently conservative field and bowling choices has finally got to Ponting. He and his senior playing group have closed ranks and adopted their own siege mentality, behaving something like the West Coast Eagles immediately after Ben Cousins' initial ban. That Cricket Australia felt it appropriate to put them in an appalling triumphant KFC series of commercials, which show the team so bored with thrashing the opposition that all they can think of is the food to follow is an act of extraordinarily bad timing. Kumble would be best advised to show that ad to his team as motivation that Australia does not respect them and play to the utmost of their ability. Cricket Australia should have the ads suspended immediately.
Racism is clearly a hot issue in this series. Cricket Australia launched a zero tolerance policy at the beginning of the season to prevent retaliatory stupidity from the comments made against Symonds in India. It appears that Ponting's pique at accusations of sledging have caused the team to push home the idea that India are not squeaky clean in this regard. Unfortunately it could easily look like Ponting wants Harbajhan gone because he keeps getting him out, rendering him irrelevant to the contest.
The current fracas seems to blame Australia for umpiring in its favour. In the midst of this hysteria, perhaps there is an argument about 'bias'. Being a long-suffering supporter of the Sydney Swans and watcher of a large number of AFL games, it is very apparent that umpiring follows a pattern. Umpires are constantly exposed to players and have their own psychological impressions. These may subtlely affect their view of events. It is patently obvious that Swans players get a better deal in Sydney, and they get a better deal when they are in front. When the game is in the balance, decisions often go the other way. Conversely, a national team such as Australia with an imposing record will probably get a better deal as umpires perceive the stronger team should do better and that may affect their vision. On umpire imitation, India themselves are sensitive, having had three players suspended for it and then cancelling a Test match in retaliation. One of those players was Mr H Singh.
In to all this comes the turbulent climate of India. Fanatical to the core, supporters are whipped into a frenzy by the thousands of media outlets clammering for ever more sensational stories. The team are under incredible pressure - for many this is their last chance. That must surely go for the administrators with the crisis over the two Twenty20 leagues causing chaos among those running the game. Any opportunity to get sympathy rather than blame must surely seem attractive.
The best answer to this mess is for both teams to make a public show of harmony. The ICC may uphold the appeal and then the whole issue can be determined at the next ICC meeting. Ponting and Kumble should bury the hatchet, but for the rest of the series agree to defer to the umpire's decision on all appeals and make a determined effort to appeal only where they are reasonably confident. Cricket Australia could also assist its players by briefing them on the ramifications of their behaviour and issue internal fines for inciting remarks and excessive appealing.
The Australian team is partly to blame for this mess purely for its stubborn failure to recognise a large proportion of people cheer for its opponents simply because they see the team as arrogant and overtly aggressive. This has been a problem since Steve Waugh's era of psychological warfare. It was build around Hayden's imposing bulk and tendency to use expletives, plus Warne's boorish behaviour and McGrath's on-field crankiness. Ponting's snarling performance in England when run out by a substitute (a practice Australia later adopted) reinforced the view on the world stage. The Australian team's persistent tendency to target opponents through the media has further added to this resentment. The fact that Darren Lehmann was suspended for racial abuse for two one-day matches seemed to confirm this reputation.
All of this, plus continual criticism about team tactics such as late declarations and apparently conservative field and bowling choices has finally got to Ponting. He and his senior playing group have closed ranks and adopted their own siege mentality, behaving something like the West Coast Eagles immediately after Ben Cousins' initial ban. That Cricket Australia felt it appropriate to put them in an appalling triumphant KFC series of commercials, which show the team so bored with thrashing the opposition that all they can think of is the food to follow is an act of extraordinarily bad timing. Kumble would be best advised to show that ad to his team as motivation that Australia does not respect them and play to the utmost of their ability. Cricket Australia should have the ads suspended immediately.
Racism is clearly a hot issue in this series. Cricket Australia launched a zero tolerance policy at the beginning of the season to prevent retaliatory stupidity from the comments made against Symonds in India. It appears that Ponting's pique at accusations of sledging have caused the team to push home the idea that India are not squeaky clean in this regard. Unfortunately it could easily look like Ponting wants Harbajhan gone because he keeps getting him out, rendering him irrelevant to the contest.
The current fracas seems to blame Australia for umpiring in its favour. In the midst of this hysteria, perhaps there is an argument about 'bias'. Being a long-suffering supporter of the Sydney Swans and watcher of a large number of AFL games, it is very apparent that umpiring follows a pattern. Umpires are constantly exposed to players and have their own psychological impressions. These may subtlely affect their view of events. It is patently obvious that Swans players get a better deal in Sydney, and they get a better deal when they are in front. When the game is in the balance, decisions often go the other way. Conversely, a national team such as Australia with an imposing record will probably get a better deal as umpires perceive the stronger team should do better and that may affect their vision. On umpire imitation, India themselves are sensitive, having had three players suspended for it and then cancelling a Test match in retaliation. One of those players was Mr H Singh.
In to all this comes the turbulent climate of India. Fanatical to the core, supporters are whipped into a frenzy by the thousands of media outlets clammering for ever more sensational stories. The team are under incredible pressure - for many this is their last chance. That must surely go for the administrators with the crisis over the two Twenty20 leagues causing chaos among those running the game. Any opportunity to get sympathy rather than blame must surely seem attractive.
The best answer to this mess is for both teams to make a public show of harmony. The ICC may uphold the appeal and then the whole issue can be determined at the next ICC meeting. Ponting and Kumble should bury the hatchet, but for the rest of the series agree to defer to the umpire's decision on all appeals and make a determined effort to appeal only where they are reasonably confident. Cricket Australia could also assist its players by briefing them on the ramifications of their behaviour and issue internal fines for inciting remarks and excessive appealing.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Technology and common sense needed to calm fraying tempers
The Sydney Test has descended into a barrage of accusation and counter-accusation. One would not be surprised if lawyers were drafting more than the odd defamation action. This sorry statement of affairs is an indictment on all parties including the authorities (namely the ICC and the BCCI, although Cricket Australia are not without blame), numerous media outlets, the extraordinary passionate, vibrant but sometimes self- harming beast that is Indian cricket and the boorish behaviour of Australian players.
Firstly, the cricket. Teams that tour Australia lose if they adopt a siege mentality. India are in danger of adopting a complain first and ask questions later attitude, blaming a bevy of unfortunate umpiring decisions. It is notable how crestfallen India were when Symonds was given not out on 30. The situation is complicated by the tremendous pressure placed on the players and the weight of expectation stirred up. The popular movement to reinstate Ganguly has given the sense that anything is possible if demanded by the public. The players and, more to the point, the apparatchik administrators are going to be extremely reluctant to take responsibility for defeat if it means having their effigy burnt in Mumbai and Kolkata. India genuinely believe they should have won last time here, a myth perpetuated by most of the world's media. The sense that their destiny has been denied has made for an explosive outcome.
Secondly, the Australian team itself. The spotlight of the media is on Australia, whose reputation is universally of a great team but poor winners (and even poorer, if rare, losers). No one pays much attention to the atrocious track record of India, particularly vehement appealing on the last days of Test matches. There is a considerable reservoir of sympathy available for an opposition player to criticise Australia's sledging. Australia have clearly lost the battle to portray themselves as a fair team, and they have had enough of constant criticism. More should have been done sooner, and action should certainly be taken now to stop the resentment building up.
Personally, sledging should only be demonstrative of a player's wit and not touch on anything that might be personally offensive. There is no place for any form of racial vilification. There is now an interesting exercise in cultural education going on, with what looks like a cynical counter-charge made against Brad Hogg. Whereas the use of the word 'monkey' against Symonds is well known to have racist overtones, the word 'bastard' allegedly used by Hogg (and quite possibly used) does not often mean 'illegitimate male child' in common Australian usage. This whole mess may require a list of terms to be drawn up, or at least common consensus on what players can and cannot say on the field.
On the umpiring issue, the ICC is paying for a good idea badly executed. Bucknor has stood in 120 tests because he was voted onto the ICC international panel and it is meant to represent the Test playing nations. The problem is that no other umpires have emerged on the panel to replace him, and that Australia's Simon Taufel, rated the world's best umpire, cannot stand in Australian tests due to a perceived conflict of interest.
In other words, we get substandard umpiring to avoid bias. Having said that, the two umpires in Melbourne made almost no errors until the final day. Clearly, umpires have good days and bad days. The question is how to maximise one and minimise the damage on the other.
The best way to deal with the current situation is for the ICC to put more money into training and supporting umpires. This should allow for say, a panel of 16 umpires to umpire Tests with sufficient time for umpires to recover and de-stress. Umpires would also have yearly sight and hearing testing plus complete a practical umpiring simulation. These results would then be used to determine promotion or relegation of umpires. Within matches, the ICC could direct umpires to pay less attention to calling no-balls to allow more focus on the play. Third umpires would be empowered to recall batsmen if replays showed the bowling over-stepping. Teams could have three challenges an innings. The challenges would relate to whether catches were bump balls and whether there was an edge or not on catches and lbw appeals and whether the ball pitched outside leg stump on lbws. Challenges could be made by both the batting and fielding sides, although a fielding side would only get the benefit on catches. The technology used would include Hawkeye (plotting the pitch of the ball, adopted in tennis) and the HotSpot heat-detection system, as both show objective evidence of where the ball ended up. In one-day games, two challenges would be allowed per innings.
Firstly, the cricket. Teams that tour Australia lose if they adopt a siege mentality. India are in danger of adopting a complain first and ask questions later attitude, blaming a bevy of unfortunate umpiring decisions. It is notable how crestfallen India were when Symonds was given not out on 30. The situation is complicated by the tremendous pressure placed on the players and the weight of expectation stirred up. The popular movement to reinstate Ganguly has given the sense that anything is possible if demanded by the public. The players and, more to the point, the apparatchik administrators are going to be extremely reluctant to take responsibility for defeat if it means having their effigy burnt in Mumbai and Kolkata. India genuinely believe they should have won last time here, a myth perpetuated by most of the world's media. The sense that their destiny has been denied has made for an explosive outcome.
Secondly, the Australian team itself. The spotlight of the media is on Australia, whose reputation is universally of a great team but poor winners (and even poorer, if rare, losers). No one pays much attention to the atrocious track record of India, particularly vehement appealing on the last days of Test matches. There is a considerable reservoir of sympathy available for an opposition player to criticise Australia's sledging. Australia have clearly lost the battle to portray themselves as a fair team, and they have had enough of constant criticism. More should have been done sooner, and action should certainly be taken now to stop the resentment building up.
Personally, sledging should only be demonstrative of a player's wit and not touch on anything that might be personally offensive. There is no place for any form of racial vilification. There is now an interesting exercise in cultural education going on, with what looks like a cynical counter-charge made against Brad Hogg. Whereas the use of the word 'monkey' against Symonds is well known to have racist overtones, the word 'bastard' allegedly used by Hogg (and quite possibly used) does not often mean 'illegitimate male child' in common Australian usage. This whole mess may require a list of terms to be drawn up, or at least common consensus on what players can and cannot say on the field.
On the umpiring issue, the ICC is paying for a good idea badly executed. Bucknor has stood in 120 tests because he was voted onto the ICC international panel and it is meant to represent the Test playing nations. The problem is that no other umpires have emerged on the panel to replace him, and that Australia's Simon Taufel, rated the world's best umpire, cannot stand in Australian tests due to a perceived conflict of interest.
In other words, we get substandard umpiring to avoid bias. Having said that, the two umpires in Melbourne made almost no errors until the final day. Clearly, umpires have good days and bad days. The question is how to maximise one and minimise the damage on the other.
The best way to deal with the current situation is for the ICC to put more money into training and supporting umpires. This should allow for say, a panel of 16 umpires to umpire Tests with sufficient time for umpires to recover and de-stress. Umpires would also have yearly sight and hearing testing plus complete a practical umpiring simulation. These results would then be used to determine promotion or relegation of umpires. Within matches, the ICC could direct umpires to pay less attention to calling no-balls to allow more focus on the play. Third umpires would be empowered to recall batsmen if replays showed the bowling over-stepping. Teams could have three challenges an innings. The challenges would relate to whether catches were bump balls and whether there was an edge or not on catches and lbw appeals and whether the ball pitched outside leg stump on lbws. Challenges could be made by both the batting and fielding sides, although a fielding side would only get the benefit on catches. The technology used would include Hawkeye (plotting the pitch of the ball, adopted in tennis) and the HotSpot heat-detection system, as both show objective evidence of where the ball ended up. In one-day games, two challenges would be allowed per innings.
Wheels within wheels
Hillary Clinton's candidacy relies on the inevitability effect. It is the force by which a behemoth suffering from structural weakness relies to crush the hope of its opponents. Clinton has constructed this effect by a careful stage managing of her character, employing weather-vane voting behaviour in the Senate and occasionally relying on the star power of her tainted husband. She has seen the field cleared by sacrificing John Kerry in 2004 and now is her hour to triumph.
Except no one told Barack Obama. Obama is profiting from the fact that all modern campaigning is about image and perception. He is the candidate of change, not just from the Republican fiasco of Bush and his Caligulan extravagance, but from the Clinton-Bush/ red-blue polarisation. His transformative campaign has a second layer: running as the great unifier, he is seeking to reconcile the fissures done between traditional Democratic southerners and their northern counterparts over civil rights. Whereas Nixon and Reagan fashioned the Republican political realignment from the late 1960s onwards via harvesting evangelicals, Obama is seeking to bring back those lost souls and capitalise on the national disenchantment with the Bush regime.
Obama's win in Iowa at least proves that his brand of rhetoric can translate into votes. With non-compulsory voting, getting the vote out is about inspiring people to turn up, not just agree with the policies presented. Obama is already being compared to the Kennedy phenomenon and his credentials are pretty much on par with those mythological figures. It remains to be seen whether rhetoric alone can still win elections, but the flux on the Republican side means Obama has a strong chance if he does maintain his momentum.
On the other side of the fence, the Republican machine is heading for a crisis point. Its man appears to be Romney. Or is it Guilani? Does anyone know? How the Republicans thought backing a man from Massachuetts might be a good idea is anyone's guess, while Guilani is a polarising one-trick pony who alienates the bedrock 'Christian Right' support base. If he ran against Clinton, he would seriously dilute the anti-Hillary factor with his record of indiscretions. Romney is the slick campaigner whose very slickness highlights precisely what is wrong with a lot of modern politics. He has recanted on almost every position while he was governor and is throwing more mud than an errant four wheel drive. Given his inconsistency, he would be crucified by Obama, who at least is consistent if nebulous in his positions. Clinton's experience would probably outweigh Romney's lukewarm support among Republicans.
The Republicans have a machine designed to win power. They use religion to turn poorer evangelical voters against their own economic interests and support low-tax, pro-business policies. Edwards, the third candidate on the Democrat side, has picked up on the mass of underprivilege and run on improving the lot of these people. Huckabee, the self-propelled Republican governor, has picked up on this groundswell and is seeking to change the party's orientation from a pro-business to a pro-people party. His focus would be on small-town America. One suspects Huckabee would at least be competitive against Clinton and Obama, unless he comes across as a divisive figure. He would appear superior to Obama on his long serving record as Arkansas Governor, and is more likable than Clinton.
McCain has his own failings. A good old-fashioned conviction politican, the times do not suit him. He is not particularly enamoured with the CR base, who prefer candidates such as Huckabee and the positions stated by Romney and "Blokeman" Thompson. McCain could capitalise on his support for climate change action if he can gain traction, having supported a major bill on the issue. However that may only serve to remind Republicans of their wish to have Schwarzenegger as their nominee, whose profile, command of a traditional Democrat state and major status as a climate change statesman make him an imposing figure. As it is, McCain is best known for advocating an invasion of Iran. Having said that, his comments on increasing troop numbers in Iraq have been borne out over time, and if he can regain credibility with donors and the media, his campaign may yet make him competitive. A strong McCain candidacy is dangerous to both Clinton and Obama. McCain has the benefit of being a conviction politician against Hillary's hesistancy in the Senate, while he would look Obama look like a college sophomore.
On the basis of the above, Clinton's juggernaut needs to recover its momentum. However, her non-committal record and residual unpopularity from the Clinton years are major weaknesses ripe for exploitation. Obama sits in the middle of three political figures in the US Pantheon: Robert Kennedy (calls for idealism), George W Bush (next-door guy appeal) and Ronald Reagan (remaking old alignments, reaching out). Which one of those he ends up closest to in the American mindset may determine how far his campaign goes.
Except no one told Barack Obama. Obama is profiting from the fact that all modern campaigning is about image and perception. He is the candidate of change, not just from the Republican fiasco of Bush and his Caligulan extravagance, but from the Clinton-Bush/ red-blue polarisation. His transformative campaign has a second layer: running as the great unifier, he is seeking to reconcile the fissures done between traditional Democratic southerners and their northern counterparts over civil rights. Whereas Nixon and Reagan fashioned the Republican political realignment from the late 1960s onwards via harvesting evangelicals, Obama is seeking to bring back those lost souls and capitalise on the national disenchantment with the Bush regime.
Obama's win in Iowa at least proves that his brand of rhetoric can translate into votes. With non-compulsory voting, getting the vote out is about inspiring people to turn up, not just agree with the policies presented. Obama is already being compared to the Kennedy phenomenon and his credentials are pretty much on par with those mythological figures. It remains to be seen whether rhetoric alone can still win elections, but the flux on the Republican side means Obama has a strong chance if he does maintain his momentum.
On the other side of the fence, the Republican machine is heading for a crisis point. Its man appears to be Romney. Or is it Guilani? Does anyone know? How the Republicans thought backing a man from Massachuetts might be a good idea is anyone's guess, while Guilani is a polarising one-trick pony who alienates the bedrock 'Christian Right' support base. If he ran against Clinton, he would seriously dilute the anti-Hillary factor with his record of indiscretions. Romney is the slick campaigner whose very slickness highlights precisely what is wrong with a lot of modern politics. He has recanted on almost every position while he was governor and is throwing more mud than an errant four wheel drive. Given his inconsistency, he would be crucified by Obama, who at least is consistent if nebulous in his positions. Clinton's experience would probably outweigh Romney's lukewarm support among Republicans.
The Republicans have a machine designed to win power. They use religion to turn poorer evangelical voters against their own economic interests and support low-tax, pro-business policies. Edwards, the third candidate on the Democrat side, has picked up on the mass of underprivilege and run on improving the lot of these people. Huckabee, the self-propelled Republican governor, has picked up on this groundswell and is seeking to change the party's orientation from a pro-business to a pro-people party. His focus would be on small-town America. One suspects Huckabee would at least be competitive against Clinton and Obama, unless he comes across as a divisive figure. He would appear superior to Obama on his long serving record as Arkansas Governor, and is more likable than Clinton.
McCain has his own failings. A good old-fashioned conviction politican, the times do not suit him. He is not particularly enamoured with the CR base, who prefer candidates such as Huckabee and the positions stated by Romney and "Blokeman" Thompson. McCain could capitalise on his support for climate change action if he can gain traction, having supported a major bill on the issue. However that may only serve to remind Republicans of their wish to have Schwarzenegger as their nominee, whose profile, command of a traditional Democrat state and major status as a climate change statesman make him an imposing figure. As it is, McCain is best known for advocating an invasion of Iran. Having said that, his comments on increasing troop numbers in Iraq have been borne out over time, and if he can regain credibility with donors and the media, his campaign may yet make him competitive. A strong McCain candidacy is dangerous to both Clinton and Obama. McCain has the benefit of being a conviction politician against Hillary's hesistancy in the Senate, while he would look Obama look like a college sophomore.
On the basis of the above, Clinton's juggernaut needs to recover its momentum. However, her non-committal record and residual unpopularity from the Clinton years are major weaknesses ripe for exploitation. Obama sits in the middle of three political figures in the US Pantheon: Robert Kennedy (calls for idealism), George W Bush (next-door guy appeal) and Ronald Reagan (remaking old alignments, reaching out). Which one of those he ends up closest to in the American mindset may determine how far his campaign goes.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Ghost of Coonan past afflicts Conroy's filter plan
It is truth universally acknowledged that Helen Coonan was not a terribly progressive Communications minister. During her tenure, cross-media ownership laws were diluted under the principle of not making existing media owners cross via the figleaf of 'increased outlets of new media'. Negotiations to build a high speed national broadband network went precisely nowhere and open warfare was declared by Telstra's head honcho, Sol Trujilo.
Coonan had one other vaunted policy, the NetAlert campaign. NetAlert was conceived to appeal to the 'Christian Right' and poach traditional Catholic 'values voters' (to use despised American political jargon) from Labor, possibly via the agency of Family First. The original centrepiece was an audacious plan to filter undesirable content, primarily porn, from impressionable eyes. If that was the aim, then they would have been better off leaning on the moguls running the media, with platforms such as ninemsn frequently making available images of not especially clothed celebrities.
To Coonan's credit, the final mailout became a self-help guide to educating parents on the dangers of the internet and advised supervision. The plan to filter the net was deemed a quixotic quest when logic took hold. The thing could only be done by using a list of undesirable sites and checking the site requested against the list, a slow and cumbersome process reducing processing speed by between 16 and 78% for ISPs.
Enter Stephen Conroy. Conroy is the man charged with bringing Rudd's fabled fibre-to-the-node broadband network into reality. He also has carriage of the Beazley-era acquiescence on Coonan's NetAlert scheme. This contradiction should have been immediately obvious to someone of Rudd's intellect and logical thinking capability. However it has been retained presumably to protect against a Coalition scare campaign.
As Rudd is now ascendant, good policy dictates that he abandon this bizarre nanny-state filtering scheme. Government - corporate filtering of the internet has much the same connotations these days as imprisonment without trial or taxation without representation once did. It is a sign of intrusion and unfettered exercise of power which people simply do not like.
Leaving aside the philosphical issues, the hindrance of broadband speed makes a mockery of Rudd's vaunted vehicle to prosperity. The worst part of the filter plan is that the biggest delay happens to fast stream connections. A filter system does not appear compatible with a high speed network, particularly when that network will already be compromised by transmission loss over large areas. Rudd's best course is to first delay the implementation of the policy and then make it very, very clear that there are no feasible options for filtering.
Coonan had one other vaunted policy, the NetAlert campaign. NetAlert was conceived to appeal to the 'Christian Right' and poach traditional Catholic 'values voters' (to use despised American political jargon) from Labor, possibly via the agency of Family First. The original centrepiece was an audacious plan to filter undesirable content, primarily porn, from impressionable eyes. If that was the aim, then they would have been better off leaning on the moguls running the media, with platforms such as ninemsn frequently making available images of not especially clothed celebrities.
To Coonan's credit, the final mailout became a self-help guide to educating parents on the dangers of the internet and advised supervision. The plan to filter the net was deemed a quixotic quest when logic took hold. The thing could only be done by using a list of undesirable sites and checking the site requested against the list, a slow and cumbersome process reducing processing speed by between 16 and 78% for ISPs.
Enter Stephen Conroy. Conroy is the man charged with bringing Rudd's fabled fibre-to-the-node broadband network into reality. He also has carriage of the Beazley-era acquiescence on Coonan's NetAlert scheme. This contradiction should have been immediately obvious to someone of Rudd's intellect and logical thinking capability. However it has been retained presumably to protect against a Coalition scare campaign.
As Rudd is now ascendant, good policy dictates that he abandon this bizarre nanny-state filtering scheme. Government - corporate filtering of the internet has much the same connotations these days as imprisonment without trial or taxation without representation once did. It is a sign of intrusion and unfettered exercise of power which people simply do not like.
Leaving aside the philosphical issues, the hindrance of broadband speed makes a mockery of Rudd's vaunted vehicle to prosperity. The worst part of the filter plan is that the biggest delay happens to fast stream connections. A filter system does not appear compatible with a high speed network, particularly when that network will already be compromised by transmission loss over large areas. Rudd's best course is to first delay the implementation of the policy and then make it very, very clear that there are no feasible options for filtering.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Trend still missing in campaign blizzard
Following on from this blog's recent reviewing of the US Presidential candidates, the situation is no more clear a month later.
Given the need for early momentum, it is imperative that candidates do well in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Except if you are Rudi Guiliani, who has figured that he has zero appeal in the smaller states and is better off pursuing a winner-take-all strategy in California, New York and Florida. Guiliani, while a formidable opponent does have a plethora of skeletons on public display and may be a tempting target for Democrats. Following his own tradition, John McCain is attempting to repeat his primary success over Bush in New Hampshire. However McCain has to have a win or a highly competitive second here otherwise other states may be less keen on him.
Competiting for the 'Christian Right' mantle are Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Romney and Huckabee have overwhelmed Fred "Blokeman" Thompson, but effectively split the CR vote three ways. Romney looks the more polished candidtate, but his campaign may be just a little slick and convenient given his 2007/08 conversion on big conservative issues like gun control and abortion. To evoke Holden Caulfield, Romney wants to be real careful those folks don't think he's a phoney. Otherwise he is roadkill. One would suspect that Romney will probably win in Iowa, picking up a fair swag of Guiliani's support while Thompson takes enough CR votes from Huckabee to push him down to second. Expect to see a lot of Huckabee - Romney or Huckabee - McCain preferences, given Huckabee is probably viewed as a wishful thinking candidate rather than a genuine election chance.
On the Democrat side, John Edwards represents the ideal candidate with Barack Obama running as the Kennedyesque counterpoint to Hillary Clinton's establishment figure. To elude to Le Tour, Clinton's breakaway campaign is getting reined in in the mountains of the Mid-west. Iowa is likely to give Edwards a large number of supporters due to his Southern charm. I suspect that Clinton will probably win with enough of Edwards' idealistic supporters swallowing the realism of Clinton's ticket and giving her their preference. Obama is a very good chance in New Hampshire, but the race remains very close with the presence of two front runners in Clinton and Obama drawing Edwards back into competition.
Given the need for early momentum, it is imperative that candidates do well in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Except if you are Rudi Guiliani, who has figured that he has zero appeal in the smaller states and is better off pursuing a winner-take-all strategy in California, New York and Florida. Guiliani, while a formidable opponent does have a plethora of skeletons on public display and may be a tempting target for Democrats. Following his own tradition, John McCain is attempting to repeat his primary success over Bush in New Hampshire. However McCain has to have a win or a highly competitive second here otherwise other states may be less keen on him.
Competiting for the 'Christian Right' mantle are Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Romney and Huckabee have overwhelmed Fred "Blokeman" Thompson, but effectively split the CR vote three ways. Romney looks the more polished candidtate, but his campaign may be just a little slick and convenient given his 2007/08 conversion on big conservative issues like gun control and abortion. To evoke Holden Caulfield, Romney wants to be real careful those folks don't think he's a phoney. Otherwise he is roadkill. One would suspect that Romney will probably win in Iowa, picking up a fair swag of Guiliani's support while Thompson takes enough CR votes from Huckabee to push him down to second. Expect to see a lot of Huckabee - Romney or Huckabee - McCain preferences, given Huckabee is probably viewed as a wishful thinking candidate rather than a genuine election chance.
On the Democrat side, John Edwards represents the ideal candidate with Barack Obama running as the Kennedyesque counterpoint to Hillary Clinton's establishment figure. To elude to Le Tour, Clinton's breakaway campaign is getting reined in in the mountains of the Mid-west. Iowa is likely to give Edwards a large number of supporters due to his Southern charm. I suspect that Clinton will probably win with enough of Edwards' idealistic supporters swallowing the realism of Clinton's ticket and giving her their preference. Obama is a very good chance in New Hampshire, but the race remains very close with the presence of two front runners in Clinton and Obama drawing Edwards back into competition.
Defiant but defeatist? India's half-hearted conviction
At the risk of inciting most of the subcontinental cricket community, Peregrine (whose best performance was taking three or four wickets in a school game bowling considerably slower medium than Ganguly) offers the following observations on the Test series to date.
India have been determined to take the game up to Australia and not be intimidated by their opponents, the conditions or the media. The problem is that this very determination belies an internal siege mentality which afflicts most of the teams which arrive here. This attitude has manifested itself with the bizarre tactic of permanently stationing fielders on the boundary for any recognised batsmen, the quick removal of attacking fielders, the reluctance for spinners to flight the ball except within a few overs of taking a wicket and the adoption of two defensive openers at the start of the innings.
On top of these defensive tactics, there appears to be a great tendency to blame the umpires for making poor decisions and the administrators for their scheduling. It is well known that umpiring consistency is something of a chimera at present. Today, Symonds got one life from a caught behind, a second from a borderline lbw and was a split second from being stumped. However, India also failed to run him out from short extra cover, an opportunity Symonds may easily have taken himself. Ponting got a fairly ordinary lbw decision which triggered a collapse. He was batting imperiously at the time, having earlier got a caught behind go his way. Umpiring clearly needs to be improved either by better personnel or better use of technology.
On the administrators' front. Witness Stuart Clark's complaints that Cricket Australia held Perth back as the venue for the Fourth Test. Clark, not enamoured by the MCG pitch proceeded to wreck the Indian batting line-up on it. Despite being handed a low, bouncing and turning MCG pitch, India complained about inadequate acclimatisation. Possibly jetlag, but not bounce. The MCG pitch was exactly the kind of surface McGrath, Gillespie and even Kasprowicz plagued Indian batsmen on. Similarly, the Second and Third Tests are at Sydney (India have had the better of their last two tests there) and Adelaide where Dravid and Laxman carried India into a match-winning position.
Australia's attitude is quite simply to back their ability and work hard for their teammates. That is why it is almost impossible for most teams to put them away. On paper, Australia have a team of cast-offs and suspect performers, yet as an outfit they are extremely hard to beat. Only when England put the blowtorch on Ponting, losing bowlers left right and centre, did the team start to fray.
India must ensure they use attacking fields and maintain their spirit throughout the full day, not just when the wickets fall. They must bat with conviction and keep scoring runs. Australia rely on exhausting the opposition's patience as much as anything else, and failure to score runs keeps the bowling side on top.
India have been determined to take the game up to Australia and not be intimidated by their opponents, the conditions or the media. The problem is that this very determination belies an internal siege mentality which afflicts most of the teams which arrive here. This attitude has manifested itself with the bizarre tactic of permanently stationing fielders on the boundary for any recognised batsmen, the quick removal of attacking fielders, the reluctance for spinners to flight the ball except within a few overs of taking a wicket and the adoption of two defensive openers at the start of the innings.
On top of these defensive tactics, there appears to be a great tendency to blame the umpires for making poor decisions and the administrators for their scheduling. It is well known that umpiring consistency is something of a chimera at present. Today, Symonds got one life from a caught behind, a second from a borderline lbw and was a split second from being stumped. However, India also failed to run him out from short extra cover, an opportunity Symonds may easily have taken himself. Ponting got a fairly ordinary lbw decision which triggered a collapse. He was batting imperiously at the time, having earlier got a caught behind go his way. Umpiring clearly needs to be improved either by better personnel or better use of technology.
On the administrators' front. Witness Stuart Clark's complaints that Cricket Australia held Perth back as the venue for the Fourth Test. Clark, not enamoured by the MCG pitch proceeded to wreck the Indian batting line-up on it. Despite being handed a low, bouncing and turning MCG pitch, India complained about inadequate acclimatisation. Possibly jetlag, but not bounce. The MCG pitch was exactly the kind of surface McGrath, Gillespie and even Kasprowicz plagued Indian batsmen on. Similarly, the Second and Third Tests are at Sydney (India have had the better of their last two tests there) and Adelaide where Dravid and Laxman carried India into a match-winning position.
Australia's attitude is quite simply to back their ability and work hard for their teammates. That is why it is almost impossible for most teams to put them away. On paper, Australia have a team of cast-offs and suspect performers, yet as an outfit they are extremely hard to beat. Only when England put the blowtorch on Ponting, losing bowlers left right and centre, did the team start to fray.
India must ensure they use attacking fields and maintain their spirit throughout the full day, not just when the wickets fall. They must bat with conviction and keep scoring runs. Australia rely on exhausting the opposition's patience as much as anything else, and failure to score runs keeps the bowling side on top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)