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.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
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)