Life is curious, sometimes
Yesterday evening, I had been doing some shopping, and I was tired and hot. I walked into an (unfamiliar) pub, in the thought that I would buy a pint of beer and sit down and rest for a few minutes.
There was a woman sitting at the bar, and she had two medium sized dogs with her. (This is England. Everyone seems to have dogs, and they do things like bring them when they go to the pub). As I walked past, the dogs barked at me, and one lunged at me and bit me on the leg. I was slightly shocked by this, and I shouted at the dog. After a few moments, I looked at the woman, and she said something fairly stern that was aimed at my direction. Presumably she was angry at me for shouting at her dog. (I don't think she realised that it had actually bitten me). I didn't quite catch what she said, but it included one well known four letter world of Anglo-Saxon extraction. At this point, I completely lost my temper, and yelled some extremely rude things at the woman before turning around and leaving the pub.
Of course, I immediately regretted having lost my temper, and I regretted having said such rude things. Lose your temper and you lose the moral high ground. (Dogs often have this effect on me. I was bitten by one when I was a fairly small child, and I have been very nervous around them ever since). However, I don't feel too bad about this. One does generally have the right to go into a pub without being bitten by a dog. And I wasn't the one who used the first four letter word. Looking back now, I am just struck be what a distinctly odd thing this was to happen to me.
(And just to reassure my mother if she is reading this, I was not injured by the dog in any significant way. The dog managed to cause a large tear in my trousers with its teeth, and I could feel the bite for a few minutes, but my skin was not broken and there was no bleeding. It was the shock of it that upset me more than anything).
Still, in future I will try to use the Jake Ryan test for determining when to lose my temper. I think it is best to only do so on special occasions, like when I encounter evil terrorist fanatics.
Update: There are of course even more peculiar (and much worse) things that can happen to you in British pubs that fit into the realm of bizarre but somehow peculiarly English experiences.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
These people are quite correct. There is definitely something wrong with people of Korean (and other ancestry) who have been living in Japan for three generations having fewer rights than a seal. (There is something deeply Japanese about this, however).
A worthy cause
In the trial of the accused Bali bombers, going on in Indonesia, the defendents have spent most of their time staring blankly in court, and occasionally chanting "Allahu akbar". Jake Ryan, a footballer from the Gold Coast in Queensland who lost a good friend (and was himself wounded in the blast) finally lost his temper last week, and in a breach of Indonesian court etiquette walked close to alleged bombing field commander Imam Samudra as he was being led out of court and told him that "You're a fucking dog, mate, you are going to die, you fuck."
Tim Blair has been leading efforts on the internet to raise money from people who share Mr Ryan's sentiments to buy beer for him and his football team. At the moment, the fund is up to $A825, including a (small) contribution from me, which should get them a goodly amount of beer. This is a worthy cause that I strongly endorse.
Update: In the Bali terrorist attack, Jake Ryan lost his right heel, had other people's bones embedded in his legs and shrapnel pierced his abdomen, and was on crutches for four months. Expressions like "evil scum" don't begin to describe the people who did this.
In the trial of the accused Bali bombers, going on in Indonesia, the defendents have spent most of their time staring blankly in court, and occasionally chanting "Allahu akbar". Jake Ryan, a footballer from the Gold Coast in Queensland who lost a good friend (and was himself wounded in the blast) finally lost his temper last week, and in a breach of Indonesian court etiquette walked close to alleged bombing field commander Imam Samudra as he was being led out of court and told him that "You're a fucking dog, mate, you are going to die, you fuck."
Tim Blair has been leading efforts on the internet to raise money from people who share Mr Ryan's sentiments to buy beer for him and his football team. At the moment, the fund is up to $A825, including a (small) contribution from me, which should get them a goodly amount of beer. This is a worthy cause that I strongly endorse.
Update: In the Bali terrorist attack, Jake Ryan lost his right heel, had other people's bones embedded in his legs and shrapnel pierced his abdomen, and was on crutches for four months. Expressions like "evil scum" don't begin to describe the people who did this.
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
A new blog
I have a piece on identity cards in Spain over at The White Rose. This is a new blog that has been set up (largely by Gabriel Syme of Samizdata) to oppose the gradual erosion of civil liberties that is occurring in Great Britain (and elsewhere). The blog is British focused, but is not intended to be exclusively British. We would love input from Australia or elsewhere. Plus, the blog is intended to be flexible in how it can be used. If people want to link from the White Rose to related stuff in their own blogs, this is fine - in fact it is encouraged. (This might not be a bad way for Australian bloggers to increase their British readership). If people want to write original stuff (perhaps with an Australian focus) for The White Rose, this is fine. If people want to republish stuff from their own blogs, this too is fine.
Therefore, if anyone is interested in becoming a contributor, please either let me know, or contact Gabriel (gabriel at samizdata dot net) directly. Note also that although Samizdata is aimed at "people of a libertarian mindset", The White Rose is not, necessarily. It is aimed at people who are protective of their civil liberties, be they conservative, liberal, socialist, communist, anarchist, or whatever.
I have a piece on identity cards in Spain over at The White Rose. This is a new blog that has been set up (largely by Gabriel Syme of Samizdata) to oppose the gradual erosion of civil liberties that is occurring in Great Britain (and elsewhere). The blog is British focused, but is not intended to be exclusively British. We would love input from Australia or elsewhere. Plus, the blog is intended to be flexible in how it can be used. If people want to link from the White Rose to related stuff in their own blogs, this is fine - in fact it is encouraged. (This might not be a bad way for Australian bloggers to increase their British readership). If people want to write original stuff (perhaps with an Australian focus) for The White Rose, this is fine. If people want to republish stuff from their own blogs, this too is fine.
Therefore, if anyone is interested in becoming a contributor, please either let me know, or contact Gabriel (gabriel at samizdata dot net) directly. Note also that although Samizdata is aimed at "people of a libertarian mindset", The White Rose is not, necessarily. It is aimed at people who are protective of their civil liberties, be they conservative, liberal, socialist, communist, anarchist, or whatever.
Harry Potter - Eyewitness News
Okay, I finished reading the new Harry Potter Book. First observation: the 766 page British edition, like most British editions of hardcover books, isn't very well bound. As I read the book, it from time to time made cracking noises when I turned the pages. The book is glued rather than sewn. American books are usually sewn. (This interesting Slate article discusses the issue). I suspect that if the books is read three or four times it will fall apart, and this is made much more likely by the book's length. The publisher seems to realise this, which is why there are no pages of advertisements for other books or anything at the back. The text stops, and that is the last page of the physical book. People who have a choice between the US and British editions will likely find that the US edition (which also has larger print and is 870 pages long) is the better choice to purchase.
In any event, the content. The people who have argued that the book is in some ways strongly libertarian in outlook are right, but that is not the aspect of it I wish to discuss. There are one or two mild spoilers to follow. They are spoilers of characterisation mainly, and I won't give away the plot. As I said previously, the book is a couple of hundred pages too long. When you read this kind of fairly easy reading book, you want the book to make you want to keep turning the pages, and you want a certain compulsion to keep reading. And while this book has that compulsive quality in places, it doesn't have it consistently. What happens is that after reading a hundred pages or two, you come to the conclusion that nothing much has happened for a while, and you either want to flick forward a few pages and find out when something does happen, or you want to put the book down for a bit and go to the pub. (The book is good enough that it is generally enjoyable again when you return from the pub).
The Harry Potter Books are highly structured. They have quite a strict template plotwise, and the books all seem to follow this template strictly. The book starts at home with Harry and his obnoxious aunt and uncle, then there is a period of meeting up with his friends and shopping for school things before catching the train to Hogwarts, and then we meet the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, and then we go and see Hagrid, who has some new magical creature. Then we play Quiddich. And so on, until Harry confonts Voldemort (or a proxy for Voldemort), Harry talks about it with Dumbledore. Harry catches the train to Kings Cross, says goodbye to Ron and Hermione, and goes back to the Dursleys. Where J.K. Rowling is highly skilled is in her ability to conform to this strict formula, and at the same time have the overall plot advance from book to book, and to have characters that we only see in passing suddenly jump into the foreground in the next book, and to show us the characters growing up at the same point.
The fourth book departed from this formula rather more than any of the first three. When we read it, some of us might have thought that this was going to be the pattern of the subsequent books, but with the fifth book, it seems not. It seems more a case that J.K. Rowling was rushing for a deadline for the fourth book, and it lost shape a little as a consequence. (She has decided not to work to deadlines in future, so we will get the books when she chooses to give them to us). We are back, pretty strictly to the original formula. Yet, as the characters have grown up, the books have got longer, the characterisation has got better and the characterisations have developed more shades of grey than they had in earlier books. This is fitting, as the characters are growing up, and people's perception of life develops complexity and shades of grey at that point. The characters are becoming less black and white. It is clear that Rowling knows what it is to be an outsider. Not just an outsider in the sense of not being the centre of attention, but an outsider in the sense of being the person that everyone despises and torments not because they do anything to deserve it but simply because they can. (This good review in Salon looks at the book from this perspective). This is shown in the way Harry's circle of allies is growing broader, too, as in this book he fights his final battle with Voldemort in the company of five friends (one of who is a new and quite interesting character, although I will probably find she was there in the background and I didn't notice in the earlier books). Harry's horrible aunt Petunia has developed slightly more complexity than we were previously aware of. And most interestingly with Professor Snape, who has always been a complex character, nasty and unpleasant, and with a real grudge against Harry, but none the less is on the side of good and not evil. In this book we get to see precisely why Snape is this way, and we discover that a lot of it has to do with Harry's father having not actually been the paragon of virtue that Harry had previously thought.
Snape has become perhaps the most interesting character in the books. I am not sure where he is going. (Plus, there is still a whole lot of his back story missing. How and why did he become a Death Eater, and how did he cease to be one). Natalie Solent thinks that he will sacrifice himself to ensure the final victory over Voldemort in book seven. I'm not so sure. This is kind of predictable. The mean, spiteful character who is none the less on the side of good normally is the one who sacrifices himself to kind of redeem the mean and spitefulness, but I think this may be a little too obvious. It may be that someone else takes that role here. (I have a theory as to who it will be, but I won't mention it right now). Whether or not he makes a noble sacrifice, it is clear that the one lesson Snape is going to learn at some point is that Harry is not his father. Harry has gone through four books with everyone telling him that he is just like his father, and that this is a good thing, but he has just learned that this is perhaps not entirely such a good thing after all. His mother on the other hand was apparently just as kind and brave a person as everyone has always said. (This is presumably why Harry has always been described as looking just like his father "but with his mother's eyes").
And Harry's friend Hermione is getting through her childhood bossiness and becoming the most moral and decent character in the books, as well as being smart and powerful. Almost the younger form of Harry's mother, I think. It's always nice to meet characters like this, in life as well as fiction.
I also have a few thoughts on the filmability of the last couple of Harry Potter books. But, as David Attenborough might say, this is where we will go next week.
Okay, I finished reading the new Harry Potter Book. First observation: the 766 page British edition, like most British editions of hardcover books, isn't very well bound. As I read the book, it from time to time made cracking noises when I turned the pages. The book is glued rather than sewn. American books are usually sewn. (This interesting Slate article discusses the issue). I suspect that if the books is read three or four times it will fall apart, and this is made much more likely by the book's length. The publisher seems to realise this, which is why there are no pages of advertisements for other books or anything at the back. The text stops, and that is the last page of the physical book. People who have a choice between the US and British editions will likely find that the US edition (which also has larger print and is 870 pages long) is the better choice to purchase.
In any event, the content. The people who have argued that the book is in some ways strongly libertarian in outlook are right, but that is not the aspect of it I wish to discuss. There are one or two mild spoilers to follow. They are spoilers of characterisation mainly, and I won't give away the plot. As I said previously, the book is a couple of hundred pages too long. When you read this kind of fairly easy reading book, you want the book to make you want to keep turning the pages, and you want a certain compulsion to keep reading. And while this book has that compulsive quality in places, it doesn't have it consistently. What happens is that after reading a hundred pages or two, you come to the conclusion that nothing much has happened for a while, and you either want to flick forward a few pages and find out when something does happen, or you want to put the book down for a bit and go to the pub. (The book is good enough that it is generally enjoyable again when you return from the pub).
The Harry Potter Books are highly structured. They have quite a strict template plotwise, and the books all seem to follow this template strictly. The book starts at home with Harry and his obnoxious aunt and uncle, then there is a period of meeting up with his friends and shopping for school things before catching the train to Hogwarts, and then we meet the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, and then we go and see Hagrid, who has some new magical creature. Then we play Quiddich. And so on, until Harry confonts Voldemort (or a proxy for Voldemort), Harry talks about it with Dumbledore. Harry catches the train to Kings Cross, says goodbye to Ron and Hermione, and goes back to the Dursleys. Where J.K. Rowling is highly skilled is in her ability to conform to this strict formula, and at the same time have the overall plot advance from book to book, and to have characters that we only see in passing suddenly jump into the foreground in the next book, and to show us the characters growing up at the same point.
The fourth book departed from this formula rather more than any of the first three. When we read it, some of us might have thought that this was going to be the pattern of the subsequent books, but with the fifth book, it seems not. It seems more a case that J.K. Rowling was rushing for a deadline for the fourth book, and it lost shape a little as a consequence. (She has decided not to work to deadlines in future, so we will get the books when she chooses to give them to us). We are back, pretty strictly to the original formula. Yet, as the characters have grown up, the books have got longer, the characterisation has got better and the characterisations have developed more shades of grey than they had in earlier books. This is fitting, as the characters are growing up, and people's perception of life develops complexity and shades of grey at that point. The characters are becoming less black and white. It is clear that Rowling knows what it is to be an outsider. Not just an outsider in the sense of not being the centre of attention, but an outsider in the sense of being the person that everyone despises and torments not because they do anything to deserve it but simply because they can. (This good review in Salon looks at the book from this perspective). This is shown in the way Harry's circle of allies is growing broader, too, as in this book he fights his final battle with Voldemort in the company of five friends (one of who is a new and quite interesting character, although I will probably find she was there in the background and I didn't notice in the earlier books). Harry's horrible aunt Petunia has developed slightly more complexity than we were previously aware of. And most interestingly with Professor Snape, who has always been a complex character, nasty and unpleasant, and with a real grudge against Harry, but none the less is on the side of good and not evil. In this book we get to see precisely why Snape is this way, and we discover that a lot of it has to do with Harry's father having not actually been the paragon of virtue that Harry had previously thought.
Snape has become perhaps the most interesting character in the books. I am not sure where he is going. (Plus, there is still a whole lot of his back story missing. How and why did he become a Death Eater, and how did he cease to be one). Natalie Solent thinks that he will sacrifice himself to ensure the final victory over Voldemort in book seven. I'm not so sure. This is kind of predictable. The mean, spiteful character who is none the less on the side of good normally is the one who sacrifices himself to kind of redeem the mean and spitefulness, but I think this may be a little too obvious. It may be that someone else takes that role here. (I have a theory as to who it will be, but I won't mention it right now). Whether or not he makes a noble sacrifice, it is clear that the one lesson Snape is going to learn at some point is that Harry is not his father. Harry has gone through four books with everyone telling him that he is just like his father, and that this is a good thing, but he has just learned that this is perhaps not entirely such a good thing after all. His mother on the other hand was apparently just as kind and brave a person as everyone has always said. (This is presumably why Harry has always been described as looking just like his father "but with his mother's eyes").
And Harry's friend Hermione is getting through her childhood bossiness and becoming the most moral and decent character in the books, as well as being smart and powerful. Almost the younger form of Harry's mother, I think. It's always nice to meet characters like this, in life as well as fiction.
I also have a few thoughts on the filmability of the last couple of Harry Potter books. But, as David Attenborough might say, this is where we will go next week.
Too much cricket
Well, we do have a resumption in the headed for a draw match between the West Indies and Sri Lanka. The West Indies are 6/348, and Brian Lara has moved along to 143 not out. It will be interesting to see whether he tries to score something really big here. He has been known to in situations like this one in the past - most notably when he scored his world record 501 not out in county cricket in England in an almost identical situation match wise. One question is whether he runs out of partners here. Another question is whether he can score 100 before lunch today. He is on target for that.
Update: Actually I got the time for lunch wrong, and he wasn't quite on target for that. He is 177 not out at lunch, having scored a still very impressive 84 in the session. At lunch the score is 6/384. Lara and Banks have put on a partnership of 79, and Banks has scored only six of that. It is still possible that Lara could be challenging batting records by the end of the day if he really goes for it.
Futher Update: Lara scored a fine double century, but was out for 209, so he didn't go after any records. After that the match just petered out. Muralitharan ended up with 5/138, and the West Indies declared on 9/477. Sri Lanka were 0/126 with half centuries to Attapattu and captain Jayasuriya when the game was finally declared a draw. Hopefully we will get better weather for the second test next weekend.
Well, we do have a resumption in the headed for a draw match between the West Indies and Sri Lanka. The West Indies are 6/348, and Brian Lara has moved along to 143 not out. It will be interesting to see whether he tries to score something really big here. He has been known to in situations like this one in the past - most notably when he scored his world record 501 not out in county cricket in England in an almost identical situation match wise. One question is whether he runs out of partners here. Another question is whether he can score 100 before lunch today. He is on target for that.
Update: Actually I got the time for lunch wrong, and he wasn't quite on target for that. He is 177 not out at lunch, having scored a still very impressive 84 in the session. At lunch the score is 6/384. Lara and Banks have put on a partnership of 79, and Banks has scored only six of that. It is still possible that Lara could be challenging batting records by the end of the day if he really goes for it.
Futher Update: Lara scored a fine double century, but was out for 209, so he didn't go after any records. After that the match just petered out. Muralitharan ended up with 5/138, and the West Indies declared on 9/477. Sri Lanka were 0/126 with half centuries to Attapattu and captain Jayasuriya when the game was finally declared a draw. Hopefully we will get better weather for the second test next weekend.
Monday, June 23, 2003
Teensy weensy cricket update
In England this year, there is a new competition at county level. This is a limited overs tournament in which the sides get to bat for 20 overs each. The game goes for about three hours, and the whole game is played in the evening. (At the end of the tournament, the two semi-finals and the final will all be played on one day, and the crowd gets to watch the final stages of the tournament rather than one match, sort of like what happens in a sevens rugby tournament). It is unusual for cricket matches to be this short at county level, but many games at lower levels are actually quite similar to this.
In any event, the tournament has been going on for a couple of weeks. There has been a lot of fast scoring, and 150-160 seems to be a good score off 20 overs. One thing that we have been waiting for over the last couple of weeks is for someone to score the first century in the tournament. This requires rapid batting, but it has been clearly possible, and we have been waiting for someone to manage it. Last week Brad Hodge scored 97 for Leicestershire before being out off the last ball of the innings. If he had hit the ball for four instead of being out, he would have done it. On the same day, Andrew Symonds scored 96 not out off only 37 balls for Kent, winning a match against Hampshire with eight overs to spare. Today, though, Ian Harvey did it, scoring 100 not out for Gloucestershire against Warwickshire, as Gloucestershire won with 6.5 overs to spare. Given that his side were only set 135 to win, it is quite impressive that Harvey could manage a century.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out what these three batsmen have in common.
In England this year, there is a new competition at county level. This is a limited overs tournament in which the sides get to bat for 20 overs each. The game goes for about three hours, and the whole game is played in the evening. (At the end of the tournament, the two semi-finals and the final will all be played on one day, and the crowd gets to watch the final stages of the tournament rather than one match, sort of like what happens in a sevens rugby tournament). It is unusual for cricket matches to be this short at county level, but many games at lower levels are actually quite similar to this.
In any event, the tournament has been going on for a couple of weeks. There has been a lot of fast scoring, and 150-160 seems to be a good score off 20 overs. One thing that we have been waiting for over the last couple of weeks is for someone to score the first century in the tournament. This requires rapid batting, but it has been clearly possible, and we have been waiting for someone to manage it. Last week Brad Hodge scored 97 for Leicestershire before being out off the last ball of the innings. If he had hit the ball for four instead of being out, he would have done it. On the same day, Andrew Symonds scored 96 not out off only 37 balls for Kent, winning a match against Hampshire with eight overs to spare. Today, though, Ian Harvey did it, scoring 100 not out for Gloucestershire against Warwickshire, as Gloucestershire won with 6.5 overs to spare. Given that his side were only set 135 to win, it is quite impressive that Harvey could manage a century.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out what these three batsmen have in common.
One upmanship
Eldan is showing off by listing all the countries he has been to. In retaliation, here is my list (which I started in his comments section).
Let's see what I can do. If I put a * after the name of a country, it means I changed my country of regular residence to that country, and I don't list entering that country until it ceases to be my principal residence. After being born in Australia
1978 New Zealand
1987 Hong Kong, China
1991 New Zealand, United States (2 entries, CA, WA, NJ, NY), Canada, United Kingdom*
1992 France, Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria
1993 Netherlands, Kenya, Tanzania, Portugal, Spain, France, Monaco, Italy, Hong Kong, Australia
1994 Japan, France, Thailand, Australia
1997 Ireland, Australia*, Thailand, Nepal, Hong Kong SAR (2 entries), Macau
1999 United States (2 entries, CA, OH, LA, NY, CT, MA, NV, AZ, UT, WY), United Kingdom, New Zealand
2000 Japan, United Kingdom, Finland, Estonia, Italy, United States (NY, NJ, CT, RI, CA)
2001 South Africa, Singapore, Indonesia
2002 Singapore (2 entries), Malaysia, United Kingdom*, Turkey, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France
2003 France (2 entries), Spain (2 entries)
Eldan seems to have a little more Asia and Europe than I do, but I win points for having made two trips to Africa, while he has made none. I have excluded any country in which I have never left the transport infrastructure, so countries where I have never left the train, or never left the airport terminal are not listed, whether or not I have gone through immigration into that country. (My life seems to endlessly involve landing in Frankfurt, for instance, but I have never been out of the airport and into that city).
I also seem to be accumulating new countries at a much slower rate these days, as I am starting to repeat countries a lot.
Eldan is showing off by listing all the countries he has been to. In retaliation, here is my list (which I started in his comments section).
Let's see what I can do. If I put a * after the name of a country, it means I changed my country of regular residence to that country, and I don't list entering that country until it ceases to be my principal residence. After being born in Australia
1978 New Zealand
1987 Hong Kong, China
1991 New Zealand, United States (2 entries, CA, WA, NJ, NY), Canada, United Kingdom*
1992 France, Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria
1993 Netherlands, Kenya, Tanzania, Portugal, Spain, France, Monaco, Italy, Hong Kong, Australia
1994 Japan, France, Thailand, Australia
1997 Ireland, Australia*, Thailand, Nepal, Hong Kong SAR (2 entries), Macau
1999 United States (2 entries, CA, OH, LA, NY, CT, MA, NV, AZ, UT, WY), United Kingdom, New Zealand
2000 Japan, United Kingdom, Finland, Estonia, Italy, United States (NY, NJ, CT, RI, CA)
2001 South Africa, Singapore, Indonesia
2002 Singapore (2 entries), Malaysia, United Kingdom*, Turkey, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France
2003 France (2 entries), Spain (2 entries)
Eldan seems to have a little more Asia and Europe than I do, but I win points for having made two trips to Africa, while he has made none. I have excluded any country in which I have never left the transport infrastructure, so countries where I have never left the train, or never left the airport terminal are not listed, whether or not I have gone through immigration into that country. (My life seems to endlessly involve landing in Frankfurt, for instance, but I have never been out of the airport and into that city).
I also seem to be accumulating new countries at a much slower rate these days, as I am starting to repeat countries a lot.
Sunday, June 22, 2003
Cricket
Two games to report on. Firstly, the third one day game between England and Pakistan. Pakistan batted first, and some really good bowling from Andrew Flintoff reduced Pakistan to 5/117 off 33.5 overs. Pakistan put up a good rear guard action after that, with 63 from Younis Khan and 64 from Abdul Razzaq getting them to 7/229 off 50 overs. A good recovery but probably not enough runs to win the match. At 2/129 off 26.4 overs, England appeared to be romping home, but they then lost wickets, dropping to 6/154 off 35.5 overs, but with opener Marcus Trescothick still not out. This could have meant trouble for England, but Trescothick batted superbly, pacing the innings perfectly, and bringing up a much deserved century with three or four overs to go. England got the runs when Trescothick hit a six with nine balls to go. Although they had a hassle or two along the way, England managed an excellent win in the end. Trescothick won his second match in the row with the bat, and was awarded man of the match and man of the series. That said, Flintoff's 4/32 off ten overs was perhaps as important.
A very good effort by England in this series. They batted badly in the first match, but after that they really got their act together. Later this week they start a triangular series with South Africa and Zimbabwe. I expect them to win this, too.
Several years ago, the ICC declared that member countries were not allowed to host one day tournaments with more than three teams, and that the ICC's own tournaments (the Champions Trophy and the World Cup) were the only such tournaments allowed. This seems to have been intended to increase that value of the TV rights to the ICC tournaments, but sometimes it seems a little problematic. Having a separate one day series with Pakistan seems a little silly. To be quite honest, a four way tournament between England, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and South Africa would be more fun.
Meanwhile, former South African captain Kepler Wessels has declared that England have no hope in the forthcoming test series with South Africa. I think the precise opposite. South Africa are in complete disarray, and England look pretty good. I am expecting England to defeat South Africa, and by a heavy margin. (3-0 would not surprise me at all). South Africans seem to have a tremendous sense of entitlement with respect to winning at cricket. This has often led to overconfidence and bad misjudgement of the opposition in important matches, and incomprehension at South Africa's repeated inability to win afterwards. Wessels is the only man to have captained South Africa since their return to international cricket that I actually respect, but even he seems to fall for this occasionally. (I shall write a longer post on this point some time).
Finally, we have had three days of the 1st test between the West Indies and Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka got off to a great start with the bat, getting the score to 4/266 thanks to a century from Atapattu and good support from Sangakkara and Jayawardene. However, good bowling from Collywood saw them slump to 8/288. A good rearguard 38 from Chaminda Vaas got them to an adequate but not exciting 354 not out.
113 from Hinds and 93 not out from Lara saw the West Indies to 4/272 when rain stopped play today. 51 overs were lost to rain, although 30 of those can be made up on the last two days if the weather is fine. A draw not looks the most likely result, particularly if there is more rail. The most likely way an actual result can be achieved is if Lara can bscore a big hundred tomorrow, the West Indies can get a first innings lead of 200 or so, and Sri Lanka can be bowled out relatively cheaply in their second innings. This is not that likely, but possible. Sri Lanka will have more trouble finding a way to win.
Update: This post contained an incorrect link to the article about Kepler Wessels. This is now fixed.
Further Update: It looks like day 4 of the Sri Lanka v West Indies match is going to be completely lost to rain. That makes the game dead as a contest. The only item of interest is whether they will get enough play on day five for Lara to complete his century.
Even Further Update: Yes, day 4 was entirely washed out. I will post another update reporting on any play that happens tomorrow, but it will likely be dull. It's a shame that a match between two well matched sides like this has been ruined. When the rain came yesterday, Muttiah Muralitharan was bowling to Brian Lara. Both were playing well, and fans of high class cricket were really enjoying it. Hopefully we will get an uninterrupted match in Kingston next weekend.
Two games to report on. Firstly, the third one day game between England and Pakistan. Pakistan batted first, and some really good bowling from Andrew Flintoff reduced Pakistan to 5/117 off 33.5 overs. Pakistan put up a good rear guard action after that, with 63 from Younis Khan and 64 from Abdul Razzaq getting them to 7/229 off 50 overs. A good recovery but probably not enough runs to win the match. At 2/129 off 26.4 overs, England appeared to be romping home, but they then lost wickets, dropping to 6/154 off 35.5 overs, but with opener Marcus Trescothick still not out. This could have meant trouble for England, but Trescothick batted superbly, pacing the innings perfectly, and bringing up a much deserved century with three or four overs to go. England got the runs when Trescothick hit a six with nine balls to go. Although they had a hassle or two along the way, England managed an excellent win in the end. Trescothick won his second match in the row with the bat, and was awarded man of the match and man of the series. That said, Flintoff's 4/32 off ten overs was perhaps as important.
A very good effort by England in this series. They batted badly in the first match, but after that they really got their act together. Later this week they start a triangular series with South Africa and Zimbabwe. I expect them to win this, too.
Several years ago, the ICC declared that member countries were not allowed to host one day tournaments with more than three teams, and that the ICC's own tournaments (the Champions Trophy and the World Cup) were the only such tournaments allowed. This seems to have been intended to increase that value of the TV rights to the ICC tournaments, but sometimes it seems a little problematic. Having a separate one day series with Pakistan seems a little silly. To be quite honest, a four way tournament between England, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and South Africa would be more fun.
Meanwhile, former South African captain Kepler Wessels has declared that England have no hope in the forthcoming test series with South Africa. I think the precise opposite. South Africa are in complete disarray, and England look pretty good. I am expecting England to defeat South Africa, and by a heavy margin. (3-0 would not surprise me at all). South Africans seem to have a tremendous sense of entitlement with respect to winning at cricket. This has often led to overconfidence and bad misjudgement of the opposition in important matches, and incomprehension at South Africa's repeated inability to win afterwards. Wessels is the only man to have captained South Africa since their return to international cricket that I actually respect, but even he seems to fall for this occasionally. (I shall write a longer post on this point some time).
Finally, we have had three days of the 1st test between the West Indies and Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka got off to a great start with the bat, getting the score to 4/266 thanks to a century from Atapattu and good support from Sangakkara and Jayawardene. However, good bowling from Collywood saw them slump to 8/288. A good rearguard 38 from Chaminda Vaas got them to an adequate but not exciting 354 not out.
113 from Hinds and 93 not out from Lara saw the West Indies to 4/272 when rain stopped play today. 51 overs were lost to rain, although 30 of those can be made up on the last two days if the weather is fine. A draw not looks the most likely result, particularly if there is more rail. The most likely way an actual result can be achieved is if Lara can bscore a big hundred tomorrow, the West Indies can get a first innings lead of 200 or so, and Sri Lanka can be bowled out relatively cheaply in their second innings. This is not that likely, but possible. Sri Lanka will have more trouble finding a way to win.
Update: This post contained an incorrect link to the article about Kepler Wessels. This is now fixed.
Further Update: It looks like day 4 of the Sri Lanka v West Indies match is going to be completely lost to rain. That makes the game dead as a contest. The only item of interest is whether they will get enough play on day five for Lara to complete his century.
Even Further Update: Yes, day 4 was entirely washed out. I will post another update reporting on any play that happens tomorrow, but it will likely be dull. It's a shame that a match between two well matched sides like this has been ruined. When the rain came yesterday, Muttiah Muralitharan was bowling to Brian Lara. Both were playing well, and fans of high class cricket were really enjoying it. Hopefully we will get an uninterrupted match in Kingston next weekend.
Saturday, June 21, 2003
Disappointment
When leaving a cinema in central Croydon a little after 1am this morning, I saw a lengthy queue outside the W.H. Smith store, which was the only shop in central Croydon to have opened at midmight to sell the new Harry Potter book. (The two main bookstores in Croydon are in a mall and the mall was closed, so they didn't have the option). Given that they had been open for an hour at that point, they were selling in awful lot of books given it was the middle of the night.
While I am looking forward to reading the new Potter book, I am not so enthusiastic as to stand in a long queue at one in the morning for it. (Some people were, however. I received an SMS message in the middle of my film consisting of the words "I've got it" from a friend of mine with an Oxbridge Ph.D.) I actually ordered the book from Amazon on March, and while I received an e-mail from them yesterday morning saying that it had been posted, I am still hoping that it gets delivered on time.
In any event, at about 8.30am this morning, I heard the doorbell ring. "Great", I thought. "It's my Harry Potter book". However, it turned out to be my photographs of my Spanish trip, which I had sent to a cheap, mail order film processing place for processing. (They used some alternative delivery service rather than the post office, so the two things were not delivered by the same person).
This was quite disappointing. I had quite forgotten about the photographs, and when I had answered the door I had thought that it was my book for sure. However, as a small consolation I can offer you this picture of the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao.
Update: The book came at about 9.30am. Interestingly, rather than coming in a standard sized Amazon box, and containing a personalised receipt, as is normal with Amazon, it came in a special sized box designed for this particular book, and it also came with a mass-produced receipt which did not have my name (or the price) on it. Clearly, to make the process of getting a large number of Harry Potter books to customers on time as smooth as possible, Amazon had a large number of the books prepackaged in boxes, and they just slapped address labels on them. In any event, my compliments to them. They got the book to me in the morning on the day of publication.
As for the book, it is a bit slow so far. It takes 180 pages to get to Hogwarts. The mood feels right: there is a sense of foreboding about the fact that Lord Voldemort is back. However, to tell whether Ms Rowling is being self-indulgent or not, I shall have to see how significant the events of the first 180 pages are to the greater plot.
When leaving a cinema in central Croydon a little after 1am this morning, I saw a lengthy queue outside the W.H. Smith store, which was the only shop in central Croydon to have opened at midmight to sell the new Harry Potter book. (The two main bookstores in Croydon are in a mall and the mall was closed, so they didn't have the option). Given that they had been open for an hour at that point, they were selling in awful lot of books given it was the middle of the night.
While I am looking forward to reading the new Potter book, I am not so enthusiastic as to stand in a long queue at one in the morning for it. (Some people were, however. I received an SMS message in the middle of my film consisting of the words "I've got it" from a friend of mine with an Oxbridge Ph.D.) I actually ordered the book from Amazon on March, and while I received an e-mail from them yesterday morning saying that it had been posted, I am still hoping that it gets delivered on time.
In any event, at about 8.30am this morning, I heard the doorbell ring. "Great", I thought. "It's my Harry Potter book". However, it turned out to be my photographs of my Spanish trip, which I had sent to a cheap, mail order film processing place for processing. (They used some alternative delivery service rather than the post office, so the two things were not delivered by the same person).
This was quite disappointing. I had quite forgotten about the photographs, and when I had answered the door I had thought that it was my book for sure. However, as a small consolation I can offer you this picture of the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao.
Update: The book came at about 9.30am. Interestingly, rather than coming in a standard sized Amazon box, and containing a personalised receipt, as is normal with Amazon, it came in a special sized box designed for this particular book, and it also came with a mass-produced receipt which did not have my name (or the price) on it. Clearly, to make the process of getting a large number of Harry Potter books to customers on time as smooth as possible, Amazon had a large number of the books prepackaged in boxes, and they just slapped address labels on them. In any event, my compliments to them. They got the book to me in the morning on the day of publication.
As for the book, it is a bit slow so far. It takes 180 pages to get to Hogwarts. The mood feels right: there is a sense of foreboding about the fact that Lord Voldemort is back. However, to tell whether Ms Rowling is being self-indulgent or not, I shall have to see how significant the events of the first 180 pages are to the greater plot.
Friday, June 20, 2003
Thoughts on The Peacemaker (1997)
Brian Micklethwait has some revisionist thoughts on the 1997 movie The Peacemaker, starring George Clooney as a Special Forces soldier and Nicole Kidman as a government bureacrat chasing rogue nuclear weapons that have got into the hands of terrorists. I saw that movie when it came out, although it didn't make much of an impression on the world at the time. One reason I think it looks fresher now than it did then is the immediacy of what it is about. While some people were worried in 1997 about terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction, it wasn't an immediate concern of most people, and the film's subject had a lack of immediacy for most people. People doing things that the Clooney and Kidman characters were doing almost certainly did exist in 1997, but their job didn't really seem as vital as it does today, and they didn't have the level of respect and attention that they do today.
Which is interesting, because Clooney and Kidman themselves didn't at the time seem as vital as they do today either. Both of them are very good in the film, and I particularly agree with Brian that George Clooney gets his character exactly right. (Kidman is good, but I think her part is less well written. She is in reality a bureacrat, and yet she goes out in the field as the partner of Clooney's Special Forces man. I am not sure this is realistic). Both of them had been picked by lots of people to be film stars, but in both cases it took rather longer than most people had anticipated for it to happen. At the time The Peacemaker was released, both of them were more famous for other reasons than for their actual movies (Clooney for his television work, and Kidman for being married to Tom Cruise). Both were regularly playing leading roles in movies, but neither had broken through. Clooney had been in a cultish movies (From Dusk Till Dawn), a reasonably well reviewed but not terribly successful at the box office romantic comedy (One Fine Day) and a disastrous intended blockbuster (Batman and Robin). Kidman was enormously famous in Australia for her acting, but after marrying Cruise had never really broken through to mass audiences in her movie roles either. However, both actors are now enormous stars, and this affects the way we look at the film. It brings them to the foreground, perhaps in the same way that the change in people's attitudes to the subject of the movie brings it more into the foreground.
Still, I don't think the movie has a great third act. The terrorists in the movie were from or at least were connected with the war in Bosnia, and were presented as being driven to fanaticism by the murders of family members. When I first saw the film, I remember finding this made me a little uncomfortable, as a real war in which lots of people were suffering at that time was being used for a movie that was basically entertainment, and in a slightly more realistic manner than usual. It was not so much the subject, as the way in which the film sort of merged with real footage and real locations that I saw on the news.
And the ending is ridiculous. After lots and lots of cool stuff, we end up with a red digital readout counting down how many seconds before New York is destroyed, and George Clooney wondering whether he should cut the red wire or the green wire. A little more originality might have been in order, but we didn't get that.
Brian Micklethwait has some revisionist thoughts on the 1997 movie The Peacemaker, starring George Clooney as a Special Forces soldier and Nicole Kidman as a government bureacrat chasing rogue nuclear weapons that have got into the hands of terrorists. I saw that movie when it came out, although it didn't make much of an impression on the world at the time. One reason I think it looks fresher now than it did then is the immediacy of what it is about. While some people were worried in 1997 about terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction, it wasn't an immediate concern of most people, and the film's subject had a lack of immediacy for most people. People doing things that the Clooney and Kidman characters were doing almost certainly did exist in 1997, but their job didn't really seem as vital as it does today, and they didn't have the level of respect and attention that they do today.
Which is interesting, because Clooney and Kidman themselves didn't at the time seem as vital as they do today either. Both of them are very good in the film, and I particularly agree with Brian that George Clooney gets his character exactly right. (Kidman is good, but I think her part is less well written. She is in reality a bureacrat, and yet she goes out in the field as the partner of Clooney's Special Forces man. I am not sure this is realistic). Both of them had been picked by lots of people to be film stars, but in both cases it took rather longer than most people had anticipated for it to happen. At the time The Peacemaker was released, both of them were more famous for other reasons than for their actual movies (Clooney for his television work, and Kidman for being married to Tom Cruise). Both were regularly playing leading roles in movies, but neither had broken through. Clooney had been in a cultish movies (From Dusk Till Dawn), a reasonably well reviewed but not terribly successful at the box office romantic comedy (One Fine Day) and a disastrous intended blockbuster (Batman and Robin). Kidman was enormously famous in Australia for her acting, but after marrying Cruise had never really broken through to mass audiences in her movie roles either. However, both actors are now enormous stars, and this affects the way we look at the film. It brings them to the foreground, perhaps in the same way that the change in people's attitudes to the subject of the movie brings it more into the foreground.
Still, I don't think the movie has a great third act. The terrorists in the movie were from or at least were connected with the war in Bosnia, and were presented as being driven to fanaticism by the murders of family members. When I first saw the film, I remember finding this made me a little uncomfortable, as a real war in which lots of people were suffering at that time was being used for a movie that was basically entertainment, and in a slightly more realistic manner than usual. It was not so much the subject, as the way in which the film sort of merged with real footage and real locations that I saw on the news.
And the ending is ridiculous. After lots and lots of cool stuff, we end up with a red digital readout counting down how many seconds before New York is destroyed, and George Clooney wondering whether he should cut the red wire or the green wire. A little more originality might have been in order, but we didn't get that.
Ah, New Zealand
Okay, I have been familiar with the concept of politically partisan weather reports for just over a week, but having the words "George W Bush. Professional Fascist" appear at the bottom of the screen is perhaps going a little too far.
Okay, I have been familiar with the concept of politically partisan weather reports for just over a week, but having the words "George W Bush. Professional Fascist" appear at the bottom of the screen is perhaps going a little too far.
Cricketing update
I will get to today's game between England and Pakistan later in the post.
Firstly, though, the Australian squads for the forthcoming matches against Bangladesh were announced. As the selectors have indicated would be the case, there is no experimentation or pulling of punches due to the low quality of the opposition. (I have one caveat about that, which I will discuss at length in a moment). Australia have announced full strength sides for both the tests and the one day matches. Steve Waugh will continue as test captain for at least one more series, as expected. (Given that he had the second highest average of any Australian batsman in the series against the West Indies, he couldn't reasonably be dropped, and the selectors probably didn't want to drop him anyway).
For a squad of 13, Australia selected seven batsmen (including wicket keeper Gilchrist) and six bowlers (four seam bowlers and two spinners). This tends to suggest that they intend to continue the side balance they used in the West Indies of six batsmen and five bowlers. Martin Love appears to be the reserve batsman, and which bowler will miss out is hard to say and will probably depend on the conditions. (The complication is that the two bowlers most likely to miss out, Bad Hogg and Andy Bichel, are both good team men, quality players, and useful batsmen). Some thoughts on the balance (which is the caveat I mentioned).
When playing test cricket, it is generally considered asking for trouble to play with fewer than six top notch batsmen. Obviously you need one wicket keeper. If these players are specialists, then you have four spots left in the side to fill with bowlers. The Australian approach has traditionally been to choose the best six batsmen available, the best wicketkeeper, and the four best batsmen.
In England, however, there has been more of a tradition of looking for an all rounder: a player who can both bat and bowl. This will alllow them five batsmen, a wicketkeeper, and five bowlers, with one player in both the batting and bowling columns. This is fine when you have a very good all rounder: someone who would likely be able to earn a place in the side as both a batsman and a bowler. In the late 1970s and for most of the 1980s, England did have such a player in Ian Botham, so this obviously worked fine for them. However, when England do not have an all rounder, they tend to see the situation as abnormal, so they select an all rounder who is not really of test standard as either a batsman or a bowler. In the last ten years, England have selected a lot of players like this, without much success.
This strategy means that England are used to having five bowlers, however, and when they do not have an all rounder, they have a bit of a tendency to replace the all rounder with another bowler, rather than another batsman. (In recent years they have done this and had batsman Alec Stewart keep wicket, to bolster the batting). Australians tend to frown on this, as they believe it makes the batting too weak. However, when Australia were weak in the 1980s, the English press spent a lot of its time expressing its bafflement at Australia only playing four bowlers. Australians were generally baffled by this bafflement, and thought that the problem was more that the four bowlers selected were not bowling well.
In recent years, there has been a trend throughout world cricket towards wicketkeepers who were also good batsmen. Prior to about 1970, this was not generally done, and wicketkeeping ability was considered paramount. (No Australian wicketkeeper had scored a test century before Rod Marsh did it in the 1970s). From the 1970s, though, the batting ability of the wicketkeeper has always been taken into account. Each regular keeper seems to have been a slightly better batsman than the one before. Somewhat amazingly, present Australian wicket keeper Adam Gilchrist is one of the best batsmen in the world, as well as being a wicketkeeper.
This did give Australia more flexibility with selections, but until this year they didn't use it. They selected six batsmen plus Gilchrist, spinner Shane Warne, and three seam bowlers. Warne was so good that one spin bowler was adequate, and McGrath, Gillespie and Lee were plenty in the seam bowling department. So four bowlers were enough.
When Australia lost both Warne and McGrath in the West Indies, they decided to take advantage of their strong batting lineup and play one fewer batsman to bolster the bowling. They played five bowlers (either two spinners and three seam bowlers, or one spinner and three seam bowlers) throughout that series. This worked reasonably (although to be honest I five bowlers without Warne was nowhere near as effective as four bowlers including Warne). The selectors did not have to drop a batsman to do this, as Damien Martyn was out injured.
Which is where we are now. The selectors can either continue with five bowlers, five batsmen, and Gilchrist, or they can go back to four bowlers (in which case deserving players, probably Brad Hogg and Andy Bichel, miss out). If they choose to stay with five bowlers, then either they have to drop a batsman or not select Damien Martyn when he is fit. As Damien Martyn definitely does deserve to be selected when fit, they have a bit of a dilemma. For now, they seem to have avoided the situation by declaring that they will give Damien Martyn more time to recover from his finger injury by not selecting him for the tests (although they did select him for the one day games). This looks like a bit of an evasion to me. I would prefer to go back to four bowlers, six batsmen, and Gilchrist as soon as possible. As it is, the hard decision is being avoided, at least partly because it doesn't matter due to the quality of the opposition. This perhaps is pulling a punch, although only a small one.
The one day side is essentially the side that won the world cup and the series in the West Indies, with Damien Martyn back in for Michael Clarke. Martyn's selection is "subject to fitness". Presumably Clarke will come into the side if Martyn fails his fitness test.
In actual games of cricket being played, England are romping home in the second one day game against Pakistan. Pakistan batted first, and James Anderson took four wickets and had quite a remarkable morning. He took a wicket with the first ball of the match, and he later finished off the Pakistan innings by taking a hat trick. In between Gough and Flintoff bowled well. The only resistance was Yousuf Youhana, who was 75 not out when Pakistan were bowled out for 185 after 44 overs. This is one of those situations where the tail really let their side down. With a player of this quality still in, Pakistan could have managed an excellent score if only someone could have stayed in at the other end. However, nobody did. Kudos to Anderson for removing the tail in such a situation.
Martin Trescothick came out blazing with the bat, and scored 86 runs of 57 balls before being out in the 12th over with the score 1/109. The innings essentially won the match. It's a shame he didn't get the extra 14 runs for a century, because that would have been a quick one. As it is, the England team have lost a couple of extra wickets, but are now crusing home. As I write, they are 3/165 off 20.3 overs. I am not expecting them to have much trouble scoring the 21 runs they need to win of the remaining 29.3 overs with 7 wickets in hand. This will be a very good win for England, who are looking a good side. My expectation is that England will win the third match and the series at Lord's on Sunday.
Update: England took another nine balls to win the match ending up with 3/189 off 22 overs. A very good win for them.
I will get to today's game between England and Pakistan later in the post.
Firstly, though, the Australian squads for the forthcoming matches against Bangladesh were announced. As the selectors have indicated would be the case, there is no experimentation or pulling of punches due to the low quality of the opposition. (I have one caveat about that, which I will discuss at length in a moment). Australia have announced full strength sides for both the tests and the one day matches. Steve Waugh will continue as test captain for at least one more series, as expected. (Given that he had the second highest average of any Australian batsman in the series against the West Indies, he couldn't reasonably be dropped, and the selectors probably didn't want to drop him anyway).
For a squad of 13, Australia selected seven batsmen (including wicket keeper Gilchrist) and six bowlers (four seam bowlers and two spinners). This tends to suggest that they intend to continue the side balance they used in the West Indies of six batsmen and five bowlers. Martin Love appears to be the reserve batsman, and which bowler will miss out is hard to say and will probably depend on the conditions. (The complication is that the two bowlers most likely to miss out, Bad Hogg and Andy Bichel, are both good team men, quality players, and useful batsmen). Some thoughts on the balance (which is the caveat I mentioned).
When playing test cricket, it is generally considered asking for trouble to play with fewer than six top notch batsmen. Obviously you need one wicket keeper. If these players are specialists, then you have four spots left in the side to fill with bowlers. The Australian approach has traditionally been to choose the best six batsmen available, the best wicketkeeper, and the four best batsmen.
In England, however, there has been more of a tradition of looking for an all rounder: a player who can both bat and bowl. This will alllow them five batsmen, a wicketkeeper, and five bowlers, with one player in both the batting and bowling columns. This is fine when you have a very good all rounder: someone who would likely be able to earn a place in the side as both a batsman and a bowler. In the late 1970s and for most of the 1980s, England did have such a player in Ian Botham, so this obviously worked fine for them. However, when England do not have an all rounder, they tend to see the situation as abnormal, so they select an all rounder who is not really of test standard as either a batsman or a bowler. In the last ten years, England have selected a lot of players like this, without much success.
This strategy means that England are used to having five bowlers, however, and when they do not have an all rounder, they have a bit of a tendency to replace the all rounder with another bowler, rather than another batsman. (In recent years they have done this and had batsman Alec Stewart keep wicket, to bolster the batting). Australians tend to frown on this, as they believe it makes the batting too weak. However, when Australia were weak in the 1980s, the English press spent a lot of its time expressing its bafflement at Australia only playing four bowlers. Australians were generally baffled by this bafflement, and thought that the problem was more that the four bowlers selected were not bowling well.
In recent years, there has been a trend throughout world cricket towards wicketkeepers who were also good batsmen. Prior to about 1970, this was not generally done, and wicketkeeping ability was considered paramount. (No Australian wicketkeeper had scored a test century before Rod Marsh did it in the 1970s). From the 1970s, though, the batting ability of the wicketkeeper has always been taken into account. Each regular keeper seems to have been a slightly better batsman than the one before. Somewhat amazingly, present Australian wicket keeper Adam Gilchrist is one of the best batsmen in the world, as well as being a wicketkeeper.
This did give Australia more flexibility with selections, but until this year they didn't use it. They selected six batsmen plus Gilchrist, spinner Shane Warne, and three seam bowlers. Warne was so good that one spin bowler was adequate, and McGrath, Gillespie and Lee were plenty in the seam bowling department. So four bowlers were enough.
When Australia lost both Warne and McGrath in the West Indies, they decided to take advantage of their strong batting lineup and play one fewer batsman to bolster the bowling. They played five bowlers (either two spinners and three seam bowlers, or one spinner and three seam bowlers) throughout that series. This worked reasonably (although to be honest I five bowlers without Warne was nowhere near as effective as four bowlers including Warne). The selectors did not have to drop a batsman to do this, as Damien Martyn was out injured.
Which is where we are now. The selectors can either continue with five bowlers, five batsmen, and Gilchrist, or they can go back to four bowlers (in which case deserving players, probably Brad Hogg and Andy Bichel, miss out). If they choose to stay with five bowlers, then either they have to drop a batsman or not select Damien Martyn when he is fit. As Damien Martyn definitely does deserve to be selected when fit, they have a bit of a dilemma. For now, they seem to have avoided the situation by declaring that they will give Damien Martyn more time to recover from his finger injury by not selecting him for the tests (although they did select him for the one day games). This looks like a bit of an evasion to me. I would prefer to go back to four bowlers, six batsmen, and Gilchrist as soon as possible. As it is, the hard decision is being avoided, at least partly because it doesn't matter due to the quality of the opposition. This perhaps is pulling a punch, although only a small one.
The one day side is essentially the side that won the world cup and the series in the West Indies, with Damien Martyn back in for Michael Clarke. Martyn's selection is "subject to fitness". Presumably Clarke will come into the side if Martyn fails his fitness test.
In actual games of cricket being played, England are romping home in the second one day game against Pakistan. Pakistan batted first, and James Anderson took four wickets and had quite a remarkable morning. He took a wicket with the first ball of the match, and he later finished off the Pakistan innings by taking a hat trick. In between Gough and Flintoff bowled well. The only resistance was Yousuf Youhana, who was 75 not out when Pakistan were bowled out for 185 after 44 overs. This is one of those situations where the tail really let their side down. With a player of this quality still in, Pakistan could have managed an excellent score if only someone could have stayed in at the other end. However, nobody did. Kudos to Anderson for removing the tail in such a situation.
Martin Trescothick came out blazing with the bat, and scored 86 runs of 57 balls before being out in the 12th over with the score 1/109. The innings essentially won the match. It's a shame he didn't get the extra 14 runs for a century, because that would have been a quick one. As it is, the England team have lost a couple of extra wickets, but are now crusing home. As I write, they are 3/165 off 20.3 overs. I am not expecting them to have much trouble scoring the 21 runs they need to win of the remaining 29.3 overs with 7 wickets in hand. This will be a very good win for England, who are looking a good side. My expectation is that England will win the third match and the series at Lord's on Sunday.
Update: England took another nine balls to win the match ending up with 3/189 off 22 overs. A very good win for them.
Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction
David Carr has some thoughts on the question of whether Al Qaeda is capable of obtaining weapons of mass destruction using them to attack a western city, and in fact whether they are capable of mounting large scale attacks any more at all. I wrote a lengthy comment giving my thoughts on the matter, which I may as well reproduce here
In 1995, the Aum Shinrikyo cult released Sarin nerve gas on the Tokyo underground. This only killed a few people because they didn't get the distribution right (and because they deliberately used a lower concentration of sarin than they could have because they did not want the people who actually put the sarin on the trains to die). This is the only instance so far of a terrorist attack using what is commonly defined as a "weapon of mass destruction". What they did do was demonstrate that it is possible (and indeed fairly easy) for terrorists with a few competent chemists to produce a very deadly chemical weapon. Thankfully, in the longer term, Aum Shinrikyo was not very dangerous as a terrorist group. (They were a fruitcake cult that was relatively easily dismantled).
On the other hand, the only terrorist group to actually cause mass destruction is Al Qaeda, on September 11, 2001. They did this by exploiting weaknesses in America's transport networks, so that America provided the weapon as well as the target. This demonstrated to us that there are organisations out there with the will and ruthlessness (and I could say, the contempt for human life, both their own and that of their perceived enemies) to mount attacks on this scale. I think it possibly also suggested that Al Qaeda lacked much technological sophistication. They didn't use their own weapons because they didn't have their own weapons. Those weapons they have used in other attacks (explosives) have been relatively unsophisticated, although they have a thing for complex logistics (multiple attacks at the same time, for instance. And a failed shoe bomb attack doesn't impress me much). The Japanese example demonstrated that with a few good chemists, you could make sarin. Al Qaeda have not tried a copycat sarin attack, and this tends to suggest to me that they don't have a few good chemists. (Sarin seems to me to be the easiest weapon of mass destruction to make, which is why I would expect them to try to make some). As Al Qaeda are a lot weaker today than they were in 2001 due to America's intense war on them, I don't imagine that they are any more capable of mounting an attack with their own weapons than they were in 2001. This is not to say that they will never be able to obtain such weapons from somebody else, but again I think it is likely to be harder for them now than it was before 2001, and they clearly did not do it then.
So, if we see further attacks from Al Qaeda, I tend to think they will be the smaller scale, attacks on embassies, bombs in military barracks or similar type attacks, or they will attempt another September 11 like event in which they exploit some weakness in our infrastructure.
Of course, I could be wrong. I am utterly terrified about the possibility that I could be wrong, and the chance that I am wrong is sufficiently large that I still favour using immense resources to neutralise what is left of Al Qaeda.
And of course, even if I am right, all I am saying is that Al Qaeda are less of a threat than some people think. The prospect of somebody else with the will to attack the civilized world and the technical skills to make sarin or something worse is still out there, and to me it seems inevitable. I think we may find ourselves with an interlude of a few years to prepare for it, however.
David Carr has some thoughts on the question of whether Al Qaeda is capable of obtaining weapons of mass destruction using them to attack a western city, and in fact whether they are capable of mounting large scale attacks any more at all. I wrote a lengthy comment giving my thoughts on the matter, which I may as well reproduce here
In 1995, the Aum Shinrikyo cult released Sarin nerve gas on the Tokyo underground. This only killed a few people because they didn't get the distribution right (and because they deliberately used a lower concentration of sarin than they could have because they did not want the people who actually put the sarin on the trains to die). This is the only instance so far of a terrorist attack using what is commonly defined as a "weapon of mass destruction". What they did do was demonstrate that it is possible (and indeed fairly easy) for terrorists with a few competent chemists to produce a very deadly chemical weapon. Thankfully, in the longer term, Aum Shinrikyo was not very dangerous as a terrorist group. (They were a fruitcake cult that was relatively easily dismantled).
On the other hand, the only terrorist group to actually cause mass destruction is Al Qaeda, on September 11, 2001. They did this by exploiting weaknesses in America's transport networks, so that America provided the weapon as well as the target. This demonstrated to us that there are organisations out there with the will and ruthlessness (and I could say, the contempt for human life, both their own and that of their perceived enemies) to mount attacks on this scale. I think it possibly also suggested that Al Qaeda lacked much technological sophistication. They didn't use their own weapons because they didn't have their own weapons. Those weapons they have used in other attacks (explosives) have been relatively unsophisticated, although they have a thing for complex logistics (multiple attacks at the same time, for instance. And a failed shoe bomb attack doesn't impress me much). The Japanese example demonstrated that with a few good chemists, you could make sarin. Al Qaeda have not tried a copycat sarin attack, and this tends to suggest to me that they don't have a few good chemists. (Sarin seems to me to be the easiest weapon of mass destruction to make, which is why I would expect them to try to make some). As Al Qaeda are a lot weaker today than they were in 2001 due to America's intense war on them, I don't imagine that they are any more capable of mounting an attack with their own weapons than they were in 2001. This is not to say that they will never be able to obtain such weapons from somebody else, but again I think it is likely to be harder for them now than it was before 2001, and they clearly did not do it then.
So, if we see further attacks from Al Qaeda, I tend to think they will be the smaller scale, attacks on embassies, bombs in military barracks or similar type attacks, or they will attempt another September 11 like event in which they exploit some weakness in our infrastructure.
Of course, I could be wrong. I am utterly terrified about the possibility that I could be wrong, and the chance that I am wrong is sufficiently large that I still favour using immense resources to neutralise what is left of Al Qaeda.
And of course, even if I am right, all I am saying is that Al Qaeda are less of a threat than some people think. The prospect of somebody else with the will to attack the civilized world and the technical skills to make sarin or something worse is still out there, and to me it seems inevitable. I think we may find ourselves with an interlude of a few years to prepare for it, however.
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Spending my time elsewhere
I have a post on European banknotes, British coins, and British bridges over at Samizdata.
Update: I also have a piece on the new Harry Potter book and the demise of the Net Book Agreement.
I am finding that more and more of my writing is going to places other than this blog. (There may well be other places soon, too, some of which I may even get paid for. I will keep you posted). This blog will continue to be the home of quirky and unclassifiable stuff, and I have also decided that I will use it as a central index page. That is, anything I write for anywhere else, I will link to from here. I haven't always been doing this up to now, but from now on I will.
I have a post on European banknotes, British coins, and British bridges over at Samizdata.
Update: I also have a piece on the new Harry Potter book and the demise of the Net Book Agreement.
I am finding that more and more of my writing is going to places other than this blog. (There may well be other places soon, too, some of which I may even get paid for. I will keep you posted). This blog will continue to be the home of quirky and unclassifiable stuff, and I have also decided that I will use it as a central index page. That is, anything I write for anywhere else, I will link to from here. I haven't always been doing this up to now, but from now on I will.
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
I don't ask for much
This afternoon I changed trains at Balham (the gateway to the south) on my way into central London. My caffeine level was getting unpleasantly low. Thanks to the miracle that is capitalism, there are now espresso bars on the platforms at many British railway stations, so I stopped to buy a latte. I gave the man behind the counter a five pound note, and he was supposed to give me 3.75 pounds change. Fine, but he only gave me 2.75. As is my practice, I carefully and obviously counted my change. As he saw me doing this, he apologised and gave me the extra pound.
However, he did this as soon as he saw me counting the change, and before I had realised that the change was a pound short. The only explanation for his knowning I had been shortchanged before I did was that he had done this deliberately. So, obviously, I will not be buying any coffee from that particular espresso bar in future.
If people are going to try to steal from me, couldn't they at least demonstrate some competence in doing so? Like, for instance, by waiting for me to count the change, see that it is short, and then point this fact out to them. At least in that case there would be some possibility that we could maintain the pretence that it was a genuine mistake. As it is, the acting was really poor. I am in London, the city of Dickensian pickpockets, after all. The standard of the petty theives seems to have really dropped in the last 100 years.
This afternoon I changed trains at Balham (the gateway to the south) on my way into central London. My caffeine level was getting unpleasantly low. Thanks to the miracle that is capitalism, there are now espresso bars on the platforms at many British railway stations, so I stopped to buy a latte. I gave the man behind the counter a five pound note, and he was supposed to give me 3.75 pounds change. Fine, but he only gave me 2.75. As is my practice, I carefully and obviously counted my change. As he saw me doing this, he apologised and gave me the extra pound.
However, he did this as soon as he saw me counting the change, and before I had realised that the change was a pound short. The only explanation for his knowning I had been shortchanged before I did was that he had done this deliberately. So, obviously, I will not be buying any coffee from that particular espresso bar in future.
If people are going to try to steal from me, couldn't they at least demonstrate some competence in doing so? Like, for instance, by waiting for me to count the change, see that it is short, and then point this fact out to them. At least in that case there would be some possibility that we could maintain the pretence that it was a genuine mistake. As it is, the acting was really poor. I am in London, the city of Dickensian pickpockets, after all. The standard of the petty theives seems to have really dropped in the last 100 years.
Cricket update
Yesterday, England played their first game of the season against quality opposition, the first match of a three match series against Pakistain, played at Old Trafford in Manchester. This was Michael Vaughan's first game for England as captain. Somewhat perplexingly, Vaughan has been given the captaincy England one day side (for which he has never performed very well as a batsman) but not the test side (for which he has performed brialliantly as a batsman). Okay, I understand why the England selectors have done it (Nasser Hussein has retired from one day cricket, and the one day captaincy has been given to Vaughan as preparation for one day tacking over the full time captaincy role) but I question the move's wisdom (I think Vaughan should be given time to get his game right before being given the captaincy).
In any event, my feelings on the game are mixed. England were unimpressive with the bat, but managed to get back into the game due to some good bowling and fielding, but in the end the fact that they had scored too few runs ultimately prevented them from winning. My verdict on Vaughan's captaincy is somewhat mixed, because in the end he made one of the cardinal errors.
In any event, England got off to an excellent start, scoring 0/45 off 6.5 overs, 1/63 off 9.5, and 2/96 off 14.5, and even 4/152 off 31.4 wasn't terrible, although by that point the had lost a wicket or two too many. However, nobody could go on with a start, their middle order collapsed, and they slumped to 8/169 off 38.5. The last couple of batsmen did the only thing they could, which was grind out the last 10 overs, and England ended up with an inadequate 9/204 off the 50 overs. Flintoff top scored with 39, Solanski got 36, McGrath 33, and Vaughan 27. They needed one or two players to go on with it, but nobody did.
When Pakistan were 0/60 off 17 overs or 1/116 off 30.2, it looked like Pakistan would romp home. However, thanks to good bowling from Anderson, Giles, and a very welcomly back from injury Darren Gough, England managed to get Pakistan to 5/158 and then 8/194. However, Abdul Razzaq and Mohammad Sami (who had impressed earlier with the ball - the man can bowl really fast) got Pakistan home with four balls to spare. A narrow win to Pakistan. Despite a good fightback, England were never terribly likely to win. They were about 20 runs short with the bat. Had they got 20 (or even 10) extra runs, they probably would have run.
And what was the mistake? The very inexperienced Rikki Clarke (playing his first match for England) bowled the last over. Even if the situation is desperate and wickets appear needed at once, the best captains manage to keep at least one over from one of their best bowlers for the very end. In practice, it doesn't make a lot of difference if Darren Gough bowls nine overs or ten early on, but it makes an enormous amount of difference if he has one left at the end. Vaughan hasn't quite got this yet.
Two more one day games between England and Pakistan between now and Sunday. Plus, we have the very interesting first test between Sri Lanka and the West Indies. Updates from me as appropriate.
Yesterday, England played their first game of the season against quality opposition, the first match of a three match series against Pakistain, played at Old Trafford in Manchester. This was Michael Vaughan's first game for England as captain. Somewhat perplexingly, Vaughan has been given the captaincy England one day side (for which he has never performed very well as a batsman) but not the test side (for which he has performed brialliantly as a batsman). Okay, I understand why the England selectors have done it (Nasser Hussein has retired from one day cricket, and the one day captaincy has been given to Vaughan as preparation for one day tacking over the full time captaincy role) but I question the move's wisdom (I think Vaughan should be given time to get his game right before being given the captaincy).
In any event, my feelings on the game are mixed. England were unimpressive with the bat, but managed to get back into the game due to some good bowling and fielding, but in the end the fact that they had scored too few runs ultimately prevented them from winning. My verdict on Vaughan's captaincy is somewhat mixed, because in the end he made one of the cardinal errors.
In any event, England got off to an excellent start, scoring 0/45 off 6.5 overs, 1/63 off 9.5, and 2/96 off 14.5, and even 4/152 off 31.4 wasn't terrible, although by that point the had lost a wicket or two too many. However, nobody could go on with a start, their middle order collapsed, and they slumped to 8/169 off 38.5. The last couple of batsmen did the only thing they could, which was grind out the last 10 overs, and England ended up with an inadequate 9/204 off the 50 overs. Flintoff top scored with 39, Solanski got 36, McGrath 33, and Vaughan 27. They needed one or two players to go on with it, but nobody did.
When Pakistan were 0/60 off 17 overs or 1/116 off 30.2, it looked like Pakistan would romp home. However, thanks to good bowling from Anderson, Giles, and a very welcomly back from injury Darren Gough, England managed to get Pakistan to 5/158 and then 8/194. However, Abdul Razzaq and Mohammad Sami (who had impressed earlier with the ball - the man can bowl really fast) got Pakistan home with four balls to spare. A narrow win to Pakistan. Despite a good fightback, England were never terribly likely to win. They were about 20 runs short with the bat. Had they got 20 (or even 10) extra runs, they probably would have run.
And what was the mistake? The very inexperienced Rikki Clarke (playing his first match for England) bowled the last over. Even if the situation is desperate and wickets appear needed at once, the best captains manage to keep at least one over from one of their best bowlers for the very end. In practice, it doesn't make a lot of difference if Darren Gough bowls nine overs or ten early on, but it makes an enormous amount of difference if he has one left at the end. Vaughan hasn't quite got this yet.
Two more one day games between England and Pakistan between now and Sunday. Plus, we have the very interesting first test between Sri Lanka and the West Indies. Updates from me as appropriate.
They sound thoroughly westernised to me
Salam Pax has been visiting a Baghdad university, to see whether the campuses are hotbeds of free speech and potential revolution, and he finds....
Salam Pax has been visiting a Baghdad university, to see whether the campuses are hotbeds of free speech and potential revolution, and he finds....
And what about the students? Well most of them just don't give a damn. I sat for an hour with 10 students under a tree on the main street in the university compound and all I could get out of them was a collective, "Eh, well ... I don't know".
Movies I love
I have been reading Sophie's World by Jostein Gaardner. In this book, a mysterious philosopher starts sending letters to a 14 year old Norwegian girl telling her all about the history of the last 3000 years of western philosophy. (The story later becomes more complicated). Early on in the book, one of these letters is concludes by saying that the next lesson will move on to the three greatest Greek philosophers: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Fine.
The sad thing, though, is that I cannot hear these three names together without hearing the voice of Wallace Shawn in the film of The Princess Bride saying "Morons!", and giggling. If you have seen the film, you will know what I mean.
Some people will have noticed that the list of books I am reading that is in the left sidebar hasn't changed much in recent months, and although several books have been added in the last few months, none have been removed. Somewhat sadly, I haven't been reading much lately, at least not in the form of books. I must get back to them.
I have been reading Sophie's World by Jostein Gaardner. In this book, a mysterious philosopher starts sending letters to a 14 year old Norwegian girl telling her all about the history of the last 3000 years of western philosophy. (The story later becomes more complicated). Early on in the book, one of these letters is concludes by saying that the next lesson will move on to the three greatest Greek philosophers: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Fine.
The sad thing, though, is that I cannot hear these three names together without hearing the voice of Wallace Shawn in the film of The Princess Bride saying "Morons!", and giggling. If you have seen the film, you will know what I mean.
Some people will have noticed that the list of books I am reading that is in the left sidebar hasn't changed much in recent months, and although several books have been added in the last few months, none have been removed. Somewhat sadly, I haven't been reading much lately, at least not in the form of books. I must get back to them.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
More public service announcements
Iain Murray has moved to this new MT site. Blogger is preventing him from posting anything to the old site telling people to go to the new site. Updating your links is thus even more important that is normal in such situations. Personally I am finding the new version of Blogger to be much more reliable than the old one. (Admittedly, this isn't hard).
Iain Murray has moved to this new MT site. Blogger is preventing him from posting anything to the old site telling people to go to the new site. Updating your links is thus even more important that is normal in such situations. Personally I am finding the new version of Blogger to be much more reliable than the old one. (Admittedly, this isn't hard).
Monday, June 16, 2003
Dumb Movies
Okay, I went to see 2 Fast 2 Furious. Compared to this movie, the original The Fast and the Furious is high realism. However, ignore the ludicrous plot (which many critics have greatly enjoyed making fun of - suffice to say this is one of those Hollywood movies where a crime lord who needs an illicit cargo transported from point A to point B chooses to have it transported in the most conspicuous way imaginable, in this case by hiring street racers to drive it at 150 miles per hour down public roads). Just enjoy the speed, and the setting.
Yes, we are in that American world that exists in Southern California and Florida, where hip hop music is the order of the day, and everyone is unclassifiably post-ethnic. There are no blacks and whites, but just shades of brown. People speak clearly enunciated English but switch to Spanish if they are really upset, and moustaches, sunglasses, and epicanthic folds are optional.
Personally, I find this sort of setting pretty cool. So, apparently do lots of audiences. And whatever may be said for it, this film isn't bland, and a lot of Hollywood studio product is these days very bland. And the fact is large portions of America are actually evolving into this sort of place, although in reality the cars are less fast, the music is less loud, and the English less well enunciated.
What is interesting is that this kind of movie does none the less come out of Hollywood, which is run by deeply neurotic white people with MBAs who never leave the right parts of Los Angeles unless they are going to New York. The most important thing to bear in mind is that this is a sequel, and the original was low budget and a complete surprise hit, despite that fact that its target demographic was large and growing. That is, it slipped in under the radar. As did the original Rush Hour, another movie that in some ways belongs to the same milieu. And films aimed at teens have for some time been seemingly closer to America's new cultural reality than films aimed at adults. This is probably because these are the films that have fewer studio executives' eyes on them.
Okay, I went to see 2 Fast 2 Furious. Compared to this movie, the original The Fast and the Furious is high realism. However, ignore the ludicrous plot (which many critics have greatly enjoyed making fun of - suffice to say this is one of those Hollywood movies where a crime lord who needs an illicit cargo transported from point A to point B chooses to have it transported in the most conspicuous way imaginable, in this case by hiring street racers to drive it at 150 miles per hour down public roads). Just enjoy the speed, and the setting.
Yes, we are in that American world that exists in Southern California and Florida, where hip hop music is the order of the day, and everyone is unclassifiably post-ethnic. There are no blacks and whites, but just shades of brown. People speak clearly enunciated English but switch to Spanish if they are really upset, and moustaches, sunglasses, and epicanthic folds are optional.
Personally, I find this sort of setting pretty cool. So, apparently do lots of audiences. And whatever may be said for it, this film isn't bland, and a lot of Hollywood studio product is these days very bland. And the fact is large portions of America are actually evolving into this sort of place, although in reality the cars are less fast, the music is less loud, and the English less well enunciated.
What is interesting is that this kind of movie does none the less come out of Hollywood, which is run by deeply neurotic white people with MBAs who never leave the right parts of Los Angeles unless they are going to New York. The most important thing to bear in mind is that this is a sequel, and the original was low budget and a complete surprise hit, despite that fact that its target demographic was large and growing. That is, it slipped in under the radar. As did the original Rush Hour, another movie that in some ways belongs to the same milieu. And films aimed at teens have for some time been seemingly closer to America's new cultural reality than films aimed at adults. This is probably because these are the films that have fewer studio executives' eyes on them.
Sunday, June 15, 2003
The bars
When I ran my blog through this poetry generator, I wasn't all that impressed with the results. Still, there were one or two good lines
Ah yes. The greater Basqueland consisting of the bars. That is certainly a strong mental image.
When I ran my blog through this poetry generator, I wasn't all that impressed with the results. Still, there were one or two good lines
The
Americans had
scored 75 not until this
many times
the greater Basqueland consisting
of the bars, I
was in So, heavily that would have two test
side, C
L.
Ah yes. The greater Basqueland consisting of the bars. That is certainly a strong mental image.
Something unexpected
When flying out of Bilbao on Tuesday, I had an unusual experience, which is that the city's airport seems to feel no need to extort money from air travellers the way many airports do. Firstly, the bus to the airport was a proper airport express: non-stop from the city centre to the airport. However, the fare was just an ordinary bus fare: one euro. Normal practice with airport buses is to charge three times the fare for any other bus, but not here.
Having got to the airport and through to the gate, I discovered my flight was delayed. I did what I normally do when a flight is delayed, which is go to the bar. I ordered a beer, and was charged 1.40 euros, which is about the same as I would be charged in any other bar in Bilbao. Upon finishing the beer, I observed that the flight was still delayed, so I ordered a cup of coffee. For this I was charged 1.20 euros, again about the same as in any other bar.
Nobody ripping me off in the modern globalised way? What is this?
(Bilbao airport is in scale and operations rather like Adelaide airport. There are fairly regular flights to all the major Spanish destinations, and occasional flights to London or Paris or somewhere like that).
Update: I have also written some thoughts on the Bilbao Metro system over at Transport Blog.
When flying out of Bilbao on Tuesday, I had an unusual experience, which is that the city's airport seems to feel no need to extort money from air travellers the way many airports do. Firstly, the bus to the airport was a proper airport express: non-stop from the city centre to the airport. However, the fare was just an ordinary bus fare: one euro. Normal practice with airport buses is to charge three times the fare for any other bus, but not here.
Having got to the airport and through to the gate, I discovered my flight was delayed. I did what I normally do when a flight is delayed, which is go to the bar. I ordered a beer, and was charged 1.40 euros, which is about the same as I would be charged in any other bar in Bilbao. Upon finishing the beer, I observed that the flight was still delayed, so I ordered a cup of coffee. For this I was charged 1.20 euros, again about the same as in any other bar.
Nobody ripping me off in the modern globalised way? What is this?
(Bilbao airport is in scale and operations rather like Adelaide airport. There are fairly regular flights to all the major Spanish destinations, and occasional flights to London or Paris or somewhere like that).
Update: I have also written some thoughts on the Bilbao Metro system over at Transport Blog.
Saturday, June 14, 2003
The spread of SARS
Alfred Croucher (China hand) has a very interesting article on how SARS was spread to Hong Kong from China. Some of it is speculative, but still interesting.
The whole article is worth a read, particularly the discussion as to why the disease has been very easily spread in Hong Kong hospitals but not United States hospital (US hospitals have much better hygiene, and may already be taking precautions for possible germ warfare.
Alfred Croucher (China hand) has a very interesting article on how SARS was spread to Hong Kong from China. Some of it is speculative, but still interesting.
It is said the Index patient, a medical doctor from Guangzhou knew he had something highly infectious and got a visit to HK approved, ostensibly to attend a relative's wedding but with the real purpose of seeking expert treatment. Sadly he booked himself into the Kowloon Metropole first and actually attended the wedding before submitting himself to medical examination at the Kwongwah Hospital. His traces at the Metropole caused an extensive outbreak, as did his attendance at the wedding.
After the wedding he booked himself into the Kwongwah Hospital while warning the staff he may have a highly infectious disease. The staff there immediatly took appropriate measures and as a result no infections resulted from his stay. But Kwongwah is not by any means a specialist in infectious diseases so they arranged for the Index patient to be transferred to the Prince of Wales (POW), one of the top hospitals which specialises in infectious diseases.
At POW the staff, in their hubris, are said to have dismissed the warnings from Kwongwah and even the director examined the patient without appropriate precautions. As a result he and many other staff died while no-doubt passing on the disease to other patients.
The whole article is worth a read, particularly the discussion as to why the disease has been very easily spread in Hong Kong hospitals but not United States hospital (US hospitals have much better hygiene, and may already be taking precautions for possible germ warfare.
Socialising animals.
Brian Micklethwait had a post a couple of days ago on the education of dolphins. Essentially the point was that dolphins have culture and not just instincts and that quite a lot can be taught to them.
This is true, and it does not just occur with dolphines. Amongs related animals, different whale populations (within the same species) are know to make quite different calls and noises to one another.
And it occurs further down the animal kingdon, hence this fascinating article from the New York Times on scientists in Arizona attempting to educate condors bred in captivity about how to live in the wild. (Link via Brad Delong). A big problem is that "condors hatched in the wild typically spend over a year with their parents, presumably learning how to be successful scavengers" whereas those bred in captivity don't. Guiding orphan condors through adolescence is not an easy thing to do.
I have never seen a condor in the wild, but I have seen one or two in captivity. They are one of nature's extreme cases. They are as large as a bird that can still fly can be. They are magnificent, but they have a certain gawkiness about them. Nature is really pushing the engineering tolerances, and it shows. They lack the seemingly effortless but slightly sinister style of some smaller birds of prey, most notably eagles.
Brian Micklethwait had a post a couple of days ago on the education of dolphins. Essentially the point was that dolphins have culture and not just instincts and that quite a lot can be taught to them.
This is true, and it does not just occur with dolphines. Amongs related animals, different whale populations (within the same species) are know to make quite different calls and noises to one another.
And it occurs further down the animal kingdon, hence this fascinating article from the New York Times on scientists in Arizona attempting to educate condors bred in captivity about how to live in the wild. (Link via Brad Delong). A big problem is that "condors hatched in the wild typically spend over a year with their parents, presumably learning how to be successful scavengers" whereas those bred in captivity don't. Guiding orphan condors through adolescence is not an easy thing to do.
I have never seen a condor in the wild, but I have seen one or two in captivity. They are one of nature's extreme cases. They are as large as a bird that can still fly can be. They are magnificent, but they have a certain gawkiness about them. Nature is really pushing the engineering tolerances, and it shows. They lack the seemingly effortless but slightly sinister style of some smaller birds of prey, most notably eagles.
Friday, June 13, 2003
Thursday, June 12, 2003
The importance of good design
Here we have a delightful page on the state of the art gizmos that every proper geek wanted in 1983. (Via William Gibson).
Ah, yes. Nostalgia. The days when gizmos were really clunky, and really expensive, and only a small corps of hard core geeks knew they existed. These days, it is amazing how many quite cool and interesting gizmos can be bought for, say, $100. Of course, the number of people who lust for tech products (particularly from the younger generation) is much larger than it used to be, and the resultant economies of scales are part of the point.
Still, I wonder whether todays products will look as clunky as these when we look back from 20 years in the future. To some extent, I think the answer is yes, but I don't think to the same extent. I think the quality of design has improved with respect to technical products, at least in some quarters. Certainly it has with respect to mobile phones. (This is pretty much the entire explanation for the success of Nokia. They got their design right before anyone else did. Their phones have never been anything special from a technical perspective). With some other products, less so.
Particularly with desktop PCs, less so. This is one product where design remains something of a disaster. Interestingly enough, Gibson in another post discusses why the computer used by one of the characters in his most recent novel uses a Macintosh G4 Cube. Essentially this is one of the few desktop PCs ever to get the design right. We are now in an age where ordinary users don't actually need the extra CPU cycles given to them by Moore's law (thanks mainly to the fact that the main bottleneck for most applications is now net connection speed and not CPU speed) and therefore a computer several years old can still be used by most users if there is some good reason for them to do so. The G4 Cube is now an old product, but its users still love it. They do so to such an extent that its resale value is something similar to its original purchase price, even though it was discontinued quite some time ago. Given that PCs normally lose their value with ferocious speed, this is remarkable.
Here we have a delightful page on the state of the art gizmos that every proper geek wanted in 1983. (Via William Gibson).
From Motorola, the first commercial portable cellular phone to receive FCC approval. The DynaTAC 8000X, which weighs just 28 ounces, works on the new Advanced Mobile Phone Service that's being rolled out, and has an LED display, memory to store thirty "dialing locations," and enough battery life for 30 minutes of talk time and eight hours of standby. Retail price: $3,995.
Ah, yes. Nostalgia. The days when gizmos were really clunky, and really expensive, and only a small corps of hard core geeks knew they existed. These days, it is amazing how many quite cool and interesting gizmos can be bought for, say, $100. Of course, the number of people who lust for tech products (particularly from the younger generation) is much larger than it used to be, and the resultant economies of scales are part of the point.
Still, I wonder whether todays products will look as clunky as these when we look back from 20 years in the future. To some extent, I think the answer is yes, but I don't think to the same extent. I think the quality of design has improved with respect to technical products, at least in some quarters. Certainly it has with respect to mobile phones. (This is pretty much the entire explanation for the success of Nokia. They got their design right before anyone else did. Their phones have never been anything special from a technical perspective). With some other products, less so.
Particularly with desktop PCs, less so. This is one product where design remains something of a disaster. Interestingly enough, Gibson in another post discusses why the computer used by one of the characters in his most recent novel uses a Macintosh G4 Cube. Essentially this is one of the few desktop PCs ever to get the design right. We are now in an age where ordinary users don't actually need the extra CPU cycles given to them by Moore's law (thanks mainly to the fact that the main bottleneck for most applications is now net connection speed and not CPU speed) and therefore a computer several years old can still be used by most users if there is some good reason for them to do so. The G4 Cube is now an old product, but its users still love it. They do so to such an extent that its resale value is something similar to its original purchase price, even though it was discontinued quite some time ago. Given that PCs normally lose their value with ferocious speed, this is remarkable.
Cricketing things that have been happening in my absence
After the end of the Australian tour of the West Indies, I commented that the West Indies looked to be improving, particularly in one day cricket. There was a caveat to that, however. The West Indies' wins had come at the end of the test series and at the end of the one day series, once these series were decided. In fact, they had won every 'dead rubber' in both series, but had lost every match when each series was still alive.
Over the last week, the West Indies have been playing Sri Lanka in the one day leg of the Sri Lankan tour of the West Indies. (Why the West Indies played a dull and seemingly endless seven match series with Australia rather than a potentially much more entertaining triangular series including the Sri Lankans, I don't know). This tour is about half the length of the Australian tour, with three one day games, and two test matches. The one day series is now over. So what happened?
Well, in the first game the West Indian bowlers kept Sri Lanka to a fairly poor 201, but then collapsed for 146 themselves, to lose by 55 runs. In the second game, the West Indies appeared to be in an almost unbeatable position when 116 from Lara and 94 from Gayle took them to 4/312 off 50 overs. However, 'almost' was the key word, and Sri Lanka got the runs with three balls to spare, after most of the batsmen chipped in.
So, the West Indies had lost all the important matches again. Not very impressive, to be honest. True to form, they yesterday easily won the match that didn't matter. Sri Lanka were bowled out for 191, and the West Indians met the revised Duckworth/Lewis target with the greatest of ease.
So far, in their home series, the West Indies have lost 6 one day internationals and won 4. This looks at least slightly respectable, but all four wins have been matches after the series was lost. They have lost 3 and won 1 test, and that 1 test was after the series was lost. They have two tests to play against Sri Lanka. The nature of a two test series means that it is not possible for there to be a dead rubber. To keep up this slightly peculiar streak of losing all matches that count, the West Indies have to lose both matches. I doubt they will, but who knows. As streaks go, this is a deeply unimpressive one. It indicates a side that can't take pressure. Lara as captain has work in front of him.
In other cricket, the second England v Zimbabwe match was a carbon copy of the first. England again won by an innings in three days. If England have anything to worry about, it was the relative failure of their top order batsmen. England were at one point 5-156 in their first innings, but thanks to Stewart, McGrath, and Giles, the middle and lower order managed to push the score to an adequate 416, which was still not hugely impressive against the Zimbabwean bowling. However, the Zimbabweans were then bowled out for 94 and 253, with Richard Johnson taking six wickets on debut in the first innings. A fairly blah result.
Lots of one day internationals now before the more interesting test series between England and South Africa. England's batting will need to improve a little for that series, but I think it probably will. I am forecasting a comfortable win for England in that series, because England are playing okay, and South Africa are in complete disarray.
After the end of the Australian tour of the West Indies, I commented that the West Indies looked to be improving, particularly in one day cricket. There was a caveat to that, however. The West Indies' wins had come at the end of the test series and at the end of the one day series, once these series were decided. In fact, they had won every 'dead rubber' in both series, but had lost every match when each series was still alive.
Over the last week, the West Indies have been playing Sri Lanka in the one day leg of the Sri Lankan tour of the West Indies. (Why the West Indies played a dull and seemingly endless seven match series with Australia rather than a potentially much more entertaining triangular series including the Sri Lankans, I don't know). This tour is about half the length of the Australian tour, with three one day games, and two test matches. The one day series is now over. So what happened?
Well, in the first game the West Indian bowlers kept Sri Lanka to a fairly poor 201, but then collapsed for 146 themselves, to lose by 55 runs. In the second game, the West Indies appeared to be in an almost unbeatable position when 116 from Lara and 94 from Gayle took them to 4/312 off 50 overs. However, 'almost' was the key word, and Sri Lanka got the runs with three balls to spare, after most of the batsmen chipped in.
So, the West Indies had lost all the important matches again. Not very impressive, to be honest. True to form, they yesterday easily won the match that didn't matter. Sri Lanka were bowled out for 191, and the West Indians met the revised Duckworth/Lewis target with the greatest of ease.
So far, in their home series, the West Indies have lost 6 one day internationals and won 4. This looks at least slightly respectable, but all four wins have been matches after the series was lost. They have lost 3 and won 1 test, and that 1 test was after the series was lost. They have two tests to play against Sri Lanka. The nature of a two test series means that it is not possible for there to be a dead rubber. To keep up this slightly peculiar streak of losing all matches that count, the West Indies have to lose both matches. I doubt they will, but who knows. As streaks go, this is a deeply unimpressive one. It indicates a side that can't take pressure. Lara as captain has work in front of him.
In other cricket, the second England v Zimbabwe match was a carbon copy of the first. England again won by an innings in three days. If England have anything to worry about, it was the relative failure of their top order batsmen. England were at one point 5-156 in their first innings, but thanks to Stewart, McGrath, and Giles, the middle and lower order managed to push the score to an adequate 416, which was still not hugely impressive against the Zimbabwean bowling. However, the Zimbabweans were then bowled out for 94 and 253, with Richard Johnson taking six wickets on debut in the first innings. A fairly blah result.
Lots of one day internationals now before the more interesting test series between England and South Africa. England's batting will need to improve a little for that series, but I think it probably will. I am forecasting a comfortable win for England in that series, because England are playing okay, and South Africa are in complete disarray.
A new hope
I have been moved over to the new version of Blogger. It will be interesting to see how this compares with the old one in terms of reliability and/or archive issues.
Update: There are some issues with comments not appearing on my page. In particular, it is in some instances showing up as "Comments[0]" when there actually are comments. Yaccs has a code update to fix this problem, but I am unable to install it on the public terminal I am presently using. If all goes well, I shall fix it at home this evening.
Further Update: These should now be fixed, at least in theory.
Even Further Update: I have encountered no archiving or reliability problems so far. It doesn't work properly with Mozilla, though. It detects that I am using a non-IE browser, and gives me a watered down, Blogger light version. (Of course, the old Blogger didn't work properly with Mozilla either, but in a "This isn't IE? Well I don't fucking care. I am going to behave as if it is" kind of way).
I have been moved over to the new version of Blogger. It will be interesting to see how this compares with the old one in terms of reliability and/or archive issues.
Update: There are some issues with comments not appearing on my page. In particular, it is in some instances showing up as "Comments[0]" when there actually are comments. Yaccs has a code update to fix this problem, but I am unable to install it on the public terminal I am presently using. If all goes well, I shall fix it at home this evening.
Further Update: These should now be fixed, at least in theory.
Even Further Update: I have encountered no archiving or reliability problems so far. It doesn't work properly with Mozilla, though. It detects that I am using a non-IE browser, and gives me a watered down, Blogger light version. (Of course, the old Blogger didn't work properly with Mozilla either, but in a "This isn't IE? Well I don't fucking care. I am going to behave as if it is" kind of way).
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Back in London
My return from Spain was largely uneventful, but my flight was a bit late, and I then had to negotiate my way to and through London via a series of buses, and I didn't get home until 2.30am. I think this messed up my sleep a little, and I have a bit of a headache as a consequence. Therefore, no major blogging until probably this evening.
My return from Spain was largely uneventful, but my flight was a bit late, and I then had to negotiate my way to and through London via a series of buses, and I didn't get home until 2.30am. I think this messed up my sleep a little, and I have a bit of a headache as a consequence. Therefore, no major blogging until probably this evening.
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
French Restaurants versus Spanish Restaurants
In France, many restaurants offer a so called prix fixe menu. This means that for a fixed price, you get three courses, and there are normally three or four dishes that you can choose from for each course. This works out much cheaper than ordering a la carte. However, drinks are usually not included, and the price of wine is often extortionate. (This is why I often drink beer in restaurants in France).
In Spain, the concept is much the same. Restaurants offer a menu del dia, which works much the same way. Unfortunately, this is usually offered only at lunchtime. However, on the positive side, drinks are included. Despite this, these meals are still somewhat cheaper than in France. If you ask for vino, you get an entire bottle of red wine with your lunch. And while wandering around Spain in the middle of the afternoon feeling somewhat pissed is not entirely unpleasant, I am still not sure if this counts as a positive or a negative.
In France, many restaurants offer a so called prix fixe menu. This means that for a fixed price, you get three courses, and there are normally three or four dishes that you can choose from for each course. This works out much cheaper than ordering a la carte. However, drinks are usually not included, and the price of wine is often extortionate. (This is why I often drink beer in restaurants in France).
In Spain, the concept is much the same. Restaurants offer a menu del dia, which works much the same way. Unfortunately, this is usually offered only at lunchtime. However, on the positive side, drinks are included. Despite this, these meals are still somewhat cheaper than in France. If you ask for vino, you get an entire bottle of red wine with your lunch. And while wandering around Spain in the middle of the afternoon feeling somewhat pissed is not entirely unpleasant, I am still not sure if this counts as a positive or a negative.
Watching television
I have never really thought about the idea of politically partisan weather reports before, but when I think about it, it is actually fairly obvious. What do TV weather reports use? Maps. And maps are a traditional way of showing partisan politics. Many Basque nationalist signs and posters of all kinds show an outline of a map of what their ideal independent Basque nation would be. It consists of the three provinces of the autonomous Basque region of Spain, the Spanish province of Navarra, and the Basque area of southern France. (Navarra is Basque in perhaps the same way Vallencia is Catalan. The Basque language is spoken there, but in a different dialect. The two regions have been politically quite distinct for a long while. Navarra was a separate kingdom for centuries. Plus there are more non-Basques living there than in the area around Bilbao and San Sebastian. All this means that separatism is weaker there than here. And separatism is weaker in France than here, largely because the Basque people were never repressed by General Franco there. However, Basque nationalists see some future greater Basqueland consisting of the whole three areas.
Thus the weather report. The maps behind the weather girl showed the weather in the greater Basque area I described, including Navarra and southern France. This area was in a dark colour with everything else white, just as on the nationalist posters. There were no political boundaries shown in this area. And there were no weather reports for anywhere else. As I said, a politically partisan weather report.
I have never really thought about the idea of politically partisan weather reports before, but when I think about it, it is actually fairly obvious. What do TV weather reports use? Maps. And maps are a traditional way of showing partisan politics. Many Basque nationalist signs and posters of all kinds show an outline of a map of what their ideal independent Basque nation would be. It consists of the three provinces of the autonomous Basque region of Spain, the Spanish province of Navarra, and the Basque area of southern France. (Navarra is Basque in perhaps the same way Vallencia is Catalan. The Basque language is spoken there, but in a different dialect. The two regions have been politically quite distinct for a long while. Navarra was a separate kingdom for centuries. Plus there are more non-Basques living there than in the area around Bilbao and San Sebastian. All this means that separatism is weaker there than here. And separatism is weaker in France than here, largely because the Basque people were never repressed by General Franco there. However, Basque nationalists see some future greater Basqueland consisting of the whole three areas.
Thus the weather report. The maps behind the weather girl showed the weather in the greater Basque area I described, including Navarra and southern France. This area was in a dark colour with everything else white, just as on the nationalist posters. There were no political boundaries shown in this area. And there were no weather reports for anywhere else. As I said, a politically partisan weather report.
Monday, June 09, 2003
Note to Slate.
It may well be that Pixar's great moment in the sun actually isn't now. The film they will release next year, The Incredibles, will be the first Pixar film from Brad Bird, possibly the most brilliant animator working in America today. In 2005, they will release the next film from John Lasseter, who made Toy Story and who has been the driving creative force behind the studio from the start. (Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo have been directed by Pixar's lesser lights, amazing as it may seem) It may be that despite the fact that "Finding Nemo is Pixar's 500th home run, its 3,000th hit, its third consecutive championship: a triumph that's more important for its relationship to an entire body of work than for its solitary pleasures", Pixar have not peaked yet, and that we will hear the same thing we are hearing now, only louder, for the next two years.
Of course, it is also possible that Pixar will make a mess of their next two films, or that Brad Bird's individual style will overwhelm the fact that The Incredibles is a Pixar film, and that now will be seen as the key cultural moment. However, it is impossible to pick these moments at the time they happen, because ultimately we dont't realise how large cultural forces will be before they are over. The fact is, though, most animation fans thought that this year would simply be a year in which Pixar released a nice little film before the really serious stuff came out in 2004 and 2005.
It may well be that Pixar's great moment in the sun actually isn't now. The film they will release next year, The Incredibles, will be the first Pixar film from Brad Bird, possibly the most brilliant animator working in America today. In 2005, they will release the next film from John Lasseter, who made Toy Story and who has been the driving creative force behind the studio from the start. (Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo have been directed by Pixar's lesser lights, amazing as it may seem) It may be that despite the fact that "Finding Nemo is Pixar's 500th home run, its 3,000th hit, its third consecutive championship: a triumph that's more important for its relationship to an entire body of work than for its solitary pleasures", Pixar have not peaked yet, and that we will hear the same thing we are hearing now, only louder, for the next two years.
Of course, it is also possible that Pixar will make a mess of their next two films, or that Brad Bird's individual style will overwhelm the fact that The Incredibles is a Pixar film, and that now will be seen as the key cultural moment. However, it is impossible to pick these moments at the time they happen, because ultimately we dont't realise how large cultural forces will be before they are over. The fact is, though, most animation fans thought that this year would simply be a year in which Pixar released a nice little film before the really serious stuff came out in 2004 and 2005.
A nice thing about Bilbao.
Unlike in many European cities, the centre of the city, the casco viejo, has not been overrun by tourists. As a consequence, the cost of owning a shop there is still reasonable. Therefore, the area is full of shops selling ordinary things: shoes, clothes, furniture, household goods, CDs and DVDs, and a nice selection of shops selling weird crap of various kinds. (Also, the area contains a vast number of bars). In most Europeans cities, the shops selling weird crap have had to move out into less salubrious neighborhoods, which is a shame. In Bilbao, though, it is all still in the old centre. Between about 7pm and 9pm, much of the population of the city seems to be walking through this area, wandering in and out of shops, wandering in and out of bars for a drink and a quick snack, and just generally having an evening walk, mainly because it is a pleasant thing to do. This is one thing that makes Bilbao such a pleasant city.
Unlike in many European cities, the centre of the city, the casco viejo, has not been overrun by tourists. As a consequence, the cost of owning a shop there is still reasonable. Therefore, the area is full of shops selling ordinary things: shoes, clothes, furniture, household goods, CDs and DVDs, and a nice selection of shops selling weird crap of various kinds. (Also, the area contains a vast number of bars). In most Europeans cities, the shops selling weird crap have had to move out into less salubrious neighborhoods, which is a shame. In Bilbao, though, it is all still in the old centre. Between about 7pm and 9pm, much of the population of the city seems to be walking through this area, wandering in and out of shops, wandering in and out of bars for a drink and a quick snack, and just generally having an evening walk, mainly because it is a pleasant thing to do. This is one thing that makes Bilbao such a pleasant city.
Sunday, June 08, 2003
Genuine Basqueness
Today, I came back from San Sebastian to Bilbao, with a lengthy stop in Ondarroa on the way. The coastal geography is stunning, with steep hills and mountains backing directly onto the sea, with fishing towns mostly in the valleys. I chose Ondarroa because there is another bridge designed by Santiago Calatrava over the river Artibai. Again I was underwhelmed. Calatrava's most famous bridge is in Seville. Perhaps I need to go there and look at it. There was an absolutely ancient looking stone arch a little further upstream which, quite frankly, struck me as the most interesting bridge in the town.
Ondarroa was described as a "centre of Basque nationalism" in my guidebook, and it did indeed seem this way. Lots of slogans painted on the walls. I can't understand either Spanish or Basque, but I got the point. They were decrying the brutality and tactics of torture of the guardia civil (But not that of ETA), and demanding independence. The many bars of the town were filled with posters showing a map of the Basque country a different colour to the rest of Spain.
And, as has invariably been the case on this trip, the people were tremendously friendly and welcoming. I went into several bars, had some lunch, drank a little red wine, and it was almost like I was one of the locals. (The Basques, like people in the rest of Spain, seem to spend much of the day drinking a little red wine). In one of the bars, I watched a strange Basque sports program on the television, featuring what looked like an under-15s woodchopping competition, and a weird contest involving picking up large, heavy cubic objects to head height and then dropping them on what looked like a giant bean bag. The winner seemed to be the person who could lift the cubic object as many times as possible. However, there appeared to also be a later round in which the cubic object was bigger. (In fact, it had "230K" written on the side of it, so that may have been its weight).
Anyway, Guernica tomorrow.
Today, I came back from San Sebastian to Bilbao, with a lengthy stop in Ondarroa on the way. The coastal geography is stunning, with steep hills and mountains backing directly onto the sea, with fishing towns mostly in the valleys. I chose Ondarroa because there is another bridge designed by Santiago Calatrava over the river Artibai. Again I was underwhelmed. Calatrava's most famous bridge is in Seville. Perhaps I need to go there and look at it. There was an absolutely ancient looking stone arch a little further upstream which, quite frankly, struck me as the most interesting bridge in the town.
Ondarroa was described as a "centre of Basque nationalism" in my guidebook, and it did indeed seem this way. Lots of slogans painted on the walls. I can't understand either Spanish or Basque, but I got the point. They were decrying the brutality and tactics of torture of the guardia civil (But not that of ETA), and demanding independence. The many bars of the town were filled with posters showing a map of the Basque country a different colour to the rest of Spain.
And, as has invariably been the case on this trip, the people were tremendously friendly and welcoming. I went into several bars, had some lunch, drank a little red wine, and it was almost like I was one of the locals. (The Basques, like people in the rest of Spain, seem to spend much of the day drinking a little red wine). In one of the bars, I watched a strange Basque sports program on the television, featuring what looked like an under-15s woodchopping competition, and a weird contest involving picking up large, heavy cubic objects to head height and then dropping them on what looked like a giant bean bag. The winner seemed to be the person who could lift the cubic object as many times as possible. However, there appeared to also be a later round in which the cubic object was bigger. (In fact, it had "230K" written on the side of it, so that may have been its weight).
Anyway, Guernica tomorrow.
Saturday, June 07, 2003
It won't happen
Every now and then, someone in England suggests appointing a member of the royal familty to the position of Governor-General of Australia. It happened with Prince Charles 25 years ago, and it seems to be happening again with Prince William. (Link via Steven Den Beste). Well, it simply isn't going to happen. This was all actually resolved in 1931, when Sir Isaac Isaacs was appointed as the first Australian born Governor General. Prior to that, the G-G had always been British and had primary loyalty to the British government, although this declined over time. When Isaacs was nominated, the King and the British government initially didn't like the idea, but the Australian government prevailed, and at that point, it became clear that it was entirely an Australian appointment. Subsequent to that, the G-G was always an Australian, his duties were purely to Australia and the Australian government, and the British had no role in his appointment, other than the Queen ratifying the appointment. A non-Australian in the role, even a member of the royal family, is unthinkable, in much the same way and for much the same reasons that an Australian is unthinkable as President of Germany. When this sort of suggesting is made in Britain, it merely illustrates that the person making it does not understand the Australian constitutional position.
Every now and then, someone in England suggests appointing a member of the royal familty to the position of Governor-General of Australia. It happened with Prince Charles 25 years ago, and it seems to be happening again with Prince William. (Link via Steven Den Beste). Well, it simply isn't going to happen. This was all actually resolved in 1931, when Sir Isaac Isaacs was appointed as the first Australian born Governor General. Prior to that, the G-G had always been British and had primary loyalty to the British government, although this declined over time. When Isaacs was nominated, the King and the British government initially didn't like the idea, but the Australian government prevailed, and at that point, it became clear that it was entirely an Australian appointment. Subsequent to that, the G-G was always an Australian, his duties were purely to Australia and the Australian government, and the British had no role in his appointment, other than the Queen ratifying the appointment. A non-Australian in the role, even a member of the royal family, is unthinkable, in much the same way and for much the same reasons that an Australian is unthinkable as President of Germany. When this sort of suggesting is made in Britain, it merely illustrates that the person making it does not understand the Australian constitutional position.
Dealing with my issues through foreign travel
A few years ago, in the course of my employment, I had a mindblowingly ghastly boss. This man had been promoted way above his level of competence, and had no idea whatsoever about the workings of a financial model he was supposed to be an expert on.
This was one thing, and if he had simply kept out of my way and let me do the work, I could have lived with this. The trouble was that he had no idea how incompetent he was, and thus spent his entire time instructing me to do things that were dumb, pointless, and wrong. Worse than that, he was the sort of person who feels the need to talk to you all day, so while I was trying to do the job properly and do enough of his pointless tasks to make him civil, he was spouting unbelievable crap at me all day long. It was mindblowingly awful.
In any event, I once commented that working with me reminded me of what Adolf Hitler had said about meeting with General Franco: that it was like going to the dentist. Working with this moron was, for me, like having to go to the dentist all day long. My very unimaginative workmates were totally unimpressed by this observation, but were actually sympathetic towards me.
In any event, I yesterday caught the Euskotran train from San Sebastian to Hendaye, just over the border with France. I would have liked to have gone further to St Jean-de-luz, but the French were all on strike, which made this difficult. However, I got out and walked around the SNCF station in Hendaye. It so happens that this railway station is where Hitler and Franco actually met on 23 October 1940, after which Hitler made that comment about Franco and dentists. Next time I have an appalling boss, I at least have a better story to tell.
Of course, people who commemorate historical events don't feel the need to put up plaques commemorating infamous events, so there is no way of knowing that this meeting took place there from looking at the railway station. The waiting room was full of American college students hoping that they would somehow be able to go to Bordeax some time soon. I was tempted to point out that Adolf Hitler had once stood probably a few feet from where they were standing and that thinking about this would maybe make the wait go faster (or not), but managed to resist the temptation.
In any event, I walked over the bridge back into Spain. There are now no customs or immigration controls of any kind: you just walk across the bridge. I then walked from the modern border town of Irun to the older border town of Hondarribia: a gorgeous little walled town. Eventually I heard some music coming up some steps, and walked down to find a nice little bar filled with twentysomething studenty types. I had a couple of beers and a very pleasant baguette filled with all manner of interesting fillings. In all, a good evening.
A few years ago, in the course of my employment, I had a mindblowingly ghastly boss. This man had been promoted way above his level of competence, and had no idea whatsoever about the workings of a financial model he was supposed to be an expert on.
This was one thing, and if he had simply kept out of my way and let me do the work, I could have lived with this. The trouble was that he had no idea how incompetent he was, and thus spent his entire time instructing me to do things that were dumb, pointless, and wrong. Worse than that, he was the sort of person who feels the need to talk to you all day, so while I was trying to do the job properly and do enough of his pointless tasks to make him civil, he was spouting unbelievable crap at me all day long. It was mindblowingly awful.
In any event, I once commented that working with me reminded me of what Adolf Hitler had said about meeting with General Franco: that it was like going to the dentist. Working with this moron was, for me, like having to go to the dentist all day long. My very unimaginative workmates were totally unimpressed by this observation, but were actually sympathetic towards me.
In any event, I yesterday caught the Euskotran train from San Sebastian to Hendaye, just over the border with France. I would have liked to have gone further to St Jean-de-luz, but the French were all on strike, which made this difficult. However, I got out and walked around the SNCF station in Hendaye. It so happens that this railway station is where Hitler and Franco actually met on 23 October 1940, after which Hitler made that comment about Franco and dentists. Next time I have an appalling boss, I at least have a better story to tell.
Of course, people who commemorate historical events don't feel the need to put up plaques commemorating infamous events, so there is no way of knowing that this meeting took place there from looking at the railway station. The waiting room was full of American college students hoping that they would somehow be able to go to Bordeax some time soon. I was tempted to point out that Adolf Hitler had once stood probably a few feet from where they were standing and that thinking about this would maybe make the wait go faster (or not), but managed to resist the temptation.
In any event, I walked over the bridge back into Spain. There are now no customs or immigration controls of any kind: you just walk across the bridge. I then walked from the modern border town of Irun to the older border town of Hondarribia: a gorgeous little walled town. Eventually I heard some music coming up some steps, and walked down to find a nice little bar filled with twentysomething studenty types. I had a couple of beers and a very pleasant baguette filled with all manner of interesting fillings. In all, a good evening.
Blogger
Due to a missing "/" in my html, much of this site has been in bold italics for the last 24 hours. Thanks to blogger being down, I wasn't able to fix it, or indeed to post anything new.
Update: Actually it was two missing "/"s. Whenever it is that blogger chooses to update my site, this should be fixed.
Due to a missing "/" in my html, much of this site has been in bold italics for the last 24 hours. Thanks to blogger being down, I wasn't able to fix it, or indeed to post anything new.
Update: Actually it was two missing "/"s. Whenever it is that blogger chooses to update my site, this should be fixed.
Friday, June 06, 2003
This sounds like fun
This guy gives a very amusing discussion of testing whether anyone pays any attention at all to his signature on credit card slips. He starts out with fairly ordinary things, and then moves on to signing with noughts and crosses boards, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and you name it, really.
Having read this, I yesterday checked in to a hostel here in San Sebastian. I was mildly annoyed to see a "No war for oil" sign on the wall. Now, it is theoretically IYHF policy that hostels are open to all regardless of race, religion, political beliefs, blah blah blah, and this seemed mildly contrary to this policy. Largely, I just wanted somewhere to lie down, but emboldened by what I had read earlier, I decided to make some sort of statement. I signed the credit card slip "Donald Rumsfeld". Nobody noticed, or paid the slightest attention to what I had signed.
This guy gives a very amusing discussion of testing whether anyone pays any attention at all to his signature on credit card slips. He starts out with fairly ordinary things, and then moves on to signing with noughts and crosses boards, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and you name it, really.
Having read this, I yesterday checked in to a hostel here in San Sebastian. I was mildly annoyed to see a "No war for oil" sign on the wall. Now, it is theoretically IYHF policy that hostels are open to all regardless of race, religion, political beliefs, blah blah blah, and this seemed mildly contrary to this policy. Largely, I just wanted somewhere to lie down, but emboldened by what I had read earlier, I decided to make some sort of statement. I signed the credit card slip "Donald Rumsfeld". Nobody noticed, or paid the slightest attention to what I had signed.
An argument for intervention
Sasha Volokh makes some comments about the Spanish Civil War, in particular that in the Spanish civil war neither side was terribly palatable, and that if the choice was communism or Franco, then Franco might have been the lesser of the two evils. As Sasha says, "Remember that when you have a war between side A and side B, side C (i.e., liberal democracy) is not a valid choice". This may be true, but we do not know how repressive communism would have ever become in Spain. Given Spain's physical location at the west of Europe, it seems unlikely that it could have ever become a satellite of the Soviet Union, so how it would have evolved, I don't know. I doubt it would have ever turned into Stalinism. (Sasha sort of says this too in his last paragraph). We know just how bad Franco was, but with the alternatives we simply do not. Sitting where I am right now, about half an hour from Guernica, Franco doesn't seem especially palatable.
And as for sides A, B, and C, I think that all three options may have been choices in 1945. America at that time allowed Franco to remain in power, and as a consequence, the Spanish were stuck with his wretched dictatorship until the mid 1970s. If the Americans had instead invaded Spain and extended Marshall Plan aid and established a democracy, things would probably have become much better much sooner.
Sasha Volokh makes some comments about the Spanish Civil War, in particular that in the Spanish civil war neither side was terribly palatable, and that if the choice was communism or Franco, then Franco might have been the lesser of the two evils. As Sasha says, "Remember that when you have a war between side A and side B, side C (i.e., liberal democracy) is not a valid choice". This may be true, but we do not know how repressive communism would have ever become in Spain. Given Spain's physical location at the west of Europe, it seems unlikely that it could have ever become a satellite of the Soviet Union, so how it would have evolved, I don't know. I doubt it would have ever turned into Stalinism. (Sasha sort of says this too in his last paragraph). We know just how bad Franco was, but with the alternatives we simply do not. Sitting where I am right now, about half an hour from Guernica, Franco doesn't seem especially palatable.
And as for sides A, B, and C, I think that all three options may have been choices in 1945. America at that time allowed Franco to remain in power, and as a consequence, the Spanish were stuck with his wretched dictatorship until the mid 1970s. If the Americans had instead invaded Spain and extended Marshall Plan aid and established a democracy, things would probably have become much better much sooner.
These guys take their nationalism seriously, but their football seriouser
I've just arrived in Donostia / San Sebastian. The green, white and red basque flag, the ikurrina is everywhere, much more so than in Bilbao. However, even more prominent than that are blue and white striped flags, which are apparently the colours of Real Sociedad de Fútbol, the local team here. (I have also seen the two sets of colours combined on one flag). (And what is "royal" about the team from San Sebastian? More research clearly needed). San Sebastian is a nice, beachside town that I may well become bored with fairly quickly. It's Friday though, and I am told this is quite a party town. Bilbao was grimier but, I think, more interesting. I am impressed by the road infrastructure in this region. Getting here I went through a very impressive system of motorways and tunnels.
Update: Of course, the reason why San Sebastian is covered with such an enormous number of blue and white flags at the moment can be summarised by looking at this league table. Real Sociedad lead the table by one point with two games to play. They last won the Spanish league in 1982, and have only ever won it twice.
I've just arrived in Donostia / San Sebastian. The green, white and red basque flag, the ikurrina is everywhere, much more so than in Bilbao. However, even more prominent than that are blue and white striped flags, which are apparently the colours of Real Sociedad de Fútbol, the local team here. (I have also seen the two sets of colours combined on one flag). (And what is "royal" about the team from San Sebastian? More research clearly needed). San Sebastian is a nice, beachside town that I may well become bored with fairly quickly. It's Friday though, and I am told this is quite a party town. Bilbao was grimier but, I think, more interesting. I am impressed by the road infrastructure in this region. Getting here I went through a very impressive system of motorways and tunnels.
Update: Of course, the reason why San Sebastian is covered with such an enormous number of blue and white flags at the moment can be summarised by looking at this league table. Real Sociedad lead the table by one point with two games to play. They last won the Spanish league in 1982, and have only ever won it twice.
Thursday, June 05, 2003
And I am sure guys at the Onion know this
This actually happens a lot, particularly when you are trying to do a Ph.D.
This actually happens a lot, particularly when you are trying to do a Ph.D.
I'm (finally) in the Basque country
Right. After standing for the best part of an hour in a completely crowded bus on the tarmac at Stansted airport due to the fact that a blocked toilet was discovered on the plane between our leaving the terminal and arriving at the aircraft, and after waiting another hour on the ground for French aircraft controllers to stop striking (or something) I had a perfectly uneventful flight to Bilbao, arriving around 11pm. Of course, I hadn't booked accommodation because I had expected to arrive in the morning. After walking around in Bilbao for some time (not helped by the fact that the rain in Spain falls mainly on the Pyrenees, apparently), and discovering a youth hostel that wouldn't check anyone in after 9pm (welcome to the 24 hour world city), I eventually found a pensione with an available room that was at least comfortable and not terribly expensive, and got some extremely necessary sleep - remember, I got up at 2.30 am yesterday.
This morning though, my impression of the place was much more favourable. In a way anything, Bilbao reminds me of Wellington, in that it is a city built in the valleys amongst quite dramatic hills. Unfortunately, it was dark when the aircraft landed, so I didn't see the geography around it. We did have to come through a long tunnel to actually get into Bilbao from the airport, however.
Architecturally, Frank Gehry's Guggenheim is every bit as spectacular as I had heard - a truly magnificent building. Santiago Calatrava's footbridge across the Nervion impressed me less than I thought it would. Interesting but not remarkable. (The way in which the Guggenheim building interacts with an older and much more massive partially cable stayed road bridge is very nice, however).
And one thing in particular that improved my morning. The guidebooks all say that the basques make the best food in Spain, and this seems to be entirely true. One custom is the pintxo. Walk into almost any bar, and the top of the bar will be covered with really deicious and inexpensive savoury items of really delicious food. What a fine way to have breakfast. Yum.
The city of Bilbao is in a valley through which the Nervion river runs, and in particular it is at a point where the river doubles back on itself so there is a sizeable flat area inside the curve of the river. There are rather steep slopes on either side of the river. I walked up to the top of the ridge on one side of the city, and looked over into the next valley. Fortuitously, it happened that I was looking in to the valley with the airport in it. The one runway stretched lengthwise down the valley, which was long and straight enough for it. (I wonder what was there before the airport: there is sufficiently little flat land in this area that it must have been used for something). Santiago Calatrava's airport terminal looks just like one of his bridges, with a little arch on top. It didn't strike me as a great piece of architecture either: Norman Foster's terminal at Stansted (from where I departed yesterday) is better. And it isn't a large airport - it is perhaps on a par with Adelaide or Auckland.
I like this city though. It is an industrial city that went through industrial decline at the right time to avoid modernism, and is so having some really interesting post-materials revolution architecture, engineering and design imposed upon it now.
Right. After standing for the best part of an hour in a completely crowded bus on the tarmac at Stansted airport due to the fact that a blocked toilet was discovered on the plane between our leaving the terminal and arriving at the aircraft, and after waiting another hour on the ground for French aircraft controllers to stop striking (or something) I had a perfectly uneventful flight to Bilbao, arriving around 11pm. Of course, I hadn't booked accommodation because I had expected to arrive in the morning. After walking around in Bilbao for some time (not helped by the fact that the rain in Spain falls mainly on the Pyrenees, apparently), and discovering a youth hostel that wouldn't check anyone in after 9pm (welcome to the 24 hour world city), I eventually found a pensione with an available room that was at least comfortable and not terribly expensive, and got some extremely necessary sleep - remember, I got up at 2.30 am yesterday.
This morning though, my impression of the place was much more favourable. In a way anything, Bilbao reminds me of Wellington, in that it is a city built in the valleys amongst quite dramatic hills. Unfortunately, it was dark when the aircraft landed, so I didn't see the geography around it. We did have to come through a long tunnel to actually get into Bilbao from the airport, however.
Architecturally, Frank Gehry's Guggenheim is every bit as spectacular as I had heard - a truly magnificent building. Santiago Calatrava's footbridge across the Nervion impressed me less than I thought it would. Interesting but not remarkable. (The way in which the Guggenheim building interacts with an older and much more massive partially cable stayed road bridge is very nice, however).
And one thing in particular that improved my morning. The guidebooks all say that the basques make the best food in Spain, and this seems to be entirely true. One custom is the pintxo. Walk into almost any bar, and the top of the bar will be covered with really deicious and inexpensive savoury items of really delicious food. What a fine way to have breakfast. Yum.
I like this city though. It is an industrial city that went through industrial decline at the right time to avoid modernism, and is so having some really interesting post-materials revolution architecture, engineering and design imposed upon it now.
Wednesday, June 04, 2003
This is a public service announcement
Troppo Armadillo, Ken Parish's fine (mostly) Australian politics site, has moved to a new home. Update your links, or even if you don't have links go and have a look, as it's a good site.
Troppo Armadillo, Ken Parish's fine (mostly) Australian politics site, has moved to a new home. Update your links, or even if you don't have links go and have a look, as it's a good site.
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Enjoyment, hopefully
It is 2.45 am, and I am booked on a flight from Stansted Airport in Essex to Bilbao at 6.45am.(Getting there will be something of a nuisance, but it can be done). I shall be in the Basque country in Spain and maybe France for most of the next week. I am told that as long as I manage to avoid saying anything too complimentary about General Franco, ETA will likely leave me alone. The level of blogging in that time will depend on the ease and expense of internet time when I get there, but there should be some. (And it should be about interesting things). Sadly, it appears the article about introversion and Neal Stephenson has been delayed until I get back.
Update: Well, I was five minutes late for a bus from Croydon to central London, and the next one was fifteen minutes later. This led me to by five minutes late for the bus from Victoria Bus Terminal to Stansted Airport, which led me to arrive at the airport ten minutes after check-in closed for that flight. (This was still 35 minutes before the plane was due to leave. On a full service airline, that would have meant I would have still made the flight, but on a discount airline (Easyjet) there was no such flexibility). Easyjet were however good about it, as they rebooked me onto the next flight to Bilbao without attempting to charge me any extra money. They also offered to convey me to Barcelona instead, but to go there I would have had to have flown from Luton airport, and I had done enough rushing around from airport to airport for the morning. In any event, I wanted to go to Bilbao, so I rebooked onto the next flight, which is not until this afternoon. This is fine: the only reason I booked on the morning flight in the first place was because I could get a cheap fare on it, but it did mean I had got up unnecessarily at 2.30am. The other good thing about it was that I had a few hours in which to visit a good friend in Cambridge who I hadn't seen for a while, and while at her place, I could finish a half complete job application. And hey, also do a little blogging. The moral of all this is that trying to get from Croydon to Stansted airport for a 6.45am flight is a fairly silly thing to do. But hey, the ticket was really cheap.
It is 2.45 am, and I am booked on a flight from Stansted Airport in Essex to Bilbao at 6.45am.(Getting there will be something of a nuisance, but it can be done). I shall be in the Basque country in Spain and maybe France for most of the next week. I am told that as long as I manage to avoid saying anything too complimentary about General Franco, ETA will likely leave me alone. The level of blogging in that time will depend on the ease and expense of internet time when I get there, but there should be some. (And it should be about interesting things). Sadly, it appears the article about introversion and Neal Stephenson has been delayed until I get back.
Update: Well, I was five minutes late for a bus from Croydon to central London, and the next one was fifteen minutes later. This led me to by five minutes late for the bus from Victoria Bus Terminal to Stansted Airport, which led me to arrive at the airport ten minutes after check-in closed for that flight. (This was still 35 minutes before the plane was due to leave. On a full service airline, that would have meant I would have still made the flight, but on a discount airline (Easyjet) there was no such flexibility). Easyjet were however good about it, as they rebooked me onto the next flight to Bilbao without attempting to charge me any extra money. They also offered to convey me to Barcelona instead, but to go there I would have had to have flown from Luton airport, and I had done enough rushing around from airport to airport for the morning. In any event, I wanted to go to Bilbao, so I rebooked onto the next flight, which is not until this afternoon. This is fine: the only reason I booked on the morning flight in the first place was because I could get a cheap fare on it, but it did mean I had got up unnecessarily at 2.30am. The other good thing about it was that I had a few hours in which to visit a good friend in Cambridge who I hadn't seen for a while, and while at her place, I could finish a half complete job application. And hey, also do a little blogging. The moral of all this is that trying to get from Croydon to Stansted airport for a 6.45am flight is a fairly silly thing to do. But hey, the ticket was really cheap.
Insane New Zealander watch
I am not sure if this guy is bearded, but whatever may be said about New Zealanders, they are the sorts of people who will do miraculous things in their back sheds, be this invent the aeroplane, make three Lord of the Rings movies, or in fact build their own home made cruise missiles.
(via NZPundit).
I am not sure if this guy is bearded, but whatever may be said about New Zealanders, they are the sorts of people who will do miraculous things in their back sheds, be this invent the aeroplane, make three Lord of the Rings movies, or in fact build their own home made cruise missiles.
(via NZPundit).
Australia remains a successful democracy
Jacob Levy at the Volokh Conspiracy discusses the threat that Australian federal politics will go the way of Canada or Britain, in which one major political party fades away and we get semi-permanent one party rule as a consequence. I don't personally think this is a serious danger, because the differences between Australia, Canada, and Britain are quite substantial.
Firstly, look what has happened in both Britain and Canada. In Canada, the Progressive Conservative Party had formed many governments over the decades, but in 1993 simple unpopularity mixed up with separatism in Quebec and regional unhappiness in British Columbia meant its parliamentary representation was reduced to just two seats. This made it essentially impossible for the Progressive Conservatives to function as a parliamentary party, and the grass roots organisation of the party simply withered away as a consequence. No parliamentarians meant no money, meaning no party rank and file. With no apparent possibility of the party serving in government in future, ambitious people went elsewhere, and the party has not been able to re-establish itself at subsequent elections. Nobody has been able to establish an alternative national opposition party since, and this is made much harder by separatist sentiments in Quebec, and the simple lack of common ground between different parts of Anglophone Canada. (How much political common ground do people in British Columbia have in common with people in Newfoundland? Not much).
In Britain, the situation is much the same with the Conservative Party. After a long time in power, the party became so unpopular that it lost most of its parliamentary seats. Subsequently, it had a very limited list of MPs from which to choose a shadow ministry, and these tended to be from extremely conservative and nationalist parts of the party, because these were the sorts of candidates most likely to be put forward by local members in safe constituencies. Therefore, the party looked even less relevant to voters, less likely to be elected, and thus less likely to be an organisation that ambitious people would want to join. And the vicious circle perpetuated itself to the extent that nobody in Britain takes the Conservative Party even remotely seriously any more.
That is not to say that the party can never come back. The Labour Party was in 1982 at least as irrelevant as the Tories are now, but the Labour Party now governs. However, it had to completely reform itself first. This reform involved alienating a fairly portion of the traditional party rank and file, and the Tories will have to do something similar if they ever want to govern again.
The trouble in both Canada and the UK is that parties have been defeated so heavily that the parties themselves have become disfunctional as a consequence. This has not happened in Australia
Firstly, the ALP never suffered a defeat on the scale of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada or the Conservative Party in Britain. Secondly, in Australia, a party gains its parliamentary caucus from its members of both houses, and the nature of the senate voting system means that unless a party gets less than about 25% of the vote (which is nowhere near happening for the ALP) it cannot be wiped out in the senate. And even then, the six year terms of the senate generally mean that this would take two elections. Plus, the way in which the ALP selects senate candidates tends to mean that senators are political pragmatists, not extremists.
Look at the situation. When the ALP suffered its heaviest recent defeat in 1996, it still ended up with a total of 78 members out of a total of 224 seats in the two houses (That's 34.8% of the total). At the moment, the ALP has 92 members out of 226 seats. (That's 40.1% of the total). With this many members, the party still functions well at the federal level. The ALP has been in a worse state than this on many occasions in its electoral history (1977, 1965, 1955, and so on). The ALP is an extremely resilient party, much more so than the Liberal Party. (And anyway, in 1987 the Liberal Party was in at least as bad a state as the ALP is now, and the Liberal Party did ultimately come back).
As several other people have mentioned, the ALP is in no danger of deteriorating into irrelevance the way the parties discussed did in Canada and Britain due to the ALP's (unprecedented) strength at the state level. The ALP controls all eight state and territory parliaments. This means that the ALP has power and patronage to offer young and ambitious people who want to join the party, and the needs of government in the states forces the party to remain ideologically relatively moderate.
And these state governments give the federal party somewhere to get a leader from. Almost everybody in politics has a secret (or not so secret) ambition to one day become Prime Minister, and that includes most of the members of the ALP state governments.
The problem is simply that that the ALP doesn't have a decent party leader. Mr Beazley and Mr Crean are both hopeless. If the ALP can find a decent leader, then it stands a good chance of winning an election soon after, because the party itself still has the political resources with which to do so. The Liberal government under John Howard is actually tired and lacks depth of talent. (There is a discussion of who is "the worst minister in recent memory" going on at Ken Parish's website at the moment, and several present ministers are being made fun of at great length). A credible ALP leader could beat the government, possibly not at the next election but very likely at the one after.
And if it really has to, the ALP can find a leader in one of these state governments. Unlike what happens in the US, the Australian political parties do not have traditions of state leaders transferring to federal politics. In the federal parliamentary system, people are traditionally expected to do a parliamentary apprenticeship in the federal sphere before becoming party leader. To some extent, this is the problem. Mr Beazley and Mr Crean have gained the leadership because of their party and parliamentary seniority, which is not always the best way to choose a leader. At some point, however, the party will become desperate. (I think it is fairly close to that point). At that point, it will be possible for a promising junior parliamentarian to become leader, or for a senior state figure to move to the federal sphere to take the leadership. Last time the ALP was in a similar position (in 1980), they imported Bob Hawke, a former union leader, to become leader without the usual parliamentary apprenticeship. Mr Hawke became Prime Minister barely two years after becoming a member of parliament, and led one of the best governments Australia has ever had.
This time, the ALP is more likely to import a state leader. Bob Carr, the long term Premier of NSW, has been mentioned as a possible candidate to do this. Bob Carr may not have the ambition to be Prime Minister (for one think I think he likes being Premier of NSW), but he has the political skills. Like John Howard and George Bush, he is someone who has been underestimated constantly throughout his political career, but he always seems to win. I do not like Mr Carr personally (mainly because he is the precise opposite of what Virginia Postrel would call a "dynamist"), but I quite honestly believe that if he moved to federal politics at the next election, he would be elected Prime Minister the election after that. (I wrote about Mr Carr and his possible federal ambitions once before).
And if this type of thing does not happen with Mr Carr, there are another seven Premiers and Chief Ministers who could conceivably make the move. The strength of the ALP at the state level means that the party remains strong at the grass roots level, regardless of its leadership problems at the federal level. And while that is the case, and while state politicians retain federal ambitions (as they always will) the party is never going to fade away at the federal level.
Jacob Levy at the Volokh Conspiracy discusses the threat that Australian federal politics will go the way of Canada or Britain, in which one major political party fades away and we get semi-permanent one party rule as a consequence. I don't personally think this is a serious danger, because the differences between Australia, Canada, and Britain are quite substantial.
Firstly, look what has happened in both Britain and Canada. In Canada, the Progressive Conservative Party had formed many governments over the decades, but in 1993 simple unpopularity mixed up with separatism in Quebec and regional unhappiness in British Columbia meant its parliamentary representation was reduced to just two seats. This made it essentially impossible for the Progressive Conservatives to function as a parliamentary party, and the grass roots organisation of the party simply withered away as a consequence. No parliamentarians meant no money, meaning no party rank and file. With no apparent possibility of the party serving in government in future, ambitious people went elsewhere, and the party has not been able to re-establish itself at subsequent elections. Nobody has been able to establish an alternative national opposition party since, and this is made much harder by separatist sentiments in Quebec, and the simple lack of common ground between different parts of Anglophone Canada. (How much political common ground do people in British Columbia have in common with people in Newfoundland? Not much).
In Britain, the situation is much the same with the Conservative Party. After a long time in power, the party became so unpopular that it lost most of its parliamentary seats. Subsequently, it had a very limited list of MPs from which to choose a shadow ministry, and these tended to be from extremely conservative and nationalist parts of the party, because these were the sorts of candidates most likely to be put forward by local members in safe constituencies. Therefore, the party looked even less relevant to voters, less likely to be elected, and thus less likely to be an organisation that ambitious people would want to join. And the vicious circle perpetuated itself to the extent that nobody in Britain takes the Conservative Party even remotely seriously any more.
That is not to say that the party can never come back. The Labour Party was in 1982 at least as irrelevant as the Tories are now, but the Labour Party now governs. However, it had to completely reform itself first. This reform involved alienating a fairly portion of the traditional party rank and file, and the Tories will have to do something similar if they ever want to govern again.
The trouble in both Canada and the UK is that parties have been defeated so heavily that the parties themselves have become disfunctional as a consequence. This has not happened in Australia
Firstly, the ALP never suffered a defeat on the scale of the Progressive Conservatives in Canada or the Conservative Party in Britain. Secondly, in Australia, a party gains its parliamentary caucus from its members of both houses, and the nature of the senate voting system means that unless a party gets less than about 25% of the vote (which is nowhere near happening for the ALP) it cannot be wiped out in the senate. And even then, the six year terms of the senate generally mean that this would take two elections. Plus, the way in which the ALP selects senate candidates tends to mean that senators are political pragmatists, not extremists.
Look at the situation. When the ALP suffered its heaviest recent defeat in 1996, it still ended up with a total of 78 members out of a total of 224 seats in the two houses (That's 34.8% of the total). At the moment, the ALP has 92 members out of 226 seats. (That's 40.1% of the total). With this many members, the party still functions well at the federal level. The ALP has been in a worse state than this on many occasions in its electoral history (1977, 1965, 1955, and so on). The ALP is an extremely resilient party, much more so than the Liberal Party. (And anyway, in 1987 the Liberal Party was in at least as bad a state as the ALP is now, and the Liberal Party did ultimately come back).
As several other people have mentioned, the ALP is in no danger of deteriorating into irrelevance the way the parties discussed did in Canada and Britain due to the ALP's (unprecedented) strength at the state level. The ALP controls all eight state and territory parliaments. This means that the ALP has power and patronage to offer young and ambitious people who want to join the party, and the needs of government in the states forces the party to remain ideologically relatively moderate.
And these state governments give the federal party somewhere to get a leader from. Almost everybody in politics has a secret (or not so secret) ambition to one day become Prime Minister, and that includes most of the members of the ALP state governments.
The problem is simply that that the ALP doesn't have a decent party leader. Mr Beazley and Mr Crean are both hopeless. If the ALP can find a decent leader, then it stands a good chance of winning an election soon after, because the party itself still has the political resources with which to do so. The Liberal government under John Howard is actually tired and lacks depth of talent. (There is a discussion of who is "the worst minister in recent memory" going on at Ken Parish's website at the moment, and several present ministers are being made fun of at great length). A credible ALP leader could beat the government, possibly not at the next election but very likely at the one after.
And if it really has to, the ALP can find a leader in one of these state governments. Unlike what happens in the US, the Australian political parties do not have traditions of state leaders transferring to federal politics. In the federal parliamentary system, people are traditionally expected to do a parliamentary apprenticeship in the federal sphere before becoming party leader. To some extent, this is the problem. Mr Beazley and Mr Crean have gained the leadership because of their party and parliamentary seniority, which is not always the best way to choose a leader. At some point, however, the party will become desperate. (I think it is fairly close to that point). At that point, it will be possible for a promising junior parliamentarian to become leader, or for a senior state figure to move to the federal sphere to take the leadership. Last time the ALP was in a similar position (in 1980), they imported Bob Hawke, a former union leader, to become leader without the usual parliamentary apprenticeship. Mr Hawke became Prime Minister barely two years after becoming a member of parliament, and led one of the best governments Australia has ever had.
This time, the ALP is more likely to import a state leader. Bob Carr, the long term Premier of NSW, has been mentioned as a possible candidate to do this. Bob Carr may not have the ambition to be Prime Minister (for one think I think he likes being Premier of NSW), but he has the political skills. Like John Howard and George Bush, he is someone who has been underestimated constantly throughout his political career, but he always seems to win. I do not like Mr Carr personally (mainly because he is the precise opposite of what Virginia Postrel would call a "dynamist"), but I quite honestly believe that if he moved to federal politics at the next election, he would be elected Prime Minister the election after that. (I wrote about Mr Carr and his possible federal ambitions once before).
And if this type of thing does not happen with Mr Carr, there are another seven Premiers and Chief Ministers who could conceivably make the move. The strength of the ALP at the state level means that the party remains strong at the grass roots level, regardless of its leadership problems at the federal level. And while that is the case, and while state politicians retain federal ambitions (as they always will) the party is never going to fade away at the federal level.
Monday, June 02, 2003
Socialising, or something
I am off to have lunch with Perry and Gabriel, and I have a half written piece on being an introvert, and on author Neal Stephenson, which I shall finish and post this evening.
I am off to have lunch with Perry and Gabriel, and I have a half written piece on being an introvert, and on author Neal Stephenson, which I shall finish and post this evening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)