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.
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
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.
Sunday, June 01, 2003
Just about the end
On August 30 last year, the Australian cricket team played a one day game against Pakistan in Nairobi in Kenya, winning by 224 runs, the first game of a triangular tournament also involving Kenya. Since then, they have been playing more or less continuously. That tournament was followed by another one day tournament, the ICC Champions Trophy, in Sri Lanka, a three test series against Pakistan (played in Sri Lanka and the United Arab Emirates after the Australians decided it was too dangerous to play it in Pakistan), five tests at home against England, a triangular tournament at home against England and Sri Lanka, the World Cup in South Africa, and this present tour of the West Indies featuring four tests and seven one day internationals. That's nine months of continuous cricket. Some players were injured or dropped at some point in that schedule, and other play in the one day side but not the test side, or vice versa.
Today, Australia play the last of their seven one day games against the West Indies, before finally getting a break.
However, this is a long time to be on the road. IN the nine months, Austrlalia have played 12 test matches (ten wins, two losses) and after today they will have played 36 one day matches (30 wins, one washout, four losses, one still to be played). That's a fantastic record, but it is worth looking at the actual losses. The two test matches were both dead rubbers after Australia had won the series. Of the one day losses, only one was in a match that mattered, the ICC Champions trophy semi-final against Sri Lanka on 27 September. (Australia were also unfortunate that the one day final against Pakistan in Kenya a couple of weeks before was washed out, so they technically didn't win that tournament either). The second loss was also against Sri Lanka in Australia on January 9, when Australia were in no danger of missing the final of the series.
The third and fourth losses were the two most recent matches against the West Indies, both after the series was lost. I have already written about the first of these, but the second was on Friday. Gilchrist got Australia off to a great start with the bat, but then wickets were lost and they at one point had slumped to 7/193 off 40.1 overs. However, Bichel then managed some good hitting, and the total was taken to a reasonable 252 off the 50 overs. This was one of those scores which would have been enough if nobody batted really well for the West Indies, but which wasn't going to be if someone did. And someone did, although it wasn't who we expected.
Australia bowled well, and kept taking wickets. For most of the innings it looked like Australia would win. However, opener Wavell Hinds simply kept batting, and didn't get out. Every now and then he hit one of the bowlers for six, ending up with six of them. He kept up the run rate, and scored 125 not out, getting the West Indies home with 8 balls to spare.
Not to take anything away from Hinds (who really was superb) Australia really should have won this one. If the Australians had scored 20 more runs (which they really should have given the start) they would have won. Had Brett Lee caught an easy outfield catch when Hinds had about 50, Australia would have won. Had Lee bowled more tightly towards the end and not bowled wides and noballs, the match would have gone down to the last couple of balls. (I am most irritating with the Australian batsmen though. The middle order is still a little suspect. We really could do with Damien Martyn back. And to be quite honest, Australia have not replaced Mark Waugh very successfully yet. In test matches, this is a good reason for sticking with Steve Waugh for another season. Two open spots in the middle order it too many, as we saw in the final test against the West Indies.).
Australia were sloppy, and they lost because of this. It is clear that they are tired and want to go home. Hopefully they can raise themselves to finish the tour on a winning note today. I think they probably can, but it would be a little disappointing if they cannot. A 4-3 margin would suggest that the series was close, and it really hasn't been. It would also be a little annoying to see a 30-2 record reduced to 30-5. That said the players do look tired, and most of their (few) losses of the last nine months can be blamed on this.
After this, Australia have a month off, before a home series against Bangladesh in July in Cairns and Darwin in Australia's north. I can't imagine they will find this stressful, as the opposition will be easy to beat, and the games are being played in tourist resorts. Presumably most of the players will dump their families in nice hotels in Cairns for the duration of the cricket. After that, Australia are off again until October, when there is a home series against Zimbabwe, followed by a one day tournament in India in November, a home test series against India in December, a home one day tournament in January, and then in immediate tour of Sri Lanka.
In short, the grind begins again in October. Australia had planned to also play in a one day tournament in September , but they have just withdrawn from this due to the players wanting a rest, despite the fact that they would have been very well paid for it.
I actually have relatively little sympathy for the players here. They are doing what they have always wanted to do, and are being paid very well for it. That's more than most of us can claim. However, they are being worked pretty hard for it.
I am going to watch the match and drink some beer. A brief update on the result later. There is plenty of other international cricket not involving Australia being played over the next few months, and I shall likely be covering it, although not to the same level of detail.
Update: And Australia lost the game. In fact, they were thrashed. The top order batting was disappointing, with Hayden and Gilchrist going early, both to poor shots, and Ponting retiring hurt after being hit by a quick ball somewhere around the waist level. Lehmann and Symonds then scored a few runs, but Symonds' dismissal for 48 led to another little collapse. For the first time in his brief career, Clarke looked a rank amateur today, firstly being given not out caught behind after hitting the ball more than a little bit - if ever walking was called for, this was the time - and then coming down the pitch, missing, and being stumped by miles when he should have still been playing back and getting his eye in. With the departure of Harven soon after, things looked bad at 5/133, but Lehmann and Hogg played very well to give the Australians something to bowl out. Lehmann eventually scored a fine 107 off 109 balls. I am not Lehmann's biggest fan, but after this, I have to concede he at least deserves a spot in the one day side. Hogg also batted the best he has since that one day final in Melbourne on Australia Day, and scored 53. With three or four overs to go and these two batting, it looked like Australia could have scored 260 or 270, but more wickets fell and they ended up with 8/247. Gayle, more famous for his batting, took 5/46 - his best bowling in a One Day International. The West Indies bowled well, and Lara's captaincy was imaginative and astute - the best I have seen from him.
This never looked like being enough. As it was, Gayle and Hinds put on 116 before Gayle was out for 60. Lara came in, and he and Hinds just went about their business, winning the match with 6.3 overs to spare. Lara scored 75 not out, and Hinds 103 not out, his second hundred in a row.
What can I say. The West Indies played very well today, and Australia didn't. Australia have lost more one day internationals in the last week than they had in the previous year. This was a pretty feeble end to the tour, and I'm not especially impressed.
Still, the West Indies are much improved over what they were 18 months ago. Clearly, they have the nucleus of a good side. South Africa (who simply played badly) have for some reason got all the sympathy for having missed out on the second round of the World Cup through "bad luck", but the side that was genuinely unlucky was the West Indies, who suffered from defaults, upsets, and bad weather. They played very well at times in that tournament, and again played well at times here. They may be some sort of a chance for the next World Cup in four years.
We can see whether this improvement lasts. Although Australia's season is over, the West Indies' isn't. This Australian tour of the West Indies is about to be followed by a Sri Lankan tour of the West Indies. Conceivably, this will be good to watch.
On August 30 last year, the Australian cricket team played a one day game against Pakistan in Nairobi in Kenya, winning by 224 runs, the first game of a triangular tournament also involving Kenya. Since then, they have been playing more or less continuously. That tournament was followed by another one day tournament, the ICC Champions Trophy, in Sri Lanka, a three test series against Pakistan (played in Sri Lanka and the United Arab Emirates after the Australians decided it was too dangerous to play it in Pakistan), five tests at home against England, a triangular tournament at home against England and Sri Lanka, the World Cup in South Africa, and this present tour of the West Indies featuring four tests and seven one day internationals. That's nine months of continuous cricket. Some players were injured or dropped at some point in that schedule, and other play in the one day side but not the test side, or vice versa.
Today, Australia play the last of their seven one day games against the West Indies, before finally getting a break.
However, this is a long time to be on the road. IN the nine months, Austrlalia have played 12 test matches (ten wins, two losses) and after today they will have played 36 one day matches (30 wins, one washout, four losses, one still to be played). That's a fantastic record, but it is worth looking at the actual losses. The two test matches were both dead rubbers after Australia had won the series. Of the one day losses, only one was in a match that mattered, the ICC Champions trophy semi-final against Sri Lanka on 27 September. (Australia were also unfortunate that the one day final against Pakistan in Kenya a couple of weeks before was washed out, so they technically didn't win that tournament either). The second loss was also against Sri Lanka in Australia on January 9, when Australia were in no danger of missing the final of the series.
The third and fourth losses were the two most recent matches against the West Indies, both after the series was lost. I have already written about the first of these, but the second was on Friday. Gilchrist got Australia off to a great start with the bat, but then wickets were lost and they at one point had slumped to 7/193 off 40.1 overs. However, Bichel then managed some good hitting, and the total was taken to a reasonable 252 off the 50 overs. This was one of those scores which would have been enough if nobody batted really well for the West Indies, but which wasn't going to be if someone did. And someone did, although it wasn't who we expected.
Australia bowled well, and kept taking wickets. For most of the innings it looked like Australia would win. However, opener Wavell Hinds simply kept batting, and didn't get out. Every now and then he hit one of the bowlers for six, ending up with six of them. He kept up the run rate, and scored 125 not out, getting the West Indies home with 8 balls to spare.
Not to take anything away from Hinds (who really was superb) Australia really should have won this one. If the Australians had scored 20 more runs (which they really should have given the start) they would have won. Had Brett Lee caught an easy outfield catch when Hinds had about 50, Australia would have won. Had Lee bowled more tightly towards the end and not bowled wides and noballs, the match would have gone down to the last couple of balls. (I am most irritating with the Australian batsmen though. The middle order is still a little suspect. We really could do with Damien Martyn back. And to be quite honest, Australia have not replaced Mark Waugh very successfully yet. In test matches, this is a good reason for sticking with Steve Waugh for another season. Two open spots in the middle order it too many, as we saw in the final test against the West Indies.).
Australia were sloppy, and they lost because of this. It is clear that they are tired and want to go home. Hopefully they can raise themselves to finish the tour on a winning note today. I think they probably can, but it would be a little disappointing if they cannot. A 4-3 margin would suggest that the series was close, and it really hasn't been. It would also be a little annoying to see a 30-2 record reduced to 30-5. That said the players do look tired, and most of their (few) losses of the last nine months can be blamed on this.
After this, Australia have a month off, before a home series against Bangladesh in July in Cairns and Darwin in Australia's north. I can't imagine they will find this stressful, as the opposition will be easy to beat, and the games are being played in tourist resorts. Presumably most of the players will dump their families in nice hotels in Cairns for the duration of the cricket. After that, Australia are off again until October, when there is a home series against Zimbabwe, followed by a one day tournament in India in November, a home test series against India in December, a home one day tournament in January, and then in immediate tour of Sri Lanka.
In short, the grind begins again in October. Australia had planned to also play in a one day tournament in September , but they have just withdrawn from this due to the players wanting a rest, despite the fact that they would have been very well paid for it.
I actually have relatively little sympathy for the players here. They are doing what they have always wanted to do, and are being paid very well for it. That's more than most of us can claim. However, they are being worked pretty hard for it.
I am going to watch the match and drink some beer. A brief update on the result later. There is plenty of other international cricket not involving Australia being played over the next few months, and I shall likely be covering it, although not to the same level of detail.
Update: And Australia lost the game. In fact, they were thrashed. The top order batting was disappointing, with Hayden and Gilchrist going early, both to poor shots, and Ponting retiring hurt after being hit by a quick ball somewhere around the waist level. Lehmann and Symonds then scored a few runs, but Symonds' dismissal for 48 led to another little collapse. For the first time in his brief career, Clarke looked a rank amateur today, firstly being given not out caught behind after hitting the ball more than a little bit - if ever walking was called for, this was the time - and then coming down the pitch, missing, and being stumped by miles when he should have still been playing back and getting his eye in. With the departure of Harven soon after, things looked bad at 5/133, but Lehmann and Hogg played very well to give the Australians something to bowl out. Lehmann eventually scored a fine 107 off 109 balls. I am not Lehmann's biggest fan, but after this, I have to concede he at least deserves a spot in the one day side. Hogg also batted the best he has since that one day final in Melbourne on Australia Day, and scored 53. With three or four overs to go and these two batting, it looked like Australia could have scored 260 or 270, but more wickets fell and they ended up with 8/247. Gayle, more famous for his batting, took 5/46 - his best bowling in a One Day International. The West Indies bowled well, and Lara's captaincy was imaginative and astute - the best I have seen from him.
This never looked like being enough. As it was, Gayle and Hinds put on 116 before Gayle was out for 60. Lara came in, and he and Hinds just went about their business, winning the match with 6.3 overs to spare. Lara scored 75 not out, and Hinds 103 not out, his second hundred in a row.
What can I say. The West Indies played very well today, and Australia didn't. Australia have lost more one day internationals in the last week than they had in the previous year. This was a pretty feeble end to the tour, and I'm not especially impressed.
Still, the West Indies are much improved over what they were 18 months ago. Clearly, they have the nucleus of a good side. South Africa (who simply played badly) have for some reason got all the sympathy for having missed out on the second round of the World Cup through "bad luck", but the side that was genuinely unlucky was the West Indies, who suffered from defaults, upsets, and bad weather. They played very well at times in that tournament, and again played well at times here. They may be some sort of a chance for the next World Cup in four years.
We can see whether this improvement lasts. Although Australia's season is over, the West Indies' isn't. This Australian tour of the West Indies is about to be followed by a Sri Lankan tour of the West Indies. Conceivably, this will be good to watch.
Friday, May 30, 2003
Posting elsewhere
I have piece on Salam Pax over at Samizdata. No time for anything else today. (I didn't really have time for that, either).
I have piece on Salam Pax over at Samizdata. No time for anything else today. (I didn't really have time for that, either).
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Tesco may have better logistics, but Sainsbury's have better beer.
I'm just having a bottle of Sainsbury's Blonde Ale, a Belgian style Blond Ale brewed from Lincolnshire barley and Kentish hops in the same microbrewery in Greenwich where they brew their Bavarian style wheat beer. Slightly less blonde and slightly less alcoholic than something like Hoegaarden, but very good indeed - rather better than the wheat beer in my opinion - and my compliments to Lord Sainsbury.
I'm just having a bottle of Sainsbury's Blonde Ale, a Belgian style Blond Ale brewed from Lincolnshire barley and Kentish hops in the same microbrewery in Greenwich where they brew their Bavarian style wheat beer. Slightly less blonde and slightly less alcoholic than something like Hoegaarden, but very good indeed - rather better than the wheat beer in my opinion - and my compliments to Lord Sainsbury.
More on British Sunday trading laws.
Following up what I was saying about these a few weeks ago, supermarket chain Tesco have just opened a new mini-supermarket a couple of blocks from where I live. This has all the departments you expect in a larger supermarket (fresh fruit and meat, groceries, prepared meals, liquor, even an on premises bakery) but has a floor area of almost exactly 280 square metres. This is the maximum size that a British store can have and be allowed to open all day on Sunday. (The store is open 6am to midnight, seven days a week). Clearly, the supermarket chains are now quite adept at cramming everything they want to offer into a shop this size. It will be interesting to see just how much business the new store does after 4pm Sundays, because every other (larger) supermarket nearby closes at that hour. This may be a large amount of the rationale for the new store.
This is an interesting example of how things such as shopping hour regulation can affect building design, but it is all very silly.
Update: The other factor that is crucial in getting a supermarket business to work on a very small floorplate is the quality of your logistics. If you have a large selection of goods in such a shop, then you are going to only be able to carry a small number of each item at any one time, and you are going to have to restock much more frequently than is the case if you are running a larger shop. Also, you are going to have be be able to keep track of just what is selling how fast and what needs to be restocked when. This is only possible with modern computerised inventory systems. Tesco are the leader in the supermarket business precisely because their logistics systems are the best in the UK, and it is interesting to see this example of additional flexibility in store design that they have due to this.
Further Update: After five days, the new Tesco store looks a success. Every time I go in it appears to be doing a roaring trade, despite the fact that there is a larger Tesco probably 15 minutes walk in one direction, and a Sainsbury's 15 minutes walk in the other. This is London for you. Lots of people do not own cars. Twice I have seen a large delivery truck parked outside, and this evening a staff member was wandering around restocking various shelves, so I seem to have been right about the logistics issues. The store's first Sunday is in two days, and I will drop in at about 6pm to see what business is like then.
What does this prove? Well, for one thing, Tesco is very well run. If I had figured this out ten years ago and bought shares, I would have made a lot of money. As it is, this fact is now well and truly priced in.
Even Further Update: (Sunday June 1). Yes, the shop did appear to be doing a roaring trade this evening. It's (small) carpark was packed, too, suggesting that customers had come from further afield than during the week. There you have it. The Sunday trading laws have not prevented Tesco from selling people groceries on a Sunday, but have merely made it less convenient and more expensive for Tesco's customers. (This little Tesco store uses the standard way that supermarket chains make their little urban stores more expensive while pretending not too - which is they have the same "normal" prices as their larger stores, but no weekly discounts at all. (Indeed, few discounts of any kind, although I did get a perfectly decent pizza marked down due to being close to its "Best By" date, which made a perfectly pleasant dinner).
Following up what I was saying about these a few weeks ago, supermarket chain Tesco have just opened a new mini-supermarket a couple of blocks from where I live. This has all the departments you expect in a larger supermarket (fresh fruit and meat, groceries, prepared meals, liquor, even an on premises bakery) but has a floor area of almost exactly 280 square metres. This is the maximum size that a British store can have and be allowed to open all day on Sunday. (The store is open 6am to midnight, seven days a week). Clearly, the supermarket chains are now quite adept at cramming everything they want to offer into a shop this size. It will be interesting to see just how much business the new store does after 4pm Sundays, because every other (larger) supermarket nearby closes at that hour. This may be a large amount of the rationale for the new store.
This is an interesting example of how things such as shopping hour regulation can affect building design, but it is all very silly.
Update: The other factor that is crucial in getting a supermarket business to work on a very small floorplate is the quality of your logistics. If you have a large selection of goods in such a shop, then you are going to only be able to carry a small number of each item at any one time, and you are going to have to restock much more frequently than is the case if you are running a larger shop. Also, you are going to have be be able to keep track of just what is selling how fast and what needs to be restocked when. This is only possible with modern computerised inventory systems. Tesco are the leader in the supermarket business precisely because their logistics systems are the best in the UK, and it is interesting to see this example of additional flexibility in store design that they have due to this.
Further Update: After five days, the new Tesco store looks a success. Every time I go in it appears to be doing a roaring trade, despite the fact that there is a larger Tesco probably 15 minutes walk in one direction, and a Sainsbury's 15 minutes walk in the other. This is London for you. Lots of people do not own cars. Twice I have seen a large delivery truck parked outside, and this evening a staff member was wandering around restocking various shelves, so I seem to have been right about the logistics issues. The store's first Sunday is in two days, and I will drop in at about 6pm to see what business is like then.
What does this prove? Well, for one thing, Tesco is very well run. If I had figured this out ten years ago and bought shares, I would have made a lot of money. As it is, this fact is now well and truly priced in.
Even Further Update: (Sunday June 1). Yes, the shop did appear to be doing a roaring trade this evening. It's (small) carpark was packed, too, suggesting that customers had come from further afield than during the week. There you have it. The Sunday trading laws have not prevented Tesco from selling people groceries on a Sunday, but have merely made it less convenient and more expensive for Tesco's customers. (This little Tesco store uses the standard way that supermarket chains make their little urban stores more expensive while pretending not too - which is they have the same "normal" prices as their larger stores, but no weekly discounts at all. (Indeed, few discounts of any kind, although I did get a perfectly decent pizza marked down due to being close to its "Best By" date, which made a perfectly pleasant dinner).
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
The Statute of Westminster again
Steven Den Beste has some observations on the role of the British King or Queen in Canada and Australia. Most of the things he says are right, however there are one or two issues outstanding, so here goes.
As one of Den Beste's Canadian readers points out at the bottom of the post, the British Parliament's de jure power was removed in 1931, when the British parliament passed a law called the Statute of Westminster. In this act, the British parliament specifically gave up the right to legislate for "the dominions" of the British empire (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Newfoundland, and Ireland (which was not yet a republic)), unless the parliaments of these countries specifically asked for it.
The "specifically asked for it" clause was necessary because in some instances the dominions did not have the full legal structure of independent nations. In particular, Canada's constitution was the British North America Act, which could only be amended by another act of Westminster. Therefore, if the Canadians ever wanted to change it, the British had to be involved. This "involvement" would contain no actual influence over the legislation, but would just consisted of passing whatever bill they were asked to pass. Australia did not have this particular problem, because our constitution contained a provision for amendment via referendum, and we could therefore sort out any legal difficulties without involving the British.
However, it is still more complicated than this. In Australia, the Statute of Westminster was viewed with some ambivalence, as Australia believed that if it became fully independent the British might be less willing to defend Australia in a war with Japan. For this reason, the Statute of Westminster was written in such a way that it did not apply to Australia until Australia passed another act of its own parliament officially adopting the statute. This did not happen until 1942, when Britain had failed to successfully protect Australia from Japan and Australia wanted to be absolutely certain that its troops were only subject to Australian law.
Plus, the Statute of Westminster only applied to the federal government in Australia (although in Canada it applied to all levels of government) . In theory, even after its adoption the British parliament could legislate to overrule Australian state law, but not federal law. This was not cleaned up until the Australia Act of 1986, which was an act passed by the British parliament on the request of the federal and state parliaments in Australia, the purpose of which was to remove all the little colonial anachronisms from Australian law and ensure that it would not be necessary for teh British parliament to legislate for Australia (even on request) again.
Finally, there was and in some cases still is one other form of colonial legal connection between Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc and Britain, which has to do with law courts. For many years, the highest court of appeals in dominion legal cases was a British court (the Privy Council of the House of Lords, in London). Appeals to this court were abolished from Canada in 1949, from South Africa in 1950, from Australia for federal cases in 1975 and state cases in 1986. In New Zealand, however, the right still exists, as it does from a number of other former British colonies too small to have a permanent supreme court of their own.
Update: Ken Parish points out that the Privy council is not technically part of the House of Lords. (This is in fact implied in the name - the Privy Council was originally a private council of advisors to the king, separate from parliament). The court I was talking about is the "Judicial Committee of the Privy council", which is a different court to the "Judicial Committee of the House of Lords", which is the highest court of appeal for British domestic matters. The two courts have mostly the same members, however.
Steven Den Beste has some observations on the role of the British King or Queen in Canada and Australia. Most of the things he says are right, however there are one or two issues outstanding, so here goes.
I believe that de jure the British Parliament actually did some power over Canada before the Canadians actually wrote and ratified a constitution about 30 years ago. Until that point, the actual charter for government in Canada was a grant of power from the British Parliament called the "British North America Act". But de facto the British Parliament had none and I don't recall hearing of any attempt by the British Parliament to try to exercise any such influence in the latter half of the 20th Century. (Not that it would have done them any good to try.)
As one of Den Beste's Canadian readers points out at the bottom of the post, the British Parliament's de jure power was removed in 1931, when the British parliament passed a law called the Statute of Westminster. In this act, the British parliament specifically gave up the right to legislate for "the dominions" of the British empire (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Newfoundland, and Ireland (which was not yet a republic)), unless the parliaments of these countries specifically asked for it.
The "specifically asked for it" clause was necessary because in some instances the dominions did not have the full legal structure of independent nations. In particular, Canada's constitution was the British North America Act, which could only be amended by another act of Westminster. Therefore, if the Canadians ever wanted to change it, the British had to be involved. This "involvement" would contain no actual influence over the legislation, but would just consisted of passing whatever bill they were asked to pass. Australia did not have this particular problem, because our constitution contained a provision for amendment via referendum, and we could therefore sort out any legal difficulties without involving the British.
However, it is still more complicated than this. In Australia, the Statute of Westminster was viewed with some ambivalence, as Australia believed that if it became fully independent the British might be less willing to defend Australia in a war with Japan. For this reason, the Statute of Westminster was written in such a way that it did not apply to Australia until Australia passed another act of its own parliament officially adopting the statute. This did not happen until 1942, when Britain had failed to successfully protect Australia from Japan and Australia wanted to be absolutely certain that its troops were only subject to Australian law.
Plus, the Statute of Westminster only applied to the federal government in Australia (although in Canada it applied to all levels of government) . In theory, even after its adoption the British parliament could legislate to overrule Australian state law, but not federal law. This was not cleaned up until the Australia Act of 1986, which was an act passed by the British parliament on the request of the federal and state parliaments in Australia, the purpose of which was to remove all the little colonial anachronisms from Australian law and ensure that it would not be necessary for teh British parliament to legislate for Australia (even on request) again.
Finally, there was and in some cases still is one other form of colonial legal connection between Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc and Britain, which has to do with law courts. For many years, the highest court of appeals in dominion legal cases was a British court (the Privy Council of the House of Lords, in London). Appeals to this court were abolished from Canada in 1949, from South Africa in 1950, from Australia for federal cases in 1975 and state cases in 1986. In New Zealand, however, the right still exists, as it does from a number of other former British colonies too small to have a permanent supreme court of their own.
Update: Ken Parish points out that the Privy council is not technically part of the House of Lords. (This is in fact implied in the name - the Privy Council was originally a private council of advisors to the king, separate from parliament). The court I was talking about is the "Judicial Committee of the Privy council", which is a different court to the "Judicial Committee of the House of Lords", which is the highest court of appeal for British domestic matters. The two courts have mostly the same members, however.
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
I'm just a reptile
Although the number of visitors to this site has been fairly stable for the last couple of months, I continue to move steadily up the Blogosphere Ecosystem. At the moment I am a Slithering Reptile, and I come in at number 679. Someday I hope to be an Adorable Little Rodent.
Although the number of visitors to this site has been fairly stable for the last couple of months, I continue to move steadily up the Blogosphere Ecosystem. At the moment I am a Slithering Reptile, and I come in at number 679. Someday I hope to be an Adorable Little Rodent.
Monday, May 26, 2003
Everest Panorama.
James Russell points to this stunning 360 degree panorama of Mt Everest (Quicktime required).
I have seen that view. Not from the top of Everest, but from a few kilometres away, and a couple of kilometres lower in altitude. From my best vantage point, it was not possible to see as far into some of the valleys as is possible from Everest, and there were still a few peaks above and level where I was.
But the basic effect was the same. There were mountains all the way to the horizon in all directions, and from altitude of over six kilometres, the horizon is a long way off. The clouds were below me rather than above me, and the immensity and beauty of it all was simply overwhelming. There are so many peaks that some of them barely have names, while still being tall enough that they would be world famous if they were on any other continent.
I do also like the climber's observation that he was having extraordinarily vivid dreams about olives. I didn't have dreams about olives, precisely, but high altitude does do something to your drams. Whatever you dream about, you dream about it vividly. I don't know why that is.
Update: I initially messed up the link to the panorama. This is now fixed.
James Russell points to this stunning 360 degree panorama of Mt Everest (Quicktime required).
I have seen that view. Not from the top of Everest, but from a few kilometres away, and a couple of kilometres lower in altitude. From my best vantage point, it was not possible to see as far into some of the valleys as is possible from Everest, and there were still a few peaks above and level where I was.
But the basic effect was the same. There were mountains all the way to the horizon in all directions, and from altitude of over six kilometres, the horizon is a long way off. The clouds were below me rather than above me, and the immensity and beauty of it all was simply overwhelming. There are so many peaks that some of them barely have names, while still being tall enough that they would be world famous if they were on any other continent.
I do also like the climber's observation that he was having extraordinarily vivid dreams about olives. I didn't have dreams about olives, precisely, but high altitude does do something to your drams. Whatever you dream about, you dream about it vividly. I don't know why that is.
Update: I initially messed up the link to the panorama. This is now fixed.
Eurovision wrap up
As everyone who cares knows by now, the Turks won, and the British entrant came last and managed the rare achievement of scoring Null points. (There has been speculation as to whether this had anything to do with Britain's position on the war. I think maybe partly, but not entirely. After all, Israel scored some points. As far as cultural domination is concerned, it's interesting to see how the amount of French in the event has declined. Even a decade ago it was pretty much completely bilingual. These days it is only the French themselves holding out).
Adam (whose links are bloggered) has mind blowingly detailed and funny coverage. He was watching Eurovision in Australia. In Australia the contest does not go out live, which would be from 5am to 8am on Sunday morning, and SBS television instead runs it on Sunday evening. Traditionally, they have just played the British coverage with the delightful Terry Wogan commentary, but for some reason in recent years they have felt the need to Australianise it. Two years ago they cut the program up and tried to put some local colour (Latvian-Australian drag queens and the like) between the songs. They received a lot of complaints, and last year went back to the traditional broadcast. This year, however, they felt the need to send one of their own "personalities" to Latvia to do his own commentary, which is why Adam keeps referring to the "SBS bogan", an expression that is probably not translateable out of Australian English, but I suspect my non-Australian readers do get the drift. There is a reason why Mr Wogan's commentary should be left on the broadcast, which is the same reason that the BBC has been getting him to do it for 30 years (or something). He is really good at it.
Anywway, back to the contest, and in particular the great Austrian.
Personally I did something that was a Eurovision first for me. I picked up the phone and voted for him. Alf is cool.
Next year I need to attend an actual Eurovision party with lots of alcohol.
Update: Although the Greeks and Cyproits did give one another maximum points, as usual, both countries gave a substantial number of points to the Turkish entrant. Does this indicate some kind of a thawing, or did they just like the Turkish dancers? Most of the Baltic states gave a few points to the Russians, too, although there did seem to be a certain amount of anti-Russian sentiment amongst the live audience in Latvia. Watching the Eurovision voting and figuring out when and how it is influenced by several thousand years of history, is always interesting, at least.
As everyone who cares knows by now, the Turks won, and the British entrant came last and managed the rare achievement of scoring Null points. (There has been speculation as to whether this had anything to do with Britain's position on the war. I think maybe partly, but not entirely. After all, Israel scored some points. As far as cultural domination is concerned, it's interesting to see how the amount of French in the event has declined. Even a decade ago it was pretty much completely bilingual. These days it is only the French themselves holding out).
Adam (whose links are bloggered) has mind blowingly detailed and funny coverage. He was watching Eurovision in Australia. In Australia the contest does not go out live, which would be from 5am to 8am on Sunday morning, and SBS television instead runs it on Sunday evening. Traditionally, they have just played the British coverage with the delightful Terry Wogan commentary, but for some reason in recent years they have felt the need to Australianise it. Two years ago they cut the program up and tried to put some local colour (Latvian-Australian drag queens and the like) between the songs. They received a lot of complaints, and last year went back to the traditional broadcast. This year, however, they felt the need to send one of their own "personalities" to Latvia to do his own commentary, which is why Adam keeps referring to the "SBS bogan", an expression that is probably not translateable out of Australian English, but I suspect my non-Australian readers do get the drift. There is a reason why Mr Wogan's commentary should be left on the broadcast, which is the same reason that the BBC has been getting him to do it for 30 years (or something). He is really good at it.
Anywway, back to the contest, and in particular the great Austrian.
Incidentally right after the contest we tried to inform ourselves on his (Alf Poier's) homepage and got a "server overloaded" message. I think the world has found a new hero.
Personally I did something that was a Eurovision first for me. I picked up the phone and voted for him. Alf is cool.
Next year I need to attend an actual Eurovision party with lots of alcohol.
Update: Although the Greeks and Cyproits did give one another maximum points, as usual, both countries gave a substantial number of points to the Turkish entrant. Does this indicate some kind of a thawing, or did they just like the Turkish dancers? Most of the Baltic states gave a few points to the Russians, too, although there did seem to be a certain amount of anti-Russian sentiment amongst the live audience in Latvia. Watching the Eurovision voting and figuring out when and how it is influenced by several thousand years of history, is always interesting, at least.
Sunday, May 25, 2003
We live in interesting times
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs has travel alerts of some kind on 129 countries, which is nearly two thirds of the countries of the world. (Given that these include China, India, The United States and Indonesia, which are the four most populous countries in the world, it must be well over two thirds of the world in population terms). This is a record. Some of this is due to terrorism, some due to SARS, and some due to the individual features of the individual countries. Some of these strike me as a bit harsh on countries that are actually pretty safe. ("One of the highest rates of traffic deaths for a developed country" for South Korea. "Street Crime" for Estonia. "SARS risk" for Italy). Others strike me as perhaps understated. ("Risk of Terrorism" covers everything from places that I think are fairly safe to places that I really wouldn't visit at the moment).
The basic point is that we live in an unhappy time. Sadly, this is very true.
I have said before that someday I would like to drive from Rome through the former Yugoslavia, through Greece, through Turkey, through Lebanon, Israel and Palestine to Egypt. (This would be a "modern civilization trip, in which I could see many of the important sights of the last 2500 years. A trip to Iraq would be an "ancient civilization" trip). With all the things on the way, that would be a wonderful experience. It isn't going to be possible to do this with a reasonably level of risk for a long time, however.
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs has travel alerts of some kind on 129 countries, which is nearly two thirds of the countries of the world. (Given that these include China, India, The United States and Indonesia, which are the four most populous countries in the world, it must be well over two thirds of the world in population terms). This is a record. Some of this is due to terrorism, some due to SARS, and some due to the individual features of the individual countries. Some of these strike me as a bit harsh on countries that are actually pretty safe. ("One of the highest rates of traffic deaths for a developed country" for South Korea. "Street Crime" for Estonia. "SARS risk" for Italy). Others strike me as perhaps understated. ("Risk of Terrorism" covers everything from places that I think are fairly safe to places that I really wouldn't visit at the moment).
The basic point is that we live in an unhappy time. Sadly, this is very true.
I have said before that someday I would like to drive from Rome through the former Yugoslavia, through Greece, through Turkey, through Lebanon, Israel and Palestine to Egypt. (This would be a "modern civilization trip, in which I could see many of the important sights of the last 2500 years. A trip to Iraq would be an "ancient civilization" trip). With all the things on the way, that would be a wonderful experience. It isn't going to be possible to do this with a reasonably level of risk for a long time, however.
Saturday, May 24, 2003
I wonder if Natalie has any idea what this means?
This is undoubtedly the strangest Google search to ever end up here.
Update: No, I certainly don't know what it means. That was why I was asking.
This is undoubtedly the strangest Google search to ever end up here.
Update: No, I certainly don't know what it means. That was why I was asking.
Cricketing Update
New Zealand ended up winning the one day tournament in Sri Lanka. In the final against Pakistan, the Pakistanis scored 198 thanks to 70 not out from Younis Khan. This would not normally be a good score, but by the standards of this tournament it is okay. New Zealand appeared to be scoring the runs without the slightest difficulty when they were 2/151 with Fleming on 65 and Styris on 22, but both batsmen were suddenly out and Pakistan looked to once again have a chance. Wickets continued to fall as the match went on, but Pakistan couldn't quite take them fast enough. New Zealand won the match by scoring 6/200 off 45.2 overs, in the end a comfortable win, to take the tournament.
This is only the second time in their history that New Zealand have won a one day tournament of three sides or more. Part of the reason for this is that New Zealand tend not to hold such tournaments at home, which is not their faul, but it is also that they haven't always had the best cricket team in the world. My compliments on their effort in this tournament. They played good cricket against good opposition.
All around, this was a pretty good tour of Sri Lanka for New Zealand, although undoubtedly they would have preferred to get a result in the test series.
In the first test between Zimbabwe and England, England scored a perfectly fine 472 in their first innings, largely thanks to 137 to Mark Butcher and 69 to debutante Anthony McGrath, who looked absolutely delighted when interviewed after the innings. Zimbabwe were then bowled out for a deeply unimpressive 147. What was encouraging for England was the bowling. Hoggard bowled extremely well for 3/24 and Anderson took 5/73 on debut, including two wickets off successive balls (both bowled), and both bowlers were very accurate. Four of Anderson's five wickets were out bowled, and so far it's a very impressive debut. Following on in their second innings, Zimbabwe are doing better at 1/62, but it doesn't matter now. Unless there is a lot of rain (possible but not likely) the match is lost.
Finally, Australia are today playing the fourth one day international against the West Indies in Trinidad. Michael Clarke has been retained after his 75 in St Lucia the other day. Australia won the toss and batted, and are off to a great start. At present, Hayden has 40 and Gilchrist 26, and Australia are 0/72 off 16.2 overs.
Update: Australia won that one day international, thanks to another unbeaten half century from Michael Clarke. Just when we thought that Australia did have a chance of a clean sweep in the series after all, the West Indian batting came out firing the next day. Thanks to a fast 80 from Brian Lara and 79 from Wavell Hinds, the West Indies ended up with 5/290 off their 50 overs. This was too much for the Australians, who kept losing wickets, were never quite able to keep up with the runrate, despite an excellent 77 from Andrew Symonds (who seems a completely different player to the one he was before the World Cup). Australia ended up with 9/251 off their 50 overs and lost by 39 runs. The Australian winning streak ended, but at an still amazing 21 matches.
On the other hand, in the England v Zimbabwe test, Zimbabwe collapsed feebly soon after I wrote what I did, being bowled out for 233 in their second innings to lose by an innings and 92 runs. Butcher somehow took four wickets and McGrath three. Neither would be considered test standard bowlers by most people, so Zimbabwe were pretty pitiful. Still, credit to England, who did play quite well in this match.
New Zealand ended up winning the one day tournament in Sri Lanka. In the final against Pakistan, the Pakistanis scored 198 thanks to 70 not out from Younis Khan. This would not normally be a good score, but by the standards of this tournament it is okay. New Zealand appeared to be scoring the runs without the slightest difficulty when they were 2/151 with Fleming on 65 and Styris on 22, but both batsmen were suddenly out and Pakistan looked to once again have a chance. Wickets continued to fall as the match went on, but Pakistan couldn't quite take them fast enough. New Zealand won the match by scoring 6/200 off 45.2 overs, in the end a comfortable win, to take the tournament.
This is only the second time in their history that New Zealand have won a one day tournament of three sides or more. Part of the reason for this is that New Zealand tend not to hold such tournaments at home, which is not their faul, but it is also that they haven't always had the best cricket team in the world. My compliments on their effort in this tournament. They played good cricket against good opposition.
All around, this was a pretty good tour of Sri Lanka for New Zealand, although undoubtedly they would have preferred to get a result in the test series.
In the first test between Zimbabwe and England, England scored a perfectly fine 472 in their first innings, largely thanks to 137 to Mark Butcher and 69 to debutante Anthony McGrath, who looked absolutely delighted when interviewed after the innings. Zimbabwe were then bowled out for a deeply unimpressive 147. What was encouraging for England was the bowling. Hoggard bowled extremely well for 3/24 and Anderson took 5/73 on debut, including two wickets off successive balls (both bowled), and both bowlers were very accurate. Four of Anderson's five wickets were out bowled, and so far it's a very impressive debut. Following on in their second innings, Zimbabwe are doing better at 1/62, but it doesn't matter now. Unless there is a lot of rain (possible but not likely) the match is lost.
Finally, Australia are today playing the fourth one day international against the West Indies in Trinidad. Michael Clarke has been retained after his 75 in St Lucia the other day. Australia won the toss and batted, and are off to a great start. At present, Hayden has 40 and Gilchrist 26, and Australia are 0/72 off 16.2 overs.
Update: Australia won that one day international, thanks to another unbeaten half century from Michael Clarke. Just when we thought that Australia did have a chance of a clean sweep in the series after all, the West Indian batting came out firing the next day. Thanks to a fast 80 from Brian Lara and 79 from Wavell Hinds, the West Indies ended up with 5/290 off their 50 overs. This was too much for the Australians, who kept losing wickets, were never quite able to keep up with the runrate, despite an excellent 77 from Andrew Symonds (who seems a completely different player to the one he was before the World Cup). Australia ended up with 9/251 off their 50 overs and lost by 39 runs. The Australian winning streak ended, but at an still amazing 21 matches.
On the other hand, in the England v Zimbabwe test, Zimbabwe collapsed feebly soon after I wrote what I did, being bowled out for 233 in their second innings to lose by an innings and 92 runs. Butcher somehow took four wickets and McGrath three. Neither would be considered test standard bowlers by most people, so Zimbabwe were pretty pitiful. Still, credit to England, who did play quite well in this match.
A follow up observation
Natalie Solent observes the following
Guns, Germs and Steel author Jared Diamond told a story in one of his other books about setting out to the most remote corner of some Pacific island or other, to meet what he thought were the most isolated people in the country, and possibly in the world. After a couple of days of pushing through dense jungle, he reached his destination, and was greeted warmly by a local. Diamond's sense of achievement at reaching this place was dampened somewhat by the fact that the person who greeted him was wearing a University of Wisconsin sweatshirt.
I doubt there are any people at this point who have had no contact with civilization. For one thing, we simply know so much more about the surface of the earth than we did even 15 years ago. Everything inch of the earth's surface is photographed and mapped in detail. This is a new condition. Until 10 to 15 years ago, once in a while we heard stories about contact between populations of people who had been cut off from civilization for a while and it looked like a first contact, but even in these cases, investigations would often suggest that the true nature of the encounter was blurrier. It would turn out that someone had left the tribe in question 40 years ago and came back seven years later with stories of civilization, or similar. People are too determined to trade with one another and to explore to stay cut off for long, unless there are truly dramatic geographical barriers in the way. I am not sure we will ever know the exact day when we all became one, because I think the process was more gradual than sudden.
It seems that the last substantial population of people to have been cut off from the rest of the world were the highland peoples of New Guinea, of who the outside world was completely unaware until the 1930s. This was a case when there were dramatic geographical barriers. There may have been small isolated groups after that, but World War II pretty much spelled the end even for these, I suspect.
Natalie Solent observes the following
I don't really think that there have been any Arabs or Ashanti for many decades who wouldn't recognise a pair of trousers. Who is there left? A few tribes in Papua New Guinea, perhaps. About ten to fifteen years ago I saw a film of such a tribe being contacted for the first time, but I haven't heard of any such event since then. In our lifetimes the world finally did or will become one. Future historians will be able to state the exact day it happened.
Guns, Germs and Steel author Jared Diamond told a story in one of his other books about setting out to the most remote corner of some Pacific island or other, to meet what he thought were the most isolated people in the country, and possibly in the world. After a couple of days of pushing through dense jungle, he reached his destination, and was greeted warmly by a local. Diamond's sense of achievement at reaching this place was dampened somewhat by the fact that the person who greeted him was wearing a University of Wisconsin sweatshirt.
I doubt there are any people at this point who have had no contact with civilization. For one thing, we simply know so much more about the surface of the earth than we did even 15 years ago. Everything inch of the earth's surface is photographed and mapped in detail. This is a new condition. Until 10 to 15 years ago, once in a while we heard stories about contact between populations of people who had been cut off from civilization for a while and it looked like a first contact, but even in these cases, investigations would often suggest that the true nature of the encounter was blurrier. It would turn out that someone had left the tribe in question 40 years ago and came back seven years later with stories of civilization, or similar. People are too determined to trade with one another and to explore to stay cut off for long, unless there are truly dramatic geographical barriers in the way. I am not sure we will ever know the exact day when we all became one, because I think the process was more gradual than sudden.
It seems that the last substantial population of people to have been cut off from the rest of the world were the highland peoples of New Guinea, of who the outside world was completely unaware until the 1930s. This was a case when there were dramatic geographical barriers. There may have been small isolated groups after that, but World War II pretty much spelled the end even for these, I suspect.
Thursday, May 22, 2003
The next Australian election
Please note that this speculation as to when the next Australian election will occur and how involves a fairly lengthy discussion of Australian constitutional and electoral law. Non-Australian readers may not be all that interested. Or maybe they will be. It depends on the individual.And yes, I am continuing to redefine "light blogging"
Ken Parish has some thoughts on an article by Ross Gittins about the timing of the next Australian federal election. Gittin claims that the next election will likely be a double dissolution, and that this is likely to be held in the second half of 2004. Ken agrees that a double dissolution is likely, but disagrees about the timing, partly for pragmatic legal reasons, partly for reasons concerning the dates in which a double dissolution can legally occur.
I actually agree with Gittins rather than Parish, but before I get to that, let's answer the question "What is a double dissolution?".
Well, as I have mentioned before, the Australian senate is one of the most powerful upper houses in the world. Senators are elected to six year terms, and half of them are up for reelection every three years. It has the right to reject any piece of legislation, including money bills. When the constitution was being written in the 1890s, the question was much raised about what should be done to provide a solution if there was a deadlock between the houses. Perhaps appropriately, this was a subject of much disagreement between various parties at the constitutional conventions of the 1890s. The resulting compromise was section 57 of the Australian constitution, which essentially says the following
If a bill is rejected by the senate, and the same bill (with or without amendments) is rejected again three months later, then the Prime Minister may call an election of both houses in their entirety - that is the whole House of Representatives and the whole Senate (rather than the normal half-senate) are up for re-election at once. (Both houses are dissolved: hence a double dissolution). If the new senate rejects the bill again then a joint sitting of both houses together may be convened, and if a majority of all the members of both houses together vote in favour of the bill, the legislation can come into force.
(Earlier in the constitutional conventions, a proposal that came close to being enacted was that in the event of a deadlock between the houses, a referendum should be held on the specific law, and that if voters were in favour of the law it should be enacted. However, the final convention ultimately decided on the version of section 57 we ended up with. However, some state constitutions (eg that of NSW) allow laws to be decided on by referendum in this way).
As the Senate has half as many members as the House of Representatives, and as the House of Representatives is elected on a single member constituency base and the Senate is elected using proportional representation, majorities are generally much larger in the House of Representatives than in the senate, and the government usually has enough votes to control a majority in a joint sitting. (For instance, at present, the numbers would be Government (Lib/Nat/CLP) 117, Oposition (ALP) 92, Other 17, meaning that the government would have a majority of at least 8 in such a vote. Opinion polls suggest that the government's majority would increase if an election was held now).
No government in more than 20 years has had a majority of the senate in its own right, and therefore the parties have had to negotiate with the minor parties (normally the left of centre Australian Democrats, although this party has now more or less self destructed). This was less of a problem for the Labor governments of 1983 to 1996 than it has been for the conservative (Liberal Party) government under PM John Howard that has been in power since 1996. Howard has still managed to get most of his legislative passed, but at times considerable compromise has been necessary. (For instance the consumption tax isn't quite as broad as Howard would have liked, and the government has been unable to get legislation through the senate to privatise the 51% of telecommunications company Telstra that is still government owned).
But, as Ross Gittins mentioned in that article Ken linked to, the policies of the parties appear to have diverged sharply in recent months. The government has higher education and healthcare reforms it wants to pass, it would seem that it would like to cut taxes some more (which would hopefully include a cut in the ludicrous 48.5% top marginal rate), and the government would like to sell remainder of Telstra. The government appears to be building up a stockpile of legislation that can be used as the trigger for a double dissolution and the application of section 57 above. I am sure that PM Howard feels that this is his chance to have a final big legislative impact before retiring, which it seems likely he will do within three or four years, although he clearly isn't going to retire immediately.
Now, we get to the question of the timing of this double dissolution. The various possible timetables for the next federal election have been summarised in this nice little note from the parliamentary library. The pertinent details are that when a double dissolution is held, the following half senate election is due a maximum of three years subsequent to the July 1 that occurs before the double dissolution, and in order that the results be declared so that the new senators can take their seats on that day, in practice the election must be held by mid May. Therefore if a double dissolution occurs after July 1, 2003, and before July 1, 2004, the election after that (which would almost certainly include a House of Representatives election at the same time), must be held by 27 May 2006. On the other hand, if a double dissolution took place after July 1, 2004, the next election would not be due until 2 June 2007. (These dates are based on the requirement that the results be declared in time for the new senators to take their seats on July 1, the electoral commission's present claim that it can declare the results within four weeks, and the fact that the election must be held on a Saturday.).
However, there is another complication. A double dissolution must take place no less than six months before the expiration of the House of Representatives. This means that the double dissolution must occur by 11 August 2004. Ken argued that this means that there would only be a very short windown between July 1 and 11 August on which a double dissolution election could be held "in the second half of next year". However, as I pointed out in his comment section and he referred to in an update to his post, the constitution says that the dissolution must occur more than six months before expiry, but doesn't say anything about the timing of the election (other than that parliament must meet at least once every twelve months, implying that the election must occur within about eleven months). The relevant piece of law is actually the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which essentially says that the election must occur not less than 33 days and not more than 68 days after the dissolution, with the added proviso that the election must take place on a Saturday. This means that the last possible date for an election after a double dissolution next year is in fact October 16, giving an ample window in the second half of the year during which the election could be held.
Essentially, Howard has 3 options. Either
(1) He holds a double dissolution before July 1, 2004, in which case the election after that must be held by 27 May 2006
(2) He holds a double dissolution between July 1, 2004 and October 16, 2004, in which case the election after that must be held by 2 June 2007.
(3) He holds a conventional House of Representatives and half senate election. The latest date on which this can be held is 16 April 2005. (This is later than most people realise)
If Howard goes for option 1, and holds a double dissolution before the middle of next year, he extends his time in office by only thirteen months over what it could be if he didn't hold an election at all. Politicians are very concerned with how long they can stay in office, and do not like having to fight more elections than they really need to. Purely from the point of staying in power, this is taking a lot of risk for a mere extra 13 months, even if it does give you the ability to enact a lot of legislation. In addition, assuming Howard was to go to the polls in December 2003, this election would only be two years after the previous one, and the one after that would only be (at the latest) two years and five months after that. The Australian electorate does not like early elections. Having two consecutive terms of two years or just over would not make the voters happy. (The electorate on the whole does not understand the intricacies of double dissolutions and electoral timetables, but does understand that it is supposed to have an election every three years. The Hawke government suffered quite a bit in 1984 from being perceived as going to the electorate too early, even though this was mostly the fault of the previous Fraser government, that called a double dissolution in March 1983). Of course, if John Howard is intending to retire, then this might end up being Peter Costello's problem rather than his.
On the other hand, if the double dissolution election is held in September 2004, then it will appear to the electorate that Howard has gone very close to his full term (2 years and nine months). The election following that would be in May 2007, and we are again fairly close to a full term (2 years and eight months). The potential electoral damage is much smaller. The party spends less time actually fighting elections.
Simply, it is going to take at least until December 2003 before Howard has all his triggers for a double dissolution ready. Holding the dissolution then would lead to all the problems above. Wait another six months until the start of July, and all these problems go away. The temptation to wait is likely to be very strong, because there is a lot to be gained by waiting. Also, the longer we wait, larger the pile of legislation that can be built up, and the more the senate can be demonised for its obstruction. (Plus there is that fact that Ross Gittins is known to be quite well connected. He probably does know what people in the government are saying).
Of course, if the electoral mood looks like changing, then Howard might jump if he thinks he can win and doesn't think he can win later. However, at the moment, this does not look likely to me. The opposition looks hopeless, and I think it is pretty certain to stay hopeless for at least another year.
I could of course be wrong. The only person who knows what John Howard is thinking is John Howard. (Well, maybe also Janette). I'd still be willing to bet Ken a beer that the election occurs after July 1, 2004.
Update: I have changed a couple of approximate dates to exact dates in the above in order to be internally consistent, as I was previously using approximate dates in one place and exact dates somewhere else.
Please note that this speculation as to when the next Australian election will occur and how involves a fairly lengthy discussion of Australian constitutional and electoral law. Non-Australian readers may not be all that interested. Or maybe they will be. It depends on the individual.And yes, I am continuing to redefine "light blogging"
Ken Parish has some thoughts on an article by Ross Gittins about the timing of the next Australian federal election. Gittin claims that the next election will likely be a double dissolution, and that this is likely to be held in the second half of 2004. Ken agrees that a double dissolution is likely, but disagrees about the timing, partly for pragmatic legal reasons, partly for reasons concerning the dates in which a double dissolution can legally occur.
I actually agree with Gittins rather than Parish, but before I get to that, let's answer the question "What is a double dissolution?".
Well, as I have mentioned before, the Australian senate is one of the most powerful upper houses in the world. Senators are elected to six year terms, and half of them are up for reelection every three years. It has the right to reject any piece of legislation, including money bills. When the constitution was being written in the 1890s, the question was much raised about what should be done to provide a solution if there was a deadlock between the houses. Perhaps appropriately, this was a subject of much disagreement between various parties at the constitutional conventions of the 1890s. The resulting compromise was section 57 of the Australian constitution, which essentially says the following
If a bill is rejected by the senate, and the same bill (with or without amendments) is rejected again three months later, then the Prime Minister may call an election of both houses in their entirety - that is the whole House of Representatives and the whole Senate (rather than the normal half-senate) are up for re-election at once. (Both houses are dissolved: hence a double dissolution). If the new senate rejects the bill again then a joint sitting of both houses together may be convened, and if a majority of all the members of both houses together vote in favour of the bill, the legislation can come into force.
(Earlier in the constitutional conventions, a proposal that came close to being enacted was that in the event of a deadlock between the houses, a referendum should be held on the specific law, and that if voters were in favour of the law it should be enacted. However, the final convention ultimately decided on the version of section 57 we ended up with. However, some state constitutions (eg that of NSW) allow laws to be decided on by referendum in this way).
As the Senate has half as many members as the House of Representatives, and as the House of Representatives is elected on a single member constituency base and the Senate is elected using proportional representation, majorities are generally much larger in the House of Representatives than in the senate, and the government usually has enough votes to control a majority in a joint sitting. (For instance, at present, the numbers would be Government (Lib/Nat/CLP) 117, Oposition (ALP) 92, Other 17, meaning that the government would have a majority of at least 8 in such a vote. Opinion polls suggest that the government's majority would increase if an election was held now).
No government in more than 20 years has had a majority of the senate in its own right, and therefore the parties have had to negotiate with the minor parties (normally the left of centre Australian Democrats, although this party has now more or less self destructed). This was less of a problem for the Labor governments of 1983 to 1996 than it has been for the conservative (Liberal Party) government under PM John Howard that has been in power since 1996. Howard has still managed to get most of his legislative passed, but at times considerable compromise has been necessary. (For instance the consumption tax isn't quite as broad as Howard would have liked, and the government has been unable to get legislation through the senate to privatise the 51% of telecommunications company Telstra that is still government owned).
But, as Ross Gittins mentioned in that article Ken linked to, the policies of the parties appear to have diverged sharply in recent months. The government has higher education and healthcare reforms it wants to pass, it would seem that it would like to cut taxes some more (which would hopefully include a cut in the ludicrous 48.5% top marginal rate), and the government would like to sell remainder of Telstra. The government appears to be building up a stockpile of legislation that can be used as the trigger for a double dissolution and the application of section 57 above. I am sure that PM Howard feels that this is his chance to have a final big legislative impact before retiring, which it seems likely he will do within three or four years, although he clearly isn't going to retire immediately.
Now, we get to the question of the timing of this double dissolution. The various possible timetables for the next federal election have been summarised in this nice little note from the parliamentary library. The pertinent details are that when a double dissolution is held, the following half senate election is due a maximum of three years subsequent to the July 1 that occurs before the double dissolution, and in order that the results be declared so that the new senators can take their seats on that day, in practice the election must be held by mid May. Therefore if a double dissolution occurs after July 1, 2003, and before July 1, 2004, the election after that (which would almost certainly include a House of Representatives election at the same time), must be held by 27 May 2006. On the other hand, if a double dissolution took place after July 1, 2004, the next election would not be due until 2 June 2007. (These dates are based on the requirement that the results be declared in time for the new senators to take their seats on July 1, the electoral commission's present claim that it can declare the results within four weeks, and the fact that the election must be held on a Saturday.).
However, there is another complication. A double dissolution must take place no less than six months before the expiration of the House of Representatives. This means that the double dissolution must occur by 11 August 2004. Ken argued that this means that there would only be a very short windown between July 1 and 11 August on which a double dissolution election could be held "in the second half of next year". However, as I pointed out in his comment section and he referred to in an update to his post, the constitution says that the dissolution must occur more than six months before expiry, but doesn't say anything about the timing of the election (other than that parliament must meet at least once every twelve months, implying that the election must occur within about eleven months). The relevant piece of law is actually the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which essentially says that the election must occur not less than 33 days and not more than 68 days after the dissolution, with the added proviso that the election must take place on a Saturday. This means that the last possible date for an election after a double dissolution next year is in fact October 16, giving an ample window in the second half of the year during which the election could be held.
Essentially, Howard has 3 options. Either
(1) He holds a double dissolution before July 1, 2004, in which case the election after that must be held by 27 May 2006
(2) He holds a double dissolution between July 1, 2004 and October 16, 2004, in which case the election after that must be held by 2 June 2007.
(3) He holds a conventional House of Representatives and half senate election. The latest date on which this can be held is 16 April 2005. (This is later than most people realise)
If Howard goes for option 1, and holds a double dissolution before the middle of next year, he extends his time in office by only thirteen months over what it could be if he didn't hold an election at all. Politicians are very concerned with how long they can stay in office, and do not like having to fight more elections than they really need to. Purely from the point of staying in power, this is taking a lot of risk for a mere extra 13 months, even if it does give you the ability to enact a lot of legislation. In addition, assuming Howard was to go to the polls in December 2003, this election would only be two years after the previous one, and the one after that would only be (at the latest) two years and five months after that. The Australian electorate does not like early elections. Having two consecutive terms of two years or just over would not make the voters happy. (The electorate on the whole does not understand the intricacies of double dissolutions and electoral timetables, but does understand that it is supposed to have an election every three years. The Hawke government suffered quite a bit in 1984 from being perceived as going to the electorate too early, even though this was mostly the fault of the previous Fraser government, that called a double dissolution in March 1983). Of course, if John Howard is intending to retire, then this might end up being Peter Costello's problem rather than his.
On the other hand, if the double dissolution election is held in September 2004, then it will appear to the electorate that Howard has gone very close to his full term (2 years and nine months). The election following that would be in May 2007, and we are again fairly close to a full term (2 years and eight months). The potential electoral damage is much smaller. The party spends less time actually fighting elections.
Simply, it is going to take at least until December 2003 before Howard has all his triggers for a double dissolution ready. Holding the dissolution then would lead to all the problems above. Wait another six months until the start of July, and all these problems go away. The temptation to wait is likely to be very strong, because there is a lot to be gained by waiting. Also, the longer we wait, larger the pile of legislation that can be built up, and the more the senate can be demonised for its obstruction. (Plus there is that fact that Ross Gittins is known to be quite well connected. He probably does know what people in the government are saying).
Of course, if the electoral mood looks like changing, then Howard might jump if he thinks he can win and doesn't think he can win later. However, at the moment, this does not look likely to me. The opposition looks hopeless, and I think it is pretty certain to stay hopeless for at least another year.
I could of course be wrong. The only person who knows what John Howard is thinking is John Howard. (Well, maybe also Janette). I'd still be willing to bet Ken a beer that the election occurs after July 1, 2004.
Update: I have changed a couple of approximate dates to exact dates in the above in order to be internally consistent, as I was previously using approximate dates in one place and exact dates somewhere else.
Wednesday, May 21, 2003
Time Out
I am off to see The Matrix Reloaded. Annoyingly, the film is being released here a week after many other countries, so my Australian and American readers have probably seen it already. (Of course, Britain doesn't get Finding Nemo until October). My expectations are only moderate, as the consensus seems to be that the original was better. As I have written before I found the original entertaining but profoundly dumb.
Update: The film was once again profoundly dumb, and full of the sort of pseudo-intellectual dialogue that gives you that fabulous "That sounds really profound, and I am sure it is really deep if I understood it" feeling, when it actually makes no sense at all. The first 60 minutes or so were deeply tedious, but once they got into the Matrix itself things improved somewhat. The set piece with Keanu Reeves fighting 100 Hugo Weavings was kind of cool, and the freeway chase was technically stunning. However, the film had a very different look from the first one, particularly if you are Australia. In the first one, you go into the matrix, and you are obviously in Sydney. The locations are all familiar when you know the city. In the sequel, you go in the matrix and you are in an obviously computer generated (or at least very computer enhanced) city. The freeway chase is like one of those computer car racing games where you drive around a trace and computer generated scenery that bears some resemplance to that of the real world but isn't quite exact zooms past above the track. When we see Keanu flying above the city, it looks like a tremendously well rendered version of what someone who has been playing Sim-City for six months has ended up with. There actually are one or two buildings that are genuine Sydney landmarks if you look carefully, but they have been rearranged location wise, and a large amount of computer generated stuff placed all around them. It makes a certain amount of sense that a computer generated world would look like a computer generated world, but this is different from the first movie. The best thing is that the film is, in the end, a visual tour de force. A great amount of money has been spent on it, and the money is all up there on the screen. Still, it's a really dumb movie pretending to be a smart one. And that combination is always in many ways annoying.
I am off to see The Matrix Reloaded. Annoyingly, the film is being released here a week after many other countries, so my Australian and American readers have probably seen it already. (Of course, Britain doesn't get Finding Nemo until October). My expectations are only moderate, as the consensus seems to be that the original was better. As I have written before I found the original entertaining but profoundly dumb.
Update: The film was once again profoundly dumb, and full of the sort of pseudo-intellectual dialogue that gives you that fabulous "That sounds really profound, and I am sure it is really deep if I understood it" feeling, when it actually makes no sense at all. The first 60 minutes or so were deeply tedious, but once they got into the Matrix itself things improved somewhat. The set piece with Keanu Reeves fighting 100 Hugo Weavings was kind of cool, and the freeway chase was technically stunning. However, the film had a very different look from the first one, particularly if you are Australia. In the first one, you go into the matrix, and you are obviously in Sydney. The locations are all familiar when you know the city. In the sequel, you go in the matrix and you are in an obviously computer generated (or at least very computer enhanced) city. The freeway chase is like one of those computer car racing games where you drive around a trace and computer generated scenery that bears some resemplance to that of the real world but isn't quite exact zooms past above the track. When we see Keanu flying above the city, it looks like a tremendously well rendered version of what someone who has been playing Sim-City for six months has ended up with. There actually are one or two buildings that are genuine Sydney landmarks if you look carefully, but they have been rearranged location wise, and a large amount of computer generated stuff placed all around them. It makes a certain amount of sense that a computer generated world would look like a computer generated world, but this is different from the first movie. The best thing is that the film is, in the end, a visual tour de force. A great amount of money has been spent on it, and the money is all up there on the screen. Still, it's a really dumb movie pretending to be a smart one. And that combination is always in many ways annoying.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Looking forward to Finding Nemo
Apple Computer cofounder Steve Jobs has an almost unique position in California. He is the only person who has managed to be both a Silicon valley mogul and a Hollywood mogul simultaneously with any level of success. Sure, there have been other companies that have attempted to play successfully in both markets, but it has generally ended in tears, or at least unhappiness. Steve Jobs is not Bill Gates, but Apple is still here after 25 years, and given that people have been predicting the company's imminent demise since 1979, that is no small achievement. And the film studio he owns, Pixar Animation Studios, is the finest producer of animated films for Hollywood by far.
I have written about Pixar before, but their record remains perfect. The have made four feature films (that have been distributed by Disney): Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, and Monsters Inc.. All four have been enormous hits, and critical favourites. By the standards of the film industry, four from four is extremely unusual, and this success has come at the same time as things at Disney's traditional animation business have gone badly wrong.
Pixar have a new film, Finding Nemo due to be released in the US at the end of next week. This has been less anticipated than their previous films, for an interesting reason. Their next film after this one is going to be The Incredibles, to be released late next year. This is to be directed by Brad Bird, who in 1999 made The Iron Giant, based on Ted Hughes' childrens book The Iron Man, before being hired by Pixar after Warners did a terrible job of promoting it and it subsequently flopped at the box office. However, it is considered something of a masterpiece by many people, and Bird (who also created the characters of Krusty the Clown and Sideshow Bob on The Simpsons is widely considered to be a genius in the animation world.
Some film geeks will say that The Incredibles is the film they are most looking forward to of any to be released in the next few years. For this reason, the release of Finding Nemo next week has almost seemed a bit lacklustre, even though nobody has heard anything bad about it.
Finally, Finding Nemo is being shown to critics. The advance word on it is actually that it is great, and Pixar have done it again. The film will be another enormous hit. Given the amazing technical quality of Pixar's films, and the great storytelling sense of their filmmakers, this will be pleasing. Hopefully the film will finally win the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature for Pixar. Although the award has been going for two years now and Pixar are by far the best American studio making animated films, circumstances have meant they are yet to win. Surely for this year they will. And if The Incredibles is as good as everybody hopes, they will again for next year. This would only be fair.
Update: This review at the Chicago Tribune agrees with me about the golden age. And in fact, Finding Nemo seems to be the best reviewed film of the year, or close to it. (I can't think of anything else this well reviewed. Can anyone else?)
Apple Computer cofounder Steve Jobs has an almost unique position in California. He is the only person who has managed to be both a Silicon valley mogul and a Hollywood mogul simultaneously with any level of success. Sure, there have been other companies that have attempted to play successfully in both markets, but it has generally ended in tears, or at least unhappiness. Steve Jobs is not Bill Gates, but Apple is still here after 25 years, and given that people have been predicting the company's imminent demise since 1979, that is no small achievement. And the film studio he owns, Pixar Animation Studios, is the finest producer of animated films for Hollywood by far.
I have written about Pixar before, but their record remains perfect. The have made four feature films (that have been distributed by Disney): Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, and Monsters Inc.. All four have been enormous hits, and critical favourites. By the standards of the film industry, four from four is extremely unusual, and this success has come at the same time as things at Disney's traditional animation business have gone badly wrong.
Pixar have a new film, Finding Nemo due to be released in the US at the end of next week. This has been less anticipated than their previous films, for an interesting reason. Their next film after this one is going to be The Incredibles, to be released late next year. This is to be directed by Brad Bird, who in 1999 made The Iron Giant, based on Ted Hughes' childrens book The Iron Man, before being hired by Pixar after Warners did a terrible job of promoting it and it subsequently flopped at the box office. However, it is considered something of a masterpiece by many people, and Bird (who also created the characters of Krusty the Clown and Sideshow Bob on The Simpsons is widely considered to be a genius in the animation world.
Some film geeks will say that The Incredibles is the film they are most looking forward to of any to be released in the next few years. For this reason, the release of Finding Nemo next week has almost seemed a bit lacklustre, even though nobody has heard anything bad about it.
Finally, Finding Nemo is being shown to critics. The advance word on it is actually that it is great, and Pixar have done it again. The film will be another enormous hit. Given the amazing technical quality of Pixar's films, and the great storytelling sense of their filmmakers, this will be pleasing. Hopefully the film will finally win the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature for Pixar. Although the award has been going for two years now and Pixar are by far the best American studio making animated films, circumstances have meant they are yet to win. Surely for this year they will. And if The Incredibles is as good as everybody hopes, they will again for next year. This would only be fair.
Update: This review at the Chicago Tribune agrees with me about the golden age. And in fact, Finding Nemo seems to be the best reviewed film of the year, or close to it. (I can't think of anything else this well reviewed. Can anyone else?)
Brief cricket update
The one day tournament in Sri Lanka goes on. In the last two games, New Zealand beat Sri Lanka in a close but low scoring game, and Pakistan beat New Zealand in a slightly more convincing fashion, although it was still tight. This has been a tournament of low scores and ball dominating bat. I don't know why the pitch is like this, but this is something worth investigating. Despite all three teams ending up with a won two lost two record, Sri Lanka miss out and Pakistan play New Zealand in the final on Friday due to Sri Lanka having the least bonus points. I think the bonus point system as it presently operates is quite fair (unlike the different system that was in operation until a year ago), as it means that Sri Lanka miss out because their defeats were heavy and their wins narrow. However, it seems somewhat redundant. Net run rate indicates this already, and if there were no bonus points and net runrate was used, the result would have been the same: a New Zealand v Pakistan final. I prefer systems that are as simple as possible (as long as they are fair), and net runrate is fair. The bonus points are just an unnecessary complication.
Meanwhile, the third game bewtween Australia and the West Indies is today. Australia have rested Adam Gilchrist and Brett Lee, and Michael Clarke and Nathan Hauritz come into the side. After his fine debut in January, Clarke has had to wait for his second game for Australia. Hopefully his response to all this will be to have a big game.
The first test between Zimbabwe and England starts at Lord's tomorrow. Lots of people are expected to show up to demonstrate against the presence of the Zimbabwean team. My sympathies are with the protestors.
Update: Clarke did all right. Batting at five, he came in at 3/79 in the 17th over and stayed to the end, scoring 75 not out off 100 balls as Australia scored 4/258. He was involved in two big partnerships, one with Symonds and the other with Bevan. Clarke looked a little short of match practice, but played one or two lovely shots. It may have been that Australia didn't get as many runs in the last 15 overs as they should have, as Bevan and Clarke both found the gaps in the field for the ones and twos without scoring that many boundaries. It's probably best to have someone who can hit fours and sixes (eg Symonds) in at the end, and batting Clarke and Bevan at 5 and 6 may sometimes not lead to this. Still, some good bowling from Hauritz removed much of the top order, Lara got out bowled to a bad shot of Bichel, Clarke took 3 catches (ultimately ending up with the man of the match award and Australia won by 25 runs. That's 20 one day games in a row.
The one day tournament in Sri Lanka goes on. In the last two games, New Zealand beat Sri Lanka in a close but low scoring game, and Pakistan beat New Zealand in a slightly more convincing fashion, although it was still tight. This has been a tournament of low scores and ball dominating bat. I don't know why the pitch is like this, but this is something worth investigating. Despite all three teams ending up with a won two lost two record, Sri Lanka miss out and Pakistan play New Zealand in the final on Friday due to Sri Lanka having the least bonus points. I think the bonus point system as it presently operates is quite fair (unlike the different system that was in operation until a year ago), as it means that Sri Lanka miss out because their defeats were heavy and their wins narrow. However, it seems somewhat redundant. Net run rate indicates this already, and if there were no bonus points and net runrate was used, the result would have been the same: a New Zealand v Pakistan final. I prefer systems that are as simple as possible (as long as they are fair), and net runrate is fair. The bonus points are just an unnecessary complication.
Meanwhile, the third game bewtween Australia and the West Indies is today. Australia have rested Adam Gilchrist and Brett Lee, and Michael Clarke and Nathan Hauritz come into the side. After his fine debut in January, Clarke has had to wait for his second game for Australia. Hopefully his response to all this will be to have a big game.
The first test between Zimbabwe and England starts at Lord's tomorrow. Lots of people are expected to show up to demonstrate against the presence of the Zimbabwean team. My sympathies are with the protestors.
Update: Clarke did all right. Batting at five, he came in at 3/79 in the 17th over and stayed to the end, scoring 75 not out off 100 balls as Australia scored 4/258. He was involved in two big partnerships, one with Symonds and the other with Bevan. Clarke looked a little short of match practice, but played one or two lovely shots. It may have been that Australia didn't get as many runs in the last 15 overs as they should have, as Bevan and Clarke both found the gaps in the field for the ones and twos without scoring that many boundaries. It's probably best to have someone who can hit fours and sixes (eg Symonds) in at the end, and batting Clarke and Bevan at 5 and 6 may sometimes not lead to this. Still, some good bowling from Hauritz removed much of the top order, Lara got out bowled to a bad shot of Bichel, Clarke took 3 catches (ultimately ending up with the man of the match award and Australia won by 25 runs. That's 20 one day games in a row.
A sad day
The last ever episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer will be broadcast in the United States this evening. I have enjoyed this more than any other television program, ever. I have an essay in my head explaining why, but I don't presently have time to write it, and my beloved readers will thus have to wait a couple of weeks.
The last ever episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer will be broadcast in the United States this evening. I have enjoyed this more than any other television program, ever. I have an essay in my head explaining why, but I don't presently have time to write it, and my beloved readers will thus have to wait a couple of weeks.
Monday, May 19, 2003
The blogosphere moves on
While some people in the world of journalism sneer at bloggers and their supposed lack of accountability, people from the blogging world continue to raise their profiles in the mainstream media. Still, I wonder what was in the other 7000 words that Mr Den Beste's editors at the Wall Street Journal cut out.
David and many commenters at Samizdata have responded actually already, but accountability and fact checking are a great strength of blogs, not a weakness. Even on a small blog like mine, I will be fact checked to death. Mistakes will not stand. People will suddenly appear in the comments box with amazing amounts of expertise. Sloppy thinking or intellectual dishonesty simply won't stand. Remarkably, such things as the Jayson Blair saga tend to suggest that these things are actually easier to get away with in the general media. In the blogosphere I can write all the inaccurate crap I like. However, if I do, people will firstly tell me it is inaccurate crap, and then they will stop reading it.
While some people in the world of journalism sneer at bloggers and their supposed lack of accountability, people from the blogging world continue to raise their profiles in the mainstream media. Still, I wonder what was in the other 7000 words that Mr Den Beste's editors at the Wall Street Journal cut out.
David and many commenters at Samizdata have responded actually already, but accountability and fact checking are a great strength of blogs, not a weakness. Even on a small blog like mine, I will be fact checked to death. Mistakes will not stand. People will suddenly appear in the comments box with amazing amounts of expertise. Sloppy thinking or intellectual dishonesty simply won't stand. Remarkably, such things as the Jayson Blair saga tend to suggest that these things are actually easier to get away with in the general media. In the blogosphere I can write all the inaccurate crap I like. However, if I do, people will firstly tell me it is inaccurate crap, and then they will stop reading it.
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Cricketing Update
The test series between the West Indies and Australia is over, but the scheduled series of seven one day internationals has now started, with a double header having been played in Kingston Jamaica over the weekend. Australia's one day specialists have flown in for the event, including Michael Bevan, Ian Harvey, and Andrew Symonds. The players in both the test and one day sides probably feel more like going home, as they have been playing more or less continuously since August last year.
The key question going in to the series was just how much longer Australia could keep up their winning streak. Prior to the series they had won 17 one day internationals in a row, easily a record. Quite frankly it seemed unlikely that Australia could win all seven games and keep the winning streak alive. However, if they could, their next three games after the series would be extremely easy games against Bangladesh in July, so that would probably mean extending the streak further to an astounding 27.
Australia probably still won't win all seven games in the series, but after two games this weekend, it still remains possible, because Australia won both games and the winning streak is now 19 games.
In Saturday's game, the Australian top order was only so-so, but 50s from Ponting and Lehmann had Australia at 5/183 off 39.4 overs. This is one of those positions from which things can rapidly go bad if you lose more wickets quickly, but which is fine if you don't. As it was, Australia didn't, and fine innings from one day specialists Bevan and Harvey led to Australia ending up with a very good 5/270 off the 50 overs. After a rain interruption, the target was revised to 208 off 37 overs. The West Indies were always a little behind the run rate required, and lost regular wickets, eventually scoring 8/205, losing by just two runs. This wasn't quite as close as it looked, because the West Indies needed about 14 off the last over and 7 off the last ball, and a couple of fours late in the final over when it was too late made the margin look better. A fairly comfortable win, although Australia were a little sloppy in the field. Harvey completed a fine all round performance by taking 3/37 off 7 overs.
Both Darren Lehmann and Ian Harvey had to withdraw from today's match with injuries. Many people would have thought that this would be a great chance to give young potential star Michael Clarke a game, but not the selectors. Instead they brought in two bowlers, Bichel and Gillespie.
Personally, I think this created a side that was a little unbalanced and was potentially a little weak in the batting department, but this didn't matter especially, for the bowlers did a great job. The bowlers were all great, with McGrath thankfully returning to something near peak form with 4/31, Lee taking 2/22, Hogg 1/27 off 10, Gillespie 1/28 off 9. West Indies were all out for a miserable 163. Australia had absolutely no trouble knocking off the runs, losing only two wickets. Hayden and Ponting scored fifties, as Australia won with one ball short of 15 overs to spare. An absolutely crushing win.
Australia didn't look sloppy today. Perhaps a clean sweep is still possible, although with Sarwan and Lara in the West Indian team you think they will likely pull off a win somewhere. Still, Ponting remains in great form, and McGrath no longer looks underdone. It's a shame McGrath couldn't have spent his time bowling his best rather than sledging last week.
In the one day tournament in Sri Lanka, the home side won a low scoring match against Pakistan. Sri Lanka batted first, and were at one point at 8/139. Eventually they managed to scrape together 172, thanks partly to a useful 19 from Muttiah Muralitharan. Muralitharan then completed a fine day by taking 5/23 to bowl out Pakistan for 160. Sri Lanka now top the points table in that competition, but are still in some danger of missing out on the final, due to having no bonus points from their three games, whereas the other sides each have two. That means if all three teams end up with two wins, Pakistan meet New Zealand in the final. Sri Lanka need to either beat New Zealand, or hope that New Zealand beat Pakistan.
The test series between the West Indies and Australia is over, but the scheduled series of seven one day internationals has now started, with a double header having been played in Kingston Jamaica over the weekend. Australia's one day specialists have flown in for the event, including Michael Bevan, Ian Harvey, and Andrew Symonds. The players in both the test and one day sides probably feel more like going home, as they have been playing more or less continuously since August last year.
The key question going in to the series was just how much longer Australia could keep up their winning streak. Prior to the series they had won 17 one day internationals in a row, easily a record. Quite frankly it seemed unlikely that Australia could win all seven games and keep the winning streak alive. However, if they could, their next three games after the series would be extremely easy games against Bangladesh in July, so that would probably mean extending the streak further to an astounding 27.
Australia probably still won't win all seven games in the series, but after two games this weekend, it still remains possible, because Australia won both games and the winning streak is now 19 games.
In Saturday's game, the Australian top order was only so-so, but 50s from Ponting and Lehmann had Australia at 5/183 off 39.4 overs. This is one of those positions from which things can rapidly go bad if you lose more wickets quickly, but which is fine if you don't. As it was, Australia didn't, and fine innings from one day specialists Bevan and Harvey led to Australia ending up with a very good 5/270 off the 50 overs. After a rain interruption, the target was revised to 208 off 37 overs. The West Indies were always a little behind the run rate required, and lost regular wickets, eventually scoring 8/205, losing by just two runs. This wasn't quite as close as it looked, because the West Indies needed about 14 off the last over and 7 off the last ball, and a couple of fours late in the final over when it was too late made the margin look better. A fairly comfortable win, although Australia were a little sloppy in the field. Harvey completed a fine all round performance by taking 3/37 off 7 overs.
Both Darren Lehmann and Ian Harvey had to withdraw from today's match with injuries. Many people would have thought that this would be a great chance to give young potential star Michael Clarke a game, but not the selectors. Instead they brought in two bowlers, Bichel and Gillespie.
Personally, I think this created a side that was a little unbalanced and was potentially a little weak in the batting department, but this didn't matter especially, for the bowlers did a great job. The bowlers were all great, with McGrath thankfully returning to something near peak form with 4/31, Lee taking 2/22, Hogg 1/27 off 10, Gillespie 1/28 off 9. West Indies were all out for a miserable 163. Australia had absolutely no trouble knocking off the runs, losing only two wickets. Hayden and Ponting scored fifties, as Australia won with one ball short of 15 overs to spare. An absolutely crushing win.
Australia didn't look sloppy today. Perhaps a clean sweep is still possible, although with Sarwan and Lara in the West Indian team you think they will likely pull off a win somewhere. Still, Ponting remains in great form, and McGrath no longer looks underdone. It's a shame McGrath couldn't have spent his time bowling his best rather than sledging last week.
In the one day tournament in Sri Lanka, the home side won a low scoring match against Pakistan. Sri Lanka batted first, and were at one point at 8/139. Eventually they managed to scrape together 172, thanks partly to a useful 19 from Muttiah Muralitharan. Muralitharan then completed a fine day by taking 5/23 to bowl out Pakistan for 160. Sri Lanka now top the points table in that competition, but are still in some danger of missing out on the final, due to having no bonus points from their three games, whereas the other sides each have two. That means if all three teams end up with two wins, Pakistan meet New Zealand in the final. Sri Lanka need to either beat New Zealand, or hope that New Zealand beat Pakistan.
More on the HIV viruses
Following up on what I said about the HIV viruses last week, I notice that the Economist has an article on HIV-2, the other HIV virus, in this week's issue. Essentially, the article says that new research suggests that the HIV-2 virus crossed over from the species of money called the sooty mangebay twice, once around 1940 and the other time around 1945.
Loosely, viruses evolve over time. If a virus is in the human population then over time the number of variants will steadily increase. If we make some assumptions about the speed of mutation (and better still, have tissue samples contain versions of the virus that are known to come from particular places and times) we can map the evolution and spread of the disease. In particular, we can see when various strains of the virus diverged from each other. If we have two different strains of the virus, and research suggests that they diverged from each other in 1940, say, then there are two possibilities. Either the disease was present in humans before 1940, or the disease was not present in humans until some time after 1940, but it crossed the species barrier on a number of different occasions. If you can find lots of intermediate strains of the virus also present in humans, then this pretty much rules out the second option, unless the species barrier has been crossed on a vast number of different occasions. Presumably the researchers have looked at all strains of HIV-2, and have found that they can trace them all back to having evolved from two common ancestors, but cannot trace them back to any strains intermediate to those two. Hence we have the conclusion that the species barrier was crossed twice for HIV-2.
This compares with the more common (and more contagious and more deadly) HIV-1, which has clearly crossed over into humans at least twice, once in the form of the HIV-1 Group M (for main) virus, that appears to have crossed over from chimpanzees to people in the Congo area, and the HIV-1 Group O (for outlier) virus, that appears to have crossed over from chimpanzees to people in the Cameroon area. We know that Group M was present in Leopoldville (now Kinshasa) in Congo in 1959, because a study of stored blood samples found a positive sample from that time. We believe that Group O was present in 1961 in Cameroon, because a Norwegian sailor who visited Cameroon in 1961 later died of the disease (the earliest known AIDS case), and the virus present in stored tissue samples from his body is consistent with the Group O form of the disease most common in Cameroon today. It seems likely that the disease must have been reasonably common in Cameroon at that time for a foreigner to have become infected (or perhaps he was just extremely unlucky - there was not an AIDS epidemic in Cameroon for a couple of decades after that).
In recent years, researchers have claimed that studies of the differences between various strains of the virus, and knowledge about the speed with which viruses evolve suggests that groups M and O may have crossed over into human beings in the 1940s or even the 1930s. However, the techniques used by such researchers are in some ways problematic. The key question is really how fast do viruses change, and is the speed different in humans than in chimpanzees. The precursor to HIV-1 does not kill chimps. The precursor to HIV-2 does not kill sooty mangabeys. However, when a virus from one species of primate gets transferred into another, then the virus usually is harmful. This tends to suggest that at some point in the past there have been epidemics due to these kinds of diseases in primates, and the primates have evolved so as to become resistant to these particular diseases (or the viruses have evolved not to be harmful to these particular primates, which makes perfect sense, because if a virus's host dies, the virus dies too) and the ultimate consequence has been that we have ended up with primate species with endemic harmless retroviruses.
What am I getting at here? Well, this process is slow. For this to be the case, the viruses must have been present in primates for thousands of years, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The viruses are very well adapted to their host species. They are probably fairly genetically stable, having found an evolutionary niche. Transfer them to another species and they do not have their evolutionary niche any more, and it may be that they have evolved faster. So it may be that the speed of genetic evolution is affected by the species jump, making the uncertainty about when viruses diverged highly dependent on when the species jump actually occurred.
So what do we know? We know for sure that both forms of HIV-1 were present in Africa by the late 1950s. (A third form of the virus, HIV-1 Group N, has recently been discovered also in Cameroon. It seems likely that this form of the virus crossed over later than the other two, although nobody is certain).
What else can we deduce from this? Well, as I said in my previous post, if the viruses have been present in chimp and sooty mangabey populations for thousands of years, there is something remarkable about the fact that species jumps of very similar virus occurred at least three (and apparently five) times in a few decades of the 20th century. This has to do with changed human activity of some kind. I find the frequently argued idea that the transfer occurred via hunting and eating of other primates unconvincing, as this has also being going on for thousands of years, and I find it beyond belief that the species jump never occurred over this period (or that it repeatedly did so without the diseases becoming endemic). The more I read the less convincing I find the polio vaccine theory - the times become less convincing, and the places also become better matched simply with the locations of primate populations rather than the places where polio vaccines occurred. (And there is no evidence that chimpanzee kidneys actually were used in the cultivation of the vaccines). However, something deeply peculiar happened. Mr Hooper is quite right about this. It is quite understandable for the medical establishment to want to blame it on natural causes, but for me to actually believe this, I need a convincing explanation of why AIDS did not become a human epidemic prior to the second half of the twentieth century. If HIV had only crossed the species barrier once, I could believe that it is simply a matter of this being a very unlikely occurrence. If very similar strains of the disease had crossed the species barrier in a short time from the same species, I could believe that the virus had suddenly mutated to make the cross easier. However, similar but different viruses crossed in a very short time. I find this impossible to explain, unless I believe that some new means of transmission suddenly became available to existing viruses. And I don't know what that was.
Following up on what I said about the HIV viruses last week, I notice that the Economist has an article on HIV-2, the other HIV virus, in this week's issue. Essentially, the article says that new research suggests that the HIV-2 virus crossed over from the species of money called the sooty mangebay twice, once around 1940 and the other time around 1945.
Loosely, viruses evolve over time. If a virus is in the human population then over time the number of variants will steadily increase. If we make some assumptions about the speed of mutation (and better still, have tissue samples contain versions of the virus that are known to come from particular places and times) we can map the evolution and spread of the disease. In particular, we can see when various strains of the virus diverged from each other. If we have two different strains of the virus, and research suggests that they diverged from each other in 1940, say, then there are two possibilities. Either the disease was present in humans before 1940, or the disease was not present in humans until some time after 1940, but it crossed the species barrier on a number of different occasions. If you can find lots of intermediate strains of the virus also present in humans, then this pretty much rules out the second option, unless the species barrier has been crossed on a vast number of different occasions. Presumably the researchers have looked at all strains of HIV-2, and have found that they can trace them all back to having evolved from two common ancestors, but cannot trace them back to any strains intermediate to those two. Hence we have the conclusion that the species barrier was crossed twice for HIV-2.
This compares with the more common (and more contagious and more deadly) HIV-1, which has clearly crossed over into humans at least twice, once in the form of the HIV-1 Group M (for main) virus, that appears to have crossed over from chimpanzees to people in the Congo area, and the HIV-1 Group O (for outlier) virus, that appears to have crossed over from chimpanzees to people in the Cameroon area. We know that Group M was present in Leopoldville (now Kinshasa) in Congo in 1959, because a study of stored blood samples found a positive sample from that time. We believe that Group O was present in 1961 in Cameroon, because a Norwegian sailor who visited Cameroon in 1961 later died of the disease (the earliest known AIDS case), and the virus present in stored tissue samples from his body is consistent with the Group O form of the disease most common in Cameroon today. It seems likely that the disease must have been reasonably common in Cameroon at that time for a foreigner to have become infected (or perhaps he was just extremely unlucky - there was not an AIDS epidemic in Cameroon for a couple of decades after that).
In recent years, researchers have claimed that studies of the differences between various strains of the virus, and knowledge about the speed with which viruses evolve suggests that groups M and O may have crossed over into human beings in the 1940s or even the 1930s. However, the techniques used by such researchers are in some ways problematic. The key question is really how fast do viruses change, and is the speed different in humans than in chimpanzees. The precursor to HIV-1 does not kill chimps. The precursor to HIV-2 does not kill sooty mangabeys. However, when a virus from one species of primate gets transferred into another, then the virus usually is harmful. This tends to suggest that at some point in the past there have been epidemics due to these kinds of diseases in primates, and the primates have evolved so as to become resistant to these particular diseases (or the viruses have evolved not to be harmful to these particular primates, which makes perfect sense, because if a virus's host dies, the virus dies too) and the ultimate consequence has been that we have ended up with primate species with endemic harmless retroviruses.
What am I getting at here? Well, this process is slow. For this to be the case, the viruses must have been present in primates for thousands of years, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The viruses are very well adapted to their host species. They are probably fairly genetically stable, having found an evolutionary niche. Transfer them to another species and they do not have their evolutionary niche any more, and it may be that they have evolved faster. So it may be that the speed of genetic evolution is affected by the species jump, making the uncertainty about when viruses diverged highly dependent on when the species jump actually occurred.
So what do we know? We know for sure that both forms of HIV-1 were present in Africa by the late 1950s. (A third form of the virus, HIV-1 Group N, has recently been discovered also in Cameroon. It seems likely that this form of the virus crossed over later than the other two, although nobody is certain).
What else can we deduce from this? Well, as I said in my previous post, if the viruses have been present in chimp and sooty mangabey populations for thousands of years, there is something remarkable about the fact that species jumps of very similar virus occurred at least three (and apparently five) times in a few decades of the 20th century. This has to do with changed human activity of some kind. I find the frequently argued idea that the transfer occurred via hunting and eating of other primates unconvincing, as this has also being going on for thousands of years, and I find it beyond belief that the species jump never occurred over this period (or that it repeatedly did so without the diseases becoming endemic). The more I read the less convincing I find the polio vaccine theory - the times become less convincing, and the places also become better matched simply with the locations of primate populations rather than the places where polio vaccines occurred. (And there is no evidence that chimpanzee kidneys actually were used in the cultivation of the vaccines). However, something deeply peculiar happened. Mr Hooper is quite right about this. It is quite understandable for the medical establishment to want to blame it on natural causes, but for me to actually believe this, I need a convincing explanation of why AIDS did not become a human epidemic prior to the second half of the twentieth century. If HIV had only crossed the species barrier once, I could believe that it is simply a matter of this being a very unlikely occurrence. If very similar strains of the disease had crossed the species barrier in a short time from the same species, I could believe that the virus had suddenly mutated to make the cross easier. However, similar but different viruses crossed in a very short time. I find this impossible to explain, unless I believe that some new means of transmission suddenly became available to existing viruses. And I don't know what that was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)