Old movies that are good
I just watched the DVD of The Manchurian Candidate, a famous film that I had never seen but that is every bit as good as its reputation says it is. In particular, it is wonderfully well written from a character and dialogue point of view. It is striking as to just how much dialogue the film has compared to modern films, too. Some of it is simply monologues, with one character explaining the situation to another. This isn't unique to this particular film, though. These days, Hollywood studios feel that the audience is going to lose interest if there is a camera on one character for more than a few seconds, and so there is a huge amount of cutting to another shot, and trying to do things visually. Cameron Crowe and Billy Wilder talk about this in Crowe's book Conversations with Wilder. Wilder was particularly fond of relatively long closeup shots of actors faces, in which you could watch their emotions unfolding. These days, such shots tend to get cut. Audiences are presumed to be too impatient to watch long scenes of character development. I don't believe that they are, but Hollywood seems to. (Why is this? Is it that directors these days tend to come from the worlds of television commercials and music videos? Is it that the non-English speaking world is more and more important to Hollywood and films with less dialogue travel better? Is it that in the age of special effects and amazing visual possibilities this is now considered to be all that matters? I don't know, although this is an issue which will come up again when I discuss the relative failure of this summer's Hollywood films.
In this particular film, I love Angela Lansbury's performance in this film. Her role appears minor at the start of the film, but slowly grows in prominence and importance as layer after layer is revealed about the character and her loyalties and motivations. Really good stuff. .
Monday, August 11, 2003
Big movie budgets
Spurred on by and article on Kevin Costner's return the the world of Westerns, James Russell get annoyed with the author of the article stating that Waterworld was the first film to cost more than $100 million, when this was clearly not so. He speculates that the author meant to say that it was the first film to cost more than $200m.
It's a bit hard to tell what films cost because studios and producers lie about it so much, but neither statement is right. When it was released in 1991, Terminator 2 was widely reported to have been the first film to cost over $100 million. However, the producers never admitted this, claiming that the budget was just under $100. A couple of years ago the Internet Movie Database was reporting the budget for the film at about $95 million, but they now report $100 million, and it is now widely acknowledged that it actually did cost $100m. James Cameron's next film, True Lies (1994) was the first film for which the producers actually admitted a $100m budget. Both these films were expensive, but also seriously profitable (especially Terminator 2) so in the end people weren't too bothered about the costs.
Waterworld was widely publicised as an out of control production at the time that True Lies was in the theatres, and it was eventually released in 1995. (Original director Kevin Reynolds was sacked towards the end of the production and Costner ended up directing a fair bit of the movie, but was not credited). At the time, rumours were that the budget was around the $160-170 million mark, which was massively in excess of the cost of any other movie up to that time, and way over budget. At the time, I didn't hear any claims that it cost over $200m, and the IMDB now reports it at $175m.
As for Universal's claims that the film made a profit, don't believe them. At the time, the rule of thumb was that if film's domestic (ie US and Canada) gross exceeded the budget, then it would make a profit when all the revenues came in from various sources. Waterworld grossed $88 million in the US, which was way short. Things were helped by its non-US grosses being much greater than that ($167m), but still the studio would have been hard pressed to get its outlay back. The best that can be said is that the film did find an audience, so Universal didn't take a bigger bath than it would have with most unsuccessful films. That said, given that the best thing that can be said is that Universal risked $175 million and although they may have got most of the money back they made no return, they would certainly have rather done without the whole thing. (And in my opinion it was a really bad film).
The first film with a $200m budget in actuality was likely Titanic (1997), which was also widely reported as an out of control production. (Like most out of control productions, it was filmed on water. The reason for this is that on land if you mess a shot up, you simply have another take. On water, your set and props have floated away, and setting everything up again takes a lot more time). That one grossed $600m domestically and $1.2bn in the rest of the world, which was so immensely profitable that nobody cared about the budget in the end. And that has been the pattern with James Cameron generally. He has broken the record for most expensive film three times, but has always managed to produce interesting films that have made money.
Just as a final point, the old rule of thumb that a film must gross its budget domestically to end up profitable is much less true than it used to be, because films gross a larger portion of their box-office revenues outside the US than they used to, and because DVDs are now responsible for a much greater proportion of revenues than VHS tapes ever were. All that said, Hollywood is having a terrible summer this year, because at least half a dozen movies have cost $150m, $200m or more to make and have then fizzled at the box office. I shall be writing a report on just why Hollywood's films this year have cost so much, why Hollywood didn't believe this mattered, and why in the end it did, but this shall not be seen from me for a couple of weeks.
Spurred on by and article on Kevin Costner's return the the world of Westerns, James Russell get annoyed with the author of the article stating that Waterworld was the first film to cost more than $100 million, when this was clearly not so. He speculates that the author meant to say that it was the first film to cost more than $200m.
It's a bit hard to tell what films cost because studios and producers lie about it so much, but neither statement is right. When it was released in 1991, Terminator 2 was widely reported to have been the first film to cost over $100 million. However, the producers never admitted this, claiming that the budget was just under $100. A couple of years ago the Internet Movie Database was reporting the budget for the film at about $95 million, but they now report $100 million, and it is now widely acknowledged that it actually did cost $100m. James Cameron's next film, True Lies (1994) was the first film for which the producers actually admitted a $100m budget. Both these films were expensive, but also seriously profitable (especially Terminator 2) so in the end people weren't too bothered about the costs.
Waterworld was widely publicised as an out of control production at the time that True Lies was in the theatres, and it was eventually released in 1995. (Original director Kevin Reynolds was sacked towards the end of the production and Costner ended up directing a fair bit of the movie, but was not credited). At the time, rumours were that the budget was around the $160-170 million mark, which was massively in excess of the cost of any other movie up to that time, and way over budget. At the time, I didn't hear any claims that it cost over $200m, and the IMDB now reports it at $175m.
As for Universal's claims that the film made a profit, don't believe them. At the time, the rule of thumb was that if film's domestic (ie US and Canada) gross exceeded the budget, then it would make a profit when all the revenues came in from various sources. Waterworld grossed $88 million in the US, which was way short. Things were helped by its non-US grosses being much greater than that ($167m), but still the studio would have been hard pressed to get its outlay back. The best that can be said is that the film did find an audience, so Universal didn't take a bigger bath than it would have with most unsuccessful films. That said, given that the best thing that can be said is that Universal risked $175 million and although they may have got most of the money back they made no return, they would certainly have rather done without the whole thing. (And in my opinion it was a really bad film).
The first film with a $200m budget in actuality was likely Titanic (1997), which was also widely reported as an out of control production. (Like most out of control productions, it was filmed on water. The reason for this is that on land if you mess a shot up, you simply have another take. On water, your set and props have floated away, and setting everything up again takes a lot more time). That one grossed $600m domestically and $1.2bn in the rest of the world, which was so immensely profitable that nobody cared about the budget in the end. And that has been the pattern with James Cameron generally. He has broken the record for most expensive film three times, but has always managed to produce interesting films that have made money.
Just as a final point, the old rule of thumb that a film must gross its budget domestically to end up profitable is much less true than it used to be, because films gross a larger portion of their box-office revenues outside the US than they used to, and because DVDs are now responsible for a much greater proportion of revenues than VHS tapes ever were. All that said, Hollywood is having a terrible summer this year, because at least half a dozen movies have cost $150m, $200m or more to make and have then fizzled at the box office. I shall be writing a report on just why Hollywood's films this year have cost so much, why Hollywood didn't believe this mattered, and why in the end it did, but this shall not be seen from me for a couple of weeks.
Saturday, August 09, 2003
Beer Blogging
I still haven't finished the post on coffee, so another short post on small ephemeral details of my life so I can say I posted something.
People who haven't been there don't always appreciate the extent to which Japan is a beer drinking country. Their most famous alcoholic beverage is saki or rice wine, but this isn't an everyday drink in the same way. They also drink a lot of whisky and a substantial amount of cognac, and their wine consumption has increased (from a very low base) in recent years, but the drink they use to wash their meals down (other than tea) is beer. In Japan, you won't find an eating establishment of any kind, including the humblest of railway station sushi restaurants or ramen noodle bars that will not also sell you a glass of beer if you ask for one. (Often this will be the only kind of alcoholic beverage they sell).
And Japanese beer is very good. It is like Australian beer in the sense that it is almost entirely lager, and is produced by a small number of large brewing conglomerates. Also like in Australia, the big brewers have in recent years introduced a variety of new but similar variants of their beers. (The equivalent of "Fosters Ice" and the like). But in general, Japanese beer is very good.
If I go to Colindale, a whole range of Japanese beers are available. At my local Sainsbury's, there is no such choice, but they do at least have Asahi Super Dry. (Their quotation marks). At the moment Sainsbury's have a special offer allowing customers to buy three four packs (ie 12 bottles) of any beer they sell in 330ml bottles for 10 pounds. At this price the Hoegaarden is selling out the moment they put it on the shelf (which is a shame because I like it) but the choice is still good. Last week I bought four bottles of Asahi Super Dry, four of Sainsbury's own brand Kolsch style lager (brewed exclusively for them at a microbrewery in Greenwich and recently voted the best lager brewed in Britain) and four bottles of Budweiser Budvar from Bohemia. In any event, I have just finished a bottle of the Asahi Super Dry. It is very dry. Very refreshing, also. I like it.
I still haven't finished the post on coffee, so another short post on small ephemeral details of my life so I can say I posted something.
People who haven't been there don't always appreciate the extent to which Japan is a beer drinking country. Their most famous alcoholic beverage is saki or rice wine, but this isn't an everyday drink in the same way. They also drink a lot of whisky and a substantial amount of cognac, and their wine consumption has increased (from a very low base) in recent years, but the drink they use to wash their meals down (other than tea) is beer. In Japan, you won't find an eating establishment of any kind, including the humblest of railway station sushi restaurants or ramen noodle bars that will not also sell you a glass of beer if you ask for one. (Often this will be the only kind of alcoholic beverage they sell).
And Japanese beer is very good. It is like Australian beer in the sense that it is almost entirely lager, and is produced by a small number of large brewing conglomerates. Also like in Australia, the big brewers have in recent years introduced a variety of new but similar variants of their beers. (The equivalent of "Fosters Ice" and the like). But in general, Japanese beer is very good.
If I go to Colindale, a whole range of Japanese beers are available. At my local Sainsbury's, there is no such choice, but they do at least have Asahi Super Dry. (Their quotation marks). At the moment Sainsbury's have a special offer allowing customers to buy three four packs (ie 12 bottles) of any beer they sell in 330ml bottles for 10 pounds. At this price the Hoegaarden is selling out the moment they put it on the shelf (which is a shame because I like it) but the choice is still good. Last week I bought four bottles of Asahi Super Dry, four of Sainsbury's own brand Kolsch style lager (brewed exclusively for them at a microbrewery in Greenwich and recently voted the best lager brewed in Britain) and four bottles of Budweiser Budvar from Bohemia. In any event, I have just finished a bottle of the Asahi Super Dry. It is very dry. Very refreshing, also. I like it.
Friday, August 08, 2003
More photos
I have a couple of longer pieces in gestation, one of bars and cafes, and the other on the architecture of Santiago Calatrava. However, in the short term a couple more photos.
This was in Arles, and the top of it looked like a relatively standard and aging mermorial to the second world war. But underneath it we have something newer
This all makes you wonder, of course. Were Lieutenantss Tippett and McConnell the only Americans to die in Arles in the war? If not, was there something special they did to merit a memorial of their own, and if so, what was it? And why was this plaque not erected until May last year? Did it replace an earlier one. Were more details as to what happened in the war only found out recently? I don't know the answer. Of course the debt the French owe to the Americans from that war is so great that it can never be memorialised enough, and of course whatever has happened in the last year many French still realise this. But it raises more questions than answers.
I have a couple of longer pieces in gestation, one of bars and cafes, and the other on the architecture of Santiago Calatrava. However, in the short term a couple more photos.
This was in Arles, and the top of it looked like a relatively standard and aging mermorial to the second world war. But underneath it we have something newer
This all makes you wonder, of course. Were Lieutenantss Tippett and McConnell the only Americans to die in Arles in the war? If not, was there something special they did to merit a memorial of their own, and if so, what was it? And why was this plaque not erected until May last year? Did it replace an earlier one. Were more details as to what happened in the war only found out recently? I don't know the answer. Of course the debt the French owe to the Americans from that war is so great that it can never be memorialised enough, and of course whatever has happened in the last year many French still realise this. But it raises more questions than answers.
Thursday, August 07, 2003
The Running Man
So, Arnold Schwarzenegger is running for governor of California in the recall election. Until a week ago, I was expecting this, as for a number of years Schwarzenegger has made no secret of his ambition to one day hold the job, and getting elected in this recall election is undoubtedly his best chance, as the number of votes required is small and the campaign is short. On the other hand, the media has been reporting for the last week that his advisors have been saying he was not going to run, mainly because his wife didn't want the negative publicity that would come out when his marital infidelities were publiciced. (If such a smear campaign is waged against him, this article from Premiere magazine will be exhibit A).
As has been pointed out, this candidacy leads the creators of headlines with both headaches (They had to fit "Schwarzenegger" into the headlines, and make sure they spell it correctly) but also great opportunities to use the names of his movies. (The word "Terminator" is clearly going to be used a lot in this election. "True Lies" has obvious relevance to politics. "Total Recall" is good given the situation. No doubt someone can think of a use for "End of Days", or some of the others). However, "The Running Man" is perhaps the most interesting. The title has obvious relevance. The movie was released in 1987, based on a Stephen King novel in which contestants compete in a television gameshow in a dystopian future in which the loser dies and the winner lives. In that movie Arnold's antagonist was played by professional wrestler Jesse Ventura. If Arnold gets elected, both the wrestler and the bodybuilder in that movie will have ended up state governors. I suspect bookmakers would have given me good odds on that at the time.
This is going to be fun. As to whether it will help California, who knows. Was it this weird when Ronald Reagan first went into politics?
Update: The fun has started. Lileks:
The whole thing is good. Go read.
Further Update: Daniel Weintraub of the Sacremento bee thinks Arnold is the front runner and may win. I am starting to think he is right. This could be weird.
So, Arnold Schwarzenegger is running for governor of California in the recall election. Until a week ago, I was expecting this, as for a number of years Schwarzenegger has made no secret of his ambition to one day hold the job, and getting elected in this recall election is undoubtedly his best chance, as the number of votes required is small and the campaign is short. On the other hand, the media has been reporting for the last week that his advisors have been saying he was not going to run, mainly because his wife didn't want the negative publicity that would come out when his marital infidelities were publiciced. (If such a smear campaign is waged against him, this article from Premiere magazine will be exhibit A).
As has been pointed out, this candidacy leads the creators of headlines with both headaches (They had to fit "Schwarzenegger" into the headlines, and make sure they spell it correctly) but also great opportunities to use the names of his movies. (The word "Terminator" is clearly going to be used a lot in this election. "True Lies" has obvious relevance to politics. "Total Recall" is good given the situation. No doubt someone can think of a use for "End of Days", or some of the others). However, "The Running Man" is perhaps the most interesting. The title has obvious relevance. The movie was released in 1987, based on a Stephen King novel in which contestants compete in a television gameshow in a dystopian future in which the loser dies and the winner lives. In that movie Arnold's antagonist was played by professional wrestler Jesse Ventura. If Arnold gets elected, both the wrestler and the bodybuilder in that movie will have ended up state governors. I suspect bookmakers would have given me good odds on that at the time.
This is going to be fun. As to whether it will help California, who knows. Was it this weird when Ronald Reagan first went into politics?
Update: The fun has started. Lileks:
Listening to Arnold say “Collyvornia” during his press conference, I realized that his opponents can’t even mock his accent anymore. Let’s say they run an ad that features a musclebound lummox speaking in those dulcet Austrian tones; let’s say a reporter asks Arnie to comment. He could go dead serious, and say “Ah dunt beleaf in making fun uf an immigranz ahgcent.” Beat. Big toothy grin. “Unless Ahm togging about myszelf. Zen vut ze hell.”
Fifty thousand more votes, right there.
The whole thing is good. Go read.
Further Update: Daniel Weintraub of the Sacremento bee thinks Arnold is the front runner and may win. I am starting to think he is right. This could be weird.
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
The great thing about getting photos back is that you can post them to your blog, and get away with not writing so much
Time for some gratuitous holiday snaps.
The Pont du Gard in southern France. It's about 2000 years old. As I said, the Romans sure knew how to build an aqueduct. The key point is that height is everything, as gravity is the only force the Romans had for getting the water from its source to the city of Nimes. Although there is a river below the aqueduct which is a source of water closer to the city than the one being used, this is of no use as its water is not high enough for there to be a clear downhill route to the city. These days you would just use a mechanical pumping system of some sort, but these did not exist in Romans times, or at least not to a level of sophistication capable of moving this much water. Also, this fact means that a bridge carrying water is built much higher than a bridge carrying people. People can go uphill. Water cannot. (The lower level of the aqueduct was intended as a bridge for people to use, and it remains this to this day). The potential energy stored in the water due to its height is precious, and not to be squandered.
Unfortunately, I did not get a photograph showing me as well as all three levels of the aqueduct. Thus I must post two photographs.
Time for some gratuitous holiday snaps.
The Pont du Gard in southern France. It's about 2000 years old. As I said, the Romans sure knew how to build an aqueduct. The key point is that height is everything, as gravity is the only force the Romans had for getting the water from its source to the city of Nimes. Although there is a river below the aqueduct which is a source of water closer to the city than the one being used, this is of no use as its water is not high enough for there to be a clear downhill route to the city. These days you would just use a mechanical pumping system of some sort, but these did not exist in Romans times, or at least not to a level of sophistication capable of moving this much water. Also, this fact means that a bridge carrying water is built much higher than a bridge carrying people. People can go uphill. Water cannot. (The lower level of the aqueduct was intended as a bridge for people to use, and it remains this to this day). The potential energy stored in the water due to its height is precious, and not to be squandered.
Unfortunately, I did not get a photograph showing me as well as all three levels of the aqueduct. Thus I must post two photographs.
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Final post on Australia versus Bangladesh
Yes, the cricket blogging has been a bit heavy this week, due to the fact that I was catching up with games that occurred while I was away as well as those that were taking place as I was blogging. (Also, there is the fact that quite a lot was going on, especially regarding South Africa versus England).
In any event, Bangladesh's tour of Australia finished yesterday with the final one day international in Darwin. Some people had been wondering how large a score Australia would make when they got to bat first, and today we had an opportunity to find out. What we got was typical of games on this tour. A good score, but no records set. Bangladesh showed some fight at times, but couldn't keep the pressure consistently on the Australians.
As I said, Australia batted first, after winning the toss. There was no fiddling with the batting order today, presumably because everyone of importance got at least one bat in the first two games, and Australia just played normally. The openers scored a few runs before getting out, Gilchrist for 31 and Hayden for 42. The score was then 2/112 but then dropped to 4/114, with Martyn and Symonds both out cheaply. (Symonds in particular will be annoyed with himself, having been out cheaply in both innings he played in the series). Bangladesh were doing well, and the Australians were careful after this, but captain Ricky Ponting and Michael Bevan stopped the rot, Bevan scoring 57 and Ponting 101, the only century of the tournament. Australia ended up with a good but not great 7/254 off their 50 overs.
Judging by their scores in the first two matches, this was never likely to be enough. Once Bangladesh had slumped to 5/36, something really embarassing for the Bangladeshis looked possible. However, thanks mainly to 49 from Alok Kapali they managed to bat out most of their 50 overs, being finally out for 142 in the 48th, losing by 112 runs.
So, what can be said? In the tests and ODIs against Bangladesh, Australia did not set any records in terms of scores or margins of victory. However, the games were not close either. Australia were not quite at their best, but most players got in a good performance somewhere in the series. Bangladesh had their moments, but were when it came down to it several classes below the Australians. Much work needs to be done in Bangladesh, particularly in terms of creating a strong and competitive domestic competition of some kind.
As for the experiment of cricket in Australia's north, all reports are it came off well. Crowds were often close to 10000, which is decent considering the small sizes of the cities in question. The weather was good for cricket, the grounds were up to scratch, and the spectators apparently enjoyed the fact that the Australian cricket team had come to them rather than being many thousands of miles away. Things should be even better next season when Sri Lanka tour and Australia are playing a good side. On that occasion Australia will have to do more preparation. This year they played no warm up matches and had no training camp before the series. Do that against Sri Lanka and you are asking for trouble. How the Australians will fit this all into their crowded program and how much the players will complain remains to be seen.
Yes, the cricket blogging has been a bit heavy this week, due to the fact that I was catching up with games that occurred while I was away as well as those that were taking place as I was blogging. (Also, there is the fact that quite a lot was going on, especially regarding South Africa versus England).
In any event, Bangladesh's tour of Australia finished yesterday with the final one day international in Darwin. Some people had been wondering how large a score Australia would make when they got to bat first, and today we had an opportunity to find out. What we got was typical of games on this tour. A good score, but no records set. Bangladesh showed some fight at times, but couldn't keep the pressure consistently on the Australians.
As I said, Australia batted first, after winning the toss. There was no fiddling with the batting order today, presumably because everyone of importance got at least one bat in the first two games, and Australia just played normally. The openers scored a few runs before getting out, Gilchrist for 31 and Hayden for 42. The score was then 2/112 but then dropped to 4/114, with Martyn and Symonds both out cheaply. (Symonds in particular will be annoyed with himself, having been out cheaply in both innings he played in the series). Bangladesh were doing well, and the Australians were careful after this, but captain Ricky Ponting and Michael Bevan stopped the rot, Bevan scoring 57 and Ponting 101, the only century of the tournament. Australia ended up with a good but not great 7/254 off their 50 overs.
Judging by their scores in the first two matches, this was never likely to be enough. Once Bangladesh had slumped to 5/36, something really embarassing for the Bangladeshis looked possible. However, thanks mainly to 49 from Alok Kapali they managed to bat out most of their 50 overs, being finally out for 142 in the 48th, losing by 112 runs.
So, what can be said? In the tests and ODIs against Bangladesh, Australia did not set any records in terms of scores or margins of victory. However, the games were not close either. Australia were not quite at their best, but most players got in a good performance somewhere in the series. Bangladesh had their moments, but were when it came down to it several classes below the Australians. Much work needs to be done in Bangladesh, particularly in terms of creating a strong and competitive domestic competition of some kind.
As for the experiment of cricket in Australia's north, all reports are it came off well. Crowds were often close to 10000, which is decent considering the small sizes of the cities in question. The weather was good for cricket, the grounds were up to scratch, and the spectators apparently enjoyed the fact that the Australian cricket team had come to them rather than being many thousands of miles away. Things should be even better next season when Sri Lanka tour and Australia are playing a good side. On that occasion Australia will have to do more preparation. This year they played no warm up matches and had no training camp before the series. Do that against Sri Lanka and you are asking for trouble. How the Australians will fit this all into their crowded program and how much the players will complain remains to be seen.
It is hot
England simply doesn't cope well with extremes of weather of any kind. Many shops, workplaces and other buildings are not air conditioned, and this suddenly becomes a big deal. Those that are air conditioned have a sort of wimpy air conditioning that doesn't really cope in genuinely hot weather. (Nobody in Atlanta would stand for this, but this isn't Atlanta). Newsagents selling Coca-Cola and other cold drinks generally use these weird open refrigerator things that don't have doors on the front but are continually open, and which keep the drinks I suppose five degrees or so cooler than the ambient temperature. These are sort of okay in the weather that we have for most of the year, but when the temperature is over 30 degrees, they can't cope. Even when stores do invest in closed door refrigerators, they don't get the idea that the cold drinks need to be at the front. People buy the drinks from the front, and the refrigerators are then restocked by putting warm drinks at the front. If you want a cold drink you have to reach around the warm drinks to get a cold one from the back. However, somehow the refrigerators themselves don't seem to be up to scratch either, because even drinks taken from the back are not ice cold the way Australians would expect.
Why am I ranting like this. Well, yesterday evening I ran out of beer, and although I bought some more beer and brought it home with me this evening, it isn't cold yet. This shouldn't be a problem, because the little general store down the road has a liquor licence and sells beer (as would not be possible in Sydney due to the city's absurd liquor licensing laws), and surely they would have a can of beer in the refrigerator that I could buy from them. However, for some reason the beer in their refigerator was lukewarm. The shopkeeper told me he would get me a colder one from the refrigerator out the back, but somehow it was no better than tepid. I bought it and drank it anyway, but surely a can of beer that is actually cold isn't too hard a thing to manage. (Yes, it is my fault for forgetting to buy beer to refrigerate myself before today).
Another thing about the British is that they eat enormous numbers of chocolate bars. Every newsagent or corner store is full of an enormous choice of these, and they are inexpensive. They are also very nice: British chocolate is in my opinion made to recipes that taste better than chocolate in Australia. However, in hot weather you discover that British chocolate also doesn't cope well. You go into a shop and pick up a Kit-Kat, and discover that it is uncomfortably flexible. Australian chocolate may taste worse, but it is at least made to a recipe that makes it heat resistant.
England simply doesn't cope well with extremes of weather of any kind. Many shops, workplaces and other buildings are not air conditioned, and this suddenly becomes a big deal. Those that are air conditioned have a sort of wimpy air conditioning that doesn't really cope in genuinely hot weather. (Nobody in Atlanta would stand for this, but this isn't Atlanta). Newsagents selling Coca-Cola and other cold drinks generally use these weird open refrigerator things that don't have doors on the front but are continually open, and which keep the drinks I suppose five degrees or so cooler than the ambient temperature. These are sort of okay in the weather that we have for most of the year, but when the temperature is over 30 degrees, they can't cope. Even when stores do invest in closed door refrigerators, they don't get the idea that the cold drinks need to be at the front. People buy the drinks from the front, and the refrigerators are then restocked by putting warm drinks at the front. If you want a cold drink you have to reach around the warm drinks to get a cold one from the back. However, somehow the refrigerators themselves don't seem to be up to scratch either, because even drinks taken from the back are not ice cold the way Australians would expect.
Why am I ranting like this. Well, yesterday evening I ran out of beer, and although I bought some more beer and brought it home with me this evening, it isn't cold yet. This shouldn't be a problem, because the little general store down the road has a liquor licence and sells beer (as would not be possible in Sydney due to the city's absurd liquor licensing laws), and surely they would have a can of beer in the refrigerator that I could buy from them. However, for some reason the beer in their refigerator was lukewarm. The shopkeeper told me he would get me a colder one from the refrigerator out the back, but somehow it was no better than tepid. I bought it and drank it anyway, but surely a can of beer that is actually cold isn't too hard a thing to manage. (Yes, it is my fault for forgetting to buy beer to refrigerate myself before today).
Another thing about the British is that they eat enormous numbers of chocolate bars. Every newsagent or corner store is full of an enormous choice of these, and they are inexpensive. They are also very nice: British chocolate is in my opinion made to recipes that taste better than chocolate in Australia. However, in hot weather you discover that British chocolate also doesn't cope well. You go into a shop and pick up a Kit-Kat, and discover that it is uncomfortably flexible. Australian chocolate may taste worse, but it is at least made to a recipe that makes it heat resistant.
Monday, August 04, 2003
Now we will see if I can be the first black gay female vice president
You are...Condoleezza Rice, National Security
Advisor! Naturally brilliant, you are
successful and put your work first. Even
though you don't have as many tight personal
relationships as others, its a sacrifice you
are willing to make to pursue knowledge and to
faithfully serve in your duties. A keen
intellect and sense of purpose characterize
you.
What Political Diva Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
You are...Condoleezza Rice, National Security
Advisor! Naturally brilliant, you are
successful and put your work first. Even
though you don't have as many tight personal
relationships as others, its a sacrifice you
are willing to make to pursue knowledge and to
faithfully serve in your duties. A keen
intellect and sense of purpose characterize
you.
What Political Diva Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Sunday, August 03, 2003
Cricket wrap up
Blogging has been light today. I had a very pleasant walk around parts of the East End, followed byplotting to take over the world, or at least Europe dinner at Samizdata HQ.
But, a quick cricket update. There isn't much to say about the rest of the South African innings. They took the score from 3/530 to a South African record of 6/682 before Smith finally declared. Not much to say. Dipenaar scored 92, and I thought that Smith would declare on his dismissal at 5/630 but no. South Africa kept batting. Wicketkeeper Boucher scored a fast and entertaining 68 off 51 balls. After his dismissal Smith batted on for even a few runs further, but the declaration eventually came. England were set 509 to make South Africa bat again. Neither this nor saving the match, were never likely, but England got off to an okay start, scoring 52 before the loss of the first wicket. However, this was that of their best batsman, Michael Vaughan, out caught by Pollock in slips yesterday evening to a terrible shot. Trescothick was out soon afterwards caught in the outfield by Adams to an equally bad shot, and Hussain and Butcher took the score to 2/129 at the close of play.
This morning the two batsmen resumed. Both of these players are capable of scoring a double century on a (very) good day, and while they were in it was possible for England supporters to have some (slight) hope that the match could be saved. They took the score from 2/129 overnight to 2/186. However, both were out and the score was then 4/208. It was then just a question of how long it took South Africa to finish the game off. Stewart was out for a duck in what may well have been his last test match, and McGrath, who is frankly out of his depth playing test cricket, was out for 13. It was then 6/208 and the match looked almost over. However, there was one little surprise. Andrew Flintoff started batting marvellously for England, scoring 142 off 145 balls, including 5 sixes and 18 fours. The tail stuck with him while he did this, and England supporters at least had something to cheer. I had turned off the TV when Hussain had got out, and I personally saw none of this, but Brian Micklethwait assured me later that it was a marvellous innings. Still, Flintoff was eventually the last man out when he was stumped off Adams attempting to hit another six. Great stuff, but still a loss by an innings and 92 runs. Ntini was again the best of the bowlers with 5/145 making it a fine ten for the match. The man of the match judges wimped out, giving the award jointly to him and Graeme Smith.
England have a lot of regrouping to do before the next test. Frankly, they need to figure out just who isn't up to it, who is a has been, and which new players should be selected to replace them. Personally I would drop Stewart, Hussain and McGrath, but it will be interesting to see what the selectors do. There are quite a few good plauyers in this England side: Vaughan himself, Trescothick, Betcher, Flintoff, Anderson. However, England have to really motivate them and make the most of them: not easy after these two matches.
Meanwhile, Australia played Bangladesh in the second one day international in Cairns. Not too differnt from the first. Bangladesh batted first (although they won the toss this time) and scored way too few runs. The wickets were shared around the Australian bowlers, they fell regularly, and Bangladesh were all out for 147. Australia shuffled the batting order to make sure everyone got a bat in the series - not a tactic I am fond of but at least they played a full strength side - and knocked off the runs easily. Symonds and Bevan opened the batting. Symonds was out early for 7 and the score was 1/17. Martyn joined Bevan, and was superb, eventually ending up with 91 off 51 balls. As it happened, Martyn had 90 with ten runs required and a century was possible, but there were no "team orders". Bevan scored a couple of fours, and Martyn missed out. Australia won the match with almost 30 overs to spare.
Still, great to see Martyn back. The Australian middle order is much stronger with him there, as he is a much classier act than either Lehmann or Love. Some journalists have suggested he might have to fight to get his place back, but I think this is ridiculous. The Australian selectors know how good he is. His last innings for Australia before this week was a brilliant 88 not out despite a finger injury in the World Cup final. It was overshadowed in that match by Ponting's innings, but selectors don't forget things like this. Martyn was deservedly man of the match, and Australia are 2-0 up and have won the series. The third match is in Darwin on Wednesday, and we are expecting another mismatch.
Blogging has been light today. I had a very pleasant walk around parts of the East End, followed by
But, a quick cricket update. There isn't much to say about the rest of the South African innings. They took the score from 3/530 to a South African record of 6/682 before Smith finally declared. Not much to say. Dipenaar scored 92, and I thought that Smith would declare on his dismissal at 5/630 but no. South Africa kept batting. Wicketkeeper Boucher scored a fast and entertaining 68 off 51 balls. After his dismissal Smith batted on for even a few runs further, but the declaration eventually came. England were set 509 to make South Africa bat again. Neither this nor saving the match, were never likely, but England got off to an okay start, scoring 52 before the loss of the first wicket. However, this was that of their best batsman, Michael Vaughan, out caught by Pollock in slips yesterday evening to a terrible shot. Trescothick was out soon afterwards caught in the outfield by Adams to an equally bad shot, and Hussain and Butcher took the score to 2/129 at the close of play.
This morning the two batsmen resumed. Both of these players are capable of scoring a double century on a (very) good day, and while they were in it was possible for England supporters to have some (slight) hope that the match could be saved. They took the score from 2/129 overnight to 2/186. However, both were out and the score was then 4/208. It was then just a question of how long it took South Africa to finish the game off. Stewart was out for a duck in what may well have been his last test match, and McGrath, who is frankly out of his depth playing test cricket, was out for 13. It was then 6/208 and the match looked almost over. However, there was one little surprise. Andrew Flintoff started batting marvellously for England, scoring 142 off 145 balls, including 5 sixes and 18 fours. The tail stuck with him while he did this, and England supporters at least had something to cheer. I had turned off the TV when Hussain had got out, and I personally saw none of this, but Brian Micklethwait assured me later that it was a marvellous innings. Still, Flintoff was eventually the last man out when he was stumped off Adams attempting to hit another six. Great stuff, but still a loss by an innings and 92 runs. Ntini was again the best of the bowlers with 5/145 making it a fine ten for the match. The man of the match judges wimped out, giving the award jointly to him and Graeme Smith.
England have a lot of regrouping to do before the next test. Frankly, they need to figure out just who isn't up to it, who is a has been, and which new players should be selected to replace them. Personally I would drop Stewart, Hussain and McGrath, but it will be interesting to see what the selectors do. There are quite a few good plauyers in this England side: Vaughan himself, Trescothick, Betcher, Flintoff, Anderson. However, England have to really motivate them and make the most of them: not easy after these two matches.
Meanwhile, Australia played Bangladesh in the second one day international in Cairns. Not too differnt from the first. Bangladesh batted first (although they won the toss this time) and scored way too few runs. The wickets were shared around the Australian bowlers, they fell regularly, and Bangladesh were all out for 147. Australia shuffled the batting order to make sure everyone got a bat in the series - not a tactic I am fond of but at least they played a full strength side - and knocked off the runs easily. Symonds and Bevan opened the batting. Symonds was out early for 7 and the score was 1/17. Martyn joined Bevan, and was superb, eventually ending up with 91 off 51 balls. As it happened, Martyn had 90 with ten runs required and a century was possible, but there were no "team orders". Bevan scored a couple of fours, and Martyn missed out. Australia won the match with almost 30 overs to spare.
Still, great to see Martyn back. The Australian middle order is much stronger with him there, as he is a much classier act than either Lehmann or Love. Some journalists have suggested he might have to fight to get his place back, but I think this is ridiculous. The Australian selectors know how good he is. His last innings for Australia before this week was a brilliant 88 not out despite a finger injury in the World Cup final. It was overshadowed in that match by Ponting's innings, but selectors don't forget things like this. Martyn was deservedly man of the match, and Australia are 2-0 up and have won the series. The third match is in Darwin on Wednesday, and we are expecting another mismatch.
Saturday, August 02, 2003
Globalisation, or not
Due to the fact that I am a sad dweeb, I get most of my film news and film reviews off the internet. Because the Americans get most films first, I tend to read mostly US critics. (One bonus of this is that a great more films are shown in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago than in Sydney or even London, and if something sounds good but is obviously not going to be released wherever I am, I can hunt down the DVD over the internet or something.
The usual annoyance of reading American reviews is that I see a review and have to wait months (or sometimes even years) to see the film. However, living in the UK or Australia there can sometimes be a reverse problem. Sometimes films will be shown in the UK or Australia before they are shown in the US. These are usually local films, but not always. Because I pay less attention to local movie buzz than American buzz, I will sometimes miss such a film when it shown in cinemas locally, and then discover that I want to see it when it opens in the US and I read the American reviews. The current example of this is Dirty, Pretty Things, which sounds pretty good. (I was aware of it, and it sounded pretty good when it did open here, but this didn't hit me hard enough to make me go and see it). However, it is now mostly gone from British cinemas. I might be able to find a screening at a repertory cinema somewhere if I am lucky, but I rather doubt it. I may have to wait for the DVD.
This is partly my fault though. I was quite familiar with many of Stephen Frears' earlier films, but for some reason I had never put them together in my head as a single body of work. When I do, they are a very impressive body of work. If I had done so, I would have paid more attention when the film opened here.
Due to the fact that I am a sad dweeb, I get most of my film news and film reviews off the internet. Because the Americans get most films first, I tend to read mostly US critics. (One bonus of this is that a great more films are shown in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago than in Sydney or even London, and if something sounds good but is obviously not going to be released wherever I am, I can hunt down the DVD over the internet or something.
The usual annoyance of reading American reviews is that I see a review and have to wait months (or sometimes even years) to see the film. However, living in the UK or Australia there can sometimes be a reverse problem. Sometimes films will be shown in the UK or Australia before they are shown in the US. These are usually local films, but not always. Because I pay less attention to local movie buzz than American buzz, I will sometimes miss such a film when it shown in cinemas locally, and then discover that I want to see it when it opens in the US and I read the American reviews. The current example of this is Dirty, Pretty Things, which sounds pretty good. (I was aware of it, and it sounded pretty good when it did open here, but this didn't hit me hard enough to make me go and see it). However, it is now mostly gone from British cinemas. I might be able to find a screening at a repertory cinema somewhere if I am lucky, but I rather doubt it. I may have to wait for the DVD.
This is partly my fault though. I was quite familiar with many of Stephen Frears' earlier films, but for some reason I had never put them together in my head as a single body of work. When I do, they are a very impressive body of work. If I had done so, I would have paid more attention when the film opened here.
England versus South Africa, and a tiny report on Australia v Bangladesh ODI 1
IN 1989, the Australian cricket team toured England for an Ashes series. Australian cricket was not at a very high ebb at that point. Captain Allan Border had led Australia to two heavy defeats in the previous two Ashes series. Australia's previous test series had been at home against the West Indies, and Australia had lost 3-1. Australia over the previous few years had gone through the worst period in their cricketing history, even at times losing to New Zealand. (That said, New Zealand had a good team at that time).
But the upside was that Australia were by that point clearly beyond their lowest point. They had won the World Cup as rank outsiders in 1987, and since then they had been a good one day side and a test side that at least won matches regularly (although not always series). There were a number of good young players coming through, mostly batsmen. People like David Boon, Mark Taylor, and Steve Waugh.
Which was why Australians were a little put out when the Australian side was written off in England going into the series. Bookmakers named England favourites at 10-1 on. Newspaper editorialists said that "England unquestionably have the stronger side". The 1987 World Cup victory was written off as a fluke. (A journalist in an English newspaper described that 1987 final as a game that "England would have won nine times out of ten). When Australia lost the first one day game, Allan Border was asked whether he had expected that Australia would be defeated that heavily, his having expected that Australia might win being apparently out of the question.
Of course, this all made our pleasure in Australia at what happened next so much the greater. Australia tied the second one day game and won the third, for a drawn series. Then, the first test was played at Headingley. Australia batted first, and were utterly magnificent, declaring at 7/601 with Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh scoring maiden test centuries, in Steve Waugh's case a magnificent 177 not out. After that we saw one of the most one sided test series I have ever seen in my life, with Australia winning 4-0, and England hardly winning a session in the six test matches. (The series result would have been 6-0 if it were not for rain, as Australia were way ahead in the other two games). We all laughed at the commentators who had written Australia off, given that Australia were so obviously on the improve. Australians look back on the series very fondly. If the 1987 World Cup was the point where Australia started to turn things round, the 1989 Ashes series was the time when they really came good.
So why do I mention this. Well, on the third morning of the second test of the South Africa v England series, it is clear I judged South Africa about as badly. Due to the turmoil and recent poor performances of South Africa, I judged them to be a side clearly in decline, and as I saw England as a side on the rise, I said that I thought a comprehensive England victory was very likely. And, so far, this has not happened. It is England that look in disarray.
When I made these observations, South African reader Dave F left comments taking issue with them a little bit. In particular, he said I was wrong to underestimate new South African captain Graeme Smith, who (according to Dave) was really something special. I was perhaps a little dismissive of this, although I had not seem Smith play much.
Well, Dave, I salute you. You were right. Enjoy the gloating. For what happened last week was not too different to what happened when Australia batted first in that first test in 1989. Gibbs and Smith put on an opening partnership of 338. Smith ended up with 277 and Gibbs 179 and South Africa declared just before tea on the third day at 5/594. All of the second day was lost to rain, so that is actually quite a fast run rate. There was then more rain, and on the fourth day Michael Vaughan played superbly, scoring 156 for England. (Vaughan is clearly the real deal). At the end of day four, England were 374/7 with Vaughan out, requiring another 21 runs to avoid the follow on. On day five, they got these easily enough, and from that point, the game was doomed to a draw. (It had been probably heading for a draw from the point where Vaughan dug in). After England were out for 408, South Africa scored a quick 4/134 (Smith scoring 85), setting England 320 to win in about threehours. This was never going to be doable, and England ended up with 1/110 when the game was declared a draw.
What can we say? South Africa would likely have won without all the rain. Smith's batting was superb. As for his captaincy, well he was a huge improvement on Pollock (although that isn't saying very much). He was less aggressive than Steve Waugh would have been, and received a little criticism for not declaring a little earlier on the final day. (I don't have much criticism here myself, as a result was most unlikely at this point). I was a little surprised he batted as long as he did on the third day after the second was lost to rain. (I think Steve Waugh would have declared earlier, but Steve Waugh has stronger bowling at his disposal). On the other hand, if he had batted a little longer on the third day, South Africa might have ended up being able to enforce the follow on on day five. So it is hard to say. Trying to figure out the right thing to do in a rain affected match when you do now know what the weather is going to be like and time is limited is one of the hardest things for a captain to do. In the end, not much criticism from me there either. South Africa got a draw and a moral victory from the first test.
The moral victory became bigger a day after the test when Nasser Hussein stepped down as England captain. This took most of us by surprise. Hussein has lost some support in the press in the last couple of months, as it has been suggested that splitting the captaincy between a test captain and a one day captain is a bad idea. Other people have commented that it seems to work okay in Australia. It does, but there is media criticism of it in Australia too. And of course it is not something that the captains have agreed to voluntarily in Australia. Both Mark Taylor and the Steve Waugh were actually dropped from the one day team. Nasser Hussein went willingly. My personal opinion was that sticking with two captains wasn't a bad idea. Let Vaughan concentrate on his (wonderful) batting in tests for a while, and get some captaincy experience in the one day team.
So what happened. I don't know whether Hussein jumped, was pushed, or whether there was some sort of player revolt. (Hussein is known for being a somewhat authoritarian captain, whereas Vaughan is "more relaxed". Hussein did make a stupid comment about South Africa being "there for the taking" before the series. He may have though that - I thought that too - but it is a dumb thing for a captain to say, as the oppositition will tear out the parge of the newspaper quoting it, circle the quote, pin it up on the wall and use it for motivation. However, that wasn't a sacking offence, if he was sacked.
Whether Hussein resigned or was sacked, the timing of it was deeply unprofessional. It was completely unfair on Vaughan to given him the captaincy two days before the next test. He had no time to plan, and no time to prepare himself. If the captaincy was going to be changed mid-series, it should have happened after the second test, when Vaughan had ten days to prepare himself. Vaughan being given the captaincy in the circumstances he was given it was asking for trouble.
And trouble is exactly what England got. Smith won the toss and sent England in, and England's batting was pathetic. They slumped to 9/118 thanks to good bowling from Ntini, who ended up with 5/75, and from Hall, who took 3/18. Some hitting from Gough and Anderson salvaged a small amount of respectability, but not much. England were all out for 173, having batted for only 48.3 overs. Smith, Gibbs and then Kirsten then demonstrated that the pitch was easy to bat on after all, and they had scored 1/;151 by the end of day one. On day two it got worse. South Africa lost only one wicket all day, Kirsten for a fine 108. Smith was unbeaten on 214 at the end of the day. He became only the third player (after Bradman (three times) and Vinod Kambli of India) to score double centuries in successive matches.
Oddly though, Smith seemed slightly lacking as a captain in terms of aggression. South Africa actually went off due to bad light towards the end of the day. Given how the South Africans were creaming the English, it might have been better to simply keep doing so and push for the win as quickly as possible. And the weather was looking ominous at the time. One possibility was that they would spend the next three days trying to win the game between rainstorms, so that every minute on the field might count. (The weather is much better now, but they didn't know it would be). At the end of the day, Smith was obviously very happy, but their seemed a bit too much discussion of batting records. Smith openly said that South Africa wanted to break the all time South African innings batting record, and he didn't do much to shut down discussion of the possibility of his breaking Lara's record for best individual score in a test match of 375. Ritchie Benaud was critical of this kind of talk on channel four this morning, and I have to agree with him. Given the slightly dodgy weather yesterday, it would be far better to just go as aggressively for the win.
As their talk last night indicated they are batting on and on today. Steve Waugh would have declared by now. Smith has got out (for 259) since I started writing this post, but the batting continues. They are 3/530. The lead is approaching 400, which is totally unnecessary. If it starts raining again (which the weather report does not predict, but who knows) and South Africa do not win - or even if England save the match by batting well - they may regret this. It is not likely that they will - a South African victory is by far the most likely result - but I think Smith is being a little too timid.
On the other hand, this is no different to the way Australian captains played the game a decade of 15 years ago. It is the way captains of most sides other than Australia play the game. Part of this comes from Steve Waugh's great confidence in the abilities of his team. It is really striking just how Australia are playing a different game to everyone else. Smith's captaincy isn't bad, it just could be a little better. This may just be inexperience.
In other cricket, Australia won their first one day international against Bangladesh with the greatest of ease. Bangladesh were sent in, and slumped to 5/33 due to some excellent bowling from Brett Lee, who ended up with 4/25 off 8 overs. The eventually scraped together a fairly miserable 105 off 34 overs, with Gillespie also continuing his good form by taking 3/23 off ten. Australia lost Gilchrist and Ponting getting the runs, but thanks to 46 not out from Hayden, they made the target off 22.3 overs. Damien Martyn made a welcome return to the Australian team after his finger injury, although he didn't have much to do, facing only one ball and scoring nought not out. Hopefully he will get some time in the middle in the next game tomorrow. However, Australia may need to bat first for this to happen.
IN 1989, the Australian cricket team toured England for an Ashes series. Australian cricket was not at a very high ebb at that point. Captain Allan Border had led Australia to two heavy defeats in the previous two Ashes series. Australia's previous test series had been at home against the West Indies, and Australia had lost 3-1. Australia over the previous few years had gone through the worst period in their cricketing history, even at times losing to New Zealand. (That said, New Zealand had a good team at that time).
But the upside was that Australia were by that point clearly beyond their lowest point. They had won the World Cup as rank outsiders in 1987, and since then they had been a good one day side and a test side that at least won matches regularly (although not always series). There were a number of good young players coming through, mostly batsmen. People like David Boon, Mark Taylor, and Steve Waugh.
Which was why Australians were a little put out when the Australian side was written off in England going into the series. Bookmakers named England favourites at 10-1 on. Newspaper editorialists said that "England unquestionably have the stronger side". The 1987 World Cup victory was written off as a fluke. (A journalist in an English newspaper described that 1987 final as a game that "England would have won nine times out of ten). When Australia lost the first one day game, Allan Border was asked whether he had expected that Australia would be defeated that heavily, his having expected that Australia might win being apparently out of the question.
Of course, this all made our pleasure in Australia at what happened next so much the greater. Australia tied the second one day game and won the third, for a drawn series. Then, the first test was played at Headingley. Australia batted first, and were utterly magnificent, declaring at 7/601 with Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh scoring maiden test centuries, in Steve Waugh's case a magnificent 177 not out. After that we saw one of the most one sided test series I have ever seen in my life, with Australia winning 4-0, and England hardly winning a session in the six test matches. (The series result would have been 6-0 if it were not for rain, as Australia were way ahead in the other two games). We all laughed at the commentators who had written Australia off, given that Australia were so obviously on the improve. Australians look back on the series very fondly. If the 1987 World Cup was the point where Australia started to turn things round, the 1989 Ashes series was the time when they really came good.
So why do I mention this. Well, on the third morning of the second test of the South Africa v England series, it is clear I judged South Africa about as badly. Due to the turmoil and recent poor performances of South Africa, I judged them to be a side clearly in decline, and as I saw England as a side on the rise, I said that I thought a comprehensive England victory was very likely. And, so far, this has not happened. It is England that look in disarray.
When I made these observations, South African reader Dave F left comments taking issue with them a little bit. In particular, he said I was wrong to underestimate new South African captain Graeme Smith, who (according to Dave) was really something special. I was perhaps a little dismissive of this, although I had not seem Smith play much.
Well, Dave, I salute you. You were right. Enjoy the gloating. For what happened last week was not too different to what happened when Australia batted first in that first test in 1989. Gibbs and Smith put on an opening partnership of 338. Smith ended up with 277 and Gibbs 179 and South Africa declared just before tea on the third day at 5/594. All of the second day was lost to rain, so that is actually quite a fast run rate. There was then more rain, and on the fourth day Michael Vaughan played superbly, scoring 156 for England. (Vaughan is clearly the real deal). At the end of day four, England were 374/7 with Vaughan out, requiring another 21 runs to avoid the follow on. On day five, they got these easily enough, and from that point, the game was doomed to a draw. (It had been probably heading for a draw from the point where Vaughan dug in). After England were out for 408, South Africa scored a quick 4/134 (Smith scoring 85), setting England 320 to win in about threehours. This was never going to be doable, and England ended up with 1/110 when the game was declared a draw.
What can we say? South Africa would likely have won without all the rain. Smith's batting was superb. As for his captaincy, well he was a huge improvement on Pollock (although that isn't saying very much). He was less aggressive than Steve Waugh would have been, and received a little criticism for not declaring a little earlier on the final day. (I don't have much criticism here myself, as a result was most unlikely at this point). I was a little surprised he batted as long as he did on the third day after the second was lost to rain. (I think Steve Waugh would have declared earlier, but Steve Waugh has stronger bowling at his disposal). On the other hand, if he had batted a little longer on the third day, South Africa might have ended up being able to enforce the follow on on day five. So it is hard to say. Trying to figure out the right thing to do in a rain affected match when you do now know what the weather is going to be like and time is limited is one of the hardest things for a captain to do. In the end, not much criticism from me there either. South Africa got a draw and a moral victory from the first test.
The moral victory became bigger a day after the test when Nasser Hussein stepped down as England captain. This took most of us by surprise. Hussein has lost some support in the press in the last couple of months, as it has been suggested that splitting the captaincy between a test captain and a one day captain is a bad idea. Other people have commented that it seems to work okay in Australia. It does, but there is media criticism of it in Australia too. And of course it is not something that the captains have agreed to voluntarily in Australia. Both Mark Taylor and the Steve Waugh were actually dropped from the one day team. Nasser Hussein went willingly. My personal opinion was that sticking with two captains wasn't a bad idea. Let Vaughan concentrate on his (wonderful) batting in tests for a while, and get some captaincy experience in the one day team.
So what happened. I don't know whether Hussein jumped, was pushed, or whether there was some sort of player revolt. (Hussein is known for being a somewhat authoritarian captain, whereas Vaughan is "more relaxed". Hussein did make a stupid comment about South Africa being "there for the taking" before the series. He may have though that - I thought that too - but it is a dumb thing for a captain to say, as the oppositition will tear out the parge of the newspaper quoting it, circle the quote, pin it up on the wall and use it for motivation. However, that wasn't a sacking offence, if he was sacked.
Whether Hussein resigned or was sacked, the timing of it was deeply unprofessional. It was completely unfair on Vaughan to given him the captaincy two days before the next test. He had no time to plan, and no time to prepare himself. If the captaincy was going to be changed mid-series, it should have happened after the second test, when Vaughan had ten days to prepare himself. Vaughan being given the captaincy in the circumstances he was given it was asking for trouble.
And trouble is exactly what England got. Smith won the toss and sent England in, and England's batting was pathetic. They slumped to 9/118 thanks to good bowling from Ntini, who ended up with 5/75, and from Hall, who took 3/18. Some hitting from Gough and Anderson salvaged a small amount of respectability, but not much. England were all out for 173, having batted for only 48.3 overs. Smith, Gibbs and then Kirsten then demonstrated that the pitch was easy to bat on after all, and they had scored 1/;151 by the end of day one. On day two it got worse. South Africa lost only one wicket all day, Kirsten for a fine 108. Smith was unbeaten on 214 at the end of the day. He became only the third player (after Bradman (three times) and Vinod Kambli of India) to score double centuries in successive matches.
Oddly though, Smith seemed slightly lacking as a captain in terms of aggression. South Africa actually went off due to bad light towards the end of the day. Given how the South Africans were creaming the English, it might have been better to simply keep doing so and push for the win as quickly as possible. And the weather was looking ominous at the time. One possibility was that they would spend the next three days trying to win the game between rainstorms, so that every minute on the field might count. (The weather is much better now, but they didn't know it would be). At the end of the day, Smith was obviously very happy, but their seemed a bit too much discussion of batting records. Smith openly said that South Africa wanted to break the all time South African innings batting record, and he didn't do much to shut down discussion of the possibility of his breaking Lara's record for best individual score in a test match of 375. Ritchie Benaud was critical of this kind of talk on channel four this morning, and I have to agree with him. Given the slightly dodgy weather yesterday, it would be far better to just go as aggressively for the win.
As their talk last night indicated they are batting on and on today. Steve Waugh would have declared by now. Smith has got out (for 259) since I started writing this post, but the batting continues. They are 3/530. The lead is approaching 400, which is totally unnecessary. If it starts raining again (which the weather report does not predict, but who knows) and South Africa do not win - or even if England save the match by batting well - they may regret this. It is not likely that they will - a South African victory is by far the most likely result - but I think Smith is being a little too timid.
On the other hand, this is no different to the way Australian captains played the game a decade of 15 years ago. It is the way captains of most sides other than Australia play the game. Part of this comes from Steve Waugh's great confidence in the abilities of his team. It is really striking just how Australia are playing a different game to everyone else. Smith's captaincy isn't bad, it just could be a little better. This may just be inexperience.
In other cricket, Australia won their first one day international against Bangladesh with the greatest of ease. Bangladesh were sent in, and slumped to 5/33 due to some excellent bowling from Brett Lee, who ended up with 4/25 off 8 overs. The eventually scraped together a fairly miserable 105 off 34 overs, with Gillespie also continuing his good form by taking 3/23 off ten. Australia lost Gilchrist and Ponting getting the runs, but thanks to 46 not out from Hayden, they made the target off 22.3 overs. Damien Martyn made a welcome return to the Australian team after his finger injury, although he didn't have much to do, facing only one ball and scoring nought not out. Hopefully he will get some time in the middle in the next game tomorrow. However, Australia may need to bat first for this to happen.
Friday, August 01, 2003
The benefits of DSL
Hey, I can now click on the large sized versions of movie trailers, and they actually work. This is cool. (And is Christina Ricci adorable or what?)
Hey, I can now click on the large sized versions of movie trailers, and they actually work. This is cool. (And is Christina Ricci adorable or what?)
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Another milestone
Sitemeter has just recorded the twenty five thousandth visitor for this blog. Sitemeter notoriously undercounts, so the true number of visitors is likely significantly greater than this. I'm not Instapundit, but this is still a substantial number. I will next commemorate a milestone when it reaches 50000.
Sitemeter has just recorded the twenty five thousandth visitor for this blog. Sitemeter notoriously undercounts, so the true number of visitors is likely significantly greater than this. I'm not Instapundit, but this is still a substantial number. I will next commemorate a milestone when it reaches 50000.
Transport saga
My details of the nine hour journey home (that includes the fast driving Dutchman story) is now up at Transport Blog.
My details of the nine hour journey home (that includes the fast driving Dutchman story) is now up at Transport Blog.
Americans
I have just two words to say. Manchester United. (My Liverpool supporting readers, if I have any, will take issue. They will even probably be right. All those European championships in the 1980s do matter. However, I don't care).
I have just two words to say. Manchester United. (My Liverpool supporting readers, if I have any, will take issue. They will even probably be right. All those European championships in the 1980s do matter. However, I don't care).
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Australia v Bangladesh
As I said when I was in France but did not have time to report on at the time, there were two test matches played over the weekend: the second test between Australia and Bangladesh, and the first between England and South Africa. My report on England v South Africa later, but first Australia v Bangladesh, and some thoughts on the series.
In the Australia v Bangladesh game in Cairns, Steve Waugh won the toss and sent the opposition in, just as he did in the first match. In that first match they had been bowled out very cheaply, but in the second they showed more fight, finishing the first day at 8/289, thanks to 76 from Hannan Sarkar, 46 each from Habibul Bashar and Sanwar Hossain, and 44 from Khaled Mashud. The Australian bowlers apparently looked frustrated and a little below par, with McGrath and Lee in particular looking underdone.
The innings was finished off quickly the next morning, with Gillespie taking three wickets and MacGill five. Australia then batted, and had no trouble with the bowling. Langer failed, but there were fifties to Hayden and Ponting, and then 177 to Lehmann, 156 not out to Steve Waugh, and 100 not out (a maiden test century) to Martin Love before Waugh declared midway through the third day with the score on 4/556. Bangladesh then again dug in with the bat, getting to 1/87 before losing three wickets just before the end of play on the third day. On the fourth, they lost more wickets to be all out for 163. MacGill got another 5 wickets, and Gillespie another 4. Australia won by an innings and 98 runs.
In the end, Australia accomplished exactly what they need to in this series. Two innings victories with plenty in reserve. Bangladesh fought, but were some way behind, particularly in the bowling department. The players for Australia who achieved the most were those who had something to prove - Lehmann with two centures, and MacGill (who really doesn't want to be automatically dropped when Shane Warne is back) with 17 wickets. Steve Waugh seems determined to break as many records as possible before retiring, and wants to make sure he achieves his ambition of playing in India next year. (His 150 in the second test meant that he had scored innings of 150 or more against all nine test opponents, which is really impressive. Also, he now has centuries on all Australian test grounds except Perth, where he would have one if has brother hadn't managed to once get himself run out when acting as a runner for the number 11 when Steve Waugh was on 99. I am sure he is aware of this, and it will be interesting if he manages to complete the set against Zimbabwe later this year. He seems very conscious of records now, and determined to break as many as possible before he leaves international cricket. Border's record for most test runs and Gavaskar's for most test centuries are records that will not last long if he gets them (Tendulkar or just maybe Lara will break the first, and Tendulkar will the second) but he still clearly wants them.
Martin Love really had something to prove after the first match, and scored an unbeaten century in the second, but this will likely not help him keep his place. Damien Martyn will be back for the Zimbabwe series, and Lehmann has clearly performed better than Love, meaning that Love will be the man dropped. (Martyn's last innings for Australia was a brilliant innings in a World Cup final. There is no way he will be left out, particularly given that he is a far better batsman than either Love or Lehmann). Given that his next game for Australia may not be for a while, I am sure Love was delighted to score a maiden test century.
Gillespie also bowled well, taking 11 wickets in the series at an average of 15.
Australia's best players didn't perform so much. Hayden, Langer, Ponting, McGrath, and Lee all ended the series with worse averages than they started, although none of them precisely failed. They just didn't rise to the occasion, because it wasn't a terribly big occasion to rise to. The players that performed did so for personal reasons.
Bangladesh on the other hand demonstrated that they can put in one good day per test match, before falling apart on the others. They at least managed to push the second match into a fourth day. Still, they have a long way to go, even if they were clearly putting up a fight. There were some positives for them out of the series, but they have a long way to go. Hopefully they can get better.
In any even, three one day internationals over the next week. More comfortable victories to Australia, no doubt. Damien Martyn is back from injury. We will see whether he is fully fit, and can score some runs.
Update: Glenn McGrath has been carrying a foot injury, which may well have affected his form. McGrath has withdrawn from the team for the one day matches in order to receive treatment and possibly have an operation. Australia's next series is the Zimbabwe tests in October, and he expects to play in those. Brad Williams has been brought into the Australian squad to replace McGrath. Williams was quoted as saying the following in response to this.
The Australian board actually hires media consultants to coach players in how to make banal and inoffensive comments like that to the media. Sometimes I wish someone would actually say that he has been deeply frustrated by his previous non-selection, that the selectors are a pack of idiots, and that he has been really hoping that someone would break a leg to provide an opening in the side for years now, but this sort of announcement is sadly rare these days.
As I said when I was in France but did not have time to report on at the time, there were two test matches played over the weekend: the second test between Australia and Bangladesh, and the first between England and South Africa. My report on England v South Africa later, but first Australia v Bangladesh, and some thoughts on the series.
In the Australia v Bangladesh game in Cairns, Steve Waugh won the toss and sent the opposition in, just as he did in the first match. In that first match they had been bowled out very cheaply, but in the second they showed more fight, finishing the first day at 8/289, thanks to 76 from Hannan Sarkar, 46 each from Habibul Bashar and Sanwar Hossain, and 44 from Khaled Mashud. The Australian bowlers apparently looked frustrated and a little below par, with McGrath and Lee in particular looking underdone.
The innings was finished off quickly the next morning, with Gillespie taking three wickets and MacGill five. Australia then batted, and had no trouble with the bowling. Langer failed, but there were fifties to Hayden and Ponting, and then 177 to Lehmann, 156 not out to Steve Waugh, and 100 not out (a maiden test century) to Martin Love before Waugh declared midway through the third day with the score on 4/556. Bangladesh then again dug in with the bat, getting to 1/87 before losing three wickets just before the end of play on the third day. On the fourth, they lost more wickets to be all out for 163. MacGill got another 5 wickets, and Gillespie another 4. Australia won by an innings and 98 runs.
In the end, Australia accomplished exactly what they need to in this series. Two innings victories with plenty in reserve. Bangladesh fought, but were some way behind, particularly in the bowling department. The players for Australia who achieved the most were those who had something to prove - Lehmann with two centures, and MacGill (who really doesn't want to be automatically dropped when Shane Warne is back) with 17 wickets. Steve Waugh seems determined to break as many records as possible before retiring, and wants to make sure he achieves his ambition of playing in India next year. (His 150 in the second test meant that he had scored innings of 150 or more against all nine test opponents, which is really impressive. Also, he now has centuries on all Australian test grounds except Perth, where he would have one if has brother hadn't managed to once get himself run out when acting as a runner for the number 11 when Steve Waugh was on 99. I am sure he is aware of this, and it will be interesting if he manages to complete the set against Zimbabwe later this year. He seems very conscious of records now, and determined to break as many as possible before he leaves international cricket. Border's record for most test runs and Gavaskar's for most test centuries are records that will not last long if he gets them (Tendulkar or just maybe Lara will break the first, and Tendulkar will the second) but he still clearly wants them.
Martin Love really had something to prove after the first match, and scored an unbeaten century in the second, but this will likely not help him keep his place. Damien Martyn will be back for the Zimbabwe series, and Lehmann has clearly performed better than Love, meaning that Love will be the man dropped. (Martyn's last innings for Australia was a brilliant innings in a World Cup final. There is no way he will be left out, particularly given that he is a far better batsman than either Love or Lehmann). Given that his next game for Australia may not be for a while, I am sure Love was delighted to score a maiden test century.
Gillespie also bowled well, taking 11 wickets in the series at an average of 15.
Australia's best players didn't perform so much. Hayden, Langer, Ponting, McGrath, and Lee all ended the series with worse averages than they started, although none of them precisely failed. They just didn't rise to the occasion, because it wasn't a terribly big occasion to rise to. The players that performed did so for personal reasons.
Bangladesh on the other hand demonstrated that they can put in one good day per test match, before falling apart on the others. They at least managed to push the second match into a fourth day. Still, they have a long way to go, even if they were clearly putting up a fight. There were some positives for them out of the series, but they have a long way to go. Hopefully they can get better.
In any even, three one day internationals over the next week. More comfortable victories to Australia, no doubt. Damien Martyn is back from injury. We will see whether he is fully fit, and can score some runs.
Update: Glenn McGrath has been carrying a foot injury, which may well have affected his form. McGrath has withdrawn from the team for the one day matches in order to receive treatment and possibly have an operation. Australia's next series is the Zimbabwe tests in October, and he expects to play in those. Brad Williams has been brought into the Australian squad to replace McGrath. Williams was quoted as saying the following in response to this.
Obviously I am disappointed for Glenn, because I know how much he enjoys playing cricket for Australia, but for me, these opportunities don't come around very often. I am thrilled that the selectors have seen fit to pick me, and should I get the opportunity to take part in any match during the series, I am going to grab it with both hands,
The Australian board actually hires media consultants to coach players in how to make banal and inoffensive comments like that to the media. Sometimes I wish someone would actually say that he has been deeply frustrated by his previous non-selection, that the selectors are a pack of idiots, and that he has been really hoping that someone would break a leg to provide an opening in the side for years now, but this sort of announcement is sadly rare these days.
Liberation
I now have a broadband connection. This was obtained because other people were getting annoyed that I was on the phone so much, and because I discovered that thanks to Richard Branson I could get a connection that wasn't all that much more expensive than dialup and that I can cancel any time (ie no 12 month contract). In addition, it also has the added benefit of being a lot faster
Update: And as an added bonus, I can now access Alice Bachini's blog. I think that my previous ISP's DNS system had trouble with her slightly peculiar URL. Whatever the reason, I couldn't access the site, and I now can.
I now have a broadband connection. This was obtained because other people were getting annoyed that I was on the phone so much, and because I discovered that thanks to Richard Branson I could get a connection that wasn't all that much more expensive than dialup and that I can cancel any time (ie no 12 month contract). In addition, it also has the added benefit of being a lot faster
Update: And as an added bonus, I can now access Alice Bachini's blog. I think that my previous ISP's DNS system had trouble with her slightly peculiar URL. Whatever the reason, I couldn't access the site, and I now can.
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
The Passion, again
This piece by Paula Fredriksen in the New Republic (which can be read for free if you sign up for a four week free trial) about Mel Gibson's the Passion is quite damning, suggesting that rather than being historically accurate, the film reflects some of the worst prejudices of post-medieval Catholicism, and is indeed unpleasantly anti-Semitic
Doesn't sound good.
(Link via Andrew Sullivan).
This piece by Paula Fredriksen in the New Republic (which can be read for free if you sign up for a four week free trial) about Mel Gibson's the Passion is quite damning, suggesting that rather than being historically accurate, the film reflects some of the worst prejudices of post-medieval Catholicism, and is indeed unpleasantly anti-Semitic
That script--and, on the evidence, the film--presents neither a true rendition of the Gospel stories nor a historically accurate account of what could have happened in Jerusalem, on Passover, when Pilate was prefect and Caiaphas was high priest. Instead Gibson will apparently release what Christopher Noxon, in his article for the Times, had correctly described already in March: "a big-budget dramatization of key points of traditionalist theology." The true historical framing of Gibson's script is neither early first-century Judea (where Jesus of Nazareth died) nor the late first-century Mediterranean diaspora (where the evangelists composed their Gospels). It is post-medieval Roman Catholic Europe. Fulco could have spared himself a lot of trouble and just put the entire script into Latin. Not pagan Roman Latin, but Christian Roman Latin. For that is the true language of Gibson's story.
.....
Those four of us have posted a review of these events on the Boston College website. We have also posted there an analysis of the mystical writings of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774- 1824), one of the visionary nuns whose writings Gibson used for his script. Emmerich wrote in her diary that she had "seen" the high priest ordering the cross to be made in the courtyard of the Temple itself. The high priest's servants, in her visions, bribe Jerusalem's population to assemble in the Temple at night to demand Jesus's death; they even tip the Roman executioners. Emmerich's Pilate criticizes the high priests for their physical abuse of Jesus, but finally he consents to crucify him, because he fears that the high priest wants to start a revolt against Rome. And so on.
Emmerich was not writing history. She was having visions. But--as The Wall Street Journal, the film's unofficial website, and numerous news articles since have all mentioned--Gibson used Emmerich's fantasies for his supposedly "historical" script. Since the Boston College posting has brought this piece of the story forward, Paul Lauer, Icon's director of marketing, has denied that Gibson used Emmerich's writings. But he had: the nun's lurid images figured prominently in the version of the screenplay that we read and that Gibson was concerned about as recently as April 24.
....
The prognosis does not look good. While he has continued to insist upon his personal piety and his commitment to historical truth-telling, Gibson has just executed what looks like a very cynical marketing end-run. As The Washington Times reported on July 7, Gibson "is shopping his film to a more receptive audience: evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, and Orthodox Jews." Orthodox Jews, I can say with authority, tend to know next to nothing about the Gospels (unless, of course, they are scholars of the field). Conservative Catholics are Gibson's set-point to begin with. But evangelical Christians, in my experience, know their Scriptures very, very well. Their biblical literacy may yet cause Icon's spinmeisters to stumble. I certainly hope so.
Anti-Semitism is not the problem in America that it is in the rest of the world. (The hateful e-mails that we have received have been balanced by others, from church leaders of inter-faith efforts across the country, expressing their support and their concern.) But I shudder to think how The Passion will play once its subtitles shift from English to Polish, or Spanish, or French, or Russian. When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.
Doesn't sound good.
(Link via Andrew Sullivan).
Monday, July 28, 2003
Last French post, I think and a little on cricket
I did something I do in a lot of cities yesterday, and got out into the suburbs of Marseilles. Unfortunately, there were just dull. I had hoped I would find some interesting neighborhoods somewhere, as I had close to the centre of the city, but it didn't really happen. (It may have just been bad luck. The "get on the public transport system and go somewhere random" strategy usually works, but it didn't here. I had a good look at at least some of the port. I saw cars being unloaded, and some containers being loaded and unloaded. The bulk of the port business has moved a fair way out of the city - I saw some of it from the train as I came into Marseilles the other day.
Yesterday evening's sitting around and talking at the hostel session involved drinking a large amount of wine with an Irishman, a French Canadian and a Tunisian. The predominant language of the conversation was French, so I missed most of it. (The Irishman told me that because both the Tunisian and the French-Canadian spoke non-standard variants of French, they were speaking a sort of lowest common denominator version of the language, but that didn't help me much). However, one of the fundamental laws of the universe did come into play. (If you start drinking with an Irishman, you will be doing it for some time).
And on cricket, there have been two test matches going on this weekend. Australia once again comfortably beat Bangladesh by an innings, although the Bangladeshis did take the game into the fourth day. And England are playing South Africa. To my surprise, South Africa have had the best of the game by far. However, there has been a lot of rain. Going into day five, England will probably hold out for a drawm but a South African victory remains possible of they can take the last three England wickets quickly, enforce the follow on, and bowl England out a second time.
I am back to London this evening, where my DSL line should theoretically have been set up. More tomorrow.
I did something I do in a lot of cities yesterday, and got out into the suburbs of Marseilles. Unfortunately, there were just dull. I had hoped I would find some interesting neighborhoods somewhere, as I had close to the centre of the city, but it didn't really happen. (It may have just been bad luck. The "get on the public transport system and go somewhere random" strategy usually works, but it didn't here. I had a good look at at least some of the port. I saw cars being unloaded, and some containers being loaded and unloaded. The bulk of the port business has moved a fair way out of the city - I saw some of it from the train as I came into Marseilles the other day.
Yesterday evening's sitting around and talking at the hostel session involved drinking a large amount of wine with an Irishman, a French Canadian and a Tunisian. The predominant language of the conversation was French, so I missed most of it. (The Irishman told me that because both the Tunisian and the French-Canadian spoke non-standard variants of French, they were speaking a sort of lowest common denominator version of the language, but that didn't help me much). However, one of the fundamental laws of the universe did come into play. (If you start drinking with an Irishman, you will be doing it for some time).
And on cricket, there have been two test matches going on this weekend. Australia once again comfortably beat Bangladesh by an innings, although the Bangladeshis did take the game into the fourth day. And England are playing South Africa. To my surprise, South Africa have had the best of the game by far. However, there has been a lot of rain. Going into day five, England will probably hold out for a drawm but a South African victory remains possible of they can take the last three England wickets quickly, enforce the follow on, and bowl England out a second time.
I am back to London this evening, where my DSL line should theoretically have been set up. More tomorrow.
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Random thoughts on Marseilles
Coming into Marseilles from the rest of Provence is coming to another planet, or at least another continent. Parts of it are very French, but in a slightly grimier way than Paris (at least the 15 arrondisements of Paris - you can find as grimy as you like in the Parisian suburbs). Other parts are what might be describe as global beach culture. For some reason cafes and shops next to beaches have the exact look inside wherever you are in the world. There are the same shops next door selling sunscreen and boogie boards, and the people inside these shops have a particular manner about them that people in such locations do. Interestingly enough, a fair portion of this style of beach culture is actually Australian in origin, and a number of the principal companies selling into this market are Australian companies (Billabong International is a big one).
And some sections of Marseilles make you wonder precisely who moved Algiers to the other side of the Mediterranean. There is a particular way in which the contents of shops are arranged in the Islamic world, and the Arab quarters or Marselles are like this. I walked into a couple of bazaars which reminded me of Istanbul, almost. (I have never been to North Africa, but I suspect they would remind me even more of Tunis or Algiers). I looked in the door of one building that looked like a disused warehouse, and there were several hundred (or more) men in there praying in the direction of Mecca. (Presumably the building is being used as a mosque). Marvellously, there was a very French Arche de Triomphe at the end of the street containing all this.
I also went to the terminal from which ferries go to Algiers and Tunis, and there is another post in that. But, no time now. I have to go to the island where the Count of Monte Christo wasn't imprisoned.
Coming into Marseilles from the rest of Provence is coming to another planet, or at least another continent. Parts of it are very French, but in a slightly grimier way than Paris (at least the 15 arrondisements of Paris - you can find as grimy as you like in the Parisian suburbs). Other parts are what might be describe as global beach culture. For some reason cafes and shops next to beaches have the exact look inside wherever you are in the world. There are the same shops next door selling sunscreen and boogie boards, and the people inside these shops have a particular manner about them that people in such locations do. Interestingly enough, a fair portion of this style of beach culture is actually Australian in origin, and a number of the principal companies selling into this market are Australian companies (Billabong International is a big one).
And some sections of Marseilles make you wonder precisely who moved Algiers to the other side of the Mediterranean. There is a particular way in which the contents of shops are arranged in the Islamic world, and the Arab quarters or Marselles are like this. I walked into a couple of bazaars which reminded me of Istanbul, almost. (I have never been to North Africa, but I suspect they would remind me even more of Tunis or Algiers). I looked in the door of one building that looked like a disused warehouse, and there were several hundred (or more) men in there praying in the direction of Mecca. (Presumably the building is being used as a mosque). Marvellously, there was a very French Arche de Triomphe at the end of the street containing all this.
I also went to the terminal from which ferries go to Algiers and Tunis, and there is another post in that. But, no time now. I have to go to the island where the Count of Monte Christo wasn't imprisoned.
Saturday, July 26, 2003
The joy of travel
Sitting in the hostel kitchen in Arles yesterday, I found myself chatting and drinking a little red wine with a young woman from northern California. She was an American on a six month trip travelling around Europe. This in itself is quite unusual (Americans tend to favour shorter trips). However, as the conversation unfolded, I discovered more. She came from far northern California. She had grown up on an organic farm. The discussion got to movies and television, and she said she her knowledge was limited because until two years ago, she had never had a televison. Prior to travelling through the south of France, she had spent three weeks picking lavender (and not being paid for it) a little north, and had organised that through an organisation called World-wide opportunities on organic farms (WWOOOF). She had left her job as the head of the flower department of a natural food store, to come on the trip.
Frankly, WWOOOF seems like the sort of organisation that I would like the 3rd infantry division to take out after it has finished in Iraq, but of course, I didn't say that. And in fact although she sounded like a northern Californian cliche, she wasn't at all. Another Californian walked in, this guy from south of the state. He was also on a six month trip about Europe. He had finished a college degree, and had signed up for six years in an intelligence portfolio in the US Navy. He had decided to see some of the world before his time in the navy, which sounded very reasonable to me. They were two nice people, and they got on like a house on fire, despite coming from seemingly different ideological positions. The conversation went on, and a fourth person joined in, a Slovenian guy who teaches international politics in a university in Slovenia. After things got going for a bit longer, he wanted to know if Australia would ever become a republic. I thus found myself trying to explain the reserve powers of the Australian Governor-General (and ultimately the meaning of the Statute of Westminster) to two Americans and a Slovenian in a hostel in Provence. Fun.
I am now in Marseilles. It's a big city, with the good and bad of that. One of my Samizdata editors (Hi Perry) described the city as "a shithole" when I said I was going there. However, he later conceded that it was perhaps an interesting shithole. And, to be truthful, interesting shitholes are the places I find most interesting to visit. My expectation is that I am going to love the place. (More on that later). Tonight I am going to have my one "treat myself to really good cooking" experience of the trip, and I will sit down somewhere and have a really good bouillabaisse.
Sitting in the hostel kitchen in Arles yesterday, I found myself chatting and drinking a little red wine with a young woman from northern California. She was an American on a six month trip travelling around Europe. This in itself is quite unusual (Americans tend to favour shorter trips). However, as the conversation unfolded, I discovered more. She came from far northern California. She had grown up on an organic farm. The discussion got to movies and television, and she said she her knowledge was limited because until two years ago, she had never had a televison. Prior to travelling through the south of France, she had spent three weeks picking lavender (and not being paid for it) a little north, and had organised that through an organisation called World-wide opportunities on organic farms (WWOOOF). She had left her job as the head of the flower department of a natural food store, to come on the trip.
Frankly, WWOOOF seems like the sort of organisation that I would like the 3rd infantry division to take out after it has finished in Iraq, but of course, I didn't say that. And in fact although she sounded like a northern Californian cliche, she wasn't at all. Another Californian walked in, this guy from south of the state. He was also on a six month trip about Europe. He had finished a college degree, and had signed up for six years in an intelligence portfolio in the US Navy. He had decided to see some of the world before his time in the navy, which sounded very reasonable to me. They were two nice people, and they got on like a house on fire, despite coming from seemingly different ideological positions. The conversation went on, and a fourth person joined in, a Slovenian guy who teaches international politics in a university in Slovenia. After things got going for a bit longer, he wanted to know if Australia would ever become a republic. I thus found myself trying to explain the reserve powers of the Australian Governor-General (and ultimately the meaning of the Statute of Westminster) to two Americans and a Slovenian in a hostel in Provence. Fun.
I am now in Marseilles. It's a big city, with the good and bad of that. One of my Samizdata editors (Hi Perry) described the city as "a shithole" when I said I was going there. However, he later conceded that it was perhaps an interesting shithole. And, to be truthful, interesting shitholes are the places I find most interesting to visit. My expectation is that I am going to love the place. (More on that later). Tonight I am going to have my one "treat myself to really good cooking" experience of the trip, and I will sit down somewhere and have a really good bouillabaisse.
Friday, July 25, 2003
Moving down the Rhone
I had a lovely couple of days in Avignon, at least partly due to having unexpectedly arrived in the middle of France's biggest Arts festival. (I'm still amazed I found somewhere to stay). I have now moved down the Rhone a little to Arles, which is most famous as the place where Vincent Van Gogh painted many of his most famous works (and also where he severed his ear). Unsurprisingly, it is a bit of a tourist trap, full of shops selling postcards of paintings mostly by van Gogh but also by other artists. However, most interesting are the Roman ruins, which are quite significant, given the importance of the town. In the first century BC Marseilles took the side of Pompey over Julius Ceasar, and Arles took the side of Ceasar. Ceasar then had Marseilles razed, and Arles became the principal port in that section of the Roman Empire. Arles was therefore the major port for a number of centuries. However, the mouth of the Rhone river silted up, Arles ceased to be a port, and the traffic went back to Marseilles, which is today the second city of France. If the mouth of the Rhone had not silted up, one presumes that Arles would today be a large city, but instead it is only a small (somewhat shabby looking) town containing a large Roman amphitheatre (today used for bullfighting), Roman theatre (still used as a theatre, but in less good repair), and the ruins of baths. Such is the effects of silting up on the importance of cities, in the past at least. I would now write a piece on how the invention of container shipping in the last 50 years has changed all this and this is possibly one of the most important issues with respect to the structure of cities in the last 2000 years, but I don't have time.
I had a lovely couple of days in Avignon, at least partly due to having unexpectedly arrived in the middle of France's biggest Arts festival. (I'm still amazed I found somewhere to stay). I have now moved down the Rhone a little to Arles, which is most famous as the place where Vincent Van Gogh painted many of his most famous works (and also where he severed his ear). Unsurprisingly, it is a bit of a tourist trap, full of shops selling postcards of paintings mostly by van Gogh but also by other artists. However, most interesting are the Roman ruins, which are quite significant, given the importance of the town. In the first century BC Marseilles took the side of Pompey over Julius Ceasar, and Arles took the side of Ceasar. Ceasar then had Marseilles razed, and Arles became the principal port in that section of the Roman Empire. Arles was therefore the major port for a number of centuries. However, the mouth of the Rhone river silted up, Arles ceased to be a port, and the traffic went back to Marseilles, which is today the second city of France. If the mouth of the Rhone had not silted up, one presumes that Arles would today be a large city, but instead it is only a small (somewhat shabby looking) town containing a large Roman amphitheatre (today used for bullfighting), Roman theatre (still used as a theatre, but in less good repair), and the ruins of baths. Such is the effects of silting up on the importance of cities, in the past at least. I would now write a piece on how the invention of container shipping in the last 50 years has changed all this and this is possibly one of the most important issues with respect to the structure of cities in the last 2000 years, but I don't have time.
However genteel it looks on the surface, Europe is a weird, weird place.
European discount airlines are a fine thing, and thanks to their existence I can fly around Europe for a third of what it cost a decade ago. However, they have certain disadvantages, the most annoying of which is that you have to check in somewhat earlier than is necessary with traditional airlines. However, there are other disadvantages, such that they use airports underneath which are buried fully armed and fueled Nazi fighter aircraft.
Link via William Gibson.
European discount airlines are a fine thing, and thanks to their existence I can fly around Europe for a third of what it cost a decade ago. However, they have certain disadvantages, the most annoying of which is that you have to check in somewhat earlier than is necessary with traditional airlines. However, there are other disadvantages, such that they use airports underneath which are buried fully armed and fueled Nazi fighter aircraft.
Link via William Gibson.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
Water infrastructure
I went to see the Pont du Gard (which is not on the five euro note) this morning. Whatever may be said about the Romans, they sure knew how to build aqueducts.
I went to see the Pont du Gard (which is not on the five euro note) this morning. Whatever may be said about the Romans, they sure knew how to build aqueducts.
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Moving on
I am now in Avignon, the former papal seat, which I like rather more than Montpellier, although internet access here is rather more expensive. (Also, there is the remains of a pont across the Rhone). However, the cathedral here is not quite either St Peters or the Hagia Familiar. I need to learn more about the church's time here. Posting will no doubt be easier and cheaper when I get to Marseilles in a couple of days.
I am now in Avignon, the former papal seat, which I like rather more than Montpellier, although internet access here is rather more expensive. (Also, there is the remains of a pont across the Rhone). However, the cathedral here is not quite either St Peters or the Hagia Familiar. I need to learn more about the church's time here. Posting will no doubt be easier and cheaper when I get to Marseilles in a couple of days.
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Does this mean I am a neoconservative?
This article by former CIA director James Woolsey on just how America got into this war against fundamentalise Islam, and why and how we have to fight it, is quite interesting. I think he is pretty much spot on on the causes and the nature of the enemy, and certainly America's willigness to suck up to unpleasant people in order to get control of the oil, and unwillingness to stand up and fight back when attacked has been massively counterproductive. Whether the solutions can ever be quite as neat as he hopes is something I am sceptical about. (Certainly though, the "pragmatic" strategy of the oil industry and state department must be considered discredited at this point, and certainly we are in this war for the long haul). On the other hand, he is right to be contemptuous of the " is culturally unsuited to democracy and freedom" argument, which is quite frankly an argument of tyrants, and countered by the many examples he gives of culturally quite different places actually becoming democracies. (He is right about the example of Taiwan being a very interesting and quite inspiring one). And I think the best point he makes in the whole argument is that we won the Cold War by winning the hearts and minds of the people of the communist world. People such as Andrei Sakharov and Vaclav Havel were, in the end, convinced that we were on their side, and ultimately we were. American foreign policy in the Middle East, by propping dubious regimes in return for their oil, has done the precise opposite. The exception is probably in Iran, which is perhaps where much of Latin America was in 1995. The home grown solution has been seen to not work, and the people are desperate for something else. The trouble is that the Arab world seems stuck around the position of Latin America in 1980, with a decade of ghastliness to come. I'd like to hope this can be avoided, but I really doubt it.
This article by former CIA director James Woolsey on just how America got into this war against fundamentalise Islam, and why and how we have to fight it, is quite interesting. I think he is pretty much spot on on the causes and the nature of the enemy, and certainly America's willigness to suck up to unpleasant people in order to get control of the oil, and unwillingness to stand up and fight back when attacked has been massively counterproductive. Whether the solutions can ever be quite as neat as he hopes is something I am sceptical about. (Certainly though, the "pragmatic" strategy of the oil industry and state department must be considered discredited at this point, and certainly we are in this war for the long haul). On the other hand, he is right to be contemptuous of the "
Monday, July 21, 2003
More on Argentinian wine
While there are a few Argentinian wines here to try, they still are not available in huge numbers, so I am simply trying all those I can find. My present bottle is A syrah, from Che Vineyards, once again in Mendoza. No, I don't think it is named after that Che. We have a little wine label crap written on the back, which explains nothing.
Okay, whatever. The sad thing is that although the Syrah cost about the same as each of the two malbecs it isn't nearly as good. It's a fairly ordinary red, and a little rough, rather lacking spiciness of a good Australian shiraz, or a French red from the Rhone. Which is a shame, because although I am not yet convinced that malbec is a noble grape variety, syrah definitely is.
Traditionall (ie prior to about 1800) the three most famous red wine making regions of France were Bordeaux on the Atlantic coast, Burgundy south of Paris, and the Rhone valley, stretching from just south of Lyon to the Mediterranean coast around Marseilles. Wines from the greatest Rhone appelations, Hermitage, Cote-Rotie, Chateauneuf du Pape, were regarded as being amongst the finest wines in Europe. However, in the 19th century the Rhone valley became less fashionable than the other two regions, possibly because of the region's further distance from Paris. The principal grape used in the red wines of this region is syrah. This same grape has been grown in Australia since at least 1830, but in Australia it is known as shiraz. (Australians used to also frequently call it hermitage, but we stopped after signing a wine treaty with the French, as Hermitage is actually a place in the northern Rhone valley, and we promised to stop using French geographical names on our wines). Oddly enough, it may be that the Australian name is historically more accurate, as it seems that the grape variety may have originated in Iran near the town of Shiraz, where, ironically, wine is now illegal. (When the war against fundamentalist Islam is won, I hope one day to be able to have a glass of shiraz in Shiraz. But I digress).
In any event, shiraz was planted in Australia from the 1830s, and became the most widely planted grape for Australian red wine. When Max Schubert in 1951 produced the first vintage of Penfolds Grange Hermitage, which was to become by far the most famous Australian wine, he made it almost entirely out of shiraz.
However, Rhone wines remained less fashionable than Bordeaux and Burgundy wines in France. In the early 1970s, Australian winemakers concluded that they way to make classier wines was to adopt the grape varieties of Bordeaux and Burgundy. For red wines, this meant that they planted a lot of Cabernet Sauvignon, the dominant grape of the Medoc region on the left bank of the Gironde river, just downstream from Bordeaux. To find space to plant all this Cabernet Sauvignon, they ripped out a lot of shiraz vines, some of them very old.
Today's winemakers consider this an act of terrible vandalism. Old vines produce lower grape yields than newer ones, and the grapes that do grow have higher sugar levels and can be used to make more intense, fruitier wines. Really old vines can make wine of a quality that younger ones can't, and Australia had a lot of them. And although Cabernet Sauvignon grows extremely well in Australia and makes fine wine (particularly in the Coonawarra region, about half way between Adelaide and Melbourne), the loss of these old vines is a great shame. Because, although it was unfashionable at the time, syrah/shiraz is a truly noble grape and winemakers and consumers in Australia, France, and elsewhere have really come to realise this in the decades since, and its wines have been largely restored to their former reputation. The best wines from the Rhone, and the best shiraz from Australia, are amongst the finest wine that can be had.
However, not this particular Argentinian wine.
And as it happens, due to the miracle of the deregulated European aviation market and the consequent extremely cheap airfares I shall be in the southern Rhone valley later this week and over the weekend. In particular, I shall be visiting Chateauneuf du Pape. Should be good.
While there are a few Argentinian wines here to try, they still are not available in huge numbers, so I am simply trying all those I can find. My present bottle is A syrah, from Che Vineyards, once again in Mendoza. No, I don't think it is named after that Che. We have a little wine label crap written on the back, which explains nothing.
In my country of Argentina, we say "Che" to greet our friends. Che, ever had a taste of Argentina? When you drink this fruity, smooth, rich Syrah you get a sense of our lifestyle and energy. Understand what Che is all about and enjoy life
Okay, whatever. The sad thing is that although the Syrah cost about the same as each of the two malbecs it isn't nearly as good. It's a fairly ordinary red, and a little rough, rather lacking spiciness of a good Australian shiraz, or a French red from the Rhone. Which is a shame, because although I am not yet convinced that malbec is a noble grape variety, syrah definitely is.
Traditionall (ie prior to about 1800) the three most famous red wine making regions of France were Bordeaux on the Atlantic coast, Burgundy south of Paris, and the Rhone valley, stretching from just south of Lyon to the Mediterranean coast around Marseilles. Wines from the greatest Rhone appelations, Hermitage, Cote-Rotie, Chateauneuf du Pape, were regarded as being amongst the finest wines in Europe. However, in the 19th century the Rhone valley became less fashionable than the other two regions, possibly because of the region's further distance from Paris. The principal grape used in the red wines of this region is syrah. This same grape has been grown in Australia since at least 1830, but in Australia it is known as shiraz. (Australians used to also frequently call it hermitage, but we stopped after signing a wine treaty with the French, as Hermitage is actually a place in the northern Rhone valley, and we promised to stop using French geographical names on our wines). Oddly enough, it may be that the Australian name is historically more accurate, as it seems that the grape variety may have originated in Iran near the town of Shiraz, where, ironically, wine is now illegal. (When the war against fundamentalist Islam is won, I hope one day to be able to have a glass of shiraz in Shiraz. But I digress).
In any event, shiraz was planted in Australia from the 1830s, and became the most widely planted grape for Australian red wine. When Max Schubert in 1951 produced the first vintage of Penfolds Grange Hermitage, which was to become by far the most famous Australian wine, he made it almost entirely out of shiraz.
However, Rhone wines remained less fashionable than Bordeaux and Burgundy wines in France. In the early 1970s, Australian winemakers concluded that they way to make classier wines was to adopt the grape varieties of Bordeaux and Burgundy. For red wines, this meant that they planted a lot of Cabernet Sauvignon, the dominant grape of the Medoc region on the left bank of the Gironde river, just downstream from Bordeaux. To find space to plant all this Cabernet Sauvignon, they ripped out a lot of shiraz vines, some of them very old.
Today's winemakers consider this an act of terrible vandalism. Old vines produce lower grape yields than newer ones, and the grapes that do grow have higher sugar levels and can be used to make more intense, fruitier wines. Really old vines can make wine of a quality that younger ones can't, and Australia had a lot of them. And although Cabernet Sauvignon grows extremely well in Australia and makes fine wine (particularly in the Coonawarra region, about half way between Adelaide and Melbourne), the loss of these old vines is a great shame. Because, although it was unfashionable at the time, syrah/shiraz is a truly noble grape and winemakers and consumers in Australia, France, and elsewhere have really come to realise this in the decades since, and its wines have been largely restored to their former reputation. The best wines from the Rhone, and the best shiraz from Australia, are amongst the finest wine that can be had.
However, not this particular Argentinian wine.
And as it happens, due to the miracle of the deregulated European aviation market and the consequent extremely cheap airfares I shall be in the southern Rhone valley later this week and over the weekend. In particular, I shall be visiting Chateauneuf du Pape. Should be good.
More redirection
I have a piece on ubersportingpundit on Bangladesh's test status and the ICC world test championship.
I have a piece on ubersportingpundit on Bangladesh's test status and the ICC world test championship.
Sunday, July 20, 2003
Redirection
I have a piece on Samizdata about the globalisation of movies and television, with particular reference to the Middle East.
I have a piece on Samizdata about the globalisation of movies and television, with particular reference to the Middle East.
The game ends as expected
Before the test match against Bangladesh, some people speculated that all sorts of records would result from its one sidedness. Would Australia score 1000 runs? Would the match be over in one day? Would Bangladesh be bowled out for the lowest score in test history? That kind of thing. My fellow ubersportingpundit Scott Wickstein said that he didn't expect these kinds of records to be broken, and I agreed. Good strong Australian performances and innings victories were likely in about three days.
And that is what happened. This morning Bangladesh continued their second innings after a good start last night and although they batted better than in the first innings, they were again outclassed. Hannan Sarkar was out early for 35, and the wickets then fell steadily, particularly after Habibul Bashar was bowled by MacGill for 54. Al Sahariar held one end up (eventually being the last man out for 36) and as well as being the best of the Bangladeshi bowlers, Mashrafe Mortaza made one over off MacGill entertaining, by scoring 15 runs from five balls (including two fours and a six) before being run out off the last ball. Still, Bangladesh were bowled out for 178, with Australia winning by an innings and 132 runs. A very heavy defeat, but to be fair Australia have inflicted defeats this heavy (or even heavier) on much higher rated sides in recent years.
Although there were no records set of the kind outlined in the first paragraph, Steve Waugh set a number of individual career records. Besides scoring a century against a ninth opponent, his 31st test century puts him equal second on the all time centurians record with 31 - equal with Sachin Tendulkar. Sunil Gavaskar holds the overall record with 33. It will be fun to see whether Waugh or Tendulkar will break Gavaskar's record first. If Waugh manages to play until Australia's tour of India next year, as he has said he would like to, he will play at least another 15 tests. (One more game against Bangladesh, two home games against Zimbabwe, four home games against India, three away games against Sri Lanka, two home games against Sri Lanka, and three away games against India. There are also still a couple of gaps in the program which may get filled in, although this is more likely to be with one day games than tests). Three centuries in that time seems pretty likely. The question is whether Tendulkar can break the record first. (In the long run, Tendulkar is undoubtedly going to hold the record, and may score 40 or even 50 test centuries. But Waugh may be able to hold it for a short while).
Plus of course Steve Waugh has now won more tests than any other captain, going ahead of Clive Lloyd of the West Indies. Given his various personal achievements in the match, his man of the match award was very well deserved.
Before the test match against Bangladesh, some people speculated that all sorts of records would result from its one sidedness. Would Australia score 1000 runs? Would the match be over in one day? Would Bangladesh be bowled out for the lowest score in test history? That kind of thing. My fellow ubersportingpundit Scott Wickstein said that he didn't expect these kinds of records to be broken, and I agreed. Good strong Australian performances and innings victories were likely in about three days.
And that is what happened. This morning Bangladesh continued their second innings after a good start last night and although they batted better than in the first innings, they were again outclassed. Hannan Sarkar was out early for 35, and the wickets then fell steadily, particularly after Habibul Bashar was bowled by MacGill for 54. Al Sahariar held one end up (eventually being the last man out for 36) and as well as being the best of the Bangladeshi bowlers, Mashrafe Mortaza made one over off MacGill entertaining, by scoring 15 runs from five balls (including two fours and a six) before being run out off the last ball. Still, Bangladesh were bowled out for 178, with Australia winning by an innings and 132 runs. A very heavy defeat, but to be fair Australia have inflicted defeats this heavy (or even heavier) on much higher rated sides in recent years.
Although there were no records set of the kind outlined in the first paragraph, Steve Waugh set a number of individual career records. Besides scoring a century against a ninth opponent, his 31st test century puts him equal second on the all time centurians record with 31 - equal with Sachin Tendulkar. Sunil Gavaskar holds the overall record with 33. It will be fun to see whether Waugh or Tendulkar will break Gavaskar's record first. If Waugh manages to play until Australia's tour of India next year, as he has said he would like to, he will play at least another 15 tests. (One more game against Bangladesh, two home games against Zimbabwe, four home games against India, three away games against Sri Lanka, two home games against Sri Lanka, and three away games against India. There are also still a couple of gaps in the program which may get filled in, although this is more likely to be with one day games than tests). Three centuries in that time seems pretty likely. The question is whether Tendulkar can break the record first. (In the long run, Tendulkar is undoubtedly going to hold the record, and may score 40 or even 50 test centuries. But Waugh may be able to hold it for a short while).
Plus of course Steve Waugh has now won more tests than any other captain, going ahead of Clive Lloyd of the West Indies. Given his various personal achievements in the match, his man of the match award was very well deserved.
I saw Hulk
Sadly, Hulk wasn't very good. I had hopes that it might be okay, given that it was made by a film-maker of class, ond one whose early movies at least (particularly The Wedding Banquet and Eat Drink Man Woman) were notable for the high quality of their acting and character development. The film consisted of two thirds people talking pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo, and one third action sequences of a large green man breaking the laws of physics. In a way it was like The Matrix Reloaded, both in terms of the immense amount of complete and utter crap spoken by the characters and the fact that the visual sequences were actually pretty good when the movie movied away from the crap. In particular, the split screen effects designed to make the movie actually look like a comic book actually worked, and there is a long section of the middle of the film, featuring both the Hulk's arrival (by military machinery) and then departure (under his own power) from a secret base in the desert and subsequent pursuit by the military across much of America's most spectacular scenery, that is visually absolutely beautiful and is technically one of the most perfect action sequences I have ever seen. However, it's a shame about the rest of the film.
Sadly, Hulk wasn't very good. I had hopes that it might be okay, given that it was made by a film-maker of class, ond one whose early movies at least (particularly The Wedding Banquet and Eat Drink Man Woman) were notable for the high quality of their acting and character development. The film consisted of two thirds people talking pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo, and one third action sequences of a large green man breaking the laws of physics. In a way it was like The Matrix Reloaded, both in terms of the immense amount of complete and utter crap spoken by the characters and the fact that the visual sequences were actually pretty good when the movie movied away from the crap. In particular, the split screen effects designed to make the movie actually look like a comic book actually worked, and there is a long section of the middle of the film, featuring both the Hulk's arrival (by military machinery) and then departure (under his own power) from a secret base in the desert and subsequent pursuit by the military across much of America's most spectacular scenery, that is visually absolutely beautiful and is technically one of the most perfect action sequences I have ever seen. However, it's a shame about the rest of the film.
Saturday, July 19, 2003
Things continue to go as expected, but Bangladesh none the less play better
My prediction of Steve Waugh's tactics turned out to be pretty much spot on. Australia did indeed declare about an hour after tea with a score of 400-450. (The score in fact was 407). However, the rest of day two turned out to be pretty good. Lehmann and Langer continued where they had left off the previous evening, and then batted for about another hour before Langer was out for 71. After than, Steve Waugh joined Lehmann, and Lehmann brought up his second test century before being out caught off Mashrafe Mortaza for 110. Martin Love then managed to get bowled first ball, again by Mashrafe Mortaza. This was no doubt a highlight for Mortaza and Bangladesh. After that Gilchrist joined Waugh and scored a quickfire 43 off 47 balls, before being bowled by Manjural Islam. Australia were 6/313 and had a good lead already, but the game was not as one sided as some people had predicted it would be. Bangladesh were taking wickets, and had some chance of bowling Australia out. However, Steve Waugh was still there, and he is an expert at extending the innings in these sorts of situations. Plus, Australia's tail can bat quite well, and as it happened Brett Lee (who scored 23) and Jason Gillespie (16 not out) had no trouble staying with Waugh.
Waugh brought up his century and immediately declared the innings closed, on 7/407, a first innings lead of 310. This was Waugh's 31st test century, which is a very impressive number by any standards. Given the difficulty he had scoring test centuries early in his career (and his associated tendency to get out in the 90s) the number really shows how well he has played over the last decade. The innings also made Waugh the first Australian to score test centuries against nine different opponents, and only the second player in the world (after Gary Kirsten of South Africa) to do this. Plus, it boosted Waugh's average back over the 50 mark, to 50.31. If Waugh wanted to retire now, that would look nice in the record books. (Of course, he has recently stated he wants to play for another year, and given his recent form he may well do so).
As far as the Australian innings is concerned, once again it's worth mentioning that it was the players who have not played every match over the last year who scored the runs: Langer, Waugh, Lehmann. Those who have suffered the year long grind (and who have undoubtedly spent the last month resting) were a little more subdued. (The exception to this rule is Love, who has played relatively few games for Australia but failed anyway). My suspicion is we may see more from Hayden, Ponting, and Gilchrist in the second test.
In any event, Bangladesh had to face 15 overs before the end of the day in their second innings. They lost Javed Omar to McGrath in the third over, and another collapse looked quite possible. However, it didn't happen. Hannan Sarkar and Habibul Bashar batted aggressively and well for the rest of the day, taking the score to 1/70 at stumps, a runrate of 4.67. Bangladesh are going to lose this game, but their aim must be to avoid an innings defeat. For this, they require another 240 runs. This is going to be hard, but hopefully they can give it a shot on day three.
Meanwhile, it has been confirmed that Sri Lanka will be playing Australia in Darwin and Cairns in a year's time. That should be fun. I must find an excuse to be there.
My prediction of Steve Waugh's tactics turned out to be pretty much spot on. Australia did indeed declare about an hour after tea with a score of 400-450. (The score in fact was 407). However, the rest of day two turned out to be pretty good. Lehmann and Langer continued where they had left off the previous evening, and then batted for about another hour before Langer was out for 71. After than, Steve Waugh joined Lehmann, and Lehmann brought up his second test century before being out caught off Mashrafe Mortaza for 110. Martin Love then managed to get bowled first ball, again by Mashrafe Mortaza. This was no doubt a highlight for Mortaza and Bangladesh. After that Gilchrist joined Waugh and scored a quickfire 43 off 47 balls, before being bowled by Manjural Islam. Australia were 6/313 and had a good lead already, but the game was not as one sided as some people had predicted it would be. Bangladesh were taking wickets, and had some chance of bowling Australia out. However, Steve Waugh was still there, and he is an expert at extending the innings in these sorts of situations. Plus, Australia's tail can bat quite well, and as it happened Brett Lee (who scored 23) and Jason Gillespie (16 not out) had no trouble staying with Waugh.
Waugh brought up his century and immediately declared the innings closed, on 7/407, a first innings lead of 310. This was Waugh's 31st test century, which is a very impressive number by any standards. Given the difficulty he had scoring test centuries early in his career (and his associated tendency to get out in the 90s) the number really shows how well he has played over the last decade. The innings also made Waugh the first Australian to score test centuries against nine different opponents, and only the second player in the world (after Gary Kirsten of South Africa) to do this. Plus, it boosted Waugh's average back over the 50 mark, to 50.31. If Waugh wanted to retire now, that would look nice in the record books. (Of course, he has recently stated he wants to play for another year, and given his recent form he may well do so).
As far as the Australian innings is concerned, once again it's worth mentioning that it was the players who have not played every match over the last year who scored the runs: Langer, Waugh, Lehmann. Those who have suffered the year long grind (and who have undoubtedly spent the last month resting) were a little more subdued. (The exception to this rule is Love, who has played relatively few games for Australia but failed anyway). My suspicion is we may see more from Hayden, Ponting, and Gilchrist in the second test.
In any event, Bangladesh had to face 15 overs before the end of the day in their second innings. They lost Javed Omar to McGrath in the third over, and another collapse looked quite possible. However, it didn't happen. Hannan Sarkar and Habibul Bashar batted aggressively and well for the rest of the day, taking the score to 1/70 at stumps, a runrate of 4.67. Bangladesh are going to lose this game, but their aim must be to avoid an innings defeat. For this, they require another 240 runs. This is going to be hard, but hopefully they can give it a shot on day three.
Meanwhile, it has been confirmed that Sri Lanka will be playing Australia in Darwin and Cairns in a year's time. That should be fun. I must find an excuse to be there.
I actually think that censoring things is generally more harmful to children than not censoring things
What rating is your journal?
brought to you by Quizilla
Actually, that quiz didn't seem to have a "most pictures I post are of non-human objects" page, unfortunately.
What rating is your journal?
brought to you by Quizilla
Actually, that quiz didn't seem to have a "most pictures I post are of non-human objects" page, unfortunately.
Friday, July 18, 2003
The expected happens
Day one of the Bangladesh v Australia test in Darwin went exactly as expected. That is, the game so far is a mismatch.
Australia won the toss and send Bangladesh in, and there is not a lot that can be said about their innings. The Australian bowlers were too good for them and they were bowled out for 97. As is almost always the case in this kind of mismatch, the bowling and the wickets were shared around. McGrath and Lee got three each, McGill and Gillespie two each. The score was perhaps reduced a little by an extremely slow outfield, and the pitch apparently wasn't the easiest ever seen, but I didn't see any of the cricket so I don't know the details.
Australia then batted, and they lost two wickets early: Hayden for 11 and Ponting for 10. However, Langer and Lehmann then stayed in, and at stumps the score was 2/121, with Lehmann on 51 and Langer on 40. Langer was lucky not to be run out at one point, but that is Langer for you. He is always lucky.
It was interesting (although perhaps not unexpected) that the two players who probably spent the most time in the middle during Australia's immense 10 month campaign (Hayden and Ponting) were out cheaply, and the test specialist (Langer) and middle order batsman who spent some of the campaign injured (Lehmann) scored the runs. It may be that these two actually did some practising before this match, whereas for Ponting and Hayden it was probably "A month off. Thank the Almighty for that".
It was also interesting that Australia scored runs at less than 3 an over (127 off 45, or 2.82). As mentioned above, the outfield was extremely slow and the pitch a little tricky, but the bowling was certainly nothing special. Australia like to score at least 100 runs a session: that normally corresponds to 3.33 runs an over. I think part of this may again be that the players are a bit underdone.
Where does the game go from here? Australia could probably finish the game on day 2 if they tried. They could take their score to 300 or so half an hour or so before tea, declare, and then have something like 45-50 overs to bowl Bangladesh out a second time, remembering that an extra 8 overs may be added to the day if "a result is imminent". However, I don't think they will. I am guessing Australia will bat until about an hour after tea, and score around 400-450 before the declaration. It all depends on how aggressive Steve Waugh wants to be, and whether he wants to give his batsmen (and himself) a longer chance to get some fairly easy runs.
Day one of the Bangladesh v Australia test in Darwin went exactly as expected. That is, the game so far is a mismatch.
Australia won the toss and send Bangladesh in, and there is not a lot that can be said about their innings. The Australian bowlers were too good for them and they were bowled out for 97. As is almost always the case in this kind of mismatch, the bowling and the wickets were shared around. McGrath and Lee got three each, McGill and Gillespie two each. The score was perhaps reduced a little by an extremely slow outfield, and the pitch apparently wasn't the easiest ever seen, but I didn't see any of the cricket so I don't know the details.
Australia then batted, and they lost two wickets early: Hayden for 11 and Ponting for 10. However, Langer and Lehmann then stayed in, and at stumps the score was 2/121, with Lehmann on 51 and Langer on 40. Langer was lucky not to be run out at one point, but that is Langer for you. He is always lucky.
It was interesting (although perhaps not unexpected) that the two players who probably spent the most time in the middle during Australia's immense 10 month campaign (Hayden and Ponting) were out cheaply, and the test specialist (Langer) and middle order batsman who spent some of the campaign injured (Lehmann) scored the runs. It may be that these two actually did some practising before this match, whereas for Ponting and Hayden it was probably "A month off. Thank the Almighty for that".
It was also interesting that Australia scored runs at less than 3 an over (127 off 45, or 2.82). As mentioned above, the outfield was extremely slow and the pitch a little tricky, but the bowling was certainly nothing special. Australia like to score at least 100 runs a session: that normally corresponds to 3.33 runs an over. I think part of this may again be that the players are a bit underdone.
Where does the game go from here? Australia could probably finish the game on day 2 if they tried. They could take their score to 300 or so half an hour or so before tea, declare, and then have something like 45-50 overs to bowl Bangladesh out a second time, remembering that an extra 8 overs may be added to the day if "a result is imminent". However, I don't think they will. I am guessing Australia will bat until about an hour after tea, and score around 400-450 before the declaration. It all depends on how aggressive Steve Waugh wants to be, and whether he wants to give his batsmen (and himself) a longer chance to get some fairly easy runs.
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Redirection
I have a piece on stupid security checks and how to deal with them at The White Rose, and a few thoughts on the team selection for the first Australia v Bangladesh test at ubersportingpundit. I always find that there is something quite comforting about the Australian cricket team being in action, even in a minor series about this one. It just makes me feel that the world is a slightly better place. (Yes, I know this is silly).
I have a piece on stupid security checks and how to deal with them at The White Rose, and a few thoughts on the team selection for the first Australia v Bangladesh test at ubersportingpundit. I always find that there is something quite comforting about the Australian cricket team being in action, even in a minor series about this one. It just makes me feel that the world is a slightly better place. (Yes, I know this is silly).
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
More on Argentinian Malbec
For some reason when I talk about beer I seem to get more comments than when I talk about wine. I don't know why that is. In any event, in Sainsburys today I found another Argentinian Malbec, this one from Bodega Norton in Mendoza. The bottle has quite a fancy label of a couple dancing the tango, which appears to move when you look at it from a different direction, which would suggest to me that this winemaker is very keen on the idea of exports. This slightly frivolous touch was almost enough to put me off buying the wine, as they are clearly aiming at casual supermarket buyers rather than pretentious gits like myself.
However, I bought it anyway. Its was a five pound bottle of wine rather than a four pound bottle (as was the last one) and I think its slightly higher price was relected in the quality. Still not much of a nose (although what nose it had was a little like that of a merlot). Once again the wine was very young, vintage 2002, but was quite open and ready to drink. The wine was a little less jammy than the first one - the fruit was slightly more solid. Again, a good wine for the price, but not much complexity. I am still yet to be convinced that Argentinian Malbec is one of the great wines of the world, or the Malbec is a truly noble grape variety. Obviously, though, I shall be continuing the research.
For some reason when I talk about beer I seem to get more comments than when I talk about wine. I don't know why that is. In any event, in Sainsburys today I found another Argentinian Malbec, this one from Bodega Norton in Mendoza. The bottle has quite a fancy label of a couple dancing the tango, which appears to move when you look at it from a different direction, which would suggest to me that this winemaker is very keen on the idea of exports. This slightly frivolous touch was almost enough to put me off buying the wine, as they are clearly aiming at casual supermarket buyers rather than pretentious gits like myself.
However, I bought it anyway. Its was a five pound bottle of wine rather than a four pound bottle (as was the last one) and I think its slightly higher price was relected in the quality. Still not much of a nose (although what nose it had was a little like that of a merlot). Once again the wine was very young, vintage 2002, but was quite open and ready to drink. The wine was a little less jammy than the first one - the fruit was slightly more solid. Again, a good wine for the price, but not much complexity. I am still yet to be convinced that Argentinian Malbec is one of the great wines of the world, or the Malbec is a truly noble grape variety. Obviously, though, I shall be continuing the research.
Life near the singularity
From the BBC
The "main Magna building" sounds kind of ominous, too. (via slashdot).
From the BBC
Two airports have been alerted after a giant robotic balloon escaped from a science centre in South Yorkshire.
..
The flyborg has a computerised brain which allows it to avoid obstacles.
A spokesman for Magna said: "Two technical staff were moving a flyborg - an artificially intelligent flying robot airship filled with conventional party-balloon gas - into the main Magna building.
The "main Magna building" sounds kind of ominous, too. (via slashdot).
More thoughts on the Murray-Darling Basin, and whether Texas is part of the American West.
I have received quite a bit of feedback on yesterdays piece that started out being about Australian water resources and then rambled, in the form of comments, a post on another blog, and e-mail. There have been quite a few interesting points raised, and I think I am going to lose any sense that they are connected to each other People who want to see the connections should read the earlier post.
As a starting point, there is a very nice map of the Murray-Darling basin here. A key point is that much of the east coast of Australia consists of a relatively narrow coastal plane to the east of a mountain range (The Great Dividing Range). To the east of that mountain range, water comes down from the mountains onto the plain, and water is plentiful. Australia's three major non-marginal cities are on this plain (although only sort of for Melbourne). From a water resources point of view, there would be little difficulty building a substantial number of new cities on that coastal plain. To the north, the mountains eventually fade away, the climate becomes tropical, and once again there are plenty of areas (especially close to the north coast) where water is plentiful and which could support substantial populations, although at the moment they generally don't. The land within the Murray-Darling basin itself (and close to it) is habitable and useful as long as the river system remains in good condition. To the west of the basin, there are few rivers of any kind and the country is exceedingly harsh, although there are a few rivers and a small patch of moderately fertile land in the south of the west coast (a couple of thousand kilometres away), making the city of Perth possible. With respect to the Murray-Darling basin, the key point is that the watershed on the east of the basin is a watershed to a fertile area, and the watershed to the west is a watershed to desert. Human civilization (like Adelaide, if it qualifies) to the west of the basis very likely has to pump water from the basin.
The map shows the basic point, however. The Murray Darling basin is enormous. Adelaide gets its water from the very mouth of the river. If there are environmental problems upstream, then Adelaide is conceivably in trouble. However, despite its size, there are relatively few cities of any size in the Murray Darling basin. Australia's capital, Canberra (population approximately 300000) is the most important, followed by Albury Wodonga (100000) and Wagga Wagga (60000), but there really isn't much after that. Most water use is agricultural. Changing water would affect relatively few people, although those that would be forced to change are the sort that will scream very loudly. (It could conceivably change Australia's agricultural sector quite substantially, however).
Following up a different point from yesterday's article, Doug Sundseth of Colorado e-mails me to take slight issue with my discussing "the four American cities in the middle of the desert", arguing that Denver and Salt Lake City don't quite qualify as desert due to being at the foot of mountains and having a bit more rainfall than qualifies as desert. My experience of Denver is limited to changing planes at the airport, but it is clearly a different case geographically to the other cities, so I will concede the point there.
In the case of Salt Lake City I think I might argue that it actually is "in the middle of the desert" in the sense that there is desert in all directions, even if the place itself is not desert. The city was founded when after marching through very hostile country, the Mormons arrived in this beautiful (non-desert) location, decided it was fabulous, and announced that "This is the right place". Having been there, I have to concede that the city certainly is in a stunning location. (Might also I recommend the drive from Salt Lake City to Evanston, Wyoming to anyone who goes there. Really a spectacular drive). Doug also comments that El Paso, Texas / Juarez, Mexico certainly qualifies, and Tucson, Arizona perhaps does. I will plead guilty on El Paso omission. I was thinking of American cities in "The West", and Texas slipped my mind. When I divide America up into pieces, Texas doesn't really qualify as part of "The West", or "The South", or anywhere much. Texas is just Texas. (I haven't been to Texas, although I certainly plan to go there on my next trip to the US, whenever that is). As for Tucson, it is at least smaller than any of the other cities I have mentioned, so I can produce a logical reason for leaving it out.
In any event, none of this was really relevant to my argument, which was simply that America has large inland cities in even more marginal places than those I was talking about in Australia. A large portion of the Murray-Darling Basin is not desert, and that is the point.
Finally, Patrick commented that Darwin was not in fact named after Charles Darwin, but was named after his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. This is reasonably widely believed in Australia - at least Patrick is not the first person to tell me this. However, the belief seems to be entirely untrue. The truth appears to be that after sailing Darwin after the world, the Beagle was then sailed to Australia. Its captain, Lieutenant John Lort Stokes, became the first person to name the geographical features in that part of Australia. He named the bay where the city now lies Port Darwin, and gulf surrounding it Beagle Gulf. When the city was founded at the location later, it was initially officially named Palmerston, at least partly because some people held Darwin's views to be controversial. However, the name officially became Darwin in 1911.
I think the mistaken belief that Darwin was named after Erasmus Darwin may come from the fact that most people expect that the area around Darwin must have been explored and named prior to 1830, and this coincides nicely with the fact that Erasmus Darwin was a prominent scientist around that time. However, it seems to be untrue.
I have received quite a bit of feedback on yesterdays piece that started out being about Australian water resources and then rambled, in the form of comments, a post on another blog, and e-mail. There have been quite a few interesting points raised, and I think I am going to lose any sense that they are connected to each other People who want to see the connections should read the earlier post.
As a starting point, there is a very nice map of the Murray-Darling basin here. A key point is that much of the east coast of Australia consists of a relatively narrow coastal plane to the east of a mountain range (The Great Dividing Range). To the east of that mountain range, water comes down from the mountains onto the plain, and water is plentiful. Australia's three major non-marginal cities are on this plain (although only sort of for Melbourne). From a water resources point of view, there would be little difficulty building a substantial number of new cities on that coastal plain. To the north, the mountains eventually fade away, the climate becomes tropical, and once again there are plenty of areas (especially close to the north coast) where water is plentiful and which could support substantial populations, although at the moment they generally don't. The land within the Murray-Darling basin itself (and close to it) is habitable and useful as long as the river system remains in good condition. To the west of the basin, there are few rivers of any kind and the country is exceedingly harsh, although there are a few rivers and a small patch of moderately fertile land in the south of the west coast (a couple of thousand kilometres away), making the city of Perth possible. With respect to the Murray-Darling basin, the key point is that the watershed on the east of the basin is a watershed to a fertile area, and the watershed to the west is a watershed to desert. Human civilization (like Adelaide, if it qualifies) to the west of the basis very likely has to pump water from the basin.
The map shows the basic point, however. The Murray Darling basin is enormous. Adelaide gets its water from the very mouth of the river. If there are environmental problems upstream, then Adelaide is conceivably in trouble. However, despite its size, there are relatively few cities of any size in the Murray Darling basin. Australia's capital, Canberra (population approximately 300000) is the most important, followed by Albury Wodonga (100000) and Wagga Wagga (60000), but there really isn't much after that. Most water use is agricultural. Changing water would affect relatively few people, although those that would be forced to change are the sort that will scream very loudly. (It could conceivably change Australia's agricultural sector quite substantially, however).
Following up a different point from yesterday's article, Doug Sundseth of Colorado e-mails me to take slight issue with my discussing "the four American cities in the middle of the desert", arguing that Denver and Salt Lake City don't quite qualify as desert due to being at the foot of mountains and having a bit more rainfall than qualifies as desert. My experience of Denver is limited to changing planes at the airport, but it is clearly a different case geographically to the other cities, so I will concede the point there.
In the case of Salt Lake City I think I might argue that it actually is "in the middle of the desert" in the sense that there is desert in all directions, even if the place itself is not desert. The city was founded when after marching through very hostile country, the Mormons arrived in this beautiful (non-desert) location, decided it was fabulous, and announced that "This is the right place". Having been there, I have to concede that the city certainly is in a stunning location. (Might also I recommend the drive from Salt Lake City to Evanston, Wyoming to anyone who goes there. Really a spectacular drive). Doug also comments that El Paso, Texas / Juarez, Mexico certainly qualifies, and Tucson, Arizona perhaps does. I will plead guilty on El Paso omission. I was thinking of American cities in "The West", and Texas slipped my mind. When I divide America up into pieces, Texas doesn't really qualify as part of "The West", or "The South", or anywhere much. Texas is just Texas. (I haven't been to Texas, although I certainly plan to go there on my next trip to the US, whenever that is). As for Tucson, it is at least smaller than any of the other cities I have mentioned, so I can produce a logical reason for leaving it out.
In any event, none of this was really relevant to my argument, which was simply that America has large inland cities in even more marginal places than those I was talking about in Australia. A large portion of the Murray-Darling Basin is not desert, and that is the point.
Finally, Patrick commented that Darwin was not in fact named after Charles Darwin, but was named after his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. This is reasonably widely believed in Australia - at least Patrick is not the first person to tell me this. However, the belief seems to be entirely untrue. The truth appears to be that after sailing Darwin after the world, the Beagle was then sailed to Australia. Its captain, Lieutenant John Lort Stokes, became the first person to name the geographical features in that part of Australia. He named the bay where the city now lies Port Darwin, and gulf surrounding it Beagle Gulf. When the city was founded at the location later, it was initially officially named Palmerston, at least partly because some people held Darwin's views to be controversial. However, the name officially became Darwin in 1911.
I think the mistaken belief that Darwin was named after Erasmus Darwin may come from the fact that most people expect that the area around Darwin must have been explored and named prior to 1830, and this coincides nicely with the fact that Erasmus Darwin was a prominent scientist around that time. However, it seems to be untrue.
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Water resources, Australia's north, cricket, and what precisely is the point of Adelaide, anyway?
There is an article in the Economist this week talking about The Murray-Darling river system in Australia. (Sadly, it is behind a for-pay wall so I can't link to it. The gist of it is that Australians are overusing the water from the Murray-Darling river system. The mouth of the river has dried up for the second time in 215 years, and the salt levels of the whole river system is steadily increasing, and based on current trends the water will be undrinkable within 20 years. This is a problem, as the river's catchment area consists of a large chunk of four states, and is responsible for irrigating a large portion of the country's agriculture.
But it gets worse
The article goes on to say that Adelaide's problem is that it is at the end of the river, water rights are allocated on a state basis, and therefore people (mostly farmers) in three other states have essentially had a free for all with the water before it gets to South Australia. It may be that a constitutional amendment to transfer control of water rights to the federal government might be necessary to make sure that South Africa retains access to its water.
My gut feeling is that with or without this the situation will eventually be solved. The million people of Adelaide do have more economic power than a relatively small number of farmers in the other states, and ultimately the money of the people of Adelaide will make their interests the most important issue, and eventually the river will be cleaned up, even if it requires buying up a lot of farmland. There are cities in the world in more marginal places than Adelaide, and they survive. The Americans manage to have four major cities (Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City) in the middle of the desert, and two even bigger cities (Los Angeles and San Diego) on the southern west coast. While water resources in the American west are greater than in Australia, the population of these areas in the US are greater by an even bigger factor, and the American cities survive, even if they are constantly squabbling over water.
However, this does of course raise an interesting question about the distribution of people in Australia. Of Australia's five main cities, two of them - Adelaide and Perth - are in very marginal locations. There is Adelaide, with the potentially severe water problems mentioned, and very desolate land if you drive very far out of the city in any direction. And there is Perth, which is on the relatively desolate West Coast. Perth is something of a boom town, due to the immense mineral wealth of the state of Western Australia. But Adelaide is a city that has probably seen better days. There is some industry there - a large portion of Australia's cars are made there - and the big growth industry is the wine industry. (Adelaide is surrounded by vineyards in all directions, essentially). But is this really enough to support a city of a million people? And why, of all the places in Australia they could be, are there a million people there precisely?
While a lot of Australia does consist of marginal and uninhabitable locations, there are actually plenty of fertile and uninhabited locations as well. The other three major cities, Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane, are in very non-marginal locations. As you go north from Melbourne through Sydney and Brisbane, the country generally becomes more fertile and the water resources greater. Once you get north of Brisbane, the country becomes more fertile still, and you eventually get to the tropical area and the north Queensland cities Cairns and Townsville (the home of Bubbles, Blossom, and Buttercup), and when you go west you eventually get to Darwin on the north coast.
These are all areas that could easily support large populations, but generally they don't. Traditionally people have avoided these sorts of areas because of the heat, but in these days of air conditioning this does not matter so much. (The American south has turned into a boom area since the invention of air conditioning for precisely this reason). Australia, bafflingly, has seriously trailed the United States in its use of air conditioning (particularly in people's homes) but we do seem to be finally getting there. And there is a gradual northern movement in the centre of Australia's population for this reason. Combined with this is the fact that the Asian economies to Australia's north have been becoming larger and steadily more important to us. This has led to more economic activity in the north, more Asian populations in the northern cities, and growth in these cities (particularly Cairns in Queensland) as tourist destinations.
In the long run, by which I mean 50 years or more, this inevitably will spell a profound change in the centre of gravity of Australia. Cities that are at present seen as very marginal to the country will become quite important. In the long run, there will probably be no better real estate investment than land in the centre of Darwin.
One way in which this present marginal status of the northern cities is reflected is in sporting terms. There are very few professional sporting teams based in the north because the cities are too small and the travel distances too great. None of the northern cities have first class cricket teams based there. People in the northern cities have had little chance to be spectators of top class sport.
However, this weekend the Australian cricket team will play Bangladesh in Darwin, and they will play them again in Cairns next week. A fair bit of the reason for this is that the Australian summer is crowded and the fixture list is long, to get the games in they have to be played out of season, and if they are played out of season the climate is not right in southern Australia at this time of year. This is perfectly true, but these games still represent a recognition that this region of Australia is slowly becoming less marginal. In 100 years, I cannot help but think that the Darwin test will be a very big occasion. So therefore, the first one, to be played this week, should be seen as a memorable occasion. I am sure the people of Darwin are seeing it this way, even though due to the weak opposition it shall probably not be very memorable as a game of cricket.
And just as an almost unrelated point, does anyone know of any city in the world other than Darwin that is named after a great scientist? The fact that we have one in Australia strikes me as extremely cool.
There is an article in the Economist this week talking about The Murray-Darling river system in Australia. (Sadly, it is behind a for-pay wall so I can't link to it. The gist of it is that Australians are overusing the water from the Murray-Darling river system. The mouth of the river has dried up for the second time in 215 years, and the salt levels of the whole river system is steadily increasing, and based on current trends the water will be undrinkable within 20 years. This is a problem, as the river's catchment area consists of a large chunk of four states, and is responsible for irrigating a large portion of the country's agriculture.
But it gets worse
South Australia, where until recently the Murray flowed into the Southern Ocean at Coorong, is the state at the end of the line. With little but desert and dry rivers to its north, Adelaide, the capital, depends entirely on water piped from the Murray more than 100km (60 miles) to the east. People in Coober Pedy, a mining town in the middle of desert, reckon their water, pumped and treated from ancient underground deposits, tastes better than Adelaide's. South Australia's minister for the Murray River, John Hill, says its rate of flow is half that needed to sustain it environmentally. From this month, irrigators in South Australia will have their water allocations cut by one-fifth; in October each state taxpayer will start paying a levy to raise A$20m ($13m) a year. The money will go towards buying extra water from upstream and projects to restore the flow.
The article goes on to say that Adelaide's problem is that it is at the end of the river, water rights are allocated on a state basis, and therefore people (mostly farmers) in three other states have essentially had a free for all with the water before it gets to South Australia. It may be that a constitutional amendment to transfer control of water rights to the federal government might be necessary to make sure that South Africa retains access to its water.
My gut feeling is that with or without this the situation will eventually be solved. The million people of Adelaide do have more economic power than a relatively small number of farmers in the other states, and ultimately the money of the people of Adelaide will make their interests the most important issue, and eventually the river will be cleaned up, even if it requires buying up a lot of farmland. There are cities in the world in more marginal places than Adelaide, and they survive. The Americans manage to have four major cities (Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City) in the middle of the desert, and two even bigger cities (Los Angeles and San Diego) on the southern west coast. While water resources in the American west are greater than in Australia, the population of these areas in the US are greater by an even bigger factor, and the American cities survive, even if they are constantly squabbling over water.
However, this does of course raise an interesting question about the distribution of people in Australia. Of Australia's five main cities, two of them - Adelaide and Perth - are in very marginal locations. There is Adelaide, with the potentially severe water problems mentioned, and very desolate land if you drive very far out of the city in any direction. And there is Perth, which is on the relatively desolate West Coast. Perth is something of a boom town, due to the immense mineral wealth of the state of Western Australia. But Adelaide is a city that has probably seen better days. There is some industry there - a large portion of Australia's cars are made there - and the big growth industry is the wine industry. (Adelaide is surrounded by vineyards in all directions, essentially). But is this really enough to support a city of a million people? And why, of all the places in Australia they could be, are there a million people there precisely?
While a lot of Australia does consist of marginal and uninhabitable locations, there are actually plenty of fertile and uninhabited locations as well. The other three major cities, Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane, are in very non-marginal locations. As you go north from Melbourne through Sydney and Brisbane, the country generally becomes more fertile and the water resources greater. Once you get north of Brisbane, the country becomes more fertile still, and you eventually get to the tropical area and the north Queensland cities Cairns and Townsville (the home of Bubbles, Blossom, and Buttercup), and when you go west you eventually get to Darwin on the north coast.
These are all areas that could easily support large populations, but generally they don't. Traditionally people have avoided these sorts of areas because of the heat, but in these days of air conditioning this does not matter so much. (The American south has turned into a boom area since the invention of air conditioning for precisely this reason). Australia, bafflingly, has seriously trailed the United States in its use of air conditioning (particularly in people's homes) but we do seem to be finally getting there. And there is a gradual northern movement in the centre of Australia's population for this reason. Combined with this is the fact that the Asian economies to Australia's north have been becoming larger and steadily more important to us. This has led to more economic activity in the north, more Asian populations in the northern cities, and growth in these cities (particularly Cairns in Queensland) as tourist destinations.
In the long run, by which I mean 50 years or more, this inevitably will spell a profound change in the centre of gravity of Australia. Cities that are at present seen as very marginal to the country will become quite important. In the long run, there will probably be no better real estate investment than land in the centre of Darwin.
One way in which this present marginal status of the northern cities is reflected is in sporting terms. There are very few professional sporting teams based in the north because the cities are too small and the travel distances too great. None of the northern cities have first class cricket teams based there. People in the northern cities have had little chance to be spectators of top class sport.
However, this weekend the Australian cricket team will play Bangladesh in Darwin, and they will play them again in Cairns next week. A fair bit of the reason for this is that the Australian summer is crowded and the fixture list is long, to get the games in they have to be played out of season, and if they are played out of season the climate is not right in southern Australia at this time of year. This is perfectly true, but these games still represent a recognition that this region of Australia is slowly becoming less marginal. In 100 years, I cannot help but think that the Darwin test will be a very big occasion. So therefore, the first one, to be played this week, should be seen as a memorable occasion. I am sure the people of Darwin are seeing it this way, even though due to the weak opposition it shall probably not be very memorable as a game of cricket.
And just as an almost unrelated point, does anyone know of any city in the world other than Darwin that is named after a great scientist? The fact that we have one in Australia strikes me as extremely cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)