The Golden Strawberry

So apparently the choice in the UK best blog award is between Neil Clark and Melanie Phillips

Now seems as good a time as ever to paraphrase Bernard Black from Black Books.

Oh, I dunno, Neil Clark, Melanie Phillips, it’s an impossible decision. I’ll just have to hope that when I flip the coin it somehow explodes and kills me.

Cory

You can probably go elsewhere for informed criticism on the current Gaza situation at the moment. So let’s instead giggle at some anti-Semites:

Or maybe he does have a vendetta against all fruit juices.

Cory

I am at a friend’s house in Peckham, and am browsing the internet for the first time in a while. Doing so I came across the Times’s archive reports from the “timeless Test” between England and South Africa at Durban in March 1939. England, at the end of the twelfth (!) day, were 654 for five chasing 696 to win. Getting there would have been a remarkable achievement, but the English team had to leave in order to catch the boat back to Blighty.

What is interesting is the reasons for introducing “timeless Tests”:

“The “timeless Test” had emerged from Australia some ten years earlier, where spectators and players liked a result. Promoters quickly spotted the opportunity for increased gate takings and the concept spread, much to the consternation of cricket traditionalists. The Times letters page resounded with accusations of commercialism and hand-wringing about damage to the game.”

Seventy years ago it was thought that by having Test matches last for weeks, and sides crawling along at around two an over, was profitable. Nowadays the theory has gone completely the other way, that cricket is more profitable with a twenty-over thrash that can be over in two and a half hours. Let’s put that in perspective: in the first hour of England’s innings they scored only thirteen runs. In Twenty/Twenty you are looking to score that many in an over; six balls and five minutes of frenzied hitting.

In both cases we are getting dismayed letters to the Times (and today dismayed comments on Times blogs) about the commercialism of cricket. Cricket has been involved with money ever since it’s creation, in 1697 a match was played between two teams in Sussex for 50 Guineas a side. That is three centuries ago, and you could write a decent-sized book on the links between cricket and money. The significant difference between 20/20 and timeless Tests, seems to be that timeless Tests assume you can make money out of Test cricket, whereas 20/20 assumes that isn’t possible.

The main problem with both of these forms of cricket is that they may well end up killing Test cricket. Timeless Tests would have become so tedious that spectators would rather have paid not to watch them. In contrast, 20/20 is like Test cricket’s more handsome brother who ends up getting all the girls. Players like MS Dhoni from India are now taking the decision to rest from a Test series, and the Indian Premier League was a success in its first year.

The Ashes of 2005 seems a long time ago now. That Test series was the only one I can remember in my time that galvanised Britain, in the same way that, say, a Football or Rugby World Cup does. Not even a Cricket World Cup could do that for English cricket. 2005 was a unique series that we will never see again, but there are reasons to be cheerful. Test cricket is not dead!

There have been exciting matches. Most Test series this year have had at least one humdinger. England against India at Chennai springs to mind immediately, probably because it’s one of the most recent. Still with England, their match between South Africa at Edgbaston saw something special from Graeme Smith. Australia’s series against India (twice) and South Africa this year have an aura of Shakespearean tragedy about them; a once great team reduced to a bickering, uncertain mulch. They are no longer the best team in the world, but I still believe they will retain the Ashes this year. Both matches between New Zealand and West Indies were entertaining too, if only to see when Shivneraine Chanderpaul would get out. Even Bangladesh who, with all the will in the world, are a team of no-hopers, got to 403-6 chasing 521 against Sri Lanka this week. True, they were bowled out for 413, but in this age of 20/20 and short attention spans and Lalit Modi controlling the world and Allan Stamford arriving at Lords in his helicopter with $20 million in it isn’t it just wonderful that Test cricket can still create something beautiful, tense, captivating, stunning, unthinkable, frustrating? The late Harold Pinter was right, it is truly the greatest creation of man (give or take the odd technological innovation).

Unlike 20/20, it’s all over in an afternoon and you have all but forgotten about the match by the next morning, because Tests go on for five days they occupy a sizable chunk of your consciousness and a decent part of your life. A tense finish to a Test, like the Old Trafford match of 1998 and most of the Ashes series of 2005, is much more tense than a close one-day finish because of the build up. It’s been five days of twists and turns, of wondering “what the hell is the score?”, of a whole mix of emotions. How can you feel that emotional about a match that began only a few hours before?

The short answer is that you can’t. And although pessmists may call 2008 the death of Test cricket, I am more optimistic. It will survive, regardless of how many franchises exist in the IPL. Have a good new year.

Cory

“Midland cows to be fed coconuts to stop them burping” screamed a headline in the Sunday Mercury on November 2^nd. The article reports that researchers (or “boffins” as the Mercury prefers to call them) have found that a whole herd of cows produces “more methane in just one year than a family car emits carbon dioxide over a whole decade”.

 

If you look closer at the story you find that this is all, well, a load of hot air. True, cows at the moment eat lots of hay and grass which makes them burp and fart a lot. And scientists are trying to design a new foodstuff to stop them farting. But that doesn’t involve literally feeding the cows coconuts. Instead, one of a range of possible additions to cow’s meals to stop them farting being considered is “fatty acids (from things like coconut oil)”. As the article helpfully mentions - in the twenty-second paragraph. It might not make a sexy headline, but at least it’s accurate.

All of this does need to be put into context with the other pseudo-science that is printed in newspapers. The Metro contains rubbish like this on a daily basis. But just for now, let’s concentrate on cancer stories in the Daily Mail. According to the Mail, cancer can be caused from:

• dogs (and apparently dogs can prevent cancer at the same time)
  
• eating burnt toast
• not having migraines
• nicotine patches
• being tall
• eating sausages
• energy-saving lightbulbs
• wearing flipflops
• being black 

 

Enough of this, let’s move on to the article’s substance (for want of a better word). More does need to be done to stop global warming. But as the article also says, buried in the seventeenth paragraph this time, “Agriculture accounts for less than one per cent of Britain’s total CO2 emissions and its methane emissions have fallen by 14 per cent since 1990″. Small-scale activities like changing the diet of cows and not using plastic bags are commendable, but hardly get to the heart of the matter.

 

If we are serious about stopping global warming, and we need to be, we need to stop our dependence on oil and coal, and get every country serious about tackling climate change. Hopefully an Obama presidency will see the United States take a more active role in cutting emissions. Emerging economies like China and India must be encouraged to develop sustainably. We need new green technology for cleaner cars and aeroplanes. Otherwise we can feed cows what we like. We might as well stuff them with beans and lentil curry and let them fart until, er, the cows come home. Because it wouldn’t make any difference. Green issues and stopping global warming need to be emphasised, but let’s not pretend this will make any difference whatsoever.

Cory

Where does all the time go? These last few weeks have been rather busy and rather stressful. I still have lots of essays to do, but I feel in a much more settled frame of mind to do them. I haven’t been blogging at all, and one of my resolutions is to blog more. We’ll see what happens. At the moment it seems I am one of these “slow bloggers”, though non-existant bloggers may well be a better way of putting it. Still, I am going to post a Redbrick comment from a couple of months ago, that shamelessly I have not put on these pages yet.

Hope that 2009 is all you want it to be and more,

Cory

Once again, work and writer’s block have intruded on the blog. Now I am uploading a couple of comments I wrote just after the US Elections. I’m not going to change it, and here it is in full unedited glory:

The ink has hardly settled on the ballot papers, and already British politicians are fighting over the reasons for Barack Obama’s victory. This involves taking the reason that suits you best. Hence, David Cameron thinks Obama won because of people want change and a fresh face. Gordon Brown naturally emphasises the “progressive” values he and Obama share. None of this is convincing. Cameron is sweeping under the carpet the inconvenient fact that he invited John McCain to speak at the 2006 Conservative Party Conference. Brown’s claim to have “progressive” values is also debatable, but that’s another story.

 

It is far too early to speculate on what effect an Obama presidency could have for
Britain. He doesn’t even take office properly until January. Other longer-term implications of his victory should be left until then because, quite frankly, we don’t know. There are a couple of points we can make right now though.

 

First, does Obama’s victory mean the triumph of “progressive politics”? Only up to a point. It depends on your interpretations of the figures from lots of different exit polls. Data from the McCain camp itself had 60% of voters seeing Obama as a “liberal”. The fact they still voted for him indicates that the term “liberal” may become less stigmatised. The very reason commentators now describe leftish ideas as progressive is because nutters such as Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter demean “liberals” as lily-livered, unpatriotic wets who would sell out America to terrorists quicker than you could say “cheese-eating surrender monkey”.

 

None of this worked. Not even McCain calling Obama a “socialist” made any difference. Those who voted Obama saw the economy as the top issue. By McCain’s own admission, he doesn’t understand economics as well as he should. His proposals to cut taxes and government waste sound tired.

 

Obama won the popular vote 52% to 46%, which does not sound like a great deal. It is probably true that the Democrats could have had Peter Mandelson in a chicken costume as their Presidential candidate, and still would have won. But 52% is the highest proportion of the vote by a Democrat for forty years. Only 26% of Americans describe themselves as “liberal”, but this figure will hopefully change over the next few years. America is still a very conservative country. The fact that 46% of Americans still voted Republican after eight years of Bush shows that. However, with the Republican Party about to engage in a long and, probably, bloody civil war, it is time for the liberal-left to fill the policy gap.

 

The second, and most inspiring, factor about the Obama win was the campaign he fought. It was a grassroots campaign, funded mainly by small donations. Almost half of all donations were of $200 or less, given mainly over the internet. In fairness, some oil company executives were Obama donors and fundraisers, but this is nothing approaching the millions the Republicans received from oil companies. Obama pledged to be free from corporate and lobby interests, and it is to be hoped that this pledge is kept now the election is won. His campaign relied on a huge army of volunteers; young and old, black and white. At his acceptance speech Obama made clear that the victory was about them, not him. Although he has been accused of fostering a ‘cult of personality’, notice the difference between his posters and Hillary Clinton’s in their marathon nomination campaign. Hillary’s posters had “HILLARY” and “CLINTON” screaming from every orifice. Obama, by contrast, was emphasising the need for “CHANGE”, and that timeless mantra beloved of Bob the Builder, “Yes we can”. No mention of his name at all.

 

Turnout in the election was 64% - the highest in the US since 1908. People voted in large numbers – many for the first time – because there was a clear policy choice for voters, and a message that inspired people to vote. Why do you think there is a low turnout in not just student elections, but general elections in the UK? Because there is not a clear choice for voters, and there is no POSITIVE programme to vote for. Labour’s message for the past two general elections has essentially been, “At least we’re not as crap as the Tories”. It’s hardly inspiring stuff.

 

Already I know of students in Birmingham wondering when Obama is going to be shot, or thinking he won’t make much difference, or that it “couldn’t happen in Britain”. Cheer up, people! Give the guy a chance. And don’t just assume that nothing can ever change, get off your backsides and DO SOMETHING.

 

That’s the main message we should take from Obama’s victory. You don’t have to be part of the political establishment. With the right message you can enthuse thousands of people to campaign for you, and make change through the ballot box.

 

There’s a long way to go, lots of problems and the journey is just beginning. Regardless of whether Obama is that fantastic a President, the fact that he can come from nowhere and enthuse so many normally apolitical and apathetic voters shows that in Britain we must be optimistic. Students of all political persuasions must be convinced that we can change Britain if we want to, using grassroots and internet campaigning. I’m tired of all this cynicism. Let’s get out there and build a better world.

 

 

Sorry I haven’t posted much. University, writer’s block, all take their toll.

Which means I haven’t written as much on the US Elections as I otherwise might. I have been trying to avoid media coverage for the last few days - I just need to know. NOW. Or as soon as humanely possible.

Obama HAS to win. That is more. Hopefully I’ll blog soon.

Cory

Have just returned from holiday and once again have no time to spend on theblog. I have a stupendously important job interview on Wednesday I need to prepare for. argh! Keep a look on the blog soon though, I plan to post something interesting.

And that’s a promise…

Cory

In sport these days, people seem to have problems keeping a sense of perspective. This is all too apparent in the Premiership close-season, when there are no actual football games but plenty of nonsense stories. Misquoted or not, it’s quite hard to know what to think to Ronaldo’s remark describing himself as a slave. Is it more stupid or naive or insulting to the millions of slaves down the Millennia? I am not sure myself.

Another recent remark that raised eyebrows was Ed Moses saying that Dwaine Chambers’s Olympic ban “would be almost like a death sentence”. Except that it…isn’t, surely? Anyone who has listened to the commentary on any Sky football match will know that hyperbole is only an Andy Gray exhalation away, but really? Sigh…

So it’s quite nice to see a sportsman keeping things in perspective for once. Michael Vaughan resigned the England captaincy last Sunday (was it really only last Sunday? Time flies etc) and one of the reasons he gave was, that for the last six to eight months he has not been himself at home. And he “wants to be me again”.

That is a true statement from a man who is not only one of England’s best-ever captains, but one who realises that there is something more important than sport. And that is family. Hence Vaughan crying when talking about his mum and dad as well. Having not really seen him very emotional at all in the eight years of international cricket, that was something.

I’m not quite sure if appointing Kevin Pieterson as captain is the right move or not. Though it was probably the sensible one. A split captaincy of Strauss for the tests and Pieterson for the one-dayers would probably have caused the same tensions as it did before with Nasser Hussain and Michael Vaughan. It does seem like putting the bull in charge of the china shop, though thus far (at least) it’s going smoothly. England to win the Ashes! Now that’s keeping a true sense of perspective!

This from Liberal Conspiracy cheered me up slightly:

The ICM poll shows that whilst 36% of those asked think people who may be guilty of a terrorist offence should be held in detention for up to six week, or 42 days, before they are charged or released, 32% say it should be up to four weeks, 13% up to two weeks, 10% up to one week and 6% up to four days.

Significantly, when told that six weeks in custody is equivalent to the prison sentence which someone might serve if found guilty of an offence such as burglary or assault quite a few people change their minds. Of those who said terrorist suspects should be held for up to six weeks before being charged or released, more than a third (35%) changed their minds when told this and agreed it is not right to hold someone who may be innocent for so long.

I really don’t understand why this law is going through. It doesn’t make us any safer from a possible terrorist attack. The only possible motives were to 1) look tough on terror and 2) do something that is popular with voters. 2) would appear now to be false, which leaves looking tough on terror. But with other issues (food prices, the economy, etc etc etc) on people’s minds, looking tough on terror is the last thing that should be on Labour’s minds.

I have let my membership of the Labour Party lapse, partly because of the 10p tax debacle, but also because of this needless, ridiculous legislation. It doesn’t help that we have an incompetent Home Secretary to try to pass it, as well as Tony McNulty, who again seems vacuous and cannot fail to come across as annoying on whatever political show he is interviewed on. It would help if he bothered answering the questions put to him (not that that’s anything novel in a politician).

Whether or not I should renew my membership, I really do not know. Expect some agonising soul-searching across this blog over the next few months.

Cory