So it seems snooker is back for the new season, with the Grand Prix currently taking place in Glasgow. Although I won't hear a word said against the game (it's a matter of national self-interest as much as anything - what else do we regularly excel in?), it always strikes me that it suffers from an inbuilt problem that must be virtually unique in sport. In a nutshell, it's this - the more talented the players are, the duller the game becomes. OK, I appreciate that Pete Sampras winning seven Wimbledons out of eight, most of them in a canter, didn't exactly make for thrilling viewing, but that wasn't the fault of his ability - it was the lack of serious competition. Imagine how compelling a match between Sampras and Federer at their respective peaks could have been. But in snooker, the same principle does not apply. When you have two players showing their absolute top form, you in fact have the perfect recipe for tedium. The cue-ball under perfect control, no difficult pots. Not for nothing was the most exciting break in the sport's history - Alex Higgins' impossible clearance against Jimmy White in 1982 - described as "the worst break I've ever seen". Higgins only needed to pull out the outrageous pots because he kept running hopelessly out of position.
So in looking to secure a bright future for the game, perhaps World Snooker should focus slightly less on superficial things like relaxed dress codes and round robin formats, and instead reflect on whether the fundamental rules of the game can be modernised. Increasing the size of the table might be the simplest solution.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
I know things are grim, Silvio, but...
Silvio Berlusconi reportedly now views himself, quite literally, as the most 'persecuted' man in the entire history of the world. Really? Perhaps someone ought to quietly introduce the billionaire Italian Prime Minister - who for years has been able to use his wealth and power to shield himself from the legal process in a way that no ordinary citizen ever could - to Mr. Gary McKinnon.
Fifteen minutes on Facebook
After the epic 'debate' I was involved in earlier this year, one of my observations was that there appears to be very few forums in which the massed ranks on each side of the Great Cultural Chasm in America can even bring themselves to talk at each other, let alone engage in constructive debate. The bemusement I provoked simply by sticking around to argue an alternative point of view, and the curiosity value that seemed to be attached to such a thing occurring, spoke volumes. Well, I had a very similar experience a few hours ago - all it took was a brief exchange on Twitter about President Obama's new status as a Nobel laureate, and suddenly one of my tweets briefly occupied pride of place on the Facebook page of a "Republican activist/commentator/blogger/vlogger" (the mind boggles). Ryan P Dixon does appear to have something of a following, with 600 fans on Facebook, and no fewer than 24,954 followers on Twitter. Well cheers, Ryan, I agree with you that it was one of my very finest tweets, and thoroughly deserving of the wider audience you brought it to.
Ryan further drew attention to my little gem by introducing it with shouty capital letters - "LIBERAL ON TWITTER: Says this is the reason why Obama won the Nobel". I'm always unsure at moments like that whether it's worth entering into a philosophical discussion about what the word 'liberal' actually means, at least on this side of the Atlantic. Someone with left-of-centre views in Germany would hardly look to the liberal party there (the Free Democrats) as their spiritual home. Of course, the American usage of the word is just as legitimate, but when it's imposed on people from other countries, it can sometimes be quite satisfying to respond with an insistence on linguistic precision. The best retort of that variety I can think of is from Sean Connery's character in the film The Russia House (it may well feature in John le Carré's original novel as well). When a paranoid American military interrogator puts it to him that his father was a liberal, he responds with a wry smile -
"No. My father hated liberals. He took the communist line mainly..."
Ryan further drew attention to my little gem by introducing it with shouty capital letters - "LIBERAL ON TWITTER: Says this is the reason why Obama won the Nobel". I'm always unsure at moments like that whether it's worth entering into a philosophical discussion about what the word 'liberal' actually means, at least on this side of the Atlantic. Someone with left-of-centre views in Germany would hardly look to the liberal party there (the Free Democrats) as their spiritual home. Of course, the American usage of the word is just as legitimate, but when it's imposed on people from other countries, it can sometimes be quite satisfying to respond with an insistence on linguistic precision. The best retort of that variety I can think of is from Sean Connery's character in the film The Russia House (it may well feature in John le Carré's original novel as well). When a paranoid American military interrogator puts it to him that his father was a liberal, he responds with a wry smile -
"No. My father hated liberals. He took the communist line mainly..."
Friday, October 9, 2009
Was it right to award Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize?
I must admit my first reaction when I vaguely heard something about the news earlier today was "that can't possibly be right", so I suppose that ought to answer my own question. But of course the Nobel Committee has often in the past awarded the prize to a person of goodwill (or assumed to be of goodwill) as a kind of exhortation to them to continue striving for peace in the future. It can indeed be a powerful incentive - if, several years down the line, nothing has been accomplished, or things have actually got worse, the prize can become almost a mark of shame rather than pride. That was for a time, it's worth remembering, the case for John Hume and David Trimble, who were given the award at a relatively early stage of the Northern Ireland peace process, which still had "many a slip twixt cup and lip" to come. During those slips, it was often suggested to Hume and Trimble that they ought to return the prize money. Did this factor shame them (or rather Trimble and his colleagues in particular) into pushing for a durable settlement? It's hard to see it as an overriding factor, but it certainly can't have done any harm.
The recognition for Obama can also, I think, be justified simply on direction and speed of travel. For a country that less than a year ago was perceived (probably accurately given its capacity to project its will onto others) as the greatest threat to world peace to have transformed itself into a force for reconciliation in many arenas does indeed look impressive. If Obama had succeeded the Clinton administration, it would look rather less so. But it's the paradox of the Peace Prize that it is typically awarded to people from countries that have recently stoked conflict - how else could it have gone to Northern Ireland twice?
I'm writing this in blissful ignorance of what the conservative American blogosphere have made of this news. I'm about to dive in and discover. I'm sure they will be thoroughly magnanimous, pleased that the leader of their country has received this extraordinary accolade, regardless of any political differences...
The recognition for Obama can also, I think, be justified simply on direction and speed of travel. For a country that less than a year ago was perceived (probably accurately given its capacity to project its will onto others) as the greatest threat to world peace to have transformed itself into a force for reconciliation in many arenas does indeed look impressive. If Obama had succeeded the Clinton administration, it would look rather less so. But it's the paradox of the Peace Prize that it is typically awarded to people from countries that have recently stoked conflict - how else could it have gone to Northern Ireland twice?
I'm writing this in blissful ignorance of what the conservative American blogosphere have made of this news. I'm about to dive in and discover. I'm sure they will be thoroughly magnanimous, pleased that the leader of their country has received this extraordinary accolade, regardless of any political differences...
Desperately seeking an instant convert
I'm slightly baffled by an article that's just appeared on the Telegraph blogs by Will Heaven (who, appropriately for both his name and subject-matter, is described as 'a writer who specialises in religion'). He seems to have genuinely convinced himself that Ian Hislop underwent some kind of Damascene conversion while on the Question Time panel this evening, and became a Conservative supporter midway through, after realising that his Tory-bashing jokes weren't carrying the audience.
Just two problems with this startling theory. Firstly, the Tory-bashing jokes (to the extent that there were any at all) were actually resonating. "Witness his opening jibe," says Heaven, "that Cameron’s was 'quite a dull speech'. No laughs." Actually, I think you might want to "witness" that again on the BBC iplayer, Mr Heaven, because there was in reality a loud spontaneous laugh.
But the second thing, far more to the point, is that Hislop has clearly been mildly sympathetic towards the Conservatives, and Cameron in particular, for quite some time - for at least a couple of years in fact. His so-called opening 'jibe' was in fact merely a teaser leading into a clearly pre-prepared line which was very supportive of Mr Cameron - the unfunny punchline of which was that 'dull' is exactly what people actually want at present.
So if Mr Heaven's goal is to eventually report on a real-life instant political conversion, I fear he'll have to be patient and look elsewhere - and that doesn't mean towards David Freud or Richard Dannatt either.
Just two problems with this startling theory. Firstly, the Tory-bashing jokes (to the extent that there were any at all) were actually resonating. "Witness his opening jibe," says Heaven, "that Cameron’s was 'quite a dull speech'. No laughs." Actually, I think you might want to "witness" that again on the BBC iplayer, Mr Heaven, because there was in reality a loud spontaneous laugh.
But the second thing, far more to the point, is that Hislop has clearly been mildly sympathetic towards the Conservatives, and Cameron in particular, for quite some time - for at least a couple of years in fact. His so-called opening 'jibe' was in fact merely a teaser leading into a clearly pre-prepared line which was very supportive of Mr Cameron - the unfunny punchline of which was that 'dull' is exactly what people actually want at present.
So if Mr Heaven's goal is to eventually report on a real-life instant political conversion, I fear he'll have to be patient and look elsewhere - and that doesn't mean towards David Freud or Richard Dannatt either.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
The best small unitary authority in the world
Out on my travels on Wednesday, it struck me how bizarrely grandiose some of the slogans used by local authorities on signposts are becoming. Angus is the "birthplace of Scotland" (in what way?), while Perth and Kinross "welcomes the world". Dumfries and Galloway (from what I recall the last time I was there in August) is "First in Scotland" - although of course it could just as easily be last. Whereas North Lanarkshire takes a different tack with the internal contradiction of "take the lead, reduce your speed".
A more colloquial "hiya" would be quite refreshing one day, although I suppose nothing can be worse than Scotland's former branding as "the best small country in the world".
There was also a gorgeous large moon all the way home, which set me wondering (for some reason) whether a man had ever set foot on the moon within my lifetime. The answer, as I should have remembered, is no - the most recent was Eugene Cernan way back on December 11, 1972. And of course NASA couldn't return in the foreseeable future even if it wanted to, a reminder that technology can go backwards as well as forwards, and quite frequently does. We used to have commercial supersonic air travel. We even used to have teletext on ITV...
A more colloquial "hiya" would be quite refreshing one day, although I suppose nothing can be worse than Scotland's former branding as "the best small country in the world".
There was also a gorgeous large moon all the way home, which set me wondering (for some reason) whether a man had ever set foot on the moon within my lifetime. The answer, as I should have remembered, is no - the most recent was Eugene Cernan way back on December 11, 1972. And of course NASA couldn't return in the foreseeable future even if it wanted to, a reminder that technology can go backwards as well as forwards, and quite frequently does. We used to have commercial supersonic air travel. We even used to have teletext on ITV...
Minority entitlements
Malc in the Burgh has starkly demonstrated the iniquities of the current Westminster electoral system, by means of a simple comparison between the outcomes of the 1992 and 2001 elections. But one thing that always strikes me as extraordinary about 1992 is that John Major went out of his way on a number of occasions to complain about the constituency boundaries generating a majority considerably less than he was entitled to. To me, if you've successfully got away with maintaining a system that allows you to hold absolute power for eighteen years on the basis of a mere 42-43% of the vote, it might be a little more tactful just to keep quiet about any minor drawbacks...
It would only take one doctor...
Over at Jeff's blog, one poster has rather unkindly suggested that Lord George Foulkes ought to be sectioned, as a means to "cut public spending and help reduce the deficit at a stroke". This is presumably a reference to the Labour peer's two sets of parliamentary expenses claims (from the Scottish Parliament and from the House of Lords) and to his hard-earned reputation for submitting an extraordinary number of vexatious and costly written parliamentary questions and Freedom of Information requests. But I wonder if Marcia's comment might also have been inspired by the frankly chilling news the other week that the London government Lord Foulkes enthusiastically supports is using the swine flu pandemic as an excuse to rush through changes that would allow mental health patients to be sectioned with the go-ahead of just one doctor?
It's hard to think of a bigger human rights issue than this. I don't know what the procedure is, and whether parliamentary approval will be required for the change to take effect, but if that is the case, I hope and expect Lord Foulkes' colleagues in the upper chamber will block it.
It's hard to think of a bigger human rights issue than this. I don't know what the procedure is, and whether parliamentary approval will be required for the change to take effect, but if that is the case, I hope and expect Lord Foulkes' colleagues in the upper chamber will block it.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
98% and 'universal' - spot the difference
Back to the USA, and Right Wing News expresses a kind of faux bemusement that the "ultra-left" (ie. vaguely to the left of Enoch Powell) National Association for the Advancement of Colored People should be spearheading a drive to encourage prisoners in Maine to register to vote. The 'controversy' here is that inmates are disproportionately likely to back the Democrats. The only difficulty with this complaint is that Maine is one of the two states where prisoners are perfectly entitled to vote, and the Democrats would in fact therefore be left at an unfair disadvantage if there was not an attempt to galvanise all potential voters.
Of course the US is not the only place in the world where allowing criminals the right to vote is highly controversial - Europe is split on the issue, and the UK is one of many countries which retains a legal bar. But the difference is a matter of scale. Even in the UK, which jails more people per head of population than other country in western Europe, less than 0.2% of the voting age population is debarred due to a term of imprisonment. In the US, the figure is an astonishing 2%, due to a blend of a higher crime rate, a much more draconian legal system, and perhaps most significantly of all, the fact that in a great many states felons remain debarred from voting even after they are released. So let's turn the Right Wing News point about the likely political inclinations of the people concerned on its head. Is it entirely a coincidence that in the most Republican of states, draconian criminal justice legislation just happens to be artifically suppressing the potential Democrat vote to a mind-boggling degree? When you consider that well over one in ten African American men in the US are legally barred from voting, it seems that the bad old ways of 'poll taxes' and 'literacy tests' to ensure indirect disenfranchisement of black people are still around - just in an invidious new form, one that is much harder for civil rights groups to successfully campaign against.
And yet campaign they must. Apart from anything else, can a country that currently only permits 98% of its adult population to vote actually be deemed to have maintained 'universal suffrage'? The USA - a beacon of democracy for the rest of the world, or not even a democracy at all?
Of course the US is not the only place in the world where allowing criminals the right to vote is highly controversial - Europe is split on the issue, and the UK is one of many countries which retains a legal bar. But the difference is a matter of scale. Even in the UK, which jails more people per head of population than other country in western Europe, less than 0.2% of the voting age population is debarred due to a term of imprisonment. In the US, the figure is an astonishing 2%, due to a blend of a higher crime rate, a much more draconian legal system, and perhaps most significantly of all, the fact that in a great many states felons remain debarred from voting even after they are released. So let's turn the Right Wing News point about the likely political inclinations of the people concerned on its head. Is it entirely a coincidence that in the most Republican of states, draconian criminal justice legislation just happens to be artifically suppressing the potential Democrat vote to a mind-boggling degree? When you consider that well over one in ten African American men in the US are legally barred from voting, it seems that the bad old ways of 'poll taxes' and 'literacy tests' to ensure indirect disenfranchisement of black people are still around - just in an invidious new form, one that is much harder for civil rights groups to successfully campaign against.
And yet campaign they must. Apart from anything else, can a country that currently only permits 98% of its adult population to vote actually be deemed to have maintained 'universal suffrage'? The USA - a beacon of democracy for the rest of the world, or not even a democracy at all?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Dazzling distractions
In heated disputes over issues, there are occasions when one side seems to instinctively deflect attention from the fundamental weakness of its own case by seeking to comprehensively - and conveniently - redefine what the issue is actually 'about'. And it almost seems that the more contrived and implausible that redefinition is, the more aggressively it will be promoted. Perhaps because it's themselves that they most desperately need to convince? A classic recent example was the ban on fox hunting, an issue squarely about the prevention of gratuitous cruelty towards animals, but which was somehow magically resculpted into an issue about 'human rights' and 'tolerance towards minority groups'.
We've seen exactly the same pattern in the last few days over the issue of fair access to the proposed leaders' debates in the run-up to the general election. And the arguments that have been deployed have had previous outings, of course. In 1995, when the Scottish courts blocked the screening of an extended interview with the then Prime Minister John Major a week before Scottish local elections, we saw countless column inches bewailing the dastardly judges and politicians who had breached a 'fundamental principle' by interfering in the media's editorial independence. The issue was, in a nutshell, about protecting precious freedoms that had been hard-won over centuries. All of which, of course, amounted to nothing more than a dazzling sound and light display that was there to distract us from the rather more prosaic real issue, the one that had been specifically zeroed in on by the court - do the London-based media recognise that balanced election campaign coverage is just as important in a Scottish context as it is in an English context? As I recall, the judge specifically asked "would you have scheduled this interview one week before local elections in England?" The answer was not 'yes'.
And once again, over the last few days, some have been brazenly inviting us to believe that the attempts of certain political parties to gain fair access to leaders' debates is in fact all about those parties trying to 'ban' and 'censor' things. We've heard all sorts of hysterical references to "Kim Jong-Il" and "Chinese-style censorship". Even the normally sensible Mike Smithson joined in, I suspect due to his very strong enthusiasm for the debates taking place at all costs. His rather peculiar comment was - "Sounds like Switzerland - if it’s not compulsory it’s prohibited."
Those words came back to me a few hours ago, as it struck me that they could be far more aptly applied to a completely different issue. Here we are with countless thousands of over-65s who desperately want (and in some cases need) to work, but are in essence legally prevented from doing so. Yet at the same time we're talking about forcing lots of people who don't want to work an extra year to do just that. Does the left hand actually know what the right hand is doing?
We've seen exactly the same pattern in the last few days over the issue of fair access to the proposed leaders' debates in the run-up to the general election. And the arguments that have been deployed have had previous outings, of course. In 1995, when the Scottish courts blocked the screening of an extended interview with the then Prime Minister John Major a week before Scottish local elections, we saw countless column inches bewailing the dastardly judges and politicians who had breached a 'fundamental principle' by interfering in the media's editorial independence. The issue was, in a nutshell, about protecting precious freedoms that had been hard-won over centuries. All of which, of course, amounted to nothing more than a dazzling sound and light display that was there to distract us from the rather more prosaic real issue, the one that had been specifically zeroed in on by the court - do the London-based media recognise that balanced election campaign coverage is just as important in a Scottish context as it is in an English context? As I recall, the judge specifically asked "would you have scheduled this interview one week before local elections in England?" The answer was not 'yes'.
And once again, over the last few days, some have been brazenly inviting us to believe that the attempts of certain political parties to gain fair access to leaders' debates is in fact all about those parties trying to 'ban' and 'censor' things. We've heard all sorts of hysterical references to "Kim Jong-Il" and "Chinese-style censorship". Even the normally sensible Mike Smithson joined in, I suspect due to his very strong enthusiasm for the debates taking place at all costs. His rather peculiar comment was - "Sounds like Switzerland - if it’s not compulsory it’s prohibited."
Those words came back to me a few hours ago, as it struck me that they could be far more aptly applied to a completely different issue. Here we are with countless thousands of over-65s who desperately want (and in some cases need) to work, but are in essence legally prevented from doing so. Yet at the same time we're talking about forcing lots of people who don't want to work an extra year to do just that. Does the left hand actually know what the right hand is doing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)