![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksKind of a "no shit sherlock?" morning for the newspapers, isn't it? Nothing so wonderful/sickening/depressing as watching the media whip itself into an unheard-of degree of moral outrage about something they either don't understand or which they should have know was coming anyway.
But, well, maybe the media just reflects the population at large on these two. First the News of the World "exposes" the fact that the Pakistan cricket team is subject to certain external influences. Considering the fact that members of the Pakistan cricket team have been stomped on for this at least twice since 2001, this is a genuine "no shit, sherlock" and immediately goes on the Birks "no shit, sherlock" "honours board" for the month.
This seems to tie in with some British view of sport that it is "different". So, players are expected to play for their country for "pride", even though they are professionals. They are not meant to be subject to external financial influences because, even though they are professionals, at heart it is a "game". And, although cheating in business is expected, cheating in games for financial reasons is, well, morally wrong. Luckily, in this instance, it is also illegal. Wouldn't it be nice if a dive to get a penalty was a criminal offence under some kind of "attempt to gain a pecuniary advantage by deception" law? After all, if staying in the Premiership is worth a million quid to a player, surely attempting to deceive the referee in such a fashion qualifies as some kind of criminal financial offence?
The second appearance on the NSS hounours board for the month is (a) the announcement that NHS Direct will go the way of the dodo and (b) the outrage from the general population, let alone Labour politicians. I said that this would happen the second any cuts became "real" rather than "hypothetical", and so it comes to pass.
Radio 5 got a chap who used NHS Direct to explain why it was a useful service -- his main argument appeared to be that it saved him embarrassment when discussing a "personal" condition. Hmm, I think that even the Beeb might have found a better case for keeping NHS Direct alive.
I'm not sure how many times people will have to be told this, but the argument that "it does a useful service" just isn't good enough. The arguments that "it saves money in the long run" or that "it's an investment for the future" also don't cut the mustard. We are in the total shit here. We have been spending money that we haven't got on "useful" services for decades (think January and February when Homer was mayor of Springfield, before the money ran out). Yes, NHS Direct is a very nice thing to have. It's a very useful service. It does very good things for lots of people. None of which, I fear to say, matters a toss at the moment. Because we haven't got any money. I'm amazed that there aren't people on the right actually arguing that the NHS is a luxury that we can no longer afford. Because, well, that's really how serious the situation is.
And we really are getting into the situation where we have to say things as bad as "life expectancy in this country has been extended by spending money that we haven't got". In other words, some adults have lived longer and, yes, some children have survived, at the expense of future adults' life expectancy and future children's survival. That's how much we have borrowed from the future.
When the situation is put as starkly as that, NHS Direct appears rather less of an absolutely vital service. Think intensive care units for new-born babies being closed. Think halving the number of ambulances on the streets. Think really bad shit like that.
No-one likes being the bringer of bad news. No-one ever gets thanked for telling people harsh truths. That's because people are in the main still not bright enough to realize that the person bringing the bad news is not by definition the person who made the bad news happen. And people like even less to be told "the reason that this is happening is all your fault, because if you didn't retire at 60 with an inflation-proofed pension, if you had carried on being a productive member of society, then perhaps NHS Direct would still be a luxury that we could afford. But you didn't, you thought that after a mere 40 years work that entitled you to 40 years of non-work. Well, sorry guv, but the numbers don't add up." Instead, they have to say that it's the fault of the banks, big business, "wasteful" government spending (whatever that is -- I'm sure that there isn't a single government expense that some group, somewhere, will tell you is absolutely vital).
Even Boris Johnson doesn't seem able to cope with these harsh realities. Crossrail, properly functioning underground trains, anything that smacks of investment for the future, is probably doomed. For a decade or so it's a matter of immediate return, not a "comfortable society". Like I say, we've spent away our right to comfort. I just would have hoped that we would have been a bit more realistic about the fact than the Greeks. Apparently not.
________________
But, well, maybe the media just reflects the population at large on these two. First the News of the World "exposes" the fact that the Pakistan cricket team is subject to certain external influences. Considering the fact that members of the Pakistan cricket team have been stomped on for this at least twice since 2001, this is a genuine "no shit, sherlock" and immediately goes on the Birks "no shit, sherlock" "honours board" for the month.
This seems to tie in with some British view of sport that it is "different". So, players are expected to play for their country for "pride", even though they are professionals. They are not meant to be subject to external financial influences because, even though they are professionals, at heart it is a "game". And, although cheating in business is expected, cheating in games for financial reasons is, well, morally wrong. Luckily, in this instance, it is also illegal. Wouldn't it be nice if a dive to get a penalty was a criminal offence under some kind of "attempt to gain a pecuniary advantage by deception" law? After all, if staying in the Premiership is worth a million quid to a player, surely attempting to deceive the referee in such a fashion qualifies as some kind of criminal financial offence?
The second appearance on the NSS hounours board for the month is (a) the announcement that NHS Direct will go the way of the dodo and (b) the outrage from the general population, let alone Labour politicians. I said that this would happen the second any cuts became "real" rather than "hypothetical", and so it comes to pass.
Radio 5 got a chap who used NHS Direct to explain why it was a useful service -- his main argument appeared to be that it saved him embarrassment when discussing a "personal" condition. Hmm, I think that even the Beeb might have found a better case for keeping NHS Direct alive.
I'm not sure how many times people will have to be told this, but the argument that "it does a useful service" just isn't good enough. The arguments that "it saves money in the long run" or that "it's an investment for the future" also don't cut the mustard. We are in the total shit here. We have been spending money that we haven't got on "useful" services for decades (think January and February when Homer was mayor of Springfield, before the money ran out). Yes, NHS Direct is a very nice thing to have. It's a very useful service. It does very good things for lots of people. None of which, I fear to say, matters a toss at the moment. Because we haven't got any money. I'm amazed that there aren't people on the right actually arguing that the NHS is a luxury that we can no longer afford. Because, well, that's really how serious the situation is.
And we really are getting into the situation where we have to say things as bad as "life expectancy in this country has been extended by spending money that we haven't got". In other words, some adults have lived longer and, yes, some children have survived, at the expense of future adults' life expectancy and future children's survival. That's how much we have borrowed from the future.
When the situation is put as starkly as that, NHS Direct appears rather less of an absolutely vital service. Think intensive care units for new-born babies being closed. Think halving the number of ambulances on the streets. Think really bad shit like that.
No-one likes being the bringer of bad news. No-one ever gets thanked for telling people harsh truths. That's because people are in the main still not bright enough to realize that the person bringing the bad news is not by definition the person who made the bad news happen. And people like even less to be told "the reason that this is happening is all your fault, because if you didn't retire at 60 with an inflation-proofed pension, if you had carried on being a productive member of society, then perhaps NHS Direct would still be a luxury that we could afford. But you didn't, you thought that after a mere 40 years work that entitled you to 40 years of non-work. Well, sorry guv, but the numbers don't add up." Instead, they have to say that it's the fault of the banks, big business, "wasteful" government spending (whatever that is -- I'm sure that there isn't a single government expense that some group, somewhere, will tell you is absolutely vital).
Even Boris Johnson doesn't seem able to cope with these harsh realities. Crossrail, properly functioning underground trains, anything that smacks of investment for the future, is probably doomed. For a decade or so it's a matter of immediate return, not a "comfortable society". Like I say, we've spent away our right to comfort. I just would have hoped that we would have been a bit more realistic about the fact than the Greeks. Apparently not.
________________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-29 04:57 pm (UTC)Brilliant! Let's just hope it doesn't extend to all sports and, hence, games, though...
no subject
Date: 2010-08-29 05:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-29 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-29 05:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-29 05:57 pm (UTC)The cricket allegations, btw, appear to centre around spot-fixing. Now, even I, as a fanatical follower of cricket pre-Sky, find it difficult to care that a Pakistani bowler has overstepped the crease on the third ball of his fifth over. Criminal? Yes (if proven). Would it have made any difference to the game? Hardly.
The home of cricket
Date: 2010-08-29 09:06 pm (UTC)Keith S
Re: The home of cricket
Date: 2010-08-29 09:33 pm (UTC)Far more likely that this was a "taster" - proof that the Pakistan players were "on board" for later bets on occurrences which were backable with UK firms. When one looks at the performance of the Pakistan team in one of the tests vs Australia last year, where errors by certain players turned a strong Pakistan position into a weak one, then one has to wonder whether in the past there have been events rather more significant than naming a no-ball.
But, well, the Beeb has never really understood betting, so it was floundering about in the dark here when it reported the story.
PJ
Re: The home of cricket
Date: 2010-08-30 02:09 pm (UTC)I asked myself this simple question: if somebody sidled up to me in a Singapore gin joint and asked "psst, guv! I can offer you ten to one that ball three of over five by [insert Mohammed X here] won't be a no-ball," then my first thought is going to be: "What a stupid idea for a bet." My second thought is going to be "... unless it's a fix."
Then there's your far more realistic possibility of ball-by-ball betting. Unfortunately, that makes little sense either, because it's, er, ball-by-ball. You'd have to keep the margins on the other 597 balls in a 100 over inning fairly slim, because the punters would lose interest way before the crucial no-ball occurs. I'll grant it's possible, but is it £150,000 possible? If people are betting with that amount of turnover, I think I'll just take the rake on the other 597 balls, thanks.
I'm left with your conclusion that it was a "taster." Or, of course, a News of the Screws cock-up. Even that's a bit odd, because you have to be in a position to win a game before you lose it. Pakistan are a particularly bad choice in this regard, because (a) Hoi En Telei in India won't let their players into the IPL (which is probably 90% of the betting market) and (b) they don't have any batsmen left who can convincingly win a game. Except possibly against Sri Lanka, who are understandably reluctant to play them.
As an outlier, has anybody considered the political conspiracy theory? About the only thing holding Pakistan together in these current distressed times is a national pride in the cricket team. If rogue elements in the SIS think they can engineer a suitable army coup on the back of yet another scandal that makes Zardari look stupid, then who's to say that some piffling £150,000 isn't worth it?
And before anybody points out that the £150,000 in question came from the NotW, you have to consider the future of the "agent" in question, who would presumably want a fair few bob more to risk jail and the loss of his livelihood.
The Cuts
Date: 2010-08-29 10:41 pm (UTC)Meanwhile I agree that the latest cricketing revelations are hardly a surprise. I would expect though that whilst a lot of Pakistanis have rather more pressing concerns over their lives and families, a considerable number of them, even if not totally surprised by these revelations, might just have a few seconds to feel a little resentful at the way their countrymen(and heroes) are (allegedly) lining their pockets in a far off land. Sportsmen, no more no less than the rest of us should play by the rules and as things stand these guys dont appear to be.
Bets and stuff
Date: 2010-08-30 10:12 pm (UTC)I knew I'd find some sort of explanation for this odd-looking betting scam in your august journal. However, is it possible that this wasn't a taster for the future, but a punishment? Perhaps for winning the Oval test?
Cheers,
Niall L
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 09:41 pm (UTC)You say "In other words, some adults have lived longer and, yes, some children have survived, at the expense of future adults' life expectancy and future children's survival. That's how much we have borrowed from the future." Without defining 'some' this means nothing more than we've overspent a bit so we'd better rein it in a bit to get back on track (as you very well know). To go from that straight to banging on about halve the number of ambulances is pure meaningless rhetoric.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 08:08 am (UTC)To defend the point though, I don't think it's the contention that NHS Direct will be solely responsible for the halving of ambulances in 2012. But the philosophy of spending on pretty (and sometimes useful) baubles such as NHS Direct has led to overspending on a scale that will require significant cutbacks at some future point. Without wishing to go all Thatcherish here, on a domestic level, it's the equivalent of going round the supermarket buying nice food that is good for you but which isn't an essential. The following week you can't buy cornflakes and potatoes. It's not rhetoric, it's hyperbole.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 08:32 am (UTC)The use of hyperbole (which is pretty much the same as meaningless rhetoric - discuss) begs the question. You've done it yourself by saying significant. I think that we need to rein things in, but do not agree at all with the scale of cuts discussed by the coalition - which are being widely accepted as inevitable.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-01 09:30 am (UTC)My point was that to panic and get into a state of moral outrage over something as nice as NHS Direct (a bit like taking sugar out of our coffee) is indicative that most people are of the school of "oh yes, cuts are necessary", but seem to imagine that this can be done without it having any impact -- a head-in-the-sand approach that infuriates me. No, the cuts being discussed by the coalition are NOT inevitable. Indeed, a "cobbled together" "solution" is far more likely, one that will send us down the path of Greece. If you want to carry on borrowing from the future (and, without doubt, most voters do) then go ahead and do it. But for heaven's sake stop thinking that this is a "solution". It isn't.
Our ways of life, including the NHS as we now know it, pensions as we now understand them, the ratio of our working life to non-working life as we have become accustomed to, have all been based on a lie. The voter doesn't want to admit that and so, as a result, blames anyone who tries to say that it's the case, rather than admitting that the system that we have established is unsustainable.
This is really just a first-world version of bread and other staple subsidies introduced by governments in developing economies to keep people happy. Easy and popular to introduce, hard to get rid of.
If "rhetoric" is required to stimulate a response, then rhetoric is what we need. Because none of the population seems to want to read the figures.
And, of course, no offence taken. Rock on demagogy :-)
PJ
____________
Grecian 2010
Date: 2010-09-01 11:47 am (UTC)No, seriously. Comparisons to Greece are fast becoming the Godwin's law of what I now see is being called the "Great Recession." (I'll take a Lesser Depression and a bottle of chlorpromazine, please.)
There are certainly interesting parallels to be drawn. I think our institutional obsession with owning a nuclear deterrent has similarities with Greek military spending, although at least the Greeks use Turkey as an excuse -- all we've got is a dimwit argument that we'd no longer be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. (Uganda, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Nigeria and Lebanon presently sit alongside us: w00t!) One might argue that the fear of financiers fleeing the country is almost as paralysing as the Greek fear of the plutocrats taking their money offshore.
In the end, however, it's hard (but as ever, not impossible) to see how the UK could cock things up quite as badly as Greece.
One other point on the central issue: brain-dead headlines in the media, plus the usual torrent of ill-thought-out opinion on the Internet from people ... er, like me ... who wouldn't have had a voice ten years ago, do not really add up to a convincing case for schizophrenia on this topic.
On the other hand, they might very well amplify the natural latent stupidity of mankind to the point where we really are schizophrenic. Isn't technology wonderful?
It's just not crook-bat
Date: 2010-09-01 12:21 pm (UTC)"M'lud, it is true that my 18 year old client overstepped the line ... ha ha ... in this case. He is prepared to take the consequences, and suffer the ultimate penalty as provided for in the laws of cricket: that is to say, the provision of an extra run to the opposition, together with the obligation to add a further ball to the over in question. May it please the court; this penalty has already been exacted.
"It has been suggested by many in the media that my client's actions might materially have affected the match in question. Some, perhaps those of a less informed nature, have gone so far as to suggest that, had my client bowled a Mr Trott out, rather than deliver the so-called "no ball," the very result of this match might well have been overturned.
"My client fully accepts this proposition. Indeed, I would go further. My client is enthusiastically convinced that cricket is, above all, a game in which the outcome may depend upon the effects of a single ball.
"Consequently, my client submits that he deliberately overstepped the crease by an apparently excessive amount, in order to court derision and a false sense of security in Mr Trott's mind. The laws of cricket being as they are, my client was fully aware that such an action would not reduce the number of effective balls to be delivered in that over.
"I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that my client's sole intention was to set his opponent up to be clean-bowled on the next delivery. Use of strategy in this way has long been a feature of what I believe our American friends call "base ball." In "base ball" it is considered quite appropriate intentionally to deliver a "pitch" in such a way that the umpire shall require a further "pitch."
"The fact that my client's next ball was a wobbly piece of shit that bounced twice before reaching Mr Trott and was subsequently despatched to the boundary with some celerity does not obviate the clear strategic intention in this case. Far from being censured, my young client should in fact be applauded for his perspicacious appreciation of the ebb and flow in a "Test Match."
"Notwithstanding the generous contribution of Mr Majeed towards Generators-R-Us (a wholly-owned subsidiary of ZardariCorp), my client is adamant that his choice was based on the laws of cricket, and the laws of cricket alone."
I mean, of course it's bollocks. But I've seen worse bollocks than this stand up in an English court.