A Salient Example Of The Problems With English Cricket

I recently came across an article in which Ashley Giles bemoaned that English batsmen get very little exposure to unorthodox spin until they hit test cricket.

He suggested supporting English spinners who bowl unorthodox deliveries like the doosra, instead of quietly managing them out of county cricket. That’s a fair point: other countries’ spinners will not stop the practice just because the English Cricket Board thinks it’s dodgy. Foreigners do a lot of dodgy things. Always have and always will. But in the case of cricket, the option to exclude them from a “gentleman’s club” of people who bowl with a straight arm is long past.

The article made reference to an event which is symptomatic of a much deeper malaise in English cricket, one entirely of its own creation. It was that Hampshire were docked points in a County Championship match for preparing a wicket with excessive spin.

When I saw this statement, I imagined teams shot out for under 100 by journeymen off spinners. But no, have a look at the scorecards. All four innings reached around 200. South African test spinner Imran Tahir could only manage match figures of 4/110. An average county level off-spinner who took 6 in the first innings couldn’t take a single wicket in the second.

Hardly a sub-continental style minefield of the sort India prepared for Australia in 2004 in Mumbai or in 2013 in Chennai.

If the ECB seriously believes a pitch on which teams can score 200 spins “excessively”, it’s no wonder their batsmen struggle against anything other than gentle off spin. They clearly are not living in the real world. While people like this remain in charge of English cricket, their test team’s brief period of dominance over Australia will be just an aberration.

Also, have a look at Nottinghamshire’s 4th innings run chase on this apparently excessive turner. They fart arsed around to get to 4/149 in 66 overs, needing another 53 off the last 6. They then fell 4 runs short, still with 4 wickets in hand.

That tells me pretty much all I need to know about why England can’t beat Australia.

The West Needs To Stay Out Of Crimea

There are two main reasons Western governments should not involve themselves in the Crimean dispute. The first is practical: there is nothing they can or will do to prevent Crimea rejoining Russia. The second is moral: Crimea really is Russian territory and the overwhelming majority of the population want to rejoin Russia.

Although the political situation in Ukraine is complex, no complex or lengthy argument is required to understand Western countries’ only sensible course of action: unless Russian troops begin pouring into any region other than Crimea, stay out of it.

Crimea is only part of Ukraine by a recent historical accident. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine had not been independent for nearly 700 years. In 1654, the uprising which saw the region break away from Polish rule effectively made Ukraine a territory of Russia through the Treaty of Pereyaslav. In 1954, to celebrate the treaty’s 300th anniversary, Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, presumably believing that it would only ever be a symbolic gesture as both territories would continue to be controlled by the USSR. This move was said to have surprised many in Russia at the time and it certainly did not have unequivocal support.

So, from the time Russia reconquered the Crimean Khanate until Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev as a political act of a discredited, defunct system of government, it has been Russian territory. It is therefore absurd for Western countries, particularly the United States, to suggest that Crimea should remain part of Ukraine, despite the wishes of the majority of its population.

Crimea will almost certainly rejoin Russia, soon. There is nothing practical that the United States, Europe or anyone else can do about it. Even the new Ukrainian government openly admits there is nothing it can do.

Crimea is overwhelmingly ethnically Russian. The electorate and state parliament are dominated by Russian speakers who want to rejoin Russia. The Crimean parliament has an openly stated goal of unification and a referendum on the matter is due to be held on March 16. The boycott of the referendum by many ethnic Ukrainians and other minoroties such as Crimean Tartars will make no material difference to the result.

Nor will the fact that remaining part of Ukraine is not one of the referendum options (the only two are independence or joining Russia). Having this third choice would have been more sensible political strategy and lent more legitimacy to the referendum. So would have allowing a longer period for debate and free campaigning for all options. From a Liberal perspective, this demonstrates the lack of acumen of Crimea's pro-Russian politicians, since the "join Russia" option would have almost certainly won regardless. An alternative reading is that it demonstrates that Russia doesn't feel it needs to care about Western political values. Russian Crimeans are essentially stating that the result is a foregone conclusion and anyone wanting to waste time and money on Western political niceties can go fuck themselves.

The political situation has come to a head now due to the overthrow of the corrupt and repressive, but pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovich. Its replacement is largely ethnic Ukrainian and many of its members bear some hostile sentiment toward Russia. Despite the exaggerations and propaganda of the Russian media, the new Ukrainian political power blocs do contain some far right, nationalist elements. It's not wholly surprising that a Russian region which never consented to becoming part of an independent Ukraine now decides it's time to rejoin Russia.

If an overwhelming majority of the population of Crimea vote to rejoin Russia, as they almost certainly will, what can the West do? Warn Russia not to “annex Crimea”? It’s hardly an annexation if the majority of the population votes in favour of it. This is not a case of Russia using its military to impose a pro-Russian government on the unwilling populace of a neighbour, as they did in Eastern Europe after the Second World War.

Just as important is the question of why the West would support Crimea remaining part of Ukraine. Apart from opposing a genuine, democratic choice, the position is poor political strategy. It is the western part of Ukraine which is ethnically Ukrainian and pro-Europe. Crimea and the south eastern part around Donetsk are majority ethnically Russian and hence pro-Moscow. This has been a source of division in Ukrainian politics long before Ukraine gained independence in 1991.

Wouldn’t it be a better political strategy to not oppose Crimea reuniting with Russia, thereby removing a significant proportion of the pro-Russian population? The condition would be a Russian guarantee that it would not seek to further redraw the border. Instead of picking a fight with Russia which they can't win, the United States and Europe could then concentrate on bringing Ukraine (minus Crimea) into the European fold, which would be easier with an increased proportion of ethnic Ukrainians and almost certainly involve less violence.

Update: British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, a man every bit as insipid as he looks, has labellled the Crimean referendum "a mockery of proper democratic practice". Apparently the UK "does not recognise the referendum or its outcome" and Russia will now "face economic and political consequences" ... from a heavily indebted country which has lost most of its manufacturing base and struggles to assert its political and cultural values domestically, let alone globally.

The Crimean referendum was certainly not best diplomatic practice, but let's concentrate on matters where a) there is a genuinely unjust outcome and b) we can actually do something practical to reverse, or at least ameliorate it.

McDonalds Sued For $1.5M Over A Trivial Slight

The Webster Lucas Case: Lawyers Who Abet The Pursuit Of Speculative Litigation Must Be Punished

Americans tend to indulge in some absurdly speculative litigation, but this farcical case should be an embarrassment to the country’s entire legal system.

California man Webster Lucas is suing McDonalds for $1.5M, presumably for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Over what? He was only given one serviette with his burger and the store manager refused to give him any more.

"I should have went to eat at the Jack-in-the-Box because I didn't come here to argue over napkins I came here to eat", was the reported reply.

Being black, Mr Lucas has of course played the race card, despite the manager being a Mexican. Allegedly, the manager “was racist towards him and mumbled something that sounded like ‘you people’ ”.

Well yes, if a Mexican mumbled something to a black man that sounded like “you people”, that ought to be enough to prove aggravating circumstances of racism.

The lottery sized amount of $1.5M is due to Webster Lucas being allegedly unable to work as a result of emotional distress. Because, despite his obviously poor education, he earns a seven figure salary.

Webster Lucas has been “unable to work” because he is a lazy-ass motherfucker who believes he has found an excuse not to go to work. In a sensible industrial relations system, his employer should be able to sack him on the grounds of falsely claiming sick leave. No reasonable person becomes so stressed that they cannot work because they were refused an extra serviette. Even had the manager been white and called Mr Lucas a nigger, that could not possibly cause a grown man sufficient emotional distress to stay home from work. Just unwrap your burger, throw it in the manager’s face and go down the road to Jack-in-the-Box.

Some supernatural intervention has substantially raised Mr Lucas’ vocabulary in a just a few days. He has gone from expressing himself thus: “I should have went to eat at the Jack-in-the-Box” to sending an email to the McDonald’s manager saying he is “unable to work because of the intentional infliction of emotional distress”. Or could that have been his no win, no fee lawyers constructing the text of the email for him?

I don’t know who his lawyers are yet, but one might reasonably surmise that Mr Lucas is not funding this case himself, which brings me to my main point.

Americans are far more liberal in their interpretation of tort law than most, to the point where it is often clearly manipulated by lawyers who take on speculative cases on a no win, no fee basis, then seek to blackmail defendants into settling in order to avoid the much greater potential impost of a court case, particularly since a claim for recovery of costs against the plaintiff will be practically unenforceable, even if granted by the court.

Matters in which a plaintiff with little resources has a strong case make the no win, no fee model a valid element of the justice system. However, it only has a net benefit if balanced with the return of the tort of champerty and the ability to vigorously pursue it in relation to the conduct of lawyers.

In my opinion, the pursuit of the Lucas matter is a clear case of champerty and McDonalds should have a claim for all costs, plus reputational and punitive damages against Webster Lucas’ lawyers for this frivolous, clearly speculative action.

I said "should". I doubt if it actually will. That tells me the law is wrong.

I don't believe that third party funding of litigation is per se wrong in a free society, as long as the attendant moral hazard is rigorously contained.

Any third party funder of litigation, including lawyers prosecuting the matter substantially via their own funds, should be required to deposit a bond covering the defendant's expected costs. Moreover, in any case where the judgement is in favour of the defendant, costs should be jointly and severally awarded against the plaintiff and any funders. If the complaint was found to be vexatious or speculative, punitive damages should also be awarded. This would at least place the onus on any litigation funders to be confident in the righteousness of their case.

Philip Seymour Hoffman's Death: Some Things Can Be Both Tragic And Stupid

From high priests to peons, citizens of the People’s Republic of the Arts went to considerable effort to fashion suitably prosaic and sensitive statements (read Jim Carrey’s 6th down) in response to Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death from a heroin overdose, all ensuring the sentiments sat well within the liturgy.

But witness the high dudgeon from the arts luvvies, hangers on and wannabes in response to anyone who suggests Hoffman’s death was stupid or irresponsible.

“How insensitive! He was such a great actor! It’s a tragedy! Such a huge loss for the world.”

It was certainly a tragedy, especially for his family. It was a loss for the acting profession and his fans, though I don’t believe it’s delayed a cure for cancer or thrown the economy back into recession.

So yes, a tragedy it was. However, Hoffman’s death was also genuinely stupid. It was irresponsible, self absorbed and immature. He was a 46 year old man with a wife (actual or de facto) and three young children.

Most people reach a point in their lives when they are responsible for more than just themselves, whether they want to be or not. Even people who do not marry and have no children are still expected to become at least responsible for their own wellbeing. Understanding those responsibilities and what is required to meet them is a fundamental part of adulthood. It is also the quid pro quo for liberty.

A man with a wife and three young children shooting up heroin several times a day for months, eventually in such quantities that he killed himself is not even remotely adult behaviour.

Characterising addiction as an illness misses the point. Yes, some are far more susceptible to addiction than others, but no-one sleepwalks into an addiction; you have to work at it. Addiction is a gradual process. An intelligent person cannot possibly be unaware that the volume and frequency of their drug consumption is leading them from casual to habitual use to addiction. People recognise something is wrong when they begin to develop the physiological and psychological symptoms of addiction. Despite the awareness, many still find it very difficult to combat and many exhibit denial by for example, embracing the addict subculture. But all addicts know they have a problem, whether or not they put off dealing with it.

The differences between Hoffman and a poorly educated, unemployed street junkie are Hoffman’s intelligence, education, resources, social support network and responsibility to his young family. The latter should have provided the motivation not to use so much that he became addicted in the first place, or at least to clean up his act when he did. The rest should have provided the means to achieve it.

His wife asked him to move out of the family home due to his heroin use. I doubt that came out of the blue. Surely there had been multiple discussions prior to her asking him to leave. The first one should have been sufficient motivation to if not stop using, at least only do it sporadically and not around his kids.

Excuses along the line of: he had such a sensitive soul and that quality which made him such a great actor also made him vulnerable and unable to deal with the harshness of the world are bullshit.

Hoffman earned far in excess of the average income for dressing up and playing pretend. He had a wife and children who loved him. He had a good education, nice house, friends, fans, wealth, social connections and a plethora of opportunities to do interesting work. In other words, a life for which most would feel sincere gratitude.

“But what does it all mean? … I’m so depressed … I can’t deal with life.”

Grow up, you big, self indulgent baby.

I’ll tell you who should be depressed. A man with a poor education and a low paying, soul destroying job, who knows that at any time, he could be made redundant and one step away from his family being homeless. A man who comes home to a run down, rented house in a shitty neighbourhood, to a wife and three kids with whom he regularly argues and for whom a six pack of beer is a treat. That’s a man who I could understand using sedatives to ameliorate his existential pain.

Even if Hoffman’s depression was endogenous, he had the intelligence and education to know that continued, heavy heroin use was never going to help.

Like many addicts, Hoffman at times may well have felt self loathing when he was high, or had that inner voice telling him to clean himself up as he decided whether or not to hit up again. A lot of drunks have the same experience before they start drinking each day.

Even though getting clean / sober is hard work and an addict has a genuine and well founded apprehension about the emotions they will have to confront, to continue the addiction is stupid and weak. To get yourself into it in the first place is stupid and weak. To get yourself out of an addiction requires a great deal of strength and perseverance. Not everyone can summon it.

This is one element of the stupidity of Hoffman’s death. Something can be stupid yet still be tragic. The irresponsible element of his death was its effect on his wife and particularly his children.

Children need their parents to provide more than material and emotional support. They look to them for guidance on how to live. It’s not like Hoffman’s three children won’t find out the sordid details of how he shut himself off from his family and effectively acted out a long and tortuous suicide.

What are they going to grow up thinking? It’s hard enough for children in a divorce, wondering whether their parents actually love them. How will Hoffman’s children understand why a father who supposedly loved them would make a choice like that, moreover, make that same choice day after day?

A loyal RTBB follower reading this post prior to publication commented on its strong moralising, particularly around drug use.

But it’s not Hoffman’s drug use per se which is at issue: it’s the scale and its effect on his family, of which I have no doubt he was aware.

I don’t believe it’s wrong for adults with children to use drugs, any more than it is for them to get drunk sometimes. But you don’t do it in front of your kids.

Adults often have wine at the dinner table. If they have friends over for a BBQ, adults will be drinking alcohol. The message to children is that this is normal adult behaviour. What adults should not do in front of children is get obviously drunk. Nor should they line up a few rails on the kitchen bench. That is done discreetly in the bedroom.

Children expect stability, clarity and reliability from their parents. That’s not what Philip Seymour Hoffman’s children got and that’s why his death was stupid and irresponsible. For the arts luvvies to gloss over this obvious fact is moral relativism taken to extremes of hypocrisy, although they are still well within the bounds set by their refusal to condemn Roman Polanski (imagine their different reaction had a wealthy businessman done the same thing).

Perhaps arts wankers’ hypocritical reaction to Hoffman’s death may have been sufficient to warrant a post, however that’s not what prompted me.

The reason I did is because I’m sure conservatives across the Western world are just waiting to use Hoffman’s death in their campaign to roll back the decriminalisation of drug use. I’m surprised at the restraint of the US Republicans in particular: I had imagined it would be less than 24 hours before some conservative Christian senator issued a statement that drugs destroy families and thus we must redouble our efforts against this scourge.

I have little doubt we’ll see Hoffman’s death co-opted into the campaign to repeal Colorado and Washington’s legalisation of marijuana … because marijuana is not harmless; it “leads to other things” and we’ll have more broken families and fatherless children on our consciences.

Genuine Liberals who want the government out of their private lives have had our cause harmed by Hoffman’s death. It’s played right into the hands of conservatives who charge that all liberals want (conflating liberals and Liberals) is freedom without commensurate responsibility. It assists their characterisation of liberals as self absorbed, glorified children, hiding behind moral relativism and lacking the backbone to defend “values”.

Unfortunately, there is some truth in that description of many people denoted “liberals” in America. But those people aren’t Liberals. Most are middle class, dilettante socialists, believing in the benefits of government involvement in almost every facet of life. Just because liberals and Liberals agree on the treatment of drugs as a public health issue rather than a criminal one, doesn’t mean we should team up.

Liberals understand that personal responsibility is the price of having the government as much as possible out of our private lives. On that basis, a man of talents and resources, with a young family, who then kills himself with a heroin addiction deserves condemnation, as much because he will become a symbol for reactionary conservatives seeking to constrain our civil liberties as for his renunciation of the moral compact which binds personal rights and responsibilities.

This Clown Of A Bus Driver Deserves To Be Sacked And Publicly Shamed

People in low level positions abusing their very small amounts of power due to the chip on their shoulder is a phenomenon as old as history. The functionary who invokes policy or procedure as an excuse to be deliberately unhelpful, the petty official who insists on irrelevant rules being followed to the letter, the bus driver who won’t let someone off 20p … this type of behaviour is hardly novel.

A more recent development seems to be bunging on an act: fabricating some threat or offence in order to justify a hissy fit. Two years ago, a Gold Coast train driver caused twenty police to be called because he didn’t like the amount of noise the passengers were making. Now a Sydney bus driver has plumbed new depths of pathos. He decided a crying child was simply too much for him to cope with and told the mother to get off. When another passenger intervened in her support, the driver packed up his cash box, stormed off the bus and refused to continue driving.

This is the type of behaviour one would normally associate with a child; behaviour which would (should) result in a swift kick up the arse. It is not behaviour which can be accepted from any credible adult, let alone someone employed to provide a public service.

Nor can it be viewed in an isolated context. The driver (or his union) cannot be allowed to proffer the excuse of stress, pretend there were “faults on both sides”, have the driver “counselled” and then be back driving a bus.

Why not?

Because it is becoming increasingly common for people employed in service positions to dishonestly claim aggressive or threatening behaviour when a customer has a legitimate complaint about the service they have received or to de facto, unilaterally decide upon the terms and conditions of their employment by simply refusing to do contracted tasks. In short, the device of bunging on an act is attempting to establish a cultural foothold as low level employees form the delusion that they are somehow equal with customers.

The bus driver cannot be allowed to get away with this behaviour. What message does it send to every other public facing employee in a service position? That this new meme of fabricating offence in a pathetic attempt to justify not doing legitimate tasks of your job has currency? That you can get away with acting like a whiny little bitch, inconveniencing customers who unfortunately must depend upon you to do your job properly?

Consequently, the driver must be made an example of … and the public should witness it. Crucify this turd as a warning to any other who might get similar ideas.

In my opinion, as well as dismissal by his employer, this is the kind of behaviour that warranted a beating from the inconvenienced customers; one sufficiently severe to not only serve as a never forgotten lesson to this particular idiot, but also as an example to all other shitkickers who might be tempted to try it on instead of properly doing the job for which, given their low skill level, they are fortunate to have been employed.

Unfortunately, a spontaneous beating is not really practical in the modern age. Can you imagine the driver’s reaction had one of the passengers given him a clip over the ear or a boot up the arse and told him to get back on and drive the bus? He’d have been calling the police, followed by an ambulance, then using the “serious workplace assault” as an opportunity to ask for a lottery win’s worth of compensation.

Fortunately, the modern age does present a modern alternative: public exposure and humiliation.

This is exactly the kind of incident which should have been filmed and broadcast across the internet. The driver should have been named and so viciously lampooned that he dare not show his face for weeks. It is insufficient to merely sack the driver. Let some tabloid show like Current Affair know all about it, including leaking the footage and his name and address (easily done without being traced).

That may seem harsh, but trying it on is an insidious and destructive meme. It needs to be stamped out. Dishonesty and pretence in social transactions are not part of Liberalism. Nor is being soft with fuckwits.

Suppose this bus driver is sacked and hounded by the media and online. How likely is it other whiny shits will think twice before they try on their own brand of chip on the shoulder?

Fawad Ahmed Should Have Been Rejected As A Refugee And Accepted As A Skilled Migrant

Cricket followers will be familiar with leg spinner Fawad Ahmed, who emigrated from Pakistan to Australia and has now played a few one day games for the national team after regularly representing Victoria in state competition.

Now there is some after the fact hand wringing as to whether his refugee claim may have received favourable treatment because of Cricket Australia’s intervention.

His claim for asylum had been in the system for some time. The Dept of Immigration documented their opinion that Ahmed’s refugee case was “borderline”. His claim for asylum was initially rejected by both the Immigration Department and Refugee Review Tribunal.

My point is that this really does matter, but should not have any bearing on whether we let him emigrate here.

Ahmed’s claim for asylum centres around being targeted by the Taliban and their allies for promoting Western values through playing and coaching cricket and being involved with a women’s welfare organisation. This may well be true.

However, even if it is, his remedy was simply to move to another part of Pakistan, say Karachi or Lahore, where as a first class standard cricketer, he would have had no problem socially or with his career. Thus, he is not a refugee in the sense he qualifies for asylum in Australia, or any other country. His application should have been rejected on that basis. The Refugee Review Tribunal were of the same view.

This doesn’t stop us letting him live in Australia.

It is necessary to reject his asylum appeal because he clearly could have escaped persecution by moving to any number of areas in his native Pakistan. The unedifying fiddling with the asylum process by Cricket Australia and others has harmed what little credibility it has.

What should have happened is that someone from the Dept of Immigration or the minister’s office should have contacted Cricket Australia and told them to resubmit Ahmed's application under the normal migration program. He could then have had his application fast tracked because he has skills the country wants. It doesn’t matter what they are. It’s up to us to decide what skills are desirable for migrants to have and which will allow their normal immigration applications to be expedited.

Fawad Ahmed has clearly received some bad advice. In that aspect, he’s hardly Robinson Crusoe. Had this matter been properly handled, as soon as Cricket Australia got wind of his case (which appears to have been early in the piece), he should have been told to resubmit an application under normal migration criteria. It could then have been shepherded through in the same manner as those of wealthy investors or skilled migrants, which the overwhelming majority of Australians are happy to accept, as long as they try to fit in. There’s ample evidence Fawad Ahmed has done exactly this since arriving here.

Martyrdom Not To Middle Class Militants' Taste

You’re protesting against corrupt foreigners doing something you believe is seriously wrong, yet are shocked when they treat you harshly?

It doesn’t matter how strongly you believe in the righteousness of your cause, there’s a balance between the ideal of freedom of speech and the practical, common sense of knowing where it is and is not respected. If you’re going to protest in countries without the protection of Western style legal institutions, you need to be aware of and prepared for the consequences. I don’t believe many middle class, Western activists are as prepared for martyrdom as they think they are.

What strikes me most about the Greenpeace protesters arrested in Russia is their naivety. The captain of the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise is saying that he and his fellow activists “remain in shock at their treatment”.

Why? Seriously, what did you think would happen if you boarded a Russian oil rig, particularly if there were divers working below the surface, as the Russians claim? You didn’t consider that you might be genuinely endangering people you couldn’t see, did you? Just sail up in your boat, hang your banner, take some footage and call yourselves eco warriors.

The collective delusion of supposedly educated adults that they can travel to a foreign country, with a repressive, authoritarian government, protest in whatever manner they deem fit, then express shock when they are not treated as they would be back home beggars belief.

Protester and glorified uni student Alex Harris, 27, says:

“They want to come across as a modern country but they are not. Not the way they treat people, not with their human rights issues. It's a country that doesn't tolerate much and you have to be really careful.”

Umm … der! Did you only figure this out after your arrest? If you knew beforehand, you’re either very committed to political martyrdom or very stupid. If not, you’re a child.

Given her musing on what she missed while in prison, I’d suggest the latter:

“Walking along Manly to Shelly Beach and back, going for a coffee and people-watching. I also really missed riding my bike to work and catching the ferry.”

A serious adult would have decried the way all prisoners are treated in Russia, discussed its use of excessive, politically motivated charges to repress dissent, then stayed on message about oil drilling in the Arctic. Instead, she’s prattling on about herself and how she missed her comfortable, sunshine filled, privileged life.

It smacks of the lightweight, middle class militancy which is the stock of many Greenpeace and similar activists.

“We sailed to the Arctic and hung a banner on their oil rig. It was on the news, did you see? I met loads of really great people and saw some really cool scenery. Check out my photos on Instagram.”

They sincerely believe in the cause, but their mode of protest is primarily cover for a big adventure, largely funded by other people. It’s as much about them playing eco heroes as it is about the cause.

The Arctic Sunrise protesters seemed to think that at worst, they’d be detained and deported. Upon their return home, they’d be interviewed by a few journalists and have a good story to tell all their activist mates. They’d be interesting and popular.

Of course the charges of piracy and hooliganism were grossly excessive. But that happens all the time in countries like Russia. Actually, in pretty much every non-Western country on Earth.

Despite the fall of communism, Russia’s legal institutions bear little resemblance to Western ones. It has an authoritarian, essentially fascist government. There is no meaningful separation of the police and judiciary from this government. In fact, it was probably this lack of separation which caused the protesters to be freed, ultimately without charge. The matter remaining unresolved during the Sochi Winter Olympics would have caused Russia too many diplomatic problems.

I ask this in all seriousness: How could the Greenpeace protesters not have anticipated a very stern response from the Russian government? Did they think it would be like being arrested in France or Spain? Would they have dared try something similar in China? Were they really so naïve as to believe Russia is more like Western Europe than like China because it is run by white people? Or did they believe moral force and international law would curtail the Russians’ response?

The crew would all have been familiar with the jailing of Pussy Riot on similarly excessive charges. What did you think, that the Russians only treat their own citizens that way? They wouldn’t dare do it to Westerners? Yet you all probably rail against cultural imperialism (until you need it).

Naivety appears widespread among the crew of the Arctic Sunrise. Canadian Paul Ruzycki’s view of the piracy charges was:

"It was an overblown charge, and there's no way Greenpeace would ever be convicted of being pirates."

Not in a Western legal system. But in Russia, I wouldn’t bet a few years of my life on it. Their legal system still has many elements remaining from the communist era. Bogus convictions on politically motivated charges is one of them.

By the way, this is a grown man making these comments, puffed up with righteous indignation, ideology and international law. Ruzycki’s take on Russian commandos boarding their ship was:

“They knew we were Greenpeace … they just used intimidation techniques to frighten us and get us to do what they were telling us to do.”

You thought arguing with them might have been possible? Telling them their drilling operation is illegal under international law? Did you think they would ask you all to transfer to their ship to be interviewed and deported? Did you think refusal to comply might have been an option?

The rough treatment was also intended as an example to other Westerners who might get similar ideas. The Russians have used this as an opportunity to let Western activists and their governments know they don’t care what we think. Russia is nuclear armed, runs a massive trade surplus, has enormous mineral wealth and with global warming, its agricultural production is actually increasing, so there are really few levers Western governments can pull if their citizens are detained and mistreated.

One person who does have cause for complaint is Australian Colin Russell. He was held in detention for some time after the other 29 protesters had been released on bail. It’s all very well for Julie Bishop to say that she “had personally written to the Russian foreign minister”. I’m not doubting she did. It probably helped. However, why did the Australian government not make the strongest diplomatic representations immediately upon learning that one of our citizens was being singled out for special treatment? We still do not know the reason.

Australian governments have long had a very poor record of assisting our citizens caught up in corrupt, foreign legal systems. The cases of Jock Palfreeman in Bulgaria and Kerry & Kay Danes in Laos are salient examples.

Given this, it is the most naïve stupidity for Alex Harris to contemplate returning to Russia to protest further during the Winter Olympics. I believe she’s actually a British citizen, but that won’t help her: the last British Prime Minister with any balls was Margaret Thatcher.

The only thing which will save her is that she won’t get across the border.

The deluded plans of some of the activists to return to Russia for further protests are exactly what Australia’s foreign minister, Julie Bishop is talking about when she raised the possibility of Australians who “acted recklessly or deliberately acted against the laws of another country” being made to contribute to the cost of consular support or extraction.

Fair enough. Political protest is not a job, even though some seem to think it is. The Australian taxpayers have not employed Greenpeace to protest against Russian oil drilling. We shouldn’t foot the bill when naïve idealists deliberately get themselves into trouble in a foreign country, despite explicit warnings. Greenpeace can pay. That might force them to plan more adult protests, as opposed to adventure holidays for glorified uni students.

Which Barbie Would Ken Fuck?

Mattel are free to make as many “plus size” Barbies as they want, but I think we can all guess what the marketing department’s response will be. Who the fuck is going to buy a fat Barbie? And no-one else can make one because of trademark.

More importantly, which Barbie is Ken going to want to fuck? Not the one who looks like an ageing Diana Dors, that’s for sure.

I’m told that fat chicks are more grateful, so perhaps a “plus size” Barbie may indulge some of Ken’s more outré requests, such as A2M. However, I think it more likely she’d end up having a couple of drunken one night stands with his friends before descending into a life of alcoholism.

Barbie might think that she has Ken’s cock and balls in a cute little, Swarovski crystal covered jewellery box on her dresser, but Ken can rebel, as this episode of Life InThe Dreamhouse shows. I was thinking the episodes Oh, How Campy and Closet Princess may show Ken rebelling even further, but Barbie is clearly doing enough to keep Ken’s eye from wandering. Actually, I suspect Barbie would go off like a firecracker if Ken stuck his tongue up her arse.

A lot of people bag Ken, but Barbie obviously likes him, so he must be doing something right. I’m pretty sure Ken would rather shag the current, slim Barbie than a big, fat chick. In fact, he confirmed this the other day while we were having a few beers and watching Mana Mamau.

Plus Size Modeling’s Facebook campaign is a good example of the entry into the middle class majority of one of the most destructive inventions of the modern left: identity politics. “We’re being discriminated against as a group! Let’s get together and fight for our right to assert our identity as people of colour / women / LGBTIQ / people with disabilities / plus sized women …!”

Taking a characteristic which society uses to categorise people, then using it as an active grouping mechanism may get many of those groups some gains, but overall it makes society more fractious and creates enmity, as well as influencing people to see one another in more one dimensional, less human terms.

People will always be judged on their behaviour and being fat is primarily the result of behaviour.

You can be as fat as you like, as long as you pay your own medical bills. You can walk around telling everyone you’re just as sexy as any other woman, as long as you don’t bung on an act when you get laughed at, or claim your human rights have been violated through being vilified on the basis of your body shape.

The problem here is that an essentially middle class group has appropriated the left wing ideology of trying to force corporations / governments / society to behave in a certain way in order to validate their “identity”. It doesn’t matter that said identity is merely one of many facets of the person. This is how I construct myself and if you don’t accept my position without question, that’s discrimination! Society’s values and preferences must be re-engineered so that I don’t have less successful outcomes than those outside my constructed group.

Well, if you’re fat, you will find you’re less likely to get a fuck. That’s because less people are attracted to the overweight. BBW sites are fetish, not mainstream.

You’ll also find you’re less likely to get a job, good service and respect in general.

Why?

There are known genetic factors in differences in natural body weight within animal populations. However, aside from pathologies such as brain lesions, there are two causes of obesity: gluttony and sloth.

A significant majority of overweight people want to lose weight and confess they would be happier if they could. Yet they don’t. Genetic differences make it significantly harder for some people to lose weight than others, however the human body is not a nuclear reactor. It is not even a very efficient metaboliser. The reason why most people are fat even though it depresses them is that they lack the discipline and commitment required to lose the weight and keep it off.

People know this. Thus, if you’re a great big blubber and you see a thinner (but equally or less qualified) person get the job you want, it’s because your potential employer has formed the impression that you lack discipline, give up easily or lack sufficient self respect. If you find you’re getting poor service, it’s because the person doesn’t respect you, for these same reasons.

Because they aren’t fat and wouldn’t ever want to be fat, they automatically assume you don’t want to be fat either. Thus, you must be fat due to character flaws.

No amount of social engineering is going to change this widely held view. That’s because it’s in large part correct. Being fat is not like being black or being gay.

Fat women are in general judged more harshly than fat men. That is because some fat men are strong, much fitter than they appear and gain respect on that basis eg. front row forwards. Fat, flabby, unfit men are not respected. Even in the case of fat men who are powerful, their power is respected, but they are still objects of satire or ridicule and referred to as fat cunts eg. Clive Palmer.

Like an alcoholic, drug addict or unsuccessful gambler, you have to work at being fat. No-one becomes an enormous porker overnight. No-one becomes a drunk or a drug addict overnight. Some people are far more susceptible than others, however no-one sleep walks into it and everyone can get out of it with sufficient discipline and willpower, despite the chemical changes in the brain and endocrine system which take place in obese people or addicts.

There is the argument that materially different body shapes are the norm of attractiveness in other cultures both today and historically, so Western society’s preference against fat people is merely an artefact of our culture and has no inherent biological driver. Therefore we could change our society’s views so that fat people were no longer considered unattractive. Then they would not feel pressure to lose weight and would no longer suffer from higher rates of depression and low self esteem.

It’s a lot easier to join with other overweight people and tell each other that you’re beautiful just the way you are and it’s society which is the problem. Maybe they should all join the SPK.

The “fat identity” validators’ reasoning is fallacious. Western society knows a great deal more about medicine and the human body than all of these other cultures. Anyone believing otherwise is deluded. Asian medicine is often posited as an attempted counter to the claim of Western medical superiority. However, despite some demonstrably effective elements such as acupuncture, Asian medicine largely argues by metaphor and is thus still rooted in mysticism.

There is clear scientific evidence that being fat both shortens lifespan and decreases overall quality of health. There is a known, healthy range of body weight as a function of age, sex and height. Being outside it is demonstrably bad for your health.

Thus, given Western society’s medical knowledge, being obese is like being a pack a day smoker or someone who gets drunk every night. There’s a subculture which attempts to validate each of these behaviours, but most people see them as character flaws and wonder why “those people” don’t make more of an effort to stop harming their health.

This post is not intended as advocating a campaign of fat shaming, “nudging” or any form of social engineering beyond appropriate taxation of certain foods and beverages which contribute to health problems. I do however, want to strongly encourage people not to be sucked into pandering to the identity politics of the League of Fatties and their own attempts at social engineering.

I have posited an explanation of why fat people in Western societies have statistically less successful social outcomes and why it’s not going to change any time soon. It’s why we shouldn’t pander to the new fat identity politics. Don’t feel guilty if you think fat people are lazy and undisciplined: they are. That’s why they’re fat.

At the same time, let’s not allow fat control to become a new goal for the nanny staters. The politically pious already have more than enough at which to tut-tut. “You can’t become obese eating organically grown quinoa as part of a socially responsible, vegetarian diet.” “How terrible it is that Westerners eat so much more than they need when all those black and brown people are starving.”

If a person is fat and happy, prefers the joys of gluttony to a longer life and doesn’t care what other people think, they should be free to make that choice, as long as they accept (and can pay for) the consequences. As for fat people who are stung by receiving criticism, less respect or being considered less attractive, no amount of delusion will change that … and attempts to co-opt the left wing ideology of identity politics will fail, because being fat really is ultimately a combination of character flaws and lifestyle choice.

No they aren't ... but they are more grateful.

Not Every KO Is A King Hit

There seems to have been a recent spate of serious injuries and even deaths ensuing from street violence. In politicians’ indecent haste to pander to the bleating classes, each incident is portrayed in black and white. The injured party is an innocent victim of a “king hit”, while the other party is a thug who should be presumed guilty and denied bail. The media’s tendency to oversimplify and sensationalise renders it complicit in reinforcing the hysteria, as opposed to devising a well thought out policy response.

People have died after being punched in a range of circumstances, from vicious, unprovoked assaults to punches thrown in self defence. Every case is different and must be examined on its own merits. We need to make a clear distinction between outright thuggery and a fair fight. We need to be far clearer about what constitutes self defence and not cast the first stone when someone makes a physical response to provocation.

Firstly, not every punch which knocks a person out is a king hit. A king hit is when someone is punched or hit with an object without any warning, often while they are not looking and usually in the head. It is an extremely low act and generally contains strong elements of intent to cause serious injury and recklessness as to the possibility of killing the victim.

We’ve seen genuine king hits of late, for example the killing of Thomas Kelly by Kieran Loveridge.

Now look at the definition of murder and manslaughter in S18(1) of the NSW Crimes Act.

Depending on the relative size and strength of the punched and puncher, prosecution for murder may be appropriate and may succeed, for example if a fit, strong, young man king hit a 70 year old. Even if the prosecution didn’t feel they could convince a judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances of the single punch contained the elements required for murder, a manslaughter conviction allows for up to 25 years’ jail.

The fact that most king hits don’t result in death is not per se a defence to murder. That’s why the element of recklessness is in the definition: it is not necessary to intend to kill the victim; rather that a reasonable person would or should understand a material probability of death as a result. However, juries are often swayed by the absence of direct intent. Allowing police the scope to add circumstances of aggravation to a manslaughter charge in such instances would place the offence at the upper end of the scale, with a sentence approximately equivalent to what would have been handed down for murder in such circumstances. This would probably have been the correct outcome in the Kieran Loveridge matter.

In the same category as a king hit is stomping on a defenceless person, such as recently happened to Michael McEwen at Bondi Beach after a night out. Often in such cases, the victim has been picked on and assaulted, often in company. Had Michael McEwen died, the offence should have been treated at least as seriously as Kieran Loveridge’s. Stomping on his head may well have been sufficiently reckless to support a murder charge.

Since, thankfully, Michael McEwen didn’t die, how seriously does the current law allow punishment?

Seriously enough. Grievous bodily harm with intent carries up to 25 years, the same as manslaughter. Even if the intent could not be proven, the assault was in company and the jury (or judge) has the option to find the accused guilty of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. That carries up to 14 years.

So, except for allowing the addition of circumstances of aggravation, the laws already exist to deal with morons bashing and possibly killing people over trivial arguments, or even at random. They just need to be properly prosecuted and enforced by judges.

Jamie Ennis has been arrested in relation to the matter and denied bail. On its own, his lawyer’s argument appears to raise some disturbing issues. Ennis claims he didn’t throw the punch which knocked Michael McEwen down and didn’t stomp on his head. He was arrested on the basis of a fingerprint found on the bus shelter near to where the attack occurred. The prosecution is arguing protection of the community and the judge is making comments about “community concerns regarding alcohol fuelled violence”.

Of itself, the denial of bail on such apparently flimsy evidence would be a travesty. “Community concerns” do not override lack of evidence. However, this is precisely why each case has to be examined carefully and distinctly.

Jamie Ennis was charged with affray, so the police clearly believe they can show he was part of the group which attacked Michael McEwen. Without witnesses, that shouldn’t be sufficient to deny bail. But that’s not why Ennis was denied bail in this matter: he’s already on bail. For what? Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He’s being denied bail due to breach of his existing bail conditions. Fair enough.

No-one else from Ennis’ group has been arrested, including the alleged puncher and stomper. It’s a reasonable guess that Ennis knows who they are. So, one might infer that his denial of bail is also a de facto punishment (perhaps unintended) for hindering the police investigation. Some readers would probably think that well deserved and I do too, however we need to take great care as a society not to finesse the legal machinery to punish people for acts for which they have not been found guilty (or not even charged). If Ennis is hindering the investigation and the police feel confident they will be able to prove this, they should formally charge him and it should be debated in court as an extra element in favour of denial of bail.

Moronic cunts like Ennis and his mates (I understand he’s a coconut as well), getting pissed up and going around taking out their massive chips on the shoulder on innocent people are exactly who the community is talking about when we say: “We’ve had enough of this shit. Increase the penalties.”

We should also increase penalties for lower level, unprovoked assaults, where people are attacked just walking down the street. Update: Here's another one from this New Year's Eve, where a moronic arsehole attacked four smaller strangers for no other reason than he just wanted to punch people. He didn't even have the courage to risk fighting someone who might have been able to fight back. Shaun McNeil is now in a cage, where he belongs.

Conversely, this one is not a king hit. It's young blokes fighting. There was no need for events to escalate that far and without alcohol, they probably wouldn't have. But let's be careful not to add this event into the media's catalogue of unprovoked assaults (compiled as a public service, of course) and let's not automatically assume the person who hit their head is the victim and the other is a moronic thug.

There is no contradiction with Liberalism in advocating severe penalties for the entire spectrum of mindless thuggery.

These people don’t deserve the benefits of a free and open society, since they obviously resent people who are successful within it. People should be able to enjoy themselves without fear of unprovoked attack. People should be able to engage in a minor argument without fear of serious assault. We need meaningful prison reform, but that doesn’t mean moronic thugs shouldn’t be sent there.

However, we need to take great care to examine each violent incident on its own evidence. The media cannot be lazy and simplistic in its reporting, reflexively trotting out catchphrases like “king hit” and “one punch kill” and choosing a victim and thug. Some cases are clear cut, but many are not. If justice is to be done, the police, politicians and judiciary need to distinguish one class of circumstances from the other.

What if the young guy (Ben) in the linked article above had punched his attacker, who had fallen, hit his head and died? What if that was the only punch the police saw? How would the media have reported it then? “King hit death in another night of violence on our streets”? What if we had a blanket “assault occasioning death” law, as in WA?

The media has even globalised skewed, sensationalist reporting. News.com.au has a “One punch kill” headline from Russia, complete with “incredibly shocking footage”. Watch the video. The “victim” is arguing with and shoves a man who appears to be approximately the same age and slightly smaller, who retaliates with a single punch to the head. He was picking a fight and got punched out. He even got back up and tried to carry it on, dying two days later. How is he “the victim”? The other bloke didn’t do anything wrong: he should be entitled to defend himself.

“One punch can kill! One punch can kill!” bleat the ovine every time someone gets hurt in a fight. If a strong man punches a pensioner in the head, then yes. But people get punched all the time. Very few die. When they do, it’s misadventure which is the cause of death, not the punch.

Jason Toby’s partner has certainly been indoctrinated. Look at the currently known facts of that matter. Jason Toby and his partner Britt Potter were arguing on a public street in Brisbane’s CBD at 4am. Almost certainly, alcohol was involved at that time of the night and their argument was sufficiently robust for a passer by to stop and intervene. Jason Toby decided to fight him and lost. He subsequently died in hospital.

But Britt Potter is sobbing out the nanny state line of “One punch can kill”. The other bloke probably intervened out of concern for you, love. Now, depending on the police and DPP, he might have to defend himself against serious criminal charges. Someone has been interviewed by police and released without charge 15 hours later. But we don’t even know if that’s the person who was fighting Jason Toby.

The ABC's reporting of the incident is ridiculously incompetent. It is exactly the sort of biased description which must be avoided. Firstly, Jason Toby is described as the victim of "a violent assault". How do we know this? He may have been the aggressor.

The report then states that "a man had been arguing with a woman". Yes, it's been established that was Jason Toby and his partner, Britt Potter. Unbelievably shoddy journalism.

Haven’t we just had a campaign against violence toward women? Now a woman who probably supports its aims seems shocked that defence requires force. If she couldn’t stop her “partner” fighting a bloke who had intervened out of concern, what does that imply about Jason Toby’s volatility and his complicity in his injuries?

Maybe if someone had been around to intervene in Maitland a couple of weeks ago, a woman wouldn’t be dead and a bloke wouldn’t be up on a murder charge. But what if someone had stepped in to defend the woman, then had to defend himself and the aggressor died as a result? Would the third person have been charged? Quite possibly … and if they were, the quality of the lawyer they could afford would be a significant factor in the eventual outcome.

What lies are politicians and the media going to trot out next? Resurrect the dishonest “Real heroes walk away” campaign? Heroes don’t walk away: they defend themselves and others.

But people will think twice about defending others if they believe they can’t trust the state not to prosecute them.

In which society are citizens in more danger: a civil society where citizens are prepared to come to others’ aid, safe in the knowledge they are protected by logical self defence laws, or a nanny state in which citizens abrogate responsibility to “the appropriate authorities” out of fear they may end up facing charges themselves?

Dishonest Journalism And The NBN

There’s journalistic bias, which is an undesirable, but unavoidable part of the media landscape … and then there’s outright dishonesty.

Compare the reporting by The Australian and The Guardian of cost blowouts in the Coalition and Labor’s NBN schemes.

The Australian’s right wing bias is well known. It is evident here in its choice of headline:

Labor's NBN Bill Was Set To Hit $73bn

The main point of the article is Labor’s mismanagement and waste, costing taxpayers an extra $29B in excess of the originally budgeted $44B, plus the fact they had either made substantial efforts to hide the massive cost blowout from the public who are paying for it, or worse, were unaware of its size.

The article’s subsidiary (and justified) anti-Labor point was a description of the predictable overstaffing and public service like arse covering culture at NBNCo:

“The culture and leadership of the organisation was widely viewed as a major problem. … a fear among staff of being blamed for mistakes that generated a lack of willingness to accept responsibility in some functional groups.”

“A committed, motivated, generally capable group of people who want to do important, meaningful work … there were also fears of contradicting senior staff and mistrust in the motives of some leaders. People were reluctant to document decisions for fear of the potential consequences.”

Such organisational dysfunction is not uncommon in the corporate world, however it seems to be more prevalent in government projects and in this case, an entirely foreseeable consequence of Kevin Rudd and modern Labor’s bureaucratic management style.

The Australian’s article does discuss substantial delays and cost overruns in the Coalition’s NBN plan, beginning in paragraph 4, sufficiently close to the beginning for the reader to get the picture that there are problems with both NBN plans.

At least the information required for comparison is presented early in the article:

·         Labor’s cost blowout is 65%, the Coalition’s is 40%.

·         Labor’s plan says it will deliver fibre to 100% of homes, but will cost $32B more and be completed several years after the Coalition’s.

·         The Coalition’s plan will employ a mix of delivery mechanisms, resulting in faster, cheaper deliver of a lower bandwidth service to the majority of users. However, the 30% of customers having their internet service delivered by pay TV cable should find the speed more than adequate. So, it’s really less than half of users who will not get the functionality promised by Labor.

The Guardian’s left wing bias is greater in magnitude than the Australian’s right wing tendency and even more overt. Worse, its brand of lefty politics is the hypocritical, sanctimonious cant of middle class, dilettante lefties: the ones who espouse socialism while living in expensive houses and sending their children to private schools.

So, it’s little surprise that the Guardian’s take on the NBN troubles led with:

Coalition’s NBN to cost $12bn more and take four years longer

Strategic review blames cost blowouts and poor management as government breaks promise to deliver NBN by 2016

The Australian and Guardian are both privately owned, so it’s not unreasonable they would each skew their reporting to the politics of their owners. Readers just need to be aware of what to expect.

The problem with the Guardian’s reporting is its blatant misrepresentation, starting with the subheading. It links “cost blowouts and poor management” with “government breaks promise”. Most readers would naturally infer cause and effect ie. poor management by the government has led to a broken electoral promise. I think the Guardian editors are well aware of this and I suggest that was their intention.

In fact, the cost blowouts and poor management were due to the previous government: this one has only been in power three months.

There is a ranking of seriousness of misdeeds in journalism. There’s bias in the selection of the headline and the order of reporting of the facts. That’s largely unavoidable and at least educated readers can see through this.

Then there is selective omission of facts and information which do not support the editorial agenda. That is worse than the bias of order choice because it is directly misleading.

In a similar vein, linking partial descriptions of facts to convey a false impression is worse than mere bias: it is dishonesty. It renders the article propaganda.

Even if the reader senses the article has been selective in its reporting of facts, it's often difficult and sometimes practically impossible to discover the full context.

The first half of the Guardian’s coverage is devoted almost entirely to the time and cost overruns in the Coalition’s plan. It is not until well into its second half that we find out Labor’s 100% optical fibre plan was not scheduled to be completed until 2024. That’s clear bias, but at least the fact is there.

But when do we discover how much Labor’s plan actually cost? You can find the figure $73B in small print type, in the last row of a table, at the end of the article … with no mention of the fact Labor’s original budget was $44B.

That’s the difference between The Australian and The Guardian’s reportage: the former is predictably biased, whereas the latter is predictably dishonest. And these are the people with whom our government broadcaster wants a closer working relationship.