Keep Winning Baby
I always have something to say with the Yankees. The pitching this, the batting that, the bullpen this, the bench that.
Well, when they go 8-0 since the All-Star Break, and are now leading the AL East by 2.5games, you sort o have to shrug and admit it: They're playing really well. As of now, they are playing .615 ball, which equates to a 99 win pace. If they can keep that up, they'll win the division.
Interestingly enough, if the Yankees had gone 4-4 instead of 0-8 with the Red Sox, then the respective records would be 63-33 and 52-43. So it's impressive to see that even accounting for the anomalous 4 game advantage they've spotted the Red Sox, the Yankees are leading the division.
That's the good news.
The bad news is that the Yankees have played pretty crap against Division leaders. They've gone 5-15. If you subtract out the Red Sox, they're still 5-7 against teams leading their divisions. On top of which, 3 of those wins came against the Tigers recently. Which is to say, it's going to be interesting to see how the rest of the Yankees' encounters with the Rays and Red Sox will go.
Judging the rest of the schedule from the All-Star break, the Red Sox and Yankees are essentially going to play the same teams, so seeing the Red Sox stumble with a losing streak while the Yankees won 8 on the trot again helps.
The scuffling in April seems a while ago now.
A Confession
Back in April, I was in a bad mood on many a day. I blamed it on lots of things, but the dirty little secret is that I was lying. Truth is, if the Yankees lose, I tend to see the result before I even get to the door to go to work and I'm a terribly grump bastard when they lose. I'm a bad person for being that way, I know, but I've always been a more magnanimous, chilled, smugly calm entity on the days that the Yankees have won. I think it's something Karmic, and I doubt I'm going to outgrow it in my lifetime. I like being smug - let Red Sox fans gnash their enamel-depleted teeth and richly gripe and moan. The world is better that way.
It's just how I feel. A week where the Yankees don't lose is like a week in heaven.
A Gen-X View of the Universe.
"The Issue Isn't Pussy, It's Monkey" - from The Right Stuff
Film, Cinema, Movies, TV, Music, Rock
2009/07/26
2009/07/23
What IS Screen Australia For?
You Have To Wonder
I can't link to this article by Anthony I. Ginnane because it's privileged content so I'll just have to quote bits and hope I don't piss off the good folks at Screen Hub.
The first part of the article talks about factors that have devastated prospects for feature film funding in Australia. He cites:
That's it in a nutshell. Mr. Ginnane doesn't think the Off-set has been taken up as much as initially projected when it was drawn up. His anecdotal-account -based guess is less than 50% of the target.
Plus, the 10BA thing disappearing, with the rollback of Screen Australia's direct funding means there's basically very little money to do anything significant in the market place.
So here's the bit I quote Mr. Ginnane, because you'll be surprised with it as I was when I read it:
Oh My God.
He's telling me now that they HADN'T thought about these problems BEFORE they rolled the FFC and the AFC into one organ? The GFC has been in full force since August 2007, when the "credit-crunch" as we know it reared its ugly head. That was well before Screen Australia started. The real chaos came up last year in September, about a month before the Americans headed for the polls.
You HAD to figure that international money was going to dry up and whatever plans they might have drawn up in 2005-2007 were going to be unworkable.
Mr. Ginnane goes on to say:
Well, that's been the position of this blog for quite some time. If anything, most Australian producers I know WANT to be doing exactly that: making films for the largest parts of the International market.
I don't know if I should be appalled or be asked to consult for these monkeys-with-extra-chromosomes at Screen Australia. For Fuck's Sake.
I can't link to this article by Anthony I. Ginnane because it's privileged content so I'll just have to quote bits and hope I don't piss off the good folks at Screen Hub.
The first part of the article talks about factors that have devastated prospects for feature film funding in Australia. He cites:
- The Disappearance of Presales from Distributors
- Reduction of actual films in theatres in the last 2 years which means fewer slots.
- The specialty distributors have gone into retreat, leaving just Fox Searchlight and Focus. The newer outfits are too small to factor in as a force.
- The big European Free-To-Air broadcasters are buying less. This is because Free-To-Air everywhere is in dire straits as markets decline globally.
- The GFC has essentially made banks more cautious, which naturally beat them out of the film markets.
- The GFC has forced the Germans an aggressive funds out of the market also.
That's it in a nutshell. Mr. Ginnane doesn't think the Off-set has been taken up as much as initially projected when it was drawn up. His anecdotal-account -based guess is less than 50% of the target.
Plus, the 10BA thing disappearing, with the rollback of Screen Australia's direct funding means there's basically very little money to do anything significant in the market place.
So here's the bit I quote Mr. Ginnane, because you'll be surprised with it as I was when I read it:
All of these complexities crashed into focus 2 weeks ago at Screen Australia’s most recent Board meeting when, without industry consultation and without pre-warning producers with theatrical projects before the meeting, the Board elected to amend its terms of trade and reduce from $5 million per project to $3 million (or $3.5 million in exceptional circumstances – what those circumstances might be were not elaborated on).
Apart from specific and significant hiccups resulting for projects at that meeting, the bigger question raised is what future is there for larger budget feature film production in Australia that is not studio driven but is driven by local producers attempting to step up into a world that is acutely tough right now.
Screen Australia has a number of issues on its plate here and those issues will remain, even if SPAA or other lobby groups collectively succeed in the run up to the 2010 election to get it increased funding and/or to encourage government to provide some limited additional one-off funding outside of Screen Australia and its budget. These issues include:
• Should Screen Australia fund fewer films at a higher budget, or more films at a lower budget or at a lower amount of participation?
• Given that subjective judgments are now being applied by project investment managers, consultants and the Board, is there an argument for reintroducing some kind of parallel market place door?
• The extent to which the marketplace alone can be expected in the current climate to fully, or largely, fund higher budget titles and the continuing importance of the last 20% or so of budget being available from soft sources either Screen Australia or perhaps a separate stimulus fund.
Oh My God.
He's telling me now that they HADN'T thought about these problems BEFORE they rolled the FFC and the AFC into one organ? The GFC has been in full force since August 2007, when the "credit-crunch" as we know it reared its ugly head. That was well before Screen Australia started. The real chaos came up last year in September, about a month before the Americans headed for the polls.
You HAD to figure that international money was going to dry up and whatever plans they might have drawn up in 2005-2007 were going to be unworkable.
Mr. Ginnane goes on to say:
So my suggestion to Screen Australia, once they select someone with distribution expertise to fill 1 of the 2 open Board slots, is to choose 2 or 3 titles per year where you in fact invest $5 to $10 million – films with mainstream multiplex potential – but make sure that investment has major worldwide distribution attached and that your recoupment position is a smart gross or adjusted gross recoupment position world wide pari passu an on favored nations definitions with key creatives. This kind of investment cannot be in any way subordinated.
If ever there was a time where the majors may be prepared to consider treating Australian sourced investment as something different to what they called the German investment funds (i.e. “stupid money”) it’s now.
This would buy Screen Australia 2 or 3 blue sky shots per year – a $100 million or more jackpot.
So they fail. So what? Most Australian films fail and the collective annual loses far exceed 2 or 3 times $5 to $10 million per year every year. So what’s the downside in taking a shot because there’s an awful lot of upside?
Look at the US and international weekly theatrical box office this year and last. It’s huge. It’s getting huger. And we are not part of it. We can be. We should be. And entrepreneurial Australian producers in partnership with Screen Australia, should be leading the charge.
Producers can lobby to increase Screen Australia funding and procure additional short term non Screen Australia funding but ultimately some of Screen Australia’s investments need to be in breakout hits.
Well, that's been the position of this blog for quite some time. If anything, most Australian producers I know WANT to be doing exactly that: making films for the largest parts of the International market.
I don't know if I should be appalled or be asked to consult for these monkeys-with-extra-chromosomes at Screen Australia. For Fuck's Sake.
Jose Ramos-Horta's Take
No Slavery (And They're Enlightened And Committed)
This is going to throw fuel on the fire.
Click the link to read the whole thing. It's a pretty weird piece in that he states he hasn't seen slavery, embraces the struggle of the said people of Western Sahara, does NOT give a good rap about the Moroccan ruling power, and closes by saying Australians would do well to make clear distinctions between truth and fiction:
In other words, he just called the film makers claims into serious question. He just called their documentary film, 'Fiction'.
I'm pretty sure this isn't going to sit well with the defenders of the film makers out there who claim the Polisario are manipulating people into covering up the slavery in Western Sahara and needlessly attacking the film makers of 'Stolen'.
While I don't hold Mr.Ramos-Horta to be a greater expert than anybody else - he's only visited the camps twice and who knows what he was shown? - I do think if he says he's not seen the slavery in the camps, then that's another claim you're either going to have to take on board as corroboration. Either that or say he too is being manipulated by the Polisario, which would strain credulity, given his political positioning against them.
This is going to throw fuel on the fire.
As I visit Australia again, to attend this week's opening of the Melbourne International Film Festival, I have been confronted by the outcry over the film Stolen, which will screen at the festival and which represents, in microcosm, the importance of truth in the struggle for justice. The film, which makes claims of widespread slavery in the Western Saharan refugee camps, represents many of the ugly realities of this central dynamic. It is a scenario I know only too well.
I have followed closely the question of Western Sahara for decades. In our years of struggle for independence, strong friendship and solidarity grew between the Timorese and the Saharawis. I have met many Saharawis and visited the Saharawi refugee camps and liberated areas twice. I did not see any form of slavery in those camps. Rather, what I know of the Saharawis is that they are enlightened and committed to their cause of freedom.
The situation of Western Sahara is perhaps not well known to Australians. For East Timorese, there are ties which make a mutual understanding easier to find. Both East Timor and Western Sahara were colonised by Iberian powers - Portugal and Spain, respectively; both have been identified by the United Nations as being ready for decolonisation; both were invaded, post-European withdrawal, by regional powers in 1975; both peoples have been subjected to widespread human rights abuses; and both have been caught up in global political trends not of their making.
Click the link to read the whole thing. It's a pretty weird piece in that he states he hasn't seen slavery, embraces the struggle of the said people of Western Sahara, does NOT give a good rap about the Moroccan ruling power, and closes by saying Australians would do well to make clear distinctions between truth and fiction:
As a friend of the Saharawis, I ask all Australians to take the time to understand the issues surrounding Western Sahara. I implore all to search for the truth with vigilance and commitment, lest lies become manifest and the vested interests of certain powers be allowed free reign in the marketplaces of ideas and power.
The world must support the independence of Western Sahara as a bridge between the Maghreb and the rest of Africa and as an enlightened Muslim nation bringing the Islamic world and the western democracies closer.
The Government and the people of Western Sahara deserve at least that much. As for East Timor, the worldwide support of the people, quite apart from governments and world organisations, has been, and remains significant. Those connections count and the value of ensuring truth and fiction remain separate is vital.
In other words, he just called the film makers claims into serious question. He just called their documentary film, 'Fiction'.
I'm pretty sure this isn't going to sit well with the defenders of the film makers out there who claim the Polisario are manipulating people into covering up the slavery in Western Sahara and needlessly attacking the film makers of 'Stolen'.
While I don't hold Mr.Ramos-Horta to be a greater expert than anybody else - he's only visited the camps twice and who knows what he was shown? - I do think if he says he's not seen the slavery in the camps, then that's another claim you're either going to have to take on board as corroboration. Either that or say he too is being manipulated by the Polisario, which would strain credulity, given his political positioning against them.
2009/07/22
The (Culture) Vultures Are Dying
Book Wars
The possibility of parallel imports of books has got Australian publishers spooked. They're campaigning hard to keep the status quo because bottom line, that's where their margins reside. To this end, they've enlisted the likes of Tim Winton to pitch in on the lobbying. The weird thing is, I think Tim Winton might stand to gain something if these changes were to be brought in, not suffer.
I've been told by people that Tim Winton owes it to front for these publishers, which is why he's lending his name to the lobbying effort. I can imagine that, well enough. I can remember when musicians of certain acclaim took to lobbying against parallel imports of CDs, and that didn't really wash either.
The deal that exists at the moment is that parallel imports are not allowed, and Australian publishers have 30days to put out a book that has been published overseas. So let's say Stephen King puts out a new book. The Australian publisher for Stephen King has 30days to print the Australian edition of the book and get it on the market, and in turn, the American edition does not make it on to our shores - unless somebody orders it through Amazon or Barnes and Noble.
What has the publishers irked is that they claim they can't put out the Australian version cheaper than the American or British versions thank to the economies of scale. Therefore they contend that it will be the end of them as publishers of Australian fiction as well.
I've been racking my brains about this a bit because books are interestingly resistant to piracy unlike movies and music. Not that it doesn't exist but it certainly isn't what is going to fell the publishing business as what Piracy has done to music.
The only advantage an Australian publisher would have over an overseas publisher is actually their proximity to Australian writers. You would think that the changes would force them to think of ways to make more money off Australian authors instead. Of course, it's not looking quite that way, and if I can make a character charge against the larger Australian publishers, I'll say this: they haven't exactly been nurturing literature in this nation as well as they would have. In fact they've done a piss poor job for a long time, principally by being lazy and always looking for the safest bets.
Yep, I said. But hey, this is the way this blog is about.
Thus it comes with no surprise that the big publishers don't want changes to the status quo; no, that would mean they'd actually have to go looking for serious talent and invest time in nurturing them and sharing in their risks. You get the feeling that all the big publishers in this country want to do is sell cook books and travelogues instead.
Literature? Forget it.
Just to be sure I asked a small publisher that specialises in poetry - yes, Puncher and Wattman - how all this might affect them and the answer was that it wouldn't. Because they publish Australian poetry, it wasn't as if there were big printing presses in America and UK out to flood the market with competing versions of Australian poetry. And in turn, it's not as if they're going to change their focus from Australian poetry which means the changes aren't going to hit them at all. It sounded like they almost welcomed it.
Then the conversation turned to just how much they were selling and it came down to an interesting observation. Considering how Australians claim to care about Australian culture, it was remarkable how few people actually put their money where their mouths were.
"About 1.5%?" I asked in jest.
1.5% is the market penetration of Australian filmsin the Australian box office. It would surprise me none to find Australian authors have made about the same penetration as their cinematic cousins.
The possibility of parallel imports of books has got Australian publishers spooked. They're campaigning hard to keep the status quo because bottom line, that's where their margins reside. To this end, they've enlisted the likes of Tim Winton to pitch in on the lobbying. The weird thing is, I think Tim Winton might stand to gain something if these changes were to be brought in, not suffer.
I've been told by people that Tim Winton owes it to front for these publishers, which is why he's lending his name to the lobbying effort. I can imagine that, well enough. I can remember when musicians of certain acclaim took to lobbying against parallel imports of CDs, and that didn't really wash either.
The deal that exists at the moment is that parallel imports are not allowed, and Australian publishers have 30days to put out a book that has been published overseas. So let's say Stephen King puts out a new book. The Australian publisher for Stephen King has 30days to print the Australian edition of the book and get it on the market, and in turn, the American edition does not make it on to our shores - unless somebody orders it through Amazon or Barnes and Noble.
What has the publishers irked is that they claim they can't put out the Australian version cheaper than the American or British versions thank to the economies of scale. Therefore they contend that it will be the end of them as publishers of Australian fiction as well.
I've been racking my brains about this a bit because books are interestingly resistant to piracy unlike movies and music. Not that it doesn't exist but it certainly isn't what is going to fell the publishing business as what Piracy has done to music.
The only advantage an Australian publisher would have over an overseas publisher is actually their proximity to Australian writers. You would think that the changes would force them to think of ways to make more money off Australian authors instead. Of course, it's not looking quite that way, and if I can make a character charge against the larger Australian publishers, I'll say this: they haven't exactly been nurturing literature in this nation as well as they would have. In fact they've done a piss poor job for a long time, principally by being lazy and always looking for the safest bets.
Yep, I said. But hey, this is the way this blog is about.
Thus it comes with no surprise that the big publishers don't want changes to the status quo; no, that would mean they'd actually have to go looking for serious talent and invest time in nurturing them and sharing in their risks. You get the feeling that all the big publishers in this country want to do is sell cook books and travelogues instead.
Literature? Forget it.
Just to be sure I asked a small publisher that specialises in poetry - yes, Puncher and Wattman - how all this might affect them and the answer was that it wouldn't. Because they publish Australian poetry, it wasn't as if there were big printing presses in America and UK out to flood the market with competing versions of Australian poetry. And in turn, it's not as if they're going to change their focus from Australian poetry which means the changes aren't going to hit them at all. It sounded like they almost welcomed it.
Then the conversation turned to just how much they were selling and it came down to an interesting observation. Considering how Australians claim to care about Australian culture, it was remarkable how few people actually put their money where their mouths were.
"About 1.5%?" I asked in jest.
1.5% is the market penetration of Australian filmsin the Australian box office. It would surprise me none to find Australian authors have made about the same penetration as their cinematic cousins.
40th Anniversary Of Lunar Landing
Distant Moon
When I was first starting up with this blogging thing, I started off talking about NASA in the wake of the Columbia shuttle disaster. You can go look it up. Partly because back then, it seemed NASA had failed on it s promises much more than they had fulfilled them. So as we sit here today and ponder the 40 years since Apollo 11 landed on the moon, I can't help but get a little nostalgic about all this stuff.
Here is an interesting profile about Neil Armstrong and how uninteresting he's tried to be in the wake of his historic fame.
And that was the fascination with the man. Perhaps our own perception that he was like Columbus or Lindbergh or Amundsen - when in reality, he was the very last chain in a finely calculated system project - was such a mismatch that he knew he could not live up to it. It's not as if he created a rocket in the backyard and flew to the moon himself. And yet here we are, we still remember their names - Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins.
It's really unclear what promises NASA can fulfill. The forecast is a return to the moon and perhaps a Mars mission. It seemed like we would be there by no had we not been diverted by the Space Shuttle project which has busily (and haphazardly) gone into low Earth Orbit over and over and over again. Thus it becomes important to look at the achievements as they are.
I hope to see a Mars project in my lifetime, yet we may not even get to the starting line.
When I was first starting up with this blogging thing, I started off talking about NASA in the wake of the Columbia shuttle disaster. You can go look it up. Partly because back then, it seemed NASA had failed on it s promises much more than they had fulfilled them. So as we sit here today and ponder the 40 years since Apollo 11 landed on the moon, I can't help but get a little nostalgic about all this stuff.
"The touchstone for excellence in exploration and discovery is always going to be represented by the men of Apollo 11," Obama said. He said their work sparked "innovation, the drive, the entrepreneurship, the creativity back here on Earth".
The president said he recalled watching Apollo astronauts return to Hawaii after splashing down in the Pacific Ocean. He said he'd sit on his grandfather's shoulders and "we'd pretend like they could see us as we were waving at folks coming home".
Obama praised Armstrong, Aldrin and command module pilot Michael Collins for their "calm under pressure, the grace with which these three gentlemen operated".
Obama did not talk about future NASA missions. Aldrin, Collins and six other Apollo astronauts used the anniversary to make a pitch for a mission to Mars.
Here is an interesting profile about Neil Armstrong and how uninteresting he's tried to be in the wake of his historic fame.
In his limited public utterances, Armstrong has always turned the subject away from himself. He usually deflects credit to the 400,000 people who built and maintained the vehicles and managed the bureaucracy that enabled him and Aldrin to reach the moon.
In his own book, Men From Earth, Aldrin wrote that he thought the man who preceded him onto the lunar surface had worked his way through his career "carefully watching everything he did and said".
Talkative and opinionated, Aldrin may be the antithesis of Armstrong. In his post-Apollo career, Aldrin has done what Armstrong would find inconceivable. He once did a guest voice on The Simpsons, sat for a hilarious interview with Ali G, made a rap video with Snoop Dogg and Quincy Jones, and lent his name to a computer game, Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space. Just in time for the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, there's Aldrin in a US ad for - what? - Louis Vuitton luggage. Aldrin once punched a guy who accused him of "lying" about the moon landing.
Someone once described Aldrin and Armstrong as "amiable strangers", but Hansen says that's inaccurate. "I'm not even sure 'amiable' is the right word. Neil did not appreciate how [Aldrin] went off in such strong, aggressive ways with his ideas. They worked well together, but I'm not sure there was much personal rapport. Buzz never figured Neil out." From time to time, Hansen says, Aldrin would contact him and ask for help to persuade Armstrong to attend some event - a reflection, Hansen says, of the astronauts' uneasy relationship.
Hansen says Armstrong's reticence may have been reinforced by the example of Charles Lindbergh, another 20th century pioneer who knew much about the soul-twisting powers of fame. The two men met in 1968, and Lindbergh and his wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh, were Armstrong's guests for the Apollo 11 launch. They corresponded until Lindbergh's death in 1974.
And that was the fascination with the man. Perhaps our own perception that he was like Columbus or Lindbergh or Amundsen - when in reality, he was the very last chain in a finely calculated system project - was such a mismatch that he knew he could not live up to it. It's not as if he created a rocket in the backyard and flew to the moon himself. And yet here we are, we still remember their names - Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins.
It's really unclear what promises NASA can fulfill. The forecast is a return to the moon and perhaps a Mars mission. It seemed like we would be there by no had we not been diverted by the Space Shuttle project which has busily (and haphazardly) gone into low Earth Orbit over and over and over again. Thus it becomes important to look at the achievements as they are.
I hope to see a Mars project in my lifetime, yet we may not even get to the starting line.
2009/07/20
Obama's Melting Cool?
I Guess Icebergs Have Melting Moments Too
Heres' an interesting article summing up Obama's challenges ahead this year. This is the bit I like:
No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama indeed. I guess I'm yet to be unimpressed by his Presidency so count me amongst those betting with Obama, not against.
Just thought I'd quickly share that gem remark with you all.
Heres' an interesting article summing up Obama's challenges ahead this year. This is the bit I like:
White House officials and allies brush off any notion that this new sense of unease is meaningful. The only true test, they say, will be results. Obama still might win major health care reform legislation this year that could be the most important new government program in decades. He has a fighting chance to pass regulations on greenhouse gases, in the form of a “cap and trade” mechanism, through the Senate. And Obama continues to press hard, if with no clear progress, for a breakthrough in the Middle East.
“It’s the third quarter, he’s down by a point, and he’s got his best player on the bench – what really is going to be important is the fall,” said James Carville, the veteran Democratic observer.
“If he gets what’s perceived to be some kind of a major health care thing, gets the climate bill through, if the economy recovers, then we’ll all say he had a hell of a summer. Conversely, if the thing falls apart, we’ll say that by July the 19th we could tell the thing was going bad.”
White House Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer dismissed the suggestion that Obama should be expected to succeed effortlessly – or that he’s on a path toward failure on any of these varied fronts.
“Obama and his team have been down this road dozens of times and been declared dead many times and always succeeded,” he said. “No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama.”
No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama indeed. I guess I'm yet to be unimpressed by his Presidency so count me amongst those betting with Obama, not against.
Just thought I'd quickly share that gem remark with you all.
2009/07/18
China In The Negative Spotlight
Undeserved, But Inevitable
It's one of those things that make you roll your eyes. Every time something happens that makes the Chinese leadership look weak or stupid, the Chinese government screams foul and does something that most advanced nations would not do. As such, in the aftermath of the failed Chinalco bid for Rio Tinto, it seems unsurprising that they would hit back by detaining the chief negotiator of Rio Tinto, who is in charge of iron ore price negotiations.
It's not exactly rocket science to see that China is smarting from the failed negotiations as well as the failed bid and in retaliation, arrested Stern Hu. Everybody knows this. If anything the Australian Government has been very gentle with them in reminding them that whatever they do with Stern Hu is in the international spotlight.
Of course, KRuddie's remark got met with a resounding "butt out" from one Qin Gang.
Pretty laughable really. Every time China gets slighted, it carries on like a child that refuses to play by the rules. Yes, China wants to be taken seriously and yes, China is growing and the world's economies are linked to the growth, but China needs to join the reality of the world, not the other way around. This kind of belligerent, bellicose display isn't really winning it any friends when it really should be looking to make more friends.
So it is, that the US are demanding transparency in proceedings. The fact that there are hardly any laws and no courts that behave like proper law courts as understood by the law makes Mr. Hu's detention look even worse than what te Chinese government thinks it is doing. In that sense China is miscalculating how much the West value their own over any old Chinese person.
That's right. China might try and treat Mr Hu in the same manner as the do any old dissenter on the mainland, the West will view their business people being treated that way in an entirely different light, simply because it concerns them. Whatever the outcome, China can't win in the PR stakes. They might undo everything that's happened since the Tienanmen Square in 1989 through to last year's Beijing Olympics.
Let's face it, the world didn't suddenly fall in love with China with Beijing. They begrudgingly gave it a seat at the table. It wasn't because the world bought into China's sense of self-worth. It was more a case that the world felt it had to let China do it at least once, so they can move on from that moment, probably onto better, more interesting things. Like South Africa. The alienated boredom of the world in relationship to China's breast-beating at the Beijing Olympics was palpable.
It was as if the world said, "yeah yeah, wank on mate."
And China gleefully did, oblivious to the sneers.
It's going to be a long hard slog for China to actually be accepted by the world as a normal member of the economic world, but it has to become much more acceptable if it is to be accepted. Part of that is to give up on this over-inflated sense of self-importance. This tantrum move of detaining Stern Hu without a sensible or visible legal recourse, then prnouncing him guilty without any sensible or visible due process, isn't endearing them to anybody.
It's one of those things that make you roll your eyes. Every time something happens that makes the Chinese leadership look weak or stupid, the Chinese government screams foul and does something that most advanced nations would not do. As such, in the aftermath of the failed Chinalco bid for Rio Tinto, it seems unsurprising that they would hit back by detaining the chief negotiator of Rio Tinto, who is in charge of iron ore price negotiations.
It's not exactly rocket science to see that China is smarting from the failed negotiations as well as the failed bid and in retaliation, arrested Stern Hu. Everybody knows this. If anything the Australian Government has been very gentle with them in reminding them that whatever they do with Stern Hu is in the international spotlight.
Of course, KRuddie's remark got met with a resounding "butt out" from one Qin Gang.
"I've noticed that in Australia recently some people have been making noise about this case," said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman, Qin Gang, at a regular media conference yesterday. "This is an interference in China's judicial sovereignty."
The comments underscore Mr Rudd's political and diplomatic quandary, where publicly raising the matter may backfire in Beijing but failing to raise it may be viewed as being too soft at home.
"It cannot change the objective facts nor can it have influence on the relevant Chinese authorities which are dealing with the case according to our law," Mr Qin said.
Immediately before his defence of China's judicial system, Mr Qin prejudged the case by treating the allegations against Mr Hu and his staff as fact.
"The actions of the Rio Tinto staff have caused losses to China and China's interests," he said. "I believe Stern Hu and Rio Tinto are fully aware of this."
Mr Qin warned Australian advocacy for Mr Hu would backfire.
"We're firmly opposed to anyone deliberately stirring up this matter," he said. "This is not in accordance with the interests of the Australian side."
Pretty laughable really. Every time China gets slighted, it carries on like a child that refuses to play by the rules. Yes, China wants to be taken seriously and yes, China is growing and the world's economies are linked to the growth, but China needs to join the reality of the world, not the other way around. This kind of belligerent, bellicose display isn't really winning it any friends when it really should be looking to make more friends.
So it is, that the US are demanding transparency in proceedings. The fact that there are hardly any laws and no courts that behave like proper law courts as understood by the law makes Mr. Hu's detention look even worse than what te Chinese government thinks it is doing. In that sense China is miscalculating how much the West value their own over any old Chinese person.
That's right. China might try and treat Mr Hu in the same manner as the do any old dissenter on the mainland, the West will view their business people being treated that way in an entirely different light, simply because it concerns them. Whatever the outcome, China can't win in the PR stakes. They might undo everything that's happened since the Tienanmen Square in 1989 through to last year's Beijing Olympics.
Let's face it, the world didn't suddenly fall in love with China with Beijing. They begrudgingly gave it a seat at the table. It wasn't because the world bought into China's sense of self-worth. It was more a case that the world felt it had to let China do it at least once, so they can move on from that moment, probably onto better, more interesting things. Like South Africa. The alienated boredom of the world in relationship to China's breast-beating at the Beijing Olympics was palpable.
It was as if the world said, "yeah yeah, wank on mate."
And China gleefully did, oblivious to the sneers.
It's going to be a long hard slog for China to actually be accepted by the world as a normal member of the economic world, but it has to become much more acceptable if it is to be accepted. Part of that is to give up on this over-inflated sense of self-importance. This tantrum move of detaining Stern Hu without a sensible or visible legal recourse, then prnouncing him guilty without any sensible or visible due process, isn't endearing them to anybody.
2009/07/16
Peter Garrett: Self-Serving Opportunist
That, We Knew - What Else Have Ya' Got?
I have to say one caveat before I go into this one tonight.
I've always distrusted Midnight Oil and their posturing. All those songs about giving it back to the indigenous people and saying sorry and anti-nuclear activism and Anti-US rhetoric, never washed with me. I can't explain why, but I think it had three components. 1) Bogans and Westies in my school liked them and I was a music snob and they just weren't my band. 2) I have trouble with message songs for causes I don't believe the singer is actually into - yes, I thought he was a phony back then 3) Their music actually sucks.
So, Peter Garrett, the bald man with the idiotic dance moves was never a spokes person for me or my politics or ideology or whatever else he thought he was doing up there. I'm glad I didn't buy into his crap because I think the betrayals of faith are coming hard and fast these days as he potters around as the minister for Arts as well as junior minister for the Environment. He's turned into sort of a Cicciolina without the sex appeal.
So here's the headline today: "Garrett's Beds Are Burning"
Well, he's hypocritical in more ways than just that. The word on the street is that Midnight Oil gave nothing to the Warumpi Band even though they stole their cred and thunder on the way to stardom, and that Peter Garrett was the most opportunistic of the bunch. Let's face it, what they did was an appropriation of the Indigenous cultural standard and waving it around like it belonged to them, a pack of white-bread surf-nazis from the Sydney Northern Beaches.
And it wasn't like I wasn't telling anybody who'd listen back then that the whole 'Diesel and Dust' schtick was exactly that: a schtick to sell more vinyl.
The poison icing on the cake really should be the nuclear issue where Garrett spent years and years advocating a hard-line position against any more expansion of nuclear activities in or by Australia and here he is selling that legacy out.
Well, yeah. Not only has bent over and bared his buttocks to the ALP Machine, he's greased his own butt up and placed a welcome mat behind his ankles. Come on, how do you sell out your principles any faster than that without even a whimper? Where's the expected "I'm quitting this portfolio because I can't get my way" sort of stoush?
From all this, you can only conclude that he went into Federal Politics for the pension plan MPs get. If nothing else, he owes his old time fans a big apology for having been a phony. Or an Apostate.
Had I actually been a fan, I'd be pretty upset today. But because I held him in low esteem all these years as a musician and advocate, I feel strangely and rightfully vindicated to find out he's an unprincipled sell-out and a soul-less social climber.
Some, clearly were more the deceived.
I have to say one caveat before I go into this one tonight.
I've always distrusted Midnight Oil and their posturing. All those songs about giving it back to the indigenous people and saying sorry and anti-nuclear activism and Anti-US rhetoric, never washed with me. I can't explain why, but I think it had three components. 1) Bogans and Westies in my school liked them and I was a music snob and they just weren't my band. 2) I have trouble with message songs for causes I don't believe the singer is actually into - yes, I thought he was a phony back then 3) Their music actually sucks.
So, Peter Garrett, the bald man with the idiotic dance moves was never a spokes person for me or my politics or ideology or whatever else he thought he was doing up there. I'm glad I didn't buy into his crap because I think the betrayals of faith are coming hard and fast these days as he potters around as the minister for Arts as well as junior minister for the Environment. He's turned into sort of a Cicciolina without the sex appeal.
So here's the headline today: "Garrett's Beds Are Burning"
Mr Garrett has approved a new uranium mine for South Australia - and some traditional owners aren't happy.
They are worried about their land "being raped by mining companies" and have called for the approval for the Four Mile mine to be deferred.
Adnyamathanha elder Enice Marsh has asked the SA and federal governments for an independent investigation into the Aboriginal heritage of the Four Mile site.
"What more can we do to protect our land from being raped by mining companies that are allowed to pollute the water and carve up the waterways, even contaminate the soil with radioactive waste?" Ms Marsh said.
"Aboriginal people have no rights under Native Title to protect our heritage."
Mr Garrett told reporters that approving the mine had not let down Aboriginal people.
"In fact, there is an agreement between traditional owners and Aboriginal people in South Australia and the proponents on this matter," he said.
"And I expect that Aboriginal communities will receive benefits as a consequence of the decision that has been taken."
Mr Garrett answered criticism from the Greens and the Coalition that he had sold out his principles in approving the mine.
"Look, that is an old song," he said.
"I approve a lot of decisions right around Australia and Australians can be confident that when Peter Garrett is the environment minister he will make sure that the environmental standards are the highest that they can be and that they need to be."
Meanwhile, nuclear advocates have used the booming uranium industry to call for a domestic nuclear power industry.
The number of Australian uranium mines will rise from three to five next year but none of the yellowcake will be used to generate electricity here.
Clarence Hardy, the secretary of the Australian Nuclear Association, said it was time to use the uranium domestically.
"We consider it's really ironic that the present government is very happy to export uranium to overseas countries for nuclear power but it just won't consider it in Australia," Dr Hardy said.
"It's what I call hypocritical."
Well, he's hypocritical in more ways than just that. The word on the street is that Midnight Oil gave nothing to the Warumpi Band even though they stole their cred and thunder on the way to stardom, and that Peter Garrett was the most opportunistic of the bunch. Let's face it, what they did was an appropriation of the Indigenous cultural standard and waving it around like it belonged to them, a pack of white-bread surf-nazis from the Sydney Northern Beaches.
And it wasn't like I wasn't telling anybody who'd listen back then that the whole 'Diesel and Dust' schtick was exactly that: a schtick to sell more vinyl.
The poison icing on the cake really should be the nuclear issue where Garrett spent years and years advocating a hard-line position against any more expansion of nuclear activities in or by Australia and here he is selling that legacy out.
'I have always maintained ... that our country is as far into nuclear activities as it ever should be,' Garrett said in a debate over uranium policy at the 2007 Labor National Conference. 'I have long been opposed to uranium mining, and I remain opposed to it. I am unapologetic about this. In fact, I am proud of it.'
Bob Brown, the leader who tried to snare Garrett for the Greens, denounced his former friend as a sellout.
'Peter has sacrificed himself to Labor politics,' Brown said.
Well, yeah. Not only has bent over and bared his buttocks to the ALP Machine, he's greased his own butt up and placed a welcome mat behind his ankles. Come on, how do you sell out your principles any faster than that without even a whimper? Where's the expected "I'm quitting this portfolio because I can't get my way" sort of stoush?
From all this, you can only conclude that he went into Federal Politics for the pension plan MPs get. If nothing else, he owes his old time fans a big apology for having been a phony. Or an Apostate.
Had I actually been a fan, I'd be pretty upset today. But because I held him in low esteem all these years as a musician and advocate, I feel strangely and rightfully vindicated to find out he's an unprincipled sell-out and a soul-less social climber.
Some, clearly were more the deceived.
Another 'Stolen' Update
The Story Won't Go Away
I've been meaning to link to this article.
I can't begin to express how disturbed I am by the section above. Because of the events described, NAATI has been brought in to check the translations. This is hilarious in as much as NAATI can be pretty hit and miss. I get a lot of interpreting work from people and organs that have sworn off using NAATI interpreters. I won't hold what they'll say about it in high esteem, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
That being said, I have to remind readers that I'm still yet to take a position on whether these claims are true or not. I am however, greatly disturbed that there can be such radically different accounts by people in the film over what these film makers created. If this were fiction, it would be Arnie trying to tell us, "no, Jim Cameron is wrong! The Terminator T-101 is a Hamlet figure straddling undecidablity and not an incarnation of Death'.
I mean, that would be weird, right?
Anyway... It's been a while since the Sydney Film Festival and the controversy surrounding 'Stolen', a film that made the claim that there was slavery in the refugee camps in Western Sahara. Since then, the claim was vigorously challenged but we're nowhere near closer to finding the truth.
The truth, in this instance a small-t kind of truth is something that we can epistemologically hang our hats on in as much as we hang our hats on common concepts such as, "the Allies won World War II" or "The Yankees have won the World Series 26 times to date". i.e., we'd like to establish whether the film makers were right or wrong about their claims. Not 100% absolute Philosophical certainty, but the kind that can beat out reasonable doubt in a courtroom. That's what we're talking about here, nothing more, but nothing less.
In the time since the Sydney Film Festival, there has been little news except Ive noticed a couple of mentions in the internet. The first is some kind of piece that supports the film makers, though it is unclear to what degree critical thought has been applied to this article:
It's a weird depiction of events, which closes with this gem:
Pretty funny. It reads like a puff piece primed to pump the credibility of the film's claims, but I'm not really persuaded.
The opposing Polisario have made available their side of the argument:
Not sure I like the tone of that one either. Anybody else smell a rat?
I guess we'll see what NAATI's *ahem* expert interpreters have to say about this one. If it turns out that the slavery claims are totally the product of bad interpreters, I think the world will have a good hearty laugh. If the film makers claims are true, then perhaps even the controversy would have been of benefit to the cause of the people in these camps. My hunch, like most sceptics is that these filmmakers played hard and fast with the truth in order to get a good story, but like I said at the top, I'm reserving judgment on that one. Others are not so kind:
You still have to question how such a compromised film got out to the public, let alone got itself into the Sydney Film Festival, but then what the hell do I know about the Sydney Film Festival? I've never understood it, let alone liked it, so I'll pass on that one.
I don't know how Screen Australia can come out looking good with all of this, but I'm sure they'll find a way to spin it.
I've been meaning to link to this article.
Ayala and Fallshaw stood by the film, saying it had been verified by three separate translators including Sy, who works as a Hassaniya Arabic to English translator for the United States Immigration Court.
Sy went through the film with the documentary makers in February, pointing out several mistakes in their subtitles.
He said Ayala and Fallshaw wrote down his corrections and promised to alter the subtitles. They arranged to meet for a screening of the final cut, but cancelled the appointment.
"They told me they would send a copy of the film for me to check, but they didn't," Sy says from New York. "They didn't respect their commitment to me. I was surprised and disappointed."
He saw the final version of the film for the first time last week and was shocked at its inaccuracy. "There is still a lot of work to do on the film," he says. "The translation I put on paper was correct. I went through [the film] minute by minute, but a lot of the mistakes have not been changed."
In one scene Salam's mother and sister appear to confirm that she is a slave to her white foster mother. More recent translations show they are discussing Ayala, who they say has misunderstood the family relationships.
Another problem was that some of the film's dialogue was in a local dialect that Sy could not understand. "If you don't live locally, you cannot understand what they say," he says.
In an email to Sy on Thursday, seen by the Herald, Ayala and Fallshaw accused the translator of "negligence".
They say he failed to tell them his concerns about the translations and has damaged the film's credibility. In a statement, they suggested Sy's comments were part of an ongoing campaign by the organisation that runs the refugee camps, the Polisario Front, to undermine the film.
I can't begin to express how disturbed I am by the section above. Because of the events described, NAATI has been brought in to check the translations. This is hilarious in as much as NAATI can be pretty hit and miss. I get a lot of interpreting work from people and organs that have sworn off using NAATI interpreters. I won't hold what they'll say about it in high esteem, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
That being said, I have to remind readers that I'm still yet to take a position on whether these claims are true or not. I am however, greatly disturbed that there can be such radically different accounts by people in the film over what these film makers created. If this were fiction, it would be Arnie trying to tell us, "no, Jim Cameron is wrong! The Terminator T-101 is a Hamlet figure straddling undecidablity and not an incarnation of Death'.
I mean, that would be weird, right?
Anyway... It's been a while since the Sydney Film Festival and the controversy surrounding 'Stolen', a film that made the claim that there was slavery in the refugee camps in Western Sahara. Since then, the claim was vigorously challenged but we're nowhere near closer to finding the truth.
The truth, in this instance a small-t kind of truth is something that we can epistemologically hang our hats on in as much as we hang our hats on common concepts such as, "the Allies won World War II" or "The Yankees have won the World Series 26 times to date". i.e., we'd like to establish whether the film makers were right or wrong about their claims. Not 100% absolute Philosophical certainty, but the kind that can beat out reasonable doubt in a courtroom. That's what we're talking about here, nothing more, but nothing less.
In the time since the Sydney Film Festival, there has been little news except Ive noticed a couple of mentions in the internet. The first is some kind of piece that supports the film makers, though it is unclear to what degree critical thought has been applied to this article:
In their offensive, Polisario supporters have gathered together foreign journalists who do sympathise with their thesis, in order to send reports which go along with their thesis , by arguing that victims filmed in “Stolen” withdraw their statements, on the basis that they have been offered money by the filmmakers in order to confirm that their slaves.
Kamel Fadel, the Polisario representative in Australia recognised the fact that the victims have been controlled during the action led by Polisario’s supporters against the film.
Concerning Fatim’s arrival to Australia, he said: “it was not us who invited her; she was invited by the Australian association for Western Sahara (AWSA), and members of federal parliament.”He made this statement during the same program at ABC‘s radio about the film. But he recognized, at least, that he paid the trip for her: “she is here in Sydney with the Australian Association for the Western Sahara “AWSA”, we have paid the tickets for her to come “.
Kamal fadel has tempted to criticize the quality of translation of statements madder by people interviewed in the documentary, they accused the filmmakers to have made the victims say what they have not said. The supporters of the documentary have reminded that “a large party of the documentary was translated and broadcasted by AL – Jazera satellite TV.
All these attempts were a failure; even the international organizations recognize the slavery practices, according to the Australian filmmakers “ …. When we were talking about slavery on the ground , the UN officials say they did not know that it exits but when we travelled to Geneva , the deputy director for North Africa in the UN organizations said that they know it exists in the area where the refugee camps .”
Several voices rose up to denounce this reality, particularly in the Australian media. As to Romana Cacchioli , of the organisation against slavery has asserted that all sequences of the documentary are truthful, he said to 3Brisbane Times” newspaper , that such similar cases do exist and were mentioned by the Spanish media .
During the evening of the 11th of June the day of projection of the documentary, Polisario supporters have tempted hopelessly to make this film festival a political event. They have brought Fatim from Tindouf camps straight to the Cinema which is situated at Boulevard June Georges in Sydney. The fact of the matter is that she was brought to Australia, while she left behind in Tindouf camps her children, to make sure that her answer remains in agreement with what she was told to say. Dan Fallshaw said in this respect: “ We spoke briefly to her last night and all she said they told her not to talk to us”.
It's a weird depiction of events, which closes with this gem:
It is worth mentioning that the film “Stolen “was financed by the movie organism “screen Australia”
Pretty funny. It reads like a puff piece primed to pump the credibility of the film's claims, but I'm not really persuaded.
The opposing Polisario have made available their side of the argument:
The film purports, in a sensationalistic way, to reveal widespread evidence of racially based slavery in the Saharawi refugee camps on the Western Sahara-Algeria border. Central to the apparent scoop is an interview with Fetim Sallem, a 36-year-old mother of four. She was in Australia to explain her story, which is significantly at odds with the film's take on it (so much so that Fetim requested unsuccessfully to have her interviews removed from the film).
Rather than verifying shaky claims of slavery and then seeking out the source of this possible ill (say in the repressive environment the Saharawi people have endured since the illegal invasion by Moroccan forces in 1975, an event that sent many into the camps that still exist today), the filmmakers of Stolen chose to conflate a few ill-gotten and misunderstood accusations into a tabloid expose. The approach of the film-makers challenges the very basis of the documentary genre and undermines its value as a means of serious scrutiny. In an age when reality TV is nothing of the sort and when celebrity gossip is considered hard news, this is perhaps not surprising. But it is disappointing and very distressing for those who, like Fetim, are vilified in the process.
There are fundamental flaws in the film-makers' storyboard. Fetim is not a slave and widespread slavery simply does not exist in the Saharawi refugee camps. This fact has been confirmed by numerous visits by independent journalists and human rights reporters over the years.
A member of a delegation sent by Human Rights Watch to investigate the film-makers' claims said the delegation ‘‘did not find evidence of forced labour, certainly not of slavery of the kind’’ in 19th century America.
The Saharawi live under great strain and considerable duress, brought about by decades of foreign occupation. A generation has grown up in a refugee environment. Our society is not perfect, our situation not Utopian. None is.
But, slavery is something Polisario abhors and is on the record as opposing. The practice is an unacceptable cultural anachronism and we have outlawed it completely since the inception of our independence movement in 1973.
Polisario has worked hard to address whatever human rights issues we find in our midst and we continue to undermine all forms of abuse and restrictions on liberty. This year, Polisario openly lobbied hard for the United Nations mandate to include a human rights monitoring process in its mission in Western Sahara. This was quashed by France, an erstwhile supporter of the Moroccan occupiers in Western Sahara, using its veto power in the Security Council.
Not sure I like the tone of that one either. Anybody else smell a rat?
I guess we'll see what NAATI's *ahem* expert interpreters have to say about this one. If it turns out that the slavery claims are totally the product of bad interpreters, I think the world will have a good hearty laugh. If the film makers claims are true, then perhaps even the controversy would have been of benefit to the cause of the people in these camps. My hunch, like most sceptics is that these filmmakers played hard and fast with the truth in order to get a good story, but like I said at the top, I'm reserving judgment on that one. Others are not so kind:
Ayala and Fallshaw say they have have been victims of a concerted campaign by the Polisario to discredit their revelations about the extent of slavery in the camps and that the Saharawi people who are now coming forward to retract their statements are doing so under duress.
They stand by their story citing a Human Rights Watch report produced in 2008. However, while the report stated that no evidence of slavery or domestic servitude was found in the camps, it identified some vestiges of related practices in the form of permissions for marriage. When questioned about the Human Rights Watch report on ABC radio, Ayala explained that you had to "read between the lines" to appreciate the full extent of the problem.
Stolen is not a controversial documentary. Stolen is a hoax — a case of two young filmmakers fudging the facts about a place so remote they thought they could get away with it. Film festivals should be very wary of screening it and Screen Australia should answer some serious questions about why it was ever funded.
You still have to question how such a compromised film got out to the public, let alone got itself into the Sydney Film Festival, but then what the hell do I know about the Sydney Film Festival? I've never understood it, let alone liked it, so I'll pass on that one.
I don't know how Screen Australia can come out looking good with all of this, but I'm sure they'll find a way to spin it.
2009/07/14
Obama Gets Frank With Africa
Tell It Like It Is, Prez!
Africa is one of those conundrums that has been around for all of my life. Ever since I can remember, there's been calls for aid, donations, and more aid and more donations and even more aid and donations. Part of the dynamic has been a product of history where the European and North American nations keep sending guilt money for perceived historic wrongs. The problem is, all that money that's been spent on Africa has amounted to the Africa of today, and it's not exactly what you might call a success.
There are corrupt governments, military juntas, tribal wars and countless causes for violence, poverty, injustice and chaos. When you sit there an tally up the money spent, it just doesn't make sense. If we'd kept that money, imagine what we might have done with it? And as uncharitable as that sounds, it's just as confounding when you sit and contemplate how fucked up the dark continent has become.
So, in this light, when an American President with an African heritage steps up to deliver a speech, it's time for some home truths.
It's unpopular to say it, but the Geldof/Bono line of activism where more aid is requested without any accountability for how the aid is used has to be questioned. I know it seems improbable, but it is distinctly possible that that very aid has caused more problems for Africa.
It's not even tough love. It's being very frank, and it's a necessary step in achieving real change. A lot of people who have an interest in the aid organs will disagree, but the fact is, they haven't managed to rid Africa of the sort of poverty and famine that ends up on TV in a call for more donations.
Some years ago in Tokyo, I was watching a program where they showed an MRI machine donated to an African township by the Japanese Foreign Affairs Department. The machine ran according to its spec for 20 years. Then it broke down, long past its projected life time. The people of the township asked, "why have the Japanese stopped supporting us?"
Thus, the show turned on inviting a Foreign Affairs spokes person to be grilled by a panel, and the grilling boiled down to "why aren't we looking after these people more?"
His response was very simple: "we honestly thought that country would move on in the intervening 20 years and be able to supply its own MRI machines."
You should have seen the expression of the panelists trying to make the spokesperson feel guilty. 20 years is a long time.It was the time it took for Japan to recover from the devastation of WWII and start exporting cars to the world. It was the time it took for South Korea to go from military rule to democracy to economic powerhouse. It's not like it's impossible, and yet the thing about Africa is the endless cycle of abject poverty and senseless violence and getting more aid out of our collective conscience.
It's a bit rough that President Obama said what he said, but it most probably needed to be said. Better late than never, but even better now than later.
Africa is one of those conundrums that has been around for all of my life. Ever since I can remember, there's been calls for aid, donations, and more aid and more donations and even more aid and donations. Part of the dynamic has been a product of history where the European and North American nations keep sending guilt money for perceived historic wrongs. The problem is, all that money that's been spent on Africa has amounted to the Africa of today, and it's not exactly what you might call a success.
There are corrupt governments, military juntas, tribal wars and countless causes for violence, poverty, injustice and chaos. When you sit there an tally up the money spent, it just doesn't make sense. If we'd kept that money, imagine what we might have done with it? And as uncharitable as that sounds, it's just as confounding when you sit and contemplate how fucked up the dark continent has become.
So, in this light, when an American President with an African heritage steps up to deliver a speech, it's time for some home truths.
BARACK OBAMA delivered the most challenging speech by an American leader in Africa for decades when he castigated the continent's leadership for creating a culture of "brutality and bribery".
Adopting a tone his white predecessors never dared employ, the US President told Africa it could no longer blame the West for all its woes.
"Yes, a colonial map that made little sense, bred conflict, and the West has often approached Africa as a patron, rather than a partner," he told Ghanaian MPs on Saturday. "But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the past decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants."
Seeking to jolt Africa's politicians out of a complacent belief that his shared ancestry with them would soften his rhetoric, Mr Obama spoke with withering directness. Condemning tyrannical leaders who "enrich themselves" amid chronic poverty, he promised fresh "partnerships" only with states that were well governed.
For the kleptocrats and autocrats who still sprinkle the continent, he had a simple message: enough is enough.
"No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery," he said. "That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end."
Traditional "strongman" rulers must give way to "strong institutions" if they are to benefit from future Western assistance, he said. "We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don't.
"Development depends on good governance, and that is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many countries. That's the change which can unlock African potential, but that is a responsibility which must be met by Africans. Africa's future is up to Africans."
It's unpopular to say it, but the Geldof/Bono line of activism where more aid is requested without any accountability for how the aid is used has to be questioned. I know it seems improbable, but it is distinctly possible that that very aid has caused more problems for Africa.
It's not even tough love. It's being very frank, and it's a necessary step in achieving real change. A lot of people who have an interest in the aid organs will disagree, but the fact is, they haven't managed to rid Africa of the sort of poverty and famine that ends up on TV in a call for more donations.
Some years ago in Tokyo, I was watching a program where they showed an MRI machine donated to an African township by the Japanese Foreign Affairs Department. The machine ran according to its spec for 20 years. Then it broke down, long past its projected life time. The people of the township asked, "why have the Japanese stopped supporting us?"
Thus, the show turned on inviting a Foreign Affairs spokes person to be grilled by a panel, and the grilling boiled down to "why aren't we looking after these people more?"
His response was very simple: "we honestly thought that country would move on in the intervening 20 years and be able to supply its own MRI machines."
You should have seen the expression of the panelists trying to make the spokesperson feel guilty. 20 years is a long time.It was the time it took for Japan to recover from the devastation of WWII and start exporting cars to the world. It was the time it took for South Korea to go from military rule to democracy to economic powerhouse. It's not like it's impossible, and yet the thing about Africa is the endless cycle of abject poverty and senseless violence and getting more aid out of our collective conscience.
It's a bit rough that President Obama said what he said, but it most probably needed to be said. Better late than never, but even better now than later.
2009/07/12
Yankees Update 11/07/09
Thank God For The Twins
The Yankees had a good week where they finished off the series with Toronto by winning the 3rd and losing the 4th, only to roll into Minnesota to play the Twins. The Yankees wen ton to sweep the Twins, and then with all but the Angels remaining before the all star break, seemed to go on a mental holiday.
The Yankees have thus gone 4-3 this week.
The Twins this season seem to have some kind of mental block about playing the Yankees, a bit like how the Yankees have a mental block about playing Boston and so, they've not won a game against the Yankees this year in 7 encounters. This 7-0 record has helped the Yankees balance out the 0-9 record they have against the Red Sox, which sort of explains how the 2 teams are at around 2 games difference in standings.
Why Can't They Beat These Guys? Part 4 - The Los Angeles Angels of Annaheim
When it gets down to it, the Angels have been the nightmare team for the Yankees this decade. They're the only team that has a winning record against the Yankees in the AL this decade. Much of that has been them exploiting the weak defenses the many Yankees squads have had this decade, with their put-the-ball-in-play style.
The Angels always seem to have just enough pitching to hold the Yankees' bats down and just enough contact hitting to outscore what their pitching gives up. What amazes me is that the Yankees don't seem to have devised any tactic or strategy against this team over the years, except add more bats in Free Agency.
What's disappointing this year is that even with improved defense and pitching, the Yankees are getting nickel-and-dimed to a tune of 10 runs by the Angels offense whils scoring 6 runs. You' think 6 runs should be good enough to win most games.
Joba Sucked This Last Month
I should know, I have him on my lone fantasy roster this year. He was doing better earlier in the season but he seems to have lost a little zip. He's striking out fewer and he's got an ERA around 4.25. In the last month his ERA has been sitting at 5.16 with 23 Ks in 29.2 innings. I don't think that's really cutting it. Together with the inured Wang and Andy Pettitte who is a ERA 4.50 sort of guy now, the Yankees need better pitching out of all their home-grown starters.
The Yankees had a good week where they finished off the series with Toronto by winning the 3rd and losing the 4th, only to roll into Minnesota to play the Twins. The Yankees wen ton to sweep the Twins, and then with all but the Angels remaining before the all star break, seemed to go on a mental holiday.
The Yankees have thus gone 4-3 this week.
The Twins this season seem to have some kind of mental block about playing the Yankees, a bit like how the Yankees have a mental block about playing Boston and so, they've not won a game against the Yankees this year in 7 encounters. This 7-0 record has helped the Yankees balance out the 0-9 record they have against the Red Sox, which sort of explains how the 2 teams are at around 2 games difference in standings.
Why Can't They Beat These Guys? Part 4 - The Los Angeles Angels of Annaheim
When it gets down to it, the Angels have been the nightmare team for the Yankees this decade. They're the only team that has a winning record against the Yankees in the AL this decade. Much of that has been them exploiting the weak defenses the many Yankees squads have had this decade, with their put-the-ball-in-play style.
The Angels always seem to have just enough pitching to hold the Yankees' bats down and just enough contact hitting to outscore what their pitching gives up. What amazes me is that the Yankees don't seem to have devised any tactic or strategy against this team over the years, except add more bats in Free Agency.
What's disappointing this year is that even with improved defense and pitching, the Yankees are getting nickel-and-dimed to a tune of 10 runs by the Angels offense whils scoring 6 runs. You' think 6 runs should be good enough to win most games.
Joba Sucked This Last Month
I should know, I have him on my lone fantasy roster this year. He was doing better earlier in the season but he seems to have lost a little zip. He's striking out fewer and he's got an ERA around 4.25. In the last month his ERA has been sitting at 5.16 with 23 Ks in 29.2 innings. I don't think that's really cutting it. Together with the inured Wang and Andy Pettitte who is a ERA 4.50 sort of guy now, the Yankees need better pitching out of all their home-grown starters.
2009/07/08
Lost Generation
Hello Oblivion!
You sort of get depressed when you see the phrase 'lost generation' to describe your generation of directors, but it's been anything but creative or productive if you've been a film director in Australia for that last 15 years. You make your own luck with most things, but there's been a wholesale destruction of context one wonders if there will ever be a thriving film industry in Australia ever again.
So, here's today's guff in The Australian.
I'm depressed just reading the rest of the fucking article so I'll keep it at this: it's not for wont of trying, but funding bodies are not serious about an industry. They're serious about paying their mortgages like the rest of the regular stiffs. There's never been *any* urgency to make the industry work as an industry. Its a little embarrassing that the funding bodies are now forced to consider the audience after decades of negligence. But I've ranted about that before. the next bit sort of worries me too:
Jeebus, where do you start? People have been trying for decades to be in the mainstream. It's hard to be in the mainstream because it's fickle and fast, but it's not like there have been a shortage of film makers who wanted to ply their trade and keep doing it in a commercial sense. It's ALWAYS been the case that the funding bodies have only supported the film makers who are decidedly against any kind of commercial commitment until last year. And even then, the noises we're hearing from Screen Australia don't seem to augur a new era of commercial film investment, but a continuation of supporting crappy films that not even Australians want to see.
In other words, the terms of reference in this whole discourse is so askew it's not yielding any kind of sense of how our industry got to be so small and insignificant in the span of 30years. But until the media actually readjusts its mypoic astygmatic gaze, theyre never going to understand how far from commercial our cinema actually is.
You sort of get depressed when you see the phrase 'lost generation' to describe your generation of directors, but it's been anything but creative or productive if you've been a film director in Australia for that last 15 years. You make your own luck with most things, but there's been a wholesale destruction of context one wonders if there will ever be a thriving film industry in Australia ever again.
So, here's today's guff in The Australian.
Yet there is little doubt many of our directors have wasted years trying to crack the development or funding cycle for one film. Others have released US films that failed to make an imprint on a market that appears increasingly unwilling to embrace independent cinema. Which is part of the problem. A country such as ours that produces generally low-budget films is unlikely to throw up the next director of a Terminator or Batman film, even if our actors populate them and crew members support them.
I'm depressed just reading the rest of the fucking article so I'll keep it at this: it's not for wont of trying, but funding bodies are not serious about an industry. They're serious about paying their mortgages like the rest of the regular stiffs. There's never been *any* urgency to make the industry work as an industry. Its a little embarrassing that the funding bodies are now forced to consider the audience after decades of negligence. But I've ranted about that before. the next bit sort of worries me too:
"The kids who are coming up now are just as interested in directing for the multiplex as the guys who came up in the 80s and 90s wanted to direct specialty cinema," Ginnane says. "(They) have a better understanding of the international mainstream. In the 70s, people like (Stork and Eliza Fraser director) Tim Burstall, for instance, wanted to make mainstream films but they had no understanding of the international mainstream market."
Knowledge of that market is obviously far more attainable now than in the 70s when film magazines and journals tended to be a filmmakers' window to the world. Today, a flight to LA is commonplace and US trailers and box-office figures can be downloaded instantly. Which makes Hollywood seem so much closer.
Jeebus, where do you start? People have been trying for decades to be in the mainstream. It's hard to be in the mainstream because it's fickle and fast, but it's not like there have been a shortage of film makers who wanted to ply their trade and keep doing it in a commercial sense. It's ALWAYS been the case that the funding bodies have only supported the film makers who are decidedly against any kind of commercial commitment until last year. And even then, the noises we're hearing from Screen Australia don't seem to augur a new era of commercial film investment, but a continuation of supporting crappy films that not even Australians want to see.
In other words, the terms of reference in this whole discourse is so askew it's not yielding any kind of sense of how our industry got to be so small and insignificant in the span of 30years. But until the media actually readjusts its mypoic astygmatic gaze, theyre never going to understand how far from commercial our cinema actually is.
2009/07/06
Fed's 15th
An Epic Match
Roger Federer made history at long last. It sure didn't look like it was going to happen along the road this year, but he dug deep and got it done against his favorite whipping post, Andy Roddick. Of course it wouldn't have been so epic had Roddick not put up a good fight, but in the end, the man of destiny beat it out to the promised land.
The man is a great player and nobody is going to quibble with him being called the greatest until somebody comes along and wins more. Roddick had these interesting words at the end:
If you go 2-19 against the best player of all time, how disappointed can you be at:
Roddick's a cool dude.
Roger Federer made history at long last. It sure didn't look like it was going to happen along the road this year, but he dug deep and got it done against his favorite whipping post, Andy Roddick. Of course it wouldn't have been so epic had Roddick not put up a good fight, but in the end, the man of destiny beat it out to the promised land.
Federer's 5-7 7-6 (8-6) 7-6 (7-5) 3-6 16-14 victory in four hours and 18 minutes came 12 months after he had suffered a heartbreaking defeat here in another epic five-set battle with Rafael Nadal.
This time, however, with a collection of the game's all-time greats looking over his shoulder from the royal box anticipating the Swiss would win the unprecedented 15th major title, Federer finally endured, breaking Roddick's serve for the only time in the match on the American's 38th service game to seize victory.
Clearly exhausted by his toil, and perhaps stunned by the opposition he had been forced to endure from an opponent over whom he had held a 18-2 career record, the often emotional Federer was more relieved than elated as he received the Wimbledon trophy for the sixth time.
"It's a crazy match, my head is still spinning," Federer told the crowd.
Pete Sampras, who had flown in for the match at the last minute to see Federer move ahead of him on the all-time grand slam winners list, paid the Swiss the ultimate accolade saying he considered him the greatest player of all time.
"I have to give it to him," said Sampras. "The critics say Laver, and Nadal's beaten him a few times ... in my book he is."
The man is a great player and nobody is going to quibble with him being called the greatest until somebody comes along and wins more. Roddick had these interesting words at the end:
Roddick said Federer had, for the first time, been unable to read his serve.
"But you didn't even get a sense that he was even really frustrated by it," said Roddick.
"He kind of stayed the course and just toughed it out. He gets a lot of credit for a lot of things, but not a lot of the time is how many matches he kind of digs deep and toughs out. He doesn't get a lot of credit for that because it looks easy to him a lot of the times. But he definitely stuck in there today."
If you go 2-19 against the best player of all time, how disappointed can you be at:
- a) winning twice?
- b) getting to play the man 21 times?
- c) your surname has 2 euphemisms for 'penis' while the greatest player has none?
Roddick's a cool dude.
2009/07/05
Son Of Rambow
The Enduring Dreams Of A Childhood
It's sort of funny to pick up a DVD not expecting much but a chuckle here and there, only to be confronted by a film that preserves the best moments of a shining part of childhood. Really, I didn't expect this film to be this good, thanks to this review here.
Umm, no, no, no,no. This is a complete misreading of the charms of the film and I should have known better than to trust Sandra Hall who gave it 3 stars. This is actually a much more worthy film than her pithy closing line implies. This is a film for film makers to savor; and I'm kicking myself that I missed this at the cinemas.
What's Good About It
If you were ever a kid that ran around with your dad's camera shooting recreated movie and TV scenes with your friends, then you understand implicitly the problematic of this film. How do you get your friends to do what you want for the film? How do you get your props? Who's going to come up with the story? Where the hell are you going to shoot this? How do you do it outside of school hours in the short hours between end of school and sunset?
All these issues are in fact, implicit in the act of film making. You could go to film school and you're faced with equally vexing logistical problems. You can be working on a low budget film or even a reasonably budgeted film and still face vexing issues of logistics. This film, traces it right back to the school yard where enduring friendships are forged and memories made.
The snippets of Rambo we see are only a catalyst into the world of boys actually having a boys' own adventure with a camera. I mentioned ted Kotcheff, who actually directed Rambo in the last film review I did for Wake In Fright. My guess is that if you asked him about 'Son of Rambow', he would give it 5 stars for being more than an homage, and more of a thesis on the impulse to make films. This is not a film about the cultural impact of Rambo at all. This is a film about film making at its best.
There are many good films about film-making. In fact, you could argue the best films are about film-making because that's what the writers, producers and directors know best in their lives. What makes 'Son of Rambow' more perceptive than all those films is that it doesn't mention the business. There's nothing about the evil studios and agents and money-men. It just talks about the joy of making a film. It's all there.
What's Bad About It
Ask me another day. I'm sure there's something, but I can't think of it today. If you can't like this film for what it is, there's something wrong with you, not the film.
What's Interesting About It
Ostensibly, the film within the film is about the journey of the son of Rambo going to rescue Rambo. What does this mean ina cultural sense? I think it's an attempt to repatriate Rambo as a figure in fiction.
Does Rambo (and by extension the 1980s) need rescuing? If the critical responses to 'Rambo', the fourth movie in the franchise is anything to go by, maybe there needs to be a rescue after all. I wasn't a fan of the 1980s as they unfolded. Reagan and George Bush Snr. weren't much joy, and the MTV thing and the weird quirks of fashion were not something that makes me nostalgic. At the time, Rambo movies were the synonym for big, dumb and Propaganda for the misanthropic conservative agenda. Let's be honest, they were laughable even then.
Yet, even allowing for all that derision, there is something in the Rambo movie sagas worth rescuing, and therein lies the interest today.
Here's an article with Syvester Stallone talking about it.
The first thing that strikes you is that this film isn't actually interested in the Rambo persona; it's far more interested in Rambo as an icon around which the kids galvanise their vision into a film. And galvanise they do as only kids can.
It's interesting because once you get to film school, it's suddenly a lot harder to galvanise around a project. It's hard to explain, but I think what happens is that people become so self-reflexive that they refuse to partake in other people's fantasies. Once you're out in the business doing this stuff at any level, you sort of switch off to the childish impulses and you busily try to deliver a 'product' and end up killing the joy within.
So when Rambo erupts on the screen with the sheltered kid watching, it's a tremendous moment of re-discovery for us, where we click that maybe Stallone and Kotcheff had a rocking good time making 'First Blood'; that maybe the reason we keep getting sequels isn't just because it's good repeat business, but because the participants get a kick out of doing that thing that gives them such a buzz.
The film actually opens up a vein of thought that doesn't get discussed a lot in the business proper. But Orson Welles himself mentioned it at one point wherein he said words to the effect that the directing, he ould do for free. He charges his fee based on the waiting around that he has to do inbetween projects. If you understand that point, then there is no mystery to the genius of 'Son Of Rambow'.
It's sort of funny to pick up a DVD not expecting much but a chuckle here and there, only to be confronted by a film that preserves the best moments of a shining part of childhood. Really, I didn't expect this film to be this good, thanks to this review here.
This is not a typical British coming-of-age tale. When they're not doing feature films, Jennings and Goldsmith are kept busy making commercials and music videos and the experience has left an indelible mark on Jennings's style. He's the kind of director who takes the phrase "heightened sensation" pretty seriously. Hence, British social realism is left far behind once Will is launched on his new career as a stuntman. It's clear that we're looking on the land of childhood through a magnifying lens, which means the film's production designers have just as much to do with the business of character revelation as its script does. The boys' already turbulent school life, for instance, is further complicated by the arrival of a group of French exchange students led by the ultra chic Didier (Jules Sitruk). This paragon of style soon has his fellow fashion victims in thrall, leading to a subplot that looks as if it has been lifted straight out of a music video.
<edit>
It's a sweet and intermittently funny film but all that video work seems to have imbued Jennings with a strong taste for the disconnected narrative.
The script is not so much written as assembled, anecdote by anecdote. As a result, you never quite settle in.
Umm, no, no, no,no. This is a complete misreading of the charms of the film and I should have known better than to trust Sandra Hall who gave it 3 stars. This is actually a much more worthy film than her pithy closing line implies. This is a film for film makers to savor; and I'm kicking myself that I missed this at the cinemas.
What's Good About It
If you were ever a kid that ran around with your dad's camera shooting recreated movie and TV scenes with your friends, then you understand implicitly the problematic of this film. How do you get your friends to do what you want for the film? How do you get your props? Who's going to come up with the story? Where the hell are you going to shoot this? How do you do it outside of school hours in the short hours between end of school and sunset?
All these issues are in fact, implicit in the act of film making. You could go to film school and you're faced with equally vexing logistical problems. You can be working on a low budget film or even a reasonably budgeted film and still face vexing issues of logistics. This film, traces it right back to the school yard where enduring friendships are forged and memories made.
The snippets of Rambo we see are only a catalyst into the world of boys actually having a boys' own adventure with a camera. I mentioned ted Kotcheff, who actually directed Rambo in the last film review I did for Wake In Fright. My guess is that if you asked him about 'Son of Rambow', he would give it 5 stars for being more than an homage, and more of a thesis on the impulse to make films. This is not a film about the cultural impact of Rambo at all. This is a film about film making at its best.
There are many good films about film-making. In fact, you could argue the best films are about film-making because that's what the writers, producers and directors know best in their lives. What makes 'Son of Rambow' more perceptive than all those films is that it doesn't mention the business. There's nothing about the evil studios and agents and money-men. It just talks about the joy of making a film. It's all there.
What's Bad About It
Ask me another day. I'm sure there's something, but I can't think of it today. If you can't like this film for what it is, there's something wrong with you, not the film.
What's Interesting About It
Ostensibly, the film within the film is about the journey of the son of Rambo going to rescue Rambo. What does this mean ina cultural sense? I think it's an attempt to repatriate Rambo as a figure in fiction.Does Rambo (and by extension the 1980s) need rescuing? If the critical responses to 'Rambo', the fourth movie in the franchise is anything to go by, maybe there needs to be a rescue after all. I wasn't a fan of the 1980s as they unfolded. Reagan and George Bush Snr. weren't much joy, and the MTV thing and the weird quirks of fashion were not something that makes me nostalgic. At the time, Rambo movies were the synonym for big, dumb and Propaganda for the misanthropic conservative agenda. Let's be honest, they were laughable even then.
Yet, even allowing for all that derision, there is something in the Rambo movie sagas worth rescuing, and therein lies the interest today.
Here's an article with Syvester Stallone talking about it.
"When I first heard . . . I assumed it was going to be a very broad and stylized joke-a-minute comedy at Rambo's expense," Sylvester Stallone said by e-mail. But he took a look at "Son of Rambow," the playfully rambunctious tale of two boys in 1980s small-town England, and liked what he saw.
"The fact that it was so heartwarming is the result of brilliant filmmaking by its creators," Stallone said.
It's the kind of triumph filmmakers dream of. Having finished "Rambow" just a week before its showing at the Sundance Film Festival last year, writer-director Garth Jennings and producer Nick Goldsmith saw it become the biggest sale of the festival. Then came the long wait for licensing approvals -- though their confidence in their little film never wavered.
"If we were asking to use the clips to show the film in a negative light, we may have had some problems," Goldsmith said, "but [our] film is clearly a celebration of that film. I don't think we ever went in thinking they were going to say no, and from Day One it was all very amicable."
The first thing that strikes you is that this film isn't actually interested in the Rambo persona; it's far more interested in Rambo as an icon around which the kids galvanise their vision into a film. And galvanise they do as only kids can.
It's interesting because once you get to film school, it's suddenly a lot harder to galvanise around a project. It's hard to explain, but I think what happens is that people become so self-reflexive that they refuse to partake in other people's fantasies. Once you're out in the business doing this stuff at any level, you sort of switch off to the childish impulses and you busily try to deliver a 'product' and end up killing the joy within.
So when Rambo erupts on the screen with the sheltered kid watching, it's a tremendous moment of re-discovery for us, where we click that maybe Stallone and Kotcheff had a rocking good time making 'First Blood'; that maybe the reason we keep getting sequels isn't just because it's good repeat business, but because the participants get a kick out of doing that thing that gives them such a buzz.
The film actually opens up a vein of thought that doesn't get discussed a lot in the business proper. But Orson Welles himself mentioned it at one point wherein he said words to the effect that the directing, he ould do for free. He charges his fee based on the waiting around that he has to do inbetween projects. If you understand that point, then there is no mystery to the genius of 'Son Of Rambow'.
2009/07/04
Yankees Update 04/07/09
Staggering Through The Inter-League Schedule
The Yankees finished up the inter-league part of the schedule with another subway series, this time in Citifield by sweeping the injury-depleted Mets. It wasn't much of an achievement when you note that they're missing Jose Reyes, Carlos Delgado and Carlos Beltran, but you take all the wins you can, for what they are. After the Mets series, the Yankees took 2 of 3 from the Mariners and as oft his writing have won the first game against another game against the Blue Jays.
All in all, the Yankees have won 8 games in the last 9- but such reasoning is always a practice in 'selective endpoint'. Counting up the Interleague schedule, the Yankees lost to the Phillies Marlins and Nationals but beat the Mets 5-1 and the Braves, going 11-8. Not quite .600, but good enough, which goes to show how big that sweep of the Mets was. It's a sweep that begins to redress the losses the Yankees have been dealt by the Red Sox.
Mariano Rivera Reaches Milestone
During the Mets series, Mariano Rivera reached 500 saves. He's been pitching since that mark and now sits at 503. I guess if he pitched at a 45 save clip per season, he'd reach this goal in 12 years. There have been injuries along the way so it's taken him until this season, but it's a milestone that shows how much faith the Yankees have had in his one pitch, the cutter.
Only Trevor Hoffman is ahead on the career saves list with 570-odd. Unless Rivera pitches to his level for 2 season longer than when Hoffman retires, he probbaly won't catch Hoffman.
Here's a comparison of their career ERAs.
Here's his Baseball Reference page.The most similar player with a similarity score of 930 through Age 38 is in fact Trevor Hoffman.
I can't find a comparison of Win Shares, but I imagine they wouldn't be too different given how similar their use would have been for the last 10 years. Rivera had a stretch where he frequently appeared in longer than just 1 inning, but it's balanced a little by his awful stint as a starter in 1995.
I think Mariano Rivera is the player my old man is most fascinated by. You should see the gleeful grin on his face when Mo comes out to save a game. To me, Mo is Mr. Automatic. Will there be anybody else like him? Probably not. Whoever becomes the closer for the Yankees after Rivera is going to have a hell of a time filling his shoes.
The Trade For Eric Hinske
Having acquired the 2003 ROY in the form of Angel Berroa, the Yankees traded for the 2002 ROY, Eric Hinske as a bat off the bench. Hinske came up as a 3B and can play the 4 corners. He'll fill in for Ramiro Pena who is headed for AAA for more at-bats. The plan for Pena is apparently to nurture him as s super-utility guy, though he wasn't looking too shabby at short.
The word on Hinske is that he can't really play 3B any more. He's posted a -1.2 UZR and 2.5 RF/G at 13 games with the Pirates, which probably isn't enough to say much. As late as last year his ZR was 1.0 at 3B in 3 times the innings; so he'd be adequate to spell A-Rod for a start. ZiPS is projecting a .247/.355/.396 line the rest of the way. The power seems a little low, and he might even be helped by the new stadium's immensely short RF porch.
The interesting aspect of this trade is that the Pirates actually had to send cash with Hinske. That's got to be a new development, when the Yankees ask for cash considerations in a trade.
The Yankees finished up the inter-league part of the schedule with another subway series, this time in Citifield by sweeping the injury-depleted Mets. It wasn't much of an achievement when you note that they're missing Jose Reyes, Carlos Delgado and Carlos Beltran, but you take all the wins you can, for what they are. After the Mets series, the Yankees took 2 of 3 from the Mariners and as oft his writing have won the first game against another game against the Blue Jays.
All in all, the Yankees have won 8 games in the last 9- but such reasoning is always a practice in 'selective endpoint'. Counting up the Interleague schedule, the Yankees lost to the Phillies Marlins and Nationals but beat the Mets 5-1 and the Braves, going 11-8. Not quite .600, but good enough, which goes to show how big that sweep of the Mets was. It's a sweep that begins to redress the losses the Yankees have been dealt by the Red Sox.
Mariano Rivera Reaches Milestone
During the Mets series, Mariano Rivera reached 500 saves. He's been pitching since that mark and now sits at 503. I guess if he pitched at a 45 save clip per season, he'd reach this goal in 12 years. There have been injuries along the way so it's taken him until this season, but it's a milestone that shows how much faith the Yankees have had in his one pitch, the cutter.
Only Trevor Hoffman is ahead on the career saves list with 570-odd. Unless Rivera pitches to his level for 2 season longer than when Hoffman retires, he probbaly won't catch Hoffman.
Here's a comparison of their career ERAs.
Here's his Baseball Reference page.The most similar player with a similarity score of 930 through Age 38 is in fact Trevor Hoffman.
I can't find a comparison of Win Shares, but I imagine they wouldn't be too different given how similar their use would have been for the last 10 years. Rivera had a stretch where he frequently appeared in longer than just 1 inning, but it's balanced a little by his awful stint as a starter in 1995.
I think Mariano Rivera is the player my old man is most fascinated by. You should see the gleeful grin on his face when Mo comes out to save a game. To me, Mo is Mr. Automatic. Will there be anybody else like him? Probably not. Whoever becomes the closer for the Yankees after Rivera is going to have a hell of a time filling his shoes.
The Trade For Eric Hinske
Having acquired the 2003 ROY in the form of Angel Berroa, the Yankees traded for the 2002 ROY, Eric Hinske as a bat off the bench. Hinske came up as a 3B and can play the 4 corners. He'll fill in for Ramiro Pena who is headed for AAA for more at-bats. The plan for Pena is apparently to nurture him as s super-utility guy, though he wasn't looking too shabby at short.
The word on Hinske is that he can't really play 3B any more. He's posted a -1.2 UZR and 2.5 RF/G at 13 games with the Pirates, which probably isn't enough to say much. As late as last year his ZR was 1.0 at 3B in 3 times the innings; so he'd be adequate to spell A-Rod for a start. ZiPS is projecting a .247/.355/.396 line the rest of the way. The power seems a little low, and he might even be helped by the new stadium's immensely short RF porch.
The interesting aspect of this trade is that the Pirates actually had to send cash with Hinske. That's got to be a new development, when the Yankees ask for cash considerations in a trade.
2009/07/02
More Thoughts On Michael Jackson
Still Mourning, Still Trying To Figure Him Out
I've been thinking about Michael Jackson a lot because I'm finding it hard to remember a time I wasn't aware somehow of his work. I imagine it would be harder for people younger than Gen-X to fathom a world where Michael Jackson wasn't around on the celebrity gossip rags or on the airwaves.
Michael Jackson made his debut at the Apollo in 1967, and rose to prominence in 1968. It's interesting to note that the rise of Michael Jackson the performer begins during the epoch of the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King making his famous "I have a Dream" speech.
For 40years, there was Michael Jackson's persona in the public sphere. He's been around as long as say, Robert Redford or Dustin Hoffman. That 40years is actually looking like a very long time in the public consciousness.
Consider these random facts: his arrival on the public consciousness predates the moment George Steinbrenner buys the New York Yankees by 5 years, and 7 years before the renovated stadium re-opened. He was there before the World Trade Center opened in New York City. He arrived in the year Australians chose to let the Indigenous people of Australia be counted as citizens. His arrival predates the finishing of the Sydney Opera House. The Beatles were still together, producing 'Let It Be' and 'Abbey Road'.
His arrival happened the year of the Tet offensive in the Vietnam War. By the time he died, the Americans were just about to pull out of Iraq's cities ahead of a draw down.
More importantly - I've been pondering this - the end of that 40 years marks the first black American President in Barack Obama. And I keep thinking that across those 40 years, I cannot deny that maybe Michael Jackson did so much to move the world's perception, to turn Reverend King's vision from a dream to an electable reality.
Let's face it, Michael Jackson was so weird, that next to him, Barack Obama looks like... a very normal man. A man so normal he'd pass as politically white. And here's the key about being thrust next to Michael Jackson: Michael Jackson and his very weirdness pushed the boundaries so far, so wide, so, out-there that we - all of us -look normal, even though we are all slightly weird in our on little ways. By the time a de-polemicised black candidate turned up, the world was ready for Obama.
I'm not saying Obama got elected because Michael Jackson directly enabled him through his weirdness in 2008. No. What I am saying is that over the many, many years in between, Michael Jackson and his entire weird persona crossed over so many borderlines that eventually he weirded us all out. not only did he weird me out, he weirded out everybody to the extent that by the the Obama came along, the weirdness he infected the world made Obama look... decidedly normal.
"What is normal anyway?" I can hear you ask, and I'd not be able to give you a workable answer. But the 'normal' in this instance would include notions of being closer to the middle of the spectrum in things such as fashion, social status positioning and even sexual orientation.
So this is what I thnk about all this: In the future, when historians look at the second half of the 20th century, they're going to have to come to terms with Michael Jackson as a cultural influence. We might think of him as 'Whacko Jacko' today, but in 100years time, people might actually come to understand him as the man who changed the cultural landscape of America for the better. There is no doubt in my mind today that we lost a giant.
I've been thinking about Michael Jackson a lot because I'm finding it hard to remember a time I wasn't aware somehow of his work. I imagine it would be harder for people younger than Gen-X to fathom a world where Michael Jackson wasn't around on the celebrity gossip rags or on the airwaves.
Michael Jackson made his debut at the Apollo in 1967, and rose to prominence in 1968. It's interesting to note that the rise of Michael Jackson the performer begins during the epoch of the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King making his famous "I have a Dream" speech.
For 40years, there was Michael Jackson's persona in the public sphere. He's been around as long as say, Robert Redford or Dustin Hoffman. That 40years is actually looking like a very long time in the public consciousness.
Consider these random facts: his arrival on the public consciousness predates the moment George Steinbrenner buys the New York Yankees by 5 years, and 7 years before the renovated stadium re-opened. He was there before the World Trade Center opened in New York City. He arrived in the year Australians chose to let the Indigenous people of Australia be counted as citizens. His arrival predates the finishing of the Sydney Opera House. The Beatles were still together, producing 'Let It Be' and 'Abbey Road'.
His arrival happened the year of the Tet offensive in the Vietnam War. By the time he died, the Americans were just about to pull out of Iraq's cities ahead of a draw down.
More importantly - I've been pondering this - the end of that 40 years marks the first black American President in Barack Obama. And I keep thinking that across those 40 years, I cannot deny that maybe Michael Jackson did so much to move the world's perception, to turn Reverend King's vision from a dream to an electable reality.
Let's face it, Michael Jackson was so weird, that next to him, Barack Obama looks like... a very normal man. A man so normal he'd pass as politically white. And here's the key about being thrust next to Michael Jackson: Michael Jackson and his very weirdness pushed the boundaries so far, so wide, so, out-there that we - all of us -look normal, even though we are all slightly weird in our on little ways. By the time a de-polemicised black candidate turned up, the world was ready for Obama.
I'm not saying Obama got elected because Michael Jackson directly enabled him through his weirdness in 2008. No. What I am saying is that over the many, many years in between, Michael Jackson and his entire weird persona crossed over so many borderlines that eventually he weirded us all out. not only did he weird me out, he weirded out everybody to the extent that by the the Obama came along, the weirdness he infected the world made Obama look... decidedly normal.
"What is normal anyway?" I can hear you ask, and I'd not be able to give you a workable answer. But the 'normal' in this instance would include notions of being closer to the middle of the spectrum in things such as fashion, social status positioning and even sexual orientation.
So this is what I thnk about all this: In the future, when historians look at the second half of the 20th century, they're going to have to come to terms with Michael Jackson as a cultural influence. We might think of him as 'Whacko Jacko' today, but in 100years time, people might actually come to understand him as the man who changed the cultural landscape of America for the better. There is no doubt in my mind today that we lost a giant.
I Still Hate Soccer But...
Socceroos Are World's 16th Best Team
It's hard to believe that the Socceroos would suddenly leap 13 spots in the FIFA world rankings, but they've done that on the back of their World Cup qualifying campaign. Yes, they're now ranked No.16. Even if it is just for this month, this is a tremendous outcome. I'm sure it's raised a few eyebrows in Europe and South America.
You can just see the eyeballs popping out of the Uruguayans and Portuguese fans as they open the sports sections. like, "What? Australia are ahead of our guys?"
Watch out for falling Uruguayans.
I love it when the rest of the world underestimate how insane we are about our sport. I hate soccer intensely and I still follow it. That just shows you how nutso we are here. Anyway... here's the ranking down to 20, and then some other nations of interest.
I don't know if it kills Japan to drop 9 places to 40, or South Korea to drop 2 and still be 8 behind of Japan. :)
God only knows how they come up with these rankings. It must be a combination of how they scored and gave up goals versus a weighted comparison of competition faced. Still, placing 16th in this context is a huge breakthrough for soccer in Australia. It means that these players can finally make their home country understand just what it is that they do that is so damned important for Australia. We can cue the band-wagon fans to jump aboard about now.
100 for NZ seems like a nice round number, and thanklessly, they've dropped 18 places even though they came top in Oceania. How a nation can win their zone and still drop 18 spots must drive the Kiwis mad - if only they valued it as highly as they value Rugby.That being said, the Oceania portion of the World Cup qualifications is like the boonie-town tour for football.
Remember those horror days for Australia? Well, now they're the top team in Asia. Weird.
I dunno if that's so great. Australia as a baseball nation is actually ranked higher than No.16... :) Jokes aside, maybe it's the case that soccer has finally arrived in Australia when the Socceroos are considered in the company of Denmark and Portugal.
Be that as it may... I still hate soccer, but this is a very good day for Australian Soccer.
It's hard to believe that the Socceroos would suddenly leap 13 spots in the FIFA world rankings, but they've done that on the back of their World Cup qualifying campaign. Yes, they're now ranked No.16. Even if it is just for this month, this is a tremendous outcome. I'm sure it's raised a few eyebrows in Europe and South America.
You can just see the eyeballs popping out of the Uruguayans and Portuguese fans as they open the sports sections. like, "What? Australia are ahead of our guys?"
Watch out for falling Uruguayans.
I love it when the rest of the world underestimate how insane we are about our sport. I hate soccer intensely and I still follow it. That just shows you how nutso we are here. Anyway... here's the ranking down to 20, and then some other nations of interest.
1. Brazil (+4)
2. Spain (-1)
3. Netherlands (-1)
4. Italy (0)
5. Germany (-2)
6. Russia (+3)
7. England (-1)
8. Argentina (-1)
9. France (+1)
10. Croatia (-2)
11. Greece (+6)
12. USA (+2)
13. Switzerland (+3)
14. Serbia (+6)
15. Denmark (+9)
16. Australia (+13)
17. Portugal (-6)
18. Cote d'Ivoire (+20)
19. Ukraine (0)
20. Uruguay (-3)
Selected
28. Turkey (-16)
30. Gabon (+18)
33. Mexico (-7)
37. Ireland (-3)
38. Egypt (+2)
40. Japan (-9)
48. South Korea (-2)
100. New Zealand (-18)
I don't know if it kills Japan to drop 9 places to 40, or South Korea to drop 2 and still be 8 behind of Japan. :)
God only knows how they come up with these rankings. It must be a combination of how they scored and gave up goals versus a weighted comparison of competition faced. Still, placing 16th in this context is a huge breakthrough for soccer in Australia. It means that these players can finally make their home country understand just what it is that they do that is so damned important for Australia. We can cue the band-wagon fans to jump aboard about now.
100 for NZ seems like a nice round number, and thanklessly, they've dropped 18 places even though they came top in Oceania. How a nation can win their zone and still drop 18 spots must drive the Kiwis mad - if only they valued it as highly as they value Rugby.That being said, the Oceania portion of the World Cup qualifications is like the boonie-town tour for football.
Remember those horror days for Australia? Well, now they're the top team in Asia. Weird.
The Socceroos are now ranked ahead of a host of nations with rich football histories, notably one place ahead of European powerhouses Portugal, who boast arguably the world's best player Cristiano Ronaldo.
They have also overtaken European big guns Czech Republic and Turkey, South American giants Paraguay and Uruguay, plus every team in Africa.
"We are delighted at this news," Football Federation Australia chief executive Ben Buckley said.
"Rankings are not the be all and end all of football but they are certainly an indicator of our progress.
"The more competitive games we play, the greater the opportunity to improve our position in the world rankings and the more match hardened the team becomes.
"This is a great reward for the Socceroos' form in the qualifying rounds for the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
"Once again, we congratulate coach Pim Verbeek and the players for their efforts."
Australia's cause was helped by a string of impressive results in June in the final stages of their successful qualification campaign.
A scoreless draw with Qatar in Doha, which sealed their spot for South Africa 2010, was followed by wins against Bahrain and Japan in Australia.
Socceroos players spoke last month about their disappointment at the lack of credit they had been given for their emphatic qualification, but they will take solace in Wednesday's official FIFA recognition.
I dunno if that's so great. Australia as a baseball nation is actually ranked higher than No.16... :) Jokes aside, maybe it's the case that soccer has finally arrived in Australia when the Socceroos are considered in the company of Denmark and Portugal.
Be that as it may... I still hate soccer, but this is a very good day for Australian Soccer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)