Cricket furore:

Peter Rule writes: Re. “Another hollow victory for Australian cricket” (yesterday, item 2). Charles Happell: what dribble. Perhaps Ponting didn’t glove it; perhaps Gilly thought he hit it; perhaps Clarke caught it cleanly. And as for Hussey’s “… replays clearly showed” comment, well… I need say nothing. There was some bad decisions made in that game, one (Symonds not out) or two (Ponting out) very bad, the rest were typical close decisions that can go either way; most, this time, went Australia’s way. To blame it all on the Australians as if they constructed an injustice is ridiculous and I condemn it strongly.

Terry Costello writes: Charles Happell’s criticisms of the ugly Aussies are valid however one needs to try and work out where this ugly aspect of the Australian cricket team has come from. Part of the problem is that the game is not really a sport anymore but is a multi million dollar business, and business and sponsorship no doubt booms when one wins and the actions of the Aussies in the Sydney Test indicates a win at all costs attitude which is unacceptable. The Australian Capitalist Review ran a story recently that stated that several Australian cricketers have purchased multi million dollar properties. Perhaps some of the test team think more about their bank balances and property portfolios than acting fairly on the field. Acting fairly means treating others how you would expect to be treated.

Dave Liberts writes: As a cricket fan who was four years old when Rod Marsh recalled an English batsman given out off a non-catch, I have always considered international cricket to be about winning and losing more than pure sportsmanship, within reasonable limits. Batsmen have the right to wait for umpires to decide, fielders have the right to appeal, and umpires have the right to control the game. As such, I have little problem with the conduct of most Aussies during the recent test. I also agree with the modern Australian view that players are entitled to play hard, but that what happens on the pitch stays on the pitch. This is where Ponting and Symonds went badly wrong – if they’re not willing to cop verbal abuse, then they must stop their team heaping it up on opposition players. The Aussies can’t justify their dobbing by calling racism -they spend all day calling their opposition effing cees or making s-xually suggestive insults, which has to be at least as offensive as Harbajan’s comment about Roy’s haircut. The biggest problem at the SCG was easily the umpiring – it’s definitely time to refer decisions about LBWs and edged catches to the third umpire. Meanwhile, let’s all hope that the Indian team focuses its energy on finding more form, and how brilliant will the next tour of India be?

Michael Cunningham writes: It would be interesting to enlist Dr Who and revisit all of Bradman’s innings with the advantage of super-slo-mo replay – I wonder what his average would be after the application of the forensic evidence now available? Would that make him a better or worse player? Would that, if the evidence was negative, make all those Test results tainted, like this one is supposed to be? And the umpires made mistakes? Oh dear. How about the last three Indian batsmen? How about Michael Clarke with the bat? Big mistakes there. That’s cricket. That happens. That’s why it’s a sport which humans follow and treasure. You want precision and accuracy, go watch a computer game.

Chris Hunter writes: Well said Charles Happell. It was a bit much watching the manic behaviour of the Australian first eleven. It certainly was “cringe-making”. However, I found a simple antidote. I switched over to the beach cricket at Perth and instantly rediscovered my love for watching the great game. The camaraderie of those great old players did the trick. If the Indians go home at least we’ll have something highly entertaining instead.

Peter McDonell writes: What p*sses me off! There are more cricket experts out there than you can shake a bat at. With the benefit of super dooper slow motion replays, the snickometer, amd hawkeye (that dubious ball radar thing), and heaps of personal prejudice it’s always clear, to some, how hopeless are the decisions of the umpires. If those same know it alls stood in place of the umpires would they be worth feeding. Unlikely! Could they make the split second decisions we ask of the umpires? So often, after the forensic analysis is complete, the commentators begrudgingly compliment umpires for a “good decision”. Gosh, they actually got it right in the split second available to them. Yes, the forensics also show that umpires make bad decisions. But if you can’t live with that go watch soccer. Just stop p*ssing me off by demonstrating your forensic anally retentive skill at watching slow motion replays.

John Mair writes: Just like Peter Roebuck at Fairfax, your Charles Happell (obviously an alias) has written up a story with scant regard to the real issues or problems. Both rants, sarcastic condemnations of their own side, are treasonable in my book. The Board of Control of Cricket in India, in pulling the old “you do as we say or we’ll take our bat and ball and go home” is laughably petulant to say the least and is not without precedent. It’s not that both teams did not know the ICC’s ruling on racism and the word “monkey” in particular. They were told not to use it before the series began. Harbhajan Singh did and got suspended. He is known as an abrasive character and this is not the first time he’s used the term. But I digress… Has everybody forgotten what a great game the Test match was? All day, every day and it was a gripping contest. And the Indians could have won it and most likely drawn the game until Michael Clarke wove his piece of magic at the end taking the last three wickets with five balls. In spite of umpiring errors, the game could have gone either way in either innings. The pressure was on at every level and the Aussie’s deserved their win. People can speculate all they like about the “what ifs” but in every scenario nobody can say with any degree of certainty what the outcome would have been. That’s cricket at its best. But blame the umpires (or referees). At every level of every sport this has always been contentious. There have been many famous “run-ins” with umpires – like Mike Gatting and Skakoor Rana at Faisalabad in 1987, when Rana accused Gatting of cheating. After much eyeballing and finger jabbing, Rana refused to continue umpiring unless Gatting apologised – which he did, although he was falsely accused. The match continued but only after the third day had been abandoned because Pakistan chose to remain in the shed in support of Rana. England didn’t tour Pakistan for another 13 years. Sound familiar? Without the slow motion replays from every angle, without computer generated deflection angles none of the umpiring errors would have left the field. The umpire’s decision would have been accepted without question. As it is now, human error is exposed for the world to see and this new technology should be used to help the umpires not condemn them.

Michael Byrne writes: With regard to the cricket monkey business. The more things change the more they stay the same. What a new age of Puritanism we live in: where there is any deviation from prescribed behaviour the wrath of the tribunal will be experienced, with tin pot hypocritical commentators salivating at the opportunity to condemn. But going right back to the crowd in India. Perhaps this is more a cultural conflict as opposed to being personal and “racial”. Andrew Symons is a modern Australian cricketer and sees hard dollar value in promoting a “media image”. My observation of Andrew’s media image, being coiffured dreadlocks and pronounced white lip liner, indeed invites the so called offensive description. In this case it is his image, not his person, being ridiculed. When one uses imagination, in a more s-xually permissive society than India, the call may have been “s-x doll”. But that is probably okay as it is not racist. I know the season has just passed, but, “Ba Humbug”.

Bill Moyle writes: Last week, complimenting my granddaughter for her balance and agility, I called her a “little monkey” Today I read that Australians regard “monkey” as racist vilification. I don’t think so. If it is long-standing team practice to seek to upset opponents’ concentration by sledging (another name for bullying), then that team should be prepared for retaliation. What the Sydney Test has proved is that, while the skins of Australian players are black, white and brindle, they seem to be paper-thin! It’s hard not to be cynical about the real motive for the charge of racism. As to the bigger issue of this Test, I hope that most Australians would consider it cheating when a batsman is caught out, knows he is caught out and yet continues to bat. If it is team policy to take advantage of umpire error. then the shame is not lessened but spread more widely. The ending of the Sydney Test was exciting but it was an infamous victory for the Australian team and Australian sportsmanship was the loser.

Election 07 was a landside:

Malcolm Mackerras writes: Re. “Voters going postal – or a benefit of incumbency?” (yesterday, item 3). I regret to have to inform Christian Kerr of this but it is NOT true that the full results of the federal election are in. Nor is it correct to say that the Coalition has secured 47.44 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. The problem is that in the Division of Melbourne the original count of Labor versus Liberal had to be interrupted when it became clear that the contest was actually between Labor and the Greens. Consequently there is, as yet, no conventional two-party preferred vote in Melbourne. However, I can tell Crikey readers that when this final count is completed the division of the nation-wide two-party preferred vote will be 52.7 per cent for Labor and 47.3 per cent for the Coalition, an exact reversal of the 2004 count. So the swing has been 5.4 per cent to Labor. That compares with a swing of 2.5 per cent to Labor in 1972 when Gough Whitlam swept into power. I insist that this result should be called a landslide because the land DID slide. Labor made a net gain of 23 seats in 2007 compared with only eight in 1972. However, the most sensible short-hand way to describe this election is to say that 52.7 per cent of Australia’s voters rejected the Howard Government while 51.4 per cent of Bennelong voters rejected Howard himself as their local member.

Crikey needs a fact-checker:

Gerard Henderson writes: These days I tend to spend about ten per cent of my working time correcting false statements made about me. Unfortunately, Crikey does not provide any respite in this matter – as the edition of 21 December attests. In his retirement, Alex Mitchell no longer has any excuse for failing to do his research. Mr Mitchell’s comment that Sydney Morning Herald changed the photograph attached to my column following the election of the Rudd Government – in order to make me look younger – is yet another Alex Mitchell conspiracy theory. Had Mr Mitchell done any work, he would aware that the SMH has been running this colour photo since Spring 2006 – when John Howard was prime minister and Kim Beazley was Opposition leader. Also Alex Mitchell’s claim that The Sydney Institute is dependent on Liberal MPs to fill its speakers’ program is pure fantasy. For example, speakers at the Institute in 2007 included Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan and Stephen Conroy. Likewise if Jeff Sparrow actually read my column, he would be aware that over the past decade I supported asylum seekers and refugees and criticised the Howard Government on some indigenous issues. On one occasion Mr Howard even wrote to the SMH specifically criticising my position on native title – unusual behaviour for an incumbent prime minister. Also, if Mr Sparrow did any research he would know that I neither campaigned against – nor for – the Kyoto Agreement. Crikey should consider engaging a fact-checker.

Demonising coal not the answer:

Ralph Hillman, Executive Director of the Australia Coal Association, writes: Re. “Mungo: We’re ready for action on climate change, but what action?” (yesterday, item 12). In his New Year call for action on climate change Mungo MacCallum continues to build on those who mythologise a singularly responsible role for Australian coal in climate change. Instead of examining the entire profile of Australia’s emissions, exports, global and domestic coal production and use, he submits a view of the production and export of Australian coal “as an environmental crime”. If we are to intelligently address climate change we need clarity and perspective. Demonising, scapegoating, with “only way” solutions is no substitute. Australia produces coal for power generation and metal production domestically and internationally. Fugitive emissions from mining i.e. carbon dioxide released as a function of coal mining are about five per cent of Australia’s total emissions. Emissions from coal based power total about 28 per cent of domestic emissions. The sum is about .48 per cent of global emissions. Australia produces for export less than 7% of the coal consumed globally each year (more than 6 billion tonnes). Emissions from its use are calculated as part of the domestic emission totals of importing countries. To do otherwise would also see Australian natural gas and other carbon based exports, international sales of agriculture products etc. fall under the same “environmental crime” label. It would also turn UN Climate Change frameworks on their head and oil exporters such as Saudi Arabia, Norway and Venezuela would become the world’s biggest emitters, with countries like Australia seeing net declines in their share. Mungo’s talks of the need for “crimes to entail penalties”. More than 80 per cent of Australia’s domestic electricity generation is currently coal-based. As the generators have indicated, substantial sums will be required to reduce emissions in this sector even as demand continues to grow. The approach will require a suite of solutions: including energy efficiency, demand measures, increased renewable energy, low emission coal and gas, and some say nuclear. Every technology – with the possible exception of wind – is currently at the low end of the technology maturity scale and the high end of the cost scale. The goal is to achieve emission reductions. If major reductions in emissions are to be achieved over time, a range of stimulants will be required, including market mechanisms, support for research, development, deployment and commercialisation. A short term penalty mentality Mungo advocates will not rapidly drive the further development of solar, geothermal, wave or low emission fossil fuel technologies or their acceptability in the market. He says we should all behave as citizens of the world. The Australian coal industry has committed $1 billion plus to driving low emission technology for coal based power generation domestically and internationally (the largest by far single industry fund in the world). It will help to reduce emissions from the 93 per cent of coal produced outside Australia, as well as addressing our domestic coal emissions. Low emissions (clean) coal technology demonstration projects assisted by the industry, advocated as a part of the solution by most, including the IPCC and Al Gore, are a reality, and not Mungo a fantasy.

If the globe is warming, why is Antarctica cooling?:

Ken McLeod writes: Re. “If the globe is warming, why is Antarctica cooling?” (yesterday, item 14). Richard Farmer’s question could have been answered with just a little research before putting fingers to keyboard. Atmospheric scientists and science journalists are well aware of this phenomena, which complies with global climate predictions, and it is easily explained. New Scientist magazine has an article here, with links to research papers, giving the explanation that Richard Farmer was did not look for. New Scientist explains:

It is clear that the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out from the mainland of Antarctica towards South America, has warmed significantly. The continent’s interior was thought to have warmed too, but in 2002 a new analysis of records from 1966 to 2000 concluded that it has cooled overall.

This study was promptly seized upon as proof that the world is not warming, but a single example of localised cooling proves no such thing, as the lead author of the 2002 study has tried to point out.

The cooling is due to a strengthening of the circular winds around the continent, which prevent warmer air reaching its interior.” “Contrary to what you might expect, the third IPPC report predicted that global warming would most likely lead to a thickening of the ice sheet over the next century, with increased snowfall compensating for any melting cause by warming.

Richard Farmer’s article, grabbing one fact and turning it into a large article, is a prime example of the lazy journalism that gave Crikey such a bad name.

Chris Golding writes: Richard Farmer’s argument that the media should be subjected to critical skepticism when they report on science is reasonable. The media are not always science-literate and know that they will sell more newspapers if their stories are alarmist and sensational. However, his suggestion that anthropogenic climate change is in dispute because Antarctic sea-ice has grown in recent years is flawed and simplistic. Regional climate is complex and is determined by many variables. Under climate change projections, some regions will get hotter and others are likely to cool down because dynamical effects such as changes in wind and ocean circulation can have just as big an effect as the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases. This is likely to be the case with Antarctica. The climate science community (who, incidentally, are better sources on climate change than Richard’s brother, science-literate geologist that he no doubt is) have suggested that a cooler Antarctica can be explained by stronger westerly winds in the Southern Ocean that are acting as a barrier to warm air reaching the continent. However, the long-term projection remains that Antarctica will warm.

Mark Byrne writes: An “interesting” article by Richard Farmer. “Availability Entrepreneurs” may be a new term, but it sounds like the practice that has filled that media sector for as long as I’ve been observing. It certainly isn’t limited to one side of the various battles of ideas. If I am interpreting Richard correctly, he is moving to the global warming skeptic camp because the Antarctic is not warming. Presumably Farmer is either sceptical that 1) global warming is occurring at all, or that 2) it is human induced. The evidence he produced seemed to indicates that the Antarctic temperature are stable or cooling. Unfortunately Richard failed to explain this data within the broader context of global data. That being, the global average temperature has risen dramatically over the last 40 years, in spite of regional anomalies. The world’s most competent scientist didn’t follow “availability entrepreneurs” when they determined that global warming was unequivocal. Nor did they depend on selective news clipping as their evidence. The leading scientists synthesized enormous bodies of data before judging with 90% confidence that current global warming is human induced.  Perhaps Richard might consider investing in citrus along the lower Murray while it’s cheap. There are farmers along the river who might welcome a boat load of skeptics armed with cheque books.

Internet filtering:

A computer security consultant writes: I’m not sure why anyone is surprised at the right-wing US-focused bias inherent in the Internet content filtering services contracted by State Government Departments of Education (yesterday, Tips & rumours). All of these services are US-based, and their customer bases are overwhelmingly right-wing bible-belt consumers. Therefore, the databases which drive these products (both at the consumer or enterprise level) reflects the narrow and limited worldview of these people. I personally have great issue with the use of such filtering services in education, and as a computer security professional who has been involved with these departments, I can confirm that many of the staff there are also uncomfortable with what is nothing more than censorship. However, it is the common law “duty of care” provisions which mandate the deployment of filtering, as well as an understandable concern about predatory gutter media organisations who have made a business of feral attacks against State Government departments (The Daily Telegraph being the most egregious example). So, their use is basically mandated by a common law provision, and public service fear of rabid tabloid media. As much as I personally detest their use, I just can’t see a story here, as I doubt I’d be able to find many people who’d make a different decision if their job and career was on the line.

Don’t you mean The Lodge?:

Dave Horsfall writes: Re. “Flint: Rudd should embrace the Anglosphere” (yesterday, item 13). David Flint writes, “Now the Prime Minister is properly ensconced at Kirribilli House”; ummm, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (how Flinto must hate that phrase) is actually “properly ensconced” at The Lodge.

Qantas:

Harold Levien writes: Why is Qantas prepared to inflict enormous damage on its airline and poison relations with its 1700 critically important aircraft maintenance engineers by refusing a modest 5% pay rise? With the projected inflation rate over 3% the real wage increase would be less than 2%. This compares to a 50% pay rise, to $1.89 million, granted to its general manager of engineering last year. Since management is prepared to grant a 3% pay increase it is the cost of the additional 2% which is critical to the dispute. This amounts to less than $3 million—considerably less than the salary and bonuses of CEO Geoff Dixon—and a trifling amount compared to the $361 million (more than 50%) increase in Qantas profits last year. Perhaps Qantas is concerned the engineers pay rise would create a precedent for other union claims. But even if the additional cost throughout the Company were ten times that of the engineers ($30 million) this would still be much less than 10% of last year’s profit increase. And of course this increased profit depended on the staff– especially their aircraft engineers without whom the aircraft couldn’t fly. Is this industrial behaviour mean, bloody-minded self-destruction? Or Is there a hidden agenda of outsourcing maintenance to a lower wage country?

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.