Bad sport

1834

bad-sport

It has begun already! The dark veil of boredom is slowly settling over the world of sport and – though interspersed with the occasional twinkling of light – the Olympics continues to rank as one of sport's worst abuses of taxpayers' money. One only has to look at Athens in 2004 and observe how the Greek government managed to throw away $10billion. The Beijing Games will probably cost around $40 billion, although the estimates vary widely. Meanwhile the estimates for the 2012 London Olympics keep spiralling ever upwards, currently around £10 billion.

All of us could spend the money better than any bureaucrat. Perhaps, in extremis, we would even pay to watch the Games so as to actually make it a viable sporting occasion. When compared to that other quadrennial event, the World Cup, the Olympics comes up woefully short on value for money. Even the South African World Cup in 2010 will only cost $3.7 billion – and that's mainly due to it being completely unsuited to host a World Cup and needing to upgrade its infrastructure. The difference is that the World Cup continually makes large profits and thus justifies the investment.
 
The modern Olympic games is little more than a political junket that deigns to include the International Olympic Committee (IOC). In 2012 all the best hotels will be booked out for visiting dignitaries, roads will be specially adapted so that they may travel without incident and, of course, they’ll be able to watch the Games without the burden of purchasing a ticket.

It’s time for the UK to set an example. Short of giving the Games to Paris and letting them enjoy the invasion, we should petition the IOC to stage the qualifiers around the world throughout the following 4 years so that only the best from each region qualifies for the finals. For the finals of all the events are the small twinkles of lights in the sea of dirge that is the modern Olympics and they really should be the only things that we have foisted on us!

To chav or chav not

1723

to-chav-or-chav-not

The English language is rife with words that can be used to insult and abuse: one of its myriad of beauties. You only have to read Shakespeare to see how the English language can be shaped so as to hurl insults. A word often heard today is ‘chav’ and its use has drawn the attention of the left wing think tank, The Fabian Society. They believe that we should not be allowed to use the word, mainly because for them it has certain connotations. Their editorial director calls for a ban of the word due to its use by the middle class in a derogatory way. According to Mr Hampson it is, ‘sneering and patronising’ and ‘betrays a deep and revealing level of class hatred’.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term ‘chav’ is defined as:

In the United Kingdom (originally the south of England): a young person of a type characterized by brash and loutish behaviour and the wearing of designer-style clothes (esp. sportswear); usually with connotations of a low social status.

Sadly though, this type of behaviour is now imitated through all levels of wealth, indeed sometimes even worn as a badge of honour. To tar all of those in the lower economic strata with the same behavioural brush, as the Fabians have done, is deeply offensive, whilst also smacking of simplistic 19th century policy analysis more usually associated with Marx. As Tony Thorne, a language consultant for Kings College London, says, "Chav is like 'skinhead' - it describes a type of behaviour and appearance that's very identifiable."

Perhaps newspeak is the beacon the Fabian Society is using to guide them: the fictional language that George Orwell invented for his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. A language cleansed of depth and beauty and politicised by a dictatorship. If the Fabians wish to try to attach economic implications to word usage they are free to do so. Much the same as the rest of us should be allowed to freely use the word how and when we so desire.
 

Wikipedia bias

1717

wikipedia-bias

Recently, quite a few people who occasionally use Wikipedia have told me that they have noticed that this useful online encyclopaedia is left leaning in some of its entries. I always assumed this might just reflect the same bias in the media as a whole. But I was wrong. The bias does not emerge by default but is vigorously enforced, as this story on Wikipedia global-warming propaganda shows.

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers, sums up the situation well:

In theory, Wikipedia is a "people's encyclopedia" written and edited by the people who read it; so on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.  But on global warming, Wikipedia offers consensus, Gore-style -- a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

Solomon undertook several attempts to edit the Wikipedia page on global warming and to delete mistakes for instance about British scientist Bennie Peiser, only to find his entries eradicated time and again. Obviously in the people's encyclopaedia there are two classes of editors: one with genuine imprimatur and another that may be censored. Solomon discovered that network administrator William Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, uses his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers see only what he wants them to see.  Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding.

There are other examples of course. Just look at the pages Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design and make up your own mind.

The best of aunty's jokes

1521

the-best-of-aunties-jokes

An attack of the funnies over at the BBC with them claiming that this year’s Euro 2008 could be the last one watched on “free-to-air" TV. Now call me obtuse but I’m shelling out £139.50 per year so I can watch everything but the BBC. To me that’s not free TV. I suppose there are pockets of the population that watch TV for free, something I will not begrudge the elderly, but for the BBC to claim that they are “free-to-air" really does take the biscuit.

I sincerely hope that UEFA does indeed win its petition to the EU Commission and are then able to sell the rights to future Euro Championships. They already sell the rights to the European Champions League and these are shared between ITV and Sky Sports in the UK.

It is time to end the listing of protected sports events and  force the BBC to face up to the fact they do not have a monopoly over these sporting events; and nor do they belong, “to the people". They are the property of the organizing body and should be respected as such. If the BBC wishes to air them they should be made to compete for them in the open market, paying a fair price.

But then would that be a fair use of the licence fee tax we are all forced to pay?
 

I never thought I'd actually say this..

1523

i-never-thought-id-actually-say-this

....But Martin Kettle has written a very good column indeed on the influence newspapers have on the opinions of the populace and the way that they vote.

The big error of politicians is to believe that newspapers change the way people vote.(...)Newspapers exist for many purposes. An important one is to sell papers. By and large they aim to satisfy their readers, not alienate them..(....) The Ipsos Mori evidence actually suggests the very opposite. It sits comfortably with current fashionable notions of voting as a cultural choice rather than as a choice based on supposed rational self-interest. People choose a newspaper that suits and reflects them culturally. One of the ways it reflects them is political stance - though it is by no means the only one, as politicians like to believe.

Quite simply, newspapers reflect the already extant thoughts, opinions and prejudices of their readers rather than shape them: that's why people buy a particular newspaper in the first place. The academic research does seem to back this up (at least on the grand scale, there is of course a little bit of movement, as Kettle says, around the margins):

Consistent with their theory that media bias is mainly driven by customer tastes, they find that reader ideology explains significantly more of the variation in media bias than the identity of its owner. This finding holds up even when they take account of the possibility of reverse causality. Places with more churchgoers (a trait unlikely to be affected by newspaper bias) tend to have more right-wing newspapers. Conversely, cities with fewer churchgoers tend to have more left-wing newspapers.

Now this isn't really all that new, it's a confirmation of something that many have thought for some time. But what does make it interesting is that we might finally be able to put to bed this contention of Polly Toynbee's:

The malevelovence of the media is underestimated by social researchers. Historians leave its deformations to footnotes. But it helps explain why an ever more prosperous, secure and healthy country is so unhappy and fearful.

Here's an example of its influence: an overwhelmingly rightwing bias helps explain why Eurobarometer finds the British the least sympathetic of EU nations towards the poor, more likely to blame them for laziness.

Of course, we have to translate Polly's "rightwing bias" to "vaguely not social democratic" given her own stance on the political spectrum but once we've done that we can go on to point out the error in her thinking.

We're not all raving right wingers (ie, not social democrats) because we've been mesmerised by the press into not understanding how much better off we would be if ruled by La Toynbee's latest enthusiasms. The British press is ravingly right wing (ie not social democrat) because the British people are ravingly right wing (ie, not social democrats) and thus unlikely to be enthused by whatever is today's arrogantly paternalist plan and thus there's no way to sell newspapers trying to tell people about it.

The end of immigration

1488

the-end-of-immigration

I recently wrote on the apparent retreat of a commonality of culture within the UK and how the government was the primary cause through its obsessive enforcement of the twin doctrines of multiculturalism and political correctness. One factor I failed to address was how immigration has also impacted on culture. Dr Butler highlighted the issue of immigration, emphasising that there is nothing to fear from it, bringing more benefits than anything the state can hand down. The main reason is because immigration is purely natural. Unfortunately for us, the state’s interference has meant it has come at a cost for residents.

Culture and immigration go hand in hand, one only has to look at the history of America to see this. The same is true for the UK. Through the ages our culture has been built upon an inflow of foreigners, from either conquest or the movement of the persecuted. Britain’s culture has been changed by all of these. Due to the sudden nature of these shock waves, immigration has been often been seen as a threat. However, we now have a majority of the populace that is far more accepting of differences and this dynamism gives us a competitive edge making us more attractive to inward investment.

The 21st Century has bought with it a seasonal form of immigration based on economic need. What we are witnessing is an apparent transfer from overseas of temporary pockets of differing cultures. As seen recently with the Eastern European wave, the threat they pose is not cultural, as they are not seeking to impose upon us. When they return home, leaving some of their culture which enriches our own.

Compared with immigration and multiculturalism where new non-assimilated and unknown cultures are incorrectly given a moral superiority via the state we should allow a more natural flow of people. We need to remove the state from both immigration and culture, as all it has achieved is hate.

Right on

1310

right-on

I'm quite impressed by Right On, the Daily Telegraph's 15-minute weekly television show. It's all very professionally produced. It features a two-minute segment called Heffer Confronted in which the rotund and politically incorrect pundit is confronted by (the slightly less rotund and almost as equally politicially incorrect) Iain Dale. There's also a discussion with leading politicians on a current affairs issue (on this one it's Alan Duncan MP) and a short section of snippets from the Westminster gossip factory.

I think this will work and will grow. Iain Dale's 18 Doughty Street internet enterprise was a really good try at pioneering the unknown terrain of online television. But I guess that few people want to watch five hours of political stuff on their computer screen each night. And if you just dipped in, you never knew exactly what you'd get. I'm sure the way forward is something like the Telegraph have done - a few short snippets that you can select from, and play the bits that really interest you. I imagine the choice will expand as the Telegraph gets to grip with the format. Worth a look.

The problem with the Olympics

As so often, the entry of the state into a "common endeavour" has turned it from a limited scope ideal to which individuals attach themselves at private expense into a huge state subsidised idealistic parade onto which, inevitably, an over-supply of must-have items are attached; weird sports, arts, culture and infrastructure are now all elements of this over-expensive extravaganza. Along the way, equity in access to all sport, to funding and to other forms of cultural participation disappear with tax funding being extracted from some groups to pay the Olympic monster. The whole thing becomes an appallingly expensive re-distributive mess.

How much better to have a far smaller event, sponsored privately, released by its very smallness to be a premier athletics event without political content? Those who were interested would still know who the best athletes in the world are; those who were not could use their money for diverse benefits unknown in the extended spontaneous order of the wider world. The beige of the rows and ranks of our state sponsored Olympians would be replaced by individuals with personal colour made bright by their own efforts to obtain excellence at no cost to the rest of us.

1235

the-problem-with-the-olympics

While the proximate cause for the rising distaste for the Beijing Olympics is the way that China treats Tibet, I think there’s something else. My local market stallholder expressed it the other day as "all those Chinese in rows and ranks of uniforms – makes me shiver".

What he pictured was an old cliché of Maoist uniformity. I rather liked the “rows and ranks" which I think was expressed tautologically, but actually captured the sinister uniformity and hierarchical inequality of communist China rather well. Today, the cultural mores of post Mao capitalistic China are quite different, with the creative chaos of Western clothes and accessories prevalent. But he did bring back to me the scene when London’s 2012 Olympics were announced. The British delegation leapt in delight and hugged and wept, but what struck me then was the contrast of their individual abandon with their corporate uniformity. If my memory serves me right they were all uniformly dressed in formal business suits in a rather drab beige.

For me, this is the lurking cultural mistake behind the Olympics. Sports people suffer from some of the blind intensity of totalitarians. Sure, they celebrate excellence, but it is not a spontaneous excellence, rather a planned excellence that is generated by a rigorous collective effort. This deliberate construction of performance has strong echoes to the way it is achieved through the controlled statist methods of the communist regime. As such, it becomes culturally unreal, a freak show that ordinary mortals see through.

All over Britain teenagers – most between 15 and 20 - are being recruited into our Olympic effort for 2012. These half-formed athletes will be sponsored and trained up to excel on our behalf in the Stratford wasteland. What a contrast with the ideal of individual self-discovered excellence – spontaneous achievement by those who take part because they have found that they can excel. [Click read more to continue]

Don't blame the adverts

1230

dont-blame-the-adverts

The tabloid newspapers are greatly enjoying the story of Natasha Farnham: "Drunk at 12, liver failed at 14, now rehab at 18", as yesterday's Metro put it.

The young lady in question apparently began drinking at 12 and was drinking six bottles of wine a day by the age of 13 (well, at least she had some class). After a three-day bender aged 14, in which she consumed 16 bottles of wine, cider and spirits, she was diagnosed with liver failure. Now – to her credit – she is warning other children not to repeat her mistakes.

The most telling part of the story were the comments of Natasha's mother, Michelle, who said "irresponsible advertising" was to blame. Yes, that's right, her 13 year old daughter drank 6 bottles of wine a day (Did she notice? Did she care?), and it's all down to advertising!

The abdication of parental responsibility must surely be behind many of Britain's social ills. Yet in this, as in most other things, government is not the solution to the problem. Indeed, to a great extent, government is the problem. It is the long years of welfarism and the nanny state that have told people we depend on politicians, not on ourselves, for our wellbeing. It's a sorry state of affairs.

Libraries, records and the state

1203

libraries-records-and-the-state

When I went to Dublin a while back, I had a couple of spare hours so I thought I'd look up some of my Irish ancestors. I was advised to go to the National Library (pictured), which seemed sensible, so I did. After a few minutes in its labyrinth, I eventually found the right bit of the building, only to be told that the records had all gone over to the National Archives about a mile away. So I trudged there, but by the time I had got through its labyrinthine system I had run out of time, with not so much as a readers' ticket to show for it.

Yesterday, back in Dublin, I bee-lined it to the Archives at the crack of dawn. Only to be told that the records I wanted were not in fact there, but in the General Register Office, about another mile back in the other direction again. Thanks, people.

Nor is the General Register Office easy to find. It's in a shopping mall, and there is no signage until you get inside the door – 'Reading Room 3rd Floor'. Even when you get to the third floor it's hard to spot, sharing the same door as the child welfare office. Is someone worried about terrorism (well, the IRA did blow up the record office in the 1920s, and thousands of irreplaceable records were lost, but that threat has somewhat subsided these days)?

And not surprisingly the place is a typical state-run organization. The staff are certainly pleasant and helpful enough (Ireland is still small enough for them to feel easy calling you by your first name). But there are bizarre rules (you can't order up more than five birth, marriage or death certificates a day, for example, even at 4 Euros a copy) which seem designed to make life comfortable for the producers rather than convenient for the consumers. And the indexes to all these records are kept in large, lumbering volumes.

This whole place, like most record offices I guess, should be privatized. There is no shortage of people wanting to look up their ancestry, and willing to pay to do it. A private-sector manager would have converted all the indexes, not just to microfilm (which you're lucky to get in some libraries) but to digital form, so that they can be scanned in seconds by anyone in the world – rather than people having to waste hours having to find the right place in Dublin and then having to lift, pore through, and replace heavy volumes – and copies of the records would spit out on your printer.

A lot of people worry about what would happen to libraries if the state did not provide them. I have no doubt. Without the dead hand of state bureaucracy, the whole business would be revolutionized in short order.