Mutterings in 07'

An older gentleman sits next to me at the office in St Leonards. Currently in the most stable time his life, he is part of a substantial yet fading population - the old caucasian Australian male. A man of decorum, charming and funny in the most inoffensive manner possible, he has earnt his place as the most lovable fellow in the office, and he's brilliant at what he does. He is a local North Shore boy, shielded by a life of prosperity and distance from the inner suburb experience. He speaks earnestly (and without any sense of superiority or haughtiness) of holiday houses, frequent flyer miles, stocks, bonds, and various financial securities which make me drift off to my happy place. He has lived through the conversion from imperial to metric systems, and through at least 15 governments from Menzies to Howard (the last bastion of hope for his generation). He is, with the watered down profile provided, a liberal voter.

Slightly out of touch with the complexities of modern Australia, he turned and said to me with the innocence and sincerity of tone he has become well known for, 'I wonder why Howard is dropping so much in the polls when he's done such a good job'. This is the group which the Howard government has known all along would support them thanks to economic luck and a healthy tax cut for their end of the spectrum. For the most part blunders such as Tampa, Cornelia Rau's wrongful detention, hesitation to sign the Kyoto protocol, and the farce that was the Dr.Haneef debacle (among other incidents) slip through their collective consciousness. It's the same conservative mentality that believes the Howard governments' arguement against the development of nuclear power plants. They mustve forgotten how far nuclear technology (and safety) has come since Chernobyl.

However it's also true to a large extent that they are not to blame, that they are a product of their generation and their environment: one of prosperity and a much more homogenous population, perhaps that which it seemed the Coalition strived for in its later years. The point is, scathing and hissing at liberal voters is useless, better instead to opt for a silently patronising tone and recognising the irony of what they stand for: Howards 'better Australia'. Multimillion dollar tax-payer funded campaigns advertising a new 'citizenship test', funded largely by people who wouldnt pass it themselves. Call an election, then call a tax cut, people imagine Costello standing on the corner of George st handing out $34 million. Part of the coalitions success then, is appealing to individuals' base attractiveness to money and the undeniable appeal of seeing a few more dollars next to their name. This makes it extremely difficult for the layman to see through and realise the ironically conservative nature of the current government. The prosperity they promise cannot come from holding onto our old ideas, pass strict laws on immigration (read: terrorism), regress from current trends in nuclear and environmental policy, and generally not move in the direction of the rest of the world.

The Liberal government, by and large, is like the old man sitting next to me, just without the charm. They stand defensive, eyes weary and ragged, legs shoulder width and palms stretched outwards in 'stop position', in the hope that time somehow runs counterclockwise. They speak dreamily of material prosperity without actually noticing that the rest of the world speaks another language. So i'll continue to enjoy the company of the silvertail next to me, and hope that with a new government both our generations will be better off, only he might not know why.

Racism in Cricket

There is absolutely no excuse for racism in sport. Although this is somewhat a narrow minded view in the global context of equality and fairness the issue only seems to attract any media attention when presented on the sporting field. Recently, Andrew Symonds complained that he was the subject of racial abuse on the cricket field during the fifth one day cricket International against India in Vadodhara. Symonds complained that he was subject to “monkey chants” from the Indian crowd who constantly tormented him whilst he was fielding at the boundary rope.

Let me ask you: how is a monkey chant racial abuse? Does Symonds believe that he is cross bred with a gorilla and a human; maybe two gorillas? If not, then he should not be affected by such claims. Now, any slur can be taken offensive especially whilst under the pressure of a tightly contested sporting event. However, India was thrashed by Australia by nine wickets. Where is the pressure? Mr Symonds, you are softer than a kindergarten girl who cries after being teased for wearing pigtails to school.

This incident is being compared to other instances of racial abuse. For example, during the Australia – South Africa game at the WACA ground in Perth South African players were racially abused as ‘kaffirs’ whilst fielding on the boundary rope. Such taunts are several degrees more severe than a ‘monkey’ chant. Although the Symonds event in Vadodhara is rather trivial in comparison to other instances of racism in cricket, it does highlight an important issue.

In the global context, racial abuse is regarded as a terrible offence and much is done to abolish it. However, in places such as the sub-continent racism is common. People often refer to another’s caste, class, birth, status etc in a derogatory manner as a method of slight. In Australia, such actions are regarded as outrageous and so the media condemn the crowd. But in India, the slander which Australian cricketers torment the Indian cricketers with is regarded as outrageous in India in the same way Symond’s monkey chants are taken to be offensive here. If the same slander that Australian players use on other International teams were used in a local Australian state game it would not affect the local players. That is, the manner in which sledging affects a player is simply due to a clash of cultures.

What was it that caused Harbhajan Singh to confront the entire Australian team after he was dismissed in the second ODI at Eden Gardens? India was also losing at that point and it would seem rather silly to confront a side that is thrashing you to all corners of the cricket field. Nevertheless, Singh stood up to the Australian side and had to be pulled away from the umpire. This was regarded as comical by the Australian media. When Singh complained of inappropriate sledging, the media portrayed the Indians as sore losers. Obviously, something terrible was said (if you were an Indian with Indian values as opposed to Australian cultural values). So, to an Australian player it is mild offence; to an Indian player it is terrible slander.

The simple fact is that the content of Australian sledging is insensitive to other cultures. This is simply ignored because Australia keeps winning and so the complaints of the other team are simply taken as poor sportsmanship. Now the attention is shifted towards the Indians: no doubt there will be an investigation and consequences. But the simple fact is that Australian players are sore losers. If they are going to sledge in whatever manner they wish then they should accept sledging in whatever manner the opposition wishes. Given that the content of sledging cannot be monitored if sledging is allowed, then action must be taken to police what is said on the field.

Much of the sledging occurs at the crease around the batsmen and so it is a simple task for the umpire to judge whether sledges are inappropriate. Psychological games are part of cricket but it should not be interpreted to use issues irrelevant to the game of cricket to upset the batsman. Umpires should therefore be given the power to award penalties or fines to players who sledge inappropriately. Such a practice is logical since they are at the centre of the playing field and can hear all that is said to the batsman.

Once the players clean up their act all this media attention can focus on crowd behaviour. The idiots who taunt players in any manner should be harshly dealt with after being banned from cricket games. Usually, much of what fuels the crowd is what is either said or observed by the crowd. Singh’s confrontational stance to the Australian players during the second ODI obviously fuelled ideas of unfair abuse amongst the Indian public. Put simply, if we are to remove racism from sport it must begin with the players. In cricket, this begins with policing the content of sledging.

Dress

If Adam and Eve had not eaten the forbidden fruit then we would never have to face the everyday dilemma of deciding what to wear. We would all be naked and content, happy that we are free from those prison bars that form the fibres of the clothing that we wear. However, frolicking through our urban jungle with nothing but a smile is merely a fleeting thought. The dilemma of deciding what to wear still hangs over us like a grey storm cloud.

Every day is faced with the daunting task of compiling an outfit. Often this decision is made after having carefully considered a number of prerequisites. Where is it that we are going? What is the occasion? Who will be present? What are they likely to wear? Have I worn this combination before? It would seem sane to consider the weather or look at what is comfortable or at what is not dirty. Yet we still ask those relatively simple questions which also prove somewhat difficult to answer. This leaves us staring at the mirror, digressing into a more dangerous topic – the faults that the mirror reveals.

The fact is that in today’s society, dress plays an important role. Firstly, there are the obvious social consequences. These namely include image, status and expressions of individuality or culture. Secondly, there are political consequences. That is, the dress we wear will help us to pose as confident, intelligent, respectable and trustworthy. Often we would employ such tactics in both the interview room and the court chambers. In such cases, the dress makes that ‘silent recommendation’. When it seems that people these days often judge a book by its cover, it adds more stress to that every day dress decision.

Nevertheless, clothes are only a ‘title page’ to your identity, character and person. Although it is important to edge out competition to win over either the opposite sex, boss or judge by dressing well what is more important is the substance that the clothes encase. If we lived in a world where our judgement was based purely on visual consideration, then ‘clothes make the man’, however this is not the case. Dress may divert another’s attention away from our faults but the minute we open our mouths they can gauge who we truly are. Dress only provides a good starting point and plays no further part in the development of a relationship.

We often regard our dress as the key to success when it comes to developing relationships. Yet if we are truly confident with ourselves, then the dress plays only the practical role and not the political one. More often than not, those who are confident with themselves often find that they are not faced with the daily dress dilemma but also never find themselves analysing their reflection. This confidence stems from a simple belief: the person sees in himself what he wants others to see in him. Armed with this ideal, the dress chooses itself.