All the kerfuffle last weekend over what was said between the trainer and owner of More Joyous has resulted in even more comment and editorialising than usual over the relationship between gambling and sport.
Now, don't get me wrong, that's a debate worth having, but it's certainly not worth having over horse-racing. Does anybody really regard horse-racing as a sport? It's surely only ever been a vehicle (non-pun intended) for gambling. Who keeps up with who's winning the jockey's championship or which is the leading stable and I'm only assuming that records of these things actually exist. They sure aren't reported on. Ironically, if they do exist, the only people outside the industry who could tell you about them would be the gamblers.
Whenever horse-racing is reported on in the sports news, it's not accompanied by any league ladder or speed/time results - they just tell you how much money you'd have won had you backed the winner or the top 3. Imagine the football results being given by only showing you the the pick-the-score and pick-the-margins dividends.
If horse racing is a sport, let's start seeing it in the news without the gambling information. After all, they don't announce the lottery results in the sports segment, do they?
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
A Pinch & A Punch
Do kids still give each other a pinch and a punch for the first day of the month and then get a kick for "being so quick" in response?
Or do they just do it with a calendar app via Facebook now?
Or do they just do it with a calendar app via Facebook now?
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Q&A &A &A &....
We have all those TV channels so you'd think that would mean more stuff to watch. Not when they put the same show on multiple channels! What is this about?
The ABC is one of the prime offenders. Take Q&A - and I really wish someone would take it - Monday night and on it comes, so I flick over to the 24 hour news channel and it's also being shown there. So I decide to listen to the radio instead. What do you know? They're playing it on the radio as well! Why do they think this show is so good that it has to be broadcast simultaneously on 3 channels across 2 mediums? And that doesn't even include the lunchtime repeats of the show. Someone needs to tell them that the show just isn't that good. Watching politicians trot out their party line in front of a sycophantic audience isn't that interesting. I really don't mind if I miss it. In fact, I go to great lengths to avoid it.
At least on the radio you don't have to sit through the tweets? Why do they show these? Do they think it's "cool" or something? As little interest as I have in what they say, I think it's disrespectful to the guests. It's also distracting. You have a bunch of supposed experts taking questions and then you stream drivel from anonymous tweeters over the top of their answers. I care even less about what they have to say. Surely, the least ABC could do is enable you to switch off the tweets by using one of those coloured buttons on the remote, or, you know, because it is being shown on two channels at once, at least offer a twitter-free version on one of the channels. That would at least show some sophistication in applying the technology but I'd still rather they showed something completely different on the other channel?
How about some long lost cartoon? Top Cat? The Twins of Destiny? Sir Prancealot? Anything, really.
The ABC is one of the prime offenders. Take Q&A - and I really wish someone would take it - Monday night and on it comes, so I flick over to the 24 hour news channel and it's also being shown there. So I decide to listen to the radio instead. What do you know? They're playing it on the radio as well! Why do they think this show is so good that it has to be broadcast simultaneously on 3 channels across 2 mediums? And that doesn't even include the lunchtime repeats of the show. Someone needs to tell them that the show just isn't that good. Watching politicians trot out their party line in front of a sycophantic audience isn't that interesting. I really don't mind if I miss it. In fact, I go to great lengths to avoid it.
At least on the radio you don't have to sit through the tweets? Why do they show these? Do they think it's "cool" or something? As little interest as I have in what they say, I think it's disrespectful to the guests. It's also distracting. You have a bunch of supposed experts taking questions and then you stream drivel from anonymous tweeters over the top of their answers. I care even less about what they have to say. Surely, the least ABC could do is enable you to switch off the tweets by using one of those coloured buttons on the remote, or, you know, because it is being shown on two channels at once, at least offer a twitter-free version on one of the channels. That would at least show some sophistication in applying the technology but I'd still rather they showed something completely different on the other channel?
How about some long lost cartoon? Top Cat? The Twins of Destiny? Sir Prancealot? Anything, really.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Reading Between the Likes
Sometimes what's being reported as news is less interesting than the background to the story. For example, I heard the other day that Facebook use had dropped by 500,000 users in Australia. Then it was mentioned that there are over 11 million "active" Facebook users in Australia. 11 million? That's one in every two people updating their Facebook page so that everybody knows what they're doing.
It really is the digital equivalent of Kath and Kim - 11 million people shouting, "Look at moey! Look at moey!"
No wonder nothing gets done.
It really is the digital equivalent of Kath and Kim - 11 million people shouting, "Look at moey! Look at moey!"
No wonder nothing gets done.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Slow Train to Never
Over 50 years ago, on 25 May 1961, President J F Kennedy announced the goal of putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade. On 20 July 1969, just 8 years later, that undertaking was completed. From vision to accomplishment it was a breathtaking technical and logistical achievement. Compare that to what passes for vision in this country.
Today, it is being announced that we could build a high speed rail link between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. The timeframe? That would be 9 years before we even can start building and a mind-numbing 40 years to complete the railway. 40 years! It would be finished in 2053. We will take more time to just get started than it took to complete the lunar mission. I don't know why they didn't announce it on 1st April.
How can we take almost half a century to build a railway? Maybe you can't get iron, coal or steel in this country. Maybe we only have horses and carts to transport the raw materials. Perhaps it's the first fast train in the world ever to be made so we have no examples on which to base it. Or are we building it out of moon-rock? Sure it would be about 400 km longer than the Beijing-Shanghai line but then they didn't start building that in 1973. In fact, construction commenced in 2008 and it opened in 2011. The world's longest high-speed line built in 3 years. 3 years vs our 40 years. I understand that it would cost us more but how can it also take us more than ten times longer to build it? I despair of what that says about this country.
We also all know that if we say it will take 40 years, it will take longer (and probably cost twice as much). That's the Australian way. Actually, the real Australian way is to just talk about it. Forever. It's like the second Sydney airport. That was being talked about even before my arrival in this country (in 1978). Where are we now? Oh, we're still talking about it. After 40 years of talking, we still don't even know where to put it.
In this country, everything is in the too-hard basket. To see change talked about in your lifetime actually delivered, you need to live to about 150. I would have loved to be able to hop on a fast train to Melbourne but, sadly, I now know that I will never do so.
Today, it is being announced that we could build a high speed rail link between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. The timeframe? That would be 9 years before we even can start building and a mind-numbing 40 years to complete the railway. 40 years! It would be finished in 2053. We will take more time to just get started than it took to complete the lunar mission. I don't know why they didn't announce it on 1st April.
How can we take almost half a century to build a railway? Maybe you can't get iron, coal or steel in this country. Maybe we only have horses and carts to transport the raw materials. Perhaps it's the first fast train in the world ever to be made so we have no examples on which to base it. Or are we building it out of moon-rock? Sure it would be about 400 km longer than the Beijing-Shanghai line but then they didn't start building that in 1973. In fact, construction commenced in 2008 and it opened in 2011. The world's longest high-speed line built in 3 years. 3 years vs our 40 years. I understand that it would cost us more but how can it also take us more than ten times longer to build it? I despair of what that says about this country.
We also all know that if we say it will take 40 years, it will take longer (and probably cost twice as much). That's the Australian way. Actually, the real Australian way is to just talk about it. Forever. It's like the second Sydney airport. That was being talked about even before my arrival in this country (in 1978). Where are we now? Oh, we're still talking about it. After 40 years of talking, we still don't even know where to put it.
In this country, everything is in the too-hard basket. To see change talked about in your lifetime actually delivered, you need to live to about 150. I would have loved to be able to hop on a fast train to Melbourne but, sadly, I now know that I will never do so.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Gas! Gas! Gas! It's a ... Bill!
This week I finally sorted out my gas bill. This is the 3rd one in a row I've had to query.
Original amount invoiced: $255
After adjustment (and many phone calls): $80
I knew $255 was excessive when the previous bill, which had been during winter, was only $92. Mind you, I also had to argue to get that one reduced from the $179 originally charged. Note the recurring theme here as to whose favour the discrepancies are in...
It's hard to understand why it's so hard to work out a gas bill when it's simply based on meter readings taken at each point in time. Surely, it's just about subtracting the numbers to determine the usage and then applying the calculation. No doubt however, there's some amazing piece of technology somewhere that's constantly screwing it up.
Sadly, it's taken 3 months to resolve this, which means that I'll shortly receive another bill. Hopefully I won't complete the full year with every bill having been in dispute.
Original amount invoiced: $255
After adjustment (and many phone calls): $80
I knew $255 was excessive when the previous bill, which had been during winter, was only $92. Mind you, I also had to argue to get that one reduced from the $179 originally charged. Note the recurring theme here as to whose favour the discrepancies are in...
It's hard to understand why it's so hard to work out a gas bill when it's simply based on meter readings taken at each point in time. Surely, it's just about subtracting the numbers to determine the usage and then applying the calculation. No doubt however, there's some amazing piece of technology somewhere that's constantly screwing it up.
Sadly, it's taken 3 months to resolve this, which means that I'll shortly receive another bill. Hopefully I won't complete the full year with every bill having been in dispute.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
The First Since...Oh, The Last One?
So we have a new pope and all the media outlets are gushing about how it was 1000 years since the last non-European. Who was that guy? Where was he come from? And what was going on 1000 years ago that this occurred? I have no idea. They just love passing on that piece of trivia without any of the context. Now I know I can look all this up on the internet but why should I have to work out the ending of the story? It wasn't me that started telling it.
It's just like how you hear about some athlete setting the 2nd fastest/highest/heaviest/most whatever in history. They never tell you about the original. Perhaps they just figure you're so parochial, you'll only want to know about "your guy" or the one from "your time".
Meanwhile, if it's taken us a thousand years to elect a pope from outside Europe, perhaps those medieval types weren't as unprogressive as we like to think they were and perhaps we should be less obsessed with "our time".
It's just like how you hear about some athlete setting the 2nd fastest/highest/heaviest/most whatever in history. They never tell you about the original. Perhaps they just figure you're so parochial, you'll only want to know about "your guy" or the one from "your time".
Meanwhile, if it's taken us a thousand years to elect a pope from outside Europe, perhaps those medieval types weren't as unprogressive as we like to think they were and perhaps we should be less obsessed with "our time".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
