Ummm…No. I could just leave it there, but let me explain.
We are hearing cricket commentators, talk radio hosts, lounge-lizard commentators complaining that cricket has become a game for batsmen to the sake of the bowlers. This is rubbish.
Sometimes a batter dominates a game, see Gayle 215, Warner 178, Villers 162* etc…sometimes a bowler dominates, see Southee 7/33, Starc 6/26, Boult 5/27 etc…What about Vettori 3.21 runs per over, Tredwell at 3.57, Starc at 3.67. Seems some bowlers are happy to dominate the game, and not allow the batters to run the show.
Most importantly though the theme to much of this commentary is batting dominates the game now. Lets look at that.
To date at the Cricket World Cup 2015 the average winning score has been 266 runs. That includes results like match 26 when Australia won by close to 200 runs and Game 13 where India scored 130 more runs that South Africa. So all the largest totals are in that 266 average, regardless of what the losing score was.
At the 1992 Cricket World Cup the average winning score was 211 and at the ’92 World Cup there wasn’t the minnows as there are now, and we didn’t see the massive disparity in some scores. That means today the average is higher than ’92 due in part to several massive blow-outs thanks to the smaller nations.
Even taking that into consideration, the difference between the average winning score today, and 23 years ago is around 50 runs a match, or 1 run per over and I’m respectfully sorry Sir Curtly, an average increase of 1 run per over does not equate a balanced competition of two decades ago, turning to an unfair batting advantage in 2015.
So there area couple of possibilities here with the “controversy” around Natalia Kills and her husband Willy Moon.
I could go all ‘third form bitchy girl’ on her and point out that is she is looking for originality whilst producing tedious, benign, pablum…and I quote
Sex, love, control, vanity
Sex, love, control, vanity
Sex, love, control, vanity (and the mirrors gonna fall tonight)
Sex, love, control, vanity (and the mirrors gonna fall tonight)
Sex, love, control, vanity (and the mirrors gonna fall tonight)
Sex, love, control, vanity (and the mirrors gonna fall tonight)
Or point out that her husband seems to have stolen the idea for his video as pointed out beautifully on Youtube by Lauren Mulcahy
Or that why would someone be looking for originality in a talent show where everyone sings covers…anyone else see the problem there?
I could point out that Willy Moon’s most successful song ever got itself to #175 on the French music charts, or indeed not how successful Ms. Kills has been getting several of her songs into European charts, notably a single getting all the way to #96 in the Netherlands.
I could also point out that whist she was berating the contestant, the host was standing beside him…dressed exactly the same.
I could point these things out, but I won’t because that would be playing their game.
There are two possibilities here, the first is that Natalia Kills was instructed by Producers to go off on someone to make the show more engaging, the second is she genuinely did it herself. Both possibilities unfortunately show that Ms. Kills may be gifted as a musician, but intellectually she is lacking.
If the Producers of X-Factor instructed her to play the Simon Cowell card, then she deserves this years Razzie award for worst performance ever as she well over shot, demonstrating no understanding of the market she is in, showing no judgement in how she went about it, and now faces the backlash. If she genuinely believes what she said, which is basically “my husband owns the intellectual property to slick hair and a suit” (something Stuff.co.nz debunked beautifully today) and got offended that someone had copied him, then she is a genuine moron.
My gut tells me that the comments were a ruse, either under instruction or not, to ‘liven’ up the show. If Natalia made the comments off her own volition then my guess is she is trying to do a Keith Urban and move from a smaller market to get picked up as a judge in the UK on a larger show.
I haven’t watched any of X-Factor other than the video of the incident today, and I don’t think this will cause me to start watching. The idea of creating controversy to gain audience doesn’t work long term, especially in NZ, some viewers may tune in tonight to see the train wreck, but it’ll likely hurt the programme long term and it doesn’t held the individual as we’re not a big enough market to make the ‘news’ turn into massive sales.
So, if we agree that Natalia Kills ‘aint the sharpest tool in the shed, we then have to also acknowledge that her husband is far dimmer than even she as he went off on a rant accusing the contestant of looking like Norman Bates and because of his wife’s critique, suggesting he looked like he was going to kill everybody. Does he realise that he just said that they guy…who looks like him…looks like a serial killer?
So what do we do, firstly I think it would be brilliant for the contestant (who no doubt will now get the highest votes tonight) should cover a song either by Mr. Moon or Ms. Kills next week (that idea is copyright Pat Brittenden 🙂 ) and the rest of us should probably be happy that Mediaworks is obviously an equal opportunity employer allows the mentally deficient to work on camera.
Obviously in late breaking news Ms. Kills and Mr. Moon are now no longer part of the X-Factor Family
About a month ago I discovered The Walking Dead and have spent the past four weeks watching the first four and a half series and now I’ve caught up to where the series is at.
With my overdose of TWD I have a few questions that I hope some other aficionados of the show may be able to answer.
Why don’t the survivors sleep in/live in the trees? I mean if they can assemble walls and communities then surely they could make a community off the ground. But even if they didn’t live in the trees, wouldn’t sleeping in them at night be a better idea than on the ground?
Why don’t the survivors head to the water? If there are vehicles that have petrol, then surely there’d be boats etc that could be utilised to live off shore.
Why doesn’t anybody refer to the ‘dead’ as Zombies? Series one was set in present time. This means that every character that lived in the world before it fell would have had an understanding of the mythical idea of Zombies, these are Zombies, why does no one use the word?
How did the dead get such strong teeth? As the rest of their bodies seem to fall apart at the slightest touch, what has happened to make their teeth so strong to tear through skin and muscle.
Why does it seem there can only be one main male black character? T-Dog dies the same episode Tyresse turns up, Tyreese dies just as Noah becomes part of the core cast.
Anyway I realise that it is a drama and doesn’t need to always connect the dots, but maybe you have some thoughts around the programme or maybe just want to share you love of TWD
I have had some dealings with people inside the new Paul Henry show of recent weeks along with some of the sales team at Mediaworks and I find it intriguing to see the nature in which they are ‘selling’ the new venture.
It’s being spoken of as a Goliath of a show that is going to take the world by storm which makes sense as Mediaworks is currently trying to ‘big up’ the product.
I’m as interested as anyone to see the final product, but I wonder what the new show is actually going to achieve…other than save money.
Radiolive has been the bit-player in a theatre that is talkback radio since it’s inception in 2005 with Newstalk ZB being dominant and not ever taking a hit from having competition in the market place. As an example when I was working 3 – 4 overnight shows on ZB I had the number one show in the country with an average or 100,000 – 120,000 listeners nationwide, per week consistently for 5 years. Over the same period, in prime time day slots, Michael Laws and Willie and JT on Radio live, 5 days a week had about 50,000 listeners. The same discrepancy could be seen if you compared drive show and breakfasts shows on the two stations and things haven’t really changed all that much. Yes there’s been a 5% growth here and a 2% drop off there, but for the most ZB is correct in their advertising that “daylight comes second.” Why there is such a discrepancy between the brands is for another day, but I think I can speak to that as well having worked for both brands.
Up until 2014 there were two products on the Mediaworks brands, Firstline on TV3 and Marcus Lush on Radiolive, so to take both products and make them one will undoubtedly save money, not necessarily in year one as there is a major capital outlay for a new studio etc…but if you now have half (my assertion) the staff you had you are going to see savings long term so I can see the new Paul Henry product as a money savings product but as a challenge to ZB or indeed Breakfast on TVNZ…I don’t see that in the stars.
I see no evidence that people will turn off ZB or TVNZ and head to the new hybrid show. TV3 and Radiolive, as individual entities, have put up good options in the past to challenge the status quo to no avail, in fact Paul Henry was one of those people when he work on the Drive show on Radiolive, which made no depreciable difference to Larry Williams audience on ZB. I don’t see this Paul Henry as anything other than the next incarnation of an attempt to take down the established order. Now, I like Paul Henry, so don’t see me as a ‘hater’ but we have seen very talented broadcasters before try and fail…why should this be any different.
When Sir Paul Holmes went to PrimeTV the audience didn’t follow, we are creatures of habit and those stations which the industry calls ‘heritage brands’ have loyal audiences who don’t travel. TVNZ and ZB are heritage brands. You might see that people float around for a few months then it’s highly likely normal transmission will resume. I’m sure we’ll see press releases that point to a 5 point swing in the 25-54 demographic, but if you see that it usually means “we’re still getting our butts kicks and we need to find any positive point in this whole thing.”
There is also one last issue that the producers of Paul Henry’s new show have to address, and it’s the elephant in the room right now, and that is that this idea that a cross media platform may actually deliver an inferior product to what is currently available. It might actually turn people off both products as the show tries to be a jack of all trades as it may end up being the master of none. The radio game especially has some very exact nuances that may be lost, overlooked or just impossible to achieve when making a television product. Is this going to be a television show that is broadcast on the radio, or a radio show with pictures…both of which will leave viewers/listeners of the lesser valued medium unsatisfied, or will it be a genuine hybrid of both radio and television? But my question is how will that work and is it even possible?
My suspicions are that you will see an improvement on the audience for TV3 that won’t effect the Breakfast audience, and not a significant change to the Radiolive audience.
We had Ken Ring on air this morning to have a chat about the ‘Supermoon’ last night, I mean who else would you have other than the ‘Moonman’ himself.
The aim of the conversation was to chat about why the moon was so large, although I was thinking about the subject matter around his ‘predictions’ and the hot water they landed him in last year. Didn’t know if I was going to go there or not.
Well I needn’t had worried about it, as Ken went there himself.
We first chatted about what a ‘perigee’ was
Ken then went on to make a prediction about when chances of earthquakes were more likely
“Anybody who’s living in the Christchurch area you can relax after tomorrow but then around the 11th you should be mindful that this is a risky period” says Ken Ring.
I was a tad taken aback as last year my understanding was that Mr. Ring needed to go into hiding after death threats around his predictions…and today he does it again.
We phone him back to see if he’d spoken to any other media outlet about this prediction and as of 11.30am he had not. So if you are part of the media world, and you use this audio, please remember it’s Pat Brittenden Mornings, on New Zealand’s Rhema ;o)
Yesterday Barrister Gary Gotlieb stated in court that NZ ‘kowtowed’ to American business interests in the case against Kim Dotcom.
This statement comes amongst revelations that the seizure of Dotcoms property was illegal because “police applied for the wrong kind of order” according to Justice Potter
Kim Dotcome has been granted $60,000 per month to live off, access to his 2011 Mercedes and the crown needs to pay him $5,000 for legal costs to sort out the incorrect seizure of his goods.
In court yesterday Barrister Gary Gotlieb stated.
”Someone else in the world will be doing it, and simply to bend towards business interests in America, which is really what it’s about, kowtowing to business interests in America, I would have thought would not sit comfortably with many New Zealanders.”
And for me I agree with much of this statement,
When I interviews a retired FBI agent of 32 years who looked at the case for me, he stated quite plainly that the case came from the Motion Picture Association of America amongst other, they complained and the FBI sprang into action.
Crown lawyer Anne Toohey said that American was not controlling this extradition situation, it is handled under crown law
”Every day we get requests for forms of assistance from all countries all over the world, including restraint of assets, execution of search warrants and that manner of thing. For us it is really daily business.”
This still has the feeling of American sneezing and the NZ catching a cold to me, I hope it’s proven otherwise but I will continue to follow this case with great interest.
Gary Parsloe, the President of the Maritime Union, confirms the Ports of Auckland has the right to contract out jobs however there is no way forward in the dispute between the Ports of Auckland and the Unions.
Now I have extrapolated slightly, but not illogically, from a conversation I had with him this morning.
We spoke for more than 10 minutes of which about half was spent trying to get Mr. Parsloe to answer the question, “Does the Ports of Auckland have the right to contract out the work?” The answers from him ranged from “No” to “We’re challenging it” to “We don’t believe in the way that they have done it” until I was finally able to explain in great details what I was asking him.
“I am not asking you have done it incorrectly? I am asking you do they have the right?” “Yes they have the right to contract out and even if we’re working they have right to contract out parts of their business.”
An answer, I thought I had better double check…
“We agree then, that the business then, has the right to contract out the work?” “Yes”
Which moved me onto the part of the conversation that actually interested me.
“If they have the right to do it, what did [the Ports of Auckland] need to do to end up with contracting out the work?”
To which the response was varied, but the theme was definite.
“We don’t want the contracting out!” “We don’t want it to happen!”
So the Maritime Union, via its President is telling us that they are not going to negotiate around the contracting…they don’t want it and as I said in my interview, come hell or high water they will do what they can to stop it.
Now if you are a Union person you might think this is fair enough, I think it’s at best mischievous…and at worst down right dishonest as all we are hearing from the Union is that the Ports of Auckland are not bargaining “in good faith” that they are not participating in “good bargaining”. I would say that if one side wants to move towards contracting, and that is something that the other side refuses to even discuss, it would be the latter that is not working in good faith.
A couple of other interactions with Gary Parsloe to make sure I was 100% clear
“You don’t want them to contract out the work, so you will do anything to stop them contracting it out.” “We’re trying to convince them not to.”
“Isn’t the truth you just don’t want to stop the contracting full stop.” “We don’t want contracting.”
To which we come to the inevitable conclusion
“They have the right to contract, if they want to stick by that right to do, there is an impasse correct?” “There is an impasse”
The ‘War’ for South Carolina is happening as I write this post. The winner of the South Carolina Primary will be the GOP nomination to go up against President Obama in November’s election, how can I say this so confidently? Every single nominee for the GOP to run for President in the past, 100% of them, has won South Carolina.
In an earlier post I wrote why Obama will be reelected, I still believe that in fact the events of the last few days have done nothing but confirm my thoughts that America could never elect one of the two front-runners for the Republicans.
Sadly for supports of the Conservative right, your choice will either be Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney. Both who have demonstrated hypocrisy to an unbeliveable degree over the past week or so.
Mitt Romney is the GOP favourite at the moment, but more and more is being revealed about his financial past and how he has amassed his vast wealth and it doesn’t fit with the GOP narrative. Before we get into this let me state that I have no problems with a person becoming wealthy, I am not an ‘occupier’, I am not someone who thinks that ‘rich people are bad or evil’, but when your wealth becomes a problem to the message, then we need to figure out the disparity.
Mitt Romney is reportedly worth about a quarter of a billion dollars, which he amassed by forming a private equity firm called Bain Capital. What a private equity firm does is come into failing businesses, or purchase businesses with good potential for leverage and ‘streamlines’ them i.e. they make cuts, then borrow against them. The companies then tend to strip the companies, sell them on in parts and make a big fat profit. The issue that Romney has with all this is that GOP catch cry is “Save jobs and stop borrowing”, but his whole business credentials which he is using to say why he should be President, is one of laying people off and borrowing to make quick cash. That on top of the revelation this week that Romney pay’s ‘in the vicinity of 15%’ tax on the money he makes from investments makes this an embarrassing week for him.
P.A.Y.E in America starts at 10% and the most you pay is 35% depending on your income, but Romney’s income is made from his investments which classifies it as ‘capital gains’, hence Capital Gains Tax is applied which in America is around 15%. So Romney earns millions a year and pays the same percentage in tax as the guy driving his campaign bus. Romney said in the last debate the ‘top tax rate should be down around 25%’, yet he only pays 15%. Another catch cry of the GOP is we are taxed too much, well it would appear Romney is not.
Mitt Romney needs to stop trying to sell the idea that his is ‘working class’ and own that he is the richest politician in the run for President, and one of the richest politicians in America.
Again you could argue that if it doesn’t impact his ability to govern then it shouldn’t matter…but it doesn’t fit with the GOP Christian, conservative, ‘family values’ narrative.
This week we find out that according to Gingrich’s second wife (of three) that he wanted an ‘open marriage’ where he could have a mistress AND keep his wife as well. All this while the Speaker is still standing up for the ideals of marriage “as the union of one man and one woman.”
For Gingrich, ‘the Gays’ are not to be married as it would be ‘an abomination’…but cheating, lying, and multiple hetero marriages is to be defended as ‘God ordained’ and ‘natural.’
All of this happening with many GOP supporters acknowledging that these two the ‘best of a bad bunch’ just confuses me when you have Rick Santorum with a great CV and actually world political experience on the sidelines along with Ron Paul who is really the only ‘real’ small government, less tax candidate. Ron Paul is what Republicans should be…if they weren’t hypocrites.
Finally, I have to admit to being a little intrigued about a very…very…VERY unlikely scenario. Even though she has said she would not run for President and it is contrary to my opening paragraph, I just wonder if we might hear from Sarah Palin as a late entry. The field is so weak, if she came out of the blue with her rock star persona, the ground swell might be there for a Sarah Palin nominee.
Now would it be a bad decision? Well it couldn’t be any worse than a choice between Romney and Gingrich.
Yesterday, on behalf of the FBI, NZ Police raided the old ‘Chrisco Mansion’ in Coatsville and arrested several NZ Residents for their involvement sharing copyright property via their website MegaUpload.com which is said to be the worlds largest file sharing site. Not that we have the full story yet but I think this case will go far beyond the SOPA and PIPA issues as in news reports of the last 24 hours numerous more serious charges have been laid against these gentlemen like ‘racketeering’ and ‘money laundering’, that just says to me there’s more to this particular case than sharing the latest Rhianna album. It also needs to be noted that SOPA and PIPA haven’t even gotten close to being passed yet so whilst this has become the poster child for the potential power of those acts, it really doesn’t relate to them.
That all being said I am a little uncomfortable with three elements of this case.
NZ Police doing the dirty work for the FBI
The site http://www.MegaUpload.com being taken down by American officials, doesn’t American law, like ours, tell us we are innocent until proven guilty…how can that decision be made already without these accused men having their day in court
Many celebrities, the kinds of people who should want their ‘intellectual property’ protected support, use and voice their ‘love’ for MegaUpload
Something doesn’t seem quite right when all these artists are singing…literally…the praises of this ‘evil site’.
This conversation then splits into several ‘strands’. The first is internet piracy.
I am completely against the idea that someone, somewhere can get for free, a piece of art (be that music, movie, software…whatever) when they should be paying for it. If you or I had intellectual property to a physical item, we wouldn’t be happy about someone taking for themselves, then copying that item and passing it around for free. This would effect our sales. To me internet piracy is theft, there is no other explanation…taking something for free, when the owners of that item want to you pay for it…is theft.
The second is, “who are the pirates?” Which becomes cloudier. Example, I watched an episode of South Park the other day on line because I missed it on the TV. Now it was free to air on FOUR, but technically what I did may have been illegal…have I committed a crime under current law, or under newly proposed copyright law? I am not sure. If it was ‘free’ on FOUR then is getting it for free on the ‘net seems ok. But technically maybe not. And then there’s also the issue of copyright holders ‘losing revenue’. I wouldn’t ever use this as an excuse for ‘stealing’ but there is truth in the idea that some people who download copyrighted product from the internet will never purchase that item, so there is no money lost. This is a weak argument for ‘stealing’ but there is some truth for ‘a few’ internet users.
The third is who should be responsible for that theft and how should they be held accountable. Well again that becomes cloudy. If it was a physical item being stolen, then it’s the person who takes the item from the shop that you would charge…but these are not physical items and there needs to be many complicit people involved to make this file sharing work. Therefore it would seem that the logical conclusion to to make the site accountable…easier said than done.
If the site is active in the distribution of the copyrighted material, then fair enough, hold them accountable. But what is someone uses the site for reasons it wasn’t intended. MegaUpload.com seems on one level to be a valid way of people sending their files around the world, just like DropSend or Box.net and many others. So what if the people running that site are just being used as ‘pawns’ for illegal activity to happen around them? It could be the difference between lending someone your car to rob a bank, and having your car stolen and it then being used in a bank robbery. In one case their is active accountable…in the other there isn’t. That’s what sites like Wikipedia are worried about, someone puts a link on one of their articles, then technically they will be in breach of these new laws.
Jon Stewart had an interesting take on it, click here to see as WordPress doesn’t allow flash to be embedded.
To me it seems like this is an issue of Corporations wanting their pound of flesh, and they are entitled to it. The Corporation pays for the album, movie, television show…whatever…and they don’t want it stolen. It’s a little different in places like NZ because our artists, especially music, really do struggle. In larger societies I don’t think downloading the latest Coldplay album would effect Chris Martin’s net worth…but done enough times it would affect Capitol Records profits, dones over 100 artists at Capitol Records…well you can see how it works. But what always seems difficult to understand is how Corporations get the support of, and action taken by, federal agencies like the FBI so quickly.
In 2010 the Supreme Court of the USA decreed that Corporations have the same first amendment rights as people when it comes to Freedom of Speech, it’s called Corporate Personhood.
Corporate personhood is the status conferred upon corporations under the law, which allows corporations to have rights and responsibilities similar to those of a natural person. There is a question about which subset of rights afforded to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.
This gave Corporations the right to spend as much money as they want on political campaigns but I think it has gone so much further.
I think today, in America, Corporations have far more rights than people. And one of the scarier parts of this is that Corporations, in America, have more rights than people who may, or may not be doing some illegal, in a mansion in Coatesville.
Revisiting the idea that these guys who run MegaUpload may, or may not, have committed crime(s), yet their site has been taken down. The power that these Corporations wield to get a sentence carried out, before a court case even happens is frankly scary. Imagine if this was a ‘person to person’ theft or crime. Would the accused be subject to action that you would expect with a conviction…the answer is ‘No!’
It seems that the legislation is far too heavy for the issue at hand and will catch out many whom the acts are not aimed at. I wouldn’t say it was using a sledgehammer on a fly, as the issue of copyright infringement is much larger than a ‘fly’ but maybe it’s something like demolishing a building with an atomic bomb.
Comedians the world over have shed a tear, first Donald Trump, then Hermain Cain now the last of the ‘genuine’ jokes has fallen, Rick Perry says goodbye.
I guess they can still make jokes about Santorim’s name, or Romney’s uncomfortable natures…but the last of their bread and butter has gone.
About the last point of interest is who Perry will now endorse. Politicians in America do this hoping that their followers will then support that candidate…however in this case I am sure the candidate who if being touted by the media as the one likely to receive that endorsement is more than a little uneasy about it.
“There is no viable path forward for me in this 2012 campaign,” he said in a news conference in North Charleston, S.C. “Today, I am suspending my campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich for president of the United States.
He called Gingrich a “conservative visionary.”
Newt Gingrich found himself in a little hot water speaking to the N.A.A.C.P. saying “If the N.A.A.C.P. invites me, I’ll go to their convention, talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.” The N.A.A.C.P. was not impressed.
Gingrich was then challenged at the latest South Carolina debate asking if he acknowledged that some Blacks could have found that offensive, Newt’s response was a simple, “No!” and then went on another diatribe about teaching the unemployed how to get a job, keep it and own it.
So why would the Perry endorsement be of concern to the Gingrich camp. Well apart from the obvious ‘idiot’ factor, when the dumbest guy say’s your his guy and you think, “If the idiot is endorsing Gingrich…does that mean I am an idiot to support him as well”…apart from that, there is this…caution, contains offensive words
I was going to make some point about the hypocrisy within politics in America, or how these rich white men seem to have lost touch with the “99%” but I think I’ll just say that Perry and Gingrich are GOP nominees…what else would you expect?