On 9/29/06, ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org> wrote:
>
> The recent row (as the British are wont to say) over a cricket match in
> the UK, involving the Pakistani team and an Australian umpire gave me
> opportunity for mindless speculation.
>
> First perhaps a few preparatory words on the row: In a cricket match
> between England and the visiting Pakistani team, Australian umpire Hair
> ruled that Pakistan had tampered with the ball and awarded 5 runs to the
> English. Not entirely pleased with this judgement, the Pakistani team
> refused to return to the field, after -- yes they do have those -- tea
> break. Hair, not to be transplanted, er I mean outdone, declared that in
> effect the brownies had conceded the game. The captain of the Pakistani
> team was then subjected to intense scrutiny by the international powers.
>
> And there things stood for a short period of time, even as the more
> curious learnt of Hair's previous controversies such as accusing a Sri
> Lankan bowler of chucking the ball. In keeping with its new-found status
> as a neo-liberal powerhouse, India opined (in terms that would have made
> the best of triangulators proud) that it was in resonance with official
> opinion and spent few sleepless night on the matter of Mr. Hair.
>
> Things took a turn for the worse, a bit hairy (if I may), for the portly
> umpire with the leak of a letter from the man to the official body,
> expressing a willingness to accept a half a million pounds in order to
> make the matter go away (as New Jerseyans are wont to say). A further
> inquiry led to more bad news as the Pakistanis were found not guilty in
> the affair.
>
> In light of such developments, India triangulates harder, as speculation
> abounds following the removal of the disgraced referee from a series of
> the soporific sport in India:
>
> "We had only expressed concern about the controversy surrounding him
> which could distract attention from the tournament - nothing more than
> that. "We have nothing against the man, but did not want any trouble
> during the tournament."
>
> Pondering over all of this, and ongoing discussion on-list about the
> Chavez affair and the relevance of his impact on the North/West, I felt
> the urge to draw a connection. Clearly the baton for change has been
> passed from Europe and USA to other parts of the world; who can avoid
> drawing a contrast between a few organised thugs (to be confused with
> James Baker) in Florida in 2000 to hundreds of thousands in Zocalo?
>
> What can we say about the future, the world that will be shaped by these
> forces? What are the choices in this evolutionary struggle?
>
> Will the world of 2100 reflect the nuanced (in every manner) development
> of India or the raw expression of Venezuela?
>
> It is a good thing I will not be around to know, for I suspect the
> answer will not please me.
>
> --ravi
>
> --
> Support something better than yourself: ;-)
> PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
> GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
> If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>