Does cricket suffer from ‘institutional racism’?

Cricket has always had some moral claims so this is a potential real issue. Cricket was long regarded as a gentleman's game and the social instincts of the British upper class became the official and unofficial laws of cricket. Some things were simply "not done" and a man must never "go too far". It was a coherent ethical system but was vague at many points so could break down. Examples

1). "Bodyline bowling" by English sides designed to get ace Australian cricketer Donald Bradman out were widely deplored.

2). Underarm bowling by an Australian cricketer designed to confuse an opposing batsman at the last minute were raged against by many.

3). And Sri Lankan bowler Muralitharan's "action" was widely criticised as he did not always keep his arm exactly straight.

4). And dare I mention the recent controversy over an English batsman being dismissed when he left his crease prematurely?

So there are big social issues in cricket but the unfounded accusations mentioned below are not one of them. Underarm bowling is much more serious


What a strange document the Independent Commission on Equity in Cricket (ICEC) has produced, in its ‘Holding up a mirror to cricket’ report. Rambling, explicitly political, antagonistic and poorly-argued, it ignores some obvious explanations for the ills it discusses, and fixates on irrelevancies. The authors situate their conclusions within the world of intersectionality and other well-worn academic buzzwords. This limits the usefulness of its conclusions because every problem is shoehorned into a particular framework, rather than being carefully considered on its own terms.

Take, for example, the identification of a severe decline in cricket participation by black Britons. ‘Holding up a mirror to cricket’ ascribes this decline to various causes, but an obvious structural reason – namely, the changing composition of the black British population – is not even considered. Two or three decades ago most black Britons had Afro-Caribbean heritage. Nowadays black Britons increasingly have backgrounds in places like West Africa, where cricket is relatively unpopular compared to the West Indies – and even in the West Indies the popularity of cricket is not what it once was. This is not, of course, the whole story, but it is certainly a significant part.

This is not careful analysis but blunt ideological prescription

Similarly, the report totally ignores one of the most significant barriers to the popularity of cricket among young people of both sexes and all races: the disappearance of almost all live cricket from free-to-air television. I am only 40, and well into my adult life all home Test Matches were shown in full on terrestrial TV. If the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), who asked the ICEC to prepare this report, are really interested in sparking a love of cricket among children from diverse backgrounds, they could do a good deal worse than giving ball-by-ball broadcast rights back to the BBC or Channel 4.

The ICEC call for parity in remuneration for men’s and women’s cricket. Entirely absent from their deliberations, if we can call them that, is the simple recognition that women’s cricket is less popular – and hence less lucrative – than the men’s game. Stokes, Root and co. pack out stadiums, and people pay well into three figures for tickets to watch them play. The TV rights are worth a fortune. Now it might plausibly be argued that women’s cricket is only unpopular because of historic discrimination and the patriarchal history of the game. Even if that is true, the fact remains that the women’s cricket funding gap is to do with the laws of the market and is not simply the result of unfair discrimination or old-fashioned attitudes.

This naivete about commercial aspects is matched by a general refusal to be honest about the realistic constraints on participation in cricket. No doubt there is a good deal more that can be done to open up the game to those from less privileged backgrounds. But this is not easy. Cricket is a technically complex, expensive, time-consuming game to play and organise. That is no one’s fault. It is the nature of the beast. There are ways round these difficulties, but we are not going to find them by searching for people to blame, or by the invocation of trendy but vague spectres like ‘institutional racism’.

Overall there is a noticeable, and remarkable, strain of animosity running through much of the report. I have read a good many reports by various organisations, on all kinds of subjects. I cannot recall encountering one which singles out specific responses to a consultation for scolding, as ICEC have seen fit to do. That scolding is followed up with a passive-aggressive dig at anyone with reservations about the authors’ worldview, which reveals that they have no serious interest in any discussion which does not confirm their prior assumptions.

This animosity manifests in the report’s conjuring of a pantomime villain – the so-called Type K, a white straight ‘cisgender’ privately-educated able-bodied white male – but also in its frankly unpleasant elision of conservative preferences about the game with racial bigotry and animus. So people who don’t like, for example, Twenty20 or loud music at cricket grounds, and prefer ‘batsman’ to ‘batter’, are described as holding the game back, with a strong implication of nefarious motives.

Working through certain sections of ‘Holding up a mirror to cricket’, one senses a deep antipathy to anything remotely redolent of Old Britain; anything which lies outside the ambit of the modern managerial state. The ultimate aim of the report, consciously or not, is to place the entire ecosystem of English cricket – from the village sides turning out three times a year for a beer match, through the clubs and schools and counties, right up to the Test team – under the direct control of political commissars. Every traditional institution must be brought to heel, to satisfy the complicated resentments of Britain’s new elites, and the mechanism for this process is the laundering of left-wing political conclusions via supposedly independent reports. If you doubt this, note the recommendation that the Spirit of Cricket section in the Laws be rewritten to directly embed the equality, diversity and inclusivity ideology.

This agenda is most obvious in the ICEC’s persistent hostility to two of the oldest sporting fixtures in Britain, the Eton v Harrow and Oxford v Cambridge matches, held at Lord’s every summer. ‘As a Commission’, they announce with comic grandiosity: ‘we are clear that the Historic Fixtures should end, whether or not there is room for them in the Lord’s fixture list.’ The authors barely bother to hide their indignation at the members of the Marylebone Cricket Club, which owns Lord’s, for daring to continue with the fixtures after the Committee attempted to end them.

It is worth dwelling on what exactly is being said here. ICEC’s position is not that the MCC should expand access to their facilities to non-Oxbridge universities or to schools other than Eton and Harrow. It is not that the so-called Historic Fixtures are taking up room in the schedule that could be used for more inclusive events. These are both defensible positions. Rather, their position is that the matches should be stopped outright regardless of any other consideration, i.e. that the MCC – a 236 year old voluntary association in a nominally free country – should be compelled to end a tradition which has endured for two centuries. We are not given any serious indication of how this would improve the inclusivity of cricket, for the simple reason that it wouldn’t, in the same way that the destruction of grammar schools did not improve standards in comprehensives. The game is well and truly given away by the report’s blunt statement that the Historic Fixtures ‘no longer have a place in contemporary Britain.’ This is not careful analysis but blunt ideological prescription.

Scepticism about these kind of reports is liable to be construed as indifference to real problems. That is certainly not my position. Obviously there are genuine serious barriers to participation in cricket for some minorities, alongside other structural issues – although it’s worth noting that ‘Holding up a mirror to cricket’ builds a large superstructure of conclusion on a fairly flimsy foundation of self-reported and subjective experience, which the ICEC was unable and unwilling to subject to any kind of meaningful scrutiny or analysis.

But equally, we cannot simply roll over in the face of reports that draw tendentious and highly political conclusions based on faulty reasoning. If ICEC really claim to be holding up a mirror to English cricket, all I can say is that we are seeing through a glass, darkly.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/06/does-cricket-suffer-from-institutional-racism/

*************************************************

At War With the Middle Class

Inflation numbers are out. The costs of living are trending down, but that does not mean things are cheaper. It just means things are not getting more expensive as quickly as they were. The cost of living is still high, and rental and mortgage prices continue to rise. During these times, the Biden administration has found a new target for their ire: airplane bathrooms.

Over the past few years, morbidly obese and mentally ill TikTok “influencers” have raised a ruckus on airplanes because the aisles are not wide enough, the seats are not big enough and the bathrooms are not expansive enough for them. In the past few years, airlines have made bathrooms uncomfortably small. But they did so for a specific reason: They need more seats.

Every seat added to a plane is a reduction in price for travelers. In the ‘70s and early '80s, only the rich and business travelers could afford to fly. People dressed up. Meals were served. It was an experience, and one that cost a pretty penny. Today, thanks to former President Ronald Reagan’s deregulation plans, air travel has democratized. It is more cramped. It is more crowded. It has few amenities. But a family of four can now take a trip without taking out a second mortgage. The trade-offs have reduced ticket prices.

The Biden administration, with Vice President Kamala Harris as the frontwoman, want to mandate larger bathrooms for the small contingent of inconvenienced TikTok influencers of America. Doing so will price the middle class out of air travel. It is all part of the plan. The Biden administration and the Left, in general, are at war with the middle class.

If you want your child educated in much of America now, you must pay for private school or quit your job to home-school. At the government schools you are already paying for, the teachers unions, when not shutting them down, have filled elementary school libraries with gay pornography. Teachers are teaching gender unicorns. Gone are the ABCs and in are the LGBTQs. One plus one no longer equals two because that would be white supremacy, like proper grammar, the Founding Fathers and the United States generally. Washington politicians lament that our kids are not keeping up but are more insistent on them learning about gender transitions than sentence transitions.

At the grocery store, food costs are up. For years, the government has told us to shop the outer aisles with the least processed food, i.e., vegetables, fruit, meats and dairy. Now, the government wants to push you toward lab-grown chickens and synthetic-hemoglobin-filled plant-based “meat” — so long as you do not cook them on a gas stove.

Driving to work is more expensive. While energy prices are down year over year, they are still too high. The Biden administration intends to force everyone into electric cars by 2030. To do so, they are consciously making gas-powered cars more expensive and problematic. A large family is hard-pressed now to find a large car because the Left has advanced every incentive to keep a family small, including pricing large cars out of the market for most. A used car even costs too much now.

Like the costs of airplane tickets going up to expand bathrooms for the morbidly obese, the Biden administration plan for electric cars would force Americans to stay put. One cannot plan a week’s vacation across America when you have to add extra charging hours for the car.

Everything is more expensive by design. Everything else is more inconvenient by design. A dishwasher takes over two hours to wash the dishes. Appliances are more prone to failure. The power grid fails more often and does not even work when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. It is all the logical and intentional outcome of progressive policy at work.

By burdening your life, driving up your costs and inconveniencing your family, the Left, via the Biden administration, hopes you travel less, eat less and have fewer kids. The kids you have will be secretly transitioned and, they hope, sterilized, to produce fewer humans. The middle class will lose, but the Left will have saved Mother Earth.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/98865-at-war-with-the-middle-class-2023-07-14

***************************************

The Labor Participation Rate Better Tells the Story About the U.S. Economy

Is the media trying to make President Joe Biden "look good" instead of reporting the news as news, along with analysis?

For example, are we being misled about the condition of our economy? Does anyone not understand the following: If you are not working, you are unemployed?

Biden's claim that the unemployment numbers are some of the best has been an enigma for me. The fact that the vast majority of Americans seem not to be "feeling" all this good news per the direction of the country in polling is not surprising, however.

The labor force participation rate indicates the percentage of all people of working age who are employed or are actively seeking work. In conjunction with the unemployment numbers, it can offer some perspective into the state of the economy. This is a standard definition of labor force participation used by experts.

The truth is we have altered what the truth is. Back in the 1950s, we had a labor force participation rate of over 85% for males. Today that figure has dropped to 62%. So much for the 3.6% unemployment rate reported this month.

The truth, but truly not the truth. And we are not including any of the remaining group - 38% of our eligible workforce population - when accounting for our unemployment rate (granted, retirees and disabled people are part of this number). But still, how does this make any sense?

It must be noted that labor participation rates for our weakest economic links - Black people and Hispanics - are even lower, with no genuine plans to lift them up.

Today public assistance costs $1.2 trillion annually. Medicaid, healthcare for the poor, is $750 billion of those dollars. This contributes to our $32 trillion national debt. Remarkably, the public assistance total is over $300 billion more than our national defense budget. This unsustainable debt, and the policies adding to it, are totally ignored by the media. And obviously, they are not even whispered by the folks in the Biden administration.

When asked, the administration usually gives its patented response: "The labor force participation rate was about that bad for other presidents of late, too (Trump)." OK. Maybe? But that does not make it any better.

To boast about the "low" unemployment rate today under Biden's watch disrespects tens of millions of Americans who we do not count in our evaluation of the unemployment rate. They do count, however, per the cost of public assistance.

The even bigger question is, why do we see such a dramatic change? And what can we do to reverse this trend?

Without more people working, it can be troublesome for society. The situation can also affect people's mental health. Are millions of Americans too discouraged from seeking employment? Does it have something to do with the increasing cases of mass shootings or our climbing crime rate? We simply do not know definitively.

I am also hoping that the media will not continue to influence the upcoming elections in other ways overly. Too frequently, they push false or misleading narratives to help Biden improve on his job approval numbers.

The liberal media talks incessantly about former President Donald Trump, giving him more "oxygen" than all the GOP candidates running for president combined. Then they falsely act surprised to see that Trump is the favorite for the GOP nomination. The liberal media realizes that Trump is Biden's best opponent - the only one Biden can beat.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are frozen in time with the oldest man ever to hold the presidency. The media repeats Biden's boasts, some at times amazing in their simplicity.

Point one - Biden's silence when Wagner mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin led his soldiers in a mutiny march against Moscow. The liberal media called Biden's silence "a brilliant tactical move." Yes, left-wing media voices were praising him for doing "nothing."

Point two - a Biden official remarked that "America had nothing to do with Prigozhin's march into Russia." Question: Who ever said we did? We cannot protect our drones from Russian fighter planes. And we do little to nothing when incidents do occur.

Point three - Biden has high-stakes meetings with NATO leaders.

If we cannot get along with the E.U. and NATO when a European country is fighting Russia, we will never be able to get along with Europe and NATO. This could not be easier.

On the other hand, thanks to the media, we are kept in the dark about the alleged contributions made by NATO and other European countries in helping Ukraine fight Russia compared to our massive contributions. As Ukraine's largest military supporter, we deserve to know.

In conclusion, we must not be misled or be allowed to believe things simply because the liberal media wants us to believe a certain narrative that would promote Biden. Facts. Just give us the facts.

Let us remember the basics: Working is "employment," not working is "unemployment." To leave out the indigent in calculating our unemployment rate does not seem appropriate.

We do not need the liberal media, which reports what the politicians are saying after they hear it from the economists, to tell us differently.

And, over a professional baseball career getting hits at a .380 pace would put you in the Hall of Fame. However, in our economy, 38% of folks are, for the most part, forgotten Americans, at least until it is time for public assistance.

https://townhall.com/columnists/gary-franks/2023/07/13/the-labor-participation-rate-better-tells-the-story-about-our-economy-n2625689

******************************************************

The WaPo Explains ‘Book Banning’

The Washington Post recently published a diatribe against parents “banning” children’s books, particularly picture books.

Picture books are generally used as teaching tools in preschool and elementary school classrooms. We’re talking three-years-olds to 10-year-olds — the most vulnerable and impressionable period for children. Kids in this age range will generally believe anything you tell them.

The article goes on to lament the various reasons parents objected to these books for their children’s consumption. The top three reasons for book challenges were because the content was LGBTQ+, inappropriate, or anti-police.

Let’s unpack the flawed thinking behind this perspective of The Washington Post. Most importantly, there is a distinct difference in challenging books versus a book ban. Those challenged books can still be sold at any bookstore or borrowed from many libraries. The challenges are more focused on the wisdom of introducing topics and ideas to children at inappropriate ages in their schools — an arena where teachers and administrators choose the material. Granted, some books that have made their way onto classroom shelves are not appropriate for any age. However, calling these active and concerned parents “book banners” is a massive overstatement.

The WaPo author takes for granted that readers will immediately agree with her political leanings and is completely obtuse to parents’ legitimate concerns. It prompts one to ask: Why are leftists so eager to have books in the classroom that introduce ideas like LGBTQ+ lifestyles, critical race theory, or gender theory? Because planting ideas into young children’s heads is a way of brainwashing them into an ideology. Radical gender ideology (which includes transgender ideology) and critical race theory, in particular, promote a Marxist worldview whose ultimate goal is to destroy the family. This is grooming of an underlying political ideology.

There is also an element of actual sexual grooming mixed in, particularly with the LGBTQ+ stories. Gender Queer illustrates a sexual act and Lawn Boy describes a sexual act between a man and a child. Introducing children to sex and sexuality is actually grooming in the predatory sense. Learning about these sexual concepts and their deviations too early warps children’s brains and makes them more vulnerable to predators and risky behavior.

Also, not all behaviors are morally equivalent. There is a significant moral and cultural difference between books that portray a mother, father, and children (the nuclear family) versus any other kind of family. The nuclear family is the norm and is also the one most likely to foster human flourishing.

Finally, the WaPo article implies throughout that a one-party, “certain type” of parent flags and reports these books. This is incredibly disingenuous. There are plenty of parents on both sides of the aisle who are against the political and sometimes sexual grooming that these books are promoting. Just look at Virginia, for crying out loud. It was precisely critical race theory and gender ideology that flipped the Commonwealth blue and won Republican Glenn Youngkin the gubernatorial race.

A more recent example came from Georgia, where State Representative Mesha Mainor declared that she was switching parties from Democrat to Republican. In a social media post, Mainor wrote: “I represent a blue district in the city of Atlanta so this wasn’t a political decision for me. It was a MORAL one.” In an interview, Mainor went on to explain: “For far too long, the Democrat Party has gotten away with using and abusing the black community. For decades, the Democrat Party has received the support of more than 90% of the black community. And what do we have to show for it?”

The Left understands that if it can control the books, it can control the minds of the next generation. Leftists have already shown they are willing to change the meaning of words to fit their own ends (see racism and femininity). When we can’t even agree on a common language and words, how can we have a functioning society? Answer: We can’t. And perhaps that is the ultimate goal.

For leftists, clinging to the “book ban” lies in order to undermine parents is one of the last tools they can wield to break down the family. Their stake in this game is power, but for these parents it is the hearts, minds, and innocence of their children.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/98836-the-wapo-explains-book-banning-2023-07-14

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************