Baseball v. Cricket (continued)

An anonymous writer recently commented on my blog post Baseball v. Cricket (22. april 2008), where I gave my own subjective views on baseball and cricket. I think the comment by 'Anonymous' has some good points, so I've posted the it below.

I agree with Anonymous arguments, except with the claim that the baseball pitchers delivery is much closer to the batter than the cricket bowlers. The cricket crease is 66 feet long, compared to 60 feet and 6 inches between the pitchers mound and home plate. The popping crease (behind which some point the bowlers foot must be behind at delivery), is 4 feet in front of the bowling crease (on which the stumps stand), making the real disance 62 feet, which is that different to the baseball dimisions. Added to that, the batter stands in front of the crease shortening the distance. Finally, both pitcher and bowler stretches towards the batter, thus shortening the distance the batter.

Like 'Anonymous', I am tired of hearing negative comments on baseball by cricket fans. I should be patient and accept that what I perceive as arrogance and snobbery, is really some sort insecurity.

Anonymous wrote:

In my experience I have found that baseball bashers from many a Commonwealth country also tend to be quite ignorant about the sport of baseball.

There are some key factors that cricket defenders seem to completely ignore:

1) Baseball pitchers consistently throw faster than cricket bowlers

2) A pitcher delivers from much closer than a bowler

3) The surface area of a cricket bat is far greater than a baseball bat, and the flat cricket bat further skews the advantage in favor of the cricket batsmen

5) The cricket pitch configuration greatly skews the contest in favor of a batsman because he can hit anywhere within 360 degrees. In baseball you have boundaries segmenting the field allowing a batsman to only direct the baseball within a 90 degree boundary.

4) So long as ANY contact is made by a cricket batsman, whether it be poor or solid contact, it is most certainly rewarded FAR MORE in cricket than in baseball. In baseball, a player who cannot consistently make solid contact cannot succeed - PERIOD. You can have poor batsmen who can only foul off pitches but never make solid contact in baseball who, if they did the same thing in cricket, may never be put out - particularly if they only need to take half swings, just make contact, and put the ball anywhere they can.

In baseball a batsmen does not just simply have to make a minimum contact - HE MUST HIT THE BALL HARD, WITH AUTHORITY AND DIRECTED ACCURATELY, AND DONE WITH CONSISTENCY AGAINST AN OPPONENT THAT THROWS HARDER, IS CLOSER, AND IS REWARDED BY GETTING THE BATSMEN TO ONLY FOUL TIP THE BALL.

I can appreciate the complexities of cricket. But you get tired of hearing all the arrogant, ignorant snobs who have never tried to even hit a baseball.

Democratic Yankees 3.

The New York Yankees are (again) the World Series.

I have previously written about the uncanny ability of the New York Yankees to win the World Series under Democratic Presidents, and now the Yankees are again in the World Series and a Democrat is in the White House...

Although the city of Philadelphia has a special place in my heart, as I was treated very well by the Philadelphians the 2 weeks I spent at the naval base there, I will be rooting for the Yankees and not their opponents the Philladelphia Phillies. First, because I usually root for the American League champion in the World Series, and secondly, because there is just something right about Yankees as the champions of the baseball world.

When I became a baseball fan in the 1970's, the Yankees were the best, with players such as Ron Guidry, Catfish Hunter, Thurman Munson and Reggie Jackson. When I grew older and discovered the history of baseball, the Yankees grew in my apprecaition. From Babe Ruth, to Lou Gherig, to Joe DiMaggio, to Micky Mantle and onwards, this baseball club has been 'The Club' in baseball and you do not need to be Yankees fan to appreciate the institution that is the New York Yankees.

Finally, I also hope the Yankees win because it is also good to be reminded that a Democrat is president.

Obama for Peace!

For what? This was my first thought, when I heard that Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I couldn't seem to remember any significant effort for peace by the US president, or any ground breaking event that he had been responsible for.

I read the official announcement of the Nobel committee, and yes, I agree that seeking nuclear disarmament is radical and multilateral diplomacy is good, but awarding Obama the prize now still seemed premature.

So I asked myself "why would a Norwegian committee award Obama a prize to be handed out in Oslo?" And then it was completely clear to me. The Norwegians are envious of Denmark! Obama has already visited Copenhagen this month for the IOC conference and may (just maybe) be coming back in December for the climate conference.

Anybody witnessing the media and security frenzy of Obama's first visit to Copenhagen, will know how significant it is for a small country to receive a visit by a sitting US president. Suddenly Denmark felt what we already knew their hearts, that we were the center of the world and that all eyes were fixed on us.

Now, just to spoil our moment in the spotlight, Obama will be flying to Oslo to accept their little prize, and the Norwegians will get theirs!

Blogging Again.

It's been 6 months since I last posted on this blog. Very briefly, this is what has happened in my life since April. I've...

... got a job in the Danish Immigration Service.
... moved from England to Denmark.
... bought a new car.
... put on 3 kilos.
... been without Internet access at home for 4 months.

In short, I've been kind of busy. Rebecca and I have moved to Denmark and settled in the little town of Haslev. I commute the 1 1/2 hours on the train to Copenhagen (and back) each day. This gives me a lot of time to read the newspaper (which I enjoy), but it also takes a lot of my free time and energy.

I haven't given up this blog (although I've probably lost my 2 to 3 regular readers). I plan to write at least one blog entry a week, if for no other reason, then to force myself to think about, research and write about something. No longer being a student, and work being full of pressure and deadlines, writing about law, politics or baseball or whatever have an opinion about, is essential for me.

So, whether anyone will read this or not: I'm back!

P.S. One issue I will not write about is immigration, either from a law or political perspective. Not because I don't have strong opinions about this, which I do, but it would be inappropriate of me, as a civil servant in a directorate under the Ministry for Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs, to write about this issue.

Anti-Terrorist Posters.

Good comment here by Jeremy Kuper on the Metropolitan (London) Police's new anti-terrorist posters. Also check out these spoofs. I especially like the this one.

I wonder what were the police thinking? Do they really believe that citizens spying on each other is a good way to a better and safer society? As Kuper says:

How much more surveillance do we need? Do we really need citizens to watch people watching the CCTV?

Ther poster campaign does frigthen me a little bit, as I do have a habit of photographing surveilance cameras in the streets. How long before someone reports me to the police?

Comment on The Libety Blog.

Today I wrote a comment to this article by Barry Bussey on The Liberty Blog of the North American Religious Liberty Association.

My comment, with minor corrections of spelling, is as follows:

Thank you Mr. Bussy for this interesting report. You overstate, however, in my opinion, the resolution’s potential to become part of customary international law.

Customary international law can only be established if there is: 1) widespread observance of the rule or norm in question, 2) the rule is accepted as law. The later requirement, usually refered to by international jurists as ‘opinio juris’, entails that states act in accordance to a rule because they believe themselves to be under a international legal obligation to do so.

UN General Assembly resolutions can constitute evidence of ‘opinio juris’, but is not automatically treated as such. This resolution has had significant opposition in the Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly, as you point out in your article. Even if the resolution somehow became part of international law, it will still not bind states who do not consider themselves bound by it.

The main problem with the resolution is not, therefore, its potential to become international law and accepted norm. Rather its the affect it has on on the international human rights discourse. The resolution significantly discredits the Human Rights Council and international human rights in western liberal democracies, as some of the comments on this page is evidence of, and it emboldens governments advocating a more limited understanding of freedom of expression.

On EU and Crisis.

It shouldn't really surprise anyone that an outsider is the best to analyse a given situation. So its not really surprising that an American, Max Bergman in the Huffington Post, has written the best comment I've read on the crisis that the EU countries are facing.

Bergman's main argument is that the EU has a political deficit, which makes is ill suited to respond the present financial and economic crisis. The EU countries have taken giants steps in integrating economically, legally and socially, but the political power still rests with the national governments. In spite of the rhetoric by the Euro-sceptics (Euro-haters would be a better term), the Commission is primarily an administrative executive and does not hold the political power in the EU. Unified action depends on the national governments reaching agreement, which is hard at the best of times.

While Bergman makes a fine analysis, he is, in my opinion, too alarmist. The fundamental freedoms of the Union, i.e. the freedom of movement for goods, workers, services and capital, are too firmly established in law and practice to be broken down by the economic crisis. This doesn't mean the EU and European integration not will be severely tried by the crisis. The EU is, however, functioning just as the EU is supposed to function, by integrating Europe economically and socially while leaving political power in the national governments. This may not be the best way for Europe to face the economic crisis, but if the Union had not existed then we'd now been back to the protectionist and 'beggar thy neighbour' policies of earlier times, such as trade/movement restrictions and currency devaluations.

P.S. For a more Euro-sceptic and alarmist comment see Simon Heffer in yesterdays Daily Telegraph. Heffer's critique of the monetary union may have some legitimacy, but its hard to take him, and other conservative euro-sceptics, seriously when he calls the EU an "undemocratic, Sovietised swindle".