Playing each ball on its own Merit

by Osiris

A mind functions within the periphery, within the limit of its own conditioning. Two days ago Australia broke such conditioning when they posted a total of 434, the first team to exceed 400 runs in the history of limited overs cricket. Though one did not need to wait long until this total was past again; just ask Tony Greig, Australia lost the match, the barrier had been removed.

Salvador Dali claimed Baseball was a metaphor for life, I say Cricket fits better Mr Dali. Commentators have long praised the batsman who 'Plays each ball on its own merit'. Herschelle Gibbs did it to take his team past 400, and so should we. As it is, our action is based on concepts, on ideas. People have an idea of what should be done and what is done is in approximation to that ideal. Thus a division exists between the action and the 'idea', between 'what is' and 'what should be'. Such action is incomplete, therefore there is a form of resistance. Herschelle Gibbs bridged this division two days ago in his innings of 175. Australia¹s 434 runs was a total beyond strategies - he would simply have to play each ball on its own merit.

Playing each ball on its own merit is an action in which thought sees something instantly and acts immediately so that there is no idea to be acted on separately. Playing each ball on its own merit is an action in which the very seeing is the action - in which the very thinking is the action.

Thought is the response of experience, as collected memory, thus it is never new. (Try thinking of something you have never seen before. What about a pink elephant you say? Well I¹m sure you've seen pink and I'm sure you have seen an elephant, try thinking about the unknown? That's what religion tries to do) Thought is tethered to the past and therefore can never perceive reality. For as one Jiddu Krishnamurti espoused, life is alive, it is in constant movement, a perpetual movement in relationship, and thought, trying to capture that movement in terms of the past, as memory, is afraid of life. Thought must operate in action. Thus we must play each ball on its own merit.

Well Said Phillip Adams, Well Said

Great article by Phillip Adams from the Australian here . Adams articulates a number of points that are spot-on. Labor does need to get on the front-foot policy wise, as the last 10 years have shown that they are hopeless when trying to keep up with the Coalition in this regard, as John, Peter and Alexander set the tune to which Labor then farcially tries to keep pace to ("We were never notified of kickbacks." "Oh, wait you meant that memo notifying us of kickbacks?" and so on). The policy initiative must be grasped back, and whichever Labor leader does that, whether it be Beazley, Rudd or Gillard, will deservedly become Prime Minister.

The Telstra Sale is a good example to look at. It was well known that the Coalition government were looking to sell off Telstra. Any doubt about this was erased when the Coalition gained control of the Senate after the 2004 election. With a majority in both houses, the Liberal's were always going to move forward with the full sale of Telstra, regardless of the National Party's concerns, personified it seemed by Barnaby Joyce. Where could the opportunity for Labor be here? In the time that it would take the Coalition to proceed with the full-sale of Telstra.

It is more than likely that the Telstra sale will not occur until into the next term of government, after next year's election. Meaning that there is a possiblity that a Labor government could be the ones enacting the sale of Telstra. So why have they not released a policy on how they would proceed with the sale? Saying that they'd do it a different way to the government or that they would scrap the sale is not good enough. These positions need to be articulated, and not only do they need to be articulated, but articulated to the voters. So Labor decides that even if they gain power they will not sell Telstra; Tell the people why. Explain the benefits from not selling, outline the action being taken to minimize the negatives of not selling, what will be invested in Telstra instead to bring up service levels and so on. If they decide that they do want to sell it, come up with the policy for how it will be done. The Coalition is still trying to figure out how they will do it, and all the bad publicity about Telstra is making that job harder.

Outline how the sale will go down. What are the benfits of the sale proceeding this way? Make the policy more appealling to Nationals voters, who are upset about the Telstra sale, as they see it as being worst for them service-wise if the government coporation is privatised, meaning the bad service is unlikely to improve under private hands, and more than likely, worsen. Demonstrate how that will not happen under a Labor sale, and what benefits the sale would bring under Labor hands. And the most important question: how will the windfall from the sale be invested? Don't say Future Fund or you'll get a kick in the head! Outline how it will be invested in infrastructure, giving the bush their Broadband connections, and other tangible benefits, the impact of which won't only be felt now, but well into the future as well. Economic growth rockets off if it has the infrastructure base to launch from.

The lack of policy initiative may be in part due to Labor not wanting to give any policy 'freebies' to the Coalition. If this is the case, who cares? Let the government pick over your policies and use the parts they like. It should be a clear advantage to Labor in that they can outline their policies, and point to how the government has to pilfer them because they have no policy of their own. Yes, they may know all the tricks up your sleeve if you show all your cards before them, but it also puts the Coalition in a difficult position in the public eye: they either have to step up to Labor's policies and match or better them or be seen as having inferior policy to Labor. Either scenario means it is now the government on the back foot trying to catch up policy-wise, rather than the situation that it has been for the past 10 years. Who cares if they take parts of your policy if you can show on the record that you were the ones to articulate it first,therefore on the ball, and deserving of being elected. Good policy will always trump over good politics, a lesson Labor it seems has still not learnt. While I'll vote for Beazley regardless, but specifically for great moments he has provided, such as great lines/outbursts of energy like "Rip them up -GONE!", and how he seems to be the living embodiment of a Bulldog when he is shown on camera during Question Time, these endearing traits aren't enough for the average voter. What he will do for them rather than how he will make them laugh is the average punter's concerns (although, maybe the latter is a key to Howard's success(?)), and in the end the voter is king.