Preamble There's some corner of a foreign field that is forever English cricket. For some, that corner is on the subcontinent, where England's capacity to lose by whopping margins is both enduring and perversely endearing. It's easy for a certain generation of English cricket fans to treat Kipling's two impostors the same; if anything, they have swapped them over. Triumph is treated with suspicion, as if there's a catch, or England winning repeatedly is somehow against the spirit of cricket. Disaster is welcomed warmly into our freshly waxed bosom like an old friend or a memory box.
That's an exaggeration, of course, but there is something dangerously weird strange about the psyche of many English cricket fans – a sort of gentle, grinning masochism. They were pioneers of self-loathing comedy, long before Curb Your Enthusiasm, Peep Show and the rest. And it's authentic, too; none of that phony self-loathing that is so ubiquitous these days. English cricket has always been such a beautifully strange world. Not even Pakistan could pull off what England have managed this week. They are officially the best team in the world in two formats, and they are about to suffer a 5-0 whitewash in the third.
To avoid that whitewash, which would be a second consecutive 5-0 defeat in India, England must win at Eden Gardens today. To do that, they must first find a way to erase the asterisk against the name of the remarkable MS Dhoni – not the one that tells you he's captain, but the one that tells you he's not out, yet again.
In his last five innings Dhoni has made 265 runs from 216 balls without being dismissed. He has a case for being the greatest finisher in one-day history, better even than Michael Bevan. Indeed, this fascinating and statgasmic Cricinfo study suggests he is the second greatest best one-day batsman of the lot, behind only Viv Richards. Like Viv, he is a rare and awesome combination of poker-faced serenity and soul-crushing brutality.
England have won the toss and will bowl first. If it's broke, fix it. MS Dhoni says he would also have bowled. England are without Kevin Pietersen, who has a broken thumb. Ian Ronald Bell comes into the team, and Graeme Swann is back for Scott Borthwick. India also make one change, with Manoj Tiwary replacing Parthiv Patel. That means Gautam Gambhir will open.
India Rahane, Gambhir, Tiwary, Kohli, Raina, Superman (c/wk), Jadeja, Ashwin, V Kumar, P Kumar, Aaron.
England Cook (c), Kieswetter (wk), Trott, Bell, Bopara, Bairstow, Patel, Bresnan, Swann, Meaker, Finn.
Feel Good Inc department I watched this DVD last night, for the first time in a few years. I recommend you do the same, quicksmart. I slept with a big dumb grin plastered all over my big dumb face. How did we cope with it all? Social-networking fiascos like Twitter would explode if it happened now.
It's just not cricket Does anyone want to take part in the Kick Off 2 World Cup? The organisers are looking for a few more players. It's in Birmingham on November 12-13, and you can find out more here. Kick Off 2 is, of course, the greatest football simulation of them all. Don't believe me? Have a look at this.
The cricket simulations were never quite as good, although I have inexplicably fond memories of Graham Gooch Cricket. Look at Bill Athey playing his strokes here. Not sure who the bowler called Marsh is, though. Geoff? Rodney? Jodie? Hackney?
1st over: India 6-0 (Rahane 5, Gambhir 1) Tim Bresnan opens the bowling in front of another sparse but lively crowd. Rahane survives a muted LBW appeal from the cordon (but not the bowler Bresnan) and then eases a lovely boundary through the covers. It was going down leg. "In my excitement at seeing Ian Ronald in the team, I have placed £2 on him being top run scorer today," says Piers Barclay. "I shall share the winnings with the other OBO readers at a to-be-confirmed pub later today. Clear your diaries!" If you make it Tooting Wetherspoons you could probably get a round in.
2nd over: India 12-0 (Rahane 6, Gambhir 6) It'll be Steven Finn to share the new ball. He's been bowling at 94mph in this series. It's the most eye-catching transformation since Plain Jane Superbrain took off her glasses, a plot twist that in no way obliterated whatever lingering hope hundreds of glasses-wearing teenagers had of ultimately finding true love. Mind you, these days she'd probably put on glasses to effect the transformation. Why is it that glasses became chic but other 1980s fashion crimes – braces, dungarees, string vests – didn't? Seems a bit unfair. Anyway, Gambhir steers Finn's second ball along the ground and between the two slips for four, prompting a teapot or two. Two balls later Finn beats Rahane with a storming delivery that lifts and seams past the outside edge. "On the Graham Gooch game, Athey was the bowler," says Bob O'Hara. "He & Gooch bowled a couple of wicked off-cutters on middle & leg though."
3rd over: India 16-0 (Rahane 10, Gambhir 6) Rahane times Bresnan down the ground for four, a delightful stroke. This boy has got something. A first-class average of 69.11, for a start. "When I have had a bad day at work, I like to treat myself to a nugget of that 2005 series on YouTube," says William Hardy. "In particular Harmison's slower ball to Clarke, which still gives me shivers. Still one of my top five sporting moments…."
4th over: India 17-0 (Rahane 10, Gambhir 7) Finn's pace is around 145kph, or 90mph. Gambhir, a supreme and slightly underrated one-day player, steals a single into the off side. That's the only run from a good over. "That Cricinfo Stats From The Past is brilliant," says Neil Withers. "One of the best analyses of different eras I've seen. Majestic. And it's interesting, if predictable and depressing, that the only England batsman to feature is Allan Lamb. Thinking about it though, I am marginally surprised that KP doesn't feature in the current players section..." Really? KP's record has faded over the years. Lamb, Fairbrother, Trescothick, Knight, Gower and Morgan have probably been our best ODI batsmen. Five left-handers. I don't know what the moral of that story is. Bring back Paul Nixon?
5th over: India 23-0 (Rahane 10, Gambhir 13) Gambhir cuts Bresnan towards third man, where a shoddy misfield from Meaker turns one into four. The camera cuts to Andy Flower, who was a helluva face on. You would not want to cross Andy Flower. "What about another cricket simulation game – Brian Lara 2008 from EA..." says Romee. "I used to score 500 in 20 overs for the loss of one or two wickets. A very Happy Diwali to all the Guardian readers...." Oh I just meant older games. I gave up on hope technology at the turn of the century.
6th over: India 29-0 (Rahane 16, Gambhir 13) Another gorgeous stroke from Rahane, who pushes Finn through extra cover for four with superb timing. It wasn't a bad ball at all; in fact Finn is bowling pretty well. "Park has always reminded me of a Kick Off 2 player," says Daniel Harris. "Unable to change direction, so running the ball straight into touch unless it's in between his feet."
7th over: India 32-0 (Rahane 17, Gambhir 15) Three from Bresnan's over. India are progressing serenely enough, and England's collective temper is again starting to fray a touch. Bresnan has just had a go at Rahane, and apparently Kieswetter had words with his teammate Patel.
8th over: India 35-0 (Rahane 18, Gambhir 17) Another good over Finn costs three. India aren't really in a hurry; they seem content with the score, safe in the knowledge that MS Dhoni will be in later to score 90 not out from about 15 balls.
9th over: India 37-0 (Rahane 19, Gambhir 18) Stuart Meaker replaces Tim Bresnan (4-0-19-0). He finds a full length straight away, and there are two singles from another low-key over.
10th over: India 41-0 (Rahane 23, Gambhir 18) "Ach!" screams Finn as he sends down a half-volley to Rahane, who tucks it splendidly through midwicket for four. Finn slips back into his mezzanine length after that, and Rahane is beaten by a good one outside off stump. Then he survives a biggish shout for LBW. It appeared to be going down leg, and looked a bit high as well. At least England haven't conceded any extras yet. Give everyone a lollipop. "I'm a little unsure of what to do with myself," says Michael Hunt, who can never quite remember those pesky White Stripes song titles. "The way this game goes is that you put up a grainy YouTube clip, I think 'Ha! As if they used to play cricket in the 20th century, look he's got mixed up and used the name of a commentator as if he was a cricketer!' and then we crack on with the cricket. This nostalgia for a time I remember, it just doesn't sit right. Can you dig a little deeper please? Pre-SA tour of England 2003 will do me. Ta." Howzis?
11th over: India 50-0 (Rahane 25, Gambhir 25) Samit Patel comes on for the first non-Powerplay over, and Gambhir opens the face to guide him expertly for four. He plays mediocre spin bowling in his sleep. Nine from the over. "The daddy of cricket video games is this one, but I can only find this picture rather than YouTube footage," says Alan White. "The Judge's leg spin was as good as his batting. Quite right too." The Judge tormenting everyone with leg spin? Now that's funny.
12th over: India 57-0 (Rahane 27, Gambhir 30) What a horrible piece of wicketkeeping from Craig Kieswetter. Gambhir edged a cut at Meaker to the left of Kieswetter, who actually dived past the ball and missed it by a fair way. It went between his hands and head for four. That looked awful. "Brian Lara Cricket 99 was the pinnacle of cricketing games, despite being entirely dependent on the commentators to judge your runs for you, due to the ball not showing up on the grass," says Andrew Jobson. "But every now and then they'd trick you; Aggers' voice saying 'there's runs here... there's a mix up with the batsmen... suicidal run out' still haunts my dreams."
13th over: India 60-0 (Rahane 27, Gambhir 33) A defensive push from Patel lands just short of the bowler Patel. Three from the over. "Why do you think this team has been so tetchy in the series?" says William Hardy. "Is it because they're losing? Are there particular Indian players that wind them up? Absence of Strauss?" A bit of all three I suppose. I haven't seen much of the series, but Raina and Kohli seem to wind them up. Mainly by hitting sixes at will. The extent to which England have been outplayed must have come as a bit of a shock to them, too.
14th over: India 65-0 (Rahane 29, Gambhir 34) Rahane clips Meaker through midwicket for two. England aren't bowling badly, but there's a crushing inevitability to all this. You know at least one and possible all three of Kohli, Raina and Dhoni are going to come off, and you know that England are probably going to be chasing something near 300. "By far the best cricket game ever devised was on the original Nintendo games system," says Paul Claxton. "Bowling consisted of using your directional buttons for swing and length. Batting was similar but you had the option of either button 'A' and button 'B'; 'A' for shots along the ground and 'B' for shots in the air. Very quickly my brother and I realised that basically 'right' and 'B' was the only shot worth playing. Unfortunately for me whilst the majority his shots sailed over the head of either my fine leg or deep square I managed to dolly everything to short leg. He'd get 2-90 off 5 overs and I'd be bowled out for 10. Simple yet brilliant game. Only bettered by Nintendo's Australian Rules Football game."
15th over: India 71-0 (Rahane 36, Gambhir 35) Rahane charges down the track to swipe a Patel full toss back over his head for four. "I completely forgot that this game was on, mostly because the ECB app on my phone claims there aren't any matches this week," says Kat Petersen. "That's active sticking-head-in-sand effort." It's been one of the more depressing series, and not just because England are being stuffed. Hopefully it will become memorable, as the first series to make the administrators realise what their indefensible greed is doing to the game.
16th over: India 77-0 (Rahane 41, Gambhir 36) England take their Powerplay, and Graeme Swann is coming on to bowl. That's unusual; he usually likes the comfort zone of non-Powerplay overs. His fourth ball is poor, short and wide, and Rahane lifts it easily over the covers for four. "During the heyday of England whitewashes in the 80's I worked alongside a gang of West Indian cleaners and labourers," says Ian Burch. "Their joy & laughter at England's pitiful attempts to make a game of any Test match was only matched by misery. Many fond memories of us listening to TMS while they smashed dominoes thru the mess room tables. Happy whitewash days indeed." Only an England cricket fan could use the phrase "heyday of whitewashes". Brilliant.
17th over: India 80-0 (Rahane 42, Gambhir 38) England's Powerplay expert Tim Bresnan comes back in place of Meaker (3-0-14-0), and his last ball is a good one that beats Rahane's attempted glide to third man.
WICKET! India 80-1 (Gambhir b Finn 38) Finn replaces Swann and strikes with his first ball when Gambhir drags an attempted glide back onto the stumps. It was a good delivery from Finn that came back off the seam and cramped him for room.
WICKET! India 80-2 (Kohli b Finn 0) This is majestic bowling from Steven Finn. He pinned Kohli down right from the start with a series of accurate deliveries, and then the last ball of the over jagged back sharply to hit the top of off stump as Kohli offered no stroke. This may have been a dog of a series for England, but the development of Finn is seriously exciting.
18th over: India 80-2 (Rahane 42, Tiwary 0) A double-wicket maiden for Finn. "Speaking of The Judge…" says Piers Barclay, inexplicably missing an opportunity to link to Judge John Deed. "Around 3.53 is just lovely."
WICKET! India 80-3 (Rahane c Kieswetter b Bresnan 42) A wonderful catch from Craig Kieswetter! Rahane threw a big drive at Bresnan, with the ball flying off the edge to the right of Kieswetter. He dived full length to take a superb one-handed catch. India have lost three wickets for no runs in 10 balls.
19th over: India 81-3 (Tiwary 0, Raina 1) "Morning Rob, morning everybody," says Guy Hornsby. "All this nostalgia for one-day players of the golden age segues nicely into my film choice last night. I saw Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which was a wonderful evocation of cold-war era espionage with its washed-out colours and slow-burning plot. Like watching a Test match from the same decade: all 1.9 run-rates, thick-set men with moustaches, mutual dislike twinned with grudging respect. I actually expected Fred Trueman to wander through the shot in the flashbacks. This series, even devoid of excitement, seems a little brash in comparison."
20th over: India 81-3 (Tiwary 0, Raina 1) England have used this bowling Powerplay as they usually use their batting Powerplay: to produce a clatter of wickets for not many runs. Finn starts the last over of the Powerplay to his old chum Raina, who fiddles dangerously at a wide one and misses. Another maiden from the excellent Finn, who has figures of 2-2-0-2 in this spell. "Are India trying to make a match of this?" says Anand.
21th over: India 81-3 (Tiwary 0, Raina 1) With India gasping for air, Cook brings on Ravi Bopara in place of Tim Bresnan. You can understand why – he needs Bresnan's last four overs for the death – but equally, you suspect Australia would have gone for one more wicket. Still, it's a good first over from Bopara, a maiden to Tiwary. In the last four overs India have scored one run for the loss of three wickets. They're an England tribute band. "I've come to this rather late this morning due to my work getting in the way of my OBO-ing, and realise the conversation has likely moved on, but Kick Off 2 World Cup!?" says Glenn Cawston. "Genius. Why didn't I already know about this? There are certain criteria that need to met, however, namely:
1 This must be the Amiga version, not the abhorrent ST attempt
B It must also include the Amiga 1MB upgrade, to allow the utterly pointless (and massively buggy) ref and linesmen
If either of these conditions aren't met, I'm taking my Quickshot II turbo and going home…"
22nd over: India 91-3 (Tiwary 5, Raina 6) That should have been another wicket for Finn, but Swann dropped a sitter at second slip. Raina edged a good one from around the wicket, and the crouching Swann put down the sort of chance he would take approximately 37 times out of 38. Raina is not the kind of man you want to drop, and he responds by slapping the next ball in the air and past the diving point for four. This is a fascinating contest between two feisty blokes who probably aren't friends on Facebook. When Raina gets off strike later in the over, Tiwary skims a drive past backward point for four more. That drop has changed the mood of the innings. Finn punches the air and boots the ground at the end of the over before leaving the field for a break. He has the face on all right.
23rd over: India 98-3 (Tiwary 7, Raina 11) Raina muscles Bopara off the pads and over midwicket for four. He is such a dangerous player. You really don't want to be dropping him on 1. "Just read the retro MBM you linked to," says Chris Drew. "Remember the night well, having lugged a portable TV into the nightschool where I was working. Only one thing missing – comments from Gary Naylor! Surely we can't have an OBO/MBM without a Naylorsian interjection?" We did think about adding Naylor emails. You could email on the ZX81, right?
24th over: India 107-3 (Tiwary 15, Raina 11) Finn is back on the field but comes out of the attack, with Meaker replacing him. As Sanjay Manjrekar says, they need to keep Finn's two overs so that he can attack MS Dhoni when he comes to the crease. Meaker strays onto the pads of Tiwary, who touches him fine for four. Two balls later he reaches outside off to skim a push past point for another boundary. Since that dropped catch, India have scored 26 from 17 balls. Before it they had scored 1 from 25. "I fondly remember this game from the BBC during the 2001 Ashes – I think I only completed the hardest scenario once!" says Neil Withers. "But try as I might I can't find the safari-themed cartoon cricket game (starring a lion called Steve Roar and maybe a hyena called Shyand Afraidi among the more memorable 'comedy' names) that I was addicted to during the 2003 World Cup. If anyone OBOers with superior Google skillz can help me out, I'd be much obliged."
25th over: India 113-3 (Tiwary 16, Raina 16) Raina drives Bopara on the up through extra cover for four, an emphatic and brilliant stroke. Bopara has a big LBW shout turned down next ball. I think it pitched outside leg. "Not wanting to rain on anyone's bonfire – I'd like to think of it more as an affirmation of the old England – but I thought you might like to know that with reference to Robin Smith's 167*, well, we lost that one," says Rob Lee-Davey. "Comfortably." Indeed. Could have won the series 3-0 and lost it 3-0. That might seem typically English but it was actually out of character at the time. England were superb at home in ODIs for most of the 1990s; almost unbeatable in fact. Which made the World Cup fiasco all the more galling.
26th over: India 116-3 (Tiwary 18, Raina 17) "I read the Retro MBM (looking forward to the 1987 FA Cup Final one), and thought the same thing about the lack of Naylorisation," says George Wright. "Surely our Gary wouldn't be above striding over to the fax machine to send some pith via this new-fangled technical wizardry?"
27th over: India 123-3 (Tiwary 24, Raina 17) Swann replaces Bopara (3-1-13-0), and Tiwary steers him exquisitely wide of short third man for four. He played that shot incredibly late. If he'd played it any later it would have been off the next delivery. "Craig Kieswetter is cricket's David James isn't he?" says Gary Naylor, via carrier pigeon. "With one more international trophy, I suppose." I was going to mention Le Tournoi, but James wasn't in the squad, was he? That was his PlayStation phase.
WICKET! India 123-4 (Tiwary c Kieswetter b Meaker 24) Meaker strikes. Tiwary fiddled outside off stump at a length delivery that held its line, and England went straight up for the caught behind. Billy Bowden agreed, so Tiwary is on his way. It's hard to tell on replays whether he nicked it or not, although England were certain in their appeal. There was a noise too. I reckon that's a fair decision.
28th over: India 127-4 (Raina 17, Dhoni 4) The new batsman is the magnificent MS Dhoni. Will England bring Finn back? Dhoni clips his second ball in the air and carefully wide of short midwicket for four. By the way, Snickometer also suggests that Tiwary got the thinnest of edges. "I suspect there's a large positive correlation between Finn's development into our best bowler this series and the large amount of county cricket he played this summer," says Lizzy Ammon. True, although that doesn't mean it's applicable for everyone. You surely need to have a courses-for-horses approach.
29th over: India 131-4 (Raina 20, Dhoni 6) England have nobody around the bat when Swann is bowling to Dhoni, to the understandable chagrin of Beefy and Bumble in the Sky box. They need to get Dhoni before he gets in. "I think it is in England's own safety that they concede some runs now," says Anand. "The Calcutta crowd is not known to take disappointments lightly."
30th over: India 135-4 (Raina 20, Dhoni 10) Meaker continues. Cook might be letting the tortoise get away from him here. missing a trick here. Dhoni slaps a shortish delivery up and over point for four. He looks pretty ominous, already. "Good point about England's 90's ODI side, it seemed we were never the same once Texaco dropped their sponsorship," says Rob Lee-Davey. "Just one thing though - your comment '...which made the World Cup fiasco all the more galling' - could you clarify which one ? Arguably, there were two in the 90s alone, but since then we have managed another three. A splendidly consistent effort when you think about it really." I meant the one at home, in 1999. I like your absurdly generous use of 'arguably', though. (I also don't think 2003 deserves to be bracketed alongside 1996, 1999 and 2007; they played pretty well in that tournament. I can't really decide whether 2011 was a fiasco or not; if it was, it was at least an enjoyable one, unlike the others.)
31st over: India 140-4 (Raina 22, Dhoni 13) Five from Swann's over. Swann isn't in a great mood at all.
32nd over: India 146-4 (Raina 27, Dhoni 14) It's hard to understand England's tactics to Dhoni. They could only have made life easier for him at the start of his innings by bringing on Ravi Bopara. They are now bringing on Ravi Bopara. Raina flicks him over backward square leg for four. Of course he does. BLOODY HELL ENGLAND.
33rd over: India 148-4 (Raina 28, Dhoni 15) Swann's got a real face on. Maybe he's heard his book isn't on sale in Sainsbury's or Tesco, I don't know. That was a better over, though, just two from it. That's drinks.
34th over: India 151-4 (Raina 30, Dhoni 16) The new bowler Patel is milked for three singles.
35th over: India 152-4 (Raina 31, Dhoni 16) One from Swann's over, and now it's time for the batting Powerplay.
36th over: India 161-4 (Raina 38, Dhoni 17) Finn bowls the first Powerplay over, and Raina inside-edges just past his off stump. Then he edges through the vacant slip area for four, to Finn's not inconsiderable frustration. Finn really is ticking. At the other end Dhoni is still fairly passive. His ability to make up for lost balls later in the innings – and his absolute conviction that he will do so – is staggering. That certainty is one of the hallmarks of the greatest finishers. "Has Swanny's book had an impact on England's morale?" says Gary Naylor. "There's an irony in the ECB's central contract system's powers to excuse players from domestic cricket allowing them the time to gossip to a ghost and produce a book. With all the attention to detail Team England management bring to the er... party, it's surprising that players are allowed to write books while still under contract." I very much doubt it's affected morale, but I do agree that current players shouldn't write books – they either say nothing, which robs the public, or they say something and the media sensationalise it. There's no point taking the risk of the latter affecting morale.
WICKET! India 162-5 (Raina run out 38) In the summer Suresh Raina kept falling to the bouncing ball. This time a bouncing bat has done for him. He took a sharp single to square leg off Tim Bresnan, and Ravi Bopara's excellent throw to the non-striker's end hit the stumps. Raina's dive had taken him over the line, but his bat bounced up and he was rightly given out after a number of replays. It also saved England five runs, as the ball had ricocheted to the boundary. That's a vital wicket.
37th over: India 162-5 (Dhoni 18, Jadeja 0) England are in danger of winning this game.
38th over: India 170-5 (Dhoni 19, Jadeja 7) Jadeja squirts his first ball, from Finn, past backward point for four. Finn ends with good figures of 10-2-47-2. He has surely been England's man of the series.
39th over: India 174-5 (Dhoni 20, Jadeja 10) Dhoni is still playing fairly cautiously, even though we're in a Powerplay, and a single off Bresnan takes him to 20 off 39 balls. Jadeja is beaten by a fine reverse-swinging lifter before slamming an uppish drive just wide of the leaping Bopara at extra cover for two.
40th over: India 180-5 (Dhoni 20, Jadeja 16) Jadeja redeems an otherwise poor over for India by dragging Meaker's final delivery through square leg for four. "Are England making a mistake by not bowling Swann in Powerplays?" says Anand. "He is an attacking spinner and should actually relish the power plays. It is quite strange why very good off spinners (Swann and Murali) are averse to bowling in power plays whereas a tyro like Ashwin relishes it." It is odd, but there's no point asking him to do it if it's something with which he's uncomfortable. It's like a penalty shoot out; you need people who are willing (if not always able).
41st over: India 184-5 (Dhoni 22, Jadeja 18) Swann comes on for Bresnan. Still no murderous intent from India, with four low-risk singles from the over. "If England actually win this I can justify sacking off the gym to watch the highlights so can Swann stop being in a strop, Cook get a decent score and Bopara bowl India out and score a yon so he can escape being dropped," says Lori McConnachie. "Pleasethanks." Is a 'yon' where you reach double figures?
42nd over: India 187-5 (Dhoni 23, Jadeja 20) It's slightly unnerving, waiting for Dhoni to open his shoulders. It's like being at the mercy of the school bully, wondering precisely when he's going to punch you in the face*. Not in that over from Patel, which yields three singles.
* Not that I'd know what it's like to be at the mercy of Karl Wilson the school bully.
43rd over: India 203-5 (Dhoni 38, Jadeja 21) And so it begins: MS Dhoni gives Swann the charge and drives him for a huge six down the ground. Two balls later he does it again, this time swiping a monstrous six over wide long on. His bat-speed is just devastating. Sixteen from the over, and already Dhoni is up to 38 from 50 balls. "I agree to a certain extent with your penalty shoot-out analogy," says Anand. "However, the downside of Swann bowling now is that he has lesser chances of getting a wicket as the field is spread out and the majority of the wickets are going to come from mishit slogs to cow corner. Apart from Saqlain Mustaq who had a great doosra, almost all other offies have been carted around in the slog overs. Maybe one of the missing pieces of the puzzle that is England's ODI team is to try and get Swann to bowl when he has maximum chances of a wicket (Powerplays) which will ensure that the full and fast bowlers get to bowl the bulk of the slog overs." That's true, and Swann's apparent reticence is a little odd as he seems to relish it when someone goes after him in a Test match.
WICKET! India 206-6 (Jadeja c Bell b Patel 21) Jadeja drags a wider delivery from Patel to midwicket, where Bell takes a fine diving catch. It's not the wicket England needed, but it's still a good breakthrough as it exposes the lower order.
44th over: India 207-6 (Dhoni 41, Ashwin 1) Good work from Samit Patel: four runs, and the wicket.
45th over: India 211-6 (Dhoni 42, Ashwin 3) Cook does not risk another Swann over, turning instead to Meaker. He manages to keep Ashwin on strike for almost all of the over, with just four from it.
WICKET! India 215-7 (Ashwin c Bairstow b Patel 7) Ashwin drives Patel straight to long off, where Bairstow takes a routine catch. At least it puts Dhoni on strike; he has faced only one of the last 10 deliveries.
46th over: India 218-7 (Dhoni 43, P Kumar 2) "Watching the post-season baseball from the US, bat-speed seems even more important than in one-day cricket – surely a county of Team England might want to bring a slugging coach in as a consultant?" says Gary Naylor. "They throw bloody hard too (though I know that cricket borrowed baseball throwing techniques a generation or so ago)."
47th over: India 226-7 (Dhoni 45, P Kumar 8) Praveen Kumar blasts Bresnan over the leaping extra cover for four. That's the only boundary from the over, with Dhoni – for now – happy to take just a single off every ball he faces.
48th over: India 232-7 (Dhoni 48, P Kumar 9) A crafty, boundaryless over from Patel. Dhoni has now scored more than 300 runs since his last dismissal. Given the nature of the game, that must be very close to an ODI record. In fact, it's nowhere near: Bull tells me that Mohammad Yousuf managed 405 runs without being dismissed in 2002, albeit against Zimbabwe. At the same time, Sanjay Manjrekar tells us that Dhoni has just broken the Indian record, which was held by Ajay Jadeja.
49th over: India 253-7 (Dhoni 63, P Kumar 10) The penultimate over of the innings from Meaker disappears for 21! Dhoni reaches his inevitable fifty by spanking a wide delivery over extra cover for four, and then a slower bouncer goes right through Kieswetter to the boundary. To compound England's misery, it is called wide. It's a very costly wide, because Dhoni drives the extra delivery miles over long on for six! What an astonishing finisher this man is.
WICKET! India 259-8 (P Kumar c Bairstow b Patel 16) Kumar smears the first ball of the final over for six and then holes out to long on, where Bairstow takes a beautifully judged catch. The good news for England is that they have saved six runs; the bad news is that MS Dhoni is on strike with four balls remaining.
50th over: India 271-8 (Dhoni 75, V Kumar 0) Dhoni scores 12 from the last four balls of the innings, which makes it 18 from the over and 41 from the last two overs. The penultimate delivery was swiped miles down the ground for six, and Dhoni ended with 75 from 69 balls. It was yet another awesome performance. At one stage he had 25 from 43 balls, so he hit 50 from the last 26 – and the best thing of all is that we all knew he was going to do it. He makes the improbable inevitable, and you suspect he has made an Indian victory inevitable. England need 272 to win. Andy Bull will be with you for their reply.
INNINGS BREAK Thanks for your emails. I'll leave you with this from Kieron Shaw:
Can I put across the controversial opinion that this has been a good series for England? I'm happy with what I'm seeing anyway.
We all know that Cook is being groomed as Test captain; but it's no use having a young captain who gets airlifted into a winning side when Strauss retires in 2014, and has no clue how to manage during tough circumstances. (Witness Dhoni in England this summer; Ponting in 2009-10; etc.) In losing, and in having to navigate the fierce cauldrons of Indian grounds, he will learn more from this series about tactical and man management than he will from a thousand training grounds. He already is.
Finn's beginning to look like the real deal. And he, Bresnan, and all the bowlers are just starting to grasp how to bowl in the subcontinent. Like the proverbial bike riding, that will stay with them. Given that they will form the backbone of ODI (and possibly Test) attacks for the coming years, that's valuable learning. And we've given all the other future options – Bairstow, Borthwick, Meaker, etc. – a real chance to get their teeth stuck in too.
I know the "building for the future line" is often a rather fatuous and unconvincing line trotted out by losing sides. But I think, given the thoughtful and meticulous way England are managed these days, that's exactly what we're witnessing. The XI (or at least the core squad) of the next 4-5 years is being given their stripes, ugly as the results might be at times.
2011年10月25日星期二
2011年10月19日星期三
The MALE biological clock: After 41 your chances of becoming a father 'declines rapidly'
It is not just women that have to worry about their biological clock.
Male fertility declines with age – with even a year making a difference, researchers have warned.
They say that after the age of 41, a man’s odds of fathering a child decline rapidly.
And after 45, those who haven’t started a family and want one should start doing something about it.
But with the likes of Des O’Connor having his fifth child at 72, and Rod Stewart becoming father for the eighth time at the age of 66, other experts said the finding should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The warning comes from a study of IVF patients in which the man’s sperm fertilised an egg from a donor.
In the context of the study, the use of donor eggs allowed the researchers to separate out the effect of the man’s age from that of the woman’s.
The donor eggs all came from young, healthy women and so any differences in pregnancy rate must be due to the sperm.
And the difference was clear, with fertility declining by up to seven per cent with each extra year on a man’s age between 41 and 45. After that, it declined even more rapidly.
The average age of the men whose partners got treatment through IVF was 41.
But the average age of those in which the IVF was unsuccessful was 45, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s annual conference heard.
The chances of pregnancy fell from 60 per cent at the age of 41 to just 35 per cent for the 45-year-olds.
Researcher Paula Fettback, of the Huntington Medicina Reproductiva clinic in Brazil, said: ‘Age counts
‘Men have a biological clock too. It is not the same as for women but they can’ t wait forever to have children.
‘They have to think about having children, especially after 45.’
A second study presented at the conference backed up the warning.
There, fertility plummeted in male mice from a year old – equivalent to middle-age in people.
Fewer eggs were fertilised and fewer embryos grew long enough to be used in IVF.
Pregnancies took longer to occur and when they did, the miscarriage rate rocketed from zero using sperm from young animals, to over 60 per cent.
The researchers, from the Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, said they believed there would be ‘some parallel’ with men.
‘We found an abrupt reproductive deterioration in mid-life, equivalent to humans in their 40s.’
Other studies have found that children of older fathers also run an increased risk of heart defects, autism, schizophrenia and epilepsy, and are almost twice as likely to die before adulthood.
While men constantly make fresh sperm, the ‘machinery’ that makes it can slow down and become defective over time. In addition, genetic errors may creep into sperm as men get older.
But other experts said advised would-be fathers not to worry.
Dr Richard Sherbahn, of the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago, said that while it is likely that male fertility does decline, any difference is likely to be just a few per cent over decades.
He added that IVF can compensate for many problems in sperm, in a way that it can’t with eggs.
Charles Kingsland, a consultant gynaecologist at the Liverpool Women’s Hospital and member of the British Fertility Society, questioned the quality of the study and added that the quality of a woman’s eggs is far more important.
He advised men who want to stay in good reproductive shape to eat healthily, not smoke, drink only in moderation, keep active and avoid hot baths, as sperm likes cool temperatures.
He added: ‘There are a lot of advantages to being a young father. First and foremost, you’ve got energy. But being an older father also confers certain advantages – stability, wisdom, maybe a bit of financial security but you don’t have the energy.
‘I wouldn’t go rushing off to procreate on the basis that tomorrow my fertility might drop.’
Male fertility declines with age – with even a year making a difference, researchers have warned.
They say that after the age of 41, a man’s odds of fathering a child decline rapidly.
And after 45, those who haven’t started a family and want one should start doing something about it.
But with the likes of Des O’Connor having his fifth child at 72, and Rod Stewart becoming father for the eighth time at the age of 66, other experts said the finding should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The warning comes from a study of IVF patients in which the man’s sperm fertilised an egg from a donor.
In the context of the study, the use of donor eggs allowed the researchers to separate out the effect of the man’s age from that of the woman’s.
The donor eggs all came from young, healthy women and so any differences in pregnancy rate must be due to the sperm.
And the difference was clear, with fertility declining by up to seven per cent with each extra year on a man’s age between 41 and 45. After that, it declined even more rapidly.
The average age of the men whose partners got treatment through IVF was 41.
But the average age of those in which the IVF was unsuccessful was 45, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s annual conference heard.
The chances of pregnancy fell from 60 per cent at the age of 41 to just 35 per cent for the 45-year-olds.
Researcher Paula Fettback, of the Huntington Medicina Reproductiva clinic in Brazil, said: ‘Age counts
‘Men have a biological clock too. It is not the same as for women but they can’ t wait forever to have children.
‘They have to think about having children, especially after 45.’
A second study presented at the conference backed up the warning.
There, fertility plummeted in male mice from a year old – equivalent to middle-age in people.
Fewer eggs were fertilised and fewer embryos grew long enough to be used in IVF.
Pregnancies took longer to occur and when they did, the miscarriage rate rocketed from zero using sperm from young animals, to over 60 per cent.
The researchers, from the Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, said they believed there would be ‘some parallel’ with men.
‘We found an abrupt reproductive deterioration in mid-life, equivalent to humans in their 40s.’
Other studies have found that children of older fathers also run an increased risk of heart defects, autism, schizophrenia and epilepsy, and are almost twice as likely to die before adulthood.
While men constantly make fresh sperm, the ‘machinery’ that makes it can slow down and become defective over time. In addition, genetic errors may creep into sperm as men get older.
But other experts said advised would-be fathers not to worry.
Dr Richard Sherbahn, of the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago, said that while it is likely that male fertility does decline, any difference is likely to be just a few per cent over decades.
He added that IVF can compensate for many problems in sperm, in a way that it can’t with eggs.
Charles Kingsland, a consultant gynaecologist at the Liverpool Women’s Hospital and member of the British Fertility Society, questioned the quality of the study and added that the quality of a woman’s eggs is far more important.
He advised men who want to stay in good reproductive shape to eat healthily, not smoke, drink only in moderation, keep active and avoid hot baths, as sperm likes cool temperatures.
He added: ‘There are a lot of advantages to being a young father. First and foremost, you’ve got energy. But being an older father also confers certain advantages – stability, wisdom, maybe a bit of financial security but you don’t have the energy.
‘I wouldn’t go rushing off to procreate on the basis that tomorrow my fertility might drop.’
2011年10月17日星期一
From ‘Frasier’ to Filthy
Kelsey Grammer is talking, of all things, about dismembered ears. Never mind whose ears they were; it’s what Grammer’s latest TV iteration does with them that counts. With cool confidence, the mighty mayor of Chicago he plays on his new TV series, Boss, shoves the pair down his garbage disposal and then casually mentions to his wife that they need a plumber.
Ruthless and twisted? Sure. But this is the kind of role the comedy giant has coveted for a decade. The scene, which comes early in the new Starz show (premiering Oct. 21 at 10 p.m.), leaves no room for conjecture about who his character, Mayor Tom Kane, is as a human being or a leader. He also stomps around with rage, shouts at his enemies, and is impenetrable to his underlings. As a man who has overcome formidable personal demons himself, Grammer says he is careful not to let Kane (seen below with his wife, played by Connie Nielsen) bleed into his psyche.
“I’m not one of those guys that draws on his personal experiences to fill a character,” Grammer says during a recent interview at Casa del Mar in Santa Monica, Calif. “I kind of just let my imagination grasp what it would feel like and then try to play it. I do worry, though, sometimes, like when I played Macbeth [on Broadway], because he’s so dark that it can affect your personal life.”
Just in case, before Grammer filmed the pivotal kitchen scene in the first episode, he stopped and “prayed a little bit.” After admitting that, he bursts out laughing and adds, “Of course, it’s always a little fun, too.”
As you might expect, the man who played Frasier Crane for 20 years enjoys a good laugh, and his is full and robust. But Grammer possesses a profundity that departs widely from his TV-sitcom persona and is in step with a human being who has faced several life-changing traumas. By the time he turned 25, Grammer had lost his estranged father to murder; his younger sister to rape and murder; and his two half-brothers to an accidental drowning. Turbulence followed him well into adulthood and middle age, even as he hit career gold with Cheers and its spinoff Frasier. Grammer, now a recovering cocaine addict and alcoholic, was arrested twice in the ’80s and ’90s for possession and drunken driving. At 56, he’s been married four times and has four children.
“Usually what f--ks up somebody or messes them up is enough for them,” Grammer says. “Everybody’s got their things that shape them, shift them, or turn them one way or another. And I had plenty of mine.”
In 2008 a heart attack shook his personal and professional worlds. The combination of the stress of a failed TV show (Fox’s comedy Back to You) and marital problems had taxed his system, he says. As he recovered, Grammer assessed the rest of his life, which led to the revelation that he no longer wanted to be married to his third wife, Camille Grammer, the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star and mother of his two young children. Their divorce and subsequent custody fight has kept the Grammer family in the tabloids for more than a year, as Camille learned of Grammer’s wishes and new relationship while filming her Bravo TV show.
“I realized that for the years we were together, it was functioning, it worked, but there was something missing. I realized it was not going to change after my heart attack,” says Grammer, who married Kayte Walsh last year, a couple of weeks after his divorce was final. “I stayed another two years, but I realized at that point that it wasn’t the last story I wanted to tell with my life. It just took me some courage to finally get the gumption up enough to make a move and change things.”
A sense of honesty also attracted Grammer to his new role. In playing the power-addicted Chicago mayor who learns he is dying from a degenerative brain disease, Grammer says he had to shut off all self-awareness. The opening scene of the series focuses entirely on Mayor Kane as he receives the devastating news from a doctor who monotonously runs down the litany of symptoms. Designed by creator and executive producer Farhad Safinia to erase all traces of Frasier Crane from the minds of viewers, the scene elicits a stirring performance by Grammer.
“It’s the first time I’m not really concerned about how I look when I do it,” Grammer says. “I hate it when actors start talking about their emotions and their equipment like we know the answers to all the world’s problems. This is just my job, and this job asked that I not watch myself. I never borrow from my personal life to perform. What happens if everything is good and things are firing on all the right cylinders, my personal life will just come along for the ride ... But if you can’t separate yourself from your character, then you’re probably crazy.”
This, from the man who readily admits that Frasier Crane is not completely gone.
“I’m still that way around the house,” he says, laughing. “There are times when my delivery to the dogs reminds me of Frasier.” He looks down at the floor, imagining he’s speaking to his pups: “‘Oh, really? Did we have to do that today?’ I’m still him.”
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Maria Elena Fernandez is a senior entertainment reporter for Newsweek/The Daily Beast. She previously covered television and nightlife for the Los Angeles Times and spent many years on the crime beat, writing for The Washington Post and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She also worked at the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, where she covered the AIDS epidemic. Her children's book, The Secret of Fern Island, was published in 1996 under a pseudonym so that she wouldn't be stalked by screaming children.
Ruthless and twisted? Sure. But this is the kind of role the comedy giant has coveted for a decade. The scene, which comes early in the new Starz show (premiering Oct. 21 at 10 p.m.), leaves no room for conjecture about who his character, Mayor Tom Kane, is as a human being or a leader. He also stomps around with rage, shouts at his enemies, and is impenetrable to his underlings. As a man who has overcome formidable personal demons himself, Grammer says he is careful not to let Kane (seen below with his wife, played by Connie Nielsen) bleed into his psyche.
“I’m not one of those guys that draws on his personal experiences to fill a character,” Grammer says during a recent interview at Casa del Mar in Santa Monica, Calif. “I kind of just let my imagination grasp what it would feel like and then try to play it. I do worry, though, sometimes, like when I played Macbeth [on Broadway], because he’s so dark that it can affect your personal life.”
Just in case, before Grammer filmed the pivotal kitchen scene in the first episode, he stopped and “prayed a little bit.” After admitting that, he bursts out laughing and adds, “Of course, it’s always a little fun, too.”
As you might expect, the man who played Frasier Crane for 20 years enjoys a good laugh, and his is full and robust. But Grammer possesses a profundity that departs widely from his TV-sitcom persona and is in step with a human being who has faced several life-changing traumas. By the time he turned 25, Grammer had lost his estranged father to murder; his younger sister to rape and murder; and his two half-brothers to an accidental drowning. Turbulence followed him well into adulthood and middle age, even as he hit career gold with Cheers and its spinoff Frasier. Grammer, now a recovering cocaine addict and alcoholic, was arrested twice in the ’80s and ’90s for possession and drunken driving. At 56, he’s been married four times and has four children.
“Usually what f--ks up somebody or messes them up is enough for them,” Grammer says. “Everybody’s got their things that shape them, shift them, or turn them one way or another. And I had plenty of mine.”
In 2008 a heart attack shook his personal and professional worlds. The combination of the stress of a failed TV show (Fox’s comedy Back to You) and marital problems had taxed his system, he says. As he recovered, Grammer assessed the rest of his life, which led to the revelation that he no longer wanted to be married to his third wife, Camille Grammer, the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star and mother of his two young children. Their divorce and subsequent custody fight has kept the Grammer family in the tabloids for more than a year, as Camille learned of Grammer’s wishes and new relationship while filming her Bravo TV show.
“I realized that for the years we were together, it was functioning, it worked, but there was something missing. I realized it was not going to change after my heart attack,” says Grammer, who married Kayte Walsh last year, a couple of weeks after his divorce was final. “I stayed another two years, but I realized at that point that it wasn’t the last story I wanted to tell with my life. It just took me some courage to finally get the gumption up enough to make a move and change things.”
A sense of honesty also attracted Grammer to his new role. In playing the power-addicted Chicago mayor who learns he is dying from a degenerative brain disease, Grammer says he had to shut off all self-awareness. The opening scene of the series focuses entirely on Mayor Kane as he receives the devastating news from a doctor who monotonously runs down the litany of symptoms. Designed by creator and executive producer Farhad Safinia to erase all traces of Frasier Crane from the minds of viewers, the scene elicits a stirring performance by Grammer.
“It’s the first time I’m not really concerned about how I look when I do it,” Grammer says. “I hate it when actors start talking about their emotions and their equipment like we know the answers to all the world’s problems. This is just my job, and this job asked that I not watch myself. I never borrow from my personal life to perform. What happens if everything is good and things are firing on all the right cylinders, my personal life will just come along for the ride ... But if you can’t separate yourself from your character, then you’re probably crazy.”
This, from the man who readily admits that Frasier Crane is not completely gone.
“I’m still that way around the house,” he says, laughing. “There are times when my delivery to the dogs reminds me of Frasier.” He looks down at the floor, imagining he’s speaking to his pups: “‘Oh, really? Did we have to do that today?’ I’m still him.”
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Maria Elena Fernandez is a senior entertainment reporter for Newsweek/The Daily Beast. She previously covered television and nightlife for the Los Angeles Times and spent many years on the crime beat, writing for The Washington Post and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She also worked at the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, where she covered the AIDS epidemic. Her children's book, The Secret of Fern Island, was published in 1996 under a pseudonym so that she wouldn't be stalked by screaming children.
2011年10月13日星期四
Romney: China must respect the free-trade system
The feckless economic policies of the Obama administration have resulted in a 10 percent decline in our median income, persistent unemployment above 8 percent and collapsing home and asset values.
Understandably, some ask whether we should abandon the economic principles behind our historic prosperity. Should government redistribute wealth? Is free enterprise a flawed system? Should we abandon free trade? No, no and no. Redistribution is what once impoverished China and the Soviet Union. Free enterprise is the only permanent cure for poverty. Free trade has the demonstrated ability to make the people of both trading nations more prosperous.
ut for free enterprise and free trade to work their magic, laws and rules that guide the participants are essential to prevent distortions and abuses. If the rules are modern and dynamic, enterprise can thrive. If they are burdensome and antiquated, enterprise will stall. For rules to be effective, of course, all players must abide by them. The incentive to cheat can be enormous. So is the harm that cheating can cause.
China is a case in point. Having embraced free enterprise to some degree, the Chinese government and Chinese companies have quickly divined the benefits of ignoring the rules followed by others. China seeks advantage through systematic exploitation of other economies. It misappropriates intellectual property by coercing “technology transfers” as a condition of market access; enables theft of intellectual property, including patents, designs and know-how; hacks into foreign commercial and government computers; favors and subsidizes domestic producers over foreign competitors; and manipulates its currency to artificially reduce the price of its goods and services abroad.
The result is that China sells high-quality products to the United States at low prices. But too often the source of that high quality is American innovations stolen by Chinese companies. And the source of those low prices is too often subsidies from the Chinese government or manipulation of the Chinese currency.
Some argue that access to quality goods at low prices are good for our consumers. But like the predatory pricing prohibited under our antitrust laws, China’s underpriced products lead to an undesirable and inefficient elimination of competing businesses, with serious long-term consequences. And in this case, the businesses killed are often our own. Meanwhile, American companies do not even get the supposed benefit of the free-trade bargain: When they try to do business in the Chinese market, they find policies designed to shut them out.
Candidate Obama talked tough about China’s trade policies; President Obama has whispered about them. China smiles, diverts attention by criticizing the United States and merrily continues to eat our economic lunch. Who can blame the Chinese for ignoring our timid complaints when the status quo has served them so well?
Actually doing something about China’s cheating makes some people nervous. Not doing something makes me nervous. We are warned that we might precipitate a trade war. Really? China is selling us $273 billion per year more than America is selling China — why would it possibly want a trade war?
And what is the alternative to confronting China? It is allowing the Chinese to take by trade surrender what we fear to lose in trade war.
Consider, too, that cheating is contagious. What China gets away with, other emerging economies may emulate. As these countries account for an ever larger share of the global economy, the consequences for the rule-following nations would grow even more intolerable. The result could be permanent damage to the international trading system.
In short, if one is genuinely committed to free trade, one must also be genuinely committed to ending abuses of its principles.
If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, I will work to fundamentally alter our economic relationship with China. As I describe in my economic plan, I will begin on Day One by designating China as the currency manipulator it is.
More important, I will take a holistic approach to addressing all of China’s abuses. That includes unilateral actions such as increased enforcement of U.S. trade laws, punitive measures targeting products and industries that rely on misappropriations of our intellectual property, reciprocity in government procurement, and countervailing duties against currency manipulation. It also includes multilateral actions to block technology transfers into China and to create a trading bloc open only for nations genuinely committed to free trade.
Free trade is one of the most powerful forces for peace and prosperity the world has ever known. Free trade forges stronger relationships between nations and their peoples. It connects new business ideas with willing consumers. And it strengthens the competition that leads to innovation, efficiency and, ultimately, economic growth and job creation. When one nation is allowed to game the system, however, significant harm can outweigh the expected benefit. To preserve free trade, we must have the courage of our convictions to defend not only its principles but also its practice.
The writer was governor of Massachusetts from 2002 through 2006 and is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
Understandably, some ask whether we should abandon the economic principles behind our historic prosperity. Should government redistribute wealth? Is free enterprise a flawed system? Should we abandon free trade? No, no and no. Redistribution is what once impoverished China and the Soviet Union. Free enterprise is the only permanent cure for poverty. Free trade has the demonstrated ability to make the people of both trading nations more prosperous.
ut for free enterprise and free trade to work their magic, laws and rules that guide the participants are essential to prevent distortions and abuses. If the rules are modern and dynamic, enterprise can thrive. If they are burdensome and antiquated, enterprise will stall. For rules to be effective, of course, all players must abide by them. The incentive to cheat can be enormous. So is the harm that cheating can cause.
China is a case in point. Having embraced free enterprise to some degree, the Chinese government and Chinese companies have quickly divined the benefits of ignoring the rules followed by others. China seeks advantage through systematic exploitation of other economies. It misappropriates intellectual property by coercing “technology transfers” as a condition of market access; enables theft of intellectual property, including patents, designs and know-how; hacks into foreign commercial and government computers; favors and subsidizes domestic producers over foreign competitors; and manipulates its currency to artificially reduce the price of its goods and services abroad.
The result is that China sells high-quality products to the United States at low prices. But too often the source of that high quality is American innovations stolen by Chinese companies. And the source of those low prices is too often subsidies from the Chinese government or manipulation of the Chinese currency.
Some argue that access to quality goods at low prices are good for our consumers. But like the predatory pricing prohibited under our antitrust laws, China’s underpriced products lead to an undesirable and inefficient elimination of competing businesses, with serious long-term consequences. And in this case, the businesses killed are often our own. Meanwhile, American companies do not even get the supposed benefit of the free-trade bargain: When they try to do business in the Chinese market, they find policies designed to shut them out.
Candidate Obama talked tough about China’s trade policies; President Obama has whispered about them. China smiles, diverts attention by criticizing the United States and merrily continues to eat our economic lunch. Who can blame the Chinese for ignoring our timid complaints when the status quo has served them so well?
Actually doing something about China’s cheating makes some people nervous. Not doing something makes me nervous. We are warned that we might precipitate a trade war. Really? China is selling us $273 billion per year more than America is selling China — why would it possibly want a trade war?
And what is the alternative to confronting China? It is allowing the Chinese to take by trade surrender what we fear to lose in trade war.
Consider, too, that cheating is contagious. What China gets away with, other emerging economies may emulate. As these countries account for an ever larger share of the global economy, the consequences for the rule-following nations would grow even more intolerable. The result could be permanent damage to the international trading system.
In short, if one is genuinely committed to free trade, one must also be genuinely committed to ending abuses of its principles.
If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, I will work to fundamentally alter our economic relationship with China. As I describe in my economic plan, I will begin on Day One by designating China as the currency manipulator it is.
More important, I will take a holistic approach to addressing all of China’s abuses. That includes unilateral actions such as increased enforcement of U.S. trade laws, punitive measures targeting products and industries that rely on misappropriations of our intellectual property, reciprocity in government procurement, and countervailing duties against currency manipulation. It also includes multilateral actions to block technology transfers into China and to create a trading bloc open only for nations genuinely committed to free trade.
Free trade is one of the most powerful forces for peace and prosperity the world has ever known. Free trade forges stronger relationships between nations and their peoples. It connects new business ideas with willing consumers. And it strengthens the competition that leads to innovation, efficiency and, ultimately, economic growth and job creation. When one nation is allowed to game the system, however, significant harm can outweigh the expected benefit. To preserve free trade, we must have the courage of our convictions to defend not only its principles but also its practice.
The writer was governor of Massachusetts from 2002 through 2006 and is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.
2011年10月12日星期三
Eight killed in massacre at Orange County hair salon as crazed gunman 'targets hairdresser ex wife'
Eight people have been killed in a shooting at an upmarket beauty salon in California.
The gunman, believed to be the ex husband of one of the stylists, shot a total of nine hairdressers and customers at Salon Meritage, a beauty salon just blocks from the Pacific Ocean in the upscale seaside resort of Seal Beach.
Three people, including a 73-year-old woman, were initially rushed to hospital in critical condition, but two of them have since passed away. One of the victims is thought to be the salon owner.
Orange County authorities rushed to the scene and seized the white male suspect, believed to be 42-year-old Scott Dekraai, in a traffic stop a half-mile from the shooting.
The alleged shooter, who lives locally, was thought to have been wearing body armour during the attack.
When officers raided his car they found multiple weapons, police said.
He didn't offer any resistance when he was arrested.
Seal Beach Police Sergeant Steve Bowles said: 'We believe he is the only shooter. He was taken into custody without injury.'
Witnesses said the gunman was embroiled in a domestic dispute over custody with his ex-wife, Michelle, who worked as a stylist at the salon.
The pair are thought to have a seven year old son.
Dekraai is said to have moved to the area two years ago after being honourably discharged from the military because of a work-related leg injury.
Police in Seal Beach would not confirm any relationship between the man and any of his victims.
'There are victims throughout the entire salon,' Sergeant Bowles added.
'There are survivors from inside the salon. A crime of this magnitude is not something Seal Beach is familiar with.'
Among the victims is thought to be the owner of the salon.
Randy Fannin died in the shooting, according to his niece, Tami Scarcella, 39.
'Randy is dead,' she said while hugging a friend. 'Randy is dead for sure.'
Police confirmed that one of the victims is male.
A middle-aged woman called Cindy was having her hair done by Mr Fannin when the gunman opened fire.
'We thought it was maybe firecrackers,' she told the LA Times.
'But he just didn’t stop. Anybody he saw he was shooting.
'It went boom, boom, boom. I was afraid he was going to shoot everybody.'
The one remaining injured victim is being treated at Long Beach Memorial Hospital.
Some of those inside managed to escape without harm, police said.
Bowles said the bodies of the killed and the wounded were scattered throughout the salon.
One wounded man was found outside the building. It wasn't clear if he was trying to flee when he was shot.
'We're unsure at this point if he shot from the entrance and people, as they were shot, ran in seeking cover or seeking shelter, but we have fatalities throughout the salon,' he said.
'From my observation, it did look like people were seeking shelter at the time.'
He said the salon was busy, with every hair-dressing station in operation.
Salon employee Lorainne Bruielle, who wasn't working Wednesday, told the Long Beach Press-Telegram the gunman was the husband of another employee.
Bruielle said she talked to the husband of one of the employees involved, who said one employee locked herself in the salon's facial room and was unharmed while another man locked himself in a bathroom but was wounded.
The shooter was spotted fleeing from the scene when police arrived and gave himself up after a short car chase.
Lydia Sosa, who used to work at the salon, said the suspect had gone through a bitter divorce with one of the women who worked there.
'They were never happy for a long, long time,' she told the New York Times.
'She said he was bitter. He was very bitter.'
Workers in neighbouring businesses said they hid in the bathrooms after hearing shots.
One woman said she was working at a nail salon and hid with about six other people for 15 minutes until they heard the gunman was caught.
The three people who were not killed instantly were rushed to hospital in critical condition.
The gunman, believed to be the ex husband of one of the stylists, shot a total of nine hairdressers and customers at Salon Meritage, a beauty salon just blocks from the Pacific Ocean in the upscale seaside resort of Seal Beach.
Three people, including a 73-year-old woman, were initially rushed to hospital in critical condition, but two of them have since passed away. One of the victims is thought to be the salon owner.
Orange County authorities rushed to the scene and seized the white male suspect, believed to be 42-year-old Scott Dekraai, in a traffic stop a half-mile from the shooting.
The alleged shooter, who lives locally, was thought to have been wearing body armour during the attack.
When officers raided his car they found multiple weapons, police said.
He didn't offer any resistance when he was arrested.
Seal Beach Police Sergeant Steve Bowles said: 'We believe he is the only shooter. He was taken into custody without injury.'
Witnesses said the gunman was embroiled in a domestic dispute over custody with his ex-wife, Michelle, who worked as a stylist at the salon.
The pair are thought to have a seven year old son.
Dekraai is said to have moved to the area two years ago after being honourably discharged from the military because of a work-related leg injury.
Police in Seal Beach would not confirm any relationship between the man and any of his victims.
'There are victims throughout the entire salon,' Sergeant Bowles added.
'There are survivors from inside the salon. A crime of this magnitude is not something Seal Beach is familiar with.'
Among the victims is thought to be the owner of the salon.
Randy Fannin died in the shooting, according to his niece, Tami Scarcella, 39.
'Randy is dead,' she said while hugging a friend. 'Randy is dead for sure.'
Police confirmed that one of the victims is male.
A middle-aged woman called Cindy was having her hair done by Mr Fannin when the gunman opened fire.
'We thought it was maybe firecrackers,' she told the LA Times.
'But he just didn’t stop. Anybody he saw he was shooting.
'It went boom, boom, boom. I was afraid he was going to shoot everybody.'
The one remaining injured victim is being treated at Long Beach Memorial Hospital.
Some of those inside managed to escape without harm, police said.
Bowles said the bodies of the killed and the wounded were scattered throughout the salon.
One wounded man was found outside the building. It wasn't clear if he was trying to flee when he was shot.
'We're unsure at this point if he shot from the entrance and people, as they were shot, ran in seeking cover or seeking shelter, but we have fatalities throughout the salon,' he said.
'From my observation, it did look like people were seeking shelter at the time.'
He said the salon was busy, with every hair-dressing station in operation.
Salon employee Lorainne Bruielle, who wasn't working Wednesday, told the Long Beach Press-Telegram the gunman was the husband of another employee.
Bruielle said she talked to the husband of one of the employees involved, who said one employee locked herself in the salon's facial room and was unharmed while another man locked himself in a bathroom but was wounded.
The shooter was spotted fleeing from the scene when police arrived and gave himself up after a short car chase.
Lydia Sosa, who used to work at the salon, said the suspect had gone through a bitter divorce with one of the women who worked there.
'They were never happy for a long, long time,' she told the New York Times.
'She said he was bitter. He was very bitter.'
Workers in neighbouring businesses said they hid in the bathrooms after hearing shots.
One woman said she was working at a nail salon and hid with about six other people for 15 minutes until they heard the gunman was caught.
The three people who were not killed instantly were rushed to hospital in critical condition.
2011年10月9日星期日
Introducing Lady McCartney! Nancy and Sir Paul can't stop smiling as they emerge as husband and wife
While she might have looked excited on the way to wed Sir Paul McCartney, Nancy Shevell emerged holding hands with her new husband displaying a look of pure delight.
As she left Marylebone Register Office as Lady McCartney, Nancy couldn't keep the smile off her face as she beamed alongside Paul.
The couple were greeted on the steps of the building by friends and family who covered the newlyweds in rose petals.
And the Beatles singer and songwriter looked equally as ecstatic as they waved to the crowds of fans and well wishers.
The pair got into a car with Paul's daughter Beatrice who had acted as bridesmaid and made their way to their North London home for the reception.
Sir Paul and Nancy, 51, became man and wife in front of just 30 guests at Marylebone Register Office.
Ahead of the nuptials and with her groom by her side Nancy, who was wearing an ivory flower in her hair, had looked happy and relaxed as they got in the car.
The former Beatle was seen acting the perfect gentleman offering his wife-to-be a helping hand as they got into the car.
As they arrived at the venue, the couple posed together and waved at fans.
Nancy had opted for a demure ivory knee-length gown, thought to be designed by Paul's daughter Stella, which boasted button detail down the front and on the sleeves.
The bride was carrying a simple bouquet of mixed coloured roses while Sir Paul wore a smart navy suit and a light blue tie.
As the couple made their way up the steps Nancy turned around to the crowd and beamed, showing her delight at the day.
The pair were met at the top of the steps by Paul's daughter Beatrice, who took on the role as flower girl.
The eight year old, whose mother is McCartney's ex-wife Heather Mills, looked gorgeous in a pretty dress, a rose pink coat ballet slippers and a floral headdress.
Earlier today the couple indulged in a pre-wedding workout and were seen leaving a gym together.
Sir Paul is set to perform a new song as a gift to his new wife at his wedding reception at their home later today.
The former Beatle will unveil the song at the reception on what would have been John Lennon's 71st birthday.
He will also sing -the iconic Let It Be, which he wrote for the Beatles, and Let Me Roll It, which he wrote for his band Paul McCartney & Wings, reported the Daily Record.
He apparently sang Let It Be to Nancy during one of their first holidays together in Morocco three years ago.
The second song was picked because it is American heiress Nancy’s favourite and contains the lyric: 'You gave me loving in the palm of my hand.'
The couple, who boast a combined fortune of £700?million, decided to marry in front of just 30 guests at Marylebone Register Office where Sir Paul married Linda in March 1969.
Instead of spending the morning getting hair and makeup done, Nancy took her fiance to the gym for an early morning work out at the gym ahead of their nuptials.
The pair looked relaxed and sporty in matching dark tracksuits.
Sources close to the star also say Sir Paul will also lovingly refer to Linda – mother of three of his grown-up children – who died from breast cancer in 1998.
But there will be no mention of his second wife, Heather Mills, whom he divorced acrimoniously in 2008, despite their daughter Beatrice, seven, acting as bridesmaid.
Yesterday, Paul and Nancy, 51, who is Jewish, visited the Liberal Jewish Synagogue near his home in St John's Wood, to mark Yom Kippur.
The couple left the singer's home in a chauffeur-driven Lexus just before 5pm, with Sir Paul winding down his window to say: 'Hi guys. Thanks for coming. We're looking forward to it. See you guys.'
The service was conducted by Superintendent Registrar Alison Cathcart and cost £1,540.
The couple were thought to have exchanged rings from Los Angeles jeweller Neil Lane and back at his home Sir Paul showed off his simple gold band.
Yesterday, final preparations were getting under way at the house before the arrival of guests who are expected to include Sir Paul's five children – adopted eldest daughter Heather from Linda's first marriage, photographer Mary, fashion designer Stella, son James, and youngest daughter Beatrice.
As she left Marylebone Register Office as Lady McCartney, Nancy couldn't keep the smile off her face as she beamed alongside Paul.
The couple were greeted on the steps of the building by friends and family who covered the newlyweds in rose petals.
And the Beatles singer and songwriter looked equally as ecstatic as they waved to the crowds of fans and well wishers.
The pair got into a car with Paul's daughter Beatrice who had acted as bridesmaid and made their way to their North London home for the reception.
Sir Paul and Nancy, 51, became man and wife in front of just 30 guests at Marylebone Register Office.
Ahead of the nuptials and with her groom by her side Nancy, who was wearing an ivory flower in her hair, had looked happy and relaxed as they got in the car.
The former Beatle was seen acting the perfect gentleman offering his wife-to-be a helping hand as they got into the car.
As they arrived at the venue, the couple posed together and waved at fans.
Nancy had opted for a demure ivory knee-length gown, thought to be designed by Paul's daughter Stella, which boasted button detail down the front and on the sleeves.
The bride was carrying a simple bouquet of mixed coloured roses while Sir Paul wore a smart navy suit and a light blue tie.
As the couple made their way up the steps Nancy turned around to the crowd and beamed, showing her delight at the day.
The pair were met at the top of the steps by Paul's daughter Beatrice, who took on the role as flower girl.
The eight year old, whose mother is McCartney's ex-wife Heather Mills, looked gorgeous in a pretty dress, a rose pink coat ballet slippers and a floral headdress.
Earlier today the couple indulged in a pre-wedding workout and were seen leaving a gym together.
Sir Paul is set to perform a new song as a gift to his new wife at his wedding reception at their home later today.
The former Beatle will unveil the song at the reception on what would have been John Lennon's 71st birthday.
He will also sing -the iconic Let It Be, which he wrote for the Beatles, and Let Me Roll It, which he wrote for his band Paul McCartney & Wings, reported the Daily Record.
He apparently sang Let It Be to Nancy during one of their first holidays together in Morocco three years ago.
The second song was picked because it is American heiress Nancy’s favourite and contains the lyric: 'You gave me loving in the palm of my hand.'
The couple, who boast a combined fortune of £700?million, decided to marry in front of just 30 guests at Marylebone Register Office where Sir Paul married Linda in March 1969.
Instead of spending the morning getting hair and makeup done, Nancy took her fiance to the gym for an early morning work out at the gym ahead of their nuptials.
The pair looked relaxed and sporty in matching dark tracksuits.
Sources close to the star also say Sir Paul will also lovingly refer to Linda – mother of three of his grown-up children – who died from breast cancer in 1998.
But there will be no mention of his second wife, Heather Mills, whom he divorced acrimoniously in 2008, despite their daughter Beatrice, seven, acting as bridesmaid.
Yesterday, Paul and Nancy, 51, who is Jewish, visited the Liberal Jewish Synagogue near his home in St John's Wood, to mark Yom Kippur.
The couple left the singer's home in a chauffeur-driven Lexus just before 5pm, with Sir Paul winding down his window to say: 'Hi guys. Thanks for coming. We're looking forward to it. See you guys.'
The service was conducted by Superintendent Registrar Alison Cathcart and cost £1,540.
The couple were thought to have exchanged rings from Los Angeles jeweller Neil Lane and back at his home Sir Paul showed off his simple gold band.
Yesterday, final preparations were getting under way at the house before the arrival of guests who are expected to include Sir Paul's five children – adopted eldest daughter Heather from Linda's first marriage, photographer Mary, fashion designer Stella, son James, and youngest daughter Beatrice.
2011年10月8日星期六
British pensioner, 73, circumnavigates the Arctic Circle
A British pensioner has become the first person to -circumnavigate the Arctic Circle by boat clockwise... even though he only took up sailing when he retired.
Jeffrey Allison, 73, set off from Hartlepool in June, -sailing to Iceland, Greenland, around Alaska, Russia and Scandinavia in his 52ft craft.
He made the voyage with Australian crewmate -Katherine -Brownlie, 28, and is now on his way home to -Middleton Tyas, North Yorks.
Advertisement >>
The voyage was made -possible by receding ice in the Arctic Circle, thought to be due to climate change.
Mr Allison is the first Brit to make the journey in either direction. He has made -several -attempts, and was almost sunk by -Russian coastguards in 2009 for
sailing over the Barents Sea without permission.
Daughter Fiona Cook said: “He just said he’d deal with it if he got in trouble again. The whole family is so proud.”
Jeffrey Allison, 73, set off from Hartlepool in June, -sailing to Iceland, Greenland, around Alaska, Russia and Scandinavia in his 52ft craft.
He made the voyage with Australian crewmate -Katherine -Brownlie, 28, and is now on his way home to -Middleton Tyas, North Yorks.
Advertisement >>
The voyage was made -possible by receding ice in the Arctic Circle, thought to be due to climate change.
Mr Allison is the first Brit to make the journey in either direction. He has made -several -attempts, and was almost sunk by -Russian coastguards in 2009 for
sailing over the Barents Sea without permission.
Daughter Fiona Cook said: “He just said he’d deal with it if he got in trouble again. The whole family is so proud.”
2011年10月5日星期三
Services Let You Rent a Car Out of Your Neighbor's Garage
Renting a car can be a frustrating business, involving long waits for vehicles and tedious paperwork. What if renting a car was more like borrowing one from a neighbor?
A growing number of companies are now offering peer-to-peer auto rentals, where regular folks rent out their own wheels. While currently many services are limited to single markets, some have ambitious multi-city expansion plans. General Motors Co. unveiled Wednesday an alliance with RelayRides, a San Francisco peer-to-peer car-rental company. Under the pact, GM plans to modify its OnStar system to let RelayRides members use cellphones to unlock rented cars.
To find out how well leasing a car from a stranger works, we tried services in the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle and New York. We learned that the convenience of renting from an individual is in some cases undercut by concerns about insurance and safety. In most cases, details like pickup and gas were left to the discretion of the car owner. Since owner-participation levels determine the rental inventory, and the services are still new, what you get varies widely.
Getaround.com, which mainly operates in the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego but has national expansion plans, was the only service we tested where full insurance coverage through Berkshire Hathaway and roadside assistance were included in the price of a rental. For owners, a late fee of $30 an hour means renters behave well.
Joining is free and took just a few minutes. Members must be 19 or older, have two years' driving experience and minimal traffic violations. The company requires a driver's license number to run a background check as well as Facebook membership to help it detect any fraudulent users, according to its website.
When we looked, hourly, daily, and weekly rentals ranged from $3 an hour for a 2003 Hyundai Accent GL Hatchback to $50 an hour for a 2000 Porsche Boxster.
A search on our address yielded three results, but a ZIP Code search, which included surrounding areas, yielded dozens of results. The site lets users search for cars by distance, price, rating and popularity, but not make.
We submitted a morning request for a same-day afternoon rental for a Prius in Berkeley, about a 20-minute drive from our home, and were denied because the owner had left for work and couldn't meet us. Next, we arranged to rent a 2006 Prius in Emeryville, about 15 minutes from home, for $6.50 an hour, provided we met the owner to get the keys. (Getaround offers owners a car kit that lets renters unlock cars via a smartphone app, but not all owners use it.)
Steve, the Prius owner, said he had been renting it via Getaround for three months because he didn't use his car much. The car was clean and drove well.
Though meeting with a stranger at his doorstep and driving off with his wheels felt slightly awkward, we appreciated the convenience. We also felt more anxious with the car than we would have with a regular rental. We made sure to park Steve's car away from others in the mall lot and felt relieved when we handed the keys back to him.
In New York, we tried to set up a rental with Jolly Wheels, which offers peer-to-peer car sharing as well as traditional rentals. The website said it operated in Brooklyn, but most cars we saw listed were far away and would require a pricey cab ride to get to them. The closest option for renting involved about half a dozen cars at a single location without a specific address and with ZIP Codes and neighborhoods that didn't match.
The other downside was pricing: Fees for rentals ranged from $53 a day for a Smart car to $156 for a Dodge Caravan station wagon. Rentals also required a refundable deposit of as much as $500. All this just made us were leery of using the service.
Jolly Wheels founder Aaron Naus said employees putting the information on the site don't always know the local area. The company is moving toward listing the nearest major cross streets, Mr. Naus said.
On pricing, the service "is still a new concept, so as an incentive for people to join we let them set their own pricing," he said. His goal, he said, is as providers and renters become more comfortable with the concept, volume and trust will go up, allowing for lower prices and smaller deposits.
In Seattle, we found two options from national providers: Zilok, which provides peer-to-peer rentals of many products including cars in the U.S. and Europe, and RentMyCar.com, which specializes in car rentals. But there weren't many vehicles available.
At the time we searched, Zilok had only a handful of listings in Seattle, although some were within three miles of our residence.
The problem: Pricing and deposits are at the owner's discretion. The listings we saw required a $1,500 deposit by check made out to the car's owner so we skipped Zilok. Renters and owners also are left to negotiate over any problems encountered over a rental contract.
Gary Cige, co-founder of Zilok who lives in Paris, said that cars as well as personal electronics and infant products are among the service's most popular rentals. As for insurance, he said many auto-owner policies in the U.S. already include "third party" use of a vehicle, but he added that the company is in talks to offer insurance for peer-to-peer rentals in the U.S.
At RentMyCar.com, there was only one car available, at $45 a day payable in cash, check or Paypal, and listed as available on Saturday and Sunday.
We emailed the owner for a Sunday rental, and she said we had to pick it up before 9 a.m., when she'd leave for church. Then on Friday night, the owner emailed that she and her husband disagreed about renting their car because they hadn't yet contacted their insurer. So she wasn't "prepared" to rent yet.
A growing number of companies are now offering peer-to-peer auto rentals, where regular folks rent out their own wheels. While currently many services are limited to single markets, some have ambitious multi-city expansion plans. General Motors Co. unveiled Wednesday an alliance with RelayRides, a San Francisco peer-to-peer car-rental company. Under the pact, GM plans to modify its OnStar system to let RelayRides members use cellphones to unlock rented cars.
To find out how well leasing a car from a stranger works, we tried services in the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle and New York. We learned that the convenience of renting from an individual is in some cases undercut by concerns about insurance and safety. In most cases, details like pickup and gas were left to the discretion of the car owner. Since owner-participation levels determine the rental inventory, and the services are still new, what you get varies widely.
Getaround.com, which mainly operates in the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego but has national expansion plans, was the only service we tested where full insurance coverage through Berkshire Hathaway and roadside assistance were included in the price of a rental. For owners, a late fee of $30 an hour means renters behave well.
Joining is free and took just a few minutes. Members must be 19 or older, have two years' driving experience and minimal traffic violations. The company requires a driver's license number to run a background check as well as Facebook membership to help it detect any fraudulent users, according to its website.
When we looked, hourly, daily, and weekly rentals ranged from $3 an hour for a 2003 Hyundai Accent GL Hatchback to $50 an hour for a 2000 Porsche Boxster.
A search on our address yielded three results, but a ZIP Code search, which included surrounding areas, yielded dozens of results. The site lets users search for cars by distance, price, rating and popularity, but not make.
We submitted a morning request for a same-day afternoon rental for a Prius in Berkeley, about a 20-minute drive from our home, and were denied because the owner had left for work and couldn't meet us. Next, we arranged to rent a 2006 Prius in Emeryville, about 15 minutes from home, for $6.50 an hour, provided we met the owner to get the keys. (Getaround offers owners a car kit that lets renters unlock cars via a smartphone app, but not all owners use it.)
Steve, the Prius owner, said he had been renting it via Getaround for three months because he didn't use his car much. The car was clean and drove well.
Though meeting with a stranger at his doorstep and driving off with his wheels felt slightly awkward, we appreciated the convenience. We also felt more anxious with the car than we would have with a regular rental. We made sure to park Steve's car away from others in the mall lot and felt relieved when we handed the keys back to him.
In New York, we tried to set up a rental with Jolly Wheels, which offers peer-to-peer car sharing as well as traditional rentals. The website said it operated in Brooklyn, but most cars we saw listed were far away and would require a pricey cab ride to get to them. The closest option for renting involved about half a dozen cars at a single location without a specific address and with ZIP Codes and neighborhoods that didn't match.
The other downside was pricing: Fees for rentals ranged from $53 a day for a Smart car to $156 for a Dodge Caravan station wagon. Rentals also required a refundable deposit of as much as $500. All this just made us were leery of using the service.
Jolly Wheels founder Aaron Naus said employees putting the information on the site don't always know the local area. The company is moving toward listing the nearest major cross streets, Mr. Naus said.
On pricing, the service "is still a new concept, so as an incentive for people to join we let them set their own pricing," he said. His goal, he said, is as providers and renters become more comfortable with the concept, volume and trust will go up, allowing for lower prices and smaller deposits.
In Seattle, we found two options from national providers: Zilok, which provides peer-to-peer rentals of many products including cars in the U.S. and Europe, and RentMyCar.com, which specializes in car rentals. But there weren't many vehicles available.
At the time we searched, Zilok had only a handful of listings in Seattle, although some were within three miles of our residence.
The problem: Pricing and deposits are at the owner's discretion. The listings we saw required a $1,500 deposit by check made out to the car's owner so we skipped Zilok. Renters and owners also are left to negotiate over any problems encountered over a rental contract.
Gary Cige, co-founder of Zilok who lives in Paris, said that cars as well as personal electronics and infant products are among the service's most popular rentals. As for insurance, he said many auto-owner policies in the U.S. already include "third party" use of a vehicle, but he added that the company is in talks to offer insurance for peer-to-peer rentals in the U.S.
At RentMyCar.com, there was only one car available, at $45 a day payable in cash, check or Paypal, and listed as available on Saturday and Sunday.
We emailed the owner for a Sunday rental, and she said we had to pick it up before 9 a.m., when she'd leave for church. Then on Friday night, the owner emailed that she and her husband disagreed about renting their car because they hadn't yet contacted their insurer. So she wasn't "prepared" to rent yet.
2011年10月4日星期二
Hugh Grant: 'The phone-hacking scandal has only just scratched surface'
Hugh Grant: 'The phone-hacking scandal has only just scratched surface'
Corrupt policemen tipped off journalists about celebrity victims of crime before other officers had time to respond to their calls for assistance, the actor Hugh Grant claimed yesterday.
In an escalation of the allegations facing the police Mr Grant told The Independent he had personal experience of reporting crimes and discovering the first person who turned up on his doorstep was a tabloid journalist.
Mr Grant suggested he would be raising the issue when he is called to give evidence before Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry into phone hacking.
In an interview ahead of a meeting with David Cameron to discuss phone hacking yesterday Mr Grant said he had become aware of untoward practices involving the police and tabloid reporters long before the issue of phone hacking came into the public domain. "There were little things," he said. "You knew if you ever called the police for burglary or mugging or whatever the first person to come round was not a policeman but a journalist.
"For years you would think very much twice about calling the police over anything. I want Leveson to uncover the full extent of the relationship between tabloid papers and the police because I think we have only scratched the surface of that."
Mr Grant also suggested there was more to be revealed about the relationship between senior politicians and the Murdoch press. He said: "The more that comes out about all this the more we will learn about the true nature of the Prime Minister's relationship with the Murdoch organisation. What I hear on the Cotswold grapevine is that the relationship was sinisterly cosy to a deeply unhealthy and unattractive degree.
"It wasn't just Cameron it has been every Prime Minister since Thatcher with the possible exception of John Major – who made a stab at standing up to the tyranny and look what happened to him.
"I am very keen to try and gauge whether there is any real appetite on behalf of the Prime Minister for the kind of media reforms that they were talking about in July (after the Milly Dowler revelations) or whether their instinct is to push the whole thing into the long grass and go back into the nice cosy old routine of being in bed with Murdoch."
Mr Grant also insisted that most privacy orders made by the courts under the Human Rights Act were justified and that newspaper defences of public interest were spurious.
"The vast majority of the public interest defence is coming from the popular press and is specious. When they say 'oh but he's a role model' they (the papers) are trying to find a moral hook to hang the privacy invasion on.
"You have to recognise when the arguments are real and when they are protecting a highly lucrative racket."
Mr Grant, who is taking part in a seminar being organised by the Leveson inquiry tomorrow, added that he hoped the his inquiry would establish that phone hacking practices extended beyond the News of the World.
"I'm dying for him to reveal it wasn't just phone hacking it was all these other methods. It was not just the News of the World, a huge number of newspapers were up to these dirty tricks. I want him to establish that the intimidation of those elements of the popular press over politicians – by keeping dossiers on their private lives – was effectively blackmail."
Corrupt policemen tipped off journalists about celebrity victims of crime before other officers had time to respond to their calls for assistance, the actor Hugh Grant claimed yesterday.
In an escalation of the allegations facing the police Mr Grant told The Independent he had personal experience of reporting crimes and discovering the first person who turned up on his doorstep was a tabloid journalist.
Mr Grant suggested he would be raising the issue when he is called to give evidence before Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry into phone hacking.
In an interview ahead of a meeting with David Cameron to discuss phone hacking yesterday Mr Grant said he had become aware of untoward practices involving the police and tabloid reporters long before the issue of phone hacking came into the public domain. "There were little things," he said. "You knew if you ever called the police for burglary or mugging or whatever the first person to come round was not a policeman but a journalist.
"For years you would think very much twice about calling the police over anything. I want Leveson to uncover the full extent of the relationship between tabloid papers and the police because I think we have only scratched the surface of that."
Mr Grant also suggested there was more to be revealed about the relationship between senior politicians and the Murdoch press. He said: "The more that comes out about all this the more we will learn about the true nature of the Prime Minister's relationship with the Murdoch organisation. What I hear on the Cotswold grapevine is that the relationship was sinisterly cosy to a deeply unhealthy and unattractive degree.
"It wasn't just Cameron it has been every Prime Minister since Thatcher with the possible exception of John Major – who made a stab at standing up to the tyranny and look what happened to him.
"I am very keen to try and gauge whether there is any real appetite on behalf of the Prime Minister for the kind of media reforms that they were talking about in July (after the Milly Dowler revelations) or whether their instinct is to push the whole thing into the long grass and go back into the nice cosy old routine of being in bed with Murdoch."
Mr Grant also insisted that most privacy orders made by the courts under the Human Rights Act were justified and that newspaper defences of public interest were spurious.
"The vast majority of the public interest defence is coming from the popular press and is specious. When they say 'oh but he's a role model' they (the papers) are trying to find a moral hook to hang the privacy invasion on.
"You have to recognise when the arguments are real and when they are protecting a highly lucrative racket."
Mr Grant, who is taking part in a seminar being organised by the Leveson inquiry tomorrow, added that he hoped the his inquiry would establish that phone hacking practices extended beyond the News of the World.
"I'm dying for him to reveal it wasn't just phone hacking it was all these other methods. It was not just the News of the World, a huge number of newspapers were up to these dirty tricks. I want him to establish that the intimidation of those elements of the popular press over politicians – by keeping dossiers on their private lives – was effectively blackmail."
订阅:
评论 (Atom)







