Trying to fix the unfix-able. Make broken things less broken.
Its a hard race, less a sprint, more of an endurance event. Full of false starts, breakdowns and yes, triumphs of awe inspiring joy.
The entrance fee is exorbitant. Intensive therapy is 3 weeks of 3-4 hours of one-on-one
professional time. You can do the math. Thousands of dollars. All up front. Even with government assistance, there is still the expense of time. Time off from work. Management of siblings. And the emotional impact.
I'm always taken by the noise. The cries of frustration, pain, the orders barked by the physios, all merge and combine in a background wall sound. Like engines at idle. 5 to 6 children, each roam their own territory on a mat, surrounded by aids and toys, with their handlers in attendance. Generally a parent/grandparent, on their knees with the child, all with that same expression on their face; love, mixed with sadness, mixed with hope. Its a unique look, one that only those of us who have a child with special needs can really pull off. The physios, exclusively young and female, wrangle the kids with enthusiasm. Cajoling them to stretch, step, throw; all the activities we so called normal people do without thinking and take for granted.
You walk in, sign in, and compare your kid to everyone else's. Hoping, macabrely, that they are worse than yours. And hating yourself for it.
And the variance is huge. The Kidd, thankfully, is in the higher end of capability. Needs assistance to walk and has some speech impediments. But is verbal and has good control over his limbs. He, for all his impairments, is one of the lucky ones. There are children who are Grade 4's and Grade 5's who have greater challenges. Kids with no hope of getting out of wheelchairs. Kids born with syndromes that are unidentifiable but mow down their hosts without pity or respite. Kids born with no eyes.
But we are all here for the same thing. We all bought a ticket to ride the bus of hope. And hope we do. Hope that the physiotherapy will improve...something.
At the end of the 3 weeks, we get a T-shirt. Lets hope its more than that.
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Monday, October 14, 2019
The Suit
I look in the mirror at the pale, naked form in front of me. The permanent frown, the unkempt hair. The acne pock-marked skin cratering my face and chest. I notice a few new spider veins appearing on my nose, the red spaghetti signposts of beer and scotch marking my features with their detritus. 44 years of abuse from the sun and alcohol have left their toll. Who could find this attractive?
I bend over to pick up the underwear from the floor and put them on one leg at a time. Boxers today. I remember when the toughest decision i had to make was whether to go boxers and briefs. Also a time when there was always the chance that a new lover would see the result of those decisions. My penis twitches slightly as my thoughts move back to tales of lovers past, both real and imagined.
I let out a sigh as those dreams fragment with the laser of reality. Now days, its just the wife who sees me in my underwear state, and she doesn't seem to care, I think sadly. The penis, interest gone, returns to its original state.
I pick up my freshly warmed shirt that I had spent the last 10 minutes trying to iron into some semblance of respectability. Today it was the purple, pattered number, though I did notice for the first time, that the collar was starting to show some signs of wear and tear. Much like its owner, I muse sadly. Still, might be time for a new shirt. Or a new life.
The shirt goes on, arm by arm, and I slowly do up the buttons, thinking about the plans for the day ahead. Head down, bum up. The usual. The Monday morning shuffle. They say you are supposed to be at your most motivated at the beginning of the week. That certainly isn't me today.
But my eyes light up when I gaze at my last piece of clothing. My suit, standing at attention. I love my suit. Dark grey, 100% cotton, single breasted. The wizards cloak, but not invisible. Invincible.
I pull on the pants. The reflection improves. Already my beer gut has gone. The hair combed, the nose becomes smaller, less prominent. Those spider veins disappear, the lunar landscape of my face looks more like a plain than the mountains. Constant and warm. Black boots, freshly polished, appear as if by magic on my charcoal coloured, silk clad feet.
The Jacket goes on last. Crisp, clean. Shoulders back, guns out. I check out my profile. Already I feel better about the day. Plans and projects flow into my brain, awakened from the sleep. Meetings to be had, checkpoints to meet. Hot co-workers to inappropriately flirt with.
A smile warms my face, and the spark of fire appears in the eyes. A smile slowly forms as i gaze lovingly at the man in front of me. The world awaits.
"Thanks Tom Ford", I whisper.
"You are welcome" I hear in my ears as the Suit takes its passenger into the day ahead.
I bend over to pick up the underwear from the floor and put them on one leg at a time. Boxers today. I remember when the toughest decision i had to make was whether to go boxers and briefs. Also a time when there was always the chance that a new lover would see the result of those decisions. My penis twitches slightly as my thoughts move back to tales of lovers past, both real and imagined.
I let out a sigh as those dreams fragment with the laser of reality. Now days, its just the wife who sees me in my underwear state, and she doesn't seem to care, I think sadly. The penis, interest gone, returns to its original state.
I pick up my freshly warmed shirt that I had spent the last 10 minutes trying to iron into some semblance of respectability. Today it was the purple, pattered number, though I did notice for the first time, that the collar was starting to show some signs of wear and tear. Much like its owner, I muse sadly. Still, might be time for a new shirt. Or a new life.
The shirt goes on, arm by arm, and I slowly do up the buttons, thinking about the plans for the day ahead. Head down, bum up. The usual. The Monday morning shuffle. They say you are supposed to be at your most motivated at the beginning of the week. That certainly isn't me today.
But my eyes light up when I gaze at my last piece of clothing. My suit, standing at attention. I love my suit. Dark grey, 100% cotton, single breasted. The wizards cloak, but not invisible. Invincible.
I pull on the pants. The reflection improves. Already my beer gut has gone. The hair combed, the nose becomes smaller, less prominent. Those spider veins disappear, the lunar landscape of my face looks more like a plain than the mountains. Constant and warm. Black boots, freshly polished, appear as if by magic on my charcoal coloured, silk clad feet.
The Jacket goes on last. Crisp, clean. Shoulders back, guns out. I check out my profile. Already I feel better about the day. Plans and projects flow into my brain, awakened from the sleep. Meetings to be had, checkpoints to meet. Hot co-workers to inappropriately flirt with.
A smile warms my face, and the spark of fire appears in the eyes. A smile slowly forms as i gaze lovingly at the man in front of me. The world awaits.
"Thanks Tom Ford", I whisper.
"You are welcome" I hear in my ears as the Suit takes its passenger into the day ahead.
Californication - An insight into Hollywood values
Been binge watching Californication, the TV series on STAN recently. Great show. But morally troubling.
For those who have not been alive during the late 2000's, the show follows the adventures of a writer, Hank Moody who is living in LA. Seven seasons of 12 episodes (though I am only on Season 2 at this stage)
Reminded me a little of Entourage (though Entourage premiered a few years earlier in 2004), though I would say it is a little more thoughtful that that show. Themes are a little more detailed and varied, rather than just friendship in LA which was the main provoker in that show.
Hank is basically a pleasure seeker. Pretty hedonistic, and seems to have an endless supply of women at his beck and call, all captivated by his writing. Not married, even though he appears 35+ and has a daughter who is at least 13/14. And seems to be independently wealthy via the proceeds of his book sales and movie.
Hank exists on a diet of booze and drugs, and spends most of his time either in a car, with his daughter, in other women's bedrooms. Yet he is still trying to recapture his previous life as the partner of his long term girlfriend. And a good father to their daughter, born out of wedlock.
It is a very well written show..the dialogue especially is captivating.
That said, the show treats traditional religion and marriage as things to avoid. Hank's daughter is a hard rocker who seems to worship Satan. There are various dream sequences in the first few seasons that have Hank disrespecting the catholic church (i.e cigarette thrown in the Holy Water. Sex with nuns etc.) Also has a go at Scientology. And marriage is seen as something to run from (when his ex-partner leaves the wedding reception for Hank in his car at the end of the first season), or something that women are determined to get out of (the various cheating and divorced women on display that Hank bonks on with are legion)
His daughter and wife consistently feel let down by Hank's choices, which seem to involve him de-prioritizing them for other people (his ex-lovers, his best friend). Which is true. While his heart is in the right place, he constantly makes the incorrect choice and has no self control over his passions. He blames everyone else but himself for his failures, claims he loves women, yet treats them like disposable pleasures, rather than relationships.
Watching it, I wonder if this is a cautionary tale, or an insight into what Hollywood believes in. A world where the creative rules...that everything is forgiven as long as you keep producing what the public demands. That marriages are actually constraints, rather than an aspirational state to raise children in.
Generally a cautionary tale involves some punishment. Hank has had some fallout from his decision making...Has been beaten up by husbands/partners, had his book stolen by his underage one night stand, is living apart from his partner and daughter, been car-jacked. Yet he is still bonking on, still getting cash. And his daughter forgives him of it all.
Maybe the fallout continues in the next few seasons. I will watch on..waiting to see if Hank is held up as a prophet of the modern age, or a fallen angel.
For those who have not been alive during the late 2000's, the show follows the adventures of a writer, Hank Moody who is living in LA. Seven seasons of 12 episodes (though I am only on Season 2 at this stage)
Reminded me a little of Entourage (though Entourage premiered a few years earlier in 2004), though I would say it is a little more thoughtful that that show. Themes are a little more detailed and varied, rather than just friendship in LA which was the main provoker in that show.
Hank is basically a pleasure seeker. Pretty hedonistic, and seems to have an endless supply of women at his beck and call, all captivated by his writing. Not married, even though he appears 35+ and has a daughter who is at least 13/14. And seems to be independently wealthy via the proceeds of his book sales and movie.
Hank exists on a diet of booze and drugs, and spends most of his time either in a car, with his daughter, in other women's bedrooms. Yet he is still trying to recapture his previous life as the partner of his long term girlfriend. And a good father to their daughter, born out of wedlock.
It is a very well written show..the dialogue especially is captivating.
That said, the show treats traditional religion and marriage as things to avoid. Hank's daughter is a hard rocker who seems to worship Satan. There are various dream sequences in the first few seasons that have Hank disrespecting the catholic church (i.e cigarette thrown in the Holy Water. Sex with nuns etc.) Also has a go at Scientology. And marriage is seen as something to run from (when his ex-partner leaves the wedding reception for Hank in his car at the end of the first season), or something that women are determined to get out of (the various cheating and divorced women on display that Hank bonks on with are legion)
His daughter and wife consistently feel let down by Hank's choices, which seem to involve him de-prioritizing them for other people (his ex-lovers, his best friend). Which is true. While his heart is in the right place, he constantly makes the incorrect choice and has no self control over his passions. He blames everyone else but himself for his failures, claims he loves women, yet treats them like disposable pleasures, rather than relationships.
Watching it, I wonder if this is a cautionary tale, or an insight into what Hollywood believes in. A world where the creative rules...that everything is forgiven as long as you keep producing what the public demands. That marriages are actually constraints, rather than an aspirational state to raise children in.
Generally a cautionary tale involves some punishment. Hank has had some fallout from his decision making...Has been beaten up by husbands/partners, had his book stolen by his underage one night stand, is living apart from his partner and daughter, been car-jacked. Yet he is still bonking on, still getting cash. And his daughter forgives him of it all.
Maybe the fallout continues in the next few seasons. I will watch on..waiting to see if Hank is held up as a prophet of the modern age, or a fallen angel.
Monday, September 23, 2019
Confirmation Preparation - A good way to start reconnecting with your faith
Been feeling a little more religious these days as I have been attending Confirmation Preparation with my son.
Its interesting how spending a little bit more time listening about God can re-introduce some new concepts and thoughts about the role of religion in your life.
Any way, this week it was all about the 7 gifts that God gives you (via the Holy Spirit( when you are confirmed that produce the 9 fruits.
The 7 gifts are
Wisdom (Intellect) - Application of Understanding over time
Counsel (Intellect) - Making the right choices
Fortitude (Will) - Being courageous
Understanding (Intellect) - Application of Knowledge to a particular issue
Piety (Will) - Respecting the relationship with God
Fear of the Lord (Will) - Awe of the God
Knowledge (Intellect) - See things through Gods eyes.
The 7 gifts are then supposed to manifest themselves in ourselves by changing our behaviours. The behaviours are called the 9 fruits...I have tried to match up the gifts with the fruits, but I think in actuality all of them have some role to play in each fruit.
Love - Fortitude/Knowledge
Joy - Knowledge
Peace -Piety/Fear of the Lord/Wisdom
Patience - Fortitude/Knowledge
Kindness - Understanding
Goodness - Counsel/Knowledge/Fear of the Lord
Faithfulness - Fear of the Lord/Knowledge
Gentleness - Understanding
Self Control - Wisdom/Fortitude/Fear of the Lord
Not a bad way to live your life really...Just goes to show that in today's secular world with relativism on the rise, there is still a reason for religion...to try and give a definition of living a good and moral life, and a reason to do so, even if such decision making can come at a cost. Science, and its theories of single origin and natural selection from Darwin, resulting in behaviour that benefits the group doesn't quite answer those questions.
Its interesting how spending a little bit more time listening about God can re-introduce some new concepts and thoughts about the role of religion in your life.
Any way, this week it was all about the 7 gifts that God gives you (via the Holy Spirit( when you are confirmed that produce the 9 fruits.
The 7 gifts are
Wisdom (Intellect) - Application of Understanding over time
Counsel (Intellect) - Making the right choices
Fortitude (Will) - Being courageous
Understanding (Intellect) - Application of Knowledge to a particular issue
Piety (Will) - Respecting the relationship with God
Fear of the Lord (Will) - Awe of the God
Knowledge (Intellect) - See things through Gods eyes.
The 7 gifts are then supposed to manifest themselves in ourselves by changing our behaviours. The behaviours are called the 9 fruits...I have tried to match up the gifts with the fruits, but I think in actuality all of them have some role to play in each fruit.
Love - Fortitude/Knowledge
Joy - Knowledge
Peace -Piety/Fear of the Lord/Wisdom
Patience - Fortitude/Knowledge
Kindness - Understanding
Goodness - Counsel/Knowledge/Fear of the Lord
Faithfulness - Fear of the Lord/Knowledge
Gentleness - Understanding
Self Control - Wisdom/Fortitude/Fear of the Lord
Not a bad way to live your life really...Just goes to show that in today's secular world with relativism on the rise, there is still a reason for religion...to try and give a definition of living a good and moral life, and a reason to do so, even if such decision making can come at a cost. Science, and its theories of single origin and natural selection from Darwin, resulting in behaviour that benefits the group doesn't quite answer those questions.
Dealing with Difference - A few thoughts
Been pondering the great mysteries again, this time on difference. Difference in thought, appearance, sexuality, religion etc.
You look at the world today, and it seems like there is less tolerance of difference due to all social media posts and claims of de platforming, censorship etc.
But I wonder if that is really true. There has always been difference throughout history. Slavery, Civil War, Religion, world wars, politics, economics...i mean the examples are legion about how society has been split about big issues. So I don't think we are living in times when there is more change.
In regards to de-platforming, again, I'm not sure. If anything, the media has less of a role in being the thought Gatekeepers than they used to be. Now anyone can post and attract followers, from all over the world.
I think its more that social media and the internet has the power to create debates immediately, and have them published whereas previously these issues would take years to be addressed.
In regards to the big issues being debated at the moment, it is clear that Climate Change and Trans-sexism are the two topics of note. Lots of debate going on because these issues are relatively new. But again, its no different to the civil rights debates of the 60's.
I think the big difference today is that thought has been democratized. Social media has made opinions more equal. There is less reliance and acceptance of experts and insiders to be the arbitrators of what is "right and just" than there used to be. Other opinions, like religious views, social justice views and political views are also being aired. I think that might be the case in regards to Climate Change, where appeals to scientific authority are being met by appeals to political authority (i.e the election of Trump and Morrison who ran on neutral climate change policies). And its a danger that the Trans movement might have to be wary of. There is a lot of appeal to the medical authority in these cases about medical interventions, yet those authorities are often trans themselves, so are hardly unbiased in their view.
And just on the trans movement, I think there is a war going on at the moment between the trans movement, feminist movement and same sex movement. Gender dysphoria in the young is effectively early onset homosexuality and the idea that lesbianism is effectively being replaced by the trans movement is going to give the same sex movement some issues after their hard fought gains. And the triviality of people moving genders at a whim will impact the feminists as we have seen already through Germaine Greer's attacks on the trans movement.
So it will be interesting to see where these two issues end up. But talking and debating about issues is the answer to everything. More dialogue, even if it is unpleasant, is far better than less.
You look at the world today, and it seems like there is less tolerance of difference due to all social media posts and claims of de platforming, censorship etc.
But I wonder if that is really true. There has always been difference throughout history. Slavery, Civil War, Religion, world wars, politics, economics...i mean the examples are legion about how society has been split about big issues. So I don't think we are living in times when there is more change.
In regards to de-platforming, again, I'm not sure. If anything, the media has less of a role in being the thought Gatekeepers than they used to be. Now anyone can post and attract followers, from all over the world.
I think its more that social media and the internet has the power to create debates immediately, and have them published whereas previously these issues would take years to be addressed.
In regards to the big issues being debated at the moment, it is clear that Climate Change and Trans-sexism are the two topics of note. Lots of debate going on because these issues are relatively new. But again, its no different to the civil rights debates of the 60's.
I think the big difference today is that thought has been democratized. Social media has made opinions more equal. There is less reliance and acceptance of experts and insiders to be the arbitrators of what is "right and just" than there used to be. Other opinions, like religious views, social justice views and political views are also being aired. I think that might be the case in regards to Climate Change, where appeals to scientific authority are being met by appeals to political authority (i.e the election of Trump and Morrison who ran on neutral climate change policies). And its a danger that the Trans movement might have to be wary of. There is a lot of appeal to the medical authority in these cases about medical interventions, yet those authorities are often trans themselves, so are hardly unbiased in their view.
And just on the trans movement, I think there is a war going on at the moment between the trans movement, feminist movement and same sex movement. Gender dysphoria in the young is effectively early onset homosexuality and the idea that lesbianism is effectively being replaced by the trans movement is going to give the same sex movement some issues after their hard fought gains. And the triviality of people moving genders at a whim will impact the feminists as we have seen already through Germaine Greer's attacks on the trans movement.
So it will be interesting to see where these two issues end up. But talking and debating about issues is the answer to everything. More dialogue, even if it is unpleasant, is far better than less.
Monday, September 16, 2019
NRL Contenders - Recap from Final Rounds
Well it is the first week of the finals and basically all the finals went the way they should (apart from Melbourne)
Roosters VS Rabbits - Roosters have the 4 "1's (So they have the Attack, Defence, Win Percentage and the Z-Score of contendors). Rabbits have the 3 "1's (missing the Attack). So it was inevitable that the Roosters would win that one (and they did)
Storm VS Canberra - This was the upset. Storm have the 4 "1"s. Canberra have the 3 "1"s (again missing the attack). But they were lucky to win that one by 2 in the last few minutes. Storm will win next week.
Manly Vs Sharks - While everyone was talking the Sharks, realistically it was Manly. Sharks haven't won at Lottoland much at all. And the Manly was 2 wins better than the Sharks
Eels Vs Broncos - Broncos Z-score was in the negatives and Parramatta has a serious attack (better than everyone except Melbourne and Roosters.
So for the next 2 games of
Melbourne Vs Parramatta - Melbourne should win easily.
Souths Vs Manly - Souths again should get over the line.
Which will lead to
Roosters VS Melbourne (that will be match of the round...Melbourne in a tight one)
Raiders Vs Souths (Raiders in a tight one)
Melbourne VS Raiders for the grand final....Melbourne to win.
Roosters VS Rabbits - Roosters have the 4 "1's (So they have the Attack, Defence, Win Percentage and the Z-Score of contendors). Rabbits have the 3 "1's (missing the Attack). So it was inevitable that the Roosters would win that one (and they did)
Storm VS Canberra - This was the upset. Storm have the 4 "1"s. Canberra have the 3 "1"s (again missing the attack). But they were lucky to win that one by 2 in the last few minutes. Storm will win next week.
Manly Vs Sharks - While everyone was talking the Sharks, realistically it was Manly. Sharks haven't won at Lottoland much at all. And the Manly was 2 wins better than the Sharks
Eels Vs Broncos - Broncos Z-score was in the negatives and Parramatta has a serious attack (better than everyone except Melbourne and Roosters.
So for the next 2 games of
Melbourne Vs Parramatta - Melbourne should win easily.
Souths Vs Manly - Souths again should get over the line.
Which will lead to
Roosters VS Melbourne (that will be match of the round...Melbourne in a tight one)
Raiders Vs Souths (Raiders in a tight one)
Melbourne VS Raiders for the grand final....Melbourne to win.
Friday, September 6, 2019
Thoughts on intergenerational equality
A new concept in thought has come up recently, mainly around Climate change and it is this concept of inter generational equity....the idea that the present generation owes some sort of benefit to generations coming through and potentially generations unborn.
It is often used as a justification to combat Climate Change. I understand the reasoning because climate change really isn't having any adverse affects on society at the moment. The current generation is probably as rich, healthy and educated as any in human history. So from strictly a cost benefit analysis it makes no sense to do anything about climate change at the moment.
It is only when you employ the "survival of the species" and "think of the grand children" into the mix, that a justification can be employed. We have seen this through the celebration of Greta Thunberg, a child who advocates action on Climate Change based on this "You owe the children" theory.
And we have seen this through most of the economic analysis around Climate Change. Discount rates of 0% (or very low rates) have been employed to make the costs of action today more palatable, even though most economic analysis would employ at least 3% discount rates to future cash flows (as is usually the case).
But both the Stern report and the Australian equivalent (the Gaurnat report) both use Intergeneration Equity arguments to keep the costs of action today low (yet in economic valuation, a dollar spent today is always more expensive than a dollar spent in the future.)
So obviously this theory is worthy of discusions as it does impact policies today.
So I was thinking of the history of Intergational equity and when it appeared on the scene. For much of human history, not much emphasis was put on future generations. In law and finance, inheritance is seen as much as passing on both the positives and negatives, rather than just trying to ensure the negatives are minimised.
For example, my Grandad dies and passes on a house to me. But the mortgage also is passed to me. Is this a net positive or a net negative. By far it is a positive. I have a house to live in that protects me from the elements. And I can sell it if required. Sure, I have to pay off the loan, but still ahead.
And so it is with Climate change. One could argue that the benefits of humanity, with all the advancement based on industrialization are also passed onto future generations, not just the costs. So if ensuring that the world is as rich and advanced today is passed on, shouldn't that also be a priority, rather that just making sure the world is clean?
That's why i don't necessarily agree that rich nations should be doing the heavy lifting on climate change. Countries like India and China have benefited massively through industrialized nations, those same countries that pumped out the Greenhouse gases long ago. Everyone has won so everyone should either keep pumping out the gases or give it up.
Another argument would also be, if we are talking equity, why aren't more priorities placed on the generations before ours, not just the generations coming through. Making sure the elderly are provided for in their dotage is just as relevant as preserving the future generations. So increased power prices doesn't help them.
From a legal perspective, children do have rights, but not as many as adults. And the unborn do not have any rights. Legally we owe nothing to the future generations.
And lastly there is a certain degree of arrogance in Generations today dictating what Generations tomorrow will or wont be able to achieve. I mean, the world tomorrow might be a far colder place, and might require climate change to combat that. Or the world tomorrow may be far wealthier than today so why should be spend sparse resources looking after a Generation that may be far wealthier and more able to adapt to a hotter world.
Interesting times.
It is often used as a justification to combat Climate Change. I understand the reasoning because climate change really isn't having any adverse affects on society at the moment. The current generation is probably as rich, healthy and educated as any in human history. So from strictly a cost benefit analysis it makes no sense to do anything about climate change at the moment.
It is only when you employ the "survival of the species" and "think of the grand children" into the mix, that a justification can be employed. We have seen this through the celebration of Greta Thunberg, a child who advocates action on Climate Change based on this "You owe the children" theory.
And we have seen this through most of the economic analysis around Climate Change. Discount rates of 0% (or very low rates) have been employed to make the costs of action today more palatable, even though most economic analysis would employ at least 3% discount rates to future cash flows (as is usually the case).
But both the Stern report and the Australian equivalent (the Gaurnat report) both use Intergeneration Equity arguments to keep the costs of action today low (yet in economic valuation, a dollar spent today is always more expensive than a dollar spent in the future.)
So obviously this theory is worthy of discusions as it does impact policies today.
So I was thinking of the history of Intergational equity and when it appeared on the scene. For much of human history, not much emphasis was put on future generations. In law and finance, inheritance is seen as much as passing on both the positives and negatives, rather than just trying to ensure the negatives are minimised.
For example, my Grandad dies and passes on a house to me. But the mortgage also is passed to me. Is this a net positive or a net negative. By far it is a positive. I have a house to live in that protects me from the elements. And I can sell it if required. Sure, I have to pay off the loan, but still ahead.
And so it is with Climate change. One could argue that the benefits of humanity, with all the advancement based on industrialization are also passed onto future generations, not just the costs. So if ensuring that the world is as rich and advanced today is passed on, shouldn't that also be a priority, rather that just making sure the world is clean?
That's why i don't necessarily agree that rich nations should be doing the heavy lifting on climate change. Countries like India and China have benefited massively through industrialized nations, those same countries that pumped out the Greenhouse gases long ago. Everyone has won so everyone should either keep pumping out the gases or give it up.
Another argument would also be, if we are talking equity, why aren't more priorities placed on the generations before ours, not just the generations coming through. Making sure the elderly are provided for in their dotage is just as relevant as preserving the future generations. So increased power prices doesn't help them.
From a legal perspective, children do have rights, but not as many as adults. And the unborn do not have any rights. Legally we owe nothing to the future generations.
And lastly there is a certain degree of arrogance in Generations today dictating what Generations tomorrow will or wont be able to achieve. I mean, the world tomorrow might be a far colder place, and might require climate change to combat that. Or the world tomorrow may be far wealthier than today so why should be spend sparse resources looking after a Generation that may be far wealthier and more able to adapt to a hotter world.
Interesting times.
Thursday, August 29, 2019
NRL - How has Nathan Brown gone as Coach of Newcastle?
Look, as a Knights fan I am a bit jaded here. I though 2019 was going to be a finals year. Unfortunately, it is all for naught. So I am a bit jaded about how the whole Nathan Brown sacking came about.
But the fact of the matter is there had been some improvement in the Knights over the last 4 years.
If you look at the Z-Scores of the Knights over the last 10 years
This year has been the best year since 2013, when Wayne Bennett was at the helm and they made it deep in the finals. 4th best year in the decade. So probably not worthy of the boot for mine.
But the fact of the matter is there had been some improvement in the Knights over the last 4 years.
If you look at the Z-Scores of the Knights over the last 10 years
This year has been the best year since 2013, when Wayne Bennett was at the helm and they made it deep in the finals. 4th best year in the decade. So probably not worthy of the boot for mine.
Thursday, August 22, 2019
NRL '19 Ranking the best Locks
QUALITY
| Jason Taumalolo |
| Jai Arrow |
| Nathan Brown |
OK
| Ryan Matterson |
| Dale Finucane |
| Jake Trbojevic |
| Paul Gallen |
| Joe Ofahengaue |
| Cameron Murray Adam Elliott |
SHIT
| Tyson Frizell |
| Lachlan Burr |
| Joseph Tapine |
| Liam Martin |
| Tim Glasby |
| Victor Radley |
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
NRL '19 Ranking of the best halves
Standard Methodology
QUALITY
QUALITY
| Nathan Cleary | |||||||||
| Luke Brooks | |||||||||
| Daly Cherry Evans | |||||||||
| Ben Hunt | |||||||||
| Mitchel Moses | |||||||||
| Mitchell Pearce | |||||||||
| Adam Reynolds OK
|
NRL '19 Ranking of the best 5/8ths
Standard Methodology
QUALITY
QUALITY
| 1. Jack Wighton |
| 2. Cameron Munster |
| 3. James Maloney |
| 4. Tyrone Roberts |
| 5. Shaun Johnson |
| 6. Michael Morgan |
OK
| 7. Dylan Walker |
| 8. Kieran Foran |
| 9. Luke Keary |
| 10. Cody Walker |
SHIT
| 11. Benji Marshall |
| 12. Darius Boyd |
| 13. Chanel Harris-Tavita |
| 14. Dylan Brown |
| 15. Gareth Widdop |
| 16. Mason Lino |
NRL '19 Ranking of the best Hookers
Standard Methodology as before
QUALITY (in order)
QUALITY (in order)
| 1. Damien Cook |
| 2. Cameron Smith |
| 3. Josh Hodgson |
| 4. Isaac Luke |
| 5. Robbie Farrah |
*ALL OVER > 0.5 SD better than the average
OK (in order)
| 6. Cameron McInnes |
| 7. Andrew McCullough |
| 8. Danny Levi |
| 9. Reed Mahoney |
| 10. Apisai Koroisau |
*Between 0.5 and -0.5 SD than average
SHIT (in order)
| 11. Jake Granville |
| 12. Nathan Peats |
| 13. Jayden Brailey |
| 14. Sam Verrills |
| 15. Michael Lichaa |
| 16. Mitchell Kenny *Less than -0.5 SD than average. |
Weird that the Knights want to get rid of a OK hooker in Levi, for a shit one in Brailey. I think Levi is getting the blame for a lack of attack from the 5/8th
Monday, August 19, 2019
NRL '19 - Ranking of the best fullbacks
On my these of the best of the best, I have ranked the best fullbacks into
QUALITY, OK, SHIT categories
QUALITY FULLBACKS (in Order)
Roger Tuivasa-Sheck
James Tedesco
Tom Trbojevic
Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad
These guys are all better than 0.5 Standard Deviations than the average Fullback.
OK FULLBACKS (in Order)
Clinton Gutherson
Dylan Edwards
Jahrome Hughes
Corey Thompson
Kailyn Ponga
Dallin Watene-Zelezniak
These guys are between 0.5 and -0.5 Standard Deviations of the average Fullback (i.e they are the average fullback)
SHIT FULLBACKS (in Order)
Alexander Brimson
Scott Drinkwater
Matt Moylan
Anthony Milford
Adam Doueihi
Corey Norman
QUALITY, OK, SHIT categories
QUALITY FULLBACKS (in Order)
Roger Tuivasa-Sheck
James Tedesco
Tom Trbojevic
Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad
These guys are all better than 0.5 Standard Deviations than the average Fullback.
OK FULLBACKS (in Order)
Clinton Gutherson
Dylan Edwards
Jahrome Hughes
Corey Thompson
Kailyn Ponga
Dallin Watene-Zelezniak
These guys are between 0.5 and -0.5 Standard Deviations of the average Fullback (i.e they are the average fullback)
SHIT FULLBACKS (in Order)
Alexander Brimson
Scott Drinkwater
Matt Moylan
Anthony Milford
Adam Doueihi
Corey Norman
NRL 2019 Contenders update - 3 teams clearly ahead
And after 21 games played we have
3 Locks (clearly the best this season)
Storm
Roosters
Raiders
Then we have 3 Probables
Manly (lacking Attack)
Rabbits (lacking Attack)
Eels (lacking Defence)
The rest are filler.
3 Locks (clearly the best this season)
Storm
Roosters
Raiders
Then we have 3 Probables
Manly (lacking Attack)
Rabbits (lacking Attack)
Eels (lacking Defence)
The rest are filler.
Monday, August 12, 2019
NRL Season 2019 - Most improved teams
Season is slowly coming to a close unfortunately, so its interesting to see the improvement within teams over the last year. Some surprises really.
I am using z-scores again to determine improvement. z score calculation is (Win% for team - Average Win% for league)/ (SD of Win% for League)
Comparing 2018 Rd 20 z-scores to 2019. Results below:-
So as you can see, the Eels, Sea-Eagles, Raiders, Storm and Cowboys have all had superior improvement (SD >0.5). Eels especially have had a stellar improvement...The two coaches (Brad Arthur for the Eels) and Des Hassler (Manly) should be fighting it out for Coach of the Year.
On the negative side, the Rabbits, Panthers, Sharks, Broncos, Titans Warriors and Dragons have all gone backwards substantially.<-0 .5="" and="" arriors="" barely="" be="" being="" booted="" bothering="" by="" dragons="" especially....after="" finals="" head="" kearney="" last="" making="" mcgregor="" office="" p="" ragons="" scorer="" should="" stat="" the="" this="" to="" year.="" year="">
I am using z-scores again to determine improvement. z score calculation is (Win% for team - Average Win% for league)/ (SD of Win% for League)
Comparing 2018 Rd 20 z-scores to 2019. Results below:-
So as you can see, the Eels, Sea-Eagles, Raiders, Storm and Cowboys have all had superior improvement (SD >0.5). Eels especially have had a stellar improvement...The two coaches (Brad Arthur for the Eels) and Des Hassler (Manly) should be fighting it out for Coach of the Year.
On the negative side, the Rabbits, Panthers, Sharks, Broncos, Titans Warriors and Dragons have all gone backwards substantially.<-0 .5="" and="" arriors="" barely="" be="" being="" booted="" bothering="" by="" dragons="" especially....after="" finals="" head="" kearney="" last="" making="" mcgregor="" office="" p="" ragons="" scorer="" should="" stat="" the="" this="" to="" year.="" year="">
Thursday, July 25, 2019
NRL Contenders Rd 18 - Melbourne, Rabbits, Roosters, Raiders, Sea Eagles
Only 5 teams still in it according the z-scores
In regards to Win%, Attack, Defense, only 3 are locks (all 3 attributes) in Melbourne, Rabbits and Roosters.
1 possible (2 attributes), in the raiders
In a maybe (1 attribute), Eels have an attack good enough to compete.
In regards to Win%, Attack, Defense, only 3 are locks (all 3 attributes) in Melbourne, Rabbits and Roosters.
1 possible (2 attributes), in the raiders
In a maybe (1 attribute), Eels have an attack good enough to compete.
Monday, July 22, 2019
Few Comments around Adam Goodes
Been following the Adam Goodes sage again, that seems to have been regenerated due to the airing of "The final Quarter" which details the systematic booing Adam Goodes experienced in the later stages of his career. The documentary paints a picture that the booing was all based on Adam Goodes race.
Couple of points.
1. There is no doubt that Adam Goodes has an extremely successful career as an AFL player. His stats speak for themselves. 2* Premiership winner, 2*Brownlow Medal winner, 2*Swans Best and Fairest. So it is clear, he certainly hasn't suffered from systematic racism in the AFL organisation.
2. But it is also clear, his career was on the wane before the 2013 season. His last 3 seasons, 2013, 2014 , 2015 produced 5 brownloe votes, compared to 163 in total. He was also 35 in 2015 when he retired. To say the booing prematurely ended his career is a big call. He was on the way out already.
3. Australian of the year is rarely given to a sports person, and is generally when they retire. The last sports Australians of the year were Steve Waugh (2004), Pat Rafter (2002), both when they retired. The last person to receive the award while still in the prime of their career was Cathy Freeman, another indigenous athlete in 1998. And this was 20 years ago. The contrast between Cathy Freeman and Adam Goodes is stark. Cathy, a proud Indigenous athlete always topped the popularity list. Goodes, evidently not.
4. While it is easy to point to his Indigenous ethnicity as the source of the booing, I'm not sure whether that is correct. If it was his Indigenous status, or his conduct in play, the booing would have started a lot earlier in his career. Why only since 2013/2014?
5. It is clear that the sporting public don't believe it is racist booing. In a very unscientific poll from Bigfooty.com only 13% think its racism. A more scientific poll from Essential report in 2015 also said only 29% believed the booing to be racially motivated. So more likely to be "Tall poppy syndrome" than racism. In Australia, we prefer our stars to be of the humble nature, and activists are generally not well regarded.
6. But again, it comes down the blending of sports business and politics. Should sporting organisations and their players really be at the forefront of human rights agenda's in Australia and be agents of socail change? Both Adam Goodes (hammered by the public) and Israel Folau (hammered by the administrators) have become the casualties of this push into areas I'm not sure sport should be in. Sport always claims to be inclusive, but again, it shouldn't be taking positions in social arguments that even our political leaders struggle with. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, "the only social responsibility of sport administrators should be to run the code".
Couple of points.
1. There is no doubt that Adam Goodes has an extremely successful career as an AFL player. His stats speak for themselves. 2* Premiership winner, 2*Brownlow Medal winner, 2*Swans Best and Fairest. So it is clear, he certainly hasn't suffered from systematic racism in the AFL organisation.
2. But it is also clear, his career was on the wane before the 2013 season. His last 3 seasons, 2013, 2014 , 2015 produced 5 brownloe votes, compared to 163 in total. He was also 35 in 2015 when he retired. To say the booing prematurely ended his career is a big call. He was on the way out already.
3. Australian of the year is rarely given to a sports person, and is generally when they retire. The last sports Australians of the year were Steve Waugh (2004), Pat Rafter (2002), both when they retired. The last person to receive the award while still in the prime of their career was Cathy Freeman, another indigenous athlete in 1998. And this was 20 years ago. The contrast between Cathy Freeman and Adam Goodes is stark. Cathy, a proud Indigenous athlete always topped the popularity list. Goodes, evidently not.
4. While it is easy to point to his Indigenous ethnicity as the source of the booing, I'm not sure whether that is correct. If it was his Indigenous status, or his conduct in play, the booing would have started a lot earlier in his career. Why only since 2013/2014?
5. It is clear that the sporting public don't believe it is racist booing. In a very unscientific poll from Bigfooty.com only 13% think its racism. A more scientific poll from Essential report in 2015 also said only 29% believed the booing to be racially motivated. So more likely to be "Tall poppy syndrome" than racism. In Australia, we prefer our stars to be of the humble nature, and activists are generally not well regarded.
6. But again, it comes down the blending of sports business and politics. Should sporting organisations and their players really be at the forefront of human rights agenda's in Australia and be agents of socail change? Both Adam Goodes (hammered by the public) and Israel Folau (hammered by the administrators) have become the casualties of this push into areas I'm not sure sport should be in. Sport always claims to be inclusive, but again, it shouldn't be taking positions in social arguments that even our political leaders struggle with. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, "the only social responsibility of sport administrators should be to run the code".
Thursday, July 18, 2019
Culture based Fascism
Can you control someone purely from culture? Its an interesting question as increasingly i feel that cultural attitudes are attempting to play a police like roles that our legal system/political system struggle to address.
Culture is hard to define, but to me it is a set of unwritten roles/norms/beliefs that are enforced by non-authoritarian power through social means , i.e peer bullying, segregation, shaming, economic hardship.
The major issue I feel is that the world is getting more mono-cultured as we go along, even though politically we are as divided as we have ever been. The two in fact appear to be moving in opposite directions...politically, the world is moving to the right, yet culturally, the viewpoint is strictly to the left. Worrying, the prevailing cultural standpoints appear increasingly to the only ones that matter, and there is becoming less room to question these standpoints without the non-authoritarian power being applied against you.
i.e In the workplace, if you question the effects of feminism, or homosexuality as solely positive, you can lose your economic livelihood as business exit you from the business. This has played out in quite a few cases; from Jamie Dormore at Google, to Israel Folau and Rugby Australia. Even though these opinions are commonly held and don't affect the quality of work in their careers.
Surely you should be able to question and hold different beliefs than the prevailing culture and not receive a penalty.
So the question is what to do about it. I'm not quite sure.
Culture is hard to define, but to me it is a set of unwritten roles/norms/beliefs that are enforced by non-authoritarian power through social means , i.e peer bullying, segregation, shaming, economic hardship.
The major issue I feel is that the world is getting more mono-cultured as we go along, even though politically we are as divided as we have ever been. The two in fact appear to be moving in opposite directions...politically, the world is moving to the right, yet culturally, the viewpoint is strictly to the left. Worrying, the prevailing cultural standpoints appear increasingly to the only ones that matter, and there is becoming less room to question these standpoints without the non-authoritarian power being applied against you.
i.e In the workplace, if you question the effects of feminism, or homosexuality as solely positive, you can lose your economic livelihood as business exit you from the business. This has played out in quite a few cases; from Jamie Dormore at Google, to Israel Folau and Rugby Australia. Even though these opinions are commonly held and don't affect the quality of work in their careers.
Surely you should be able to question and hold different beliefs than the prevailing culture and not receive a penalty.
So the question is what to do about it. I'm not quite sure.
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Gilead economics
Back onto my favorite theme at the moment, "Handmaids Tale"
I was wondering what a Gilead economy would look like...
1. Would be a closed economy. I would assume UN sanctions would be being applied to the US and trade would be highly regimented with the outside world. The service based/manufacturing base would clearly be non-existent, with the exception of the weapons industry and of course fertility.
2. I would assume it would go back to a commodity/agriculture based economy. Land and minerals are still in large supply in the US so farming and mining would definitely need to be utilized to gain hard currency.
3. Would be heavily nationalized. From all accounts there is no private sector at work supplying goods and services. There would have been capital flight at the start of the Gilead experience.
4. Slave labor force. It is clear there are no wages being utilized
5. Low energy. Electricity does not seem to be utilized in any large form. However, military vehicles appear to be plentiful and in numbers, so that would assume oil drilling would still need to be employed.
6. No currency. Seems like a voucher system is being employed as a unit of exchange.
7. There is a black market in operation for luxury goods like cigarettes. Based on these qualifications it would be clear that smuggling would be a very profitable exercise.
Also, a slave labor force would be useful in labor intensive activities like agriculture, as well as cleaning up the colonies. I'm also surprised that the mining sector isn't heavily mentioned. It would be by far the best way to fund the governments activities, especially as the world has generally looked away from human rights violations for oil and gas producers.
I was wondering what a Gilead economy would look like...
1. Would be a closed economy. I would assume UN sanctions would be being applied to the US and trade would be highly regimented with the outside world. The service based/manufacturing base would clearly be non-existent, with the exception of the weapons industry and of course fertility.
2. I would assume it would go back to a commodity/agriculture based economy. Land and minerals are still in large supply in the US so farming and mining would definitely need to be utilized to gain hard currency.
3. Would be heavily nationalized. From all accounts there is no private sector at work supplying goods and services. There would have been capital flight at the start of the Gilead experience.
4. Slave labor force. It is clear there are no wages being utilized
5. Low energy. Electricity does not seem to be utilized in any large form. However, military vehicles appear to be plentiful and in numbers, so that would assume oil drilling would still need to be employed.
6. No currency. Seems like a voucher system is being employed as a unit of exchange.
7. There is a black market in operation for luxury goods like cigarettes. Based on these qualifications it would be clear that smuggling would be a very profitable exercise.
Also, a slave labor force would be useful in labor intensive activities like agriculture, as well as cleaning up the colonies. I'm also surprised that the mining sector isn't heavily mentioned. It would be by far the best way to fund the governments activities, especially as the world has generally looked away from human rights violations for oil and gas producers.
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Handmaids Tale - Commander Lawrence's motivation
I have been watching "The Handmaids Tale". Up to Season 3, and am fascinated by the character of Commander Lawrence.
Played with aplomb as always by Bradley Whitfield (don't really like his politics, yet he is a great actor), he is by far the most interesting male character in the show now.
It seems he was an economics professor in the old days and has written several books. Supposedly the "visionary" and intellectual mastermind of Gilead, and high up the leadership chain.
A few points.
1. It is clear that he still has a strong belief in Gilead and the economic and political frameworks he has put together.
2. Believes he is doing good for the world.
3. Values Intellect, hard work and honesty.
4. Loves his wife.
Which makes it odd that he is running a Matha resistance cell against the regime in his home, and allowed the bomb to go off in the new Handmaid center that killed off so many commanders (and handmaids). For someone who believes in Gilead, that is an odd decision.
So I wonder if it is wife who is in charge of the resistance, rather than him. And its his love for his wife that is guiding him to overlook the traitors. Either way, it still seems a very large risk to take, especially when Mayday would be looking at high profile targets like Commander Lawrence. Killing him would put a large dent in the leadership of the Government.
Or maybe he is using the cell to gain ultimate power for himself. By allowing the cell to keep active, he keeps the Gilead leadership on their toes and focused on internal security. And as he does not go to meetings with the other Commanders, he would be able to target the leadership with impunity, safely ensconced in his own house. Also, puts him in a very strong position to close down the resistance if he ever turned against them.
But then again, maybe he wants his ideas to go global. By controlling the resistance, and allowing potential leaders like Emily out of Gilead, he is spreading the influence of his ideas to Canada and the outside world. It is clear from his conversations with June that he is trying to "Populate the world", not just the US and so his ultimate aim may be to get other countries to follow his methods.
Really interesting stuff. Anyway, I will look forward to watching his character develop
Played with aplomb as always by Bradley Whitfield (don't really like his politics, yet he is a great actor), he is by far the most interesting male character in the show now.
It seems he was an economics professor in the old days and has written several books. Supposedly the "visionary" and intellectual mastermind of Gilead, and high up the leadership chain.
A few points.
1. It is clear that he still has a strong belief in Gilead and the economic and political frameworks he has put together.
2. Believes he is doing good for the world.
3. Values Intellect, hard work and honesty.
4. Loves his wife.
Which makes it odd that he is running a Matha resistance cell against the regime in his home, and allowed the bomb to go off in the new Handmaid center that killed off so many commanders (and handmaids). For someone who believes in Gilead, that is an odd decision.
So I wonder if it is wife who is in charge of the resistance, rather than him. And its his love for his wife that is guiding him to overlook the traitors. Either way, it still seems a very large risk to take, especially when Mayday would be looking at high profile targets like Commander Lawrence. Killing him would put a large dent in the leadership of the Government.
Or maybe he is using the cell to gain ultimate power for himself. By allowing the cell to keep active, he keeps the Gilead leadership on their toes and focused on internal security. And as he does not go to meetings with the other Commanders, he would be able to target the leadership with impunity, safely ensconced in his own house. Also, puts him in a very strong position to close down the resistance if he ever turned against them.
But then again, maybe he wants his ideas to go global. By controlling the resistance, and allowing potential leaders like Emily out of Gilead, he is spreading the influence of his ideas to Canada and the outside world. It is clear from his conversations with June that he is trying to "Populate the world", not just the US and so his ultimate aim may be to get other countries to follow his methods.
Really interesting stuff. Anyway, I will look forward to watching his character develop
Monday, July 1, 2019
NRL Contenders - Update
We currently have 3 LOCKS (all 3 measures) at the moment
Still the usual suspects at the top.
MELBOURNE
SOUTHS
ROOSTERS
Then we have a few on MAYBE Status (1 measure)
RAIDERS
KNIGHTS
SEAEAGLES
EELS
MELBOURNE starting to pull away in the Z-Score as well. Now 2+ Standard Deviations better than the norm.
Still the usual suspects at the top.
MELBOURNE
SOUTHS
ROOSTERS
Then we have a few on MAYBE Status (1 measure)
RAIDERS
KNIGHTS
SEAEAGLES
EELS
MELBOURNE starting to pull away in the Z-Score as well. Now 2+ Standard Deviations better than the norm.
Monday, June 24, 2019
Israel Folau - Few comments
Wow, been following along around the Israel Folau brouhaha, and its getting ridiculous
Couple of points.
1. Folau's commentary on Homosexuality is incorrect on a number of theological grounds. The Catholic church has come out over the years and said that while it believes that homosexual acts are morally wrong, being homosexual is not, due to God creating everyone in his own image. Like everything, the church judges the free will act, not the original state. And regardless, there is always scope for redemption so no, homosexuals will not automatically to go to hell.
2. That said, while I believe Folau is incorrect, his actual posts I don't believe were from a hateful place, but more in the form of a warning. I think that he believes he was trying to help people find the right path.
3. I do think he should have deleted the posts, which would have ensured he still will have a job. There are a lot of true believers in the unemployment queue (he is now one of them) and he could have still done his preacher work from the church pulpit.
4. That said, its becoming increasingly clear that formal religious protections in business for employees are non-existent. An informal "don't ask, don't tell" policy seems to be in effect, which means you are accepted as long as you don't say anything.
5. Does business have the right to dictate its employees thoughts and beliefs, even when they are not relevant to their employment? We are seeing increasingly that breaches to specified "code of conduct" rules are resulting in dismissal (see James Dormore). In traditional workplaces this is less of an issue, as there are other companies and industries to be employed at. But when Governing bodies are dictating this, this could almost be classified as restraint of trade.
3. GoFundMe is the latest organisation to ban Israel Folau. So far the list is :-
Rugby Australia (Org)
NSW Rugby (Org)
Qantas (Company)
GoFundMe (Company)
ASICS (Company)
NRL (Org)
Will keep an on-going list as we go along.
Couple of points.
1. Folau's commentary on Homosexuality is incorrect on a number of theological grounds. The Catholic church has come out over the years and said that while it believes that homosexual acts are morally wrong, being homosexual is not, due to God creating everyone in his own image. Like everything, the church judges the free will act, not the original state. And regardless, there is always scope for redemption so no, homosexuals will not automatically to go to hell.
2. That said, while I believe Folau is incorrect, his actual posts I don't believe were from a hateful place, but more in the form of a warning. I think that he believes he was trying to help people find the right path.
3. I do think he should have deleted the posts, which would have ensured he still will have a job. There are a lot of true believers in the unemployment queue (he is now one of them) and he could have still done his preacher work from the church pulpit.
4. That said, its becoming increasingly clear that formal religious protections in business for employees are non-existent. An informal "don't ask, don't tell" policy seems to be in effect, which means you are accepted as long as you don't say anything.
5. Does business have the right to dictate its employees thoughts and beliefs, even when they are not relevant to their employment? We are seeing increasingly that breaches to specified "code of conduct" rules are resulting in dismissal (see James Dormore). In traditional workplaces this is less of an issue, as there are other companies and industries to be employed at. But when Governing bodies are dictating this, this could almost be classified as restraint of trade.
3. GoFundMe is the latest organisation to ban Israel Folau. So far the list is :-
Rugby Australia (Org)
NSW Rugby (Org)
Qantas (Company)
GoFundMe (Company)
ASICS (Company)
NRL (Org)
Will keep an on-going list as we go along.
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
NRL Contenders - After Round 13
Well the contender list gets smaller and smaller.
We only have 2 locks left;
Melbourne Storm
South Sydney Rabbits.
Looking like the two finalists for mine.
Then we have 3 probables
Sydney Roosters
Canberra Raiders
Newcastle Knights
Rest may as well shut up shop now.
We only have 2 locks left;
Melbourne Storm
South Sydney Rabbits.
Looking like the two finalists for mine.
Then we have 3 probables
Sydney Roosters
Canberra Raiders
Newcastle Knights
Rest may as well shut up shop now.
Monday, May 27, 2019
NRL Contenders after Rd 11 - Before Origin
Movements.
Well, there are only 2 LOCKS left after Rd 11, with the Roosters dropping to PROB status. Knights have moved up from MAYBE to PROB status.
LOCKS (all 3 characteristics)
RABBITS
MELBOURNE
PROBS (2 characteristics)
ROOSTERS
KNIGHTS!!!
MAYBE (1 characteristic)
SEA EAGLES
But its worse if I use my Z-score methodogy. Based on the z-score, only 3 teams can win it. RABBITS, STORM and ROOSTERS. The rest are gonnnnnnneeeeeeeeeee
Well, there are only 2 LOCKS left after Rd 11, with the Roosters dropping to PROB status. Knights have moved up from MAYBE to PROB status.
LOCKS (all 3 characteristics)
RABBITS
MELBOURNE
PROBS (2 characteristics)
ROOSTERS
KNIGHTS!!!
MAYBE (1 characteristic)
SEA EAGLES
But its worse if I use my Z-score methodogy. Based on the z-score, only 3 teams can win it. RABBITS, STORM and ROOSTERS. The rest are gonnnnnnneeeeeeeeeee
Monday, May 20, 2019
NRL Contendors - After Rd 10
Raiders have dropped from a LOCK to MAYBE status.
Paramatta have dropped out of Contention.
So we have LOCKS
RABBITS
STORM
ROOSTERS
and MAYBES
RAIDERS
SEA - EAGLES
KNIGHTS.
Paramatta have dropped out of Contention.
So we have LOCKS
RABBITS
STORM
ROOSTERS
and MAYBES
RAIDERS
SEA - EAGLES
KNIGHTS.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
NRL Contenders for Finals - Update after Round 9
Looking at the teams for the finals, we have a new entrant! Yes, the mighty Newcastle knights have shown up on the grid for the first time, due to their defence. Yes, their points per game has dropped under he magic 18 point mark, so they have entered "MAYBE" territory.
Other than that, the usual suspects are there. Storm and Raiders have been included in the LOCK selections, Eels and Manly have faded from PROBABLE into MAYBE.
LOCKS
1 ROOSTERS
2 RABBITS
3 STORM
4 RAIDERS
MAYBES
5 MANLY
6 EELS
7 KNIGHTS
Other than that, the usual suspects are there. Storm and Raiders have been included in the LOCK selections, Eels and Manly have faded from PROBABLE into MAYBE.
LOCKS
1 ROOSTERS
2 RABBITS
3 STORM
4 RAIDERS
MAYBES
5 MANLY
6 EELS
7 KNIGHTS
Friday, May 10, 2019
Guitar Playing - Status Updates
Played my first clear E and A Major chords last night. Pretty happy!
Couple of tips I have noticed since playing for a week.
1. Trimming your nails really short on the fret hand helps a lot
2. I think building the hand strength/flexibility in the fret hand is really key to guitar playing
3. Need to tune the guitar every day.
So for those trying to learn, I had my first clear chords after playing every night (30 mins) for around 5 days. So don't be discouraged if you are muting the strings a lot initially. I think it takes a while to build that fret hand strength and flexibility., especially if you don't have a lot of natural strength in your left hand.
Couple of tips I have noticed since playing for a week.
1. Trimming your nails really short on the fret hand helps a lot
2. I think building the hand strength/flexibility in the fret hand is really key to guitar playing
3. Need to tune the guitar every day.
So for those trying to learn, I had my first clear chords after playing every night (30 mins) for around 5 days. So don't be discouraged if you are muting the strings a lot initially. I think it takes a while to build that fret hand strength and flexibility., especially if you don't have a lot of natural strength in your left hand.
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
Guitar Playing - Beginning
I have standard to teach myself how to play the guitar, so I figured I would use my blog to chart my experiences in the case someone else can learn from my experiences.
Have spent the last 2 nights having a go. My aim is to eventually play "Play it again" by Luke Bryan. I have developed a love of country music from some where in the past 3 weeks. Bizarre
Anyway, I have dusted off my guitar which has been in storage for around 15 years. So not in tune.
I downloaded the Fender Tuning app which is remarkably good at tuning guitars. My guitar is now in tune. Would definitely recommend that as a tuning tool.
Also bought myself a guitar pick. $1. No dramas.
I have started learning my first 2 chords..the Open G chord and the Open C chord. I seem to get the G chord more than the C one, which seems a stretch on my fingers. I don't think I have my fingering positions quite right as my C chord seems to muffle a couple of the strings.
I think I am using the pads on my fingers rather than the points. Will try that tonight to see if I can get a better sound.
Have also tried the Fender Play videos on Youtube. Not sure about them to be honest as I prefer the Fret diagrams and the Fender Play stuff doesn't see to spend a lot of time on them.
Have spent the last 2 nights having a go. My aim is to eventually play "Play it again" by Luke Bryan. I have developed a love of country music from some where in the past 3 weeks. Bizarre
Anyway, I have dusted off my guitar which has been in storage for around 15 years. So not in tune.
I downloaded the Fender Tuning app which is remarkably good at tuning guitars. My guitar is now in tune. Would definitely recommend that as a tuning tool.
Also bought myself a guitar pick. $1. No dramas.
I have started learning my first 2 chords..the Open G chord and the Open C chord. I seem to get the G chord more than the C one, which seems a stretch on my fingers. I don't think I have my fingering positions quite right as my C chord seems to muffle a couple of the strings.
I think I am using the pads on my fingers rather than the points. Will try that tonight to see if I can get a better sound.
Have also tried the Fender Play videos on Youtube. Not sure about them to be honest as I prefer the Fret diagrams and the Fender Play stuff doesn't see to spend a lot of time on them.
NRL Season 2019 - Contenders for finals
Well, its the end of Round 8 so we should be getting a look at who are the top contenders.
After doing some stats analysis on the past 10 seasons, averages and 95% confidence levels, I have come up with the following characteristics of finals teams (Money Ball like)
1. Win record >= 60.76%
2. For points being >=21.86/game
3. Against points being <=18.20/game
Only 3 teams qualify at this stage (so these are the Locked in teams)
Roosters
Rabbits
Eels
So those teams are guaranteed to make the finals for mine
Then we have the Probable Teams (who have 2 of the characteristics)
Raiders
Storm
Manly
The rest are going to struggle for mine, even if they make the finals. So based on that, I think the Eels and Souths are really good value at $5 to win the comp.
After doing some stats analysis on the past 10 seasons, averages and 95% confidence levels, I have come up with the following characteristics of finals teams (Money Ball like)
1. Win record >= 60.76%
2. For points being >=21.86/game
3. Against points being <=18.20/game
Only 3 teams qualify at this stage (so these are the Locked in teams)
Roosters
Rabbits
Eels
So those teams are guaranteed to make the finals for mine
Then we have the Probable Teams (who have 2 of the characteristics)
Raiders
Storm
Manly
The rest are going to struggle for mine, even if they make the finals. So based on that, I think the Eels and Souths are really good value at $5 to win the comp.
Thursday, March 21, 2019
Islamic Call to Prayer broadcast on NZ state TV station? Really
After the tragic events of the Christchurch bombing, there was bound to be overreach by NZ politicians, but this one takes the cake.
Allowing the Muslim "Call to prayer" to be published seems a bit of over reach. I mean, in my previous post, I mentioned that democratic nations generally need to keep their minorities happy (Muslims make up 1.14% of the NZ population), but broadcasting a fairly provocative "Call to prayer" in Arabic, which also includes the terms used whenever a militant Islamic extremist blows shit up ("Allahu Akbar"), is not ideal.
Most New Zealanders can get aligned with the gun law changes introduced, but this Call to prayer stuff will alienate the majority. Misstep
Allowing the Muslim "Call to prayer" to be published seems a bit of over reach. I mean, in my previous post, I mentioned that democratic nations generally need to keep their minorities happy (Muslims make up 1.14% of the NZ population), but broadcasting a fairly provocative "Call to prayer" in Arabic, which also includes the terms used whenever a militant Islamic extremist blows shit up ("Allahu Akbar"), is not ideal.
Most New Zealanders can get aligned with the gun law changes introduced, but this Call to prayer stuff will alienate the majority. Misstep
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Thoughts on Christchurch - Part 2
As a way of trying to understand what might have motivated the Christchurch shooter, I have started reading the works of Anthony D Smith who is a prominent thinker about nationalism.
Opened up the book, "Nationalism in the 20th Century" which is a pretty good book and strangely predictive in some of this thoughts regarding ethnic-nationalism. It was published in 1979, but its words ring true today.
He mentions that as communications has improved, so has the ability to raise educated or moneyed "elites" from different regions who feel like they have outgrown their provinces in which they reside.
Those provincial elites move for opportunities and start mixing in the world cities, and competing with those established people who then need to compete with these newbies. The competition and the fact that they have moved from their "tribe" means that they never feel like they belong, especially if they are non-traditional, i.e have no want of marriage or family.
Due to this disconnect, they then look for other ways to identify themselves, either through cultural norms like religion, nationalism or via appearance, like skin colour. And as secularism and equality has become more and more a part of life in the Western world, it can lead to racism and skin colour as a way of identification.
Smith mentioned that the more democratic a country is, the more weight is given to minority opinion. Which certainly does seem to be the case in Australia and New Zealand, where miniority opinions seem to hold a great deal of weight. Again, this can lead to the feeling by the majority that they are neglected or not receiving attention and can push these disaffected people into the arms of extremist movements.
And this seems like exactly what happened to Brenton Tarrant. A typical non-traditional young man with no interest in family, limited education, who was elevated to elite status by inheritance and felt he outgrew Grafton, a small town in NSW.
Decided to travel the world, again got exposed to the huge amount of diversity that exists compared to Grafton (which is a homogenous generally white town). Moved to New Zealand, a fairly diverse country in itself and found he couldn't compete economically and culturally and was isolated. Was non-religious, so instead turned to skin colour as a way of identifying and finding power, and hence took the step to anti-Islamic thinking which lead him to the horrors that occurred.
So after all that, what is the answer. How can we prevent this thinking. Well it is clear that education of the world is important to ensure people are aware of the diversity that is out there. And a focus on religion and family to build those traditional frameworks which can prevent the warped thinking. Preventing the movement of the provincial elites is difficult as generally, economies have demand for skilled workers.
Realistically, the genie is out of the bottle. All we can do is to remember to look after the majority as well as the minorities.
Opened up the book, "Nationalism in the 20th Century" which is a pretty good book and strangely predictive in some of this thoughts regarding ethnic-nationalism. It was published in 1979, but its words ring true today.
He mentions that as communications has improved, so has the ability to raise educated or moneyed "elites" from different regions who feel like they have outgrown their provinces in which they reside.
Those provincial elites move for opportunities and start mixing in the world cities, and competing with those established people who then need to compete with these newbies. The competition and the fact that they have moved from their "tribe" means that they never feel like they belong, especially if they are non-traditional, i.e have no want of marriage or family.
Due to this disconnect, they then look for other ways to identify themselves, either through cultural norms like religion, nationalism or via appearance, like skin colour. And as secularism and equality has become more and more a part of life in the Western world, it can lead to racism and skin colour as a way of identification.
Smith mentioned that the more democratic a country is, the more weight is given to minority opinion. Which certainly does seem to be the case in Australia and New Zealand, where miniority opinions seem to hold a great deal of weight. Again, this can lead to the feeling by the majority that they are neglected or not receiving attention and can push these disaffected people into the arms of extremist movements.
And this seems like exactly what happened to Brenton Tarrant. A typical non-traditional young man with no interest in family, limited education, who was elevated to elite status by inheritance and felt he outgrew Grafton, a small town in NSW.
Decided to travel the world, again got exposed to the huge amount of diversity that exists compared to Grafton (which is a homogenous generally white town). Moved to New Zealand, a fairly diverse country in itself and found he couldn't compete economically and culturally and was isolated. Was non-religious, so instead turned to skin colour as a way of identifying and finding power, and hence took the step to anti-Islamic thinking which lead him to the horrors that occurred.
So after all that, what is the answer. How can we prevent this thinking. Well it is clear that education of the world is important to ensure people are aware of the diversity that is out there. And a focus on religion and family to build those traditional frameworks which can prevent the warped thinking. Preventing the movement of the provincial elites is difficult as generally, economies have demand for skilled workers.
Realistically, the genie is out of the bottle. All we can do is to remember to look after the majority as well as the minorities.
Monday, March 18, 2019
Thoughts on Christchurch...
Been thinking a bit about the horror of the Christchurch terrorist incident, specifically the person who was responsible for the event.
If we look into his background, the usual stats appear
1. Young male. Under 30
2. Lack of formal education
2. Childhood trauma
3. Poor upbringing
4. Radicalised
6. Not married/no girlfriends
7. A lot of free time.
Now here is the average bio of just about every terrorist foot soldier, religious or otherwise.
A couple of issues though that differentiate this event from the usual.
1. Where did he get his combat training? Very difficult to kill 50 people in a short period of time, even with modern weaponry. I don't believe you can learn this stuff playing first person shooters on computers.
2. Planning. This wasn't a random event. It showed a fair bit of strategy...i.e the clothing and equipment; knowing the targets, the timing...Friday afternoon to maximise the number of people who would be in the mosque. Moving to a new mosque after the first to continue the killings..all show a fair bit of tactical and strategic awareness that you wouldn't expect from a personal training from Grafton.
3. The psyops component. Live streaming the event and the manifesto does elevate the localised terrorist event into an international flashpoint.
It would appear to me that he has had some sort of assistance with his plot...either by people close to him, or the internet community. Which makes it even more of an intelligence/police stuff up.
Someone must have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to the white supremacist movement in New Zealand.
But regardless, it is pretty clear that we now have two terrorist threats in the world going head to head. Islamic terrorism (waged by the radicals in the Sunni religion) and its counter, anti-Islamic terrorism (which seems to have be co-opted by the global white supremacy movement). Both using the remote radicalisation model to get people to commit acts of terror in their own backyards, with their own cells and means (with some remote strategic assistance) And its not going to end well.
Not sure about the answer...but like every answer to terrorism ever engaged in the world, it lies in the political sphere.
More needs to be done by our politicians to make us all feel secure and content. Over the last 20 years, our economy and social culture has been changing at breakneck speed. I think we need to take our foot off the accelerator and start consolidating the gains that have been made.
If we look into his background, the usual stats appear
1. Young male. Under 30
2. Lack of formal education
2. Childhood trauma
3. Poor upbringing
4. Radicalised
6. Not married/no girlfriends
7. A lot of free time.
Now here is the average bio of just about every terrorist foot soldier, religious or otherwise.
A couple of issues though that differentiate this event from the usual.
1. Where did he get his combat training? Very difficult to kill 50 people in a short period of time, even with modern weaponry. I don't believe you can learn this stuff playing first person shooters on computers.
2. Planning. This wasn't a random event. It showed a fair bit of strategy...i.e the clothing and equipment; knowing the targets, the timing...Friday afternoon to maximise the number of people who would be in the mosque. Moving to a new mosque after the first to continue the killings..all show a fair bit of tactical and strategic awareness that you wouldn't expect from a personal training from Grafton.
3. The psyops component. Live streaming the event and the manifesto does elevate the localised terrorist event into an international flashpoint.
It would appear to me that he has had some sort of assistance with his plot...either by people close to him, or the internet community. Which makes it even more of an intelligence/police stuff up.
Someone must have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to the white supremacist movement in New Zealand.
But regardless, it is pretty clear that we now have two terrorist threats in the world going head to head. Islamic terrorism (waged by the radicals in the Sunni religion) and its counter, anti-Islamic terrorism (which seems to have be co-opted by the global white supremacy movement). Both using the remote radicalisation model to get people to commit acts of terror in their own backyards, with their own cells and means (with some remote strategic assistance) And its not going to end well.
Not sure about the answer...but like every answer to terrorism ever engaged in the world, it lies in the political sphere.
More needs to be done by our politicians to make us all feel secure and content. Over the last 20 years, our economy and social culture has been changing at breakneck speed. I think we need to take our foot off the accelerator and start consolidating the gains that have been made.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
Gillette, the best a man can get?
Gillette ad is raising a storm in the press at the moment. And people are plainly confused about the message.
My opinion.
It is an anti-male ad in balance. The first half is about as blatant a dig at men as you can get. So many stereotypes
1. Men around a BBQ ignoring things.
2. Male chasing after the maid at home.
3. Male chorus laughing at sexist jokes
3. Male sexism in the workplace
4. Boys bullying at school.
5. Boys fighting in backyard.
Second half is better when it shows the positive behaviours from the men, which most men do all the time.
1. Men checking their mates predatory behaviours
2. Men protecting children
3. Men being good fathers to daughters.
But the reaction of men of the video clearly shows that they remember the first bit, more that the second bit. Which is a problem. Unless you remember the second bit, you don't get the perceived payoff from the ad...that men rock!
It leads me to some weird confusing thoughts. I agree a lot with most of the behavioural message in the ad. I break up boys fighting when I see it as Dad. I teach my boys to respect women. But bullying actually has an evolutionary aspect to it which we ignore at our peril. Learning to stand up to bullies is a life skill that every child, male or female needs to handle. Builds resilience. And flirting with women at parties or even in the street may be welcome or unwelcome, but hardly bad behaviour if respectful and light.
And I guess that is what I feel when I watch the ad. The Ad is advocating social norms that some people may not necessarily agree with. Not sure it should be doing that.
Hmm, will need to think more about this. More to come.
My opinion.
It is an anti-male ad in balance. The first half is about as blatant a dig at men as you can get. So many stereotypes
1. Men around a BBQ ignoring things.
2. Male chasing after the maid at home.
3. Male chorus laughing at sexist jokes
3. Male sexism in the workplace
4. Boys bullying at school.
5. Boys fighting in backyard.
Second half is better when it shows the positive behaviours from the men, which most men do all the time.
1. Men checking their mates predatory behaviours
2. Men protecting children
3. Men being good fathers to daughters.
But the reaction of men of the video clearly shows that they remember the first bit, more that the second bit. Which is a problem. Unless you remember the second bit, you don't get the perceived payoff from the ad...that men rock!
It leads me to some weird confusing thoughts. I agree a lot with most of the behavioural message in the ad. I break up boys fighting when I see it as Dad. I teach my boys to respect women. But bullying actually has an evolutionary aspect to it which we ignore at our peril. Learning to stand up to bullies is a life skill that every child, male or female needs to handle. Builds resilience. And flirting with women at parties or even in the street may be welcome or unwelcome, but hardly bad behaviour if respectful and light.
And I guess that is what I feel when I watch the ad. The Ad is advocating social norms that some people may not necessarily agree with. Not sure it should be doing that.
Hmm, will need to think more about this. More to come.
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
How to Train Your Dragon 3 Review: Not bad, but left something on the table
My 5 point Review
Positives:
1. Decent story about Hiccup trying to consolidate his leadership position. Relationship with Astrid explored and developed.
2. Excellent animated fight sequences
Negatives
1. Too much emphasis on Toothless's relationship with his new mate, the "Light Fury". I mean, the story has always been about Hiccup learning to be a man. The "Night Fury" has just been the catalyst/instrument for this.
2. The villain is weak. Motivation is never really explained.
Conculsion
A good movie but could have been better.
Positives:
1. Decent story about Hiccup trying to consolidate his leadership position. Relationship with Astrid explored and developed.
2. Excellent animated fight sequences
Negatives
1. Too much emphasis on Toothless's relationship with his new mate, the "Light Fury". I mean, the story has always been about Hiccup learning to be a man. The "Night Fury" has just been the catalyst/instrument for this.
2. The villain is weak. Motivation is never really explained.
Conculsion
A good movie but could have been better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)