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.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)