Very early this morning, in fact at 00:22 GMT was the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere. In the geocentric view; the sun stopped travelling north, stood still over the tropic of Cancer at 23 degrees and 27 minutes north, and then began travelling south. In about 3 months time it will cross the equator, then in about six months it will stand still over the tropic of Capricorn.
What this means for us, is that the days will now start becoming lighter.
Something to look forward to!
Friday, December 22, 2006
Thursday, December 21, 2006
A day for mourning
It is a sad, sad day today. The great man, the greatest ever Australian: Shane Warne, has announced his retirement from international cricket.
Thanks for all the memories mate
Thanks for all the memories mate
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Kiwi FC v Boca Seniors
Kiwi FC surged to the top of the table with a resounding 6-0 win over Boca Seniors on the back of another solid second half. The Kiwis have played a lot of their best football in the second half of this season’s matches, regularly bringing on fresh legs and wearing the opposition down. Saturday was no different and after a rusty first half, Kiwi FC’s class and strength showed in the end to bag the points.
A combination of poor weather and defaulting opposition meant that Kiwi FC had played only once in the past 6 weeks; so they started the game a little slowly. Some good communication and patience from Cappy and Kris at the back meant that the side soon found some flow and began to dominate possession. Danny and Steve A controlled the midfield well and Kiwis regularly stretched their opposition; using the full width of the pitch. Mike and Dave made some incursive runs from their wing back positions, and Nick and Steve Mc also sought to take the attack into the opposition area, supporting the front two of James and Grog.
Though despite all their dominance, the Kiwis just couldn’t seem to put the ball in the back of the net. Cappy and Danny both came close with fine shots, Grog and Steve A also had chances and James and Nick both missed when it looked easier to score; though at least Nick made contact with the ball.
So at half time it was a rather disappointing 0-0. The lads all agreed they had played rather poorly but there was a sense that the goals would come and it was just a matter of a little more patience. Grog and Dave were replaced by Sam and Bede.
Come they did; shortly into the second half the floodgates opened. Kiwi FC continued their dominance of possession but in the second half they turned that dominance into goals. Danny started the rout after following through on a wicked strike from outside the area by Steve Mc. The goalie couldn’t handle the shot and Danny was there to hammer home the rebound. The Boca players then spent the next 5 minutes arguing with the ref that it was off-side, but he wasn’t going to change his mind, and this spurred the Kiwis on to net more goals.
The second goal came shortly afterwards. After some good build up work by Nick in midfield, James latched onto his pass and headed for goal. He played his way into the box and rolled the ball past the keeper. 2-0
Steve B came on for Steve Mc and immediately had an impact on the game. He worked hard and made some driving runs down the left; teasing the Boca defence and keeping Kiwi FC down the right end of the pitch. It was from one of these field positions that the third goal came. The Kiwis won a free kick wide out on the left, Steve A stepped up and curled a lovely ball into the box, Sam rose unchallenged and placed a perfectly directed header into the back of the net. This was getting easy now.
More goals were to come as the Kiwis kept piling forward. Cappy was making some good runs forward; passing it out of defence and then following his passes up. He wasn’t going to be denied having his name on the score sheet, some great build up work saw Cappy launch a stinging shot from just outside the box, the keeper had no chance and Cappy got his just rewards for another fine performance.
James bagged himself another shortly after that. Played through by a great pass by Steve A, he hit it low to the bottom left corner and that made it 5.
With credit to the Boca players they never gave up and still threatened the Kiwi goal once or twice, but Leighton was always on hand to clean up in goal. Kiwi FC were keen to record their first clean sheet of the season and even though a couple of times it looked like they might concede, it was the Kiwis who scored again. An excellent run into the box by Danny saw him tripped up and a penalty was deservedly earned. Smelling a hat-trick, James stepped up to take it. The kick was delayed by the opposition arguing with the ref about where it should be taken from, but the spot was marked on the ground, and nobody was going to miss from 8 yards out. 6-0
That was the last time the scorers would be troubled for the day, though Boca managed to finish the game with only 9 players after having a player sent off. It was just the result that Kiwi FC wanted going into the short Christmas break. They can look down at the rest of the league from the top of the table, ahead by 2 points still with a game in hand.
Cheers and farewell to Steve Bethune who played his last game for the club, sorry for not letting you take the penalty. Steve has been a quality member of the team both on and off the pitch and he will be missed.
A combination of poor weather and defaulting opposition meant that Kiwi FC had played only once in the past 6 weeks; so they started the game a little slowly. Some good communication and patience from Cappy and Kris at the back meant that the side soon found some flow and began to dominate possession. Danny and Steve A controlled the midfield well and Kiwis regularly stretched their opposition; using the full width of the pitch. Mike and Dave made some incursive runs from their wing back positions, and Nick and Steve Mc also sought to take the attack into the opposition area, supporting the front two of James and Grog.
Though despite all their dominance, the Kiwis just couldn’t seem to put the ball in the back of the net. Cappy and Danny both came close with fine shots, Grog and Steve A also had chances and James and Nick both missed when it looked easier to score; though at least Nick made contact with the ball.
So at half time it was a rather disappointing 0-0. The lads all agreed they had played rather poorly but there was a sense that the goals would come and it was just a matter of a little more patience. Grog and Dave were replaced by Sam and Bede.
Come they did; shortly into the second half the floodgates opened. Kiwi FC continued their dominance of possession but in the second half they turned that dominance into goals. Danny started the rout after following through on a wicked strike from outside the area by Steve Mc. The goalie couldn’t handle the shot and Danny was there to hammer home the rebound. The Boca players then spent the next 5 minutes arguing with the ref that it was off-side, but he wasn’t going to change his mind, and this spurred the Kiwis on to net more goals.
The second goal came shortly afterwards. After some good build up work by Nick in midfield, James latched onto his pass and headed for goal. He played his way into the box and rolled the ball past the keeper. 2-0
Steve B came on for Steve Mc and immediately had an impact on the game. He worked hard and made some driving runs down the left; teasing the Boca defence and keeping Kiwi FC down the right end of the pitch. It was from one of these field positions that the third goal came. The Kiwis won a free kick wide out on the left, Steve A stepped up and curled a lovely ball into the box, Sam rose unchallenged and placed a perfectly directed header into the back of the net. This was getting easy now.
More goals were to come as the Kiwis kept piling forward. Cappy was making some good runs forward; passing it out of defence and then following his passes up. He wasn’t going to be denied having his name on the score sheet, some great build up work saw Cappy launch a stinging shot from just outside the box, the keeper had no chance and Cappy got his just rewards for another fine performance.
James bagged himself another shortly after that. Played through by a great pass by Steve A, he hit it low to the bottom left corner and that made it 5.
With credit to the Boca players they never gave up and still threatened the Kiwi goal once or twice, but Leighton was always on hand to clean up in goal. Kiwi FC were keen to record their first clean sheet of the season and even though a couple of times it looked like they might concede, it was the Kiwis who scored again. An excellent run into the box by Danny saw him tripped up and a penalty was deservedly earned. Smelling a hat-trick, James stepped up to take it. The kick was delayed by the opposition arguing with the ref about where it should be taken from, but the spot was marked on the ground, and nobody was going to miss from 8 yards out. 6-0
That was the last time the scorers would be troubled for the day, though Boca managed to finish the game with only 9 players after having a player sent off. It was just the result that Kiwi FC wanted going into the short Christmas break. They can look down at the rest of the league from the top of the table, ahead by 2 points still with a game in hand.
Cheers and farewell to Steve Bethune who played his last game for the club, sorry for not letting you take the penalty. Steve has been a quality member of the team both on and off the pitch and he will be missed.
Friday, December 15, 2006
It's in the bag
After day 2 of the third test, Australia clearly have the upper hand. They are odds on favourites to win this test and take an unsurmountable 3-0 series lead.
I can guarantee this will happen. The reason I say this has not anything to do with Australia's cricketing abilities or what my prediction is of how the match will unfold. I say this because of the following quote by Kevin Pietersen:
"If our batters bat well, and we have some pretty good batters, we could still draw."
Pietersen has really been the only England player that has provided any kind of consistent resistance in the series so far. This is his mindset; he has already resigned to not winning the game. He has already given up hope of winning and now at best thinks they can achieve a draw. I imagine this is the mindset throughout the England team. They have already lost. They will not even draw the match with this kind of attitude.
The Ashes will belong to Australia once again on Sunday afternoon.
I can guarantee this will happen. The reason I say this has not anything to do with Australia's cricketing abilities or what my prediction is of how the match will unfold. I say this because of the following quote by Kevin Pietersen:
"If our batters bat well, and we have some pretty good batters, we could still draw."
Pietersen has really been the only England player that has provided any kind of consistent resistance in the series so far. This is his mindset; he has already resigned to not winning the game. He has already given up hope of winning and now at best thinks they can achieve a draw. I imagine this is the mindset throughout the England team. They have already lost. They will not even draw the match with this kind of attitude.
The Ashes will belong to Australia once again on Sunday afternoon.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
3 totally random comments on a Tuesday
The London Paper is one of 2 free papers handed out to Londoners on their way home of an evening, much like the Metro is made available for free in the morning. It touches on a couple of news stories during the day, that anyone who pays attention already knows about; this way it can pass itself off as a newspaper and not a pile of gossip crap, which essentially is what it is. Every day the average IQ of Londoners is decreased by people reading this paper.
Yesterday, on the front page of The London Paper, was a picture of Nicole Richie eating. Yes that was the story to go with it too: Nicole Richie actually eats something. How anyone can even consider this worthy of pointing out, let alone mentioning it on the front page of a paper is way beyond me.
More good news on the Mat Rogers front, it seems as though he has been reading this blog and will actually be fucking off back to league. Thanks for nothing Rogers, and no thanks for losing us the world cup either. You never had enough class to play rugby, go back to your poor man’s game; I hope one day in the near future you decide to follow in your father’s footsteps.
Graham Poll isn’t everyone’s favourite ref and he has made one or two blunders in recent past; but he was right on the mark on Saturday when he showed Manchester City’s Bernardo Corradi a yellow card for diving to try and earn a penalty in the opposition box. It was his second booking of the game and he was subsequently given his marching orders. The most refreshing aspect of the whole situation was that after the match, City manager Stuart Pearce admitted that his player had dived, did not condone it and suggested that he would have a word with the player and not tolerate that kind of behaviour at his club. Well done Stuart, you are a man who deserves much respect. A week after Sir Alex Ferguson defended his player Ronaldo who clearly dived to earn a penalty; football needs more honest people like Pearce. I will qualify this comment however by suggesting that his comments may have been slightly different if Poll had fallen for the trick and awarded a penalty.
Yesterday, on the front page of The London Paper, was a picture of Nicole Richie eating. Yes that was the story to go with it too: Nicole Richie actually eats something. How anyone can even consider this worthy of pointing out, let alone mentioning it on the front page of a paper is way beyond me.
More good news on the Mat Rogers front, it seems as though he has been reading this blog and will actually be fucking off back to league. Thanks for nothing Rogers, and no thanks for losing us the world cup either. You never had enough class to play rugby, go back to your poor man’s game; I hope one day in the near future you decide to follow in your father’s footsteps.
Graham Poll isn’t everyone’s favourite ref and he has made one or two blunders in recent past; but he was right on the mark on Saturday when he showed Manchester City’s Bernardo Corradi a yellow card for diving to try and earn a penalty in the opposition box. It was his second booking of the game and he was subsequently given his marching orders. The most refreshing aspect of the whole situation was that after the match, City manager Stuart Pearce admitted that his player had dived, did not condone it and suggested that he would have a word with the player and not tolerate that kind of behaviour at his club. Well done Stuart, you are a man who deserves much respect. A week after Sir Alex Ferguson defended his player Ronaldo who clearly dived to earn a penalty; football needs more honest people like Pearce. I will qualify this comment however by suggesting that his comments may have been slightly different if Poll had fallen for the trick and awarded a penalty.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Not this week
I haven't had much to say this week. I will say this now though:
FUCK OFF MAT ROGERS!!!
FUCK OFF MAT ROGERS!!!
Friday, December 01, 2006
North London Derby
Big game this weekend, 12:45 on Saturday it's Arse vs Spurs.
I think Spurs are in with a shout this year; Arsenal are not playing that well at the moment, they still haven't settled properly into the new stadium, though they had a midweek loss they will be looking to bounce back from. Spurs have had some good form of late and Berbatov has been at the centre of it all. None the less, form often goes out the window in derby games but I still think the Yids will fancy their chances tomorrow.
The odds I think were very generous indeed and so I have had a punt
£10 on Spurs to win at 5/1
£10 on Spurs to win 1-0 goal scored by Berbatov at 70/1
£2 on Spurs to win 1-0 goal scored by King at 250/1
Unfortunately I wont be seeing any of the match as the 12:45 kick off clashes with the time I must be arriving at Wandsworth Park for our match at 1:30. I hope that both results will go my way.
Come on you Spurs!
I think Spurs are in with a shout this year; Arsenal are not playing that well at the moment, they still haven't settled properly into the new stadium, though they had a midweek loss they will be looking to bounce back from. Spurs have had some good form of late and Berbatov has been at the centre of it all. None the less, form often goes out the window in derby games but I still think the Yids will fancy their chances tomorrow.
The odds I think were very generous indeed and so I have had a punt
£10 on Spurs to win at 5/1
£10 on Spurs to win 1-0 goal scored by Berbatov at 70/1
£2 on Spurs to win 1-0 goal scored by King at 250/1
Unfortunately I wont be seeing any of the match as the 12:45 kick off clashes with the time I must be arriving at Wandsworth Park for our match at 1:30. I hope that both results will go my way.
Come on you Spurs!
Bristol Cars
If I was asked how much the car that should be pictured above actually cost, I would not assign it a very high price tag. It’s not much to look at is it? I would guess it is at least 30 years old, takes leaded fuel, and couldn’t be relied upon to start on a cold day.
All of these things of course are wrong; otherwise this posting wouldn’t really be of any interest. The car is in fact, a current model Blenheim 3 made by Bristol Cars. It is powered by a 5.9 litre V-8 and will take you to 60mph from a standing start in 6.3 seconds. The cost? £150,000
One of the worst things about people with wealth, are those that choose to display it in the most garish and obscene ways. This is one of the reasons why I do not at all like the whole Rap/ R ‘n’ B culture in the US; apart from the fact that I don’t much care for that kind of music, the culture exists to flaunt wealth in the most ‘in your face’ way as possible. The bling bling, the ostentatious clothing, the shiny 36” wheels on huge gas guzzling SUVs. It is all rather tasteless; a consequence of ‘new money.’
I feel there is a much more refined and dignified way of displaying one’s wealth, a way that is perhaps adopted by those with ‘old money.’ The Bristol Blenheim though goes right off the scale when it comes to understating one’s wealth. Apart from those who know of Bristol Cars (and it is not a well known car brand) driving a Blenheim almost says, “I am poor.” Those who drive these cars certainly have no intention of ostentatiously showing off their wealth. I have said that if I were wealthy (which sadly I am not) I would choose to be refined with my money, however if I could afford a Bristol Blenheim, I would still be buying an Aston Martin.
There is another Bristol car however that I would be tempted to buy. However this car is so powerful I am sure I would end up killing myself and most likely a few other innocent people when I took it out on the motorway. It is the Bristol Fighter T. It certainly does look like a car you need to be rich to drive. At £350,000 you need to be more than rich. I will lean back so as to not drool on the keyboard when I type this; the Fighter T is powered by a twin turbocharged and intercooled 8 litre V10 engine. It pumps out a massive 1,012 bhp and 1,404 newton metres of torque. It will take the car from 0 to 60mph in 3.5 seconds, on it’s way to an electronically limited maximum speed of 225mph. Bristol have said they are...
"Responding to the needs of some exacting customers we have created a very special Fighter variant which, as ever, remains a compact and enjoyable car to drive around town or as an exhilarating track car. Yet it takes two people and their luggage in great luxury and ease for trans continental travel."
I would like to meet these customer who claim to need more than a thousand brake horse power.
First deliveries are in September 2007. I had better start saving.
All of these things of course are wrong; otherwise this posting wouldn’t really be of any interest. The car is in fact, a current model Blenheim 3 made by Bristol Cars. It is powered by a 5.9 litre V-8 and will take you to 60mph from a standing start in 6.3 seconds. The cost? £150,000
One of the worst things about people with wealth, are those that choose to display it in the most garish and obscene ways. This is one of the reasons why I do not at all like the whole Rap/ R ‘n’ B culture in the US; apart from the fact that I don’t much care for that kind of music, the culture exists to flaunt wealth in the most ‘in your face’ way as possible. The bling bling, the ostentatious clothing, the shiny 36” wheels on huge gas guzzling SUVs. It is all rather tasteless; a consequence of ‘new money.’
I feel there is a much more refined and dignified way of displaying one’s wealth, a way that is perhaps adopted by those with ‘old money.’ The Bristol Blenheim though goes right off the scale when it comes to understating one’s wealth. Apart from those who know of Bristol Cars (and it is not a well known car brand) driving a Blenheim almost says, “I am poor.” Those who drive these cars certainly have no intention of ostentatiously showing off their wealth. I have said that if I were wealthy (which sadly I am not) I would choose to be refined with my money, however if I could afford a Bristol Blenheim, I would still be buying an Aston Martin.
There is another Bristol car however that I would be tempted to buy. However this car is so powerful I am sure I would end up killing myself and most likely a few other innocent people when I took it out on the motorway. It is the Bristol Fighter T. It certainly does look like a car you need to be rich to drive. At £350,000 you need to be more than rich. I will lean back so as to not drool on the keyboard when I type this; the Fighter T is powered by a twin turbocharged and intercooled 8 litre V10 engine. It pumps out a massive 1,012 bhp and 1,404 newton metres of torque. It will take the car from 0 to 60mph in 3.5 seconds, on it’s way to an electronically limited maximum speed of 225mph. Bristol have said they are...
"Responding to the needs of some exacting customers we have created a very special Fighter variant which, as ever, remains a compact and enjoyable car to drive around town or as an exhilarating track car. Yet it takes two people and their luggage in great luxury and ease for trans continental travel."
I would like to meet these customer who claim to need more than a thousand brake horse power.
First deliveries are in September 2007. I had better start saving.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
It takes an eternity
Scotland is another of those progressive countries that has banned smoking in public places. The main issue as far as I am concerned is smoking in bars and pubs. As is the case also when going to Ireland, it was so refreshing to go out in Edinburgh over the weekend and not be assaulted by passive smoke in pubs.
Forget about the health effects of passive smoking; being in an enclosed room full of cigarette smoke is absolutely disgusting. It is an assault on the senses, it stinks, it hurts your eyes and it soaks into your clothes so that they reek for days afterwards.
Coming back to London after being in the wonderful smoke free Edinburgh makes you notice it even more; as soon as you step into the pub you can smell it.
Scotland and Ireland have got it right, sitting in a bar or pub is actually a pleasant experience there. Why is it not the same in England? Why is England so far behind her neighbours?
Fortunately, the government have finally voted on a blanket ban on smoking in public places. They voted on this back in February 2006. However it is not due to come in to place until summer 2007!!!!!!!!!! Why? Why does it take 18 months for this to actually be enacted? What preparations are required before this ban can be enforced that could possibly last for 18 months? Sure you’ve got to give people a bit of time to get used to the idea, but 18 bloody months?!?!
It is absolutely bloody nonsense. As with nearly everything in this country it takes an eternity to do anything. Why vote to do something in a year and half? Why wait that long? We’ve voted for it to happen, so let’s make it happen, NOW!
What's more, it is apparently going to cost £50 million to enforce the ban. How? What are they spending fifty million quid on? Are they going to make 50 million No Smoking signs? What else is required apart from saying "as of now, you can't smoke indoors" Fine, there are some costs associated with making sure everyone does comply, but FIFTY MILLION QUID? FFS!
Forget about the health effects of passive smoking; being in an enclosed room full of cigarette smoke is absolutely disgusting. It is an assault on the senses, it stinks, it hurts your eyes and it soaks into your clothes so that they reek for days afterwards.
Coming back to London after being in the wonderful smoke free Edinburgh makes you notice it even more; as soon as you step into the pub you can smell it.
Scotland and Ireland have got it right, sitting in a bar or pub is actually a pleasant experience there. Why is it not the same in England? Why is England so far behind her neighbours?
Fortunately, the government have finally voted on a blanket ban on smoking in public places. They voted on this back in February 2006. However it is not due to come in to place until summer 2007!!!!!!!!!! Why? Why does it take 18 months for this to actually be enacted? What preparations are required before this ban can be enforced that could possibly last for 18 months? Sure you’ve got to give people a bit of time to get used to the idea, but 18 bloody months?!?!
It is absolutely bloody nonsense. As with nearly everything in this country it takes an eternity to do anything. Why vote to do something in a year and half? Why wait that long? We’ve voted for it to happen, so let’s make it happen, NOW!
What's more, it is apparently going to cost £50 million to enforce the ban. How? What are they spending fifty million quid on? Are they going to make 50 million No Smoking signs? What else is required apart from saying "as of now, you can't smoke indoors" Fine, there are some costs associated with making sure everyone does comply, but FIFTY MILLION QUID? FFS!
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Piss off Rogers
Mat Rogers wants to keep playing flyhalf for the Wallabies.
Fuck off Rogers, you suck, you're a reserve utility back at best. What makes you think you could bring more to the team at number 10 than Steven Larkham does? Forget about all this backline experimentation; Larkham at 10, Giteau at 12 and Mortlock at 13, Tuqiri and Latham and another winger in there. That's the best backline combination the Wallabies have to offer, why keep messing with it? Saturday's game showed how good they can be if the forwards give them a bit of space.
There's no room in there for you bitch, you shouldn't even be thinking about the World Cup next year, you're going back to league. Why don't you do us all a favour and go there sooner rather than later? You lost the World Cup final for us last time, don't stick around to fuck it up for us again.
Wanker
Fuck off Rogers, you suck, you're a reserve utility back at best. What makes you think you could bring more to the team at number 10 than Steven Larkham does? Forget about all this backline experimentation; Larkham at 10, Giteau at 12 and Mortlock at 13, Tuqiri and Latham and another winger in there. That's the best backline combination the Wallabies have to offer, why keep messing with it? Saturday's game showed how good they can be if the forwards give them a bit of space.
There's no room in there for you bitch, you shouldn't even be thinking about the World Cup next year, you're going back to league. Why don't you do us all a favour and go there sooner rather than later? You lost the World Cup final for us last time, don't stick around to fuck it up for us again.
Wanker
Monday, November 27, 2006
Good weekend to be an Aussie
There was no risk of me missing my flight this weekend and on Friday evening travelled to Edinburgh with 5 other friends for what turned out to be a high quality boys’ weekend. It was only my second visit to Edinburgh – the last time being more than 3 years ago. It really is a great city; very picturesque, lots of places to go out and have fun, there’s a good vibe about the place and plenty of nice people about.
The purpose of the visit of course was to see Australia take on Scotland at Murrayfield. While I have seen the Wallabies play in Scotland before, it was at Hamden Park and so I was keen to visit the home of rugby in Scotland as well. Murrayfield is a great stadium and my only complaint was that there is no big screen for the purpose of seeing replays of the action. This was most disappointing as there was some scintillating back-line play from the Wallabies in the second half especially.
The Scots certainly fancied themselves before the match and given the way the Wallabies have been playing, I was predicting a close match. However Australian teams are never ones to give up and I knew the Wallabies would fancy finishing the tour on a high note. That they did and it was probably the best I have seen them play all year, finally the forwards managed to gain some kind of ascendancy which meant that the backs actually had some time and space to show what they can do. Some great backline moves in the second half especially created some quality tries; it was very entertaining to watch. The defence as well was superb especially when Scotland were pounding at the line at one stage in the second half, the Wallabies just kept repelling them. I hope the Wallabies can take a lot from the tour and improve next year so they can be a serious challengers to the All Blacks in September and October next year.
It was of course an even better weekend to be an Australian, with a crushing of England in the first test of the Ashes. Congrats to England for winning the last series, but they went on as though they had won the bloody world cup. When taken into context, they had in fact narrowly won a single test series, that’s all. The fact that they had not been able to achieve this in 18 years was the reason that they were so elated. Now it seems though the team that won that series is a shadow if its former self. The Aussies are fired up this time and by the end of the summer, the urn will be back in its rightful place and normality will be resumed; it will be proven that last year was nothing more than an anomaly.
Last year though the Aussies won the first test pretty convincingly and then faltered so the series is far from over. Things though are different this time and I don’t think anyone can see that happening again. England will take some heart from their second innings fight back, but they don’t have the skill, class, ability, or confidence at the moment to retain the trophy they fought so hard to win last year. Before the series began, you could only get a paltry 4/1 on Australia winning the series 5-0, something that has happened only once in ashes history; now the odds are even shorter.
The purpose of the visit of course was to see Australia take on Scotland at Murrayfield. While I have seen the Wallabies play in Scotland before, it was at Hamden Park and so I was keen to visit the home of rugby in Scotland as well. Murrayfield is a great stadium and my only complaint was that there is no big screen for the purpose of seeing replays of the action. This was most disappointing as there was some scintillating back-line play from the Wallabies in the second half especially.
The Scots certainly fancied themselves before the match and given the way the Wallabies have been playing, I was predicting a close match. However Australian teams are never ones to give up and I knew the Wallabies would fancy finishing the tour on a high note. That they did and it was probably the best I have seen them play all year, finally the forwards managed to gain some kind of ascendancy which meant that the backs actually had some time and space to show what they can do. Some great backline moves in the second half especially created some quality tries; it was very entertaining to watch. The defence as well was superb especially when Scotland were pounding at the line at one stage in the second half, the Wallabies just kept repelling them. I hope the Wallabies can take a lot from the tour and improve next year so they can be a serious challengers to the All Blacks in September and October next year.
It was of course an even better weekend to be an Australian, with a crushing of England in the first test of the Ashes. Congrats to England for winning the last series, but they went on as though they had won the bloody world cup. When taken into context, they had in fact narrowly won a single test series, that’s all. The fact that they had not been able to achieve this in 18 years was the reason that they were so elated. Now it seems though the team that won that series is a shadow if its former self. The Aussies are fired up this time and by the end of the summer, the urn will be back in its rightful place and normality will be resumed; it will be proven that last year was nothing more than an anomaly.
Last year though the Aussies won the first test pretty convincingly and then faltered so the series is far from over. Things though are different this time and I don’t think anyone can see that happening again. England will take some heart from their second innings fight back, but they don’t have the skill, class, ability, or confidence at the moment to retain the trophy they fought so hard to win last year. Before the series began, you could only get a paltry 4/1 on Australia winning the series 5-0, something that has happened only once in ashes history; now the odds are even shorter.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
0.999...
0.999... recurring is exactly equal to 1
How is this possible you ask?
I demonstrate
x = 0.999…
10x = 9.999…
10x – x = 9.999… - 0.999…
9x = 9
x = 1
Freaky!
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Oooops... She didn't do it!
I am very disappointed by the latest news I have received: apparently there is not any Britney Spears sex tape. Now it would have been very silly of Britney to have made one in the first place and I am pretty sure her advisors would have been certain to warn her against doing something like that. As good as it would have been to see Britney shagging on tape for 4 hours, I’m not quite sure anyone would have paid $22 million for possession of it, which is what was claimed was on offer.
Britney has always sold her image on sex; her videos are erotic, suggestive and leave little to the imagination. I don’t mind this at all and have no problems leaving MTV on when one of her songs is played. While she is watched by plenty of red blooded young men like me, she is also watched by millions of young and adolescent girls, mostly of course, in America. There isn’t anything wrong with this but we should take this into consideration when discussing America’s entirely hypocritical values with regards to sex.
A couple of years ago there was an enormous controversy in the US when Janet Jackson’s bare breast (though her nipple was covered) was exposed on national TV during the Superbowl half time show. It was a national outcry, a crime against humanity, Janet Jackson became public enemy number 1. The television station which was broadcasting the show was even sued for millions of dollars as a result.
It was really was much ado about nothing. How really is that anything different to what Britney Spears does in her videos, which earns her the adoration of people all over the country? Not to mention a hell of a lot of money!
It was just a breast, half of everyone in the world has two of them, why should it be so shocking to see someone else’s? The US would do a lot better if they showed more breasts on television instead of so many guns and violence.
Britney has always sold her image on sex; her videos are erotic, suggestive and leave little to the imagination. I don’t mind this at all and have no problems leaving MTV on when one of her songs is played. While she is watched by plenty of red blooded young men like me, she is also watched by millions of young and adolescent girls, mostly of course, in America. There isn’t anything wrong with this but we should take this into consideration when discussing America’s entirely hypocritical values with regards to sex.
A couple of years ago there was an enormous controversy in the US when Janet Jackson’s bare breast (though her nipple was covered) was exposed on national TV during the Superbowl half time show. It was a national outcry, a crime against humanity, Janet Jackson became public enemy number 1. The television station which was broadcasting the show was even sued for millions of dollars as a result.
It was really was much ado about nothing. How really is that anything different to what Britney Spears does in her videos, which earns her the adoration of people all over the country? Not to mention a hell of a lot of money!
It was just a breast, half of everyone in the world has two of them, why should it be so shocking to see someone else’s? The US would do a lot better if they showed more breasts on television instead of so many guns and violence.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Thirty Million Dollars?????
I have seen Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan; it is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen, and I do intend on seeing it again.
It is of course very popular, and as a result, is making a lot of money. However whenever you publicly make money in America, other people want to try and take some of that off you. It’s a national hobby in America to sue people and already there are plenty of reports of people filing suits against the makers of the movie. The latest one is by the Romanian villagers that were used at the start of the movie to represent a fictional town in Kazakhstan. They claim they were told they were making a documentary about poverty in Romania and they were not aware the movie was a satire. As a result, they are suing for damages due to the fact that they were represented as rapists, abortionists, prostitutes and thieves.
Of course this is absolute nonsense and proceeding with a case like this would be a complete waste of everybody’s time. Viewers of the movie are aware that it is satire; nobody is looking at the Romanian villagers used in the film and thinking that they actually are rapists, abortionists, prostitutes and thieves. We are all well aware that what we are seeing is in fact, fictional. Just like after watching Se7en, I did not think that Kevin Spacey was actually a deranged serial killer, nor do I think that Borat is a real person, or that the villagers were the people they were said to be in the movie.
So there really is no basis at all for a law suit against the makers of the movie. However no doubt there are American lawyers who are the driving forces behind these kind of actions. Suing people is their business, the more people sue others, the more money they make. Given the apparent remoteness of the village in Romania and the apparently poverty shown there; along with the fact that none of them speak English, it is quite unlikely that the villagers concerned, have ever actually seen the movie, or even knew of its existence. It is lawyers who have gone looking for them, they are the ones who have put these ideas in their heads, they are just using them for their own benefit.
The two plaintiffs in the case are suing for THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS in damages. Tell me please how two old Romanian villagers, living on the poverty line, could possibly ever imagine having 30 million dollars? Even if they actually had a fair case to launch against the movies makers, how could they ever justify that they should be paid 30 million dollars for their suffering? It is absolute and utter rubbish and it has been fed to them by greedy American attorneys who are using them for their own means.
The Borat movie did an excellent job of showing how ignorant and foolish some Americans are, and cases like this only further enforce that fact.
It is of course very popular, and as a result, is making a lot of money. However whenever you publicly make money in America, other people want to try and take some of that off you. It’s a national hobby in America to sue people and already there are plenty of reports of people filing suits against the makers of the movie. The latest one is by the Romanian villagers that were used at the start of the movie to represent a fictional town in Kazakhstan. They claim they were told they were making a documentary about poverty in Romania and they were not aware the movie was a satire. As a result, they are suing for damages due to the fact that they were represented as rapists, abortionists, prostitutes and thieves.
Of course this is absolute nonsense and proceeding with a case like this would be a complete waste of everybody’s time. Viewers of the movie are aware that it is satire; nobody is looking at the Romanian villagers used in the film and thinking that they actually are rapists, abortionists, prostitutes and thieves. We are all well aware that what we are seeing is in fact, fictional. Just like after watching Se7en, I did not think that Kevin Spacey was actually a deranged serial killer, nor do I think that Borat is a real person, or that the villagers were the people they were said to be in the movie.
So there really is no basis at all for a law suit against the makers of the movie. However no doubt there are American lawyers who are the driving forces behind these kind of actions. Suing people is their business, the more people sue others, the more money they make. Given the apparent remoteness of the village in Romania and the apparently poverty shown there; along with the fact that none of them speak English, it is quite unlikely that the villagers concerned, have ever actually seen the movie, or even knew of its existence. It is lawyers who have gone looking for them, they are the ones who have put these ideas in their heads, they are just using them for their own benefit.
The two plaintiffs in the case are suing for THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS in damages. Tell me please how two old Romanian villagers, living on the poverty line, could possibly ever imagine having 30 million dollars? Even if they actually had a fair case to launch against the movies makers, how could they ever justify that they should be paid 30 million dollars for their suffering? It is absolute and utter rubbish and it has been fed to them by greedy American attorneys who are using them for their own means.
The Borat movie did an excellent job of showing how ignorant and foolish some Americans are, and cases like this only further enforce that fact.
Friday, November 17, 2006
The odds
Saturday 3pm
West Ham 2 Chelsea 1
This scoreline will net me £650
I admit that it is not the most likely of scorelines but I think that the odds don't give West Ham enough credit.
Oh and I quite fancy winning that £120 million tonight as well!
West Ham 2 Chelsea 1
This scoreline will net me £650
I admit that it is not the most likely of scorelines but I think that the odds don't give West Ham enough credit.
Oh and I quite fancy winning that £120 million tonight as well!
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Good and Evil
One of the arguments levelled at atheists by theists is; how can you have morals without God? The answer is simple, in fact, the requirement of a God for morals to exist is in fact a far more worrying prospect.
We have to consider that the human race is the result of 4 billion years of evolution. In order for us to be here now, as a product of this evolution, human beings must have developed traits in order for us to survive as a species. Every form of life seeks to survive, even the smallest living cell is required to live and subsequently reproduce. So it is that co-operation with other living things increases our chances of survival. The living cells within our body co-operate with each other to become something greater; us. So we live as a result of the co-operation of all the cells within our body, and so do those cells live. We as humans, co-operate with each other to create a society and thus improve our chances of survival. We have a set of rules by which we live, because we need our society to survive for us to survive. We should not kill, not because some kind of God says so, but because nobody wants to be killed themselves. I do not want people to steal my possessions and so I do not steal those of others. It is by encouraging everyone else to live by these rules that we can further secure our own survival. This concept is further cemented by the fact that we feel the emotion of empathy.
This is how morals have developed within society; it is evolutionary traits amongst us that have engineered so called morals. There is no such thing as good and evil, right or wrong, these are just words. It is frightening in fact to think that many people do not kill or do not steal, because they think God has told them not to, and not because they simply should not do it. However perhaps as a whole, for the evolution of society; it has been necessary for religion to exist to enforce these rules. As much as it is fair to say that we co-operate with each other to the benefit of society as a whole; humans still have an inherent selfish nature to ensure one’s own survival above all others. Thus the fear of retribution from a higher power for breaching society’s laws can be seen as further strengthening their application. Of course no method is perfect and thus with religion we have the converse effect with people who kill because they believe they are doing God’s work.
So there is a trade off, but religion is still essentially irrelevant. There is a perfectly logical reason for the existence of morals that does not involve any kind of supernatural power. The belief in such a supernatural power, may or may not have aided in the application of these rules; regardless though such belief exists though it should not be suggested as a reason for right and wrong.
We have to consider that the human race is the result of 4 billion years of evolution. In order for us to be here now, as a product of this evolution, human beings must have developed traits in order for us to survive as a species. Every form of life seeks to survive, even the smallest living cell is required to live and subsequently reproduce. So it is that co-operation with other living things increases our chances of survival. The living cells within our body co-operate with each other to become something greater; us. So we live as a result of the co-operation of all the cells within our body, and so do those cells live. We as humans, co-operate with each other to create a society and thus improve our chances of survival. We have a set of rules by which we live, because we need our society to survive for us to survive. We should not kill, not because some kind of God says so, but because nobody wants to be killed themselves. I do not want people to steal my possessions and so I do not steal those of others. It is by encouraging everyone else to live by these rules that we can further secure our own survival. This concept is further cemented by the fact that we feel the emotion of empathy.
This is how morals have developed within society; it is evolutionary traits amongst us that have engineered so called morals. There is no such thing as good and evil, right or wrong, these are just words. It is frightening in fact to think that many people do not kill or do not steal, because they think God has told them not to, and not because they simply should not do it. However perhaps as a whole, for the evolution of society; it has been necessary for religion to exist to enforce these rules. As much as it is fair to say that we co-operate with each other to the benefit of society as a whole; humans still have an inherent selfish nature to ensure one’s own survival above all others. Thus the fear of retribution from a higher power for breaching society’s laws can be seen as further strengthening their application. Of course no method is perfect and thus with religion we have the converse effect with people who kill because they believe they are doing God’s work.
So there is a trade off, but religion is still essentially irrelevant. There is a perfectly logical reason for the existence of morals that does not involve any kind of supernatural power. The belief in such a supernatural power, may or may not have aided in the application of these rules; regardless though such belief exists though it should not be suggested as a reason for right and wrong.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Treated like a fool
I’m pissed off. I bought the new Grand Theft Auto for my PSP last week. It required a system software update to 2.81 which comes on the disc. So I performed this and started playing GTA. It seemed to work ok for a while, then the graphics started to stuff up. I turned it off and came back to it later. Now though, it wont load any UMD at all. I put a UMD in and it just keeps trying to read it, the screen freezes and I cannot even turn it off, unless I open it and take the UMD out.
So this is not very good, I had better do some investigating and find out how to fix this. First stop: the PSP website. Let’s look up troubleshooting, ah here we go The PSP system does not recognise the UMD. Ok so what does it say we should do about that?
• Check that the UMD is properly inserted. Try taking out the UMD and reinserting it.
• Check that the UMD recording surface and cassette are not damaged.
That’s it? That’s fucking it? That’s all the website has got to say about that particular problem. Thank you for stating the bleeding fucking obvious. What the hell do you think I tried doing in the first place? Who the hell actually needs to go to the troubleshooting section of the website, to realise that this is what you should try doing first?
Thank you for your help Sony but I already fucking tried doing that and it didn’t work, which is why I am looking on your website to see what else I can do.
Dickheads
So this is not very good, I had better do some investigating and find out how to fix this. First stop: the PSP website. Let’s look up troubleshooting, ah here we go The PSP system does not recognise the UMD. Ok so what does it say we should do about that?
• Check that the UMD is properly inserted. Try taking out the UMD and reinserting it.
• Check that the UMD recording surface and cassette are not damaged.
That’s it? That’s fucking it? That’s all the website has got to say about that particular problem. Thank you for stating the bleeding fucking obvious. What the hell do you think I tried doing in the first place? Who the hell actually needs to go to the troubleshooting section of the website, to realise that this is what you should try doing first?
Thank you for your help Sony but I already fucking tried doing that and it didn’t work, which is why I am looking on your website to see what else I can do.
Dickheads
Monday, November 13, 2006
Plonker
I am such a plonker
So I was supposed to catch a 7am flight to Rome on Saturday; I should have had a reasonably early night, but I thought it would be no harm to head down to the local for a couple. Unfortunately a couple turned into more than that and I didn’t get home until quite late. “I’ll just stay up all night” I announced, but then failed to prevent myself from falling asleep. Subsequently waking up well and truly after the flight had left.
Oh well, so I paid for flights and a match ticket that I didn’t get to use, never mind. The problem was that I was still in possession of Rolly’s match ticket, and he was already in Rome! So after calling him and giving him the details he said he would try and get a replacement from the Wallabies Overseas Supporters Club. I didn’t hear back from him until shortly before the game when he text me with a few expletives saying he couldn’t get into the game. I told him to get a ticket from a tout and I would refund him the money, I kindly agreed to pay €200 for the ticket. So it was that I spent the rest of the weekend counting the cost of a rugby match that I never got to see.
I could only really laugh it off as there was not much I could do about it. As it turned out it was a terrible game anyway and not really worth watching at all. But it does mean that it is unlikely I will complete my 6 nations set of teams, which is a shame. In the end I watched 3 other games of rugby, all of which were great games to watch, especially the All Blacks who were just sensational. I also went to Steve’s birthday party and had a pretty damn good time there.
So today at lunch time the whole scenario improved when Rolly told me that he had actually managed to get a replacement ticket for free and that he had been pulling my leg about the €200 all weekend. Apparently they were all having a good giggle about it at the time and I agree it was a pretty funny joke.
So I was supposed to catch a 7am flight to Rome on Saturday; I should have had a reasonably early night, but I thought it would be no harm to head down to the local for a couple. Unfortunately a couple turned into more than that and I didn’t get home until quite late. “I’ll just stay up all night” I announced, but then failed to prevent myself from falling asleep. Subsequently waking up well and truly after the flight had left.
Oh well, so I paid for flights and a match ticket that I didn’t get to use, never mind. The problem was that I was still in possession of Rolly’s match ticket, and he was already in Rome! So after calling him and giving him the details he said he would try and get a replacement from the Wallabies Overseas Supporters Club. I didn’t hear back from him until shortly before the game when he text me with a few expletives saying he couldn’t get into the game. I told him to get a ticket from a tout and I would refund him the money, I kindly agreed to pay €200 for the ticket. So it was that I spent the rest of the weekend counting the cost of a rugby match that I never got to see.
I could only really laugh it off as there was not much I could do about it. As it turned out it was a terrible game anyway and not really worth watching at all. But it does mean that it is unlikely I will complete my 6 nations set of teams, which is a shame. In the end I watched 3 other games of rugby, all of which were great games to watch, especially the All Blacks who were just sensational. I also went to Steve’s birthday party and had a pretty damn good time there.
So today at lunch time the whole scenario improved when Rolly told me that he had actually managed to get a replacement ticket for free and that he had been pulling my leg about the €200 all weekend. Apparently they were all having a good giggle about it at the time and I agree it was a pretty funny joke.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Test Match Rugby
I’m flying to Rome tomorrow to see the Wallabies play Italy. I am then flying back to London after the game. I can’t really be bothered hanging around in Italy to do anything else so I’d rather just head home. Gutted though I will be missing Kiwi FC match, it will be the first game this season I will have missed.
Anyway, the Wallabies should really beat Italy by a considerable margin otherwise there is something seriously wrong. I didn’t see the game against Wales last week and I’m keen to see how the Giteau, Rogers, Larkham inside backs combination works out. The pack needs to keep improving though and it will be a good test for them as Italy have a strong pack of forwards. It promises to be an enjoyable game to watch, it will as well complete the set of six nations sides for me; I have seen Australia play test matches against all other 6 nations sides apart from Italy. I will not however have been to every 6 nations stadium as when I saw the Wallabies play Scotland, it was at Hamden park in Glasgow. I will complete that set in 2 weeks time when I see them play at Murrayfield.
Yesterday morning was a particularly stressful time as I attempted to order a set of tickets to the Rugby World Cup 2007. Individual tickets came on sale at 8am GMT and I was at my desk in readiness to log on to the site and order them. Needless to say there were a hell of a lot of other people with the same idea and the site was overloaded. Finally after receiving so many page errors, clicking back, getting to the last page before being timed out and other incredibly frustrating obstacles; I finally had my ticket request processed, four and a half hours after I first started trying. Fortunately I have not been very busy at work this week.
So I will be attending Australia’s pool matches against Wales, Fiji and Canada as well as Quarter final 1; which hopefully Australia will be playing in if they manage to win their pool. If they do win their pool and advance beyond the quarter final, then their opponents will most likely be the All Blacks (unless the have choked already) However if Australia were to come second in their pool, they would not face the All Blacks until the final if they were to make it that far. But they have to be beaten and so it doesn’t matter whether that is in the semi final or the final itself. I think the All Blacks are the clear favourites for next year’s World Cup. They have a large squad of high quality players will lots of test experience. Graham Henry is a superb coach and his team plays excellent controlled and tactical rugby. However they can still be beaten on the day; a team that wants to win the world cup must defeat the All Blacks.
Oh and I’m also going to see Romania vs Repechage 1 in what promises to be one of the tournament’s marquee matches.
Anyway, the Wallabies should really beat Italy by a considerable margin otherwise there is something seriously wrong. I didn’t see the game against Wales last week and I’m keen to see how the Giteau, Rogers, Larkham inside backs combination works out. The pack needs to keep improving though and it will be a good test for them as Italy have a strong pack of forwards. It promises to be an enjoyable game to watch, it will as well complete the set of six nations sides for me; I have seen Australia play test matches against all other 6 nations sides apart from Italy. I will not however have been to every 6 nations stadium as when I saw the Wallabies play Scotland, it was at Hamden park in Glasgow. I will complete that set in 2 weeks time when I see them play at Murrayfield.
Yesterday morning was a particularly stressful time as I attempted to order a set of tickets to the Rugby World Cup 2007. Individual tickets came on sale at 8am GMT and I was at my desk in readiness to log on to the site and order them. Needless to say there were a hell of a lot of other people with the same idea and the site was overloaded. Finally after receiving so many page errors, clicking back, getting to the last page before being timed out and other incredibly frustrating obstacles; I finally had my ticket request processed, four and a half hours after I first started trying. Fortunately I have not been very busy at work this week.
So I will be attending Australia’s pool matches against Wales, Fiji and Canada as well as Quarter final 1; which hopefully Australia will be playing in if they manage to win their pool. If they do win their pool and advance beyond the quarter final, then their opponents will most likely be the All Blacks (unless the have choked already) However if Australia were to come second in their pool, they would not face the All Blacks until the final if they were to make it that far. But they have to be beaten and so it doesn’t matter whether that is in the semi final or the final itself. I think the All Blacks are the clear favourites for next year’s World Cup. They have a large squad of high quality players will lots of test experience. Graham Henry is a superb coach and his team plays excellent controlled and tactical rugby. However they can still be beaten on the day; a team that wants to win the world cup must defeat the All Blacks.
Oh and I’m also going to see Romania vs Repechage 1 in what promises to be one of the tournament’s marquee matches.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
The God Delusion
I have just had my copy of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” delivered from Amazon and I am very keen to begin reading it. Dawkins said in an interview promoting his book that he hoped that with his book he might convince some people that were sitting on the fence as far as religion is concerned, to conform to a generally atheist point of view. In my case though Professor Dawkins is most certainly preaching to the converted, none the less I will enjoy reading this book immensely. I am a staunch atheist, I reject all earthly religions and my belief in the non-existence of a god is tantamount to a faith in itself.
Professor Dawkins speaks my language and I will no doubt agree with almost everything in his book. It is a good feeling when someone else agrees strongly with one’s own beliefs. For me, this book will be akin to a Christian person reading the bible.
Many people when questioned about their faith claim that they just know that there is a god and that they can feel that they are right in their beliefs. This is the extent to which I believe there is not. Apart from the overwhelmingly convincing arguments against the existence of a god, and the underwhelmingly feeble arguments for the existence of god; I just feel that I am right in my beliefs.
Of course it is only in the past few hundred years that I would have been able to say something like this without being horribly tortured and executed. Gradually though over time, certainly in the western world, as knowledge and information has become more easily available to everybody, the need for religion has waned. I sincerely hope that western society will continue on its path towards secularism. Religious fundamentalism is making a comeback in the 21st century; Islamic fundamentalists are recruiting a lot of people in the Arab world to their cause. Christian fundamentalists are currently in control of the most powerful country in the world.
Ignorance breeds religion, knowledge and information can overcome it. I hope this book plays its part.
Professor Dawkins speaks my language and I will no doubt agree with almost everything in his book. It is a good feeling when someone else agrees strongly with one’s own beliefs. For me, this book will be akin to a Christian person reading the bible.
Many people when questioned about their faith claim that they just know that there is a god and that they can feel that they are right in their beliefs. This is the extent to which I believe there is not. Apart from the overwhelmingly convincing arguments against the existence of a god, and the underwhelmingly feeble arguments for the existence of god; I just feel that I am right in my beliefs.
Of course it is only in the past few hundred years that I would have been able to say something like this without being horribly tortured and executed. Gradually though over time, certainly in the western world, as knowledge and information has become more easily available to everybody, the need for religion has waned. I sincerely hope that western society will continue on its path towards secularism. Religious fundamentalism is making a comeback in the 21st century; Islamic fundamentalists are recruiting a lot of people in the Arab world to their cause. Christian fundamentalists are currently in control of the most powerful country in the world.
Ignorance breeds religion, knowledge and information can overcome it. I hope this book plays its part.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Mental notes are easily erased
I made mental notes of a few things on the weekend that I wanted to come and put in a bit of a “This is what happened in my head on the weekend” type posting. Unfortunately the effects of beer also went on in my head, and while I don’t forget what happened on the weekend, I can’t really remember these poignant things I was supposed to write about. Still I am going to type about the weekend and see what I end up with.
I bagged my 10th goal of the season on Saturday in our 4-2 win. I am clearly the leading goal scorer in the team but the funny thing about it is that at least skill-wise, I am probably the worst player in the side. None the less I am doing what is required of me as a striker and we’re winning games. I’m having a great time playing for Kiwi FC this season and we’re having our best season yet.
I claimed Kiwi-ness again on Sunday when the All Blacks took on the English. I borrowed my mate Bryan’s spare All Blacks jersey and was happy to cheer a pretty solid win. The All Blacks are awesome and I can’t see them losing the world cup next year.
It was a pretty good day all round for sport watching yesterday. As I am a recently single man, I can watch all the sport I want. Starting in the morning with the final of the ICC champions’ trophy; after a great start by the Windies, the Aussie bowlers ripped through their batsmen and put themselves in a great position to win the only trophy they haven’t won. I watched them bat up until 45-2, but then the rain came. By the time they were back on the pitch, I was in the pub with a good spot for watching the rugby.
Before that though it was great to see Arsenal lose to a 88th minute winner against West Ham. It was even better to see Arsene Wenger throw his toys out of the pram, refuse to shake Alan Pardew’s hand then refuse to talk to anyone after the game. I have great admiration for the man who is clearly a football genius but he is also a big baby and a very bad loser. Of course the fact that he manages Arsenal makes him a prick anyway.
Still can’t think of what those cool things were that I was going to write about. I am getting a new smartphone this week (fingers crossed) so once that happens I can feel myself becoming more organised, I will probably write things down more often (since it has a touch screen and stylus.) It’s the Sonyericcson W950i check it out.
I have a potato at home, I’ll pick up a piece of fillet steak at Moens for dinner.
Right that’s it. This was probably just a waste of time
I bagged my 10th goal of the season on Saturday in our 4-2 win. I am clearly the leading goal scorer in the team but the funny thing about it is that at least skill-wise, I am probably the worst player in the side. None the less I am doing what is required of me as a striker and we’re winning games. I’m having a great time playing for Kiwi FC this season and we’re having our best season yet.
I claimed Kiwi-ness again on Sunday when the All Blacks took on the English. I borrowed my mate Bryan’s spare All Blacks jersey and was happy to cheer a pretty solid win. The All Blacks are awesome and I can’t see them losing the world cup next year.
It was a pretty good day all round for sport watching yesterday. As I am a recently single man, I can watch all the sport I want. Starting in the morning with the final of the ICC champions’ trophy; after a great start by the Windies, the Aussie bowlers ripped through their batsmen and put themselves in a great position to win the only trophy they haven’t won. I watched them bat up until 45-2, but then the rain came. By the time they were back on the pitch, I was in the pub with a good spot for watching the rugby.
Before that though it was great to see Arsenal lose to a 88th minute winner against West Ham. It was even better to see Arsene Wenger throw his toys out of the pram, refuse to shake Alan Pardew’s hand then refuse to talk to anyone after the game. I have great admiration for the man who is clearly a football genius but he is also a big baby and a very bad loser. Of course the fact that he manages Arsenal makes him a prick anyway.
Still can’t think of what those cool things were that I was going to write about. I am getting a new smartphone this week (fingers crossed) so once that happens I can feel myself becoming more organised, I will probably write things down more often (since it has a touch screen and stylus.) It’s the Sonyericcson W950i check it out.
I have a potato at home, I’ll pick up a piece of fillet steak at Moens for dinner.
Right that’s it. This was probably just a waste of time
Buca Juniors v Kiwi FC
Buca Juniors v Kiwi FC (Win 4-2)
Saturday 4 November 2006
Wandsworth Common 14:00
Kiwi FC continued their winning streak at the weekend with another fine second half performance to take all 3 points. Twice the Kiwis came back from a goal down to record their third 2 goal win in a row.
The match started without an official referee so Kiwi FC provided the ref from their own ranks. Again though they started the game on the back foot and allowed the opposition to control the play in the opening exchanges. Buca were well organised and Kiwi FC realised that despite their opponents propping up the bottom of the table, they were not to be taken lightly.
So it was that Buca took the lead with the first goal that Kiwi FC had conceded from open play in 3 games. After that however Kiwis started to find their shape and controlled the ball well, building attacks from the back. Steve Mc and Robbie were making some sharp runs down both flanks and getting the team into good field positions. It was from one of these good positions that the Kiwi equaliser came from. “Run off Gav” was the call from Steve Mc as he launched a throw into the Buca box. It was a great call and there can be no more reliable than Gav to win the ball. He did just that and headed towards James at the six yard box, the keeper called for the ball but James got there first and nodded in, Kiwis were back on level terms.
The play continued in a relatively even manner throughout the first half. Kiwis fashioned themselves a few more chances but were unable to take the lead. Buca as well secured plenty of territory but Scott, Brendan, Cappy and Dave denied them any real scoring opportunities. Cappy’s head must have been sore after the game as he got to so many high clearances from the keeper. Buca did manage to take one of the chances that came their way and Kiwi FC went a goal behind again. That is the way it stayed until half time.
Confidence amongst the Kiwis though was still high and there was much talk of last week’s scintillating second half. Kiwis knew they could do it and they started the second half brightly. They controlled the ball and dictated the play, Gav was a workhorse in midfield as usual and Kiwis gradually wore their opposition down. The equaliser came as a result of some constant pressure in the Buca goal area. Gav, with his back to goal, swivelled and hit a shot that had the keeper well and truly beaten; he was unlucky and saw his ball bounce back off the post. Nick O was on hand and his quick reactions ensured he buried the rebound in the back of the net. It was 2-2 and Kiwis hadn’t finished yet.
Kiwi FC continued to dominate the game, the opposition were tiring and Kiwis’ superior strength and stamina gave them the advantage. Kiwis continued to create chances for themselves but were possibly a little wasteful in front of goal when they should have taken the lead.
Take the lead they did though, and when they did it came in the most spectacular of fashions. Brendan had made a lovely jinking run down the right, he made acres of space for himself and the Kiwi attackers swarmed into the box. From out on the right, Brendan cut back on his left foot and sent the ball into the box. Was it a cross? Was it a shot? Who cares, because it sailed into the top left hand corner of the net for a goal that Ronaldinho would have been proud of. For the first time in the match, Kiwi FC had the lead and from there, they didn’t look back.
Kiwis continued on in the same fashion, dictating play and keeping the ball down the Buca end, they were looking for the goal that would give them that 2 goal cushion. Nick O had come on at half time and he was playing a barnstorming second half, he controlled the ball well, made space for himself and others and he worked tirelessly. He had already rattled the net once, and he would do so again. Kiwis were again pressuring the Buca goal and a shot was parried by the keeper. Nick picked his moment and charged into the box, he was first to the ball and emphatically fired a venomous shot into the net. It was just rewards for his splendid second half contribution.
4-2 was the way the score-line stayed and as the full time whistle blew, Kiwi FC knew they had secured a deserved victory. Cheers to Steve A and Nick P for donning the gloves in the absence of our keeper. Cheers as well to the Duck for £2 pints from 5-7.
Saturday 4 November 2006
Wandsworth Common 14:00
Kiwi FC continued their winning streak at the weekend with another fine second half performance to take all 3 points. Twice the Kiwis came back from a goal down to record their third 2 goal win in a row.
The match started without an official referee so Kiwi FC provided the ref from their own ranks. Again though they started the game on the back foot and allowed the opposition to control the play in the opening exchanges. Buca were well organised and Kiwi FC realised that despite their opponents propping up the bottom of the table, they were not to be taken lightly.
So it was that Buca took the lead with the first goal that Kiwi FC had conceded from open play in 3 games. After that however Kiwis started to find their shape and controlled the ball well, building attacks from the back. Steve Mc and Robbie were making some sharp runs down both flanks and getting the team into good field positions. It was from one of these good positions that the Kiwi equaliser came from. “Run off Gav” was the call from Steve Mc as he launched a throw into the Buca box. It was a great call and there can be no more reliable than Gav to win the ball. He did just that and headed towards James at the six yard box, the keeper called for the ball but James got there first and nodded in, Kiwis were back on level terms.
The play continued in a relatively even manner throughout the first half. Kiwis fashioned themselves a few more chances but were unable to take the lead. Buca as well secured plenty of territory but Scott, Brendan, Cappy and Dave denied them any real scoring opportunities. Cappy’s head must have been sore after the game as he got to so many high clearances from the keeper. Buca did manage to take one of the chances that came their way and Kiwi FC went a goal behind again. That is the way it stayed until half time.
Confidence amongst the Kiwis though was still high and there was much talk of last week’s scintillating second half. Kiwis knew they could do it and they started the second half brightly. They controlled the ball and dictated the play, Gav was a workhorse in midfield as usual and Kiwis gradually wore their opposition down. The equaliser came as a result of some constant pressure in the Buca goal area. Gav, with his back to goal, swivelled and hit a shot that had the keeper well and truly beaten; he was unlucky and saw his ball bounce back off the post. Nick O was on hand and his quick reactions ensured he buried the rebound in the back of the net. It was 2-2 and Kiwis hadn’t finished yet.
Kiwi FC continued to dominate the game, the opposition were tiring and Kiwis’ superior strength and stamina gave them the advantage. Kiwis continued to create chances for themselves but were possibly a little wasteful in front of goal when they should have taken the lead.
Take the lead they did though, and when they did it came in the most spectacular of fashions. Brendan had made a lovely jinking run down the right, he made acres of space for himself and the Kiwi attackers swarmed into the box. From out on the right, Brendan cut back on his left foot and sent the ball into the box. Was it a cross? Was it a shot? Who cares, because it sailed into the top left hand corner of the net for a goal that Ronaldinho would have been proud of. For the first time in the match, Kiwi FC had the lead and from there, they didn’t look back.
Kiwis continued on in the same fashion, dictating play and keeping the ball down the Buca end, they were looking for the goal that would give them that 2 goal cushion. Nick O had come on at half time and he was playing a barnstorming second half, he controlled the ball well, made space for himself and others and he worked tirelessly. He had already rattled the net once, and he would do so again. Kiwis were again pressuring the Buca goal and a shot was parried by the keeper. Nick picked his moment and charged into the box, he was first to the ball and emphatically fired a venomous shot into the net. It was just rewards for his splendid second half contribution.
4-2 was the way the score-line stayed and as the full time whistle blew, Kiwi FC knew they had secured a deserved victory. Cheers to Steve A and Nick P for donning the gloves in the absence of our keeper. Cheers as well to the Duck for £2 pints from 5-7.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Cold and Dark
Summer time has ended and it is now well and truly dark by the time work is finished. It is annoying more than depressing and I am sure I will get used to it. After a really mild October, the temperature has now dropped to just 1C or 2C overnight. I have thus far not needed the winter coat but I think tomorrow I will be wearing it.
So the countdown now is until the winter solstice on December 22. There are 50 days to go where each day’s sunlight will be shorter than the previous. The solstice is something to look forward to as after that point; each day will start getting longer.
Winter is annoying because one is so much more unproductive during winter. When one gets home of an evening there is little incentive to go out because it is not very pleasant heading out in the cold and the dark. So one tends to stay on the couch in front of the tele a lot more in winter. Fortunately they stack the football fixture calendar in the darkest months of winter, which probably keeps the razor blades away from a few wrists here and there.
Winter is really not that bad, though the hardest thing for an Australian living in London during the winter; is know that it is lovely and warm back home. Though to be honest it probably gets a bit too hot for me in Sydney in the summer. There’s just no pleasing some is there?
So the countdown now is until the winter solstice on December 22. There are 50 days to go where each day’s sunlight will be shorter than the previous. The solstice is something to look forward to as after that point; each day will start getting longer.
Winter is annoying because one is so much more unproductive during winter. When one gets home of an evening there is little incentive to go out because it is not very pleasant heading out in the cold and the dark. So one tends to stay on the couch in front of the tele a lot more in winter. Fortunately they stack the football fixture calendar in the darkest months of winter, which probably keeps the razor blades away from a few wrists here and there.
Winter is really not that bad, though the hardest thing for an Australian living in London during the winter; is know that it is lovely and warm back home. Though to be honest it probably gets a bit too hot for me in Sydney in the summer. There’s just no pleasing some is there?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Kiwi FC v Wadham College Old Boys
Kiwi FC v Wadham College Old Boys FC (Win 4-2)
Saturday 28 October 2006
Wandsworth Park 14:00
Kiwi FC continued their good run of form this weekend with a strong win on the back of a sensational second half. The team welcomed the return of veteran Sam Foley to the side, who accepted the challenge of playing in goal when our goalkeeper did not arrive.
Kiwis again started the match slowly and allowed the opposition to play more of the game in the Kiwi half. The Wadham captain looked to be the danger man for his team and he made space for himself on a few occasions. However the Kiwi defence was staunch and he was unable to mount any serious chances on goal. Kiwis started to find their feet and began to move the game further up the field to their advantage. They strung some good passes together and made space for themselves against the cumbersome Wadham defence. Wadham’s goalkeeper though was strong and he swept well behind his defence and managed to close down the Kiwi attacks. He was however lucky to still be on the pitch, after getting away with a foul in the first 5 minutes when he tripped up the last Kiwi player as he was in on goal.
Wadham were the first to break the deadlock however when they earned a penalty. It was well taken and for the first match this season, Kiwi FC were the first to concede. The scoreline remained the same until half time, but Kiwi FC knew that they were doing the right things and that it really would just be a matter of time until they found themselves on the scoreboard.
Indeed that time came sooner than anyone expected. An average kick off saw James take the ball forward himself; he made some progress but lost the ball. He followed up though and managed to get in the way of the defender’s clearance; the ball rolled straight into Nick’s path who was in on goal. He drew the goalkeeper and finished well on his left foot to put Kiwis back on level terms, within 30 seconds of the start of the second half.
The Kiwi onslaught continued again right from the kick off. Wadham were still in shock from the first goal and it showed. From the kick off, a poor attempted pass to their right back was intercepted by James, he raced down the left and cut into the box. His attempted pass back to Gav in the centre hit the outstretched arm of the Wadham defender, the referee pointed to the penalty spot. The ever reliable Gav stepped up to the spot and his finish was clinical to the bottom left corner of the net. Kiwis were up 2-1 and Wadham were stunned.
Kiwi FC continued to control the game after that, again Cappy and Dave were solid at the back, Steve A and Gav controlled and midfield and James and Nick ran hard at the front. Steve Mc and Chris D gave plenty of width and options down the left. Nick O and especially Sam Foley, now playing in the outfield, showed some great form down the right.
More goals seemed like they would come, but it was Wadham’s turn to put themselves back into the game. In what was really their only foray into the Kiwi box, they swept a free kick in from the right and found an unmarked player at the far post; the ball came of his chest and wrong-footed the Kiwi keeper and just edged in. It was a soft goal but it still counted and the scores were level at 2-2.
Kiwis made a double substitution with Bede and Greg coming on for Nick O and Chris. They both worked hard and their presence had an impact. It was not long before Kiwis were back on top. The attack building from midfield; James took a pass and then another couple of touches himself, he beat his man and teed up a shot on his right foot from about 20 yards out. His low drive beat the outstretched arm of the keeper and Kiwi FC had the advantage again.
From there Kiwis never looked back, they continued to create chances for themselves and were never really threatened at the back. Though it did not look like they would need it, they pressed hard for their fourth goal to put the game well beyond the oppositions reach. When it came it came again from the boot of Nick P; a well delivered Kiwi corner was not dealt with by the Wadham defence, Nick was quick to react and smashed home the ball through a crowd of players for his second of the day. That made it 4-2 and it Kiwis knew they had it in the bag.
Kiwi FC continued their pressure until the end of the game and although it looked like they might, they were unable to extend their lead even further. The ref’s whistle put Wadham out of their misery and the Kiwi Juggernaught marches on.
The win consolidated second place on the ladder, but with form like this, Kiwi FC have now got their eyes on the title.
Saturday 28 October 2006
Wandsworth Park 14:00
Kiwi FC continued their good run of form this weekend with a strong win on the back of a sensational second half. The team welcomed the return of veteran Sam Foley to the side, who accepted the challenge of playing in goal when our goalkeeper did not arrive.
Kiwis again started the match slowly and allowed the opposition to play more of the game in the Kiwi half. The Wadham captain looked to be the danger man for his team and he made space for himself on a few occasions. However the Kiwi defence was staunch and he was unable to mount any serious chances on goal. Kiwis started to find their feet and began to move the game further up the field to their advantage. They strung some good passes together and made space for themselves against the cumbersome Wadham defence. Wadham’s goalkeeper though was strong and he swept well behind his defence and managed to close down the Kiwi attacks. He was however lucky to still be on the pitch, after getting away with a foul in the first 5 minutes when he tripped up the last Kiwi player as he was in on goal.
Wadham were the first to break the deadlock however when they earned a penalty. It was well taken and for the first match this season, Kiwi FC were the first to concede. The scoreline remained the same until half time, but Kiwi FC knew that they were doing the right things and that it really would just be a matter of time until they found themselves on the scoreboard.
Indeed that time came sooner than anyone expected. An average kick off saw James take the ball forward himself; he made some progress but lost the ball. He followed up though and managed to get in the way of the defender’s clearance; the ball rolled straight into Nick’s path who was in on goal. He drew the goalkeeper and finished well on his left foot to put Kiwis back on level terms, within 30 seconds of the start of the second half.
The Kiwi onslaught continued again right from the kick off. Wadham were still in shock from the first goal and it showed. From the kick off, a poor attempted pass to their right back was intercepted by James, he raced down the left and cut into the box. His attempted pass back to Gav in the centre hit the outstretched arm of the Wadham defender, the referee pointed to the penalty spot. The ever reliable Gav stepped up to the spot and his finish was clinical to the bottom left corner of the net. Kiwis were up 2-1 and Wadham were stunned.
Kiwi FC continued to control the game after that, again Cappy and Dave were solid at the back, Steve A and Gav controlled and midfield and James and Nick ran hard at the front. Steve Mc and Chris D gave plenty of width and options down the left. Nick O and especially Sam Foley, now playing in the outfield, showed some great form down the right.
More goals seemed like they would come, but it was Wadham’s turn to put themselves back into the game. In what was really their only foray into the Kiwi box, they swept a free kick in from the right and found an unmarked player at the far post; the ball came of his chest and wrong-footed the Kiwi keeper and just edged in. It was a soft goal but it still counted and the scores were level at 2-2.
Kiwis made a double substitution with Bede and Greg coming on for Nick O and Chris. They both worked hard and their presence had an impact. It was not long before Kiwis were back on top. The attack building from midfield; James took a pass and then another couple of touches himself, he beat his man and teed up a shot on his right foot from about 20 yards out. His low drive beat the outstretched arm of the keeper and Kiwi FC had the advantage again.
From there Kiwis never looked back, they continued to create chances for themselves and were never really threatened at the back. Though it did not look like they would need it, they pressed hard for their fourth goal to put the game well beyond the oppositions reach. When it came it came again from the boot of Nick P; a well delivered Kiwi corner was not dealt with by the Wadham defence, Nick was quick to react and smashed home the ball through a crowd of players for his second of the day. That made it 4-2 and it Kiwis knew they had it in the bag.
Kiwi FC continued their pressure until the end of the game and although it looked like they might, they were unable to extend their lead even further. The ref’s whistle put Wadham out of their misery and the Kiwi Juggernaught marches on.
The win consolidated second place on the ladder, but with form like this, Kiwi FC have now got their eyes on the title.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Friday's thought
I’m sick and tired of Muslims making a song and dance every time someone says a bad word about them. “Islam is crap” someone will say “Cut their heads off” so the Muslims will respond. “Kill everyone who insults Islam.”
Pretty ridiculous really; none of the other religions have such a knee jerk reaction to being offended. It sounds like a pretty hard case of insecurity to me. Why should they be so worried if people say a bad word about them? Are they so fragile that they must protect themselves so vehemently?
People who are insecure will react badly to any negative comment said about them, yet confident people will often not care whether someone likes them or not. If you have a house made out of straw, you will attack the person who throws a rock at it, since they might knock it down. If you have a castle made of stone, then someone can throw rocks at it all day long and you can sit inside and know they can never knock it down.
Muslims that react so aggressively to negative comments about their faith, behave like their house is made of straw.
In Britain, there is much controversy whenever anyone says anything about Muslims. Jack Straw stated recently that he would prefer it if women in his constituency did not wear veils, as it promotes separation and does not promote an open community. This simple suggestion was turned into a storm; partly by radical Muslims and partly by the sensationalist British media. Mr Straw’s comments are perfectly reasonable; they are not an indictment of Islam and they are not meant to persecute a minority group. Britain is a country built upon the Christian faith. It is true that much of Britain is now largely secular, however it is this fact that those of other faiths must concede. While we of the majority should not hold prejudice against the minority for their beliefs, we should ensure that our beliefs are still held as a priority. Those of a minority belief who wish to enjoy the benefits of living in a country where they do not believe as the majority do, must accept some concessions to their own beliefs in order to participate in society as whole. If Muslim people wish to live exactly as their faith teaches them, then they should move to a country where Islam is predominantly part of the culture. Where it is not here, they must accept certain aspects of culture that may be different to their own initial beliefs. Were I to go to an Islamic country, I would be expected to respect the cultural beliefs of that country. I would expect my girlfriend to dress modestly. I would not expect her to wear revealing clothing, simply because that is that is how it is done in our culture. So Muslims should not react so harshly when it is suggested that veils are not worn in our society; so we can ensure that everyone integrates into the general fabric of society as it exists.
Pretty ridiculous really; none of the other religions have such a knee jerk reaction to being offended. It sounds like a pretty hard case of insecurity to me. Why should they be so worried if people say a bad word about them? Are they so fragile that they must protect themselves so vehemently?
People who are insecure will react badly to any negative comment said about them, yet confident people will often not care whether someone likes them or not. If you have a house made out of straw, you will attack the person who throws a rock at it, since they might knock it down. If you have a castle made of stone, then someone can throw rocks at it all day long and you can sit inside and know they can never knock it down.
Muslims that react so aggressively to negative comments about their faith, behave like their house is made of straw.
In Britain, there is much controversy whenever anyone says anything about Muslims. Jack Straw stated recently that he would prefer it if women in his constituency did not wear veils, as it promotes separation and does not promote an open community. This simple suggestion was turned into a storm; partly by radical Muslims and partly by the sensationalist British media. Mr Straw’s comments are perfectly reasonable; they are not an indictment of Islam and they are not meant to persecute a minority group. Britain is a country built upon the Christian faith. It is true that much of Britain is now largely secular, however it is this fact that those of other faiths must concede. While we of the majority should not hold prejudice against the minority for their beliefs, we should ensure that our beliefs are still held as a priority. Those of a minority belief who wish to enjoy the benefits of living in a country where they do not believe as the majority do, must accept some concessions to their own beliefs in order to participate in society as whole. If Muslim people wish to live exactly as their faith teaches them, then they should move to a country where Islam is predominantly part of the culture. Where it is not here, they must accept certain aspects of culture that may be different to their own initial beliefs. Were I to go to an Islamic country, I would be expected to respect the cultural beliefs of that country. I would expect my girlfriend to dress modestly. I would not expect her to wear revealing clothing, simply because that is that is how it is done in our culture. So Muslims should not react so harshly when it is suggested that veils are not worn in our society; so we can ensure that everyone integrates into the general fabric of society as it exists.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Moving the goal posts
My comment on this Daily Truth posting today. The post is with regards to a scathing review on Professor Richard Dawkin's new bookm which I shall be purchasing shortly, entitled "The God Delusion"
Professor Eagleton's claim is simply another attempt at 'moving the goalposts' to counter credible argument for the non existence of God. The notion of God as Professor Eagleton has suggested is not the notion of God as is believed by earthly religions. The Bible states that God does exist, He is an entity, He created humans in His own image and; depending on your particular arm of Christianity, actually came and lived as a man on the earth.
It is this notion that Professor Dawkins is countering in his book, because this is what is believed by theists. As human understanding of ourselves has grown throughout time, so has the argument against a God grown in credibility. Professor Eagleton has simply chosen to redefine the notion of God in the face of this, in order to suit his needs. However his definition of God is not the one that has formed the basis of Abrahamic religion for the past few millennia.
Professor Eagleton's claim is simply another attempt at 'moving the goalposts' to counter credible argument for the non existence of God. The notion of God as Professor Eagleton has suggested is not the notion of God as is believed by earthly religions. The Bible states that God does exist, He is an entity, He created humans in His own image and; depending on your particular arm of Christianity, actually came and lived as a man on the earth.
It is this notion that Professor Dawkins is countering in his book, because this is what is believed by theists. As human understanding of ourselves has grown throughout time, so has the argument against a God grown in credibility. Professor Eagleton has simply chosen to redefine the notion of God in the face of this, in order to suit his needs. However his definition of God is not the one that has formed the basis of Abrahamic religion for the past few millennia.
Monday, October 23, 2006
FC Centaur vs Kiwi FC
FC Centaur vs Kiwi FC (win 3-1)
Wandsworth COMMON!!!
21 October 2006 2pm
Kiwi FC returned to winning ways this Saturday with a well deserved victory over FC Centaur in a good spirited game. The game started a little late as this time it was the Kiwis who were late getting their act together. Predictably whenever we play at Wandsworth Common, one or two people end up at Wandsworth Park, and so it was the case this time meaning Kiwis started the game with just 9 men. FC Centaur were known and respected opponents from previous seasons, however the Kiwis’ 4-3-1 starting formation began to dominate from the outset. Gav and Cappy controlled the ball well and they provided the foundation to launch some attacks. Steve McCormack and Chris Danrell pushed forward on the wings and made some positive runs into the final third of the pitch.
Even with 2 men down it seemed as though a Kiwi goal would soon be coming. With another wave of pressure sweeping forward; Gav made a strong run into the box, he beat 2 defenders and made it to the by-line. Under pressure he made a perfect pass across goal and found James unmarked at the far post; he had the simplest of tap-ins from about 3 centimetres out. 1-0 Kiwis.
Nick and Leighton made it to the ground after their little detour and Kiwis were back playing 4-4-2. They continued to control the game and apply more pressure on the opposition goal. Kiwi defence was strong, marshalled well by Chris and Dave at the back, they prevented Centaur from gaining any real scoring opportunities, and Keeper Adam was on hand to confidently deal with any balls that made it his way.
The Kiwi dominance continued and the Centaur keeper was called into action frequently to deal with more and more attacking raids. In the end though it was the simplest of goals that doubled the Kiwi lead. Chris Danrell applied some good pressure on the defender who was forced into a poor back pass to the keeper. The keeper really should have caught the ball and conceded the free kick but he tried to trap the ball with his chest, succeeding only in steering the ball into James’s path. The open net beckoned and Kiwis went up 2-0. It was no more than they deserved.
After such a dominant first half the only danger to the Kiwis in the second half would be complacency. Another goal would be needed to kill the game off and Kiwis started the second half from where they left off. Gav and Cappy continued to control the midfield with skill and precision and Kiwis launched more attacks. James had a few second half chances to secure his hat-trick but he failed to capitalise. The game though was played predominantly in the Centaur half and the Kiwi defence was sturdy and composed to break down any Centaur attack. Leighton had donned the gloves at half time, and he was called into action; making a couple of smart saves to keep the opponents scoreless.
Kiwis extended their lead further with a goal worthy of their dominance. Great play once again from Gav and Cappy; linking up well with each other with some good passes. They moved forward and found Adam in space in the centre, he controlled well and his finish was clinical for a goal of the highest quality. Surely that would see all 3 points in the bag.
Kiwis though lost a little bit of shape and concentration after that, allowing Centaur to control the game a bit and for a short while, Kiwis were on the back foot. A penalty was conceded, which was well taken by the Centaur captain and the Kiwi goal line was finally crossed. At 3-1, one sensed that Centaur might have a chance of scraping a point if they could nick another goal. This would not be the case though as Kiwis found their shape again and controlled the match until the final whistle and the game finished 3-1
It was a strong display from Kiwi FC and indeed the score-line probably didn’t reflect their dominance. But for some better finishing they could have bagged a couple more. The 3 points though is what matters and they were secured well. Man of the Match: Dave Capstick.
Wandsworth COMMON!!!
21 October 2006 2pm
Kiwi FC returned to winning ways this Saturday with a well deserved victory over FC Centaur in a good spirited game. The game started a little late as this time it was the Kiwis who were late getting their act together. Predictably whenever we play at Wandsworth Common, one or two people end up at Wandsworth Park, and so it was the case this time meaning Kiwis started the game with just 9 men. FC Centaur were known and respected opponents from previous seasons, however the Kiwis’ 4-3-1 starting formation began to dominate from the outset. Gav and Cappy controlled the ball well and they provided the foundation to launch some attacks. Steve McCormack and Chris Danrell pushed forward on the wings and made some positive runs into the final third of the pitch.
Even with 2 men down it seemed as though a Kiwi goal would soon be coming. With another wave of pressure sweeping forward; Gav made a strong run into the box, he beat 2 defenders and made it to the by-line. Under pressure he made a perfect pass across goal and found James unmarked at the far post; he had the simplest of tap-ins from about 3 centimetres out. 1-0 Kiwis.
Nick and Leighton made it to the ground after their little detour and Kiwis were back playing 4-4-2. They continued to control the game and apply more pressure on the opposition goal. Kiwi defence was strong, marshalled well by Chris and Dave at the back, they prevented Centaur from gaining any real scoring opportunities, and Keeper Adam was on hand to confidently deal with any balls that made it his way.
The Kiwi dominance continued and the Centaur keeper was called into action frequently to deal with more and more attacking raids. In the end though it was the simplest of goals that doubled the Kiwi lead. Chris Danrell applied some good pressure on the defender who was forced into a poor back pass to the keeper. The keeper really should have caught the ball and conceded the free kick but he tried to trap the ball with his chest, succeeding only in steering the ball into James’s path. The open net beckoned and Kiwis went up 2-0. It was no more than they deserved.
After such a dominant first half the only danger to the Kiwis in the second half would be complacency. Another goal would be needed to kill the game off and Kiwis started the second half from where they left off. Gav and Cappy continued to control the midfield with skill and precision and Kiwis launched more attacks. James had a few second half chances to secure his hat-trick but he failed to capitalise. The game though was played predominantly in the Centaur half and the Kiwi defence was sturdy and composed to break down any Centaur attack. Leighton had donned the gloves at half time, and he was called into action; making a couple of smart saves to keep the opponents scoreless.
Kiwis extended their lead further with a goal worthy of their dominance. Great play once again from Gav and Cappy; linking up well with each other with some good passes. They moved forward and found Adam in space in the centre, he controlled well and his finish was clinical for a goal of the highest quality. Surely that would see all 3 points in the bag.
Kiwis though lost a little bit of shape and concentration after that, allowing Centaur to control the game a bit and for a short while, Kiwis were on the back foot. A penalty was conceded, which was well taken by the Centaur captain and the Kiwi goal line was finally crossed. At 3-1, one sensed that Centaur might have a chance of scraping a point if they could nick another goal. This would not be the case though as Kiwis found their shape again and controlled the match until the final whistle and the game finished 3-1
It was a strong display from Kiwi FC and indeed the score-line probably didn’t reflect their dominance. But for some better finishing they could have bagged a couple more. The 3 points though is what matters and they were secured well. Man of the Match: Dave Capstick.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Kiwi FC v Southside Rovers
Kiwi FC v Southside Rovers
Wandsworth Park
14 October 2006
In the fifth round tie this Saturday; Kiwi FC went all Rafa Benitez and there was a fair bit of tinkering to the side, with it being a largely different team to that which triumphed the previous week. The Kiwis started the game on the back foot with Southside taking control of the game from the outset. The game was being played mostly in the Kiwis half, the opposition stringing together some good pieces of play, however they found themselves undone at the end with some strong Kiwi defence and some excellent work between the posts by Kiwi's new goalkeeper Andrew. Kiwi's weren't without their own attacks and made some good breaks into the opposition half and testing their keeper with some early shots. Kiwis were the first to get on the scoresheet with a goal largely against the run of play. James challenged well in the air for the ball just outside the Southside 18 yard box, the defender lost his feet and the ball fell kindly for James, he showed good composure to drill the ball on the volley, into the top left corner of the goal. Kiwi FC had the advantage.
Southside continued to create chances for themselves at the other end, but the Kiwi's showed good resilience and managed to keep them out. All while creating a few more chances for themselves at the other end, forcing their keeper to makes some good saves. The scoreline stayed at 1-0 going into half time. Kiwi FC felt that they were doing some good things, and that if they could keep more of the ball in the second half they would have a good chance of taking the points home.
Kiwis started brightly in the second half, mounting an attack straight from the kick off and coming close to scoring. The second half soon though started to feel like the first with Southside controlling more of the ball and creating more chances. It seemed as though a goal from them was inevitable and sure enough it came about 15 minutes into the second half. The scores were now level and Kiwis knew they would have to do more if they wanted to win the game, however Southside managed to follow up from their first goal and find the net again to take the lead. Heads started to drop but Kiwis picked up the intensity in their attack and it was not long before they were level again. Some strong midfield play by Nick put Kiwis on the attack, the ball was delivered into the box and the opposition were unable to clear properly, it fell for Jerry on the edge of the area who struck a lovely volley straight into the net, great goal. 2-2
The Kiwis started to mount more pressure on the opposition goal, still keeping strong in defence and nullifying the Southside attacks. Nick took the ball in front of him and struck a glorious shot from 30 yards out, it dipped and swerved and was just tipped over by the keeper, it was a cracking shot and deserved a goal. Kiwis though should have gone ahead shortly after; James made a good run behind the defence and Jerry found him with a accurate through ball. In on goal this time his composure deserted him and he flashed his shot over the bar. Kiwis should have been in the lead, but football can be a cruel game and less than a minute later it was Southside who took the lead at the other end. One of those "was it a cross or a shot?" from the other team, whatever it was it was a fluke but it didn't matter as Kiwis were now down 3-2.
The last ten minutes actually went on for about 20, during which time Southside managed to put another 2 goals in, though when they were starting to boast, Kiwis managed to have the final say. Some solid pressure saw Bede finding himself in space just inside the box, he was found with a good pass and slotted home past the keeper form close range. That was the final say of the game and the Kiwis succumbed to their first defeat since the opening day of the season 5-3.
Kiwis showed good team spirit and determination in the game, especially with so many players playing together for the first time. Nick Palairet had a man of the match performance in midfield with some strong running, hard tackling and excellent work rate.
Kiwis will look to bounce back next week and resume their winning ways
Wandsworth Park
14 October 2006
In the fifth round tie this Saturday; Kiwi FC went all Rafa Benitez and there was a fair bit of tinkering to the side, with it being a largely different team to that which triumphed the previous week. The Kiwis started the game on the back foot with Southside taking control of the game from the outset. The game was being played mostly in the Kiwis half, the opposition stringing together some good pieces of play, however they found themselves undone at the end with some strong Kiwi defence and some excellent work between the posts by Kiwi's new goalkeeper Andrew. Kiwi's weren't without their own attacks and made some good breaks into the opposition half and testing their keeper with some early shots. Kiwis were the first to get on the scoresheet with a goal largely against the run of play. James challenged well in the air for the ball just outside the Southside 18 yard box, the defender lost his feet and the ball fell kindly for James, he showed good composure to drill the ball on the volley, into the top left corner of the goal. Kiwi FC had the advantage.
Southside continued to create chances for themselves at the other end, but the Kiwi's showed good resilience and managed to keep them out. All while creating a few more chances for themselves at the other end, forcing their keeper to makes some good saves. The scoreline stayed at 1-0 going into half time. Kiwi FC felt that they were doing some good things, and that if they could keep more of the ball in the second half they would have a good chance of taking the points home.
Kiwis started brightly in the second half, mounting an attack straight from the kick off and coming close to scoring. The second half soon though started to feel like the first with Southside controlling more of the ball and creating more chances. It seemed as though a goal from them was inevitable and sure enough it came about 15 minutes into the second half. The scores were now level and Kiwis knew they would have to do more if they wanted to win the game, however Southside managed to follow up from their first goal and find the net again to take the lead. Heads started to drop but Kiwis picked up the intensity in their attack and it was not long before they were level again. Some strong midfield play by Nick put Kiwis on the attack, the ball was delivered into the box and the opposition were unable to clear properly, it fell for Jerry on the edge of the area who struck a lovely volley straight into the net, great goal. 2-2
The Kiwis started to mount more pressure on the opposition goal, still keeping strong in defence and nullifying the Southside attacks. Nick took the ball in front of him and struck a glorious shot from 30 yards out, it dipped and swerved and was just tipped over by the keeper, it was a cracking shot and deserved a goal. Kiwis though should have gone ahead shortly after; James made a good run behind the defence and Jerry found him with a accurate through ball. In on goal this time his composure deserted him and he flashed his shot over the bar. Kiwis should have been in the lead, but football can be a cruel game and less than a minute later it was Southside who took the lead at the other end. One of those "was it a cross or a shot?" from the other team, whatever it was it was a fluke but it didn't matter as Kiwis were now down 3-2.
The last ten minutes actually went on for about 20, during which time Southside managed to put another 2 goals in, though when they were starting to boast, Kiwis managed to have the final say. Some solid pressure saw Bede finding himself in space just inside the box, he was found with a good pass and slotted home past the keeper form close range. That was the final say of the game and the Kiwis succumbed to their first defeat since the opening day of the season 5-3.
Kiwis showed good team spirit and determination in the game, especially with so many players playing together for the first time. Nick Palairet had a man of the match performance in midfield with some strong running, hard tackling and excellent work rate.
Kiwis will look to bounce back next week and resume their winning ways
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Give him a break
In England, the media and the hard core fans, expect their national football team to win every game, and win every game by a 4 goal margin. This is because the English are the best, or at least they think they are. So they think they should always win. Any defeat by a nation ranked lower than them is an embarrassment, and any time the side strings together more than two poor games in a row, there are calls for the manager to be sacked. On the same token, any time the side wins, there is praise granted beyond that which is deserved; poorly played 1-0 victories are enough for the arrogant English fans and media. This leaves faults unaddressed and uncorrected; which, in the end leads to losses.
The English football media need to take some kind of responsibility for the poor form of their national side. There is no room for error, no chance for improvement or development. England must be the best, all the time. Any mistakes or errors are utterly lambasted and magnified many times greater than their actual significance. One of Sven’s problems, probably because he was the first foreign person to manage England, was that he was so constantly attacked by the media, and not just about football. Sven was too afraid to try anything new, because if you try something new and different, you run the risk of it not working, and when that happens, the press get their claws out. So it was comfortable and relatively low risk to pick the same squad of players and use the same tactics. If he tried something different and it didn’t work, then he knew the kind of punishment he would receive from the media, so he didn’t.
Now, unbelievably, some are asking whether Steven McLaren should be sacked. Give the guy a break. He tried something new last night, it didn’t work out, he made a few mistakes; but it will be his ability to learn from those mistakes that will make his side better. Sometimes to work out a winning formula, one needs to try things a few different ways, and some of those ways don’t work out. Understanding why it didn’t work out and learning from that, helps to achieve that winning formula. This whole process is made a lot more difficult if there is no room given to make any mistakes.
So give Steve McLaren a chance, stop being so arrogant and then mauling the England team when they don’t massage your arrogance. Try giving the opposition a little credit for playing well, instead of being so patronising. You must first be humble, before you can be great.
The English football media need to take some kind of responsibility for the poor form of their national side. There is no room for error, no chance for improvement or development. England must be the best, all the time. Any mistakes or errors are utterly lambasted and magnified many times greater than their actual significance. One of Sven’s problems, probably because he was the first foreign person to manage England, was that he was so constantly attacked by the media, and not just about football. Sven was too afraid to try anything new, because if you try something new and different, you run the risk of it not working, and when that happens, the press get their claws out. So it was comfortable and relatively low risk to pick the same squad of players and use the same tactics. If he tried something different and it didn’t work, then he knew the kind of punishment he would receive from the media, so he didn’t.
Now, unbelievably, some are asking whether Steven McLaren should be sacked. Give the guy a break. He tried something new last night, it didn’t work out, he made a few mistakes; but it will be his ability to learn from those mistakes that will make his side better. Sometimes to work out a winning formula, one needs to try things a few different ways, and some of those ways don’t work out. Understanding why it didn’t work out and learning from that, helps to achieve that winning formula. This whole process is made a lot more difficult if there is no room given to make any mistakes.
So give Steve McLaren a chance, stop being so arrogant and then mauling the England team when they don’t massage your arrogance. Try giving the opposition a little credit for playing well, instead of being so patronising. You must first be humble, before you can be great.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
It will be 911 times 2356
It’s exciting isn’t it? That creepy strange little man in North Korea has managed to build himself a nuclear weapon. Really though this was inevitable; acquiring the capabilities to build nuclear weapons was the only real way that Kim Jong-Il was going to protect himself from the West. The USA specifically are far less likely to attack your country, if you can defend yourself with nuclear weapons.North Korea has been targeted for some time now; they were infamously included in the so called “axis of evil.” Look what happened to the first country included in that axis; Iraq was attacked, occupied and its leader ousted. This was all on the pretence that they were developing weapons of mass destruction and a pre-emptive attack was required in order for the US to defend itself from the threat of attack.
Now if I was the leader of North Korea, I would probably start thinking that my country might be next. Indeed who’s to say that if the US hadn’t ended up bogged down in Iraq for so long, they wouldn’t have turned their attentions towards Korea? The circumstances of the invasion of Iraq would certainly suggest that to be a possibility. The likelihood of such an attack would be considerably reduced, if North Korea proved that they could defend themselves with nuclear force. It is believed they have intercontinental missiles capable of reaching the west coast of the United States; it would seem now that they are not too far off being able to attach nuclear warheads to these missiles. The US would never initiate an attack on a country that could fire a nuclear missile at its shores.
So really with America’s constant threats and accusations towards North Korea, their quest to join the nuclear club has only been encouraged. A country with nuclear capabilities is treated with a lot more respect that one without. No one would give a toss about Pakistan if they didn’t have the bomb.
It is all well and good for the most powerful nations to try and rule the world, of course they should, when you have power, you want to exercise it. However the problem with trying to tell people what to do, is that they are far less likely to listen to what you have to say, if you are not seen to be practicing what it is you are preaching. It is of course no coincidence that the 5 permanent member nations of the United Nations Security Council are the 5 original countries to have had nuclear weapons before all the talk came along about nuclear non-proliferation. Now these countries have all signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treat (NPT) and encouraged all others to do so. Basically, now they’ve got nukes, they don’t want anyone else to get them either. There is certainly nothing wrong with this at all, if you are in power you will want to stay in power and try to prevent others from being capable of challenging that power. We should not though be at all surprised though if countries don’t do what we tell them to do. Why would other countries agree not to develop nuclear weapons if the people who are telling them not to wont get rid of the ones they have already? Even, in the case of the US develop more.
The powerful nations of today should in every way try to prevent other nations from proliferating nuclear weapons, but they should not be surprised when their attempts fail. The only real way for nuclear non proliferation is to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the earth, including those held by members of the UN Security Council.
Of course we shouldn't discount the possibility that this test was actually faked and the explosion was not caused by a nuclear chain reaction. For North Korea, having everyone else think they have nuclear weapons is just as good as having them.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Boca Seniors vs Kiwi FC
Boca Seniors vs Kiwi FC
Saturday 7 October 2006
Raynes Park 12:00
A sunny autumn day saw the black and whites of Kiwi FC take to the pitch at Raynes Park against Boca Seniors. The match was delayed by 15 minutes due to the late arrival of the opposition and the Kiwis felt confident their pre-match preparation and readiness would give them the advantage from the off. This however turned out not to be the case as Boca Seniors took the game to the Kiwis in the first 20 minutes; the game was played mostly in the Kiwi’s own half. Some resolute Kiwi defending and a couple of tidy saves from Grog between the posts saw the Kiwis weather the early storm and the score line remained even.
The Kiwis were starting to frustrate their opponents and starting to build up attacks of their own. Sure enough with almost their first foray into the Boca goal, Kiwi FC capitalised. A fizzing shot from outside the area from Steve, could not be held by the goal keeper; Nick was first to react on the rebound and emphatically fired the ball past the prone keeper. 1-0. Advantage Kiwi FC.
Kiwi FC now had control of the game and continued to mount pressure on the Boca defence. They should have made it 2-0 shortly after; another cracking shot from Steve in central midfield. It certainly deserved a goal but, with the keeper beaten, the ball struck the underside of the bar and bounced out; Robbie was first to get to the rebound this time, but unfortunately headed narrowly wide.
Boca Seniors must have felt themselves quite lucky not to be 2 goals down and took the chance to swing the game back in their direction. A goal at the other end brought the score back to 1-1 and there it stayed until half time.
The Boca players were spluttering a few smokers’ coughs after half time; the Kiwis were running down hill for the second half and sensed they could win. They started to control the game in the second half and it wasn’t long before they were back on top. Winning a free kick just inside the Boca half; the Kiwis sent men forward. Nick swept in a lovely free kick, sending the ball straight to James’s head, who nodded towards goal. The ball beat the outstretched arm of the goalkeeper and went in. 2-1, it was nothing less than the Kiwi’s deserved.
Boca Seniors saw they would have to do more if they wanted to overcome the mighty Kiwis; they pushed more men forward and laid siege to the Kiwi penalty area. Again more outstanding Kiwi defence saw the goal line remain uncrossed. With more men forward, Boca left some holes open at the back and sure enough, the Kiwis capitalised. Making a run from inside his own half, James ran onto a perfectly timed through ball from Gav. He charged at the Boca goal, held off 3 defenders and coolly slotted past the goalkeeper at the near post. 3-1
From there Boca didn’t let up on their pressure on Kiwi goal, hearts were in mouths once or twice during one or two goalmouth scrambles. Strong desire from Kiwi defenders to keep the ball out ensured the score line stayed the same. Grog had a man of the match performance in goal with a string of fine saves, showing his bravery and commitment to the side.
The Kiwis had a couple more chances at the other end but couldn’t extend their lead and 3-1 remained the final score. It was a well deserved victory from Kiwi FC in what was their strongest performance of the season thus far.
Saturday 7 October 2006
Raynes Park 12:00
A sunny autumn day saw the black and whites of Kiwi FC take to the pitch at Raynes Park against Boca Seniors. The match was delayed by 15 minutes due to the late arrival of the opposition and the Kiwis felt confident their pre-match preparation and readiness would give them the advantage from the off. This however turned out not to be the case as Boca Seniors took the game to the Kiwis in the first 20 minutes; the game was played mostly in the Kiwi’s own half. Some resolute Kiwi defending and a couple of tidy saves from Grog between the posts saw the Kiwis weather the early storm and the score line remained even.
The Kiwis were starting to frustrate their opponents and starting to build up attacks of their own. Sure enough with almost their first foray into the Boca goal, Kiwi FC capitalised. A fizzing shot from outside the area from Steve, could not be held by the goal keeper; Nick was first to react on the rebound and emphatically fired the ball past the prone keeper. 1-0. Advantage Kiwi FC.
Kiwi FC now had control of the game and continued to mount pressure on the Boca defence. They should have made it 2-0 shortly after; another cracking shot from Steve in central midfield. It certainly deserved a goal but, with the keeper beaten, the ball struck the underside of the bar and bounced out; Robbie was first to get to the rebound this time, but unfortunately headed narrowly wide.
Boca Seniors must have felt themselves quite lucky not to be 2 goals down and took the chance to swing the game back in their direction. A goal at the other end brought the score back to 1-1 and there it stayed until half time.
The Boca players were spluttering a few smokers’ coughs after half time; the Kiwis were running down hill for the second half and sensed they could win. They started to control the game in the second half and it wasn’t long before they were back on top. Winning a free kick just inside the Boca half; the Kiwis sent men forward. Nick swept in a lovely free kick, sending the ball straight to James’s head, who nodded towards goal. The ball beat the outstretched arm of the goalkeeper and went in. 2-1, it was nothing less than the Kiwi’s deserved.
Boca Seniors saw they would have to do more if they wanted to overcome the mighty Kiwis; they pushed more men forward and laid siege to the Kiwi penalty area. Again more outstanding Kiwi defence saw the goal line remain uncrossed. With more men forward, Boca left some holes open at the back and sure enough, the Kiwis capitalised. Making a run from inside his own half, James ran onto a perfectly timed through ball from Gav. He charged at the Boca goal, held off 3 defenders and coolly slotted past the goalkeeper at the near post. 3-1
From there Boca didn’t let up on their pressure on Kiwi goal, hearts were in mouths once or twice during one or two goalmouth scrambles. Strong desire from Kiwi defenders to keep the ball out ensured the score line stayed the same. Grog had a man of the match performance in goal with a string of fine saves, showing his bravery and commitment to the side.
The Kiwis had a couple more chances at the other end but couldn’t extend their lead and 3-1 remained the final score. It was a well deserved victory from Kiwi FC in what was their strongest performance of the season thus far.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Spending what we don't have
I commented on this post from Daniel Tammet's blog which I like to read.
Daniel you are most correct. What has lead to debt being so high in the UK is not only the ease at which debt is available, but also the rampant consumer culture that exists here now. People just want to buy more and more things. It seems as though that is now our purpose as citizens of the UK, to spend money. Everywhere we turn, our senses are assaulted with many different forms of advertising, encouraging us to buy the next latest thing. Advertising is effective, people want the next think out on the shelves; they should really save up for it but by the time they do it will probably be out of date. So why wait when they can just borrow money and have it now!
The news the other day was trying to hypothesize why UK debt levels were so much higher than that of Continental Europe. I think they are mistaken here in the first place by comparing the UK in these terms to the rest of Europe. In so much as that the UK is far more similar to the USA when it comes to consumer culture. To compare the UK to Europe in this circumstance I think is like comparing apples to oranges; I would be much more interested to see the UK debt levels compared to those of the USA.
Obviously a large part of many people's debt is mortgage payments. Obviously it is fair to discount this type of debt when considering statistics. However in one of the few left wing views I have about society, I think that it is inherently wrong that people should consign themselves to a lifetime of debt, simply in order to have a home to live in. Regulating the housing market is a way to do this, restricting investment and capping prices at certain levels. It is investment in the housing market that drives the persistent increase in house prices; if regulations severely limited investment in the housing market, prices would not rise too high so quickly and housing would be more affordable. It is fair to say that with hard work and wealth comes the opportunuty to buy a better house, and there is no reason why this could not remain the same. However when the average person must commit to paying off a loan for the next 30 years of their life, simply to have an average home, it must be considered that this is not right.
The ease of obtaining a mortgage combined with low interest rates helps keep house prices on the up. People can afford to borrow more and so prices will be higher. A rise in interest rates will slow down the rise in prices. Again, for this we will take our lead from the US.
Daniel you are most correct. What has lead to debt being so high in the UK is not only the ease at which debt is available, but also the rampant consumer culture that exists here now. People just want to buy more and more things. It seems as though that is now our purpose as citizens of the UK, to spend money. Everywhere we turn, our senses are assaulted with many different forms of advertising, encouraging us to buy the next latest thing. Advertising is effective, people want the next think out on the shelves; they should really save up for it but by the time they do it will probably be out of date. So why wait when they can just borrow money and have it now!
The news the other day was trying to hypothesize why UK debt levels were so much higher than that of Continental Europe. I think they are mistaken here in the first place by comparing the UK in these terms to the rest of Europe. In so much as that the UK is far more similar to the USA when it comes to consumer culture. To compare the UK to Europe in this circumstance I think is like comparing apples to oranges; I would be much more interested to see the UK debt levels compared to those of the USA.
Obviously a large part of many people's debt is mortgage payments. Obviously it is fair to discount this type of debt when considering statistics. However in one of the few left wing views I have about society, I think that it is inherently wrong that people should consign themselves to a lifetime of debt, simply in order to have a home to live in. Regulating the housing market is a way to do this, restricting investment and capping prices at certain levels. It is investment in the housing market that drives the persistent increase in house prices; if regulations severely limited investment in the housing market, prices would not rise too high so quickly and housing would be more affordable. It is fair to say that with hard work and wealth comes the opportunuty to buy a better house, and there is no reason why this could not remain the same. However when the average person must commit to paying off a loan for the next 30 years of their life, simply to have an average home, it must be considered that this is not right.
The ease of obtaining a mortgage combined with low interest rates helps keep house prices on the up. People can afford to borrow more and so prices will be higher. A rise in interest rates will slow down the rise in prices. Again, for this we will take our lead from the US.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Born on a blue day
I have just read the book 'Born on a Blue Day' which is the memoirs of a man called Daniel Tammet. Daniel has aspergers syndrome but why he should be so interesting is the fact that he is also a savant. What is particularly unique about him is that he does not suffer from serious disability as so many other savants do. As a result of this he can actually describe the way he is able to perform the most amazing mathematical calculations. He has synaesthesia, whereby he visualises numbers as shapes with colour, texture, and movement. When he does calculations in his head, he does not consciously perform the arithmetic, he simply visualises two separate images, which merge together to create a third which represents the answer. It is fascinating to comprehend the way his mind works in such a way and it is also an example of the capabilities of the human brain. I was a bit disappointed with his book to be honest as I was hoping it would focus more on his intellectual abilities, however it was really just the story of his life so far.
http://www.optimnem.co.uk/
http://www.optimnem.co.uk/
I'm no Einstein
Last night, after watching the football; I tried to explain to Mike and James the basic principle of the General Theory of Relativity, using a towel and a rugby ball.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Consistency
I feel that the Indonesian justice system is flawed by evidence that it can sentence a person who has been involved in the violent deaths of 20 people, to just 15 years; when a boy who was 1/9th of a syndicate to smuggle drugs out of the country, can be sentenced to death.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Another Aussie legend down
Another big shock to Australians with the sad passing of the great Peter Brock.
There seems to be some kind of conspiracy going on to knock off Aussie legends. I am of the understanding that Shane Warne, John Eales, and Richie Benaud have been taken into protection by the authorities.
There seems to be some kind of conspiracy going on to knock off Aussie legends. I am of the understanding that Shane Warne, John Eales, and Richie Benaud have been taken into protection by the authorities.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Couldn't agree more
The following is an article written by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian today. I think it is an outstanding commentary on the current situation of 'global terrorism.' I could not agree more with the sentiments of this article and only wish there were more people who saw sense in the matter.
The weekend's 9/11 horror-fest will do Osama bin Laden's work for him
This repetitious publicity glorifies terrorism as a weapon of war, scaring us far more than the original explosions did.
Turn on the radio this week and a ghoulish voice from the bowels of the former World Trade Centre seeks to curdle your blood and chill your bones. It is yet another BBC trailer evoking the horror of the twin towers and the monster of evil, Osama bin Laden. The corporation is desperate to outdo other media outlets in their commemorations of the fifth anniversary of 9/11. They include movies by Oliver Stone and Paul Greengrass, and American and British 9/11 specials from stars such as Harvey Keitel and Kevin Costner called The Millionaire Widows, The Miracle of Staircase B, On Native Soil and numerous variants on twin towers. There are comic strips and videos and where-was-I-then memoirs. The weekend is to be wall-to-wall 9/11. Not glorifying terrorism? You must be joking.
The favourite line from the war on terror's military-industrial complex is that in 2001 Osama bin Laden "changed the rules of the game". (Forgotten is that he attacked the same target in 1993, his only error being one of civil engineering.) George Bush repeated the change thesis again on Wednesday in confirming his secret interrogation camps and excusing the five-year delay in bringing al-Qaida suspects to justice. Tony Blair cites the change with every curb on civil liberty. The "new" terrorism requires a new approach to public safety. The security industry cries amen.
Most of this is self-serving drivel. Nervous rulers have colluded with soldiers and businessmen throughout history to cite some ethnic or religious menace when needing more power and higher taxes. Political violence has become more promiscuous with suicide bombing and a consequent rise in kill rate per incident, but - as Matthew Carr shows in his book on terror, Unknown Soldiers - the change is one of degree.
Forty years after Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite, Russian terrorists tried to pack a plane with the stuff and fly it into the tsar's palace. In 1883 Chicago-financed Fenians exploded bombs on the London underground, leading the Times to wonder if the tube could ever be safe. There has been little change in the preferred weapon of terror, the explosive device, or in the psychopathology of the bomber. The causes remain the same: separatism, and religious nationalism dressed up as holy war.
What has changed, grotesquely, is the aftershock. Terrorism is 10% bang and 90% an echo effect composed of media hysteria, political overkill and kneejerk executive action, usually retribution against some wider group treated as collectively responsible. This response has become 24-hour, seven-day-a-week amplification by the new politico-media complex, especially shrill where the dead are white people. It is this that puts global terror into the bang. While we take ever more extravagant steps to ward off the bangs, we do the opposite with the terrorist aftershock. We turn up its volume. We seem to wallow in fear.
Were I to take my life in my hands this weekend and visit Osama bin Laden's hideout in Wherever-istan, the interview would go something like this. I would ask how things have been for him since 9/11. His reply would be that he had worried at first that America would capitalise on the global revulsion, even among Muslims, and isolate him as a lone fanatic. He was already an "unwelcome guest" among the Afghans, and the Tajiks were out to kill him for the murder of their beloved leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud (which they may yet do). A little western cunning and he would have been in big trouble.
In the event Bin Laden need not have worried. He would agree, as did the CIA's al-Qaida analyst in Peter Taylor's recent documentary, that the Americans have done his job for him. They panicked. They drove the Taliban back into the mountains, restoring the latter's credibility in the Arab street and turning al-Qaida into heroes. They persecuted Muslims across America. They occupied Iraq and declared Iran a sworn enemy. They backed an Israeli war against Lebanon's Shias. Soon every tinpot Muslim malcontent was citing al-Qaida as his inspiration. Bin Laden's tiny organisation, which might have been starved of funds and friends in 2001, had become a worldwide jihadist phenomenon.
I would ask Bin Laden whether he had something special up his sleeve for the fifth anniversary. Why waste money, he would reply. The western media were obligingly re-enacting the destruction and the screaming, turning the base metal of violence into the gold of terror. They would replay the tapes and rerun the footage ad nauseam, and thus remind the world of his awesome power. Americans are more afraid of jihadists this year than last. In a Transatlantic Trends survey, the number of them describing international terrorism as an "extremely important threat" went up from 72% to 79%. As for European support for America's world leadership, that has plummeted from 64% in 2002 to 37% this year.
Bin Laden might boast that he had achieved terrorism's equivalent of an atomic chain reaction: a self-regenerating cycle of outrage and foreign-policy overkill, aided by anniversary journalism and fuelled by the grim scenarios of security lobbyists. He now had only to drop an occasional CD into the offices of al-Jazeera, and Washington and London quaked with fear. The authorities could be reduced to million-dollar hysterics by a phial of nail varnish, a copy of the Qur'an, or a dark-skinned person displaying a watch and a mobile phone.
A feature of democracy is freedom of information and speech. News of violence cannot be concealed since concealment fuels the climate of fear. The state should not censor news of terrorist incidents. As Milan Kundera asserted, "the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting". But there are ways of not forgetting. A feature of democracy is also to reject arrest without trial, reject the use of torture, and reject retaliatory violence against people or groups. Democracy can apparently sacrifice these legal principles to guard against the 10% of terrorism that is bang. Why not restrain the publicity that fuels the other 90%, the aftershock? The boundary between news and scaremongering may be hard to define. But so is any boundary between liberty and security. What is so sacred about publicising terror as against habeas corpus?
Conceding the kudos of state censorship to jihadists should be as unthinkable as conceding arrest without trial. That does not excuse the politico-media complex from any responsibility for caution, a sense of proportion and self-restraint. The gruelling re-enactment of the London bombings in July and this weekend's 9/11 horror-fest are not news. They exploit grief and horror, and in doing so give gratuitous publicity to Bin Laden and al-Qaida. Those personally affected by these outrages may have their own private memorials. But to hallow the events with repetitious publicity turns a squalid crime into a constantly revitalised political act. It grants the jihadists what they most crave, warrior status. It more than validates terrorism as a weapon of war, it glorifies it.
The best way to commemorate 9/11 is with silence. Instead, Bin Laden must be laughing.
The weekend's 9/11 horror-fest will do Osama bin Laden's work for him
This repetitious publicity glorifies terrorism as a weapon of war, scaring us far more than the original explosions did.
Turn on the radio this week and a ghoulish voice from the bowels of the former World Trade Centre seeks to curdle your blood and chill your bones. It is yet another BBC trailer evoking the horror of the twin towers and the monster of evil, Osama bin Laden. The corporation is desperate to outdo other media outlets in their commemorations of the fifth anniversary of 9/11. They include movies by Oliver Stone and Paul Greengrass, and American and British 9/11 specials from stars such as Harvey Keitel and Kevin Costner called The Millionaire Widows, The Miracle of Staircase B, On Native Soil and numerous variants on twin towers. There are comic strips and videos and where-was-I-then memoirs. The weekend is to be wall-to-wall 9/11. Not glorifying terrorism? You must be joking.
The favourite line from the war on terror's military-industrial complex is that in 2001 Osama bin Laden "changed the rules of the game". (Forgotten is that he attacked the same target in 1993, his only error being one of civil engineering.) George Bush repeated the change thesis again on Wednesday in confirming his secret interrogation camps and excusing the five-year delay in bringing al-Qaida suspects to justice. Tony Blair cites the change with every curb on civil liberty. The "new" terrorism requires a new approach to public safety. The security industry cries amen.
Most of this is self-serving drivel. Nervous rulers have colluded with soldiers and businessmen throughout history to cite some ethnic or religious menace when needing more power and higher taxes. Political violence has become more promiscuous with suicide bombing and a consequent rise in kill rate per incident, but - as Matthew Carr shows in his book on terror, Unknown Soldiers - the change is one of degree.
Forty years after Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite, Russian terrorists tried to pack a plane with the stuff and fly it into the tsar's palace. In 1883 Chicago-financed Fenians exploded bombs on the London underground, leading the Times to wonder if the tube could ever be safe. There has been little change in the preferred weapon of terror, the explosive device, or in the psychopathology of the bomber. The causes remain the same: separatism, and religious nationalism dressed up as holy war.
What has changed, grotesquely, is the aftershock. Terrorism is 10% bang and 90% an echo effect composed of media hysteria, political overkill and kneejerk executive action, usually retribution against some wider group treated as collectively responsible. This response has become 24-hour, seven-day-a-week amplification by the new politico-media complex, especially shrill where the dead are white people. It is this that puts global terror into the bang. While we take ever more extravagant steps to ward off the bangs, we do the opposite with the terrorist aftershock. We turn up its volume. We seem to wallow in fear.
Were I to take my life in my hands this weekend and visit Osama bin Laden's hideout in Wherever-istan, the interview would go something like this. I would ask how things have been for him since 9/11. His reply would be that he had worried at first that America would capitalise on the global revulsion, even among Muslims, and isolate him as a lone fanatic. He was already an "unwelcome guest" among the Afghans, and the Tajiks were out to kill him for the murder of their beloved leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud (which they may yet do). A little western cunning and he would have been in big trouble.
In the event Bin Laden need not have worried. He would agree, as did the CIA's al-Qaida analyst in Peter Taylor's recent documentary, that the Americans have done his job for him. They panicked. They drove the Taliban back into the mountains, restoring the latter's credibility in the Arab street and turning al-Qaida into heroes. They persecuted Muslims across America. They occupied Iraq and declared Iran a sworn enemy. They backed an Israeli war against Lebanon's Shias. Soon every tinpot Muslim malcontent was citing al-Qaida as his inspiration. Bin Laden's tiny organisation, which might have been starved of funds and friends in 2001, had become a worldwide jihadist phenomenon.
I would ask Bin Laden whether he had something special up his sleeve for the fifth anniversary. Why waste money, he would reply. The western media were obligingly re-enacting the destruction and the screaming, turning the base metal of violence into the gold of terror. They would replay the tapes and rerun the footage ad nauseam, and thus remind the world of his awesome power. Americans are more afraid of jihadists this year than last. In a Transatlantic Trends survey, the number of them describing international terrorism as an "extremely important threat" went up from 72% to 79%. As for European support for America's world leadership, that has plummeted from 64% in 2002 to 37% this year.
Bin Laden might boast that he had achieved terrorism's equivalent of an atomic chain reaction: a self-regenerating cycle of outrage and foreign-policy overkill, aided by anniversary journalism and fuelled by the grim scenarios of security lobbyists. He now had only to drop an occasional CD into the offices of al-Jazeera, and Washington and London quaked with fear. The authorities could be reduced to million-dollar hysterics by a phial of nail varnish, a copy of the Qur'an, or a dark-skinned person displaying a watch and a mobile phone.
A feature of democracy is freedom of information and speech. News of violence cannot be concealed since concealment fuels the climate of fear. The state should not censor news of terrorist incidents. As Milan Kundera asserted, "the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting". But there are ways of not forgetting. A feature of democracy is also to reject arrest without trial, reject the use of torture, and reject retaliatory violence against people or groups. Democracy can apparently sacrifice these legal principles to guard against the 10% of terrorism that is bang. Why not restrain the publicity that fuels the other 90%, the aftershock? The boundary between news and scaremongering may be hard to define. But so is any boundary between liberty and security. What is so sacred about publicising terror as against habeas corpus?
Conceding the kudos of state censorship to jihadists should be as unthinkable as conceding arrest without trial. That does not excuse the politico-media complex from any responsibility for caution, a sense of proportion and self-restraint. The gruelling re-enactment of the London bombings in July and this weekend's 9/11 horror-fest are not news. They exploit grief and horror, and in doing so give gratuitous publicity to Bin Laden and al-Qaida. Those personally affected by these outrages may have their own private memorials. But to hallow the events with repetitious publicity turns a squalid crime into a constantly revitalised political act. It grants the jihadists what they most crave, warrior status. It more than validates terrorism as a weapon of war, it glorifies it.
The best way to commemorate 9/11 is with silence. Instead, Bin Laden must be laughing.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Give us a break
I admit that when I first heard that Steven Irwin had died, I was rather sad. He was basically a good man with good intentions and it is always sad when good people die. To be honest though, I thought they guy was generally annoying; portrayed the worst kind of Australian stereotype to the rest of the world; and was as thick as two short planks. While his death certainly brings me no joy, I'm not reaching for the kleenex.
Seriously though, what did people expect was going to happen to him? The guy spent most of his days teasing deadly animals, so surely one of them was eventually going to get him. Ok so when it came it wasn't how you would have imagined; mauled by a croc or bitten by a king brown snake would have been a greater possibility. Being killed by a sting ray is a rather unlikely event but when you keep putting yourself in harms way, no matter how good you might be at avoiding it, eventually you're going to get hurt; it's simple laws of probability.
The following is a quote from US talk show host Jay Leno, whose show Irwin had appeared on 11 times.
"I think for many Americans he's become the face of Australia and he was a great ambassador. He represented all that was good about the country."
That's the whole reason so many Australians were indifferent to him, because we didn't want him to be the face of our country. He does not in any way represent all that is good about Australia. There are endless reasons why Australia is great, and nearly all of them do not look, smell, sound, taste or feel like Steve Irwin did. What he did do was absolutely personify the ridiculous stereotype that Americans have about Australians. Even the Australian media have jumped on the band wagon now and are saying he was all that was to be Australian. Rubbish! I've lived in Australia for most of my life and I've never met an Australian like him before.
The media have latched onto all this drama and it's starting to make me sick. The guy was a simpleton, and an annoying one at that. The media are making him out to be Gandhi, give us a break! This is no national tragedy; it is not like JFK and it is not like Princess Di. Germaine Greer has had the balls to say what she thinks. She makes a fair point, and has been duly slated by the media. "How dare you say that about our Steve, he was a legend, a hero, how could you be so un-Austrlalian?"
Bollocks
Any shred of sorrow I had for the guy has been washed away by the endless flood of bullshit excreted by the media. He lived his life like it was a big circus and now that's exactly what his death is too.
Further reading
Seriously though, what did people expect was going to happen to him? The guy spent most of his days teasing deadly animals, so surely one of them was eventually going to get him. Ok so when it came it wasn't how you would have imagined; mauled by a croc or bitten by a king brown snake would have been a greater possibility. Being killed by a sting ray is a rather unlikely event but when you keep putting yourself in harms way, no matter how good you might be at avoiding it, eventually you're going to get hurt; it's simple laws of probability.
The following is a quote from US talk show host Jay Leno, whose show Irwin had appeared on 11 times.
"I think for many Americans he's become the face of Australia and he was a great ambassador. He represented all that was good about the country."
That's the whole reason so many Australians were indifferent to him, because we didn't want him to be the face of our country. He does not in any way represent all that is good about Australia. There are endless reasons why Australia is great, and nearly all of them do not look, smell, sound, taste or feel like Steve Irwin did. What he did do was absolutely personify the ridiculous stereotype that Americans have about Australians. Even the Australian media have jumped on the band wagon now and are saying he was all that was to be Australian. Rubbish! I've lived in Australia for most of my life and I've never met an Australian like him before.
The media have latched onto all this drama and it's starting to make me sick. The guy was a simpleton, and an annoying one at that. The media are making him out to be Gandhi, give us a break! This is no national tragedy; it is not like JFK and it is not like Princess Di. Germaine Greer has had the balls to say what she thinks. She makes a fair point, and has been duly slated by the media. "How dare you say that about our Steve, he was a legend, a hero, how could you be so un-Austrlalian?"
Bollocks
Any shred of sorrow I had for the guy has been washed away by the endless flood of bullshit excreted by the media. He lived his life like it was a big circus and now that's exactly what his death is too.
Further reading
Monday, September 04, 2006
Increased Security Levels in Europe
The British are feeling the pinch in relation to recent bombings and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the Blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.
Also, the French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are Surrender" and "Collaborate." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.
It's not only the English and French that are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
Also, the French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are Surrender" and "Collaborate." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.
It's not only the English and French that are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
Up the Students
Congrats to Sydney University Rugby Club on winning both the first grade and second grade grand finals for the second year in a row. Uni is a great club and I hope that they, along with other strong clubs in Sydney and Brisbane fight against the imposition of the proposed national competition next year. This is not what Australian rugby needs, the third tier competition already exists and it exists at club level. Rugby power brokers should be pouring funds into the already existing club structure and strengthening it even further. Clubs like Uni, Randwick, and Eastwood are already producing the bulk of the Wallabies, so they clearly represent a strong foundation in Australian rugby. Why introduce a new competition with 8 brand new teams? These teams have no financial backing, no supporters base, no tradition or history. Surely it would be better to enhance the current club competition when a club like Uni already has a base of players, fans, sponsors and the history and tradition associated with being the oldest rugby club outside of the British Isles.
If a national competition is what we must have, then let's make it one made out of existing clubs. Take the strongest clubs from Sydney and Brisbane, add in the Canberra Vikings and a team from Perth. A first and reserve grade competition could exist concurrently within this format; lower grades, as well as the remaining Sydney and Brisbane teams not included in the national comp, could continue the club competitions in their current format. Surely this is a recipe for success! At the very least it is a much more cost effective option than what is currently being proposed. The national competition as it has been proposed is a huge risk and faces losses amounting to millions of dollars within its first few years.
The powers that be at Australian Rugby headquarters need to look at what has and what currently makes Australian rugby strong; that is, the foundation and strength that Sydney and Brisbane club rugby provides. The people who support their clubs at this level are the real supporters of the game, don't take away the clubs they support!
The ARU should give Australian rugby supporters what they want, and not what they think they should have.
If a national competition is what we must have, then let's make it one made out of existing clubs. Take the strongest clubs from Sydney and Brisbane, add in the Canberra Vikings and a team from Perth. A first and reserve grade competition could exist concurrently within this format; lower grades, as well as the remaining Sydney and Brisbane teams not included in the national comp, could continue the club competitions in their current format. Surely this is a recipe for success! At the very least it is a much more cost effective option than what is currently being proposed. The national competition as it has been proposed is a huge risk and faces losses amounting to millions of dollars within its first few years.
The powers that be at Australian Rugby headquarters need to look at what has and what currently makes Australian rugby strong; that is, the foundation and strength that Sydney and Brisbane club rugby provides. The people who support their clubs at this level are the real supporters of the game, don't take away the clubs they support!
The ARU should give Australian rugby supporters what they want, and not what they think they should have.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Argument from poor design
During my usual "wiki-walking" I came accross the following article
Argument from poor design
The argument from poor design is the argument I was posing the other day in my post Could have done a better job.
Prior to my posting the other day, I had no prior knowledge of this non-existence argument. Everything I wrote was my own idea, though of course I am not the first person to think such things. Indeed there are many more types of non-existence arguments.
Such occasions like this serve only to strengthen my belief in the non-existence of a God. The fact that I have thought about this concept and then discovered it is an existing argument, as opposed to the other way around; suggests my atheism is something that is inherent in me.
Atheism is a rather broad description though and can encompass a wide variety of beliefs. I could narrow the definition of my own personal views to be closer to antitheistic, that is; an opposition to the belief in God. While this is true for myself, I cannot be totally opposed to the belief in a deity or the organisation of such a belief into religion.
A supernatural belief system has served a purpose in the evolution of human society. As the human consciousness developed, so did the need for answers to complex questions to do with the nature of existence. Belief in God(s) is a quick and simple answer for that which cannot be explained. However as knowledge and science develops, these beliefs can be superseded. Whereas once people thought the earth was flat, and at the centre of the universe; a belief enforced by the church with the threat of death; we now know that this is not true.
Belief in a deity is also useful in developing a morals and ethics system. While these values are essentially born out of self preservation, it is easier to instill these values in a majority if it appears they are the insistence of an infallible higher power.
Belief in God also provides the weak minded with a great deal of comfort and reassurance in life; it gives people a purpose and meaning for their lives that they would otherwise not have. The thought of being loved is a wonderful experience and so to be convinced that one is loved by an omnipotent being is a powerful thing.
Let us not forget either that, while there will always be those who abuse it for their own personal agenda, the general intentions of religion are well meaning.
So it is for the positive impact that religion has and its effect of being the "opium of the masses," that I cannot be totally against it per se. Though just because religion can be good, doesn't mean it is true.
Which is why it is not for me
Argument from poor design
The argument from poor design is the argument I was posing the other day in my post Could have done a better job.
Prior to my posting the other day, I had no prior knowledge of this non-existence argument. Everything I wrote was my own idea, though of course I am not the first person to think such things. Indeed there are many more types of non-existence arguments.
Such occasions like this serve only to strengthen my belief in the non-existence of a God. The fact that I have thought about this concept and then discovered it is an existing argument, as opposed to the other way around; suggests my atheism is something that is inherent in me.
Atheism is a rather broad description though and can encompass a wide variety of beliefs. I could narrow the definition of my own personal views to be closer to antitheistic, that is; an opposition to the belief in God. While this is true for myself, I cannot be totally opposed to the belief in a deity or the organisation of such a belief into religion.
A supernatural belief system has served a purpose in the evolution of human society. As the human consciousness developed, so did the need for answers to complex questions to do with the nature of existence. Belief in God(s) is a quick and simple answer for that which cannot be explained. However as knowledge and science develops, these beliefs can be superseded. Whereas once people thought the earth was flat, and at the centre of the universe; a belief enforced by the church with the threat of death; we now know that this is not true.
Belief in a deity is also useful in developing a morals and ethics system. While these values are essentially born out of self preservation, it is easier to instill these values in a majority if it appears they are the insistence of an infallible higher power.
Belief in God also provides the weak minded with a great deal of comfort and reassurance in life; it gives people a purpose and meaning for their lives that they would otherwise not have. The thought of being loved is a wonderful experience and so to be convinced that one is loved by an omnipotent being is a powerful thing.
Let us not forget either that, while there will always be those who abuse it for their own personal agenda, the general intentions of religion are well meaning.
So it is for the positive impact that religion has and its effect of being the "opium of the masses," that I cannot be totally against it per se. Though just because religion can be good, doesn't mean it is true.
Which is why it is not for me
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
The easy way to go from 0 - 200mph
Yesterday Sarah and I jumped out of a perfectly good plane at 13,000 feet. The plane wasn’t going to crash, in fact it landed safely shortly afterwards. Fortunately for us we were each strapped to a professional sky-diving instructor, who was in turn attached to a parachute.
After a couple of tumbles we straightened up, arms out, legs back and head up, it was only a split second before we were travelling at 120mph. At that speed it should have taken us 45 seconds of freefall to reach 5,000 feet where the chute was deployed. I can tell you though there was no way we fell for that long, we were plummeting much faster than 120mph. I’d say our free fall lasted no longer than 30 seconds which meant we would have been pushing 200mph. The rip cord was pulled at 5,000 feet and we decelerated sharply; with the parachute open we sailed comfortably down to the landing site, making a few turns, enjoying the view and having a brief chat. My instructor, who had been jumping for 26 years, landed us gently and I envied him for the fact that he went off to get someone else strapped to him to do it all again!
My suspicions over the speed of my descent were certainly confirmed when, despite being the last one out of the plane, I was the second one to land. It seems I might be pushing the maximum weight of 95kg for a skydiver, so I had better lay off the pies a bit. For both Sarah and I this was the most exhilarating experience I have ever had, we were both on a high for the rest of the day and I am still getting a buzz writing about it now.
I will definitely do this again, next time I’m flying solo.
After a couple of tumbles we straightened up, arms out, legs back and head up, it was only a split second before we were travelling at 120mph. At that speed it should have taken us 45 seconds of freefall to reach 5,000 feet where the chute was deployed. I can tell you though there was no way we fell for that long, we were plummeting much faster than 120mph. I’d say our free fall lasted no longer than 30 seconds which meant we would have been pushing 200mph. The rip cord was pulled at 5,000 feet and we decelerated sharply; with the parachute open we sailed comfortably down to the landing site, making a few turns, enjoying the view and having a brief chat. My instructor, who had been jumping for 26 years, landed us gently and I envied him for the fact that he went off to get someone else strapped to him to do it all again!
My suspicions over the speed of my descent were certainly confirmed when, despite being the last one out of the plane, I was the second one to land. It seems I might be pushing the maximum weight of 95kg for a skydiver, so I had better lay off the pies a bit. For both Sarah and I this was the most exhilarating experience I have ever had, we were both on a high for the rest of the day and I am still getting a buzz writing about it now.
I will definitely do this again, next time I’m flying solo.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Could have done a better job
As I was browsing through my favourite website Wikipedia the other day, I clicked on a link to the article on the big bang. There I found that some moron had tagged the page for immediate deletion for reason (written with rather poor spelling) that it was all just damned lies spread by evil scientists. Being the good chap that I am I quickly reinstated the page to ensure it was not deleted.
It was obvious to me that this had been done by one of those ignorant and narrow minded people who, despite mountains of evidence to support it, argue that the theory of evolution, both of the universe and of life, is in fact not true. The alternative theory for all this is of course that everything was created in one week, 8,000 years ago, by God. They make this claim of course because it says so in a few books written by people who thought the earth was flat.
Before I make the main point of this post today, I would like to pose a thought for the people who subscribe to creationist theory. Why is it not possible for many of these people to combine evolution and creationism? I think their general credibility would be greatly increased if they accepted evolution as fact and simply said that evolution was God’s method of creation. You need to build a house bit by bit, so surely God would need to do the same with the universe. Sadly though this would require everyone to remove their heads from the sand; where it is nice and warm and comfortable.
So let’s stick with the crazies and ask questions of creationism. Some subscribers to this school of thought are wising up to the fact that it just doesn’t hold any water and are not trying to sneak their way in by calling it Intelligent Design. Proponents of ID claim that because many things that exist on earth that are so complicated, they must have been created by an intelligent designer, i.e. God, and could not have happened simply through chance. These proponents are trying to pass this off as science, even though it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own. It is just an idea; cute, but it is still just creationism, and it is still not backed up with any evidence.
So let’s just ignore all the evidence for evolution; let’s close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears, and sing “la la la la la I’m not listening to you.” Let’s say the universe, earth, and mankind were created by a perfect God. If this is true, then why has He not done a better job? If he made us, then why do we have vestigial organs? We don’t need a coccyx, or an appendix, or wisdom teeth; so why did God make them? The earth is far from a completed work; there are volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and other nasty natural phenomenon. A bit rough around the edges there! If we are God’s project then why has he bothered to make the billions upon billions of other stars in the universe?
Come on God, why haven’t you done a better job? If you’re so perfect, why did you need to take a rest on the seventh day? Maybe you should have worked a bit harder and you might have got it right! ID or creationism could not possibly explain our life and our universe, there are just far too many imperfections. Only a process of stellar creation and destruction, of accretion, of natural selection and evolution, can offer a proper explanation. But of course this is what science seeks to achieve, it seeks to ask how and not why. Religion seeks to simply suggest why, and remove the need to ask how. We shouldn’t be asking how; why is because it is God’s will, we should just accept that.
No thanks, it’s just too degrading.
It was obvious to me that this had been done by one of those ignorant and narrow minded people who, despite mountains of evidence to support it, argue that the theory of evolution, both of the universe and of life, is in fact not true. The alternative theory for all this is of course that everything was created in one week, 8,000 years ago, by God. They make this claim of course because it says so in a few books written by people who thought the earth was flat.
Before I make the main point of this post today, I would like to pose a thought for the people who subscribe to creationist theory. Why is it not possible for many of these people to combine evolution and creationism? I think their general credibility would be greatly increased if they accepted evolution as fact and simply said that evolution was God’s method of creation. You need to build a house bit by bit, so surely God would need to do the same with the universe. Sadly though this would require everyone to remove their heads from the sand; where it is nice and warm and comfortable.
So let’s stick with the crazies and ask questions of creationism. Some subscribers to this school of thought are wising up to the fact that it just doesn’t hold any water and are not trying to sneak their way in by calling it Intelligent Design. Proponents of ID claim that because many things that exist on earth that are so complicated, they must have been created by an intelligent designer, i.e. God, and could not have happened simply through chance. These proponents are trying to pass this off as science, even though it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and proposes no new hypotheses of its own. It is just an idea; cute, but it is still just creationism, and it is still not backed up with any evidence.
So let’s just ignore all the evidence for evolution; let’s close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears, and sing “la la la la la I’m not listening to you.” Let’s say the universe, earth, and mankind were created by a perfect God. If this is true, then why has He not done a better job? If he made us, then why do we have vestigial organs? We don’t need a coccyx, or an appendix, or wisdom teeth; so why did God make them? The earth is far from a completed work; there are volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and other nasty natural phenomenon. A bit rough around the edges there! If we are God’s project then why has he bothered to make the billions upon billions of other stars in the universe?
Come on God, why haven’t you done a better job? If you’re so perfect, why did you need to take a rest on the seventh day? Maybe you should have worked a bit harder and you might have got it right! ID or creationism could not possibly explain our life and our universe, there are just far too many imperfections. Only a process of stellar creation and destruction, of accretion, of natural selection and evolution, can offer a proper explanation. But of course this is what science seeks to achieve, it seeks to ask how and not why. Religion seeks to simply suggest why, and remove the need to ask how. We shouldn’t be asking how; why is because it is God’s will, we should just accept that.
No thanks, it’s just too degrading.
Needless to say.....
.... the BBC haven't published my comment about the fata girl story. Pathetic. Come one Beeb, what about a bit of constructive criticism? My comment wasn't harsh or abusive, let people read some other opinions besides the "let's all feel sorry for the fatty" ones. They were probably all written by fatties anyway.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
34 Stone Teen
I stumbled accross this article on the bbc website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5279052.stm
I thought I would add the following comment as others have done at the bottom of the page.
I find it funny that there are so many sympathetic comments towards this girl. These days when so much criticism is levelled at people who smoke and binge drink; why are you not chastising her for binge eating? She is causing far greater damage to her body than a smoker would and people like her must be an incredible strain on the NHS. Congratulations for finally trying to do something about your weight but surely you should have done somthing 15 stone ago.
Certainly there is far too much emphasis on physical appearance in modern society; accross both sexes but markedly more for females. The article cites that 94% of women are not happy with their bodies; I am sure that for the vast majority of them, there is nothing at all wrong with their bodies. People like the girl in the article though are a totally different case. There is plenty wrong with their bodies, they are disgusting. While there is so much emphasis nowadays on people who smoke and how much damage they are doing to their bodies, there seems to be a lot less than there should be for people who are eating themselves to death. Don't be sympathetic to this girl, don't feel sorry because people are hurling abuse at her; people should hurl abuse at her. She deserves to be abused for letting herself get to 34 stone. Face the cold hard facts of reality love; you're fat and disgusting and as soon as someone tells you that, you eat more; so you're pathetic as well. Why should the NHS pay for your operation when everything that's wrong with you is self inflicted?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5279052.stm
I thought I would add the following comment as others have done at the bottom of the page.
I find it funny that there are so many sympathetic comments towards this girl. These days when so much criticism is levelled at people who smoke and binge drink; why are you not chastising her for binge eating? She is causing far greater damage to her body than a smoker would and people like her must be an incredible strain on the NHS. Congratulations for finally trying to do something about your weight but surely you should have done somthing 15 stone ago.
Certainly there is far too much emphasis on physical appearance in modern society; accross both sexes but markedly more for females. The article cites that 94% of women are not happy with their bodies; I am sure that for the vast majority of them, there is nothing at all wrong with their bodies. People like the girl in the article though are a totally different case. There is plenty wrong with their bodies, they are disgusting. While there is so much emphasis nowadays on people who smoke and how much damage they are doing to their bodies, there seems to be a lot less than there should be for people who are eating themselves to death. Don't be sympathetic to this girl, don't feel sorry because people are hurling abuse at her; people should hurl abuse at her. She deserves to be abused for letting herself get to 34 stone. Face the cold hard facts of reality love; you're fat and disgusting and as soon as someone tells you that, you eat more; so you're pathetic as well. Why should the NHS pay for your operation when everything that's wrong with you is self inflicted?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
