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.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
