For those who know me, I'm a passionate fan of Rugby League (for more information on Rugby League check out Rugby League at Wikipedia). Of the ball sports it is (to me) the best. It is physical, tough, passionate, but it also has finesse, and requires the players to think on their feet. I am lucky in that my wife was a fan of the game before I met her, and she is the one who showed me the light. *LOL* Growing up where I did, the only games were baseball, Canadian football (similar to the NFL, but better), and of course Hockey. There was Rugby Union around, but it was only for those in high school, or University. We could watch some test matches on cable, but with no idea of the rules, or of the game itself (and the announcers refused to explain anything) it was frustrating to watch. Which is a euphemism for BORING !!! *LOL*
I know more people watch/play Rugby Union than League, but to me those first exposures to the game left me wanting. With this in mind, when I first came down-under, my wife (she wasn't my wife then though) tried to get me to watch a game of League. I first said that Rugby was boring, and that I would rather watch the NFL !! She said it wasn't Rugby, but Rugby League, and that it was different. She put on a game, and explained some of the rules, and once I had a very basic grasp of the game I started to really enjoy it.
With the background out of the way, on to the meat of the article. The National Rugby League (the Australian "National" competition) is rapidly approaching a new era. The game has finally created an independent governing body. This is huge, as the game has been run out of New South Wales since the beginning, and there are constant complaints of bias towards the teams and players of that State. Whether there is or not is open to discussion, and depends on what side of the border you live in, and which side you barrack for. Hopefully with the new commission, there will be a balanced approach to not only growing the game, but also in how the games are adjudicated. They will also be negotiating a new TV deal, which should bring a significant increase in revenues to the game.
I hope that the commission doesn't just give the game to 1 free to air broadcaster (as is the current deal) and 1 cable network. This gives the host broadcaster too much power. In fact Channel 9 (the free to air broadcaster) sets the schedule, so they can choose which teams will play on Friday night, or Sunday afternoon (their time slots). Who plays who is known at the beginning of the season, and which weekend (2 games Friday night, 3 games Saturday, 2 Sunday, and 1 Monday night) it will be on, but not which particular day. This is set 5-6 weeks before the game, allowing Channel 9 to tailor their coverage to the teams that will gain them the best ratings. Great for the network, but bad for the fans, and the teams. The League needs to set a firm schedule each year, with dates for all games. I also think that they need to split up the coverage for the free to air games, just like in other parts of the World.
Enough about TV, and on to other stuff. The rules are very good, and I don't think there is much to change there. Where I see a need to change is in how the contracts are dealt with. Over here a contract is still a contract, but with a difference. That being, the player can negotiate with another team while still contracted to another. They can then sign a contract with that other team so that when their current contract expires, they leave and go to their new team. This could be for the next season, or several seasons away. In my opinion, this can't help but to destabilizes a team. I would like to see the League ban this practice, and have all contracts end on the day after the Grand Final, and only when a contract has ended can a player contact another team. To those who think it is bad for the players, I say this; look at the leagues in North America. Have their earnings suffered as a result of this practice ?? The answer is an emphatic NO !! If a player, agent or team is caught violating this, then they should be sanctioned heavily. I would also like to see teams be allowed to trade players during the season, up until a deadline.
Now onto the salary cap. Here is where I would like to see the biggest change. There are some very good ideas out there on how to fix the cap issue, and the one I am writing about is stolen from one of them. ;-) Currently there is a hard salary cap, and all teams must be under the cap at all times. Violating the cap can bring very harsh penalties, just ask the Canterbury Bulldogs, and especially the Melbourne Storm. These teams lost competition points, with the Storm also losing several championships as well for violating the cap. I believe in a salary cap, but it is such a tough thing to balance, so that players get paid well enough, the teams can make money, and the fan isn't priced out of the stadium. One of the downsides of a salary cap, is that loyalty to a team (or player) is somewhat lost in the quest to field a competitive team. Players want that 1 last big contract, but the team may not be able to afford to keep some of it's younger players.
To this I say, why not offer an incentive to the teams to show loyalty to a player that has stayed with the club for a long time. If a player that has been brought through the junior ranks of a team, then the team should get a percentage of the player's salary placed outside of the cap. I would say that for players brought through the team's system, the the cap reduction starts at 25% after 5 years with the team, and increases by 5% each year until a maximum reduction of 50%) For example; a player has played for 5 seasons, the team now gets to lower his cap hit by 25%. If that player manages to play for another 5 years the team's cap hit would only be a maximum of 50%. This way the team would be able to afford to upgrade some of the younger players, while being able to keep the older player around for a last season or two. If a player is bought on the open market, then the team doesn't get to claim any cap reductions for this player. Now if the player stays for a specified length of time, then the team would begin to get some cap relief. Let's say 5% after 5 years, and increases by 5% each year to a total of 25%.
Now we come to 3rd party arrangements, which is considered part of the salary cap. From my limited understanding, if the player (or agent) finds the deal, only a portion is covered by the cap, but if the team arranges a 3rd party deal, then the full thing is under the cap. There needs to be a way for players to be able to market themselves to earn more money because of their exceptional skills, yet allow teams in poorer areas to be competitive. A team with access to many large corporations, has a massive advantage over teams with little to no access. On this I have no real input.
Well that's all the nonsense that I can spew out for today.
Monday, 1 August 2011
Monday, 11 July 2011
The big R ...A topic I thought I wouldn't broach on here
I read an article in the local rag about a religious group wanting something. The following is my view on the subject of religion. Now my views will be seen by some as inflammatory, ignorant, wrong,or intolerant, etc. To those who are easily offended, I suggest that you piss off now, and stop reading.
Still here ?? I'm warning you, I will brook no whinging about MY views. If yours are different fantastic, isn't freedom of thought, and speech wonderful !!!
Although I am not religious, I do believe in freedom for all to practice whatever crack-pot religion they choose to. That's what freedom means, allowing people to think what they wish, to say what they wish, to believe what they wish. Religion is one of those strange things in which no one is wrong, and everyone is right. I realize that my previous statement is contradictory, but if you think about it, and the basis of religion, I am bang on the mark. Religion is based on faith, and belief. If you have true faith, and truly believe, you cannot be wrong. So if you cannot be wrong, then that makes what you believe right. So getting into religious arguments is a bit silly, and pointless with true believers of whatever religion you happen to be dealing with. As I have mentioned, no one can be wrong, so you are only going to be banging your head against the wall when arguing with true believers.
You may ask what my religious bent is. My short answer is, I don't believe in religion. Religion was originally created to explain away the tragedies, and tribulations in life. As time went by, those in charge realized that religion worked very well as a control on the little people. Thus modern religion was born. As I said this is my view, and if you are offended by it, I suggest that you read the last sentence of the first paragraph again. I'll paraphrase it here for those too lazy to reread it. Piss off if you don't like what I'm saying. Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Once they found out that they could control the masses more easily with religion, it became a staple of Kings, and Emperors throughout history.
Think about it. Look around at your work-mates, friends, acquaintances. How many of them have an anti-authoritative streak in them. You know the "you can't tell me what to do!!", or "who died and made you ..." That sort of person. It's so much easier to say that some nebulous entity who is omniscient will punish you for eternity. All you need to do is convince them that it is possible, and their own imagination will take over. Making them much easier to control, and to get them to do what you want them to do. Want another example ?? If this way of controlling the masses wasn't good, than why did the Emperors, Kings, Pharoahs etc. all say that they were either descendants of the Gods, or were put in place by divine right. If you disagreed with the King etc you were disagreeing with the Gods. Very powerful stuff.
To aid in keeping the masses mired in ignorance, the clergy only taught to those they thought were worthy. They also only taught what they wanted the initiates to know, and didn't allow dissent. If there were questions, they diverted them into further study of the only reference material. That way assuring that the "correct" answer would be found. Powerful stuff this.
The as time marched on, languages changed, as did interpretations. Take the King James version of the bible for instance. We have a medieval king who may or may not have had a great grasp of the original Aramaic/Hebrew doing the translating. How do we know if he got it right ?? There have been scholars lately who believe that he got it wrong. One example is the parting of the Red Sea business. At the mouth of the Nile, there was an area called the Reed Sea. Did he misspell this in his translation. By deducing from other passages in the Bible, and comparing to geological occurrences that are known to have occurred, this is a distinct possibility. If he made this very basic error, what else did he mis-translate, or get wrong ?? The book itself was written over centuries, and compiled by those who were not there, and who edited what content went in.
The various bibles do make for an interesting history of the times, along with a good guideline on how to live a decent life. This I will readily agree to. Whether it was written by God himself, well the jury is out on that one. We have to remember that much of what was written, was by guys who wandered around in the desert for long periods of time, in the hot sun. Given the same circumstances today, would we so readily believe a book written by such a person, who claimed to commune directly with God ?? I'll leave you to answer that one yourself.
Still here ?? I'm warning you, I will brook no whinging about MY views. If yours are different fantastic, isn't freedom of thought, and speech wonderful !!!
Although I am not religious, I do believe in freedom for all to practice whatever crack-pot religion they choose to. That's what freedom means, allowing people to think what they wish, to say what they wish, to believe what they wish. Religion is one of those strange things in which no one is wrong, and everyone is right. I realize that my previous statement is contradictory, but if you think about it, and the basis of religion, I am bang on the mark. Religion is based on faith, and belief. If you have true faith, and truly believe, you cannot be wrong. So if you cannot be wrong, then that makes what you believe right. So getting into religious arguments is a bit silly, and pointless with true believers of whatever religion you happen to be dealing with. As I have mentioned, no one can be wrong, so you are only going to be banging your head against the wall when arguing with true believers.
You may ask what my religious bent is. My short answer is, I don't believe in religion. Religion was originally created to explain away the tragedies, and tribulations in life. As time went by, those in charge realized that religion worked very well as a control on the little people. Thus modern religion was born. As I said this is my view, and if you are offended by it, I suggest that you read the last sentence of the first paragraph again. I'll paraphrase it here for those too lazy to reread it. Piss off if you don't like what I'm saying. Anyways, back to the topic at hand. Once they found out that they could control the masses more easily with religion, it became a staple of Kings, and Emperors throughout history.
Think about it. Look around at your work-mates, friends, acquaintances. How many of them have an anti-authoritative streak in them. You know the "you can't tell me what to do!!", or "who died and made you ..." That sort of person. It's so much easier to say that some nebulous entity who is omniscient will punish you for eternity. All you need to do is convince them that it is possible, and their own imagination will take over. Making them much easier to control, and to get them to do what you want them to do. Want another example ?? If this way of controlling the masses wasn't good, than why did the Emperors, Kings, Pharoahs etc. all say that they were either descendants of the Gods, or were put in place by divine right. If you disagreed with the King etc you were disagreeing with the Gods. Very powerful stuff.
To aid in keeping the masses mired in ignorance, the clergy only taught to those they thought were worthy. They also only taught what they wanted the initiates to know, and didn't allow dissent. If there were questions, they diverted them into further study of the only reference material. That way assuring that the "correct" answer would be found. Powerful stuff this.
The as time marched on, languages changed, as did interpretations. Take the King James version of the bible for instance. We have a medieval king who may or may not have had a great grasp of the original Aramaic/Hebrew doing the translating. How do we know if he got it right ?? There have been scholars lately who believe that he got it wrong. One example is the parting of the Red Sea business. At the mouth of the Nile, there was an area called the Reed Sea. Did he misspell this in his translation. By deducing from other passages in the Bible, and comparing to geological occurrences that are known to have occurred, this is a distinct possibility. If he made this very basic error, what else did he mis-translate, or get wrong ?? The book itself was written over centuries, and compiled by those who were not there, and who edited what content went in.
The various bibles do make for an interesting history of the times, along with a good guideline on how to live a decent life. This I will readily agree to. Whether it was written by God himself, well the jury is out on that one. We have to remember that much of what was written, was by guys who wandered around in the desert for long periods of time, in the hot sun. Given the same circumstances today, would we so readily believe a book written by such a person, who claimed to commune directly with God ?? I'll leave you to answer that one yourself.
Monday, 13 June 2011
Climate change ...
For awhile now I've followed the debates, and science of climate change. Frankly it is nearly bloody impossible to form an informed opinion on the subject because of all of the disinformation, rhetoric, and withheld information. So here goes with my own form of uninformed opinion.
I do not doubt that climate change exists, to do so would be to deny the sheer overwhelming evidence that has been put forward. The climate has been in a state of change since day dot, and will continue to do so until the day the sun expands and basically destroys this planet. There is no protocol, carbon tax, eco derived solution that will prevent the ultimate in climate change. No matter what we do, the world will end, and all life on the planet will cease. This will take several billion years, so it's nothing for us to worry about now, nor should we since there isn't a darn thing we can do about it anyway.
Back to my uninformed opinion on the climate change occurring now. There are so many factors that affect climate change, that it's tough to keep them all straight, but they all play a part. For instance we have the CO2 emissions that everyone is wringing their hands over. Yes humans are producing CO2 in record levels, we love internal combustion engines which produce this 'evil' gas. We love electricity, and to produce that most wonderful thing, we need power plants. The cheap and easy way is to burn something and one of the cheapest, easiest and most plentiful things to burn is coal. This produces lots of CO2. Animals, and people produce CO2 when they breathe, as well as producing methane gas which is another of the "greenhouse gases".
As the population expands, so does the amount of CO2 that people produce. The population has more than tripled in the century just passed. It started at just under 2 billion people, and ended with over 6 billion. What effect has just the rise in population had on climate change ?? What about volcanoes, how do they affect climate change ??
I've long thought that a volcano must have some kind of impact on climate change, since it can spews forth massive amounts of ash, and I'm sure that they must produce some of the greenhouse gases. The answer is; volcanic eruptions in one year can produce over 110 million tonnes of CO2. Now this sounds like a massive amount, but it does pale a bit when you consider that human activities produce something like 10,000 times that amount. (from Scientific American article "How do volcanoes affect world climate?" dated October 4, 2005) The thing about volcanoes though is that they also produce it's own 'carbon offset'. You see volcanoes not only send massive volumes of pulverized rock and ash into the air, but also Sulphuric aerosols. It was long thought that the ash clouds were what caused the drops in Global temperatures, but according to the above article, it's the Sulphuric aerosols that seem to have a greater effect on temperature. They absorb and scatter more of the incoming solar radiation than does the fine ash particles thrown up into the atmosphere. So we really can't put the blame on volcanoes, since they more than offset the CO2 emissions with the Sulphuric aerosols. In fact 1 large eruption can cause global temperatures to drop by as much as 0.6C. So in the grand scheme of things volcanic eruptions don't contribute to any warming of the atmosphere, but actually have more of a cooling effect. Unfortunately, the Sulphuric aerosols create Sulphuric acid when combined with water vapour, and cause acid rain. This rain kills plants, animals, and can have a devastating effect on aquatic life. Likewise the reduced sunlight isn't good for the growth of plantlife either.
Although the above findings were quite logical, I was still surprised that such large events can have such a minor effect on the whole. So what about things like wild fires, bush fires, forest fires, etc ?? These are large and can produce large amounts of CO2, and according to some sources (Scientific American again, what can I say I'm lazy *LOL*) fires have accounted for nearly 20% of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Now before we get all excited about this, and say that it's nature's fault, this also included deforestation burning, which is said to cause the largest amount of atmospheric CO2. Deforestation burning hurts the climate in more than 1 way. It reduces the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed from the atmosphere for use in photosynthesis. It releases large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Fires physically heat the atmosphere in the general vicinity of the fire. Although I would imagine that this effect is a rather minor one, the effects are still cumulative and add to the whole.
What I've found from the little bit of research that I've done for this blog has shown me; is that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising (that is not in doubt, as there is too much empirical data to say otherwise). I was curious as to what part nature had in all of this, and I have found that it does play a role. It's just that from what I have found, mankind is mostly to blame for this. I am in no way a "Greenie", but we do need to do something to reduce the vast quantities of pollution that we are issuing. Human nature being the way it is, we need incentives to get us to do things we may not want to do. The Governments of the world need to look at making it profitable for companies, and individuals to reduce emissions. Taxing will work to a point, but if you tell a company "we'll reduce your tax if you ...", or "you'll make more money if you ..." then there is that incentive to move forward. All of the 'progress' of the last few hundred years is due to either making more money, or to win a war (which means that the winners profit by continuing to live), and not by taxing them into submission. Here in Australia, there has been decent success in getting solar power into use. Want to guess how it was done ?? Incentives for those who bought it. By showing how money can be made by being conscious of emissions, only then will change occur.
I do not doubt that climate change exists, to do so would be to deny the sheer overwhelming evidence that has been put forward. The climate has been in a state of change since day dot, and will continue to do so until the day the sun expands and basically destroys this planet. There is no protocol, carbon tax, eco derived solution that will prevent the ultimate in climate change. No matter what we do, the world will end, and all life on the planet will cease. This will take several billion years, so it's nothing for us to worry about now, nor should we since there isn't a darn thing we can do about it anyway.
Back to my uninformed opinion on the climate change occurring now. There are so many factors that affect climate change, that it's tough to keep them all straight, but they all play a part. For instance we have the CO2 emissions that everyone is wringing their hands over. Yes humans are producing CO2 in record levels, we love internal combustion engines which produce this 'evil' gas. We love electricity, and to produce that most wonderful thing, we need power plants. The cheap and easy way is to burn something and one of the cheapest, easiest and most plentiful things to burn is coal. This produces lots of CO2. Animals, and people produce CO2 when they breathe, as well as producing methane gas which is another of the "greenhouse gases".
As the population expands, so does the amount of CO2 that people produce. The population has more than tripled in the century just passed. It started at just under 2 billion people, and ended with over 6 billion. What effect has just the rise in population had on climate change ?? What about volcanoes, how do they affect climate change ??
I've long thought that a volcano must have some kind of impact on climate change, since it can spews forth massive amounts of ash, and I'm sure that they must produce some of the greenhouse gases. The answer is; volcanic eruptions in one year can produce over 110 million tonnes of CO2. Now this sounds like a massive amount, but it does pale a bit when you consider that human activities produce something like 10,000 times that amount. (from Scientific American article "How do volcanoes affect world climate?" dated October 4, 2005) The thing about volcanoes though is that they also produce it's own 'carbon offset'. You see volcanoes not only send massive volumes of pulverized rock and ash into the air, but also Sulphuric aerosols. It was long thought that the ash clouds were what caused the drops in Global temperatures, but according to the above article, it's the Sulphuric aerosols that seem to have a greater effect on temperature. They absorb and scatter more of the incoming solar radiation than does the fine ash particles thrown up into the atmosphere. So we really can't put the blame on volcanoes, since they more than offset the CO2 emissions with the Sulphuric aerosols. In fact 1 large eruption can cause global temperatures to drop by as much as 0.6C. So in the grand scheme of things volcanic eruptions don't contribute to any warming of the atmosphere, but actually have more of a cooling effect. Unfortunately, the Sulphuric aerosols create Sulphuric acid when combined with water vapour, and cause acid rain. This rain kills plants, animals, and can have a devastating effect on aquatic life. Likewise the reduced sunlight isn't good for the growth of plantlife either.
Although the above findings were quite logical, I was still surprised that such large events can have such a minor effect on the whole. So what about things like wild fires, bush fires, forest fires, etc ?? These are large and can produce large amounts of CO2, and according to some sources (Scientific American again, what can I say I'm lazy *LOL*) fires have accounted for nearly 20% of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Now before we get all excited about this, and say that it's nature's fault, this also included deforestation burning, which is said to cause the largest amount of atmospheric CO2. Deforestation burning hurts the climate in more than 1 way. It reduces the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed from the atmosphere for use in photosynthesis. It releases large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Fires physically heat the atmosphere in the general vicinity of the fire. Although I would imagine that this effect is a rather minor one, the effects are still cumulative and add to the whole.
What I've found from the little bit of research that I've done for this blog has shown me; is that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising (that is not in doubt, as there is too much empirical data to say otherwise). I was curious as to what part nature had in all of this, and I have found that it does play a role. It's just that from what I have found, mankind is mostly to blame for this. I am in no way a "Greenie", but we do need to do something to reduce the vast quantities of pollution that we are issuing. Human nature being the way it is, we need incentives to get us to do things we may not want to do. The Governments of the world need to look at making it profitable for companies, and individuals to reduce emissions. Taxing will work to a point, but if you tell a company "we'll reduce your tax if you ...", or "you'll make more money if you ..." then there is that incentive to move forward. All of the 'progress' of the last few hundred years is due to either making more money, or to win a war (which means that the winners profit by continuing to live), and not by taxing them into submission. Here in Australia, there has been decent success in getting solar power into use. Want to guess how it was done ?? Incentives for those who bought it. By showing how money can be made by being conscious of emissions, only then will change occur.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
The job isn't done ...
I've just read in the news that a majority of Australians asked wanted the troops brought home from Afghanistan before Christmas. Although I too wish that no troops from any country should need to be away from home, there is still a need for troops to be in Afghanistan. The job just isn't done yet.
The initial reason they went in was to oust the Taliban, and although they have been moved out of the seats of power, they still exist, and will step into any power vacuum. So that job isn't yet done. The allies wanted to bring stability, and to give the actual residents a say in who governs them. This again is half done. Many areas are now seeing a sort of stability, however the total job is not done yet. Another goal was to give the Afghan economy a bit of stability so it could move away from an agrarian economy to something a bit more sustainable. Again, job not finished. As the economy is almost totally dependant on money brought in from the sale of opiates. One of the jobs that is progressing quite well is the rebuilding of infrastructure that the Taliban destroyed. Namely schools, hospitals, and other types of infrastructure that we take for granted.
The Taliban wanted it's people to be ignorant, so that they would need to turn to their clerics for guidance in all things. They wanted religion (their version of it) to rule all aspects of Afghan life, giving the clerics the power that Kings had in the Dark Ages. They destroyed schools, any symbol of any other religion that wasn't their form of Islam, much of the infrastructure of the country in fact. There were few telephones, almost no internet, or television. That way the people in Afghanistan would be kept ignorant of what was happening in the rest of the world, and the only news they would get, would be from the Taliban. The Taliban banned sport from being played. If you were unlucky enough to be female, you were treated very poorly, and had almost no rights. If you wanted to go to the market to pick up food, you needed to have a male relative along with you. You would not be allowed to go to school, or hold a job. If you were unfortunate enough to be raped, you could be jailed, or worse. Is this the kind of life that we wish to leave as our legacy of being there ??
We Australians like to think we are smarter than the Americans. In fact many take great pride in pointing out the failings of the U.S. It's one of these failings in foreign policy that led to the problems in Afghanistan that we are trying to combat. Namely, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1980, the U.S. took an interest in Afghanistan, and those who were fighting the Soviets. After awhile, the U.S. started to send military equipment to the Mujaheddin, and use the conflict as a testing ground for new weapon systems. At the time, Bin Laden was an ally and friend of the U.S. The Afghan Mujaheddin managed to force the Soviets to retreat. Once the fighting stopped, so did the interest in the area. Suddenly there was no more money, or equipment for the people of Afghanistan. When the Mujaheddin tried to contact the U.S. State Department to ask for aid, they were basically told to "get lost". Their country was in ruin from many years of war and neglect, and the Mujaheddin only wanted to rebuild their country, and to live in peace. The Taliban moved in and offered them stability and order.
If we pull out now, while the Afghans are not yet fully capable of governing themselves, the Taliban will march right back in and establish it's control over the people once again. We would be making the same mistake that the U.S. made, making us just as stupid as we accuse them of being. It would also mean our efforts over the last 10 years would have been in vain. The lives lost in the fight to give the people of Afghanistan the freedom they deserve, would have been lost for nothing.
In conclusion, I mourn each person lost, and I do not wish for our troops to be there any longer than is necessary, but they must finish the job that we gave them. We must not repeat the mistakes that have already made.
To those who have had to do this job, you have my undying gratitude, and unwavering support.
The initial reason they went in was to oust the Taliban, and although they have been moved out of the seats of power, they still exist, and will step into any power vacuum. So that job isn't yet done. The allies wanted to bring stability, and to give the actual residents a say in who governs them. This again is half done. Many areas are now seeing a sort of stability, however the total job is not done yet. Another goal was to give the Afghan economy a bit of stability so it could move away from an agrarian economy to something a bit more sustainable. Again, job not finished. As the economy is almost totally dependant on money brought in from the sale of opiates. One of the jobs that is progressing quite well is the rebuilding of infrastructure that the Taliban destroyed. Namely schools, hospitals, and other types of infrastructure that we take for granted.
The Taliban wanted it's people to be ignorant, so that they would need to turn to their clerics for guidance in all things. They wanted religion (their version of it) to rule all aspects of Afghan life, giving the clerics the power that Kings had in the Dark Ages. They destroyed schools, any symbol of any other religion that wasn't their form of Islam, much of the infrastructure of the country in fact. There were few telephones, almost no internet, or television. That way the people in Afghanistan would be kept ignorant of what was happening in the rest of the world, and the only news they would get, would be from the Taliban. The Taliban banned sport from being played. If you were unlucky enough to be female, you were treated very poorly, and had almost no rights. If you wanted to go to the market to pick up food, you needed to have a male relative along with you. You would not be allowed to go to school, or hold a job. If you were unfortunate enough to be raped, you could be jailed, or worse. Is this the kind of life that we wish to leave as our legacy of being there ??
We Australians like to think we are smarter than the Americans. In fact many take great pride in pointing out the failings of the U.S. It's one of these failings in foreign policy that led to the problems in Afghanistan that we are trying to combat. Namely, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1980, the U.S. took an interest in Afghanistan, and those who were fighting the Soviets. After awhile, the U.S. started to send military equipment to the Mujaheddin, and use the conflict as a testing ground for new weapon systems. At the time, Bin Laden was an ally and friend of the U.S. The Afghan Mujaheddin managed to force the Soviets to retreat. Once the fighting stopped, so did the interest in the area. Suddenly there was no more money, or equipment for the people of Afghanistan. When the Mujaheddin tried to contact the U.S. State Department to ask for aid, they were basically told to "get lost". Their country was in ruin from many years of war and neglect, and the Mujaheddin only wanted to rebuild their country, and to live in peace. The Taliban moved in and offered them stability and order.
If we pull out now, while the Afghans are not yet fully capable of governing themselves, the Taliban will march right back in and establish it's control over the people once again. We would be making the same mistake that the U.S. made, making us just as stupid as we accuse them of being. It would also mean our efforts over the last 10 years would have been in vain. The lives lost in the fight to give the people of Afghanistan the freedom they deserve, would have been lost for nothing.
In conclusion, I mourn each person lost, and I do not wish for our troops to be there any longer than is necessary, but they must finish the job that we gave them. We must not repeat the mistakes that have already made.
To those who have had to do this job, you have my undying gratitude, and unwavering support.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Elections ...
Here in the western world we tend to take elections for granted. There is an apathy towards them, as we think that there really isn't much difference in the candidates, or the parties they represent. There is a saying that goes; "it doesn't matter who you vote for, you still end up with a politician". In my view of what happens in government, this seems to have more than a little bit of truth to it. My view has been formed by many years observing elections as a voter.
I have been watching over the last few months places like Egypt, Syria, Libya, Bahrain (just to name a few) where there are protests, or fighting, merely for the right to choose who leads them. People are turning out, violating the laws of their countries, in order to get change. They are fighting for a freedom that we take for granted. They want what we have here, yet some see elections as little more than a nuisance. Many don't pay attention to what is said during a campaign. What is worse, are people who merely vote for the party that Mummy or Daddy voted for, regardless of the policies of the party. This apathy sends the wrong message to not only those who wish to have this right, but also to those who wish to govern us. They see this apathy and think that they can do whatever it is they wish to do. If there is no oversight, they will do whatever they want, or whatever the special interest groups/corporations demand from their contributions. The oversight has to come from us, the voters. If we do not hold our elected officials accountable, who will?? I will tell you who will. It will be those who have invested millions into political contributions. Namely large corporations, unions and special interest groups. Each one will demand a return on it's investment. This return on investment may or may not be what's in the best interest of the people. After all it's the people who are the most important part of any country. We need to have a climate that is conducive to corporate prosperity, but it also has to allow people to live with a high standard of living. In my opinion the scales are swayed too much towards what special interests want, and not what is truly needed by the Country.
It's time for a revolution here in the western world. I'm not talking the taking up of arms here, just that we need to tell our leaders that they need to lead. We demand true electoral reform, like all political contributions being stripped of their tax deductible status. Corporations should be banned from contributing. In my opinion these will help remove the horse-collar from around the necks of our leaders, and allow them to concentrate on making the Country (or State, Province, community etc) a truly better place in which to live. Not one that is better only for a limited few. We need leaders who actually lead, not sycophants to business/special interests. We want parties to unveil their platforms at election time, and actually explain what they mean, and what each party is wanting to achieve. I want to know what their vision of the Country (State, Province etc) is. I don't want scare tactics that try to tell me what they think the other guys policies will mean to the Country. I want to know what yours mean, and what they will do for me, and the people as a whole. I want to be able to make a choice that is based on reason, and good policies, not one based on supposition, and scare tactics.
I have been watching over the last few months places like Egypt, Syria, Libya, Bahrain (just to name a few) where there are protests, or fighting, merely for the right to choose who leads them. People are turning out, violating the laws of their countries, in order to get change. They are fighting for a freedom that we take for granted. They want what we have here, yet some see elections as little more than a nuisance. Many don't pay attention to what is said during a campaign. What is worse, are people who merely vote for the party that Mummy or Daddy voted for, regardless of the policies of the party. This apathy sends the wrong message to not only those who wish to have this right, but also to those who wish to govern us. They see this apathy and think that they can do whatever it is they wish to do. If there is no oversight, they will do whatever they want, or whatever the special interest groups/corporations demand from their contributions. The oversight has to come from us, the voters. If we do not hold our elected officials accountable, who will?? I will tell you who will. It will be those who have invested millions into political contributions. Namely large corporations, unions and special interest groups. Each one will demand a return on it's investment. This return on investment may or may not be what's in the best interest of the people. After all it's the people who are the most important part of any country. We need to have a climate that is conducive to corporate prosperity, but it also has to allow people to live with a high standard of living. In my opinion the scales are swayed too much towards what special interests want, and not what is truly needed by the Country.
It's time for a revolution here in the western world. I'm not talking the taking up of arms here, just that we need to tell our leaders that they need to lead. We demand true electoral reform, like all political contributions being stripped of their tax deductible status. Corporations should be banned from contributing. In my opinion these will help remove the horse-collar from around the necks of our leaders, and allow them to concentrate on making the Country (or State, Province, community etc) a truly better place in which to live. Not one that is better only for a limited few. We need leaders who actually lead, not sycophants to business/special interests. We want parties to unveil their platforms at election time, and actually explain what they mean, and what each party is wanting to achieve. I want to know what their vision of the Country (State, Province etc) is. I don't want scare tactics that try to tell me what they think the other guys policies will mean to the Country. I want to know what yours mean, and what they will do for me, and the people as a whole. I want to be able to make a choice that is based on reason, and good policies, not one based on supposition, and scare tactics.
Monday, 25 April 2011
K.E.R.S. & D.R.S. & F1 are A.O.K. !!!
Baffled by the massive number of acronyms ?? They are some interesting additions to Formula 1 cars that are competing in the 2011 season. In the past F1 has mostly been a procession from the first lap until the last, with the only changes in position caused by crashes, or really bad pit stops. Unless the leader did something really stupid, or the car broke positions in a race were set by the end of the first couple of laps (or corners at some tracks).
Granted there was the occasional dice between foes, but they were the exception, and not the rule. The F.I.A. and F1 teams tried many different things to improve the spectacle, but they failed. The performance of the car was determined mostly by it's aerodynamics, and later by the computers, that it was almost impossible to pass. You see in order to get close enough to get into the slipstream of the car in front, a driver had to be very close in the corners. This meant driving in the turbulent air behind the car in front, and lose aerodynamic performance. The driver would have to slow down in order to not run off the track. Needless to say, unless his car was much faster (something like 2-3+ seconds per lap), he had no chance of passing the car in front.
Enter K.E.R.S. and D.R.S. These stand for kinetic energy recovery system, and drag reduction system. Basically KERS is an electric doohickey that gets energy from braking, and charges a battery. The driver can then use this energy to give the car an extra boost of power for passing attempts. It is limited to a specific amount per lap, so the driver has to choose when the best time to use it is. DRS is called the drag reduction system, and simply it is a button on the driver's steering wheel that allows the driver to reduce the wing angle on the car. This reduces drag (wind resistance) on a straight-away, allowing for a higher top speed without reducing cornering performance. There is a catch though. In qualifying, it can be used for most of the lap. In the race however, it can only be used on certain straights (determined by the race steward), and for a specific time. The driver also needs to be within 1 second of the car in front. So a driver who is leading cannot use his DRS, only the car behind gets to use it. It is still a work in progress, but in my opinion the FIA is on the right track (pardon the pun) with these two systems.
So far the races I have watched have been quite entertaining. There have been passes for position all up and down the grid. A ban on refuelling, and the new Pirelli tires (2 different compounds a soft which doesn't last all that long, and a harder compound that lasts longer but isn't as fast) there is a new tactical element to the racing that must be taken into account by the teams. They have a limited number of tires for a race weekend, and the teams need to determine whether using the extra tires for a run at pole position is worth having fewer new tires for the race.
I must mention that I used to be quite the F1 nerd, and followed it quite closely. I have to say that I lost interest in F1 mainly due to the dominance of Ferrari (a team I used to adore until Herr Squarehead joined them), and the absolute lack of entertainment. That has changed this year for me. I am finding that it is much more enjoyable to watch the races this year, and it's because of these changes.
Granted there was the occasional dice between foes, but they were the exception, and not the rule. The F.I.A. and F1 teams tried many different things to improve the spectacle, but they failed. The performance of the car was determined mostly by it's aerodynamics, and later by the computers, that it was almost impossible to pass. You see in order to get close enough to get into the slipstream of the car in front, a driver had to be very close in the corners. This meant driving in the turbulent air behind the car in front, and lose aerodynamic performance. The driver would have to slow down in order to not run off the track. Needless to say, unless his car was much faster (something like 2-3+ seconds per lap), he had no chance of passing the car in front.
Enter K.E.R.S. and D.R.S. These stand for kinetic energy recovery system, and drag reduction system. Basically KERS is an electric doohickey that gets energy from braking, and charges a battery. The driver can then use this energy to give the car an extra boost of power for passing attempts. It is limited to a specific amount per lap, so the driver has to choose when the best time to use it is. DRS is called the drag reduction system, and simply it is a button on the driver's steering wheel that allows the driver to reduce the wing angle on the car. This reduces drag (wind resistance) on a straight-away, allowing for a higher top speed without reducing cornering performance. There is a catch though. In qualifying, it can be used for most of the lap. In the race however, it can only be used on certain straights (determined by the race steward), and for a specific time. The driver also needs to be within 1 second of the car in front. So a driver who is leading cannot use his DRS, only the car behind gets to use it. It is still a work in progress, but in my opinion the FIA is on the right track (pardon the pun) with these two systems.
So far the races I have watched have been quite entertaining. There have been passes for position all up and down the grid. A ban on refuelling, and the new Pirelli tires (2 different compounds a soft which doesn't last all that long, and a harder compound that lasts longer but isn't as fast) there is a new tactical element to the racing that must be taken into account by the teams. They have a limited number of tires for a race weekend, and the teams need to determine whether using the extra tires for a run at pole position is worth having fewer new tires for the race.
I must mention that I used to be quite the F1 nerd, and followed it quite closely. I have to say that I lost interest in F1 mainly due to the dominance of Ferrari (a team I used to adore until Herr Squarehead joined them), and the absolute lack of entertainment. That has changed this year for me. I am finding that it is much more enjoyable to watch the races this year, and it's because of these changes.
Friday, 8 April 2011
Poor descision ...
The cricket World Cup is over and I want to congratulate India on their victory. On a personal note, I think that it is great that Sachin Tendulker is able to finally hoist the World Cup. He seems (at least his public persona any ways) to be such a nice person, and a classy player. Now that that is over with, on to what I really want to talk about.
The ICC (International Cricket Council) has determined that "Associate" nations will not be allowed to play at the 2015 World Cup to be held in Australia. That means that Countries such as the Netherlands, Kenya, Canada, Ireland etc will not be allowed to compete at the next World Cup. They say that ticket sales will be too low, and that there will be little to no interest in games involving these teams. It seems to be an argument that on the surface has some merit. After all, the pundits claim that no one will want to watch Canada play Kenya in a pool match, where neither team stands much of a chance of moving onto the next round. Other than the few Canadian cricket fans living, or visiting here (all 5 of us *LOL*), the crowds will be very low. However, when you look back through history in this cricket mad country, you'll find very little interest in countries that are not playing Australia. In fact of late, interest in one day cricket is waning here even when Australia is playing. Crowds have been declining steadily, along with the decline in the quality of Australian cricket.
If ticket sales were to be the sole deciding factor, then the West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe may as well be excluded too. In fact any game not including Australia may as well be not included. When Australia had their triangular series going after the test season, crowds were very low at games that did not include the hosts. Regardless of whether they were good games, with quality opponents. Using ticket sales to determine a draw is in my opinion ludicrous.
The other reason to not include the so called 'minnows' (the Associate nations) is that they don't stand a chance against the top teams. This is somewhat true, but please don't tell Ireland okay. Neither do most of the teams that play in the Soccer World Cup, yet they still allow them in.
It is true that the Associate nations may not have the talent to stand toe to toe with the top teams, but how are they supposed to test themselves if they are not allowed to try ??? How are they ever going to get better if they only play against teams of the same level ??
I followed Canada's progress through this World Cup, and was very impressed by how well they played. Yes they lost all but one game, but with a bit better batting they could have beaten Pakistan. Had they played Pakistan later in the tournament, I think they would have put a major scare into them, as Canada's batting improved in the last two games. Against Sri Lanka, Canada scored their highest World Cup score ever with a 260. Granted they were chasing a massive total, but against a very good attack, they ground out a respectable score. Against Australia they scored over 200 again, something unheard of in previous World Cups.
The ICC is in charge of growing the game worldwide, so how is it growing the game if they reduce the number of teams allowed to play in the showcase tournament ?? In my opinion, the ICC is being very short-sighted by reducing the number of teams that are included in the World Cup. It will reduce the already paltry media coverage in those countries to basically zero. So could someone please explain to me how will this raise the profile of the game in the Associate nations?? The only explanation I can think of is that the ICC is trying to kill off the 50 overs game, and promote the twenty20 version. With the rise of the IPL, this version of the game is gaining popularity quickly. I have read that the ICC wants to hold a tournament every 2 years, and will include the Associate nations in the tournament. Perhaps it's the ICC's way of telling the World that the end is near for the 50 over format.
The ICC (International Cricket Council) has determined that "Associate" nations will not be allowed to play at the 2015 World Cup to be held in Australia. That means that Countries such as the Netherlands, Kenya, Canada, Ireland etc will not be allowed to compete at the next World Cup. They say that ticket sales will be too low, and that there will be little to no interest in games involving these teams. It seems to be an argument that on the surface has some merit. After all, the pundits claim that no one will want to watch Canada play Kenya in a pool match, where neither team stands much of a chance of moving onto the next round. Other than the few Canadian cricket fans living, or visiting here (all 5 of us *LOL*), the crowds will be very low. However, when you look back through history in this cricket mad country, you'll find very little interest in countries that are not playing Australia. In fact of late, interest in one day cricket is waning here even when Australia is playing. Crowds have been declining steadily, along with the decline in the quality of Australian cricket.
If ticket sales were to be the sole deciding factor, then the West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe may as well be excluded too. In fact any game not including Australia may as well be not included. When Australia had their triangular series going after the test season, crowds were very low at games that did not include the hosts. Regardless of whether they were good games, with quality opponents. Using ticket sales to determine a draw is in my opinion ludicrous.
The other reason to not include the so called 'minnows' (the Associate nations) is that they don't stand a chance against the top teams. This is somewhat true, but please don't tell Ireland okay. Neither do most of the teams that play in the Soccer World Cup, yet they still allow them in.
It is true that the Associate nations may not have the talent to stand toe to toe with the top teams, but how are they supposed to test themselves if they are not allowed to try ??? How are they ever going to get better if they only play against teams of the same level ??
I followed Canada's progress through this World Cup, and was very impressed by how well they played. Yes they lost all but one game, but with a bit better batting they could have beaten Pakistan. Had they played Pakistan later in the tournament, I think they would have put a major scare into them, as Canada's batting improved in the last two games. Against Sri Lanka, Canada scored their highest World Cup score ever with a 260. Granted they were chasing a massive total, but against a very good attack, they ground out a respectable score. Against Australia they scored over 200 again, something unheard of in previous World Cups.
The ICC is in charge of growing the game worldwide, so how is it growing the game if they reduce the number of teams allowed to play in the showcase tournament ?? In my opinion, the ICC is being very short-sighted by reducing the number of teams that are included in the World Cup. It will reduce the already paltry media coverage in those countries to basically zero. So could someone please explain to me how will this raise the profile of the game in the Associate nations?? The only explanation I can think of is that the ICC is trying to kill off the 50 overs game, and promote the twenty20 version. With the rise of the IPL, this version of the game is gaining popularity quickly. I have read that the ICC wants to hold a tournament every 2 years, and will include the Associate nations in the tournament. Perhaps it's the ICC's way of telling the World that the end is near for the 50 over format.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)