Thursday, September 29, 2005

Or maybe I just listened to the Sex Pistols too much when I was a kid

According to this test which others around the blogosphere have been doing, I'm:


I think that's probably going a bit far, I'd consider myself more a capitalist/libertarian. I don't want to detroy the government, I just want it to sod off and leave me alone.

According to their famous people graph, I'm nearest to George Washington, right between Ted Kacynski and Charles Manson.

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Grand Final Recap

Will not be happening since I wandered off to do something else late in the first quarter and never felt compelled to go back and watch the rest of the game. From what I saw of the first quarter, I saw everything that I had no desire to watch, a non-functioning Eagles forward line, and the Swans trying to flood their way to a premiership.

Friday, September 23, 2005

AFL Grand Final

Much as I'd like to say that I think the Eagles will win, I'm backing the Swans to win by around 6 goals. I doubt that their midfield will be given the room to run free that they need to kick the goals that their forwards don't seem capable of managing. I also have my doubts about how their defence will hold if the midfield isn't dominating.

That said, I've got a bottle of zubrowka that's getting opened tommorrow night if they do get up.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Spring into Action!

The Aussie selectors finally twig that the team isn't playing that well. I wonder what tipped them off.

You can't deny their brilliance though: "We are looking to include players who can bat, bowl and field". Yes that would be handy to have in a cricket team.

Omission corrected

I've been reading the sage writings of the Ozguru back since the days when he was at Mk1, but for some reason hadn't included him in ye olde blogroll. Well since he's linked to me, I guess I should fix that.

I guess it can be "in play" as long as it's on the same field

So Barry Hall is free to play in the grand final. From the incident it didn't really look like the sort of thing someone should get rubbed out for, but several others copped suspensions for similar incidents during the year. The difference being they had the option of missing one round, or challenging it and risking more, whereas Hall (and Gaspar) had the option of missing the grand final or risking missing the start of next year.

This decision does show though, that the new tribunal system is just as irregular as the old. The technical point he was let go on was that despite the fact it occurred 25 metres from where the ball was, it was judged to be "in play" not "behind play" as he had originally been charged. Now to most people if your a kick away from where the ball is, they'd say you are "behind play". But in the tribunal, there is no set definition, meaning they can interpret it whichever way gives them the result they want. Which is precisely the sort of thing the new tribunal system was meant to put an end to.

Maguire should have been done for a couple of weeks though. Surely there is some rule against acting like a complete pansy, this isn't soccer after all.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Notice

I'm off to Brisbane for a few days

And England bat first again

Given that Ponting has screwed up the call the one time he did win the toss and lost all the others, can we declare him a hopeless tosser now?

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Katrina and Kyoto

One of the dumbest efforts of those who blame bush for everything that is wrong with the world was their attempts to pin the blame on him for Hurricane Katrina because he won't ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Now, I am aware that it's the Senate that has to do it not the President, but that doesn't seem to matter to them.

What I want to have a go at is the Kyoto Protocol itself.

For the sake of the argument, lets say the tree-huggers are right, and all their theories about global warming are 100% correct. That is, the greenhouse gases covered by the protocol are causing the world to heat up, and will cause irrevocable climate change if we don't stop pumping them into the air. If they really believe their own arguments, then they should be fighting against the Kyoto Protocol, not for it.

As I understand it, the KP requires developed nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. The same isn't required of developing and third world nations. For me 1990 was my first year of high school. I remember listening to questionable music and wearing some questionable clothes. As far as I remember, it wasn't exactly pre-industrial civilization. The same can be said of all other developed nations who would be required to limit their emissions. So reducing them to 1990 levels isn't exactly going to cause much of a reduction in those countries. Especially since most have EPA like regulation of their output, and are getting cleaner and more efficient all the time.

In less developed countries however, there are still many that aren't heavily industrialized. Even with the most efficient modern technologies, their outputs are going to increase. But in their case, the KP offers no incentive to minimize their outputs. If anything, it would reward those who took their polluting industries and, instead of cleaning them up, moved them to somewhere else where they can keep polluting.

So at best you'll have moderately higher total greenhouse emissions. Most likely you'd have significantly worse. Either way you haven't reduced them like you are screaming we need to (but at least we'd have moved all the nasty stuff to some other country).

And you expect people to take you seriously?

Katrina fallout prompts call for Iraq exit strategy

We have to get out of Iraq because of a Hurricane in New Orleans. Ok, makes perfect sense I guess.