Whaling

Over the last few years there has been a lot about whaling in the media. I am vehemently opposed to whaling. Part of the reason is due to objective analysis of the facts, but it is also due to an emotional response. Thus I am against whaling objectively and emotionally. I don't see why, just because I am emotively against something, this should make my response invalid. Humans are not robots after all.

Let's analyse my emotive response first.

My mother has always instilled a strong conservation ethic in me, and she has always been strongly against whaling. In 1994 I was living in England and my family came to New Zealand for a holiday (and with a view to emigrating). One of the highlights of the trip was going to be whalewatching. As we fitted the whalewatching around my 10th birthday (April 25th) and my mum's birthday 3 days later it was extra special. First the family took a boat out. Seeing a Sperm Whale only a matter of 10 yards away was an awe-inspiring experience. The whale dived down. It was majestic. The whole experience was breathtaking. I was transfixed. Afterwards just Mum and I decided to take a helicopter ride and watch the whales breathing on the surface. This was also simply spectacular. Ever since that fantastic day I have loved whales. I started reading up on them, and I had a poster of all the different species on my bedroom wall.

I am completely behind Greenpeace in their attempts to stop whaling. There are many things I disagree with Greenpeace on, such as Genetic Modification, but on whaling: I stand beside them 100%. I completely respect their actions in doing things like getting in between the whalers and the whale, and sometimes I almost wish I was doing it myself. It's also great when they come up with something innovative to get their message across! It may make me sound like a bit of a radical, or a lunatic, but I love the work of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society such as their lobbing acid onto whaling fleets, and when I hear Japanese whalers come out with something like: “Sea Shepherd is conducting a campaign of outright destruction and terrorism. We have serious concerns that someone will be injured or killed in its destructive terrorism.” - I actually think: well good on them!

But objectively there are plenty of reasons to be against whaling too.

(1) Whaling is unsustainable. The gestation period of a whale, depending on the species, is anywhere from 1-2 years. The amount of whales that are killed there is no way the whale species can regenerate even a fraction of the amount that are killed.

(2) Killing just one whale can put the whole ecosystem out of kilter when you consider that a humpback whale for example eats millions of krill per day.

(3) Whales cannot be farmed. If they could there may be a theoretical argument in favour of whaling. But there is no way you can put a fence around them. These are wild creatures not sheep or cows.

(4) Whales are endangered. For the sake of biodiversity no species should become extinct. When whaling nations such as Japan or Norway are supposedly going after the more plentiful Minke, I can't trust that they're not going after the highly endangered ones also. Even killing Minke at the rate they want to will soon make them become highly endangered also.

(5) Whaling is a very painful experience for the whale. A harpoon can cause a whale to writhe around in agony for hours, spewing blood. It is horrible. That we can still inflict such pain on these beautiful creatures is barbaric.

(6) Although whaling is supposedly for scientific research it is clearly for commercial gain. Whale is considered just another delicacy by many Japanese, and people pay extortionate prices because it apparently tastes so good. Research is just an excuse. But even if it were for research, this would be research that is not needed. Why should humans thirst for knowledge cause mass killings of whales? Much can be learned by observing them in the wild or cutting up an already dead beached whale anyway.

Keep up the good work Greenpeace. Whaling is despicable both objectively and emotively.

Teenage Pregnancy.

Apparently the teenage birth rate is climbing year by year. This is very unfortunate as it deepens the countries social and economic problems, and I think it would be fair to say that many of these mothers come from what John Key would describe as the underclass of society.

It is all very well for welfare commentators like Lindsay Mitchell to blithely criticise the 'financial incentives' of giving birth but what's the alternative? What would be the consequences of say, removing all 'financial incentives'? It is conceivable that the birth rates will go down, but what of the children that are born? For a girl in poverty to give birth to a child and receive no welfare, is to put the innocent child into great danger of malnutrition or worse. The poverty that they will grow up in will be horrendous.

So what of any other alternatives? Will removing them from their mother and placing them into care or foster homes be better? Removing them will put huge emotional strain on the mother and will have deep psychological impacts on the child. Even one lucky enough to be placed with just one great foster family will end up undertaking the journey to discovery as to where they actually came from. Others will move between foster homes, becoming unwilling to make emotional attachments knowing how easy there are to break. There is nothing more important to a child than the love of its parents, and especially its mother.

What about forcing pregnant teenagers to have abortions? Apart from this being unethical state intervention the psychological effect of the abortion on the mother-to-be will be immense. A while ago I read a study (and I'm sorry I can't remember what it was but you'll just have to take my word for it) that suggested the psychological effects of abortion are far worse than those of going through with an unwanted pregnancy. Never mind the fact that having an abortion makes you more likely to become unfertile. As I was first made aware of by the character Rachel in the magnificent TV series Cold Feet, who was told she couldn't have a child with Adam because of her abortion with her ex-husband.

There certainly are a lot of girls or young women out there who have children in order to avoid going out to work, and because it guarantees them extra welfare money. This is fundamentally wrong but it is preferable to the child dying of starvation. The child must grow up in an environment where there is enough money to put food on the table. Often though, welfare money is abused, squandered on cigarettes or booze. This is why I think a voucher system could be explored. Vouchers which require that they are used for certain items such as food. Or money automatically being spent towards rent. I know things like this are subject to abuse, but it's possibly worth a try and can be a help towards those with the right intentions who just end up making stupid decisions.

Many of these women also have children (as Lindsay Mitchell alludes to) because they have an unstable family, because their father has fled and they feel unloved, because they have an uneasy relationship with their mother...because they want to feel the unconditional love of a baby. And it is statistically proven that it is much more likely for these problems to arise in lower socio-economic households. It's sad for the mothers, it's sad that they resort to this, and it's sad for the children involved. This is why it's so important to have policy which promotes family, which encourages a stable environment, which help children not be hungry, which helps Mum and Dad stay together. This is why it's good that John Key addresses the issue of the so-called underclass. It's vital that the vulnerable members of society have an improved situation. This is not done by simply throwing money around in the form of extra benefits as the left wing might have you believe. This is about ideas of tough love, of safer communities, of encouraging individual responsibility rather than a patronising nanny state attitude. I'm not quite sure how to tackle these issues exactly, but I'm sure John Key's ideas will have far more credence than those of the likes of Helen Clark!

Welfare and teenage pregnancy are huge issues in this country. It's very difficult to know where to start in solving these problems. But we need innovation. And we can't just ignore the problem. People: make some suggestions, help me out here!

World Cup Squad covers all bases!

I apologise to be back talking about this issue again but I just wanted to point people to an article by Richard Boock which I enjoyed. And which I pretty much agreed with!

Click Here.

Sex Blogs

Apparently there are "nearly 7 million sex-related blogs"! It's a bit sad that people feel the need to discuss their most intimate moments on the net, even if they probably can be titillating reading at times. But I guess it's pretty similar to wanting to discuss any issue really. I suppose I should read some first if I really want to criticise!

Anyway, I would just like to reassure all my readers that none of my sex-life will ever be branded on the Internet! It's not really something I can ever see myself wanting to do! So all previous and future partners can sleep easily at night :)

The magic of the FA Cup

This morning I got up and decided to peruse the television channels, and was excited to see that ESPN was showing a live FA cup game: the replay between Middlesbrough against Bristol City. I had tuned in at the start of the second half and Bristol City had a 1-0 lead.

I love watching the FA cup. Especially when it's a Premiership team pitting its wits against a team a couple of divisions below. Middlesbrough are 12th in the Premier League and Bristol City 5th in League 1 (37 places below). And what I saw was a team who fought hard for every ball, a team encamped in their own half doggedly defending, and a team who could counterattack well. In short, I was impressed.

If you don't understand the prestige, the passion and the beauty of the FA cup you would probably wonder how it was even possible. But year after year there are shocks as the underdogs pull off mighty victories, or at least come agonisingly close. I love watching those games. Like a few years back when David Seaman of Arsenal pulled off what is possibly my most favourite save of all time against Sheffield United of the division below. The ball seemed destined for the net but somehow Seaman's big hand prevented it from crossing the line.

Shocks are a part and parcel. So are the romantic images they conjure up. The FA cup is a magical competition.

Today is Valentines Day, and so I was hoping that little known Bristol City of the West Country could add yet more magic to footballing folklore. But then Mark Viduka headed home a Downing cross from close range, and so it was 1-1. They then came close on two occasions of taking the lead as first. Downing's shot hit the base of the post, and Adam Johnson (formerly on loan to Leeds this season, doh!) crashed a long range effort into the cross bar.

And then it was extra time. Yakubu was brought down in the box and had the perfect opportunity from the penalty spot: but one of the poorest penalties you'd ever see was saved. Was it going to be little old Bristol City's day? But then Yakubu scored from close range...surely it was all over? Then with only a couple of minutes left and I was pumping in the air in a short fit of underdog excitement. McCombe turned home a cross leaving Bristol City in delirium.

3 and a half hours after the start of their locking horns and the sides were effectively level at 4-4 with penalties to decide the winner. Penalties were being taken, and at 4-4 in penalties it looked odds on that Yakubu would put his earlier miss behind him, take the last penalty, and send Boro into the 6th round. Instead he hit the post!!!! Sudden Death!!!! Mark Schwarzer pulled off his second great penalty save, proving his heroics for Australia against Uruguay in qualifying for the world cup were no one off. Then 19 year old Adam Johnson stepped up with no fear, and sent the hearts of little old Bristol City crashing to the floor.

But what a magnificent match. And what a magnificent advent for the cup. This is what it is all about. This is what makes football all worth while. The showponies and largesse of the premiership almost brought down to size. An exciting start to the day. Pity the underdog couldn't quite pull through!

Our World Cup Squad:

The Black Caps squad for the world cup has been announced:

Stephen Fleming (c)

Shane Bond

James Franklin

Peter Fulton *

Mark Gillespie

Michael Mason *

Brendon McCullum

Craig McMillan

Jacob Oram
Jeetan Patel

Scott Styris

Ross Taylor

Daryl Tuffey

Daniel Vettori

Lou Vincent

* Fulton and Mason have not been included in the Chappell Hadlee series and will be available for their respective provinces.

It's about what was expected - apart from the shock inclusion of Darryl Tuffey. The rationale from Bracewell is that he is the perfect replacement for Kyle Mills because he can swing the ball away from the right hander and has been in good domestic form. He's certainly a preferable option to Adams who I believe is really not up to the rigours of international bowling. Yes he used to have the x factor of having the happy knack of taking wickets but he's erratic and generally shows poor line and length. Who are the other options? There is Chris Martin who is not suited to one day cricket. Then there is Chris Harris who could be useful on the slow West Indies pitches and has been in great form for Canterbury. Unfortunately international teams are well used to his style of bowling and thus he holds little danger to them. He would have the advantage though of strengthening the squad's batting depth. Still, overall, I believe Harris to be the past - though I'm not sure that Tuffey is the future!

Is it right that they only have one batsman as backup? Given that bowlers are the ones to break down more often it's probably a wise move. But one backup is kind of light. Having said that if we have a couple of injuries/loss of form the likes of Vettori and Franklin can go up the order to take their place. What of McMillan over Marshall? I think that's the correct decision. The only thing that would tempt me to take a Marshall (and it would be Hamish), is his ability in the field. McMillan has shown in the CB series that he is worth his place. Just as Lou Vincent has proved me wrong to a certain extent, and started getting some consistently reasonable scores.

I also hope that Fulton's exclusion from the Chappel-Hadlee is not an indication that he will not be starting at the world cup. We need Fulton's classy brand of cricket, and Fulton does need game time.

I hope that New Zealand stop's its obsession with hitting boundaries and realises a high run rate can be made up of lots of singles and twos. It's one area we have always seemed to lack in, and it's high time we started improving in this area.

And before I finish my post I just want to scream three words: ASTLE ASTLE ASTLE! Why has everybody stopped talking about his decision to retire? It was on the tip of everyone's tongue for a sum total of about 3 hours and then it was forgotten. Why retire in the middle of the series? Why not have the world cup as a swansong? Was he pushed out? Is he bitter with Bracewell? Is he making a point against the rotation policy? Or was he purely and simply just fed up with cricket? I don't really know but I sure as hell wish people would talk about him more. Oh well I'll just go back to daydreaming about his swashbuckling 222 in the test match against England a few years back!

Cellphones and Children.

Cellphones are wonderful technological devices. They allow instant communication via text messages and phone calls. And the newfangled ones can even take photos and videos. They are indeed a device that could be said to have revolutionised the modern world.

But they are also very dangerous, especially in the hands of children.

In some ways it is good that teenagers have cellphones. Parents can see their kids go off to parties in the knowledge that the simple 30 second process of their son or daughter writing a text can let the parents know that she or he is ready to be picked up. In other words communication between parent and child of where exactly both are, how much longer they will be etc is much improved.

That's the main advantage, but it's pretty impossible to force a child to only use a cellphone to talk to their mum or dad, and that's where the potential dangers lie.

Often a sixteen or seventeen year old child can be bored and decide to send a random text to a random number. Don't believe me? I have anecdotal evidence that it happens all the time. My mate in Auckland received a series of texts from what turned out to be a bored and pregnant 16 year old girl. In the weekends with what was then free vodaphone to vodaphone texting he would receive a barrage of texts saying "what are u up 2?", "why won't u talk 2 me", "I'm watching NZ idol", "do u hav a bf?" etc. He responded to a few out of vague curiosity but soon became annoyed with the incessant texts, giving her the cellphone number of two others on vodaphone, who then became the recipient of these frequent messages. I myself once had a text from someone professing to be a bored 17yr old girl in the South Island.

My point here is that random texts can go to anyone: a grandmother walking her dog, a paedophile, just anyone. People with sinister motives could easily take advantage of the situation. Starting off just sounding friendly, to meeting up, to being kidnapped. And these youngsters are probably too naive to even think of the consequences of sending off a bored random text. And it's not just 16 or 17 year olds who might be doing this - it's whoever has a cellphone. And that may mean anyone over the age of about six.

Which leads me to my next point. It is patently ridiculous that children as young as 6,7,8,9,10,11,12 have cellphones. Why would they need one? It's taking away the control of parents, it's giving them a tool that can easily be manipulated to others sinister uses. And it has brought about the advent of cellphone bullying at school. And these bullies can even hide behind anonymous numbers. It's easier for parents to monitor their kids on the Internet than it is on a cellphone.

Not to mention the harmful biological effects of cellphone use. A harm that is apparently a lot worse to children. Starting off with a cellphone in your pocket at the age of 8, and continuing through the rest of your life, can lead to problems such as infertility. The penetration of radio waves into the brain can lead to poorer concentration and memory. There are a ridiculous number of diseases or syndromes that children are at higher risk of developing simply because they want to use a cellphone. Most often choosing to do so for the sad fact that it is a fashion accessory, they think they look cool with a cellphone in their hands.

Finally, what about the costs accrued by the children or their family? First of all there's the cellphone itself, and whilst some have the basic no flaws kind there are many 12 year olds out there with swanky expensive ones. A lot better than my simple device. And they don't even need a phone let alone one that can make videos! Then there's the text messages, the phone calls etc. Some children spend crazy sums of money on using their phone. No wonder they end up getting part-time jobs too early in life. Missing out on the simple pleasures of childhood in order to finance the cellphones they don't need, and which are harming them. I once watched on TV about how this youngster aged about 16, who should have known better, racked up a bill into the thousands of dollars for one month's usage. The parents had been stupid enough to think that particular plan would be the cheapest - instead they were looking at a huge bill. The kid had downloaded vast quantities from the internet and the parents had the temerity to suggest it was the fault of the phone company for not informing them of every single charge every step of the way. I'm sorry parents but it's your own fault. You should never have let the kid use the phone to go on the internet! Even now, I only spend between $10 and $15 on my phone per month. $10 on 500 texts which I normally just avoid going over. And perhaps a couple of dollars on checking voicemail or making a quick urgent call. Many of these children are spending a lot more than me.

Cellphones with young children is another sad indictment on society in our self obsessed world. Parents need to realise the many societal, biological and financial harms they inflict, and take a good hard look at not allowing a child to have a cellphone until a certain suitable age (14?). And also looking to minimise their use.

I didn't have a cellphone until I was 2nd or 3rd year uni which was significantly later than most, and now I use it all the time, but they were never as prevalent among youngsters as they are today. It would be nice if children reclaimed their childhood and they or their parents said no to cellphones until at least 16, with the possible exception of urgent communication.

Bridlington Town

I'm originally from a farm just outside the town Bridlington (Brid) in England. Andrew Falloon has been asking who is actually my local football team. Bridlington Town I told him. Somewhere in the lower levels of the English football pyramid. Upon further questioning he realised I knew bugger all about them and he has kindly done some research for me :)

Apparently the 'Seasiders' are in the eighth tier of English Football. A pyramid that looks something like this:

(1) Premiership

(2) Championship

(3) League 1

(4) League 2

Then below that:

We, Bridlington Town AFC, are currently in the Northern Premier Division One or the eighth tier of the pyramid.

And we are last with only one win under our belts

But that's pretty good considering there are 24 tiers and literally thousands of clubs in the English football pyramid!

The Commonwealth Bank Series.

The other finalist of the Commonwealth Bank Series has at last been found. And unfortunately that team is England. Needing to beat Australia and us in their final two matches (and hoping we failed to beat Australia), all these eventualities have transpired leaving New Zealand with a weaker preparation for the world cup, and the ignominy of going home ahead of what is a pretty average England side.

I've just watched our crucial game with England. And a bitter event it was too. It was a great start from the Black Caps as first Franklin delivered a maiden, and then Bond (after sending down a wide) destroyed Vaughan's stumps with a devastating, swinging delivery, reminiscent of the ball that dismissed Gilchrist back in the VB Series of 2001. But after picking up three reasonably early wickets we allowed Strauss and Collingwood to develop a strong 100+ partnership, both (I think) their top scores throughout the series. From this point on we never seemed to exert enough pressure as Fleming's captaincy, which is often (rightly) so highly praised, did not come to the fore - hindered by some relatively lacklustre bowling and fielding including the unusually weak link Vettori. After the important and potentially decisive dismissal of Flintoff we should have been able to restrict England to a score of 230 or so. Instead we let it drift to 270, including 16 off the final over which left Bond with the still impressive figures of 10-2-46-4!

But the worst aspect of our performance was that we got ourselves into a very dominant position with the bat, only to throw it away. For most of the innings we were clearly on track to win the game, but were guilty of letting ourselves meander through certain stages of the innings when calculated risks were the way to go. Especially as we had the luxury of having seven wickets in hand for the final ten overs - we hadn't made the most of this. For example our first 50 runs came off 6.5 overs, but our 100 wasn't up until 19.3 overs despite the loss of just 1 wicket. We allowed Flintoff and Panesar (admittedly two excellent bowlers) to be all over us, to intimidate us. Right until the last few overs we appeared comfortable but therein lies the problem. When do the Black Caps ever win a game with a fair few overs to spare? They seem to like to do it the hard way. The way that gives us all nervous wrecks. The way that a couple of bad overs and a winning position can become a losing one.

Fleming has to take a lot of the blame. Yes today he scored well for the first time this series, making quick early runs, but he simply lost his way. 106 off 149 is pretty damn pathetic. And this includes the fact that his first 29 were a run a ball, making his remaining 77 a useless strike rate of 64.17. He slowed down to ensure he made his century which was a selfish action, he should be playing for the team rather than his own gratification. He didn't even make up for it after reaching the milestone, a soft dismissal occurring as he finally tried to lift the ante - far too late on in the piece. He was also instrumental in what I perceive to be the game's turning point; the running out of Taylor who was looking good. Perhaps it would even have been better for Fleming to sacrifice himself. It's easy to criticise but Fleming really needs to account for his actions.

The Black Caps also need to think about their batting order, and being more flexible in different situations. Styris did his best out there today, and it wasn't bad, but just back from injury and a slow runner between the wickets, perhaps it would have been better for an in form Jacob Oram to take his slot and try and press home an advantage. Was Fulton the right man at 3 after such a good start. His strategy of slow, steady accumulation before accelerating to the close is better suited to when we are in trouble. Today he could have dropped down to accommodate the exciting Taylor. (It took a lot of guts to say that with Fulton my blue eyed boy from Oxford, just outside View Hill where my folks live, lol!).

Suffice to say today's result angers me. I would have loved to see an exciting finals series between us and Oz. And in a way we deserved to be there after having close losses to Australia in comparison to England's big ones. Yes England beat them - but even that, some are suggesting - could have been Aussie not exactly trying their hardest! We almost chased down 344 against Oz for goodness sake, and probably would have were it not for the rain delay that slowed Oram's momentum. But that's all hypothetical and possibly sour grapes. England are in the final now instead of us; and I'm bitter. But there's still the Chappell-Hadlee series, and of course we'll win the world cup!

Religion

Now that I've decided this blog will take on a new direction, why not begin with the big questions! Is there a God? If so what is he? Are morality and religion inseparable?

My personal perspective is that there is no God. To me we have undergone an evolutionary process over billions of years to where we are today. Experiments replicating plausible pre-biotic conditions, such as the Miller-Urey experiment have shown that organic molecules can be formed from inorganic precursors. Phospholipids can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, ribozymes can be self replicating. Without going into much detail, it is obvious that science continually discovers more and more about how life could originate. The scientific process is a wonderful thing that repeats experiments, undergoes careful methodology, and continually teaches us more and more. Over the years many so-called miracles that have been ascribed to 'God' or some sort of religious intervention have subsequently been explained by science. I believe that science can ultimately prove everything that occurred from the probable "big bang" to where we are today.

To believe in God is to believe in a magical creature. To me it is more feasible that the likes of Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley are part of a wizarding network continually hiding its abilities from the prying muggle world than the idea that there is a God. The idea that someone or something exists outside time and space and metaphorically waves his wand to set Adam and Eve and the snake on their merry incestuous way (creationism) or that he created nature in all its complexity with some kind of purpose in mind (intelligent design) seems as primitive as the idea that the world is flat. Genetics quickly demonstrates the absurdity of religion.

If there is a God I don't like him much. Who would like someone who allows the poverty and famine in the third world? Who allows children killed in unnecessary wars the world over? Who allows the continual pain and suffering of the disabled? The standard answer is that God gives us free will and we can do what we want with it, then he judges each and every one of us either assigning us to heaven or hell (or purgatory). The moralistic non-believer sent to reside in hell alongside the mass murderer. Oh but actually, if that mass murderer happened to repent before he died, he's not even alongside you, he's gone to visit the saints in heaven. Does God think that eternal life in heaven compensates for pain in the real world? And then if there is an afterlife, what is the point of real life? Why don't we all speed up our deaths so we can all have a big reunion in the sky? If there is a God, I seriously don't rate his sense of humour.

I would seriously love to believe in God. To die and yet still have life. To live perpetually in a heaven of wonderful literature, all the people I liked, a few sports games to keep me entertained, and a fantastic lover etc etc would indeed be marvellous. But reality, science and common sense suggests its a load of cobblers. Something to act as a crutch to help people live their life at ease as they have the prospect of heaven to look forward to.

There probably was a great man called Jesus Christ, who lived a saintly life helping people in need. I expect that this then got blown out of all proportions, and now we have a novel called the bible. A novel with some interesting characters like the prophets, a bit of magic, a few parables. All very novelistic.

And which religion is right? Are any of them? Oh and why don't we kill each other to assert that one is better than another.

One question then that we need to ask is: do christians and religious people have a monopoly on morality? The answer is a definitive NO!

Fundamentalists correctly perceive that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society, but they erroneously believe that God is the only possible source of such standards.

The Divine Command Theory argues that the essence of morality is to follow God’s laws. This argument is an attractive one because it makes morality objective, it does not suffer from the foibles of culture and individual choice, of moral relativism. The framework for morals is clear: something is right if God commands it, wrong if God forbids it. The theory also helps explain why anyone would be motivated to behave morally. Implicit in the reasons for behaving morally is the Christian principle that behaving morally, or following God’s rules, will get oneself a place in heaven. But this appeal for heavenly reward subjugates morality to a kind of expediency. The irony is that for the christian acting morally one is looking out for their interests because it gives them a path to heaven, and thus their morality may be superficial.

The next thing you have to look at is: “is conduct right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right?” In the first case, if conduct is right because God commands it then morality is trivialised as being arbitrary. For example, although God’s command “Though shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13) seems perfectly congenial to humanity, since God is free to establish whatever set of moral principles he chooses, he could just as easily have commanded “Thou shalt kill whoever you dislike”. This belief that God could have chosen an alternative moral code could destroy whatever basis one had for worshipping him; one should not praise him when he could be equally as praiseworthy for doing the contrary. Furthermore, God’s arbitrariness eliminates the logical validity of God being good, because if something is good because God commands it, then God is good because God commands it, an unfortunate tautology.

So does “God command it because it is right”? This presumes a standard of goodness independent from God. In other words, it requires a belief in God as the moral enforcer. In his infinite wisdom God recognises that stealing is wrong, and so he commands everyone not to steal; he sees that adultery is wrong, and so he commands everyone to be faithful. In God’s omniscience, he imparts his wisdom in the form of the scriptures. However, this leads to a new problem, if God is not the author of moral law, then there must be an independent standard of ethics existing outside God’s will, by which he could evaluate rightness and wrongness. Thus, the validity of the theological conception of right and wrong is brought into question.

And regardless, God's laws are riddled with contradictions. He espouses both that: “Thou shalt beat him with rod” and "don’t do what you hate.”

Morality and religion are independent. Everyone has equal access to moral truth. And perhaps socio-biology provides the answer with the idea that moral instincts are contained within our genes and these survive through evolution.

There are many arguments against religion. I have merely touched on a few while I penned this short post. Who out there is going to proffer some opinions on these big questions?

My blog takes a new angle!

This blog shall change from catering to the minority interest of in depth sporting analysis to a blog which shall contain my opinions on anything (including the aforementioned). This will give it a broader interest to everyone. I'm sure that you will all love it, and the more disagreement and debate that gets going the better. I shall endeavour to post 2 or 3 times a week and not to let it slide :)

Let the games commence!

Ashes latest

Well finally another Ashes blog session. The first test proved to be a decisive Aussie victory, England never fought back from dismal bowling performances from Harmison and Anderson. The strangest thing in the first test was the Aussie decision not to enforce the follow on. England had been crushed in the first innings, only lasted a couple of sessions and were miles behind, yet Australia decided to bat again. It was a decision they could have rued. Conceivably the end of the test could have seen England holding on with 9 wickets down and the Aussies praying for extra time. It never eventuated, and the inevitable victory came but the decision was an immensely weird one.

Maybe the Australian Cricket Board wanted them to bat again so that the test would last longer and therefore provide more revenue. Maybe the Aussies didn't want to tire the bowlers, although how bowling a team out in about 2 sessions constitutes getting tired out, goodness only knows.

The second England innings, the afternoon session at least, did provide England with a glimmer of hope for the rest of the summer as both Collingwood and Pieterson made 90's. The only other thing to note was how important Aussie winning the toss seemed to be to the general outcome of the game. All in all though, a very one sided affair in Brisbane --- on to Adelaide.

The second test came and again, much to the chagrin of most cricket nuts, no Monty Panesar! Definitely an example of negativity from an England side lacking in confidence. England did though, after a shaky start, give their fans something to cheer, making 551-6 dec, albeit at a rather slow run rate. Still - it was positive to see England getting the upperhand. Collingwood and Pieterson starring in a magnificent partnership, Collingwood making a double century (206) and Pieterson dismissed for 158, for the third time in his test career! The declaration was made late on day 2, England hadn't really pushed the scoring along but the declaration was a positive mood, in an attempt to look at levelling the series.

But Aussie hit back, easily passing the follow on figure, and finishing up only 38 runs behind after the first innings. It could have been so different had Giles not made a hash of a catch off Ponting, with Ponting continuing on to score another 100+ runs. Hoggard was the hero with 7 wickets. Hoggard is a magnificent bowler who rarely gets the plaudits he deserves. I however rate him very highly, and it's lovely to see a Yorkshireman do well! At the end of the second day the Poms were smiling, especially after picking up an early wicket before stumps but of course (as explained above - this didn't last long!).

Going into the final day the most likely result was a draw, England had a lead of 80 or so runs with 9 wickets in hand. However on the last day, a combination of negative cricket which involved looking to survive rather than score runs, and a rejuvenated Shane Warne (as well as an early dodgy decision by the umpire against Strauss) - conspired to make England have a dismal collapse, and fold to give Aussie a straightforward run chase, and a six wicket win. The about-face which occurred was nothing short of incredible leading many to call the match as one of the biggest turnarounds in cricket, with the likes of Warne and Ponting calling it "the best ever test match".

So with a 2-0 lead to Aussie, England require 2 wins and a draw from the last 3 tests to level the series and retain the ashes. About as likely as the Pope renouncing his Catholicism.

But never say never!

Let's see what Monty can do (or have we billed him up too much?)

Ashes: Test 1 Day 1:

Aussies majorly on top. Great toss for them to win especially as they will have Warne bowling in the last innings. 300 + losing only 3 wickets...they could be on for 600...

The Ashes

Don't worry: part 2 of Leeds current state is coming soon but I must quickly mention the Ashes before it starts in earnest tomorrow.

The Ashes has been built up and built up. The tension is mounting...but will it be an anti-climax? Surely there will be entertainment, intriguing battles, intensity, classic commentary calls and high quality cricket, but in Australia, with them smarting from last time out, and with a quick look at their squad - it's hard to see past Australia (fresh from a virgin ICC Champions Trophy win in an anti-climactical final) obtaining the coveted urn.

One thing's for sure - I'll be glued to that TV as much as I can!

The key men are Ponting, Hussey, Lee, Warne, Flintoff and Pieterson in my view.

Anyway - forgive the bad grammar in this post and join me in saying: "bring it on"!

Leeds Current State Part 1

Well I rarely post these days despite there being many things to say about many things. I am making this post at the request of Michael Nemman who asked me to make a post on what is happening at Leeds. Maybe he just wants to send me further into the abyss! Anyway- this is just for you Michael: my sole blog reader lol.

It'll be quite short too. I can't be bothered writing as much as the topic deserves!

Leeds United: Play off finalists to relegation dwellers. How the tides have changed. Why has it happened, and what about the future?

Part 1

The first point that must be noted is that Leeds had a very average end of last season, meaning that any realistic chance we had of catching Sheff Utd up for the automatic promotion place was scuppered pretty quick. We were in too strong a position from earlier in the season to miss out on the playoffs though. Kevin Blackwell had proved the previous season that he was not very good when it came to the home straight. We did manage to get the 'job done' in the Semis against Preston but the NZ televised final was abysmal. Despite having high calibre strikers Hulse, Healy, Blake, Cresswell (suspended) we played one man up front (Hulse) and packed the midfield with 5 men, mainly defensive minded. Blackwell decided that with Butler back from injury, and Crainey (leftback) suspended - to put Butts in central defence with Gregan and put Killa on the left. So to accommodate Butler who is average we had to put our best defender at leftback, and play the two old men in central defence together. Madness. We were shellshocked. Our tactics were far too defensive, and were well beaten by a fresh, hungry Watford we had out-performed earlier in the season, and managed by Aidy Boothroyd, who had been Blackwell's right hand man until he left for down south. Hulse had no service. He had been scoring infrequently during the second half of the season, some said he was carrying an injury but it certainly wasn't helped by a lack of service from midfield.

So post playoff final blues carried on into next season. We have had our worst ever start to a season. What happened.

Had our squad been severely weakened? No.

We had lost the quality Hulse to Sheff Utd for a profit, but we still had the quality Healy, Blake, the relatively new Beckford snatched from the Rymans League and Mooro who few Leeds fans rated. In Midfield we let Douglas and Miller back to the teams who loaned them out (Blackburn Rovers and Man Utd respectively) but neither had set the world alight. We also got in Westlake from Ipswich who had a good reputation and the quality Nicholls from Luton. Stone was back from a season long injury too. Although he was to pick up early injuries.

And in defence we had pretty much a back four we'd played a lot with: Kelly, Butler, Killa, Crainey (Gregan to step in as back up regularly). We had lost Harding, Pugh and Walton but they'd rarely played anyway despite the fact some of them maybe should. Harding we made a loss on after paying over the odds for him in the first place due to tribunal, and Pugh wasn't given enough of a chance and went for a pittance. Walton - local lad - was off for half a mill to Charlton (who promptly loaned him to Ipswich), he'd been played a few times in midfield even though he was really a central defender. But this defence we'd played with a lot became shaky. Crainey has always been castigated by the Elland Road faithful and some blamed him.

We had some close losses and after a poor start Ken Bates acted: sacking Blackwell.

Let's analyse this a little further.

Last season we had had some lucky wins, we had picked up points which suggested we had overachieved. We didn't play as well as our points total suggested. It seemed that this season the luck was being turned on its head. Close wins had become close losses. It seems Blackwell hadn't become useless overnight.

It's all about momentum. We started badly. We got into a malaise. Our confidence was down, our rhythm was affected. Butler was also, it became apparent, a poison. Supposedly our captain he was the main man who created internal ructions in the team. The big incident surrounding a golfing trip but I'm not going to post hearsay here. Let's just say reliable sources point to Butler as a poison. And yet Blackwell loved Butler, always picking him, getting help from him for selections. The Blackwell Butler love-in really affected the team. Blake was heard muttering in public about how we needed a new manager.

I thank Blackwell for what he did. He took a poisoned chalice of a job, worked hard, stabilised us in the first season of relegation, and took us to the playoff final in our second season. He's a good man and I'm grateful for his work. I like the fella. But perhaps he's not right for the manager of Leeds.

His mistakes? The Butler love-in to start with. Also - his love of playing seasoned journeymen. He was always reticent to play the youth and when he did he was too quick to criticise them. He didn't seem to apply the adage: 'if you're old enough you're good enough'. He also lacked some man management skills. And there were certain players he didn't play who we were crying out to play. Matthew Spring hardly had a look in and he went on to play a major role in Watford's successful season and is now succeeding in the Premier League. The same could be said of Marlon King who we loaned from Notts Forest. Also Danny Pugh. And he shot Harding's confidence.

So yes, Blackwell certainly had his flaws but he also had his plusses, namely he'd made a good few signings like Derry. Indications he was more of a coach than a manager.

He also played 4-5-1 a lot. Many fans castigated him for this. They were gagging for 4-4-2. However under John Carver as caretaker manager 4-4-2 didn't work. We may have started with a great 3-2 over Birmingham but then received a few poundings. Perhaps Blackwell was right to play his 4-5-1. We would be tight and we would win more than we lost. Last season we were lucky on a few occasions, this season under Blacky we were unlucky instead. So Carver the new Caretaker Manager failed. He presided over some shocking displays and Bates hand was forced again.

Part two to follow...I need a break from writing this...

Euro 2008

Qualifying starts in earnest tonight.

Can't wait!

There are 7 groups, 6 of them comprising 7 teams, the other group comprising 8. The top two teams in each group will join co-hosts Austria and Switzerland to make up the 16 tournament hopefuls. I just hope for the 'home' nations to do well for once. Wales and Northern Ireland never seem to qualify for a big tournament and it has been a long time between drinks for Scotland. Even the Republic of Ireland haven't had any major tournaments to look forward to since World Cup 2002. Trouble is they're in some very tough groups. Republic of Ireland and Wales share the same group with Germany and the Czech Republic, Scotland have France, Italy and the Ukraine to contend with, and Northern Ireland have Denmark, Spain, Sweden and Latvia. Even England are not a shoo-in with difficult games against Croatia, Israel and Russia in prospect.

The Euro 2008 Official site is a magical site. Check out all the groups there, all the info you could ever need to know, it's as addictive as the World Cup official site!

And most of all, cheer on the Republic of Ireland against the Germans at 6:30am Sunday morning, (3/9), ESPN. Be there or be square!

Tevez to West Ham?

Don't tell me this is true. What would that footballing genius want to do at the (S)Hammers? Only a second season back up in the prem and maybe getting Tevez and Mascherano. Unbelievable if true!

Well a busy transfer window about to come to an abrupt halt. Jonathan Douglas coming back to Leeds this time on a permanent deal. Doesn't fill me with huge excitement but not a bad squad player. Will have to be a first time regular for a while I imagine, what with the state of our midfield. Hopefully Killa will be staying put. And where's the loan goalie we need, sending back Warner is bad news but apparently his wages were too high for us...

Well I'm editing this now a couple of days later to say YES it has happened. I think there's something fishy going on. MSI owned Corinthians their former club (the reason this broke club could have great players in the first place). It is rumoured that Abramovich is the money man behind MSI and so he set off the chain of events to prevent Tevez and Mascerano making their way to Man Utd or Arsenal, bring them to London to acclimatise and see if they're worth taking off West Ham's hands at the start of next season (Mascherano would make a perfect replacement for Makelele). How else could West Ham afford their so called "undisclosed fee" as they are worth much upwards of 30 million pounds in combination. The other thing to note is that MSI are attempting a takeover at West Ham, so perhaps this is something to do with that. Whatever the reasons - there is something fishy going on!

The depressing reality.

Leeds United: 4 points 4 games.

3 games in a row we concede in the last 7 minutes (2 of those in injury time) to salvage QPR a draw and hand victories to Palace and Cardiff.

Our major signing of the summer Kevin Nicholls hasn't yet played a game because he suffered an injury in pre-season and will be out for roughly 3 months.

Steve Stone starts our first four games and is the one to demonstrate the creativity that we need. Result? He's now crocked and will be out for about 3 months.

Horsfield, the target man we bring in on loan because Cresswell is out for the first couple of months got himself sent off against Palace after only 15 minutes and is now serving a 4 match ban.

Our ins and outs over the summer have been modest. Westlake has come in from Ipswich with Harding and cash going in the opposite direction. He seems like a decent player. Carole from Brighton also looks lively. We sell Hulse for a profit, and he goes and scores in Sheff Utd's opening game of the Prem season against FA Cup holders Liverpool. Warner has been in goal, on loan because Sully has a dead leg and has made some important saves. And yes we got rid of some deadweights.

After making the play-off final last season. After being 90 minutes away from the premiership latte sipping showponies...we are back in the Championship mire.

Supposedly we have played quite well in most of our games. Last season some of our fans considered us lucky to have made the playoffs after playing badly. Well I'd sure prefer that scenario.

We have too many key men injured. We are lacking a cutting edge in front of goal. We are making basic mistakes in defence in the dying minutes after defending admirably up to that point. These often from our so-called star Matthew Kilgallon we are all so desperate to hold onto.

Oh well, at least we beat Chester in the league cup.

Roll on Sheffield Wednesday and no doubt another depressing afternoon.

The Length of My World Cup Blog

Was approximately 36 000, yes that's right, THIRTY SIX THOUSAND words!

That's quite a marathon methinks! Something to look back on in years to come though. Who needs to buy a book on World Cup 06 when you've got the William Fussdogg blog lol!

Italians Delight!

Well it is just over a week since the World Cup ended, and so I will write my belated summary of the final. I am just about getting over the fact that I will have to wait another 4 years till the next one. Instead I must concentrate on the upcoming football season and trust that my beloved Leeds United can regain their place back in football's elite where they belong (although I do so in great faith rather than expectation!) , hopefully we don't suffer too much of a hangover from our devastating loss to Elton John's lovers in May! It is sad as always that the World Cup is over.

Italy 1-1 France, 1-1 a.e.t, 5-3 PSO

The match began in an enthralling, exciting fashion, with the potential to make farcical some critics comments that we were in for a dour affair. The first point to note was worries that Henry would have to be replaced as he looked in some pain after only a minute or so, however he managed to shake the injury off. After only 7 minutes referee Elizondo, who didn't endear himself to some English fans by sending off Rooney in that fateful game, adjudged that Materazzi had fouled Malouda in the box, and pointed to the penalty spot. The decision was a bit controversial with replays still proving a little inconclusive as some angles appeared to suggest he may have tripped himself up, others indicating Materazzi clipped his heals ever so slightly. It was a tough call to make in the circumstances but it certainly wasn't a dive. Regardless, Zinedine Zidane in his final professional match stepped up to take. And with great gallic flair, composure, and an element of cockiness he chipped the ball sending Buffon the wrong way, the ball clipped the underside of the crossbar, bounced over the line, and bounced out. The goal was awarded, replays showed the ball had certainly crossed the line, but it was quite an extraordinary penalty to witness! Zidane became the fourth man to score in two different World Cup final matches (after Vava, Pele and Breitner), and the fourth man to score 3 goals in World Cup final matches (after Hurst, Vava and Pele).

After the opening goal it soon became a frenzy of Italian attacks. Pirlo and Gattuso were complementing each other nicely in the midfield, and corners, free kicks and crosses were being whipped in with dangerous regularity. On 19 minutes a pinpoint Pirlo corner gave Materazzi to redeem himself in emphatic style, powering a header past Barthez to bring the Italians level. Thuram was defending well as he headed one dangerous cross behind for a corner as well as making a couple of vital sliding challenges to thwart dangerous moves. Toni almost gave the Italians the lead with what would have been a perfect replica of the Materazzi goal - this time it slammed into the crossbar however. The half ended 1-1. The early opening goal had given the game life, but with the equaliser an early second half goal also seemed needed from a neutral's perspective.

This never came however, and whilst it was the Italians who had been dominant in the first half the tables were turned somewhat in the second. Henry who had been quiet in the first half burst to life first sending the ball flashing past the upright, and then doing well to keep control as he dribbled it past 3 Italians only for his low cross unable to pick out a teammate. Italy still looked dangerous from set pieces.

Roughly on the hour mark De Rossi and Iaquinta came on for the Azzurri to replace the disappointing pair of Totti and Perrotta. De Rossi had been banned for 4 games after a despicable elbow to the face in the game against the US, but now he was in the World Cup final. Diarra, who had barely played at this World Cup or for France internationally in general, was called upon to replace Vieira who had sustained a hamstring injury.

On 62 mins Toni thought he had scored as he expertly executed a long distance header from another pinpoint Pirlo cross, however the offside call was made. Was it offside? One man was clearly offside as the ball was played, yet it was not he who headed it, nor was he interfering with play. Toni, the man who headed it, could possibly have been offside, but if so it would have been by the virtue of a few meagre millimetres, it was equally plausible that he was perfectly level. Henry also forced Buffon to parry but the game was degenerating into a scrappy match in the final 20 minutes or so of the 90, France had just about had the better of the second half.

The 30 minutes of extra time saw few chances. Ribery poked the ball agonisingly wide on one occasion, Zidane had a wonderful chance to sow the game up as Sagnol's cross found his head, only for Buffon to pull off an excellent save, made all the more fantastic by it's vital nature. A World Cup final, so much at stake, and there he was looking as good as always!

On 111 minutes something crazy happened. Suddenly Italians were running up to protest to the ref and the first reaction was, what the hell?, is this the Italians getting all uppity over nothing, are they trying to cheat, what the hell is going on? But then there were the television replays and the world could see what one could only describe as a moment of unmitigated madness, craziness, ridiculousness as Zidane simply lost the plot. There was an altercation between the two goalscorers Materazzi and Zidane, to start with physically the altercation was minor but it resulted in Zidane giving Materazzi a vicious headbutt to the chest, sending him sprawling. Referee Elizonda consulted his fourth official who advised the red card. A well deserved red card it was too. Clearly Materazzi had said something, it must have been something pretty damn bad to cause that reaction. But whatever he said, whatever, there are no excuses. This man is a professional footballer, in a World Cup final, playing his last ever match, he should be able to stop himself doing such a thing. It was a crazy moment, and one simply has to castigate Zidane. To me it is pretty much irrelevant what Materazzi said, players try to taunt others all the time. From before a match even starts till at least when it ends. Surely Zidane could have waited till the end of the game and then chinned him one!??

Speculation was rife as to the nature of the insult. One source seemed to suggest Materazzi was using Zidane's Algerian roots to call him a terrorist. Others said it was something to do with his mother and sister being whores. Others that he had wished death on his family. Zidane himself a few days later alleged that Materazzi had repeated the insult 3 times. This to a man whose mother had only just gone to hospital. Lip reading experts found different things but the fact remains that Zidane had reacted in a completely unacceptable way and later apologised to the children of the world but said he did not regret his actions. To me not regretting it is crazy, if he hadn't done it he would have remained on the field for the last 9 minutes, and would undoubtedly have been one of the penalty takers in the shoot out.

Anyway, so the match went to penalties. Italy have a worse history on penalties but on this occasion they converted all 5 with delightfully struck penalties. France converted 3 of their 4, the crucial miss coming from Euro 2000 golden goal hero, Trezeguet, who hit his into the crossbar. Like Zidane the ball came down, but unlike Zidane's it never crossed the line.

The whole of Italy were sent into delirium. It had been one of the best World Cup final matches for a long time, open and exciting.

Did Italy deserve to win the World Cup? Probably not, but no-one did! No country deserved it, there was not one team who simply blew all and sundry away.

In a way Italy did deserve it. They finished top of a very tough group but they were given the luck of a controversial penalty winner against Australia, and had an easy run to the semis with only the Ukraine to beat (though of course that's not their fault!) In the final they just about deserved it for the marginal offside call.

Would France have deserved it? They had turned on the style late on against Spain, and then against Brazil, and a bit against Portugal through the knockout matches, but they'd also been poor in the group stages.

No-one really quite deserved it, however someone had to win. And it was Italy. Just like in 82 with their leagues facing a huge scandal, they won the World Cup.

The history books will simply note.

World Cup 2006. Winners. Italy.

But I will remember it all!