AFL Power List: Round 10 (or, and then there were… well the same as last week really)

Ok, last week it was the Cats, Saints, Bulldogs and Hawks looking safe. This week I’ll drop the Hawks from that list. Yeah they’ll probably make it, but they were beaten pretty easily by the Crows and so they can go into the list fighting for the 8. But the Kangaroos are gone.

So that’s keeps it at eight teams but now they’re fighting for five spots: Hawks, Carlton, Lions, Port, Pies, Crows, Swans and the Bombers.

Carlton and the Lions are the only ones of the eight teams with a percentage over 100, and they play each other this week. The Crows and Bombers have the worst percentage of the eight teams, and they play each other this week. So expect to hear the phrase “8 point game” mentioned a few times.

	Rank	LW	Team	Record	Comment
	1	1 ↔	Geelong	10-0	Easy. The Cats now have the Eagles and Fremantle in Perth, and Port at home before meeting the Saints.
	2	2↔	St Kilda	10-0	After the training drill against the Demons, the Saints now get to play the toothless Kangaroos.
	3	3↔	Bulldogs	6-4	The Bulldogs are really starting to look like winners.
	4	5↑	Carlton	5-5	A good return to form, but now they play an in form Brisbane team in Brisbane.
	5	7↑	Brisbane	5-5	The Lions did it comfortably in the end; Carlton this week will tell us a lot.
	6	4↓	Hawthorn	5-5	Take away Rioli and the Hawks would have been truly embarrassed against the Crows. Their next 3 weeks of Sydney, Brisbane (in Tassie) and the Eagles, should right the ship.
	7	8↑	Collingwood	5-5	The Pies were slow to start, but 9 in a row gave them the win. They now play Melbourne before getting the week off (or should I say they now have two weeks off).
	8	10↑	Adelaide	5-5	The Crows first half was as good as I’ve seen them play for 3 years, but they’ve only won two 3rd quarters all year (only Melbourne has won less). Walker has the biggest “upside” of any first year player going around at the moment.
	9	6↓	Port Adelaide	5-5	Before the game, the Fox commentators told Mark Williams that Port had won every game in which they had won the first quarter. How’s that for a nice jinx.
	10	9↓	Sydney	5-5	The Swans looked good in the first 15 minutes. Then the cold Canberra weather had them frozen.
	11	11↔	Essendon	5-5	After beating the Tigers last week, the Bombers played a real footy team this week. The result wasn’t pretty.
	12	12↔	North Melbourne	4-6	The Roos next 4 games: Saints, Crows (in Adelaide), Swans (in Sydney), Bulldogs, and Hawks (in Tassie). Anyone want to bet they won’t be 4-10?
	13	13↔	Fremantle	3-7	Repeat after me: Don’t ever tip the Dockers, don’t ever tip the Dockers.
	14	14↔	West Coast	3-7	The good news – they’re home this week. The bad news – it’s against Geelong
	15	15↔	Richmond	2-8	The Tiger’s “brave win” will seem a long time ago when they go up against a rampant Bulldogs.
	16	16↔	Melbourne	1-9	Big game this week – traditional rivals… blah blah. Let’s be honest Pies-Melbourne hasn’t meant anything since the 1950s.

It's a bit better than Pong

Today, with some money I was given for my birthday, I bought a copy of Crysis.

Now Crysis is a bit of a Shibboleth. To those who know what it means, it means everything; to those who don't, it means nothing.

Crysis is a computer game. A first person shooter (FPS) to be exact. It is also a game that requires a computer with a fair bit of grunt. Last year (just prior to starting this blog) I bought a new computer from a computer market - a quad core processor with 4GB RAM, shirtloads of hard drive, and a pretty good video card (9600GT - could've gone for something a bit better, but my budget limit had been reached). When I was working out what to get, I looked at what specifications were recommended for Crysis, and went a bit better than those. So if someone tells you they bought Crysis, you can take it as given their computer is a tad more powerful than a Commodore 64.

Prior to this I had a laptop from Dell that struggled to allow me to listen to itunes while using Microsoft Word. And as for playing any decent games? Fuhgedabouditt.

I've never owned a Playstation or Xbox, and to be honest I doubt I ever will. I can't see my wife letting me use the TV to play games. Also, I like the demarcation of my PC being for games, the TV for TV (or DVDs).

It would be a lie though to call me a hard-core gamer. I wouldn't know the first thing about World of Warcraft apart from knowing I have no desire to play it. I don't go in for on-line games and I am as likely to play a Tiger Woods golf game as some futuristic FPS.

A few months ago I was at a meeting involving some people who deal with the computer industry, as a way of getting the meeting started they went around the room to find out what was the last computer game each person had played. Some of the older ones struggled to come up with anything other than Solitaire. My choice at the time was Call of Duty 2 - a WWII first person shooter (I own six FPS, five are WWII themed).

But it got me thinking. I have loved computer games since I first came across them down at the local community centre at 20 cents a pop. I think the first real game I ever paid to play was probably 1942 - I wasn't a huge Pacman or Space Invaders fan, but flying a fighter plane in WWII? I was hooked.

The other big early computer game for me was Pole Position - the amount of 20 cent pieces I put into that game in between playing games of table tennis on Wednesday nights in 1985-86 would probably be considered a waste of money, were it not for the fact that I held the fastest lap times for the Monza and Suzuki circuits.

But if there is one guaranteed rule about computer games, it is that when a new one comes out you never think anything could possibly look more real, and that when you look back years later at that game you realise how dated it looks.

Back in the early 1980s, I had some relatives who had an Apple II. The game to play at the time on that system was Choplifter. At the time I could have played it all day without even entertaining the possibility of tiring. Now, it just looks so pathetic that I doubt I'd bother for more than 5 minutes.

In the early 1990s, I had a cousin who had a Sega Mega Drive. He and I could spend hours playing golf against each other, or baseball or ice hockey while our girlfriends at the time sat in the dining room doing whatever they were doing (we used to get so involved we would forget to blink and our eyes would get sore from dryness; so worrying about other people in the house was not a high priority - rather amazingly both of our girlfriends saw through this nerdish unsociability and still married us).

I got my first PC in 1993, a 386SX- with a turbo button that would allow the processor to get up to 16Mhz (my current PC goes at 2400MHz - though it does have 4 processors doing that speed...). The only game I had of any worth was the fantastic Civilisation. As I have progressively upgraded my computers, I have upgraded my versions of Civ, and now have Civilisation 4 ready to play and cost me hours of my life as I attempt to build a nation from one solitary tribe in 4000BC.

And yet as I say, I'm not a hard core gamer - I don't have special headphones or mouse - but I own probably close to 30 games. Some of these are updates - eg I have every Tiger Woods PGA game since 2003, others are just games I bought a few years back and really should just chuck out, because no matter what I thought back then, they are never as good now.

And that is a bit of an odd thing about computer games. Because they are so linked to technology they don't have the shelf life that movies do (let alone books). Civilisation for example had a great game play, but were I to play it now, it would be difficult to get past the lame graphics and tinny sounds to actually enjoy it.

It's why Crysis is the Shibboleth that it is. It is not widely known outside the gaming world - not like say Tomb Raider or Doom, but for those who are gamers, it is known as being a supreme test of your computer's capabilities. (And also the subject of nerdy on-line disputes over whether it is better than Call of Duty 4)

It was released in 2007, and even now most computers non-gamers buy would struggle to play it at the best settings. It is a game that seemingly has tried to get ahead of technology in an effort to increase its longevity.

And while it does look fantastic, what freaks me out, is knowing that just as was the case with Choplifter, in 10 years time, I'll look back at Crysis, and think, what a rinky-dink little game. But for now, I'll just shake my head and think - they'll never get more real than this.

Below is a list of computer games that would be in my autobiography:

1982 - Choplifter
1983 - 1942
1984 - Galaxian
1985-1987 - Pole Position, Track and Field
1988 - Double Dragon
1989 - Out Run, Super Mario Bros
1990 - Final Lap,
1991 - Knights of the Round
1992 - Super Baseball 2020
1993 - Civilisation
1994 - NBA Jam
1995 - Daytona USA, Decathlete
1996 - Sega Rally Championship, F-19 Stealth Fighter
1997 - Aces of the Pacific
1998 - Tomb Raider III
1999 - Championship Manager 3
2000 - Civilisation II
2001 - Links Championship edition
2002-2003 - Civilisation III
2004 - Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003
2005 - Colin McRae Rally 3
2006 - Tiger Woods PGA Tour 05, Civilisation III
2007 - Tiger Woods PGA Tour 06, Medal of Honour: Allied Assault
2008 - Call of Duty
2009 - Call of Duty 2 , Crysis

Stimulant or waste?

There was an excellent article in today's The Age by Ross Gittins.

He runs his line over the stimulus and the claims by Turnbull and the Liberals that Rudd and Swan have been economic vandals, throwing away money and putting Australia into debt forever and a day for no good reason.

First he states some facts that everyone just needs to remember:

In last year's budget the Government was expecting cumulative surpluses of $79 billion over the four financial years to 2011-12. Now it's expecting cumulative deficits of $191 billion over the same period.

The recession's effect in slashing expected government revenue explains almost two-thirds of that cumulative deterioration of $270 billion. Only the remaining $97 billion is explained by the Government's explicit spending and revenue decisions since last year's budget.

Get that? About 35% of the turn around in the budget is due to the spending by Rudd, the rest is all down to the Global Financial Crisis and it wouldn't matter if an amalgam of John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman was Treasurer, that $173 billion would be gone.

Now of the $97 billion, Gittins calculates that about $30 billion of that is due to the rise in the pension. It was something the Government didn't need to do, so if you want to criticise them for spending money they didn't have, then that's where you should start. (Oddly however Turnbull likes to take credit for the Government doing this spending...).

So the remaining $67 billion is the stimulus packages. Here's Gittins again:

Although it isn't caused by the recession, it's certainly motivated by it, since it's intended to reduce the worsening in unemployment. It's supposed to have been guided by certain principles, known as the three Ts: spending was to be timely, temporary and targeted.

It's clear that all the labelled stimulus spending is temporary - that is, once-only rather than continuing. You promise to do something, you do it and there's no further primary call on the budget.
...
The next criterion for stimulus spending is timeliness. This says you need to get the money out and spent as quickly as possible. You're trying to minimise the extent of the recession by stepping in with your stimulus as early in the process as you can.

Agree with that proposition? Good - but now we have a problem. Another proposition is that, if we're going to spend taxpayers' money, we ought to make sure we spend it on something worthwhile, something of lasting value to the public and the economy.

This last point is the argument of the Liberals - the "cash splash" was a waste, it was "Paris Hilton like" if you believe Turnbull. But as Gittins points out, it was actually necessary:

...there's a conflict between timeliness and worthiness. The most worthwhile stimulus is careful spending on much-needed infrastructure. But major infrastructure projects can take months, even years to plan, design, authorise and organise.

And the harder you try to make sure the money's going where it's most needed and will yield most benefit, the longer it takes to get off the ground.

Now this is pretty obvious. Let's bring it down to the personal level (which the Liberals like to do when they make it sound like Rudd is wracking up a big credit card debt). Let's say you have been given the task of putting $1000 into your local town's economy. You can do two things - go down to the local department store and buy, buy, buy; or you could decide to spend it on something "worthwhile" and thus decide you're going to employ a local plumber to fix up your bathroom. Problem is the plumber is all booked up, and he won't won't be able to fix your bathroom till October.

Now if speed is not a priority then you go with the plumber. But if you know your town needs an extra $1000 going around now you spend it, because you realise by October, the local department store will have gone out of business.

If you really had your way though, you would do both - which is actually what Rudd and Swan did:

Their stimulus spending has gone through three stages: first, the cash bonuses announced in October last year and in February this year; second, the small "shovel-ready" capital works (on primary schools, road black spots, rail crossings, roof insulation and public housing) announced in February; and, third, the larger and longer-term infrastructure projects (on road, rail, ports and broadband) announced in the budget.

Gittins explains the rationale behind all three stages:
The cash bonuses' main virtues were that they were timely (they could be paid out within a few weeks) and, particularly in the case of the December payments, targeted at the people most likely to spend them because they were needy.

So they got that money out quick (and heck if 0.175% goes to dead people, then so be it - no doubt the money will be spent by whoever holds that person's estate).

Next:
The shovel-ready capital works were timely (work could begin within a few months) as well as producing ongoing benefits to the community. They were targeted in the sense that they were selected to be quick-acting, needed and of social benefit, and also in the sense that there's no risk of the money being saved rather than spent in the first round of payments.

So we're getting something for our money, but it's not taking too long.

Next:
The major infrastructure projects are temporary (no commitment to further spending once the projects are completed) and targeted (in the sense that only the most beneficial projects were selected) but not timely (there will be delays before the projects are commenced and they may not be completed until well after the recession has passed). But, of course, they score highly on worthiness.

And this last type is the one that makes us all feel warm and fuzzy.

You see what we have here is actually a pretty damn strong strategy, but Gittins points out that because the stimulus payments came first people think they account for most of the stimulus - in truth they account for about a third. Turnbull thought tax cuts were a better way of doing the stimulus, but ask yourself were you more likely to go down to the local department store and buy something because you got $900 in a lump sum, or because you got an extra $34 in your fortnightly pay packet?

If you're honest, you know that the tax cuts would be lost in the mix. The extra $900 though gets you thinking about a weekend away, a TV, some new tires on your car, a new set of golf clubs etc etc.

The fact is anyone who thinks the Government threw the stimulus payments away because the ALP are poor economic managers is living in fantasy land. If they did it without stages two and three, the criticism would be valid. But they didn't, and it's not.

So when you hear debt and deficit, there are two things to remember:
1. Even without the spending, the economy would be deficit and debt.
2. Without the initial quick stimulus, the economy would, like the local department store, be closed by the time the long term infrastructure gets around to being done.

Ask yourself what you would prefer - less debt and a lot more unemployed, or more debt and less unemployed.

People who say that in the current environment we can have less debt and less unemployed would be better employed counting hairs on their palms.

The fact is the private sector has shrunk, and so the Government has to step in - and that costs money.

But the choice is yours. Cast your vote accordingly - the ALP and Liberal parties have certainly made their positions clear.

The Liberal Party slogan: I know you are, but what am I?

The Liberal Party ended the week on a pretty sad note. Their efforts to grill the Government over debt and deficit died a dull death as the Government went into full-on infrastructure photo mode.

In retaliation the Libs pulled out their own props, but like most things they do, they went too far and instead of making a point they just looked childish.

It was so wonderful to start the day off with a laugh as Julie Bishop came out and said:

"I've never seen a prime minister stoop to the sort of silly antics that we saw this week,'' she said.

Mr Rudd was playing with "silly props, and all sorts of antics which were quite demeaning of the office of Prime Minister''.

Former prime minister John Howard set higher standards in question time, Ms Bishop said.
"He was able to promote his policies through his words, through his arguments."

Ah yes Julie, and I guess that wasn't you standing next to Joe Hockey on Thursday trying to unveil the big dumb chart?

Bishop has been reduced to the rich girl in the school yard who has got caught smoking and is complaining that it's not fair " 'cos the other girls were doing it too!"

Note to Julie: you can't take the high road if you're already walking along the ditch.

Then the Liberals thought they had got a great one with revelations during Budget Estimates that people who had died since the end of the last financial year were receiving the stimulus cash payout. The Libs thought this was gold because it apparently demonstrates how wasteful the whole stimulus package was. Never mind that the $14 million that went to dead people is only about 0.175% of the entire $8 billion stimulus package. Nope, in the mind of Malcolm Turnbull that 0.175% meant the whole thing was a sham.

Never mind that the money would be spent by the beneficiaries of the estate (ie still creating stimulus).

But then this great strategy by the Libs all turned to poo when Rudd took a very smart line and pointed out that the Liberals probably shouldn't have so much glee about talking about people who had recently died, and also that since these people had paid tax in 2007-08, they (or their estate) deserved the payment like every other tax payer.

Incidentally this payment to dead people happened in the US as well - you can't avoid it happening if you're doing it through the tax system. I guess Turnbull or Hockey thinks Rudd should have been reading the obituary column in the paper each morning and then getting on the phone to the Tax Commissioner and telling him not send out the payments to those people.

To show how bad the week ended up being, Turnbull today was reduced to saying Rudd was exploiting the grieving families of these dead stimulants. (Yes you read that right, Rudd is exploiting them, not Turnbull, not the Liberals.)

This is a brilliant example of Turnbull's abilities of self delusion.

Here he was in Question Time on Thursday (first question by the way):

Mr TURNBULL (2.19 pm)—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that in life, it is said, there are only two certainties: death and taxes. Given today’s revelations that this government’s reckless cash splash has resulted in $14 million in cheques being sent out to the dead, isn’t the Prime Minister reminding the Australian people of a third certainty: that Labor can never be trusted with taxpayers’ money?

So Turnbull goes for a laugh, but thinks he's not being disrespectful? How about Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham:

If anybody saw any of the dead out there spending up big at Harvey Norman's or Coles or Woolworths, please let me know.

Did Turnbull pull up Birmingham for that comment? He probably should have because here are some of the responses from relatives of dead people who received the $900:

TALKBACK CALLER, ABC RADIO: My wife had passed away three days earlier, then we received the cheque and we used it to pay for her funeral. I mean, she paid her taxes.

SECOND TALKBACK CALLER, ABC RADIO: My wife passed away about halfway through the financial year, and look, I had no problem spending the $900 supporting my two young boys.

Or how about this in The Age on Friday?

A GRIEVING young widow has lashed out at Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull for attacking the stimulus cash payments to dead people including her late husband and victims of the Black Saturday bushfires.

Wodonga-based widow Jodie Gay, whose husband died four months ago, said she was horrified that Coalition MPs had joked about dead people not being seen out spending the money. She told Seven News she spent the payment on her husband's gravestone and expenses for her daughter.

Oops. So now the Libs are in the position of being criticised by the family members of people who died in the Victorian bushfires.

I think we can say that wasn't quite the reaction they were hoping for.

But then, the Liberals haven't had a coherent or winning strategy for a good 2-3 years, so it was probably a bit much hoping they would come up with two in a week - but it does take some talent to fail at both. And that type of talent, Turnbull and the Liberals have in spades.

On the QT: Big props; big dill

Ok, yes, I'm a politics addict...

Once again I didn't see much of QT, but I was unfortunate enough to witness Joe Hockey try and unfurl a dumb prop showing the length of time the Government is projecting to be in deficit.

There is one easy guide with opposition members and props - the bigger the prop, the weaker the argument.

Joe's was the biggest ever used.

It was a disgraceful performance, that for some reason the Liberal's think makes them look intelligent. In reality it makes them look like kindergarten kids. But oh well, let them hang themselves with their own props.

And Joe - take a couple Bex and have a good lie down.

Here for your edification is Australia's parliament in action.

PARLIAMENT FARCE: Joe runs with scissors - multimedia - LIVENEWS.com.au

Shared via AddThis

On the QT: Check out my big props

Now as I said yesterday, I've given up on politics for a while. But like an addict needing that hit each day to keep functioning, I couldn't resist having a quick snoop at the Question Time proceedings. I only saw a couple questions. It was more than enough.

The first question had Joe Hockey holding up some laminated graphs showing the levels of debt, and then finally a big red credit card with the words "Rudd Card" on the front.

And here I thought Brendan Nelson's cans of Vegemite and jars of strawberry jam was destined to be the most pathetic prop ever used in Question Time. But I was wrong.

If the opposition is reduced to making up pictures to try and get its points across in Parliament then it obviously doesn't have much to say.

This all came about because on Tuesday Rudd produced a stack of photos of construction being done at various schools around the country. He did this in response to the Liberals bringing in yellow hard hats in an attempt to mock Rudd for seemingly being at every construction site in the land.

The Libs don't realise this is playing into the hands of the Government. Andrew Bolt in one of his columns suggests the tide is turning because people are starting to laugh at Rudd in his yellow hard hat. He is a complete fool if he thinks this. People laughing at Rudd in his yellow hard hat is manna from heaven for Rudd. It gives him character. Rudd and everyone else knows it's dopey that politicians put on the yellow hard hat, but the fact is if the image in people's minds is of Rudd in a yellow hard hat, it won't be hard to sell the idea that there must be a hell of a lot of construction going around that the Government is funding.

Just because people laugh doesn't mean they don't want the funding. Just because they laugh doesn't mean they suddenly want to vote for the other guy. People laughed at Max Gilles doing Bob Hawke - they still voted for Hawke. People laughed at John Howard donning his Wallabies track suit each morning, or him wearing the mole skins and Akubra when he went "out bush". Heck there is a great song in the musical Keating! that parodies the whole plethora of clothes he used to wear for different occasions. People laughed, and yet still kept voting for him.

The ALP at the time thought the laughs meant people saw through Howard. Nope - it just meant people thought he looked stupid in his moleskins or track suit or whatever, but so what, Australians like to laugh. In fact a lot of Australian humour is laughing at people and things you like.

As I have argued before, the Liberal Party and right wing commentators are falling into the same trap the ALP did with regards to John Howard. The ALP hated him and assumed the rest of the Australian public would too. The ALP never understood why the Australian public liked Howard and assumed if they kept mocking him, the public would in time agree with them. The public never did.

So to the Liberals I say, please, continue to laugh away, keep reinforcing in people's minds that Rudd is connected with construction. Do it over and over again to help with the ALP's marketing team. My guess is the ALP's dream of dreams will be for political cartoonists to start as a matter of course to portray Rudd wearing a yellow hard hat.

Perhaps the Libs should pause and wonder if any swinging voters are sitting at home watching vision of Rudd on the news at one of these sites is really saying:
"Here's that Rudd again with his yellow hard hat. Geez he looks a goose. I hope they don't waste money building a new science block at little Jimmy and Jane's school".

My bet is what those people are really saying is:
"Here's that Rudd again with his yellow hard hat. Geez he look a goose. I hear they're finally going to build a decent science block at little Jimmy and Jane's school. That will be good... hey I wonder if Rudd will turn up for that?"

On an unrelated matter, Malcolm Turnbull was said by BRW to be on the Richest 200 list. Here's how he responded to suggestions that he is worth $178million:

"I don't go around calculating my net worth and it would be hard to calculate it anyway because what are various assets worth at any given time?" he said.

Note to Malcolm - it's best in times of economic difficulty not to suggest you don't know how much you are worth because it's too hard to count it all.

And that is all this person who has no interest at the moment in politics has to say!

On the QT: Don't know really

I couldn't be bothered with Question Time yesterday or today.

From what I can gather, yesterday the opposition cheered when Rudd finally said "billion" - I guess that's their election winning strategy locked in then.

Apparently Anthony Albanese then skewered Turnbull nicely by referencing the Claire bogan 'chk chk boom' girl.

Today, from the little I did see, it seemed it was all nation building and points of order. Chris Pyne got chucked out for 24 hours for being his usual pointless self, and, though I didn't see it, no doubt Gillard then said something that got Hockey all sweaty and bellicose (as always happens).

To be honest, I couldn't give a rats.

I'm giving politics a break for a bit; and I'll see if I care about it in a few weeks' time.

AFL Power List: Round 9 – Or So much for the 8 being set

Two sides on 9 wins. Ten sides on 4 or 5 wins. So it’s 10 into 6. Hawks and Bulldogs still looking good. So make it 8 into 4. Should ensure lots of pain ahead for a goodly number of supporters.

Carlton and Port showed that they’re not worth putting any trust in. The Bulldogs kept the AFL’s hope of an unbeaten Cats-Saints game alive.

	Rank	LW	Team	Record	Comment
	1	1 ↔	Geelong	9-0	The Cats kept taking the foot off the peddle when they got a lead – and the ‘Dogs kept coming back. A good wake up call.
	2	2↔	St Kilda	9-0	Nine points down at the 13 minute mark of the 4th quarter, but like a good side they then kicked 5 of the next 6 to win going away. They are rewarded with a bye against Melbourne.
	3	4↑	Bulldogs	5-4	The Bulldogs were desperately unlucky. Johnson really should have kicked the goal to win. Now they go to Canberra to play the Swans.
	4	6↑	Hawthorn	5-4	An easy win against Melbourne (excuse the tautology). Now to play Adelaide at AAMI.
	5	3↓	Carlton	4-5	The Blues are starting to show that they are a year away. Far too inconsistent at the moment to seriously challenge (and no fun at all when it comes to tipping).
	6	5↓	Port Adelaide	5-4	Here’s a big call – teams that are down 7 goals at quarter time don’t win that often. Now they have to play the Pies at the MCG.
	7	7↔	Brisbane	5-4	The Lions were looking good with 15 minutes to go, but they couldn’t hold back the tide. Now a tough one against North in Melbourne.
	8	8↔	Collingwood	4-5	It was a must win, and the Pies did. If they beat Port suddenly things are looking good again.
	9	9↔	Sydney	5-4	A great win by the Swans A big match in Canberra against the Bulldogs to see if they’re really finals contenders.
	10	12↑	Adelaide	4-5	A huge win for the Crows – but their 3rd quarter shows why few sides fear them at the moment.
	11	10↑	Essendon	5-4	The Bombers were 14 points down at the 15 minute mark of the 3rd quarter. They then kicked the next 8. Now they play Geelong.
	12	14↑	North Melbourne	4-5	North have only won 11 quarters – that’s the same amount as Richmond (and is equal last in the league).
	13	11↓	Fremantle	3-6	Gerard Healy says the best strategy is to just automatically tip against Fremantle. I’m starting to agree with him – there’s just too much heartache involved with wanting them to win.
	14	13↓	West Coast	3-6	Woeful. Now they get to play Carlton on Friday night – both sides will need to prove something.
	15	15↔	Richmond	1-8	The Tigers are lacking talent, heart and a decent game plan. Other than that, they;re doing well.
	16	16↔	Melbourne	1-8	They tried their best.

Flick of the Week: "We killed some; too many really. I'll manage it better next time".

This week's flick of the week takes us with Claude Rains from the Best Picture winner of 1943 with Casablanca, to the best Picture winner of 1962, a small, little film known as Lawrence of Arabia.

Small? Little? Be buggered! At 216 minutes this is 17 minutes longer than The Return of the King, and 22 minutes longer than Titanic. Directed by the great English director, David Lean, it is a massive film in scope, length, and width (filmed as it was on a ratio of 2.35:1).

The film tells the story of T.E Lawrence during WWI and his efforts to unite the Arabs against the Turks. In the process he becomes a living legend, goes mad, regains his senses (somewhat) and ends disillusioned by the results of his efforts.

Such a quick summary belies the breadth of vision of screen writer Robert Bolt and Lean. The film attempts to question British colonialism, prefigure the role of the modern media, examine Arabic politics and also show some of the best battle scenes ever put on celluloid.

What strikes you when watching the film today (best done on a very lazy Sunday) is how different the pace of the film is compared with today's films. There is no rush in this film. The film ignores the screenwriting axiom of entering the scene as late as possible - instead the camera watches events unfold in their entirety.

It is intoxicating, if it must be admitted somewhat disconcerting to the modern viewer. We have become so impatient that we seemingly don't want to wait for anything on the screen. Why watch someone ride a camel? Is he doing anything? Yeah the sand dunes are nice, but is anyone shooting anyone? Is anyone talking? Is anything happening?

This is film as art as much as storytelling. A film where you drink in the vision as much as you listen to the dialogue. It is a film which like a long novel asks you to commit some time, and rewards your effort with something unlike anything else you will have seen.

Everyone in the cast does almost the best work of their careers: Peter O'Toole (lost the Oscar to Gregory Peck for To Kill a Mockingbird) is incredible - he is in almost every scene and had he been only slightly less good, the entire film would be horrible; Alec Guinness is in virtual Obi Wan Kenobi mode, but still great to watch, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quayle, Jack Hawkins and on and on. All great, all relishing the big screen.

The oddest thing about the film, is the subject. While the events are great to watch, in reality the Arabian campaign was a side show of WWI (even the film acknowledges this fact). It's hardly where one would expect a great figure would be found.

Whether or not Lawrence was a great figure or merely a man who knew how to make the most of publicity I don't know. But he certainly is the subject of a great film.

The below scene is a perfect example of the pacing of the film - and is also a classic of cinema.

Best line:
T.E. Lawrence: I killed two people. One was... yesterday? He was just a boy and I led him into quicksand. The other was... well, before Aqaba. I had to execute him with my pistol, and there was something about it that I didn't like.
General Allenby: That's to be expected.
T.E. Lawrence: No, something else.
General Allenby: Well, then let it be a lesson.
T.E. Lawrence: No... something else.
General Allenby: What then?
T.E. Lawrence: I enjoyed it.

The AFL Hall of Fame: My Last Word

When I did my previous post on the Hall of Fame I actually had no idea that that very night the latest group were being inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Now I read a fair few sports websites - I pretty much live on realfooty.com.au. And yet I had no idea. And so it was a bit of a surprise to read Tim Lane's column today where he writes:

AS A MEMBER of the Australian Football Hall of Fame selection committee, which copped some bad press during the last week on the Lou Richards legend debate, I'm inclined to the Oscar Wilde view — the one thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. The controversy shone a light on the Hall of Fame and its processes, and thus heightened the football community's awareness of the significance of this important institution. That end could be said to justify the means.

Bizarre to say the least. Shone a light on the process? Maybe, but it certainly didn't shine any light on the actual event. And he thinks highlighting the flaws in the Hall of Fame improves its significance? Odd. I would think it would highlight how much the system needs changing...

How about this statement:

For its own sake, the Hall of Fame needs to be relevant to the football public. It should generate public interest and debate. The AFL and its Hall of Fame selection panel must accept that and do so with a heightened recognition of its duty to hold its nerve, regardless of whatever campaigning might occur.

What an extraordinary statement about one's own self importance. Lane seems to be saying, "I am on the selection panel so I need to accept the awesome responsibility that goes with it". And to suggest that the best way for the Hall of Fame to be relevant to the football public is to continue having only 12 people selecting the entrants takes a fair few jumps in logic to be intelligible.

My last point: one Saturday Malcolm Blight was talking about the Hall of Fame dinner. He had no idea how one got invited - were there corporate tables, did you need to be invited? He then stated he hadn't been for a few years. And this remember is someone who is actually in the Hall of Fame!

And you have to agree with Blight. Was the night telecast? If so, their marketing was woeful because I had no idea it was on.

What they should do is announce the latest inductees at the start of the year, and designate a certain week each year as the Hall of Fame week. There's no need to keep the names secret until the night - this ain't the freaking Logies. Let us know in advance who is going to be inducted, publicise the night, make it special and here's an idea, make it open to the public.

The AFL Hall of Fame Again (sigh)

A few week's back I did a couple posts on the dopiness of the AFL Hall of Fame.

This week the Hall of Fame has been in the news because firstly, it isn't going to grant "Legend" status to Lou Richards, and secondly, it was rumoured today that Wayne Carey will miss out on being inducted into the Hall of Fame for the second year.

Now, two things. First, there is no way Lou Richards should be given "Legend" status. But to be honest, I think the whole concept of Legend status is a crock anyway.

Second, Wayne Carey should be in the Hall of Fame. He was without a doubt the best player of the 1990s, and arguably the greatest ever Centre Half Forward. He never cheated in the game, hasn't got done for taking performance enhancing drugs, he hasn't been known to bet on games he was playing. All he has done illegally wrong, he has done since retiring from the game.

The Hall of Fame is a museum for the AFL, it should not be seen as a Hall only for the pure and nice. OK there possibly are exceptions, but Wayne Carey as far as I am aware is currently a free man, so why not put him in the Hall? Putting in the Hall is in no way the AFL saying that it's ok to "glass" someone. And I would bet my life in his speech he would be as contrite as possible and as humbled by the honour as you could get.

But here's the thing, it's just my opinion. I might be wrong - you are free to disagree with me. Heck I might even agree with you after a discussion (I am certainly no fan of Carey's - I hated him when he was at North, and I hated that the Crows traded for him).

But do you know how many people get to decide who gets into the Hall of Fame? (A while you're at it here's another quick question - who else is being considered this year? Have to say I don't know the answer to that.)

Here is the list of people on the Hall of Fame committee:

AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick, former players Kevin Bartlett, Brendon Gale and David Parkin, football historians Brian Atkinson and Jim Main, SANFL executive commissioner Leigh Whicker, former Victorian government sports minister Tom Reynolds and journalists Tim Lane, Mike Sheahan, Patrick Smith and Caroline Wilson.

That's it. Twelve people. Anyone know why a Victorian Sports Minister is on it? Anyone have any idea if Brendan Gale saw many SANFL games in the 1980s? Anyone got a good reason why there are only journalists from Melbourne?

I don't know about you, but to me that list makes a complete joke of the entire Hall of Fame.

Why should anyone give a stuff? Carey doesn't get in? Who gives a rats - it's just the opinion of 12 people (and probably not even all 12). Richards a legend? Yeah if you want, but so what? So 12 people think he's a legend? Good on them. I could find 12 others who don't. I bet I sure as hell could find 12 people who have been around football for a while who think Peter Carey should be in the Hall of Fame...

And that is the bloody point!

This process absolutely pathetic. Patently undemocratic, incredibly elitist and virtually guaranteed to produce a poor result.

Any group of 12 people will arrive at differing results - especially if it is done through consensus. But if (as I have argued) you widen the process to a voting group of around 100 people from the media across the nation, from administrators and coaches across the nation, from ex-players, from member of the Hall of Fame, well then my friends, you're going to get a sense of what the real football community thinks.

Just ask yourself what you would consider a bigger honour - if a group of 12 people (only 4 of whom ever played at the highest level) came to a consensus that you were one of the greatest players, or if 100 people from throughout the country including members of the Hall of Fame, all current coaches, journalists from ever major news outlet in the country and every President of every club and other assorted officials have voted and over 75% have decided you were one of the greatest players?

I know which one I think is bigger.

Ask yourself this as well - which process do you think is going to lead to a result more reflective of what the general football going public thinks? 12 people in a room, or over 100 people voting on a ballot paper. Which would you prefer: a Government decided by a committee of 12 people who write about and study politics, or by a democratic vote? Which do you think leads to the best result?

The old saying is that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. That's certainly applies to the AFL Hall of Fame.

Change the system now, and make it actually mean something.

Henry adds up the numbers

Since the Budget, the big attack from the opposition has been on the projections of the Budget forecasts. Here’s an example from Joe Hockey:

Mr Hockey says the Government's projections for a return to budget surpluses are misleading.
"They are based on above-trend growth, not only for the next two years, but they are based on it well into the future," he said.
"It is an absurd proposition.
"It is casino economics to assume that this Budget will get back into surplus any time in the foreseeable future."

Ken Henry came out in his annual post-Budget address to defend the Treasury’s work and explain the numbers.

The response was as if the critics hadn’t even listened.

Here’s Hockey again last night on the 7:30 Report:

Well, Kerry, it's interesting, because Ken Henry agrees with what we stated, and that is that there is no recent period were there has been six consecutive years of growth of more than four per cent per annum, which is the underlying assumption for Kevin Rudd's plan to have, in his words, $300 billion of debt. The debt will be far greater, Kerry, far greater, if on one of those years, it doesn't reach the assumption that Ken Henry suggests.

Here’s Terry McCrann in the Herald Sun:

Henry & Co are 'projecting' growth zooming up to 4.5 per cent in that year, staying up there for the following year, then dipping a bit but staying 'above trend' - implicitly around 4 per cent - for the next four years out to 2016-17.

That's to say, six successive years of 4 per cent-plus growth.

This is a huge ask, almost unprecedented in the past 30-35 years. Indeed, yesterday Henry reached back - had to reach back? - all the way to the 1960s to justify its reasonableness.

If Henry really believes we face economic conditions like the golden 1960s, I suggest he has a problem and we do as well.

Well let’s do something odd, and actually look at what Henry said in his speech. McCrann suggests Henry had to go all the way back to the 1960s and suggests he’s off his nut if he thinks that’s the period of growth we’re about to experience.

Turns out Henry is not suggesting anything of the sort.

Here’s the graph that sets out what Treasury is suggesting will happen.

Figure Six: Real GDP growth. Source: ABS Catalogue Number 5206.0 and Treasury

Here’s Henry’s explanation of the growth figures (his own words):

The growth projections in Figure Six cover the four year forward estimates period. In this budget, we have integrated that four year story with a medium-term set of growth projections – out to 2019-20. The work is described in Budget Statements 3 and 4.

This is not straight-forward work. And it necessarily involves considerable judgement. Because we don't often position the budget in such a long multi-year timeframe, we expected that some of our readers would have some difficulty with the concepts.

Even so, I have to say that I have been a little surprised by some of the quite peculiar things that have been said and written about our medium-term growth projections. And just in case there is any doubt – and there has been some commentary that may have seeded such doubt – let me make it quite clear that these are the Treasury's numbers. They are also the Government's numbers, of course.

We have forecast zero growth in 2008-09, negative growth of ½ per cent in 2009-10 and growth of 2¼ per cent in 2010-11. We have then projected two years of growth of 4½ per cent, followed by four years of growth of just under 4 per cent, falling to 2¾ per cent in the next year, 2017-18.

Other commentators have given the impression that our projections would, if realised, produce a period of unprecedented growth. One of our leading private sector economists – a person for whom I have a great deal of respect – has been quoted as saying that he couldn't recall any previous six years of above 4 per cent growth since the 1960s.

The 1960s produced seven years of growth above 5 per cent. For the eight years 1962-63 to 1969-70, growth averaged 5.9 per cent. But it didn't actually produce six consecutive years of above 4 per cent growth; in 1965-66 growth was only 2.4 per cent.

In the seven years 1983-84 to 1989-90, there were four years of growth above 4 per cent, and an average growth rate of 4.23 per cent. And in the seven years from 1993-94 to 1999-00 there actually were six years of above 4 per cent growth. These years were not consecutive, however; 1996-97 spoiled the party by recording 3.9 per cent. The seven year average was 4.3 per cent.

Some commentators have argued that, even if history would support a six year period of growth averaging in excess of 4 per cent, this cycle will be much weaker because of the special character of this particular recession. What is most interesting about these arguments is that they are often accompanied by extensive quoting of our own material published in Budget Statement 4. It's as if we failed to take account of our own analysis.

OK, let’s just look at what he has said here.

Henry doesn’t, like McCrann and Hockey suggest, reach back to the 1960s in a vain attempt to prove his analysis. What he does is address criticism by journalists (and the Liberal Party no doubt) that such growth hadn’t occurred since the 1960s. He points out that yes, such growth did occur in the 1960s, BUT that also similar length of growth happened in the 1980s after a recession (a recession by the way that also included high inflation), and in the 1990s.

In fact look at the 1990s, you can see 6 years in a row over 4% growth.

Now look at the actual prediction of the recession. In the 1990s, there were 2 years under the 30 year average growth. In the 1980s only one year below the average. In this recession, they’re predicting 3 years of below average growth – hardly reflecting an overly optimistic view that the Liberals would have you think they are taking.

And now let’s look at what Hockey said last night (after Henry’s speech). He said

there is no recent period were there has been six consecutive years of growth of more than four per cent per annum, which is the underlying assumption for Kevin Rudd's plan to have, in his words, $300 billion of debt.

Well now Joe. For a start they are not predicting 6 years of more the 4% growth. They’re saying “two years of growth of 4½ per cent, followed by four years of growth of just under 4 per cent, falling to 2¾ per cent in the next year, 2017-18”

Which is a big difference between predicting 6 years in a row over 4% and if Joe doesn’t understand that then he needs some lessons in maths.

Now people say this is a worse recession than the 1990s so why should growth be similar to that? Well one reason is that the stimulus measures brought in by the Keating Government in the 1990s came in too late and were targeted at more long term infrastructure. This time round, the Government has got in early, and has a balance between short, mid and long term stimulus. Plus unlike the 1990s we don’t have high interest rates, and a bloated workforce – the skills shortage that we had during the mining boom will be there still when we get out of this recession. In the 1990s lots of manufacturing jobs went never to return; this time round, yes there will be some jobs that are gone for good, but no where near the same amount. China still needs iron and ore, and so will India.

But don’t expect either the Liberal Party or conservative commentators to acknowledge that.

They will just keep beating their drum, ignoring the data, and pretending the Australian Budget can be equated to that of a struggling family, where going into debt means the danger of getting chucked out onto the street. If they really think that is the case, then I have to say it is they who have a problem and if they get back in power so do we.