Little Goffy

As I said, the UN was created at a time when it was not expected that more than a handful of 'non-white' countries would ever exist, let alone have real influence on global politics. The colour of people's skin has only as much to do with the issue as history made it so - liberalism, democracy, and modern citizenship rights were both products of and drivers of the multiple revolutions (intellectual, democratic, economic, social) which transformed the culture and institutions either side of the North Atlantic. That these various transformations also massively increased the material productivity and social mobilisation of the relevant countries meant that expanding empires to dominate the 'pre-revolutionary' parts of the world was so easy that in some places it was close to accidental. That the reforms which occurred in this transformation of society were often deeply flawed (voting rights, segregation, hanging judges, transportation to hard labour in Van Diemen's land, etc) meant that there has always been an edge of cruel hypocrisy to it all. Obviously the sharp end of that hypocrisy was in the imperial territories, which has had the tragic double consequence that not only were those societies excluded from modern civil rights and democracy during the period of empire, but in the eyes of all the conquered peoples the entire concept of liberal democracy was tainted and made to look like an elitist scam. That the elitism and exclusion was explicitly 'white over coloured' is how the distrust of liberal-democratic values came to be so thoroughly established in 'non-white' societies, and is clearly a major reason that values of personal liberty, citizenship and human rights and so forth have had so much difficulty getting traction when pushing against the conservative and reactionary elements in ex-colony countries. And easy enough to see why - how can you tell a people that you insulted, exploited and excluded that 'oh, now we believe in respect and inclusion'. So, it is all tragic, and you can see where they are coming from. But that doesn't change the fact that same-sex relationships are still criminal in a very large portion of the world, and that in many other parts (Indonesia and Egypt being the most fresh examples) it may not be specifically against the law, but any of a variety of other laws can be put to use imprisoning and humiliating same-sex attracted people. So, I hope that helps answer your question. The short version is - The connection between 'brown people' and intolerance is born of the fact that 'brown people' were excluded from the progress of tolerance for about two centuries. It is not because they are brown, but because of how they were treated because they are brown.

Ha! ok, um. The United Nations is becoming a bit of a crapshuffle because when it was created nobody imagined that the backward pre-modern brown people would ever have their own nations. So now you can grit your teeth and stand up for the deep values of freedom even when you don't like he people getting it, or You can blame the whole thing on the radical lefties who let the brown people out of their cage, close your curtains and have a cry-[censored] in the dark.

The UN's integrity on a variety of issues is being undermined by the unanticipated rise of multi-polar geopolitics and the conflicting interests and cultural demands of new and powerful blocks. You can react to that two main ways. Actually stand up for the civil rights culture, reaffirm equality before the law and accept the reality of a free society where the quality of relationships, whether personal, political or business, is measured by the quality of informed consent. Or, Package the problem into a bundle of secret world government conspiracy theories which you can wave around to create a smokescreen for your own objections to making liberal democratic values a reality.

This. For everyone (and I think it is just about everyone?) who has been irritated by the 'just more talk, when will we see action' pattern regarding the club's consistency issues, well, here you go, that's what action looks like.

29, 31, 36 and 47. In Jason Taylor we trust. Anyway, Lever is a player we'd be thrilled to get with a top 3 pick, so we're done just fine from this trade period. I'd argue that aside from finding an ready-to-crash-in back-up ruck (are there any mature age worth grabbing?) Taylor has the luxury of just picking whoever he thinks might turn out alright. I'd like to see some more 'exciting athletic gifts' around the place, even if a little flawed. Someone for McCartney to work on, get the kicking to an acceptable level. Petrucelle, Sambono, that sort of player. Bring 'em all in, let them have fun dashing around at Casey while they tidy up the flaws, our list is now strong enough to experiment without putting super pressure on. We have the right picks to go collecting for that type, too.

Pilots hats without either a suit with shoulder pads or a shirt with epaulettes will make anyone look like a 6 year old playing dress-ups. Still 10% off business class flights is the same discount value as flying economy for free. Or that's what my guide to modern consumerism says!

To the Gulag with you, filthy capitalist running dog lackey! May all who oppose us, be crushed under the heel of... um... equal legal status as citizens. Bwaaaa ha ha ha quake in fear your doom is at hand! But seriously, it is perhaps just a little ironic that people raise the specter of brutal repression by the gaystapo or whatever silly name they give it this week. When if you look at a global map of where law has been updated to include SSM, you'll basically find 'human rights and citizenship based democracies' in one colour and 'the full range of every type of repressive regime you can imagine' in the other. Reminded of an Orwell quote, one which barely needs to be updated, just change the names. “When one thinks of all the people who support or have supported Fascism, one stands amazed at their diversity. What a crew! Think of a programme which at any rate for a while could bring Hitler, Petain, Montagu Norman, Pavelitch, William Randolph Hearst, Streicher, Buchman, Ezra Pound, Juan March, Cocteau, Thyssen, Father Coughlin, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Arnold Lunn, Antonescu, Spengler, Beverley Nichols, Lady Houston, and Marinetti all into the same boat! But the clue is really very simple. They are all people with something to lose, or people who long for a hierarchical society and dread the prospect of a world of free and equal human beings."

Fair point, it is a big chunk of money. I figured it would be the alternative to agreeing to pay a share of Watts' contract. (Though that detail still isn't publicly confirmed as far as I'm aware)

Interesting that we didn't target Matthew Lobbe from Port as a reserve ruck and freebie bonus to make the Watts trade look a little better value. Meanwhile, Adelaide have effectively traded Lever for Gibbs. Obviously the Crows are looking for another bite at the Grand Final, so different circumstances. But I'd be really irritated if the Demons had given up that much for Gibbs, and I'm a big fan. Another way to look at it; at the same price, we gained our likely best tall defender, aged 21, while the Crows gained an equivalent quality midfielder, aged 28.

Richmond 2016 - Nankervis, Caddy, Prestia Port - 2017 - Motlop, Rockliff, Watts Two clubs with the same problem (mid-table lurking, flaky, lack of depth), two clubs going for the same solution (mass recruiting of any AFL-standard players they can get their hands on). A year ago, there were even bigger question marks on Richmond than there are on Port now, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I would say, all three of those Richmond names are 'solid citizen' players, meat and potatoes, reliable, the kind of players who unassumingly step forward and play their role to a decent standard. (Might be selling Prestia a bit short there, but you get the idea) In contrast, Port have got - An inside midfielder who has great days and sulky days, going from 13 tackles and 15 clearances to 2 and 1 within a couple of weeks, and who was sacked as captain for (allegedly, ho hum) persistent drinking in-season and being a general purpose full-of-himself jerk. But, to his credit, managed an All-Australian selection when his team was garbage. A midfielder-forward who only kicked multiple goals on four occasions in a season (3,3,2,2), and who fluctuates wildly not only in how much he gets the ball, but also how well he uses it. But, to his credit, turned on some top efforts in the finals when teammates where faltering. And Jack Watts. I'm not sure of his overall value, maybe we should discuss that in more detail now? One thing is for sure, we know who the losers of the 2017 trade period are. Didn't North put aside literally millions of dollars, showing club greats the door to free up space for the stars they were going to grab in the 2016 and 2017 trade/free agency seasons?

Ok, I'll bite. Even though I'm pretty sure you're speaking tongue in cheek. Hmm, biting tongue in cheek sounds problematic, nto sure I know you well enough for that. Anyway, here goes - Year : player at 31 : prominent players taken soon after. 2016: Joshua Begley (Ess)... um... Tom Stewart (Geel, 40), Mitch Hannan (Melb, 46) 2015: Ryan Clark (Nth), Marcus Adams (Dogs, 35), Rhys Mathieson (Bris 39) 2014: Daniel Howe (Haw), Connor Menadue (Rich 33), Connor Blakely (Freo, 34), Alex Neal-Bullen (Melb, 40) 2013: Malcolm Karpany (WC), George Hewitt (Syd 32), Tom Cutler (Bris 33) Nick Robertson (Bris 34), Toby Nankervis (syd 35) 2012: Kamdyn Mcintosh (Rich), Ben Jacobs (Nth, 37, second drafting!) Overall it seems about 1 in 4 players at that range actually stay at AFL level. On the other hand, Melbourne's own recent record in the sub-prime draft market is better than most. Maybe pick 31 will serve to guarantee a player we have our eye on, or whatever.

The Calvin Smith Center. For the deep joy of knowing Essendon supporters are actually having to google and read for a while before they realise they're being trolled.

Of course, In 2016 Richmond were the clear overall w'winners' of the trade period, picking up three players who all made important contributions to their premiership run. Runner-up, despite limited activity, must be Melbourne who secured the best player of the trade period, for a late 20s pick. And Jordan Lewis for nothing much. At this point, we've also got the best player available in the 2017 trade period. As for the 'value for picks' debate on Lever, we'll never know really, but it is worth considering that of all the picks in the second half of round 1 of any draft in the last five years, the best players are: Patrick Cripps, Isaac Heeney (Acad), Jake Lever, and, um, Brodie Grundy? I guess the question is, would you give up two picks in a given range of the draft, if it guaranteed you the best player available in that range? In fact, it is not even every year that a player of Lever's quality appears in the late first round of the draft. I'm feeling much more comfortable about the trade now.

Some might argue that is more or less what has already been going on...

I propose we trade this thread for pages 114-121 of the Jack Watts thread. Would cover the loss of the last four pages and give us something to switch to when we need a break from pages 215+ of the Jack Watts thread. Agreed, no more comments from me either. Oh damn, damn damn damn.

Good man that Colin Garland. From the Jack Trengove school of unlucky buggers.

Ok, here we go, my position in full. Jack Watts doesn't quite fill any specific role in a team structure and there are particular elements of his game which are not up to scratch. That's fine if you are an extraordinary talent who can turn games, but Watts is not that much more skilled than other players. I've really thought about it and have wavered in both directions, but I'm settled now. I fully support the club's decision to move him on as it is simply not serving much purpose to keep him. When he is removed from his line about mid-level of our best 22, everyone below moves up a slot and the total loss is really very small considering the players not currently getting regular games. If nothing else, Watts leaving will likely push Pederson's career out past the 100 game line, which seems fair given that Pederson has performed much better. It will also open up space for Weideman to develop in roles targeted to his strengths. I think, in the end, it is a case of Watts value being inflated by the two very different roles he plays at the club, which is to say, player... and mascot. As for the 'mishandling', I think a certain amount of acrimony was made necessary in order to give crazy Demon supporters a chance to work through their feelings in a few hundred pages of comments in online forums!

Tippet Ankle Reconstruction. Debate over. I don't think anyone really wants to invest effort in after-the-fact 'what ifs' on this. Close thread or let it die naturally?

The women's draft is hard to get excited about because with the development pathways being so limited, there's not much evidence to consider who might be an outstanding prospect or not. In the end, success of players and teams in the women's league will be determined by the effort put into development by the club and the players. Aside from core fitness, it'll be character that we need to look for, and that's hard to know about from the outside. Still, looking forward to finding out who the newest Demons will be.

We can only hope that Nathan Jones turns out to be a natural writer with a good memory, or that he finds a really effective biographer/ghost writer to collaborate with. He is on target, even if our season by season performance improves from here, to play in the most losses of any player in AFL/VFL history. Combine that with a late career premiership, half a dozen coaches (counting interim coaches), a string of club crises, and major change for the AFL in general, you've got a pretty good start for a book. In fact, there is even a remarkable pattern for the great No. 2 Captains of our club. Nathan Jones. 239 games, 67 wins, 169 losses, 3 draws. Robert Flower 272 games, 88 wins, 184 losses, 0 draws, 21 wins and 15 losses to go. There's a real chance that Jones could EXACTLY hit the line that Flower finished on. I'd be hoping he pushes on a couple more years after that, though.

Wowee. Boy oh boy gee whizz. Well, at least now I know I don't have to take you seriously.

Are you suggesting that the secret gay agenda is to imitate the Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Jews, Seventh-Day Adventists, and any number of other religious cliques? HORROR! Just as well this secret agenda exists only in your head. I'm very sorry to hear that 'family life and values' are going to be destroyed by people wanting to formally affirm their commitment to eachother in a traditional manner. Aside from all that bizarre guff, I must confess to being a bit irritated about the 'fair treatment for decades' bit. I mean, that's just being silly, even the Gillard government's project to eliminate administrative discrimination from the depths of bureaucracy, less than ten years ago, admitted that it left large holes. I just... Biffen, on this matter, you really seem to be dealing with a reality, and a crisis, that only exist in your mind. Or the collective imagination of your after-church drinking buddies.

Not since Whiteboard Wednesday have I felt so informed about the club's decision-making.

I guess it is a bit like money and happiness. Luck wont get you a premiership, but the lack of it can take one away.

The changes to the marriage act are - minor administrative adjustments - to correct an oversight where people have previously been treated unequally under civil law - and in so doing, bring Australia a small step closer to fulfilling its promise as a nation committed to equal rights. Strangely enough, the matter was not at all a priority for the same-sex-attracted community until very recently, as the general political approach was one of pragmatism - focusing on the more high-impact features such as ending the 'gay panic defense' for assaults, putting the brakes on discrimination and hate crimes, and being able to visit your partner in hospital. There was a gradual snowball effect that gave rise to the issue as a priority, in that in some jurisdictions, particularly in the US, reform of marriage law was the most practical, in some cases the only really practical way at all, to secure some of these most basic partnership rights. From these specific beginnings, it became apparent that reform to marriage law not only provided those rights in these specific jurisdictions, but also provided a legal and bureacratic signal for harmonisation of other civil laws - in other words, efforts to gain general partnership rights were enhanced by achievement marriage equality, rather than marriage being a distraction. As well as this practical incentive social factors influenced the priority placed on marriage equality. As general popular acceptance of same-sex attracted people became more prevalent, and the frequency of rapes, bashings and murders declined (a trend roughly beginning in the 1990s, not so far away) gay people were able to live more openly and to live, well, normally. The previous assumptions about 'the gays being unworthy' slipped, and many more people (and, indeed, churches) realised that here was a key social ritual and status that was being denied to a part of the community that was actually, well, normal. The unfairness of it struck home, and the simplicity of that unfairness became a rallying point. In turn, the anti-gay lobby is mostly formed from hegemonic religious groups which often see themselves as having special rights over the institution of marriage, even to the point of civil marriage. The campaigns from the same-sex community and its civil-rights oriented allies to seek legal equality were seen as a direct and deliberate attack on the hegemonic status of these groups. To them, it wasn't just a case of live-and-let-live, but rather a diminishing of their role in society, a further erosion of their status as the arbiters of right and wrong. A status already under doubt as a result of, um, shall we say, "being on the wrong side of history on a variety of matters". So, a battle line formed. Quite suddenly, in many areas. An odd, counter-intuitive feature of the suddenness of marriage equality becoming a major issue is that it is often pressed into urgency and prominence by the opponents of reform. In Australia, the matter was forced forward by Prime Minister Howard, who in 2004, observing that support for same-sex marriage was increasing throughout the 'Western' world, and motivated by his personal religious conservatism and the influence of the conservative Christian lobby, initiated change to the marriage act in a preemptive move to make it more difficult to alter the act in future. Similarly, those who initiated the sordid 2017 non-binding postal survey were not the advocates of marriage equality, who could be described best as showing 'annoyed acceptance that it would take more time' but were ultimately confident due to the continuously increasing popular acceptance of marriage equality, particularly among younger generations. Rather, the plebiscite was launches by the anti-gay faction of the conservative parties, who, recognising that both parliament (when not bound by part-line voting requirements) and the general population supported marriage equality and would only increase that support over time, initiated a desultory, disorganised, rushed, non-comprehensive, and sudden plebiscite in more clearly designed to maximise the chances of a brief, high-intensity scare campaign. And so it has been. With every sordid event that occurs, the popular sentiment moves to just wanting to avoid participation. Incredibly, a situation has arisen where shameful, inflammatory or grotesque behaviour from either side actually favours the interests of the 'no' campaign. This is because the No campaign's greatest hope is that their highly motivated clique, approximately 1/4 of the population, will vote enthusiastically, while much of the 'Yes' support comes from people who are not personally motivated, but rather just believe in the Australian tradition of leaving people alone to live their lives. Everything that pushes down people's engagement with the vote is a win for the No campaign. So, not only incidents such as the utter moron who sort-of-headbutted No campaigner Tony Abbott in Tasmania, but even cases of arson against Yes campaigners homes, waves of swastika graffiti, and the most vile hate campaign posters on university campuses or streets. Any conflict, any unseemly behaviour, suits the No campaign's main agenda - to associate anything involving homosexuality as dirty, threatening, and destructive. In method it is much like the truly indefensible, but persistent, use of statistics about children of same-sex parents being bullied in school - 'look, hate find you, you are to blame, you are the problem' - or of increased prevalence of depression and suicide among same-sex attracted people - 'look, they are unhappy because they are gay, which is why more should be done to stigmatise same-sex attraction'. By combining a non-compulsory, half-arsed survey, with a high-intensity scare campaign, a short turnaround, and no regulation of honesty or integrity in campaigning, the anti-gay lobby has created one final chance to stall progress to marriage equality. They've also created a big joint event where anyone who wants to can say whatever hateful, obscene and absurd things they like about the gay community and have it be nationally confirmed as 'a valid part of the debate'. Normal people are having their relationships compared to bestiality and pedophilia by high-profile, well-funded figures with extensive media coverage. Meanwhile, a calculated disingenuous campaign has been waged to portray all Yes campaigning as intrusive, pretentious, 'virtue signaling' and even an attack on free speech. Somehow it has become an offense to suggest that if someone compares your longstanding and stable relationship to bestiality, they might just be speaking from a somewhat bigoted position. A major effort has gone into trying to portray supporting the Yes vote as something that should be done quietly, almost secretly and shamefully. Any open support of 'Yes' is an affront to those around, much like some people are 'offended' by the sight of a same-sex couple holding hands on the street or even existing as minor characters in a movie. A call back to the menace faced by any gay people who came out in the quite near past, and to the 'don't ask don't tell' position that insists on the dirtiness and indecency of same-sex attraction. Never mind the waste of money. Never mind the shoddy process. Never mind that it is a calculated tactical ploy to bring out the worst in Australia, diminishing the integrity of our democracy, and all done in service to discrimination. There are tens of thousands of same-sex attracted people who have not yet 'come out', for fear of being excluded from their family, cut off from their friends, and hated by strangers. This plebiscite will have sharpened the fear for a great many of them, as relatives and neighbours and the construction site next door share jokes about dirty homo weddings and walking funny up the aisle, bestiality, pedophilia, 'needing training from a real man' and God 'creating' HIV as a punishment. Misery and ignominy. Vote Yes, and hope the reactionary establishment can never force us back into this toxic fog.