Tomorrow we depart on our two week sojourn to the Greek Islands. The principle reason for the trip is to celebrate our friends Nick and Georgia's wedding, although it's not a half bad spot to go for a holiday either - at least that's what I'm told. It is a funny thing, this trip, as it has always seemed about two months away, right up until last week even. Asia and I are pretty excited now, it will be our first time in Greece and it promises to be an interesting cultural experience. I am having a 'computer free' two weeks, so suffice to say I won't be posting until we get back. Then I will redeem my lack of pictures over the last month or so.
On another exciting note, I am off to the Bledisloe cup clash between the All Blacks and Wallabies tonight at the G, which will be in front of a sold out crowd of 90,000+ - it is going to be epic!
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
More on the whaling
I know I said I would not add any further comment about the whaling issue, but my brother has sent me another email, so in the interests of "fair" debate I will publish it. Also, the more I publish his email the more I believe my argument is strengthened - I'm sure the opposite of the effect he intended. Okay, so here is the latest incantation:
Hayden:
I'm gonna stop talking about this now because you've clearly been conned.
Brad:
Lets not call names. This doesn't add anything to the debate and when this is the first sentence of your reply, it rather dilutes any further message you try to get across.
Hayden:
But i do have to answer some of your points (sic) convenient you decided to split up my email rather than right it up as one coherent message.
Brad:
The reason I split up your email was to make it easy for me to reply to your comments, rather than having to refer back to each point one at a time This is messy and hard for people reading to follow. I don't think any of your meaning was lost.
Hayden:
You blame the video for being on the whaling boat, it had the only camera, but more importantly your point that it was biased when the article you referenced only interviewed Greenpeace, please be consistent in your criticisms, secondly putting a boat into reverse when you've already committed to hit it is nothing more than a PR gesture.
Brad:
I already said that it is very difficult to apportion any blame for the collision to either boat because we can not see what the Nissin Maru is doing. I did not blame the video. What we can see though is that the Artic Sunrise tried to take evasive action by putting it's props into reverse and by turning. If you have made a decision to ram a ship, then why pull out half way through - it doesn't make much sense to me. Posting only an article from Greenpeace was an oversight by me, so I corrected this in my next post by using an article from the New Scientist website - this magazine is science based and one of the most objective magazines I have read. I'm not sure if you checked out this link, but you might want to pay particular attention to the section on whaling and then report back to me on whether you still think it is sustainable.
Hayden:
As for democracy, Greenpeace shouldn't be responding to public opinion because they should have the environment's best interests at heart - not what the public wants, if they truly were environmentalists that's what they'd be doing. Also how on earth is a boat of that size expected to be able to maneuver out of the way of the Greenpeace boat it couldn't deliberately have hit it if it wanted to. The propaganda ministers quote was badly worded, nut (sic) basically what I'm saying is i could find no evidence of any truly scientific research, done by independent scientists on their website, that should be a concern to anybody who wants to donate to this organization.
Brad:
I think you missed my point here...
Don't look on the Greenpeace website for evidence, try New Scientist you will find bucket loads there.
Hayden:
The biologists i was referring to lectured me on conservation at the university of Canterbury, i believe, unlike the Greenpeace leaders that qualifies them to speak about it. It is not a logic fallacy to say i love all animals you eat steak, it doesn't mean you hate cows, who also suffer a brutal death, and i said i believe whales aren't being exploited.
Brad:
Cows are farmed, and although some people say this isn't sustainable, I believe it is. I am yet to see a commercial whale farm. When/if we do, then maybe I will be convinced that hunting whales is sustainable. I think whales and cows are a completely different "kettle of fish". Sorry to harp on the same point, but please check out the link to New Scientist in my previous post. Maybe the scientists will convince you that whales have and are being exploited.
Hayden:
But despite all this you have changed the debate, initially the debate wasn't over whether whaling is right or wrong, or whether the Greenpeace boat deliberately hit the whaling ship, for the debate we accepted that the boat did deliberately hit the whaling ship, an act which you supported then. So accepting that Greenpeace was at fault as you initially did, you still supported their actions bringing me back to my initial point, that it wasn't the manner of the G20 protest you had a problem with it was what they were protesting against.
Brad:
I thought we both agreed that violent protest was wrong. That debate finished and we moved on to something else - the whaling, which I'm sorry to say you initiated on the phone the other night. I disagreed with both the manner of the G20 protest (violence) and also what they were protesting about. Again, I think you missed my point.
Hayden:
Please post this email as well.
Case closed now
Hayden
Hayden:
I'm gonna stop talking about this now because you've clearly been conned.
Brad:
Lets not call names. This doesn't add anything to the debate and when this is the first sentence of your reply, it rather dilutes any further message you try to get across.
Hayden:
But i do have to answer some of your points (sic) convenient you decided to split up my email rather than right it up as one coherent message.
Brad:
The reason I split up your email was to make it easy for me to reply to your comments, rather than having to refer back to each point one at a time This is messy and hard for people reading to follow. I don't think any of your meaning was lost.
Hayden:
You blame the video for being on the whaling boat, it had the only camera, but more importantly your point that it was biased when the article you referenced only interviewed Greenpeace, please be consistent in your criticisms, secondly putting a boat into reverse when you've already committed to hit it is nothing more than a PR gesture.
Brad:
I already said that it is very difficult to apportion any blame for the collision to either boat because we can not see what the Nissin Maru is doing. I did not blame the video. What we can see though is that the Artic Sunrise tried to take evasive action by putting it's props into reverse and by turning. If you have made a decision to ram a ship, then why pull out half way through - it doesn't make much sense to me. Posting only an article from Greenpeace was an oversight by me, so I corrected this in my next post by using an article from the New Scientist website - this magazine is science based and one of the most objective magazines I have read. I'm not sure if you checked out this link, but you might want to pay particular attention to the section on whaling and then report back to me on whether you still think it is sustainable.
Hayden:
As for democracy, Greenpeace shouldn't be responding to public opinion because they should have the environment's best interests at heart - not what the public wants, if they truly were environmentalists that's what they'd be doing. Also how on earth is a boat of that size expected to be able to maneuver out of the way of the Greenpeace boat it couldn't deliberately have hit it if it wanted to. The propaganda ministers quote was badly worded, nut (sic) basically what I'm saying is i could find no evidence of any truly scientific research, done by independent scientists on their website, that should be a concern to anybody who wants to donate to this organization.
Brad:
I think you missed my point here...
Don't look on the Greenpeace website for evidence, try New Scientist you will find bucket loads there.
Hayden:
The biologists i was referring to lectured me on conservation at the university of Canterbury, i believe, unlike the Greenpeace leaders that qualifies them to speak about it. It is not a logic fallacy to say i love all animals you eat steak, it doesn't mean you hate cows, who also suffer a brutal death, and i said i believe whales aren't being exploited.
Brad:
Cows are farmed, and although some people say this isn't sustainable, I believe it is. I am yet to see a commercial whale farm. When/if we do, then maybe I will be convinced that hunting whales is sustainable. I think whales and cows are a completely different "kettle of fish". Sorry to harp on the same point, but please check out the link to New Scientist in my previous post. Maybe the scientists will convince you that whales have and are being exploited.
Hayden:
But despite all this you have changed the debate, initially the debate wasn't over whether whaling is right or wrong, or whether the Greenpeace boat deliberately hit the whaling ship, for the debate we accepted that the boat did deliberately hit the whaling ship, an act which you supported then. So accepting that Greenpeace was at fault as you initially did, you still supported their actions bringing me back to my initial point, that it wasn't the manner of the G20 protest you had a problem with it was what they were protesting against.
Brad:
I thought we both agreed that violent protest was wrong. That debate finished and we moved on to something else - the whaling, which I'm sorry to say you initiated on the phone the other night. I disagreed with both the manner of the G20 protest (violence) and also what they were protesting about. Again, I think you missed my point.
Hayden:
Please post this email as well.
Case closed now
Hayden
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The whaling debate heats up
So my bro has got a little fired up about the whole whaling issue. I copy from his latest email to me...
Hayden says:
First of all i challenge you to watch this video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlEQur0pUmg
Brad:
Many of the comments on this video seem to suggest that the Greenpeace vessel had right of way. Also as the much smaller vessel they had far more to lose from the collision than the whaling boat. Also, Greenpeace was clearly hard on the reverse power as soon as the captain realised the Nissin Maru wasn't going to give way. As we can not see what the whaling boat is doing (convenient that the camera was on board this ship) it is almost impossible to draw any reasonable conclusions from this video. I will investigate more when I have time but for the moment I am not convinced GP was at fault. If we can see a similar video from the Greenpeace boat or from above the two boats we might get a better idea.
Hayden says:
If you honestly believe the whaling ship was at fault after watching that i feel sorry for you, you've obviously been conned by an organization with no scientific base and a lack of intelligence who respond to public opinion rather than to help the environment.
Brad says:
Hang on, isn't responding to public opinion what democracy is about? Are you saying democracy is wrong and we should all do what you think is right?
Hayden says:
Also i don't believe the whaling is scientific, i believe it is sustainable as all current figures employed by biologists (rather than green peace propaganda ministers (Brad: Who are these people?) suggest.
Brad says:
I suppose this is from the same people who said the Canadian cod fishery was sustainable. You really don't have to look far to find endless evidence not only that whales are being over exploited unsustainably, but also countless other species. Read more here.
Hayden says:
As for calling me a whale hater i am not i love all animals in the environment (Brad: This is a logical fallacy unless you can still love something that you think is okay to exploit), i just wish Greenpeace would help the ones that really need it (such as those in the amazon jungle) rather than those that are 'cool' to protect, as up until 18 months ago you used to agree with me.
Brad says:
I have never ever stated that hunting whales is good. I agree there are many other worthy creatures and habitats that deserve attention from Greenpeace. Perhaps you could join up and donate some money so that they have the resources to do this...).
Hayden:
I challenge you to put this email on your blog (Brad: done), because the level of immaturity shown by you by claiming to have won an argument when the other person does not have right of reply is beyond a joke - i guess you'd fit right at home in Greenpeace, please research your 'facts' in future before claiming to have won.
Brad:
I think it is reasonably clear who has the right 'facts' in this case.
Hayden:
And to call the G20 protesters a bunch of kids for doing what they believed was right, is quite hilarious, considering Greenpeace is a group of uneducated people with no scientific background performing violent acts, sounds pretty similar to me.
Brad says:
I am not sure what your definition of uneducated is, but certainly much of Greenpeace's strongest support and membership comes from students at universities.
Hayden:
I would also like to draw your attention to your initial reply to my email:
About the violent protest, you make a good point, although in the case of the G20 protests it was more a case of violence for violence's sake – whereas with Greenpeace they are taking action against an activity that although not completely illegal, is widely condemned by most of the western world.
Hmmm, not sure what this has to do with Greenpeace (separate from the Green party, of which you will be aware I am not a political supporter of).
Okay I think that about does it for this debate. This will likely be my last post on the issue for a while.
Hayden says:
First of all i challenge you to watch this video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlEQur0pUmg
Brad:
Many of the comments on this video seem to suggest that the Greenpeace vessel had right of way. Also as the much smaller vessel they had far more to lose from the collision than the whaling boat. Also, Greenpeace was clearly hard on the reverse power as soon as the captain realised the Nissin Maru wasn't going to give way. As we can not see what the whaling boat is doing (convenient that the camera was on board this ship) it is almost impossible to draw any reasonable conclusions from this video. I will investigate more when I have time but for the moment I am not convinced GP was at fault. If we can see a similar video from the Greenpeace boat or from above the two boats we might get a better idea.
Hayden says:
If you honestly believe the whaling ship was at fault after watching that i feel sorry for you, you've obviously been conned by an organization with no scientific base and a lack of intelligence who respond to public opinion rather than to help the environment.
Brad says:
Hang on, isn't responding to public opinion what democracy is about? Are you saying democracy is wrong and we should all do what you think is right?
Hayden says:
Also i don't believe the whaling is scientific, i believe it is sustainable as all current figures employed by biologists (rather than green peace propaganda ministers (Brad: Who are these people?) suggest.
Brad says:
I suppose this is from the same people who said the Canadian cod fishery was sustainable. You really don't have to look far to find endless evidence not only that whales are being over exploited unsustainably, but also countless other species. Read more here.
Hayden says:
As for calling me a whale hater i am not i love all animals in the environment (Brad: This is a logical fallacy unless you can still love something that you think is okay to exploit), i just wish Greenpeace would help the ones that really need it (such as those in the amazon jungle) rather than those that are 'cool' to protect, as up until 18 months ago you used to agree with me.
Brad says:
I have never ever stated that hunting whales is good. I agree there are many other worthy creatures and habitats that deserve attention from Greenpeace. Perhaps you could join up and donate some money so that they have the resources to do this...).
Hayden:
I challenge you to put this email on your blog (Brad: done), because the level of immaturity shown by you by claiming to have won an argument when the other person does not have right of reply is beyond a joke - i guess you'd fit right at home in Greenpeace, please research your 'facts' in future before claiming to have won.
Brad:
I think it is reasonably clear who has the right 'facts' in this case.
Hayden:
And to call the G20 protesters a bunch of kids for doing what they believed was right, is quite hilarious, considering Greenpeace is a group of uneducated people with no scientific background performing violent acts, sounds pretty similar to me.
Brad says:
I am not sure what your definition of uneducated is, but certainly much of Greenpeace's strongest support and membership comes from students at universities.
Hayden:
I would also like to draw your attention to your initial reply to my email:
About the violent protest, you make a good point, although in the case of the G20 protests it was more a case of violence for violence's sake – whereas with Greenpeace they are taking action against an activity that although not completely illegal, is widely condemned by most of the western world.
You said i make a good point you seem to have changed your tune now.
Brad:
In this quote I was referring to the fact that I think violent protest is wrong, which is definitely not something that Greenpeace encourages or partakes in.
Hayden:
I guess you'll be supporting the Green parties idea to stop all mining in Australia, therefore bankrupting the country over night next wouldn't suprise me considering you supported a group of people who should all have been convicted of attempted murder.
Hmmm, not sure what this has to do with Greenpeace (separate from the Green party, of which you will be aware I am not a political supporter of).
Okay I think that about does it for this debate. This will likely be my last post on the issue for a while.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Meet Rupert
Okay I know I promised some photos of the run to the G, well I forgot to take my camera, so I am posting a picture of my new friend "Rupert" who accompanied me on Sunday for the last 14 kms.
The pain during the race wasn't the usual blister pain and I was convinced I had actually done something more serious. I have good advice that you aren't supposed to pop them, so I'll see how long I can resist the temptation.
The pain during the race wasn't the usual blister pain and I was convinced I had actually done something more serious. I have good advice that you aren't supposed to pop them, so I'll see how long I can resist the temptation.
8 seconds better!
Well the official results for the run to the G are out and I actually came in 8 secs faster officially at 1:34:25. Placed 192 overall and 177 by gender out of 1308 - I'm happy!
Sunday, June 17, 2007
1:34:33
Okay it wasn't a PB but I'm happy. Here come the excuses....No not really, although I think it was definitely a harder course than Wellington with several challenging (especially on the second lap) rises. I won't call them hills because they weren't really but you sure as hell felt them. The good news is that the right foot held up remarkably well, so well in fact that I didn't even feel it. On the other hand my left foot started giving me grief from about the 8 km mark. At this stage I was cursing myself for running in the race thinking I had done myself another injury. As it turned out, it was just a nasty blister much to my relief.
A few of the guys with GPS watches reckon the course was slightly too long, about 300-400 metres or so, so take another two minutes off my time there - well that might be streching it. So now I know where I am at I can reassess my goal for the Melbourne half. I think a PB is not out of the question here. In fact I will disappointed with anything less.
Oh yeah, thought I would take the opportunity to show off my new toy, the Polar RS800SD. Here is a screenshot of my race today. My pace was fairly steady (blue line) until about 3km out where I started to struggle a bit. You can also see a steady progressive increase of my heart rate (red line) from about the half way point. Interesting you say, very interesting.
A few of the guys with GPS watches reckon the course was slightly too long, about 300-400 metres or so, so take another two minutes off my time there - well that might be streching it. So now I know where I am at I can reassess my goal for the Melbourne half. I think a PB is not out of the question here. In fact I will disappointed with anything less.
Oh yeah, thought I would take the opportunity to show off my new toy, the Polar RS800SD. Here is a screenshot of my race today. My pace was fairly steady (blue line) until about 3km out where I started to struggle a bit. You can also see a steady progressive increase of my heart rate (red line) from about the half way point. Interesting you say, very interesting.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Tomorrow is the day
Tomorrow almost exactly one year after my first one, at the heinously early time of 7:15am I will take off in what will be my second half marathon race. When I did my first one at this time last year I did not think it would be a year until I would do another one. Nevertheless I plan to make up for lost time this year as I want to do at least six including tomorrow over the next year. After that I think I will feel ready to take on the ultimate goal of the Marathon, which going to plan may well be Melbourne 2008. Although a part of me would really like to do a famous overseas marathon as my first (London, New York, Paris maybe?). The big question for me at the moment is how will the foot hold up. I have seriously considered pulling out of the race over the past week or so given the lack of great improvement in the injury. However, I am confident I will last the distance having run 15 km on it last weekend and then really testing it at pace over a 1 km time trial during the week. It will be more of a matter of how much pain will it give me and how will it effect my form and my time. I will let you know tomorrow.
I realised the other day that the hordes of people who are regularly reading this blog have probably noticed the lack of photos lately. It's funny it hasn't been a conscious thing it just has happened that I haven't picked up the camera since Easter! Anyway, I've promised myself to take some random photos before and after the race tomorrow. I actually intended to take some photos at the party we went to last night but it has been so long since I used the camera that all my rechargeable batteries had gone flat!
Got into an aggravated discussion with my bro on Thursday night of which the end result was him hanging up on me. He has an issue with how I can slag off the G20 protesters for using violence on one hand and on the other condone the violent attacks by Greenpeace on the Japanese whaling boats. Despite the fact that he is clearly a whale hater, to me the difference between these two acts is fundamental. The G20 protesters were a bunch of kids, who anyone standing on the sidelines of the protest could clearly see were just out to create trouble and violence for the sake of it. It wasn't even clear what they were protesting at - the fact that they were too cowardly to even show their face, hiding behind costumes etc says a lot in my mind. They trashed the inner city area of Melbourne, destroyed a police car and terrorised inner city residents, what was the protest about again? Read more here.
Okay this brings me to the whales. Japan is conducted 'scientific' research by systematically hunting and killing whales in the Southern Ocean. Even if you truly believe any of this is for scientific research, this is not really the point. Greenpeace was peacefully protesting the hunting of these whales, when the Japanese mothership, the Nissin Maru, deliberately rammed the Greenpeace ship. Read more here. The Japanese then claimed Greenpeace was at fault! Lets also remember that the Nissin Maru is six times larger than the Artic Sunrise, the Greenpeace vessel it rammed. Are there any similaraties between the G20 protests and the whale hunts in the Southern Ocean? Well yes, unprovoked violence was used by the G20 protestors, and unprovoked violence was used by the Japanese. Case closed.
I realised the other day that the hordes of people who are regularly reading this blog have probably noticed the lack of photos lately. It's funny it hasn't been a conscious thing it just has happened that I haven't picked up the camera since Easter! Anyway, I've promised myself to take some random photos before and after the race tomorrow. I actually intended to take some photos at the party we went to last night but it has been so long since I used the camera that all my rechargeable batteries had gone flat!
Got into an aggravated discussion with my bro on Thursday night of which the end result was him hanging up on me. He has an issue with how I can slag off the G20 protesters for using violence on one hand and on the other condone the violent attacks by Greenpeace on the Japanese whaling boats. Despite the fact that he is clearly a whale hater, to me the difference between these two acts is fundamental. The G20 protesters were a bunch of kids, who anyone standing on the sidelines of the protest could clearly see were just out to create trouble and violence for the sake of it. It wasn't even clear what they were protesting at - the fact that they were too cowardly to even show their face, hiding behind costumes etc says a lot in my mind. They trashed the inner city area of Melbourne, destroyed a police car and terrorised inner city residents, what was the protest about again? Read more here.
Okay this brings me to the whales. Japan is conducted 'scientific' research by systematically hunting and killing whales in the Southern Ocean. Even if you truly believe any of this is for scientific research, this is not really the point. Greenpeace was peacefully protesting the hunting of these whales, when the Japanese mothership, the Nissin Maru, deliberately rammed the Greenpeace ship. Read more here. The Japanese then claimed Greenpeace was at fault! Lets also remember that the Nissin Maru is six times larger than the Artic Sunrise, the Greenpeace vessel it rammed. Are there any similaraties between the G20 protests and the whale hunts in the Southern Ocean? Well yes, unprovoked violence was used by the G20 protestors, and unprovoked violence was used by the Japanese. Case closed.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Injured...again
Well a few things to talk about in this post as somehow two weeks have slipped by since I last posted. Firstly, although the heading of the posts says that I am injured, which I sort of still am, I am mostly recovered now. It was a strange right foot injury that occurred not during my Saturday long run on the 2nd but about four hours after. I was just walking around the kitchen at home and I felt a strange mild twang/pain in the heel of my right foot. It was then quite painful to walk on and there was no hope of me running on it. I of course was naturally thinking the worst and getting ready to 'scratch' myself from the run to the G on Sunday. To make things worse my Polar running computer arrived from overseas on the Tuesday and after waiting very patiently for it to arrive I couldn't even use it when it arrived. All this meant that I was angry and depressed for about three days last week but thankfully the injury has steadily improved and I went running with my new watch on Saturday and it is everything I hoped for - although I still need to refine the distance calibration a little as it measured about 4km on a 3.8km circuit and naturally was telling me that I'm running a little faster than I actually am - which wasn't all that bad for my ego :-). I can still feel the injury a little but I am sure that it will be 100% by the time Sunday comes around and I will be jumping out of my skin looking for that PB. So there it is, I have finally announced it. This will be my second half marathon, in my inaugural one in Wellington last year I scraped under my goal time of 1hr30 with a 1:29:48 having blown up slightly in the last couple of kms.
I will be extremely happy if I can beat that time this year, as I'm sure I was fitter, less injured and more motivated to run a time last year...here come the excuses, Wellington is a lightning fast course (in good weather which we had last year), whereas this course on Sunday is a bit more up and down with a few gentle rises and falls that I reckon make it at least a two minute slower course over the distance. However, my running computer has also predicted that I can run a sub 1hr30m based on my current fitness, so provided I give it my all, that PB is possible. Even if I don't get it, it will be useful for me to see where I am at. The real goal race this year is the Melbourne half marathon in October for which 1hr25min must be the target.
I will be extremely happy if I can beat that time this year, as I'm sure I was fitter, less injured and more motivated to run a time last year...here come the excuses, Wellington is a lightning fast course (in good weather which we had last year), whereas this course on Sunday is a bit more up and down with a few gentle rises and falls that I reckon make it at least a two minute slower course over the distance. However, my running computer has also predicted that I can run a sub 1hr30m based on my current fitness, so provided I give it my all, that PB is possible. Even if I don't get it, it will be useful for me to see where I am at. The real goal race this year is the Melbourne half marathon in October for which 1hr25min must be the target.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)