Has the tattoo become a symbol of acceptance in society?

Collingwood's Dane Swan with some of his tattoos
Photo: www.3aw.com.au

Walking down the street on any given day around Australia, you will see many people sporting a tattoo. The sizes and designs vary, but it seems that to be socially accepted you almost need to have one. Yes they are an individual’s choice. However in a society where instant gratification is becoming the norm, it appears perplexing that most people would choose to express themselves in such a permanent way.

Part of the reasoning behind this entry is that I have been in conversations with people in the recent past that have ridiculed my choice not to have a tattoo. But more importantly have laughed at my preference that my partner not have one (or if she does have one … not to get anymore). From my perspective, it appears that I cannot be critical of this cultural change but people with a tattoo can criticise my choice not to have one. This is slightly paradoxical given that people who choose to have a tattoo make such a choice.

There are certain races where the tattoo is a status symbol and has deep meaning and the Maori immediately come to mind. This type of cultural reasoning is logical, but in Australia a cultural change towards having tattoos has gradually been occurring over the last five to ten years. So why has this change been occurring?

Is it the influence of sport on our society? Just consider this, how many AFL or NRL players can you think of that do not have a tattoo. Or to take it further, let’s include Cricketers and Swimmers as well. (Admittedly I am looking at this from a predominantly Australian viewpoint, but we could include sports such as soccer as well). Not too many…I would have thought. Some of these tattoos celebrate an achievement or have some significance which is fair enough.

Such is the fascination about tattoos in Australian Society, an article by Jim Tucker on Australian Diver Melissa Wu in the Herald Sun on May 30, quotes the following: “Wu has her Olympic rings tattoo boldly at the top of her right thigh with a heart-shaped twist on the five interlocking rings.”

I understand Melissa’s choice to have the tattoo, but what relevance does this have to the article in question? None, the article is basically about the coming of age of an elite young sportsperson who has a better understanding of what is required to be competitive at the highest level in her chosen sport. The fact she has a tattoo on her right thigh should not matter.

Or is it simply a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality? If so, has our society been manipulated so much by the media or have we become so listless that we need to identify so greatly with our sport stars or do we have this overwhelming need to “fit” in. Most of my heroes are Sports Stars and I easily identify with their tenacity and determination, but I have enough nous to distinguish between sports and reality.

Personally, I think it is an element of both sport and the desire to fit into society. The “Dumbing” down of Australian Society by the media is a worrying trend that transcends over many aspects of Australian culture. So the message that certain elements in the media are espousing could be summarised as “If you want to be successful like our sports stars and be accepted within society you need to have a tattoo”. To be honest I am not sure that is the correct message to promote!!

How can we attract the best state league teams to participate in the Foxtel Cup?

http://www.neafl.com.au/

The idea of a competition enabling the best teams from the various state leagues to play each other is always appealing to the Rambling Couch Sitter. Especially given that the AFL has now become too professional and has been built around vested Victorian interests. Unfortunately, Australian Rules will never be able to adopt the Divisional model of the English FA simply because the potential travel distance is too great for a suburban club. Also the lack of population and money available in Australia make it difficult for a state league club to rise through the ranks to compete in the AFL.

The Foxtel Cup aimed to alleviate these issues by inviting the best clubs around Australia to play against each other in curtain raisers to AFL games, thereby granting much needed exposure for these clubs. The Cup is a 16 team knockout-based competition with three teams participating from each of the SANFL, VFL and WAFL, two teams from Tasmania and Queensland and one from NT, NSW and the ACT.

The competition itself is not without controversy as when the original invites went out the Top 5 SANFL clubs issued a joint statement on 15/12/2010 declining to participate “citing lack of prize money; sponsorship conflicts, salary cap implications, schedule concerns and removing the focus from their SANFL premiership ambitions”.

The response from these clubs is not entirely unexpected; even if it disappoints yours truly because I don’t get to see my beloved Norwood Redlegs play in this competition. It also devalues the Foxtel Cup because the winner of the Cup has not been able to compete against the best non-AFL clubs in Australia.

The main reason for the stance by the SANFL clubs is that the SANFL is generally considered the next best competition behind the AFL and the Thomas Seymour Hill Cup is very highly sought after by each club. Before the Adelaide Football Club entered the AFL, the total season attendance per capita for the SANFL was better than its VFL/AFL counterpart which adds some weight to this argument.

How do we ensure that the best teams from each league participate in the cup each year? It is a little tricky because the idea of exposing these clubs to a wider audience is very appealing. The answer may be to have weekends during the regular season that are dedicated to the Foxtel Cup, thereby allowing these matches to proceed with little disruption to the various state league competitions. There only needs to be three of these weekends in any given season.

In order to promote the Cup as the competition between the best club sides outside of the AFL, I would suggest that the grand final be played as a curtain raiser to the AFL Grand Final. This does mean that the SANFL will need to bring forward their season by two weeks as their Grand Final is normally played the week after the AFL Grand Final. This removes the obstacle of the SANFL clubs being more focussed on the T.S. Hill Cup. (By the way, this should rightfully be the focus of the SANFL Clubs!!)

Then there is the prize money aspect, I would suggest $100,000 for the winner, $50,000 for the runners-up and $25,000 for each of the losing semi-finalists. Add in the glory/incentive of playing in front of up 100,000 people, thereby providing much needed exposure for both finalists and there may be a chance to promote the game significantly at the grass roots level. But more importantly, the winner can justifiably say that they are currently the best non-AFL club in Australia.

Does the AFL influence Match Review Panel decisions to promote its agenda?

Source: www.adelaidenow.com.au

Once again an AFL tribunal decision has been based on what damage was done to the player and not the intent of the tackle. The incident I refer to is the Taylor Walker tackle on Harry Taylor during the Adelaide vs. Geelong game on the weekend.

Let’s consider this: both Harry Taylor and Taylor Walker are around the same size, so the strength needed to tackle the other is quite large. To put it another way Stephen Milne would have a problem trying to tackle either player given he is of smaller stature. When a player is instructed to tackle by his coaches, the instruction would be to stop the player disposing the ball legally and hence win the free kick for “holding the ball”. If the tackle is not hard enough the player is likely to be dragged to the bench for failing to obey instructions.

The intent is not to hurt the player but to win possession through obtaining a free kick.

Now the AFL will argue that this is a “sling” tackle. A sling tackle involves lifting the player off the ground and then throwing them to the ground (usually head first) in the tackle motion. This is often used in Rugby League and is quite dangerous. But the tackle from Walker on the weekend did not lift Harry Taylor far off the ground and both players fell to the ground in the tackle.

On the AFL website the determination of the number of matches was: “Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Geelong Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a level two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has a bad record of 93.75 demerit points, increasing the penalty to 318.75 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 239.06 points and a two-match sanction”.

The tackle itself from Taylor Walker was not high, but the contact of Harry Taylor’s head to the ground was. However that contact is covered by the medium impact charge. Thus at least two points can be removed from the charge. This reduces the penalty to 228.75 points and an early plea reduces the penalty by a further 25% to 171.56 points and a one-match suspension with 71.56 carry-over points.

In two other similar incidents on the weekend the AFL Match Review Panel (MRP) deemed the following.

“Contact between Richmond's Robin Nahas and the Sydney Swans' Nick Smith from the third quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Smith has his head down after picking up the ball when he is tackled by Nahas. Nahas applies a tackle, without making high contact, and takes Smith to ground with the forward momentum of the Sydney player. Smith's head makes contact with the ground but it was the view of the panel that Nahas did not use excessive force or drive his opponent into the ground. No further action was taken.”

“Contact between Essendon's Nathan Lovett-Murray and West Coast's Matthew Priddis from the first quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Priddis has collected the ball and is tackled by Lovett-Murray. Lovett-Murray takes Priddis to ground and it was the view of the panel the Essendon player did not sling or drive Priddis into the ground with excessive force with his tackle, and that the pair fell to the ground together. No further action was taken.”

In the Nahas case, given that Nahas is a small forward it is unlikely that he would have the strength to excessively drive someone to the ground. In the Lovett-Murray case the Essendon player did not sling the player, but both players fell to the ground in the act of tackling. So the force of the tackle was great enough to make both players fall to the ground… Just like Walker and Taylor !!

The assessment on each case is subjective in nature and consideration is given to the impact of the alleged infringement on the recipient player. But there is always going to be more damage if a larger stature player allegedly infringes on a smaller player based on power to weight ratio at time of impact.

I think there is an inconsistency between the Lovett-Murray case and the Walker case, so let’s look at it from another angle. Taylor Walker is currently leading the Coleman Medal and Adelaide play finals contenders Carlton and Collingwood in the next two weeks. Removing a goal scoring player from Adelaide’s team would provide more chance of winning to Carlton and Collingwood. The AFL needs both Carlton and Collingwood to play finals to maintain interest and a healthy profit base.

It is probable that both these teams would beat Adelaide, but the AFL wants to provide them with a greater chance and the MRP can manipulate the subjective assessments of the charge accordingly.

Similarly, both Nahas and Lovett-Murray would normally be in the starting line-ups for their teams. Richmond and Essendon play in the Dreamtime clash which the AFL uses as one of its showpiece games each year and would want both sides to have the best possible line-ups available for the clash. Therefore, in applying the subjective measures that apply to video reviews the MRP could easily manipulate their findings to satisfy the agenda of the AFL.

Sound a bit of a stretch … Well the precedent was set when Barry Hall was allowed to play in a Grand Final after blatantly punching another player in the stomach during a Preliminary Final. Hall should have received a one match penalty (at least) for the offence, but because a Grand Final might be missed and there was some public outcry, the AFL decided not to penalise Hall.

In reality the Walker case is not worth a three match penalty, in fact at a stretch a one match penalty is probably more appropriate, but there was no intent to harm Taylor so I would debate that any penalty above a free kick is overkill. The tribunal should be deciding penalties on intent rather than “damage” to the other player. Furthermore, the MRP should be independent of the AFL and not subject to being manipulated by the AFL to achieve its agenda.

Have Labor and more importantly Treasurer Wayne Swan lost the plot?

The title is probably a little harsh, but my mate Wayne Swan is not really inspiring any confidence in me and to be honest I’m not sure the other mob are any better. Mind you the idea of Malcolm Turnbull as Treasurer (should the Coalition get power) is somewhat appealing as at least he knows how to run a business.

The issue for the Labor Party is that is has: One, used the wrong tools to massage the economy; Two, lied to the Australian public about introducing a Carbon Tax, Three, gone to extreme lengths to control the House of Representatives and lost the trust of the Australian Public as a result.

However with the release of the 2012-13 Budget, I thought I would address point one above as my knowledge extends to this domain and others can deal with the political impacts. Economics is based on the distribution of Supply and Demand and without going into excessive detail on economic theory, there are different schools of thought that exist. (Similar to religion if one was to draw a parallel, i.e. every religion believes there is a higher authority/entity but the difference lies in the detail.)

In a nutshell, Wayne Swan comes across as a Keynesian Economist, although like all politicians is influenced by the electorate. Wikipedia basically describes Keynesian Economists as:

“Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector.”

Keynesian economic theory leans towards running budget deficits when the economy is in recession or a downturn and running budget surpluses in times of prosperity. There is another factor of interest on Government Debt which I have not addressed here, but is important in the current economic climate.

Factors providing growth to the economy are Consumption, Government Spending, Investment and Exports (through providing income) and Factors limiting growth are Taxes, Savings and Imports. Generally the multiplier effect of a $1 spent on consumption is not as effective as $1 spent on investment or Government Spending (if the spending is on infrastructure).

This is where I believe that the current government misread the electorate/Australian economy. When the original $900 was given to taxpayers under Kevin Rudd’s government (Swan was Treasurer) the expectation was that the Australian public would spend all of it and kickstart the economy through consumption. However most people either saved this money or paid off credit card debt both of which have negative impacts on economic growth according to Keynesian theory.

This money would have been better spent on infrastructure projects that were needed for the economy and may have resulted in job creation, or kept some companies in business etc, etc.

Similarly taxing the mining companies a greater amount causes problems, as then they charge more for their product which reduces profit margins for supplier industries, who in turn charge more for their products to cover costs, etc. A carbon tax has the same result, although I think the idea of a carbon tax is valid, we need to look at timing of implementation so that the economy does not suffer as a whole.

Changes to the health insurance rebate system may result in more people on the public health system. This may cause waiting lists to grow, which in turn causes problems. The better way would be for the government to encourage people to move into the Private Health system so as to place less strain on the health system.

Lastly, giving money to parents to spend on education needs for their children is targeted incorrectly as the money should be spent on improving education delivery. This will have a much longer impact on education standards and more importantly the nation’s children are better educated.

This last measure appears to be more of a political exercise rather than an economic one. This practice is not new to Australian politics and both major parties have played this game. The more courageous move to make would be to do what is correct for the economy and the nation which may earn the respect of the people !!

So Wayne Swan has really misread (and mislead) the public with the way the 2012-13 Budget is constructed and failed the leadership test when it comes to decision making. But the other side are also yet to prove that they are a better alternative!!