In episode 3, season 2 of Netflix’ Daredevil series, Matt Murdock (Daredevil) argues with Frank Castle (The Punisher) that no one has the right to judge someone to death.
Yet, I could not help thinking that of all people Frank Castle actually does have the right. Here’s why:
– The Punisher is a former Marine, having been thrown into war and ordered to kill people based on his judgment. He had both the responsibility and duty to do so.
– Frank’s superior officers technically guided his killing decisions, but why should they have had that power? Perhaps they represented the legal system, but Matt could not claim they represented God or a higher power. In a war, who can claim a “legal” justification to what is right?
– In a United Sates-based system, Frank had previously been given the authority to judge and execute. When it comes to New York City and Hell’s Kitchen, he should have the same authority because he is still enforcing a US-based mindset in US territory. He may not know what is right in Afghanistan, but the military values should be relevant in NYC.
Why does The Punisher have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner? Because he did have that right. Similarly, among Marvel superheroes, Captain America should have that right too.
Now, whether this has parallels to real life, I do not want to think about that too much, but at least in the Marvel Universe, Frank Castle has a case.
Here in my last quarter at Kellogg, I am taking Personal Leadership Insights (MORS-935) with Paul Corona. It is a half-unit course in which a small group of students (we have 9 in our group) explore their work histories together, and how they want to improve in the future. Throughout the journey is an inward look of the people we believe we are and want to be, and feedback from others based on this. Early in the process, each student reads and takes the StrengthsFinder test, which helps identify both your talents but also the things you care about. The reasoning is that these are the things that you can maximize – in basketball I can shoot as many baskets (passion) as I want for hours per day, but I will never be that good (lack of talent) in it. But the things below, ranked from highest potential, are things I can really be special at, with high levels of passion and talent. The five things below show up most strongly among the 30+ possible attributes. Thus, I am a:
People who are especially talented in the Relator theme enjoy close relationships with others. They
find deep satisfaction in working hard with friends to achieve a goal.
People who are especially talented in the Restorative theme are adept at dealing with problems. They
are good at figuring out what is wrong and resolving it.
People who are especially talented in the Intellection theme are characterized by their intellectual
activity. They are introspective and appreciate intellectual discussions.
People who are especially talented in the Developer theme recognize and cultivate the potential in
others. They spot the signs of each small improvement and derive satisfaction from these
People who are especially talented in the Analytical theme search for reasons and causes. They have
the ability to think about all the factors that might affect a situation.
the most dangerous corner was the inswinger to the near post. The beauty of the inswinger was that it sent the ball straight into the danger zone.
In short, the more you pay your players in wages, the higher you will finish, but what you pay for them in transfer fees doesn’t seem to make much difference. While the market for players’ wages is pretty efficient—the better a player, the more he earns—the transfer market is inefficient. Much of the time, clubs buy the wrong players.
A new manager wastes money on transfers; don’t let him. Use the wisdom of crowds. Stars of recent World Cups or European championships are overvalued; ignore them. Certain nationalities are overvalued.
Older players are overvalued. Center forwards are overvalued; goalkeepers are undervalued. Gentlemen prefer blonds: identify and abandon “sight-based prejudices.” The best time to buy a player is when he is in his early twenties. Sell any player when another club offers more than he is worth. Replace your best players even before you sell them. Buy players with personal problems, and then help them deal with their problems. Help your players relocate.
It was Rupert Murdoch who went to English clubs and suggested putting them on satellite TV; the clubs would never have thought of going to him. In fact, the clubs often fought against new moneymaking schemes. Until 1982 they refused to allow any league games to be shown live on TV, fearing that it might deter fans from coming to the stadium. They couldn’t grasp that games on television meant both free money and free advertising. There is now a good deal of research into the question of how many fans are lost when a game is shown on TV. Almost all the evidence shows that the number is tiny, and that the gate revenue that would be lost is usually well below the amount that would be made from selling extra matches for television coverage
Let’s compare the breakeven rule to the salary cap, widely used in American major-league sports. A salary cap generally restricts teams’ spending on players to a fixed percentage of average club income (55 percent, say). UEFA’s breakeven rule restricts player spending to the level of club income defined as “relevant.” The key difference is that the US cap is the same for all clubs, whereas breakeven caps each club at the level of its own resources—a lot for the larger clubs, not so much for the smaller clubs. So while the American salary cap encourages competitive balance between clubs (it stops the Dallas Cowboys from spending infinitely more than the Jacksonville Jaguars), UEFA’s breakeven rule cements inequality by making it harder for smaller clubs to compete with the aristocrats. This hardly seems fair, unless by “fair” you mean the idea that big clubs should be protected from competition from upstarts.
“Two thirds of goals come from possessions won in the final third of the field,” he lectured. The great sin, to him, was losing the ball near your own goal.
“Soccer” was the most common name for the game in Britain from the 1890s until the 1970s. … Soccer conquered the world so fast largely because the British gentleman was such an attractive ideal.
Daniele Tognaccini, longtime chief athletics coach at AC Milan’s “Milan Lab,” probably the most sophisticated medical outfit in soccer, explains what happens when a player has to play sixty tough games a year: “The performance is not optimal. The risk of injury is very high. We can say the risk of injury during one game, after one week’s training, is 10 percent. If you play after two days, the risk rises by 30 or 40 percent. If you are playing four or five games consecutively without the right recovery, the risk of injury is incredible.
Kevin Alavy, the managing director of the Futures Sport + Entertainment consultancy whom we met earlier in the book, says that often the Premier League enters a new territory by offering itself on free-to-air TV. That’s what it did in eastern Europe, across the former Soviet Union, and more recently in Indonesia. Until a few years ago, hardly any of the 247 million Indonesians knew soccer. But given the chance to watch top-class English games on TV for free, many began watching. In recent years, says Alavy, “typically Indonesia has been the number one market by TV audiences for the Premier League.” Once Indonesians were hooked, the Premier League gave them a new TV rights deal that offered them far less free soccer.