Subliminal scholarship, schoolboy-style - Danny Katz - Opinion - theage.com.au
I have mentioned before how I think Danny Katz is a great humourist. If only he could write something decent for Australian TV comedy. (Who knows, maybe he does?)
Anyway, his column above made me laugh.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
More detail, Ken
Nuclear electricity is just more expensive - Opinion - theage.com.au
Kenneth Davidson in The Age, talking about nuclear power, makes this surprising comment:
Lovelock's Gaia theory, which treats the Earth as a kind of living organism, is as revolutionary as the Renaissance was 500 years ago when man displaced God at the centre of the world. It means that the survival of the Earth as a self-regulating ecosystem must take precedence over individual rights.
All hail Mother Gaia!
I think Ken should specify which "individual rights" he has in mind here.
Kenneth Davidson in The Age, talking about nuclear power, makes this surprising comment:
Lovelock's Gaia theory, which treats the Earth as a kind of living organism, is as revolutionary as the Renaissance was 500 years ago when man displaced God at the centre of the world. It means that the survival of the Earth as a self-regulating ecosystem must take precedence over individual rights.
All hail Mother Gaia!
I think Ken should specify which "individual rights" he has in mind here.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Bugs in Japan
Japundit � Duck Season . . . Rabbit Season . . . BUG SEASON!
See the link above for a short discourse on the rather odd Japanese kids obsession with Rhino Beetles. I contributed comment number 8, by the way.
See the link above for a short discourse on the rather odd Japanese kids obsession with Rhino Beetles. I contributed comment number 8, by the way.
The open letter
Janet Albrechtsen in today's Australian rips into John Howard for backing down on the sale of the Snowy River scheme. Personally, I don't see it as an issue worth getting too worked up about either way.
Still, her column does have this paragraph which I can agree with:
But perhaps most irritating is the fact that Howard's backflip only encourages our collective letter writers to keep on writing. The apparent victory by the 57 assorted luvvies, political has-beens and political never-beens will make them think their sentimental jottings have policy substance. These letters are blots on the political landscape that invariably feature artistes trying to prove they can do more than memorise scripts by signing up to something drafted by retirees suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.
One hopes that their saccharine superficiality has been carried prominently by newspapers such as The Australian as a cute reminder that collectivists are now reduced to the pathetic business of writing collective letters. But after Howard's surrender last week, they received a fillip.
Yes, this "open letter" tactic has irritated for a long time. Firstly, how many people actually read them (or, more importantly, people who have not yet made up their mind about an issue.) Do they think that people care what actors and former diplomats and such like think about economic and other issues? I guess some people might if the actor has some particularly high public profile for, I don't know, niceness and the common touch. But once they are highly successful, people surely just see them as rich and idle enough to dabble in politics. And even if one of them could influence the public, joining in the collective letter dilutes their own input.
No, it always seems to be mostly about posturing from a political side that everyone already knows is nearly ubiquitous in the arts world. (And in the world of retired diplomats, too.)
Still, her column does have this paragraph which I can agree with:
But perhaps most irritating is the fact that Howard's backflip only encourages our collective letter writers to keep on writing. The apparent victory by the 57 assorted luvvies, political has-beens and political never-beens will make them think their sentimental jottings have policy substance. These letters are blots on the political landscape that invariably feature artistes trying to prove they can do more than memorise scripts by signing up to something drafted by retirees suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.
One hopes that their saccharine superficiality has been carried prominently by newspapers such as The Australian as a cute reminder that collectivists are now reduced to the pathetic business of writing collective letters. But after Howard's surrender last week, they received a fillip.
Yes, this "open letter" tactic has irritated for a long time. Firstly, how many people actually read them (or, more importantly, people who have not yet made up their mind about an issue.) Do they think that people care what actors and former diplomats and such like think about economic and other issues? I guess some people might if the actor has some particularly high public profile for, I don't know, niceness and the common touch. But once they are highly successful, people surely just see them as rich and idle enough to dabble in politics. And even if one of them could influence the public, joining in the collective letter dilutes their own input.
No, it always seems to be mostly about posturing from a political side that everyone already knows is nearly ubiquitous in the arts world. (And in the world of retired diplomats, too.)
Sad story
The Age has been following the very sad story about a Victorian hospital causing severe brain damage in a baby through a simple mistake. The reports are here and here.
The one month baby was taken to hospital with persistent vomiting. Then:
...two days later he was diagnosed with pyloric stenosis — a condition that blocks the flow of food into the small intestine — and was booked in for surgery.
About 1am on September 19, consultant surgeon Paddy Dewan assessed the baby, conducted a tutorial on the condition for Dr Foo and recommended intravenous fluids to treat dehydration. At this point the boy's treatment went tragically wrong. Instead of a solution containing 5 per cent glucose, he was given a concentration of 50 per cent glucose, which led to his severe brain damage.
Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo, who had responsibility for prescribing and recording the fluids, maintains the solution was specified by Professor Dewan but another doctor present at the time rejects the claim.
Nurses caring for the baby raised concerns about the solution, which was described as unusual, but were reassured by Dr Foo that it was correct. Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo might not have understood their concerns.
In todays paper, it is reported that Professor Dewar:
...said he ordered a solution of 5 per cent dextrose, or glucose, which was to be made up using the hospital's supply of a 50 per cent concentrate.
An alleged transcription error by resident doctor Lea Lee Foo meant the baby was given a 50 per cent solution, causing massive brain damage. Dr Shobha Iyer and Dr David Tickell allegedly failed to check the fluids or adequately examine the baby later in the day.
Professor Dewan said it was unbelievable that the error was not picked up by any of the staff, and a culture where junior staff were not encouraged to question orders was partly to blame.
A few things to note here: the nursing staff questioned the solution, which I am guessing must be very unusual for a baby. (Your comments reader Geoff?) The parents tried to warn the doctors that the baby was getting worse, but the other doctors missed the problem with the solution too.
All very sad. For me, the lesson seems to be to question hospital staff a lot, to the point of being a real pest, if things seem to be going badly.
The one month baby was taken to hospital with persistent vomiting. Then:
...two days later he was diagnosed with pyloric stenosis — a condition that blocks the flow of food into the small intestine — and was booked in for surgery.
About 1am on September 19, consultant surgeon Paddy Dewan assessed the baby, conducted a tutorial on the condition for Dr Foo and recommended intravenous fluids to treat dehydration. At this point the boy's treatment went tragically wrong. Instead of a solution containing 5 per cent glucose, he was given a concentration of 50 per cent glucose, which led to his severe brain damage.
Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo, who had responsibility for prescribing and recording the fluids, maintains the solution was specified by Professor Dewan but another doctor present at the time rejects the claim.
Nurses caring for the baby raised concerns about the solution, which was described as unusual, but were reassured by Dr Foo that it was correct. Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo might not have understood their concerns.
In todays paper, it is reported that Professor Dewar:
...said he ordered a solution of 5 per cent dextrose, or glucose, which was to be made up using the hospital's supply of a 50 per cent concentrate.
An alleged transcription error by resident doctor Lea Lee Foo meant the baby was given a 50 per cent solution, causing massive brain damage. Dr Shobha Iyer and Dr David Tickell allegedly failed to check the fluids or adequately examine the baby later in the day.
Professor Dewan said it was unbelievable that the error was not picked up by any of the staff, and a culture where junior staff were not encouraged to question orders was partly to blame.
A few things to note here: the nursing staff questioned the solution, which I am guessing must be very unusual for a baby. (Your comments reader Geoff?) The parents tried to warn the doctors that the baby was getting worse, but the other doctors missed the problem with the solution too.
All very sad. For me, the lesson seems to be to question hospital staff a lot, to the point of being a real pest, if things seem to be going badly.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
A whole new world of stupidity
New Scientist News - Abuse of prescription drugs fuelled by online recipes
It seems that abuse of prescription drugs is a big issue in the States (and no doubt it happens here too.) The internet allows users to quickly pass on information on how to abuse the drugs:
For instance, some sites suggest ways of tampering with skin patches designed to slowly release the opioid painkiller fentanyl. Users sometimes extract the drug from a patch to eat, inject or smoke. Yet a single patch can contain enough fentanyl to kill several people, according to toxicologist Bruce Goldberger from the University of Florida in Gainesville. "It's like Russian roulette - you just don't know how much drug you're going to get," he says....
Surveys by the US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) suggest the number of emergency hospital visits involving oxycodone misuse increased about 10-fold between 1996 and 2004. Estimates suggest that in 2004 there were more than 36,000 admissions involving misuse of the drug, now nicknamed "hillbilly heroin".
Drug companies have to go out of their way to make the medicine harder to abuse:
The good news is that some barriers to tampering seem to be genuinely effective. Disgruntled recreational users report online that one methylphenidate drug called Concerta, a stimulant used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is very difficult to crush and snort. One user's verdict reads: "No effects to very minimal with an irritated nose full of chunks."
While we are talking about abuse of things intended for other puproses, here's my semi-obscure piece of drug lore (found in some time ago in a Fortean Times article). If you eat enough nutmeg, you'll trip out.
Actually, this site claims its effects were relatively well known, with its users including Charlie Parker and Malcolm X (!)
This interested me particularly, as I recalled an old Carl Barks Uncle Scrooge comic that I read as a child about Uncle Scrooge's addiction to nutmeg tea. (It didn't make him trip out, though.) I remembered asking my father if he knew about nutmeg tea; he just laughed.
You can see some extracts of this comic here and here.
I presume that the hallucinogenic effects were unknown to Carl Barks. Why he would chose nutmeg tea is something of a mystery, though. (I am sure I read someone on the internet who suggested that maybe it meant that all of Uncle Scrooge's riches were just a hallucination caused by his drug habit.)
Of course, it goes without saying that I am against all forms of drug induced mood alteration, except for alcohol in moderation. My readership is so small that I think I can safely assume I am not spreading harmful ideas too widely.
It seems that abuse of prescription drugs is a big issue in the States (and no doubt it happens here too.) The internet allows users to quickly pass on information on how to abuse the drugs:
For instance, some sites suggest ways of tampering with skin patches designed to slowly release the opioid painkiller fentanyl. Users sometimes extract the drug from a patch to eat, inject or smoke. Yet a single patch can contain enough fentanyl to kill several people, according to toxicologist Bruce Goldberger from the University of Florida in Gainesville. "It's like Russian roulette - you just don't know how much drug you're going to get," he says....
Surveys by the US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) suggest the number of emergency hospital visits involving oxycodone misuse increased about 10-fold between 1996 and 2004. Estimates suggest that in 2004 there were more than 36,000 admissions involving misuse of the drug, now nicknamed "hillbilly heroin".
Drug companies have to go out of their way to make the medicine harder to abuse:
The good news is that some barriers to tampering seem to be genuinely effective. Disgruntled recreational users report online that one methylphenidate drug called Concerta, a stimulant used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is very difficult to crush and snort. One user's verdict reads: "No effects to very minimal with an irritated nose full of chunks."
While we are talking about abuse of things intended for other puproses, here's my semi-obscure piece of drug lore (found in some time ago in a Fortean Times article). If you eat enough nutmeg, you'll trip out.
Actually, this site claims its effects were relatively well known, with its users including Charlie Parker and Malcolm X (!)
This interested me particularly, as I recalled an old Carl Barks Uncle Scrooge comic that I read as a child about Uncle Scrooge's addiction to nutmeg tea. (It didn't make him trip out, though.) I remembered asking my father if he knew about nutmeg tea; he just laughed.
You can see some extracts of this comic here and here.
I presume that the hallucinogenic effects were unknown to Carl Barks. Why he would chose nutmeg tea is something of a mystery, though. (I am sure I read someone on the internet who suggested that maybe it meant that all of Uncle Scrooge's riches were just a hallucination caused by his drug habit.)
Of course, it goes without saying that I am against all forms of drug induced mood alteration, except for alcohol in moderation. My readership is so small that I think I can safely assume I am not spreading harmful ideas too widely.
A reminder of the Saddam regime
Graves reveal clues to Saddam brutality - World - theage.com.au
From the above article:
"There are 200 sites registered with the Ministry of Human Rights. Witnesses led us to these sites," said chief investigating judge Raed al-Juhi of the Iraqi High Tribunal.
"These witnesses stated that some vehicles had taken people on the highway to somewhere and brought back no one. Our formal documents refer to over 100,000 victims (from 1991)," Judge Juhi said. "The unofficial information we have, that is not documented until now, refers to more than 180,000 victims."
From the above article:
"There are 200 sites registered with the Ministry of Human Rights. Witnesses led us to these sites," said chief investigating judge Raed al-Juhi of the Iraqi High Tribunal.
"These witnesses stated that some vehicles had taken people on the highway to somewhere and brought back no one. Our formal documents refer to over 100,000 victims (from 1991)," Judge Juhi said. "The unofficial information we have, that is not documented until now, refers to more than 180,000 victims."
On the nature of Islam
Good old Archbishop George Pell. The Sydney Morning Herald today calls him "the country's most influential catholic", which is surely a bit of an overstatement. He is far too much of a straight talking conservative for that. I also suspect that a small majority of Catholics here (and in most western countries) are of the soft left variety now.
Anyway, he is quoted in the SMH today as saying:
Australia had not been much changed by the rising Islamic threat after September 11, 2001, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, said. But this could change depending "on how many terrorist attacks" Islamic extremists could "bring off successfully". "The million-dollar question" was whether intolerance was a modern distortion of Islam or arose out of internal logic. "It's difficult to find periods of tolerance in Islam. I'm not saying they're not there, but a good deal of what is asserted is mythical."
He obviously is not in the Karen Armstrong camp. She gave an interview in Salon recently and had this to say about the Koran and violence:
[Interviewer]: Sam Harris, in his book "The End of Faith," has seven very densely packed pages of nothing but quotations from the Quran with just this message. "God's curse be upon the infidels"; "slay them wherever you find them"; "fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." And Sam Harris' point is that the Muslim suicide bombings are not the aberration of Islam. They are the message of Islam.
[Armstrong]: Well, that's simply not true. He's taken parts of those texts and omitted their conclusions, which say fighting is hateful for you. You have to do it if you're attacked, as Mohammed was being attacked at the time when that verse was revealed. But forgiveness is better for you. Peace is better. But when we're living in a violent society, our religion becomes violent, too. Religion gets sucked in and becomes part of the problem. But to isolate these texts as though they expressed the whole of the tradition is very mischievous and dangerous at this time when we are in danger of polarizing people on both sides. And this kind of inflammatory talk, say about Islam, is convincing Muslims all over the world who are not extremists that the West is incurably Islamophobic and will never respect their traditions. I think it's irresponsible at this time.
[Interviewer]: But many people would say you can't just pick out the peaceful and loving passages of the sacred scriptures. There are plenty of other passages that are frightening.
[Armstrong]: I would say there are more passages in the Bible than the Quran that are dedicated to violence. I think what all religious people ought to do is to look at their own sacred traditions. Not just point a finger at somebody else's, but our own. Christians should look long and hard at the Book of Revelation. And they should look at those passages in the Pentateuch that speak of the destruction of the enemy.
I think Armstrong is being rather disingenuous here though; it seems she is pretending for a moment that the New Testament, which after all is the modern basis of Christianity, doesn't represent a dramatic change in the view of violence from that contained in parts of the Old Testament. (The Book of Revelation is in its own weird category of its own, and there was considerable disagreement centuries ago over whether it should be included in the Bible at all. Anyway, it's not as if Catholicism in my lifetime has ever paid it much attention. I suppose American fundamentalism pays it more attention, and this form of Christianity is what seems to annoy Armstrong the most.)
As for the correct reading of the Koran, here I am somewhat at a loss to have an independent opinion. The practical problem is, from my cursory look at the book, it seems unreadable as narrative. (I have the same reaction to the Book of Mormon. It seems to come with the territory when the book is claimed to be a direct and unalterable dictation from God. He needs an editor badly.) The Wikipedia entry on the Koran goes some way to explaining why it is so unreadable.
So what does a conservative like me do? Side with the conservative Archbishop, of course! Put it this way: I suspect he may be closer to the truth and that Armstrong, in her project to rehabilitate all religions into one (read the rest of her interview), probably sides with the softer interpretions of Islamic history because it suits her ideas better.
Anyway, he is quoted in the SMH today as saying:
Australia had not been much changed by the rising Islamic threat after September 11, 2001, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, said. But this could change depending "on how many terrorist attacks" Islamic extremists could "bring off successfully". "The million-dollar question" was whether intolerance was a modern distortion of Islam or arose out of internal logic. "It's difficult to find periods of tolerance in Islam. I'm not saying they're not there, but a good deal of what is asserted is mythical."
He obviously is not in the Karen Armstrong camp. She gave an interview in Salon recently and had this to say about the Koran and violence:
[Interviewer]: Sam Harris, in his book "The End of Faith," has seven very densely packed pages of nothing but quotations from the Quran with just this message. "God's curse be upon the infidels"; "slay them wherever you find them"; "fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." And Sam Harris' point is that the Muslim suicide bombings are not the aberration of Islam. They are the message of Islam.
[Armstrong]: Well, that's simply not true. He's taken parts of those texts and omitted their conclusions, which say fighting is hateful for you. You have to do it if you're attacked, as Mohammed was being attacked at the time when that verse was revealed. But forgiveness is better for you. Peace is better. But when we're living in a violent society, our religion becomes violent, too. Religion gets sucked in and becomes part of the problem. But to isolate these texts as though they expressed the whole of the tradition is very mischievous and dangerous at this time when we are in danger of polarizing people on both sides. And this kind of inflammatory talk, say about Islam, is convincing Muslims all over the world who are not extremists that the West is incurably Islamophobic and will never respect their traditions. I think it's irresponsible at this time.
[Interviewer]: But many people would say you can't just pick out the peaceful and loving passages of the sacred scriptures. There are plenty of other passages that are frightening.
[Armstrong]: I would say there are more passages in the Bible than the Quran that are dedicated to violence. I think what all religious people ought to do is to look at their own sacred traditions. Not just point a finger at somebody else's, but our own. Christians should look long and hard at the Book of Revelation. And they should look at those passages in the Pentateuch that speak of the destruction of the enemy.
I think Armstrong is being rather disingenuous here though; it seems she is pretending for a moment that the New Testament, which after all is the modern basis of Christianity, doesn't represent a dramatic change in the view of violence from that contained in parts of the Old Testament. (The Book of Revelation is in its own weird category of its own, and there was considerable disagreement centuries ago over whether it should be included in the Bible at all. Anyway, it's not as if Catholicism in my lifetime has ever paid it much attention. I suppose American fundamentalism pays it more attention, and this form of Christianity is what seems to annoy Armstrong the most.)
As for the correct reading of the Koran, here I am somewhat at a loss to have an independent opinion. The practical problem is, from my cursory look at the book, it seems unreadable as narrative. (I have the same reaction to the Book of Mormon. It seems to come with the territory when the book is claimed to be a direct and unalterable dictation from God. He needs an editor badly.) The Wikipedia entry on the Koran goes some way to explaining why it is so unreadable.
So what does a conservative like me do? Side with the conservative Archbishop, of course! Put it this way: I suspect he may be closer to the truth and that Armstrong, in her project to rehabilitate all religions into one (read the rest of her interview), probably sides with the softer interpretions of Islamic history because it suits her ideas better.
Monday, June 05, 2006
More on safer nuclear
Nuclear power | The shape of things to come | Economist.com
The article is a short but interesting summary of safer nuclear reactor designs in the works. (The Pebble Bed design I have blogged about before also gets a brief mention.)
The article is a short but interesting summary of safer nuclear reactor designs in the works. (The Pebble Bed design I have blogged about before also gets a brief mention.)
How low can you go?
Scotland on Sunday - Family entertainment?
I have not commented on this year's Big Brother. However, the brainiacs at Larvatus Prodeo obviously devote some time to following it. (This is one program about which being a cultural snob is well deserved!)
From what I gather, this year's Australian version is perhaps not quite as grubby as last year's. (I could be wrong.) But if you want to see how low this type of show can go, have a look at the above report on the current UK version:
With debate raging about how low television standards can go, most vitriol at present is focused on Channel 4's Big Brother, a competitive popularity contest which bizarrely forces extreme personalities to fight for a £70,000 prize by being themselves.
After on-screen sex last year, series seven has plumbed new depths with its selection of candidates including a Scottish homosexual with suicidal tendencies, a teenage boy who wants to be a girl and a Tourette Syndrome sufferer. Even hardened media watchers are astonished.
Brian McNair, professor of communication at the University of Strathclyde, said: "You really have to question what that show is doing this year. The contestants are getting younger and younger and at least one of them showed signs of having mental health issues."
I wait for similar developments here next year. (I assume it will be back. I remain perplexed at the MSM coverage this show gets.)
I have not commented on this year's Big Brother. However, the brainiacs at Larvatus Prodeo obviously devote some time to following it. (This is one program about which being a cultural snob is well deserved!)
From what I gather, this year's Australian version is perhaps not quite as grubby as last year's. (I could be wrong.) But if you want to see how low this type of show can go, have a look at the above report on the current UK version:
With debate raging about how low television standards can go, most vitriol at present is focused on Channel 4's Big Brother, a competitive popularity contest which bizarrely forces extreme personalities to fight for a £70,000 prize by being themselves.
After on-screen sex last year, series seven has plumbed new depths with its selection of candidates including a Scottish homosexual with suicidal tendencies, a teenage boy who wants to be a girl and a Tourette Syndrome sufferer. Even hardened media watchers are astonished.
Brian McNair, professor of communication at the University of Strathclyde, said: "You really have to question what that show is doing this year. The contestants are getting younger and younger and at least one of them showed signs of having mental health issues."
I wait for similar developments here next year. (I assume it will be back. I remain perplexed at the MSM coverage this show gets.)
Anti spam help
Jetable.org - Home
This sounds like a very good idea:
To avoid spam, jetable.org provides you with a temporary email address. As soon as it is created, all the emails sent to this address are forwarded to your actual email address.
Your antispam address will be deactivated after the lifespan you selected comes to its end.
Found via Red Ferret Journal, which I must add to my links one day.
This sounds like a very good idea:
To avoid spam, jetable.org provides you with a temporary email address. As soon as it is created, all the emails sent to this address are forwarded to your actual email address.
Your antispam address will be deactivated after the lifespan you selected comes to its end.
Found via Red Ferret Journal, which I must add to my links one day.
Pat O'Shane's turn
Again, the law shoots and misses - Opinion - smh.com.au
Paul Sheehan's article is worth reading. Controversial New South Wales magistrate Pat O'Shane is its main subject.
Another case of a legal figure getting a mysteriously charmed run in that State.
Paul Sheehan's article is worth reading. Controversial New South Wales magistrate Pat O'Shane is its main subject.
Another case of a legal figure getting a mysteriously charmed run in that State.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Caz rips into romanticised heroin
A very interesting post over at Avatar Briefs about the arts' infatuation with heroin addiction.
The extracts from Dalrymple are also fascinating.
By the way, what has happened to Major Anya? Has her blog permanently disappeared?
The extracts from Dalrymple are also fascinating.
By the way, what has happened to Major Anya? Has her blog permanently disappeared?
Fennel with parmesan
Maybe most of the sophisticated epicurean world knows about roast fennel and parmesan, but I only cooked this dish for the first time this weekend. Fennel is a vegetable that (I think it is fair to say) had little attention paid to it in Australia until the 1990's. I have used it in other recipes, but never got around to cooking it alone as a side vegetable.
Anyway, the recipe I followed was dead easy: vertically slice up a big bulb into about 8 thin pieces, fry them for a few minutes in 2 tablespoons each of butter and olive oil (with salt and pepper), shove in oven to bake for 25 minutes, sprinkle about 1/2 cup of grated parmesan on top and put back in oven for 5 minutes to melt the cheese. Very pleasing. Even Mrs Opinion Dominon likes it despite her claim to not be a fan of aniseed flavour generally.
Anyway, the recipe I followed was dead easy: vertically slice up a big bulb into about 8 thin pieces, fry them for a few minutes in 2 tablespoons each of butter and olive oil (with salt and pepper), shove in oven to bake for 25 minutes, sprinkle about 1/2 cup of grated parmesan on top and put back in oven for 5 minutes to melt the cheese. Very pleasing. Even Mrs Opinion Dominon likes it despite her claim to not be a fan of aniseed flavour generally.
On religion in Europe
I found this article in last Friday's Australian (about how religion and politics in Europe have changed in the last couple of centuries) to be interesting, but overly brief. (Actually, it reads as a heavily edited down version of a longer article or talk.) Here's a sample:
Rather than Europe becoming more secular in the past 200 years, I suspect the religious instinct has simply metabolised into other forms. This was most obvious in the case of the political religions. These began with the radical Jacobins during the French Revolution, who made the first attempt to create a "new man" so as to realise heaven on earth through violence. The result was hell for many people, with a quarter of a million people murdered simply for adhering to their traditional Christian beliefs.
The metabolisation of the religious instinct was also evident in the two big creeds of the 19th century. Classical nation states used schools, patriotic myths, anthems, flags and monuments to achieve the goal of turning peasants with localised loyalties into Frenchmen, Germans or Italians....
Marxist socialism was another totalising creed. The 1848 Communist Manifesto was called a "catechism" until Engels renamed it. Mankind's expulsion from the garden of Eden was the Christian original for Marxist notions of man's alienation from his perfect self. There was no chosen people, but instead a saviour class called the proletariat. Instead of an apocalypse, there would be a cleansing revolution, the prelude to the restoration of a lost communist paradise. Then man would be reborn in harmony with his original true self.
On Saturday I heard the author, Michael Burleigh, being interviewed on the ABC, and he elaborated on these ideas a little more. His book on the topic could be good; if only I had time to read anything lately.
Rather than Europe becoming more secular in the past 200 years, I suspect the religious instinct has simply metabolised into other forms. This was most obvious in the case of the political religions. These began with the radical Jacobins during the French Revolution, who made the first attempt to create a "new man" so as to realise heaven on earth through violence. The result was hell for many people, with a quarter of a million people murdered simply for adhering to their traditional Christian beliefs.
The metabolisation of the religious instinct was also evident in the two big creeds of the 19th century. Classical nation states used schools, patriotic myths, anthems, flags and monuments to achieve the goal of turning peasants with localised loyalties into Frenchmen, Germans or Italians....
Marxist socialism was another totalising creed. The 1848 Communist Manifesto was called a "catechism" until Engels renamed it. Mankind's expulsion from the garden of Eden was the Christian original for Marxist notions of man's alienation from his perfect self. There was no chosen people, but instead a saviour class called the proletariat. Instead of an apocalypse, there would be a cleansing revolution, the prelude to the restoration of a lost communist paradise. Then man would be reborn in harmony with his original true self.
On Saturday I heard the author, Michael Burleigh, being interviewed on the ABC, and he elaborated on these ideas a little more. His book on the topic could be good; if only I had time to read anything lately.
Back to Marsden..
Well, as I guessed, there was a damaging John Marsden allegation to come, and it came via News Limited on the day of his funeral. Questionable timing, but a pretty important story.
For those who missed it, and there must be many given that it seems much of the media is not wanting to cover it, the report is that an adult man received criminal injuries compensation in 2001 based on his claims that as an 8 year old, Marden sexually molested him. This means the judge found that the incidents were proved on the civil standard of "balance of probabilities".
More from the report itself:
In his judgment of July 6, 2001, NSW District Court judge Ken Taylor accepted "on the balance of probabilities" that Marsden had sexually abused Mr Fraser after swimming lessons, after football training and after a junior rugby league grand final.
"The appellant (Mr Fraser) is supported by the psychological evidence. Resistance to his version of events has been slight. On the basis of the material before the court, it has concluded that it is more likely than not that the events occurred as stated by the appellant (Mr Fraser)," Judge Taylor said.....
In 1992, Mr Fraser, who was being treated for "severe depression and psychosexual dysfunction", told his psychiatrist that he had been sexually abused by Marsden. This was more than two years before NSW Labor frontbencher Deirdre Grusovin named Marsden in parliament as a "pederast" and more than three years before two Seven Network current affairs programs alleged Marsden had had underage sex.....
Mr Fraser described in graphic detail how he was sexually assaulted on three separate occasions as an eight- and nine-year-old boy by Marsden, who coached rugby league and taught swimming at St John's College (now St Patrick's), Campbelltown, where he later established his first law practice.
Marden's brother has not taken the allegation well. The Melbourne Age notes just this:
Controversy dogged Mr Marsden right up to the service with a newspaper claim that previously suppressed court records showed he was a pedophile. His brother Jim described the reports as "a scurrilous lie that should be flushed down the toilet".
The media treatment of this story is interesting of itself. Most Australian media appears to be giving it a wide berth. Perhaps because of the funeral day timing? Perhaps because they don't realise how scandalous it is? I think there is a tendency amongst some to think that if a matter can't be proved on a criminal standard of proof, then you are allowed to treat it as "unproven". No doubt, that is how Marsden would have wanted people to view it.
It leaves open fascinating questions such as how many within the profession knew about this. Did his own brother know about it? Did it give the Law Society any concerns (if they knew about it at all.) Note that the judge is quoted as saying that "resistence to his [the complainant's ] version of events has been slight."
I await some more detailed analysis of this story.
For those who missed it, and there must be many given that it seems much of the media is not wanting to cover it, the report is that an adult man received criminal injuries compensation in 2001 based on his claims that as an 8 year old, Marden sexually molested him. This means the judge found that the incidents were proved on the civil standard of "balance of probabilities".
More from the report itself:
In his judgment of July 6, 2001, NSW District Court judge Ken Taylor accepted "on the balance of probabilities" that Marsden had sexually abused Mr Fraser after swimming lessons, after football training and after a junior rugby league grand final.
"The appellant (Mr Fraser) is supported by the psychological evidence. Resistance to his version of events has been slight. On the basis of the material before the court, it has concluded that it is more likely than not that the events occurred as stated by the appellant (Mr Fraser)," Judge Taylor said.....
In 1992, Mr Fraser, who was being treated for "severe depression and psychosexual dysfunction", told his psychiatrist that he had been sexually abused by Marsden. This was more than two years before NSW Labor frontbencher Deirdre Grusovin named Marsden in parliament as a "pederast" and more than three years before two Seven Network current affairs programs alleged Marsden had had underage sex.....
Mr Fraser described in graphic detail how he was sexually assaulted on three separate occasions as an eight- and nine-year-old boy by Marsden, who coached rugby league and taught swimming at St John's College (now St Patrick's), Campbelltown, where he later established his first law practice.
Marden's brother has not taken the allegation well. The Melbourne Age notes just this:
Controversy dogged Mr Marsden right up to the service with a newspaper claim that previously suppressed court records showed he was a pedophile. His brother Jim described the reports as "a scurrilous lie that should be flushed down the toilet".
The media treatment of this story is interesting of itself. Most Australian media appears to be giving it a wide berth. Perhaps because of the funeral day timing? Perhaps because they don't realise how scandalous it is? I think there is a tendency amongst some to think that if a matter can't be proved on a criminal standard of proof, then you are allowed to treat it as "unproven". No doubt, that is how Marsden would have wanted people to view it.
It leaves open fascinating questions such as how many within the profession knew about this. Did his own brother know about it? Did it give the Law Society any concerns (if they knew about it at all.) Note that the judge is quoted as saying that "resistence to his [the complainant's ] version of events has been slight."
I await some more detailed analysis of this story.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Australia started with a very big bang?
ScienceDaily: Big Bang In Antarctica: Killer Crater Found Under Ice
Today's interesting science news is about evidence found for a very big and very old giant crater beneath the ice of Antarctica:
The 300-mile-wide crater lies hidden more than a mile beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. And the gravity measurements that reveal its existence suggest that it could date back about 250 million years -- the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction, when almost all animal life on Earth died out.
Its size and location -- in the Wilkes Land region of East Antarctica, south of Australia -- also suggest that it could have begun the breakup of the Gondwana supercontinent by creating the tectonic rift that pushed Australia northward.
Wouldn't be much concern about global warming - or anything else for that matter, if a hit that size happened again.
Now I'll wander off into science fiction speculation for a bit. One of the reasons for colonizing the solar system, if you actually like humanity and think it deserves surviving, is to provide a lifeboat for civilization if a huge global disaster of that kind happened again. (Maybe there is little chance of killing all people on earth, but the course of civilization would surely be put back a couple of thousand years.)
Now, the easiest (and nearest) place to colonize is the moon. But, there is one significant problem: what will happen to the human body after living for prolonged periods in 1/6 G, and what will the bodies of babies conceived and born in such a low gravity environment be like? Long and spindly like that silly Jedi knight in the last couple of Star Wars films? Or same body shape, but with a heart that simply could never cope with a full 1 G? (It would presumably be the same as a normal "1 G" person being taken to a 6 G planet to live.) Can you counteract the effect of low gravity by sitting in a centrifuge for an hour a day?
One of the first things a permanent moon colony should investigate is animal models of this. Rats, rabbits or other animals that breed quickly should be put through a few generations of low gravity to see what happens to their bodies. I think Jerry Pournelle has written that rats have been put in a permanent higher G environment (in a centrifuge) and developed super muscles to compensate. However, I don't know that it is possible to simulate a 1/6 G for a rat for any long period of time.
If it all looks hopeless (from the point of view of humans born there never being able to go back to earth) then it may be some time before any woman ever lets a child conceived there be born.
The other space colonisation idea is the construction of giant spinning O'Neill colonies, which could have an artifical gravity somewhat higher than the moon. (Living in about 1/2 G sounds a pleasant idea to me.) Such huge engineering seems to be no longer taken seriously, but who knows, in a hundred years it may be on the cards.
As for Mars: well, it has water, but then it seems quite possible that parts of the Moon do too. Its atmosphere is so thin it's barely worth having there at all. And its gravity is only about double that of the Moon, but is that enough to make it safe to have a baby there (who can return to earth?)
(I just found a site for a proposed "Mars Gravity Biosatellite", which would send 15 mice into space in a spinning satellite designed to simulate Mars gravity. I am not sure if this will involve them having babies, though.)
Anyway, Mars is so far away that I am sceptical of its use as a lifeboat for humanity. Building a big enough colony underground on the Moon, near lunar ice, seems a much better way to go to me.
Today's interesting science news is about evidence found for a very big and very old giant crater beneath the ice of Antarctica:
The 300-mile-wide crater lies hidden more than a mile beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. And the gravity measurements that reveal its existence suggest that it could date back about 250 million years -- the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction, when almost all animal life on Earth died out.
Its size and location -- in the Wilkes Land region of East Antarctica, south of Australia -- also suggest that it could have begun the breakup of the Gondwana supercontinent by creating the tectonic rift that pushed Australia northward.
Wouldn't be much concern about global warming - or anything else for that matter, if a hit that size happened again.
Now I'll wander off into science fiction speculation for a bit. One of the reasons for colonizing the solar system, if you actually like humanity and think it deserves surviving, is to provide a lifeboat for civilization if a huge global disaster of that kind happened again. (Maybe there is little chance of killing all people on earth, but the course of civilization would surely be put back a couple of thousand years.)
Now, the easiest (and nearest) place to colonize is the moon. But, there is one significant problem: what will happen to the human body after living for prolonged periods in 1/6 G, and what will the bodies of babies conceived and born in such a low gravity environment be like? Long and spindly like that silly Jedi knight in the last couple of Star Wars films? Or same body shape, but with a heart that simply could never cope with a full 1 G? (It would presumably be the same as a normal "1 G" person being taken to a 6 G planet to live.) Can you counteract the effect of low gravity by sitting in a centrifuge for an hour a day?
One of the first things a permanent moon colony should investigate is animal models of this. Rats, rabbits or other animals that breed quickly should be put through a few generations of low gravity to see what happens to their bodies. I think Jerry Pournelle has written that rats have been put in a permanent higher G environment (in a centrifuge) and developed super muscles to compensate. However, I don't know that it is possible to simulate a 1/6 G for a rat for any long period of time.
If it all looks hopeless (from the point of view of humans born there never being able to go back to earth) then it may be some time before any woman ever lets a child conceived there be born.
The other space colonisation idea is the construction of giant spinning O'Neill colonies, which could have an artifical gravity somewhat higher than the moon. (Living in about 1/2 G sounds a pleasant idea to me.) Such huge engineering seems to be no longer taken seriously, but who knows, in a hundred years it may be on the cards.
As for Mars: well, it has water, but then it seems quite possible that parts of the Moon do too. Its atmosphere is so thin it's barely worth having there at all. And its gravity is only about double that of the Moon, but is that enough to make it safe to have a baby there (who can return to earth?)
(I just found a site for a proposed "Mars Gravity Biosatellite", which would send 15 mice into space in a spinning satellite designed to simulate Mars gravity. I am not sure if this will involve them having babies, though.)
Anyway, Mars is so far away that I am sceptical of its use as a lifeboat for humanity. Building a big enough colony underground on the Moon, near lunar ice, seems a much better way to go to me.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Digging in on the Moon
New Scientist SPACE - Breaking News - Can bulldozers save Moonwalkers from solar flares?
The short article above talks about how to protect astronauts on the moon from radiation by burying them. Well, their habitats anyway.
Seems to me that looking for suitable caves for shelter would be a good idea too. Must be some somewhere up there.
By the way, TLPs (transient lunar phenomena) don't get much of an airing these days. Would these sites be good places to send explorers (of the human or robotic kind) looking for holes or caves to live in? (Maybe the holes are full of gas, though. Still, would be interesting to try to find any active geological process going on there.)
The short article above talks about how to protect astronauts on the moon from radiation by burying them. Well, their habitats anyway.
Seems to me that looking for suitable caves for shelter would be a good idea too. Must be some somewhere up there.
By the way, TLPs (transient lunar phenomena) don't get much of an airing these days. Would these sites be good places to send explorers (of the human or robotic kind) looking for holes or caves to live in? (Maybe the holes are full of gas, though. Still, would be interesting to try to find any active geological process going on there.)
Revisionism on Arctic history
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic's tropical past uncovered
It seems that there is still a lot of new stuff being discovered about the history of the Arctic, and it's all very relevant to how good current models of climate change are.
This part seemed surprising in particular:
"Five hundred thousand years above where the Azolla was found, we found the first drop stones," explained Professor Brinkhuis, who is also a co-author on the third paper which details Arctic ice-formation.
"These are little stones that come from icebergs, icesheets or sea ice. So it must have been cold enough to have ice."
"Before we did this it was thought that the ice field in the Northern hemisphere only began about three million years ago, but now we have pushed that back to 45 million years ago."
That's some major revision of a very major issue (when did the Arctic freeze over?)
It seems that there is still a lot of new stuff being discovered about the history of the Arctic, and it's all very relevant to how good current models of climate change are.
This part seemed surprising in particular:
"Five hundred thousand years above where the Azolla was found, we found the first drop stones," explained Professor Brinkhuis, who is also a co-author on the third paper which details Arctic ice-formation.
"These are little stones that come from icebergs, icesheets or sea ice. So it must have been cold enough to have ice."
"Before we did this it was thought that the ice field in the Northern hemisphere only began about three million years ago, but now we have pushed that back to 45 million years ago."
That's some major revision of a very major issue (when did the Arctic freeze over?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)