Important psychological research - not

I hope they weren't paid a government grant for this:

"Imagine two servings of ice cream, one featuring a five-ounce cup overfilled with seven ounces, the other a ten-ounce cup filled with only eight ounces. Objectively the under-filled serving is better, because it contains more. But a study conducted by Christopher Hsee found that unless these two servings are presented side by side, the seven-ounce serving is actually considered more valuable. Apparently, people do not base their judgment on the amount of ice cream available, which is difficult to evaluate in isolation. Instead, they rely on an easy-to-evaluate cue: whether the serving is overfilled or under-filled. Overfilling evokes positive feelings while under-filling evokes negative feelings, and these feelings dictate people's evaluations."

Emphasis is mine. Isn't that the reason for the result, and does it tells us anything valuable?

Who is lying about Iraq?

Commentary

Tim Blair has already linked to it, as have many right wing blogs. Still, just in case you missed it, there's the link. Powerline also links to some further comment about it here.

France Fries Farmers

French hypocriscy (and stupidity) on its position on free trade is covered in a WSJ commentary piece. (The WSJ has been free for a week, so better link there soon if you want the whole article.) I will extract the key points:

"France's tirades have helped negotiators wake up to the fact that the 2003 reform was largely a shell game, shifting only a portion of European farm subsidies from the WTO's prohibited list of trade-distorting payments to its "acceptable" subsidy list. This was achieved primarily by "decoupling" subsidies from production, with the idea that this would discourage the overproduction of goods that has wreaked havoc on agricultural markets. At the end of the day, however, there was no change in support prices and subsidy levels, and hence no change in the overall level of European protection. As shown by an OECD study, this was a liberalization in name only, reducing the overall level of support by a meager two percentage points, from 57% to 55% -- nothing much to celebrate for Europe's WTO partners.

..... This means foreign access to European markets remains difficult, if not impossible -- even for producers from Europe's former colonies in the African, Caribbean and Pacific regions and other least developed countries that face no tariffs. .... These countries are shocked by the incredible cynicism of a position that preaches development, but practices market closure when it comes to developing countries' farm exports....

The French position is even less understandable when it is recalled that, on the whole, French agriculture is amongst the most efficient in Europe. French farmers seem not to realize that they will be the main beneficiaries of even the limited farm liberalization that the Doha round appears capable of delivering. Take domestic subsidies, for example. European subsidies spent in the most inefficient member states keep their farmers in operation, and thereby restrict the sales of more efficient farmers, be they from the rest of the world or from the rest of Europe. The CAP is the most implacable foe of the European single market in farm products, and it is particularly harmful for the most efficient European -- often French -- farmers.

If reason were to prevail, French farmers would be among those pushing for deeper reductions in European subsidies than those tabled by the Commission. They would clearly win from such an approach."

Meanwhile, in Iraq

Found via the IWPR website (click on the press summary for 9 November - it is still incorrectly listed as "October"):

"Armed Elements Captured
(Al-Mada) Border guards arrested seven armed Syrians in the Sinjar area of Nineveh province, a source at the interior ministry said. He said security forces raided a house in the al-Qadisiya area where they arrested the seven men who shot at a police patrol there. The source said security forces also raided terrorists' dens in the al-Nahrawan area of Baghdad, where they arrested 13 armed men. In addition, 10 Iranians were arrested at Sirwan checkpoint.
(Al-Mada is issued daily by Al-Mada institution for Media, Culture and Arts.)"

Another reason to drink pinot noir

From Scientific American:

'"A chemical compound in wine reduces levels of a harmful molecule linked to Alzheimer's disease. In a recent study, resveratrol--one of several antioxidants found in wine--helped human cells break down the molecule, which contributes to the lesions found in the brains of Alzheimer's patients....

The pinot noir grape apparently boasts the most dietary resveratrol, but that may not be enough to fend off Alzheimer's. "It is difficult to know whether the anti-amyloidogenic effect of resveratrol observed in cell culture systems can support the beneficial effect of specific diets," Marambaud explains. "Resveratrol in grapes may never reach the concentrations required to obtain the effect observed in our studies."'

Still, that would be one medical research project that would be worth signing up for.

Stop that twittering

Bird calls may have meaning says an article here.

Well, it's pretty obvious some types of call do. But I have wondered recently, with the arrival of spring and its massive increase in bird noice around our house, what exactly is the point of the huge din that lorikeets and similar parrot-ish birds make of an evening as they fly into the trees?

I mean, you can sort of guess that morning calls may have something to do with, well, waking up and checking who's around you. But the evening racket they make? I mean, they don't talk about what they did today, do they? They're smart enough to know where their nest is without having to hear where the crowd is, aren't they?

Just wondering.

But I still want to see a "Kaboom"

From New Scientist, some NASA people think the easiest way to deflect an incoming asteroid is just to park a big spaceship near it and let gentle gravity do its work:

'For a 200-metre-wide asteroid, the spacecraft would need to weigh about 20 tonnes and lurk 50 metres from its target for about a year to change its velocity enough to knock it off course.

"This is hands down the best idea I have seen," says Erik Asphaug, a planetary scientist at the University of California at Santa Cruz. "This will work, but you need to put a large enough spacecraft out there at the right time."

Not even half the fun of an atomic explosion.

Anti anti Globalisation

From The Economist:

"In the past few weeks ..... a fairly bold American proposal for reducing its farm protection has been greeted by a much weaker response from the European Union and none at all from Japan. And ministers from Bastiat's own country, France, have vied with one another to denounce all talk of further reform to the EU's common agricultural policy. Europe must, they say, remain an “agricultural power” even at the expense of the taxpayer and the poor, and, according to President Jacques Chirac, must fight back “liberalism”. Whatever happened to Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité?....

The likeliest outcome both from the Hong Kong meeting and the eventual Doha agreement is a compromise—as always. The European position is feeble but not risible, for it has offered an overall average cut in its farm tariffs of 39%, up from 25% only a month ago, though with rather a lot of loopholes that could severely limit the benefits. France, and other European farm protectionists, may prove more flexible than they currently imply: this is hardly the first time they have promised to man the barricades shortly before striking a deal. ....

Although the case for reducing poverty by sending more aid to the poorest countries has some merit, the experience of China, South Korea, Chile and India shows that the much better and more powerful way to deal with poverty is to use the solution that worked in the past in America, western Europe and Japan: open, trading economies, exploiting the full infrastructure of capitalism (including financial services—see our survey on microfinance) amid a rule of law provided by government. In other words, globalisation."

Vodkapundit on the War on Terror

Vodkapundit's long promised essay is finally there, and it's a pretty good read. Well worth a look.

One thing about his main point (that the West needs to win a media war to win the war on terror) bothers me, though. I have often been amazed at how (gosh, how to put this nicely - here goes -) especially gullible about rumour the Arab world seems to be. There are many, many examples, but the one that sticks in my mind as emblematic was watching hundreds of men shooting and hunting around a Baghdad river on live TV during the Iraq war because there was a rumour that an American pilot had parachuted there from a downed plane. No parachute to be seen, but boats racing up and down, men going into the reeds to find him, hundreds of men pointing excitedly at the river every time they saw a bubble. After a scary 30 minutes (or so I recall it) of wondering if we were about to see an American shot on the spot, turned out there was no one there.

Then, how often do we hear, after some home made bomb goes off in Gaza or Iraq, someone saying it was an American or Israeli plane or missile that came out of the sky, and it seems to be immediately believed by the mob?

I suspect there must be something very cultural about this. I know that all cultures can be prone to believing rumour in the right circumstances, but as I say, I just haven't noticed it to such an extreme extent in other parts of the world.

If I am right about this (and of course this is an extremely subjective judgement for which I have no great body of objective evidence to back up,) it makes the media war for their minds a particular challenge.

Cute USB drives

プレスリリース

Found via Japundit (see link at the side) is a site (link above) showing a range of very cute Japanese designs for USB drives. An example is above.

This made me wonder if anyone had ever made USB earrings. Yes, they have. (The comments about them are pretty funny too.)

I really love USB drives, and wish they could be just built into my body, for convenience sake.

Spielgel Online on France

Rioting in France: What's Wrong with Europe? - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

See link for a very conservative sounding article in Der Spieleg on the problems in France and Europe generally with Muslim migrants. It runs quite close to the Mark Steyn line.

No unseemly gloating please...well, just a little

Today's dramatic events (arrest of 17 suspected terrorists in Sydney & Melbourne) deserve some comments:

* it's rare to see any politician's decision vindicated so quickly. The fact that Howard gains political points out of this is driving Margo Kingston and her readers crazy. She writes in respect of today's press conference:

"His political timing again strangely perfectly tuned to his police arm's actions, Howard smiled throughout, including when he asserted, in the face of mountains of evidence during his reign, that Australia's Commonwealth law enforcement agencies - the ones he's stacked at the top with yes men and favourites - acted independently of the Government. Chilling."

Could have fooled me that the standard semi-grimace that Howard used through the press conference was his smile. I thought he was pretty restrained, and in light of the cynicism expressed of his timing last week, who can be begrudge him this chance to say "I told you I wasn't making it up."

* I also heard on the radio today someone, (I think it might have been the NSW police commissioner, but I am not sure), saying that the 1800 terrorism hotline had proved to be a very successful source of information. Seems all the skepticism about the fridge magnets might have been a misplaced too.

* Generally, I don't mind Kerry O'Brien. But sometimes, he can't help his face showing his gloom at things going unexpectedly well for John Howard. On tonight's 7.30 Report, his expression at the intro reminded me of that he had when it started becoming clear on election night that Howard would be returned with a good majority.

As for his interview with Kelty, I thought it was pretty pathetic to spend so much time on trying to find out when the government was told of the need for the amendment which was rushed through last week. The only reason I can see for sticking to this line of questioning was because it was the last hope of finding a way to criticise the government. (Well, apart from the question of leaks to the media.) Seems Kerry can't accept that the amendment proposal may have been made months ago, without at that time a particular sense of urgency; a decision was made to bundle it with the big Bill; then intelligence made the security services ask for it to be done urgently. Why does that seem so hard to believe?

* Margo Kingston also has a go at the government showing no inclination to investigate leaks to the media (see same link above). She cannot believe Ruddock's claim on Lateline tonight that he is not so sure that there were leaks.

It seems to me that for those leaks attributed to "senior security services", there were so many police involved you may as well not even start to look.

For those attributed to "government sources", I suspect that the risk of perhaps jeopardising the raids, which the leaker would presumably know were coming soon, as against the alleged political benefit of making the leaks, would make it less likely that it would come from anywhere high in the government.

Margo also takes umbridge at Ruddock's suggestion that some journalists were probably only claiming they had received leaks when they had not. Come on Margo, surely that has happened before.

* If anyone wishes to read my lengthy post over at Road to Surfdom today, here it is. (Posted by "Steve".) You might also note that, even tonight, some are still questioning whether the rushed amendment was necessary, despite 3 police commissioner and Bracks saying it was. Talk about taking a horse to water....

Sedition re-visited

Now I have looked at the "final" anti-terror bill and can see why Ruddock agreed to review it again.

The main problem is with the definition of "sedititious intention" (see page 113 of the .pdf version here.) This is the very broad definition which has been getting a fair amount of media attention, as it refers to urging disaffection against (amongst other things) the Government. What's more, there is no defence of acting in good faith, which I thought was probably a drafting error in the first draft of the Bill. (It seems that the old Crimes Act did have this available.) However, it is still not available as a defence in the final Bill. There is also no reference to incitement to violence in this section.

It is, however, very important to note that this definition is only relevant to the "unlawful associations" part of the Crimes Act. For an individual to commit sedition, there is a completely separate section, which does (for the most part) incorporate encouragement to violence as being part of the offence.

This distinction seems to be lost on a bunch of comics who are putting on a concert next weekend to protest the laws.

The Sydney Morning Herald article says this:

"Under the proposed sedition clause, a person can be sentenced to seven years in jail for carrying out, advocating or encouraging seditious intention.That might include "urging" others to feel disaffection with the Government, the constitution or parliament ..."

Well, if I have read the Bill correctly, and I am pretty sure I have, that paragraph muddles up a couple of sections quite badly. The "urging" and "seditious intention" bits are only relevant to this issue of what is an unlawful association. Therefore, the only risk for comedians by "urging" others to have disaffection towards the Government would be if they have formed an association for this purpose and the Attorney General has convinced a Federal Court judge that it should be declared an unlawful association. Yeah, seems a real risk to me.

Individual comedians making jokes or comments "urging disaffection" are therefore not at risk, even theoretically, in my view. If they urge people to take up arms and attack Parliament, well that is a different thing (under the sedition offence section itself.) The "good faith" defence still applies to an individual accused of sedition, as it has been for decades, and as I said in previous post, the new re-write of the "good faith" defence looks like an improvement to me (in favour of the accused, I mean.)

Having said that, I now do agree that the unlawful associations section should be amended. It is too broad, and although I do not think that there is much risk of a Federal Court judge ever agreeing to rule that (say) a trade union that urges disaffection should be an "unlawful association", I can understand why people do not want that theoretical risk. It needs at least the re-instatement of a type of "good faith" defence as applies to the other parts of the sedition laws, as well as being connected to incitement to violence in some way.

I still suspect that the way this has ended up in the Bill may not have been fully intentional.

Mungo has a go

From The Age this morning, Mungo McCallum can still muster up "the rage" about the dismissal. He's not so keen on John Howard and conservatives, in case you didn't know:

"And these days we see the other side of the coin: the Right in full and untrammelled flight, the Right relieved of the need to play Mr Nice Guy to minorities in the Senate.

Now the ugly side of capitalism can be reintroduced, the states overridden, the public service - and even the armed forces and the intelligence services - politicised, ministerial standards trashed, account-ability abandoned, civil liberties ground underfoot, the public good sacrificed to private profit, dissent ridiculed and even criminalised.

Now we will see the triumph of fear and greed over rational idealism, and the utter ruthlessness that lurks behind the avuncular hypocrisy of the professed conservatives. This is the real lesson of the Dismissal, and it is still valid after 30 years."

On the other hand, we might also see a continuing growing economy, a further fall in unemployment, wage growth, continuing great relationship with our near neighbours, some terrorist plans thwarted, no refugees drowning on the high seas, some new ideas in aboriginal matters, and those with Howard Derangement Syndrome still seeing it all as the end of the world. Oh sorry, the last point is a given.

New Farm Park, Brisbane

Tipping off terrorists

The Australian undeniably generally runs a very pro Howard line. So it was a bit of a surpise to note that its editorial on Friday criticising him for the timing of the terror threat announcement. But the piece was a bit all over the place, and everything is almost back to normal in today's editorial, which offers strong support for the legislation.

On Friday, they criticised Howard for leaving himself open to the charge that he made the announcement for his own political benefit. But how much consideration has been given to alternative ways Howard could have dealt with it?

My point is this: if Howard had not made the announcement and tried to sneak the amendment through quietly, who could possibly think that Bob Brown and the Greens would not have demanded loudly an explanation as to why one little bit of the Anti Terror Bill had to be rushed through now? Peter Hartcher in the SMH suggested that "the amendment could have been dealt with unobtrusively in the usual course of business" but I find this impossible to believe. The government is copping enough flack as it is over its procedures in speeding through the lengthy Bill. If it suddenly introduced this one amendment unexpectedly ahead of the rest, surely it would have been accused of doing amendments "by stealth," or some such, and the media would have only been too happy to speculate at length as to why Howard was adopting such an unusual tactic. I would bet money that such speculation would involve the words "heightened terrorist threat". The astute terrorist would surely have noticed that something was up.

Howard did say that he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't announce the new terrorist warning. But I took the "damned if he didn't" part to refer to being damed if there was a terror incident in the near future and the warning Howard received had not been made public. But as I say, he would also be damned politically if he did the amendment with no explanation, and in my opinion in the process the terrorist planners would have noticed something going on anyway.

The Australian today gives more background as to why the amendment was made urgently, and notes that there was considerable debate between ASIO and the AFP over whether Howard should explain why it was needed. Ruddock says that the agencies (presumably ASIO and the AFP) also approved the form of words used in the announcement. It was therefore certainly not a "one man show" when it came to this decision, but I think early critics of the move gave the impression it was likely a spontaneous, cynical and careless act by Howard.

Update: John Howard had his own "column" in the Herald Sun today and ran pretty closely with the same argument I described above in his defence. Great minds think alike (haha).

Aliens and me

I haven't recommended a book review for a while. This one on Slate, about a new book looking at claims of alien abduction, is interesting.

The late John Mack, who gets a mention in the review, came to Brisbane sometime in the mid 1990's and I saw him giving a talk at the University of Qld. He seemed pretty reasonable, and indicated that he had some documentary in the making with very interesting interviews with "abductees", but I don't know if he ever finished it or had a distributor. He was definitely of the Jacques Vallee school of Ufology (believing that it was all more of a paranormal thing that a matter of nuts and bolts spaceships.)

One of the (very few) disappointments I have with the internet is how difficult it is to find "credible" sites about UFOs. Of course, there are a zillion sites that really, really believe in them. But sites which are neither overly skeptical nor overly credulous have been very hard for me to locate. I would welcome suggestions from my vast international readership!

Amusing science headline of the day

Scientists Show How Thinking Can Harm Brain Cells

The story itself is only moderately interesting.

Anti terror errors

* I hope everyone saw this bit from LGF: Village Voice runs an apparently serious piece saying some activists are trying to get Cindy Sheehan to run for President. What a hoot that would be.

* Surprisingly few letters to the Sydney Morning Herald expressing skepticism about the timing of the terror threat announcement by John Howard. One letter doesn't understand which legislation is being rushed through "overnight" either. Should letters editors permit clear mistakes of fact go through? (I don't like the new website layout much either. Requires too much additional clicking.)

* There is also an opinion piece in the SMH by a publisher (Nick Parsons) complaining that the new anti terror laws attack free speech as it may make his company an "unlawful association" because it publishes books which are arguably seditious. Funny thing is that, as far as I can see, the new legislation (I am looking at the Stanhope published version) does not create the unlawful associations provisions at all - they have been in place for some years. The article implies that these provisions are completely new. Go have a look at the Crimes Act s.30A and see for yourself.

The writer talks of the "good faith" provisions not applying to the "unlawful associations" part of the Act as a result of the new Bill. He might be right, although it is not clear to me wether this was deliberate or an accident of drafting. (The new Bill amends several bits of legislationa and mistakes can happen.)

I think he is clearly wrong when he says: "Unfortunately, the bill makes no special allowance for criticism, political or otherwise. What it says is that sedition is an offence, regardless of how it is committed, or by whom."

But he then points out that there is a "good faith" provision which his company, as an association, may not have the benefit of.

If you read the good faith section of the Bill, it seems plain that legitimate criticism is what it would protect.

This opinion piece is in my view seriously misleading. SMH luvvies will be lapping it all up, though.

Update: I found this submission by a Sydney academic lawyer about the sedition laws. In one section he complains that the "good faith" defence is too narrow and technical, and "might", for example, mean that teaching a class about opposing views to those of the government could not use the defence.

My problem with this is that the "new" good faith defence - see s.80.3 in the Stanhope bill linked above - is extremely similar to the "old" good faith defence in s.24F of the Crimes Act, which the notes indicate was inserted in 1960! If anything, the new definition is better, in that it is clear in the second part that the government wants the court (when deciding whether "good faith" applies or not) to look at the question of how the comments make relate to the incitement of violence.

Why wasn't the old section dealing with "good faith" the subject to criticism by these lawyers for the past 45 years? Just how many teachers have been charged with sedition under the present laws? Why give the impression to people that it is something new?

I stand by my comments above that it is clear that the good faith provisions will protect the "usual" criticism of the government, particularly when there is no question of it being a case of urging violence. To argue otherwise is silly, and misleading, scaremongering by lawyers and lefties.

Shock! Horror! Left wing discovers sedition!

Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian makes the witty point this morning about the Fairfax press and its readership:

" AUSTRALIA has a new measure of sound public policy. Called the Fairfax Index, it works like this. The more hysterical the hyperbole on a particular topic on the Fairfax opinion pages and the greater the number of progressive pen pals spilling their outrage on the Fairfax letters pages, the more likely it is that the target of their anguish is good public policy. Using the Fairfax Index, the latest anti-terrorism laws must represent very sound public policy indeed."

I was somewhat chuffed to find my blog made Margo Kingston's page yesterday, presumably because of my "clever" heading on a previous post. Funny thing is, it seems to have done almost nothing to my hit rate, which may say something about the number of Margo's readership at the moment.

But the main point of today's post is just to make clear what some others have already pointed out, but no letter writers to Fairfax seem to acknowledge. Namely, the offence of sedition, in terms very similar to that in the anti terrorist legislation, has been around since 1914. The easiest way to check this out is to use the very handy Austlii site, which has links to all Commonwealth and State legislation.

Here is section 24 A of the Crimes Act 1914:

"Definition of seditious intention

An intention to effect any of the following purposes, that is to say:

(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
(d) to excite disaffection against the Government or Constitution of the Commonwealth or against either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth;
(f) to excite Her Majesty's subjects to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter in the Commonwealth established by law of the Commonwealth; or
(g) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth;

is a seditious intention."

Here is section 24D:

"Seditious words

(1)

Any person who, with the intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public disturbance, writes, prints, utters or publishes any seditious words shall be guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years."

Now certain acts done in good faith are not sedition by virtue of s.24F, but it is too long to post here.

The new anti terrorist bill in fact amends the Commonwealth Criminal Code. But the basic terms of "seditious intention" are very close to those listed above. The offence itself is worded differently, but there is still a section providing for criticism done in good faith not being sedition.

It seems to me that the Premiers know that the changes here are not dramatic, because I have noticed little (or none?) of their criticism as being about this part of the Bill. It is pretty funny how the Sydney Morning Herald readers have lived under legislation of very similar effect all of their lives, but only now (that it is a Howard government) has it become the greatest threat to democracy, freedom of speech, etc, ever seen.

Update: OK, I have found a lengthy Margo Kingston post which does set out (via a legal opinion Peter Garrett obtained) the differences between the new law and the old. So Margo's readers were at least aware of the old law. (Not that it seems to have made any difference.)

As I have said before, lawyers were designed to disagree. It should come as no shock that some can be found (including QC's or SC's) who will criticise this bill. I think this particular opinion in Margo's piece is very contentious. No time to set out why now, but if you read it, I think you will see what I mean.

Yoghurt hands

Could Plain Soap And Probiotics Beat Hospital Bugs?

The story above suggests that hospital doctors may be better off dipping their hands in yoghurt after washing them with plain soap, rather than using antiseptic soap or lotions. Hopefully, it would be a case of good bateria crowding out the bad. (I had read before that one of the problems with frequent handwashing by doctors is that they can get drier, cracked skin which allows more places for bacteria to hide. But I think that was one reason - in addition to their being easier to use- that several hospitals overseas use mositurising alcohol wipes instead of soap or lotions with water.)

I am sure there is a joke to be made out of the idea of your surgeon dipping his hand in yoghurt, but can't think of it yet.

Mosquitoes in England?

Malaria research given �28m boost | the Daily Mail

See link above for story about the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine getting big money fromm the Gates Foundation to work on anti malaria measures.

Isn't it a little odd that they do this work in England? Do mosquitoes exist there at all even in summer? Can't some tropical (or semi tropical) country do this work and not have to import the mosquitoes?

Just wondering..

Anyway, good on you Gates.

Round up all the Muslims and exterminate them

The title is what letter writer Vincent Zankin in last Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald thinks is John Howard's real agenda:

"It seems Muslims are neither welcome here, nor can they be trusted, because the Government's involvement in the war on terrorism means that this country is at war with the religion of Islam.

This is why Mr Daye was treated as though he were an enemy combatant, and the sooner we stand up to this gross injustice, then the sooner this nation will be spared the infamy of heading towards another Holocaust."

(The story about Mr Daye was that his house was raided by ASIO by mistake shortly after 9/11.)

Zankin(who has long suffered Howard Derangement Syndrome) has attracted many comments over the years in the Australian right wing blogosphere (check Google,) but I think the above letter is likely his all time personal best. (For moonbat dribbling hyperbole.) Of course, the reward for this is having your letter on top of the pile in the Saturday SMH.

The other letter from that edition (see same link above) that was so breathtakingly wrongheaded was this:

"Why not urge our Government to try making friends instead of alienating just about everyone except their powerful business and American cronies?

The refugee policy, the invasion of Iraq, the downgrading of support for the United Nations, the patronising attitude to South Pacific nations and the refusal to say sorry to indigenous people are just the beginning of the long list of ways in which this Government has put Australia "on the nose" for fair-minded people around the globe and at home.

No wonder it wants to hide behind repressive laws and razor wire. It has made a lot of enemies.

Michael McGrath Manly Vale"

Where to start? Let's see: which country exactly did our refugee policy upset? Invading Iraq: well I suppose it upset the then murderous dictatorship, but who else is now "our enemy" over it, even they think it was a mistake. Downgrading support to the UN: don't know much about that, but we did giving direct aid and assistance at much greater rate than the UN could after the asian tsunami. The patronising attitude to our South Pacific neighbours: I suppose like helping at least 2 of them (Solomon Islands and PNG) restore law and order by putting our Federal Police there in potential harm's way. For God's sake, even Phillip Adams praised the Solomon Islands effort. Failing to apologise to the aborigines? Like that rates as a big issue anywhere other than in the innner city enclaves of the Left in Sydney and Melbourne.

Relations with all those countries who are either physically near to us (such as Indonesia) or our trading partners (US, Japan, China etc) appear to have never been better. (And I love the fact that this must really annoy Paul Keating.)

The Howard government has only "alienated" those individuals, like McGrath, who would never have voted for it in the first place. Dill.

Pearson on IR reform, and minimum wages

The Australian: Christopher Pearson: No job? No cash? Sod off [October 29, 2005]

I just read Christopher Pearson's weekend column on IR reform (link above), and this part is particularly interesting:

"In the US, not only is there no social security safety net to speak of but the minimum wage is little more than 30 per cent of median full-time adult earnings. In Britain, which has a social security system similar to our own, the Low Pay Commission has set the minimum wage at 43 per cent of median full-time adult earnings.

In Australia, thanks to the AIRC, the minimum wage is 58.4 per cent of median earnings, the highest ratio in any of the 12 comparable Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economies. It's worth noting that the AIRC, without conceding any adverse effect on employment from raising its cost, has belatedly let minimum wages fall by all of 2.2 per cent relative to median earnings since 1996.

The Howard Government is proposing that the last award by the AIRC become the benchmark for minimum wages, so that they will be eroded by time and inflation rather than any sudden intervention"

It sure indicates that the expected gradual lowering of the minimum wage to even something like the equivalent of Britain's is going to take quite a few years; which would have to be good politically for the Liberals at the next election.

Sydney Morning Herald - if it's anti Bush, it's in

The SMH today reprints Joe Wilson's column from the Los Angeles Times in which he has another go at the Bush Administration.

Of course, the most important thing about the whole affair - whether or not Wilson got it right on the Iraq uranium issue - is left completely out of the picture. (As is Wilson's own admissions about how he "misspoke" about when he saw the fake letter.)

In fact, Wilson still insists in today's piece that he is right and the CIA and British Intelligence were wrong:

"I knew that the statement in Bush's speech - that Iraq had attempted to purchase significant quantities of uranium in Africa - was not true. I knew it was false from my own investigative trip to Africa (at the request of the CIA) and from two similar intelligence reports. And I knew that the White House knew it."

Of course, many people will believe this because the White House itself, prematurely and rather strangely in hindsight (all to do with political infighting with the CIA, apparently), did back away from the claim soon after Wilson wrote his original column.

The best summary of all of this is, I think, on the Factcheck.org site, with its further links to other material.

Now the Sydney Morning Herald, if it had any interest in keeping its readers aware of what the facts are, and how Wilson has been largely discredited in his original claims, would balance today's opinion piece with an article which spells out the facts around Wilson's Iraq uranium claims.

In fact, I think it would be outrageous to let Wilson's paragraph above go uncontradicted.

But I am not going to hold my breathe waiting for the SMH to do this.

More interesting than all that Plame stuff

I knew Gene Roddenberry deliberately made Star Trek into a unisex, equal opportunity version of the future, but I never knew that Sulu would turn out to be gay.

I guess no one on the Enterprise had much of a love life anyway, except for Kirk, Spock (sort of, in his "Spock on Heat" episode) and I am straining to think if any of the others may have had a love interest for one episode.

For what it's worth, the original series, and a few of the movies, were worth watching, but it always seemed to me that "Next Generation" and all subsequent incarnations were repeating the same sort of storylines. I couldn't be bothered watching them.

Who you going to call?

Lateline - 27/10/2005: Lateline Survey Of Australian Security Experts

See link above to the details of a "Lateline" survey of security experts on their opinion about the proposed anti-terrorist legislation.

Most have formerly held government positions relevant to security or defence; most also now seem to be in academic positions. Certainly, it would appear unlikely that any of them have any detailed knowledge of the information on which the Federal Police and ASIO currently briefed the federal and state governments.

But what makes me really laugh is to see Andrew Wilkie as one of the experts polled. As if he (who left the employ of the federal government in a huff, wrote a book called "Axis of Deceit", and then ran for Parliament in John Howard's own seat) was ever going to say anything supporting this government.

It's like polling Richard Alston on the question of left wing bias in the ABC.

Time for a series on Islam

The Australian: TV airs fiction that inspired Hitler [October 28, 2005]

See link above to a short story about a TV series being shown in Jordan (maybe elsewhere in Muslim middle east - it is not clear) which apparently is based on the "Protocols of Zion".

I suggest that if it as bad as alleged, someone in the West should do a soap based on the historical events surrounding the creation of Islam. I would be interested. I share a general Western semi-ignorance about the subject. I know there was a lot of camel riding in the desert, a lot of tribal fighting, several wifes, and many people put to death. As I think a lot of the true historic detail is a bit vague (or disputed), just take the juicy bits, and then make up some to fill in blanks.

Just his domestic life should be sufficient enough for a mini series. From Wikipedia:

"Muhammad's family life

From 595 to 619, Muhammad had only one wife, Khadijah. After her death he married Aisha, then Hafsa. Later he was to marry more wives, for a total of eleven (nine or ten living at the time of his death). Some say that he married his slave girl Maria al-Qibtiyya, but other sources speak to the contrary.

Khadija was Muhammad's first wife and the mother of the only child to survive him, his daughter Fatima. He married his other wives after the death of Khadija. Some of these women were recent widows of warriors in battle. Others were daughters of his close allies or tribal leaders. One of the later unions resulted in a son, but the child died when he was ten months old.

His marriage to Aisha is often criticized today citing traditional sources that state she was only nine years old when he consummated the marriage. (See Aisha for a discussion of other, conflicting, traditions). Critics also question his marriage to his adopted son's ex-wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, and his alleged violation of the Qur'anic injunction against marrying more than four wives. For further information on Muhammad's family life and consideration of these criticisms, see Muhammad's marriages."


Now to be fair, I know that to show Mohammed is taboo to Muslims. I therefore suggest using a blue screen technique to blank out his body. You would just see his robes floating around on an invisible man. This, and a lot of the sword fighting, would get the kiddie audience in too. (Then again, not sure that the possible marriage to a 9 yr old is the sort of thing they need to see.) The voice - well I think they can create a fake computer generated one now, using a generic Arab accent.

There - no one should be too offended!

Drawing a long bow

The Australian: Ross Fitzgerald: Keatingesque hubris [October 27, 2005]

Ross Fitzgerald in the opinion piece above thinks that the Howard government is starting to "look more and more like the Keating government in its dying days." This is drawing a very long bow indeed.

The image of the last Keating government got off to a spectacularly bad start when TV shots of MPs and senators dancing at the celebration party were shown within a week or so of the election. (For some reason, I retain a clear image of Gareth Evans dancing with some female MP, but I don't think it was Cheryl Kernot.)

It was the perfect image of a party that was too much in love with itself and power.

For all I know, Howard's people may have done the same, but at least they have the sense not to let TV images of it be splashed over the media.

Fitzgerald thinks that Howard is too ideologically obsessed. In fact, I think that it was the ideological bent of the Labor Party (which indicated that no further substantial reform was coming) that led to its downfall. Sure, their major reforms under Hawke/Keating were a triumph over previous party policy, and good on them. But (as I recall it), it was pretty clear that it was not going much further by the time Keating took over.

And rigidity and "capture" by certain interest groups was certainly there in aboriginal affairs (when it was impossible for the Minister to ever accept the compelling evidence that the Hindmarsh Island affair was a fraud perpetrated by one subset of aboriginal locals.) I also remember Paul Keating being caught for a few seconds with his mind madly ticking over when he was asked in an election debate with Howard what he thought about gay marriage (or gay something.) As I recall it, while Keating's mouth was still frozen in uncertainty (as his privately expressed view that 2 men and a dog are not a family was, I think, already known,) Howard leapt in and gave an answer. (The answer being the conservative but moderate line he presumably still holds.)

My point is that the fact that the Howard government still wants major reforms is a sign of substantial life and vitality in it yet. The reforms are pragmatic as much as ideological, and that's how it should be. (The dissolution of ATSIC is certainly one example of pragmatic desire to improve aboriginal administration over the ideology of self rule.)

I don't think that there is any fair perception of the Liberal government as being held hostage by big business as an interest group; they may be happy with IR reform, but I didn't see them making that much of a fuss about it before the last election. (In fact, didn't the government had to prod companies to try and use the current regime of workplace agreements more frequently?)
As I see it, the primary government motive is not to "smash"unions, but rather a desire to improve pragmatic outcomes (decreasing the persistent level of unemployment, assisting productivity increases and flow on wage increases.) If unions get hurt in the process, so be it, as this government does not have to be concerned about dealing with them as part of their power base. Sure there is some "risk" involved, but as some commentators have pointed out, the failure of the extremely dire predictions against the GST to materialise must be making many voters realise that they need to be at least a little skeptical of the ACTU's worst claims. The unavoidable fact of demographics making workers increasingly scarce over the next decade must work in worker's favour as well.

The poor polls of this week are so far from an election they don't matter one iota. Fitzgerald knows that in his heart, I am sure.

A trilogy of nutters

This morning's peruse of the news was notable for 3 stories found in quick succession on men who could only be described as absolute nutters.

First: this story is horrifying. (Middle aged man in Adelaide - which after all, has a reputation for weirdo's that it has to keep up - found with child porn and material showing that he has even worse fantasies.) Not funny at all.

Second story: random ear biting attack in Sydney. Only sort of funny if you think how unlucky you can be.

Third story: (found via Drudge) - terrible if it happened to you, but otherwise so odd it is gross-out funny.

"A Dallas cab driver is in big trouble for getting caught on tape sprinkling dried feces on pastries.

49-year-old Behrouz Nahidmobarekeh is on trial for allegedly throwing fecal matter on pastries at a Fiesta grocery store.

Police said they found a pile of human feces by his bed.

He would dry it, either by microwave or just letting it sit out and grate it up with a cheese grater and then sprinkle it at the store, officials said.

Neither attorneys in the case is clear about a motive or why the defendant would resort to something so repulsive."

Idiots with lasers

The Australian: Jet pilots targeted by lasers [October 21, 2005]

I meant to post on the above story a few days ago but forgot.

It's interesting to see the number of incidents of this in Australia recently.

The Maroochydore incidents I would strongly suspect as coming from a row of new-ish holiday apartment buildings running parallel to the runway, many of which have balconies with good, high line of sight to the approaches. Teenagers on summer holidays would be the most likely culprits, I expect.

I don't recall reading anything about these last summer, but maybe I missed it.

Useless poll questions

Voters say yes to terror Australis - National - smh.com.au

The link above is about an AC Nielson poll in which 60% of the respondents apparently were against the police being given "shoot to kill" authority when pursuing terrorist suspects.

As I detailed at length a few days ago, the legal question about currrent police authority to use lethal force in an arrest is complicated. It relies on both legislation (that varies slightly from State to State) as well as common law. There is no way possible that this poll could have given the respondents sufficient background information for them to make a meaningful response. Even the use of "shoot to kill" in the first place (if indeed that is the phrase used; this story does not make it clear) was really so prejudicial as to make the poll results useless.

It is a "gut reaction" poll, but we shouldn't make law on that basis.

I told you so....(cats and madness again)

I did a post recently about my surprise that there had been research going on for decades about the possible (or likely) link between toxoplasma gondii (which people commonly catch from cats) and schizophrenia. I had stumbled across an article that was a couple of years old about this.

Turns out my post was rather prescient. An article today from Science Daily shows that there should be some concern about this disease. To quote:

McAllister, also a clinical professor of pathology in the U. of I. College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign, made his case based on his review of numerous studies on the animal-carried pathogen during the past decade. His review, prepared for the conference, appeared in the Sept. 30 issue of the journal Veterinary Parasitology.

"Our profession needs to come to grip with the accumulating body of evidence about the tremendous burden wrought on society by toxoplasmosis," McAllister wrote. "Further research is needed to clarify the association between toxoplasmosis and mental health, but until such time that this association may be refuted, it is my opinion that the current evidence is strong enough to warrant an assumption of validity."....

In his review, McAllister noted a long list of maladies made worse by toxoplasma infection in people with suppressed immunity, and he cited a growing list of studies that link problems in people whose immune systems are not impaired. Among the latter problems are fever, enlarged lymph nodes, weakness and debilitation, damaged vision, or multi-systemic infections with serious complications such as pneumonia and hepatitis. Toxoplasma also is a causative agent of encephalitis in AIDS patients....

"Evidence is mounting to link toxoplasmosis with schizophrenia or similar psychiatric disorders (in people)," McAllister wrote. "Recent studies from three countries found that schizophrenic patients had higher antibody levels to T. gondii than did matched control subjects."

He also cited older studies that used a toxoplasma skin test that "showed highly significant associations between toxoplasmosis and psychiatric disorders." Recent studies also have linked infections with reduced average intelligence.

Gosh. This has just 3 links in Google News. You would think the MSM would run with a story about this.

In the news...

I suppose I had better post again, as my hit rate does slide away if I don't.

Of interest in the news today:

Abortion: I posted last week on the Victorian government's modest plan to require women seeking a late term abortion for "psychosocial reasons" to have a 48 hour cooling off period and counselling independent of that provided by the clinic that is providing this service. Given that a recent increase in the numbers of women seeking this service is largely among teenagers, who one might expect are the most in need of some independent counseling and time to think, it seemed to be a very sensible suggestion. Well, this is just all too much for Labor women, because it dares suggest that some women might not get want they want, regardless of the reasons they want it. Anyway, the Minister (a woman) is expected to drop the cooling off period, but still require the independent counselling.

It's better than doing nothing, but the militancy with which Labor women oppose any reform on an area that is a matter that most doctors find ethically challenging is what bothers me most.

Phillip Adams: in the Australia, has a go at Australians for not getting upset about the planned execution of Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore for drug smuggling. It's all racism, he says. He draws comparison with Schapelle Corby. One big difference he fails to mention: Nguyen's lawyer said yesterday on Radio National that his client had never denied guilt and fully co-operated with police.

I don't think he should be executed either. The amount involved was relatively small, and he has apparently provided evidence that could be used to prosecute figures in Australia (if he is alive to give evidence.) In any event, drug smuggling is just not one of those offences that I would ever consider worthy of capital punishment.

But Adams' having a go at Australians for being racist by failing to take this case to heart is going to have the opposite effect from what he wants.

Gerard Henderson: in the SMH today has another good article on the supposed cynicism and alienation of the Australian electorate. (It's all a bit of a "beat up", basically.) Well worth reading.

Tony Parkinson (The Age) on the problem with Syria is good too.

The number of kid's deaths from driveway accidents now exceeds pool drownings, according to the Australian. That surprises me, and as I hate urban 4WD's anyway, my bias against them is further boosted. (Yes I know, not all of these deaths would be from 4WD.)

I would like to finish with something lighter, but haven't found anything yet...

The spring theme continues

From our garden a short time ago. (Ignore the weeds please.)

Racing the pigeons

The recent news that imported Canadian racing pigeons were to be killed for having (at least) bird flu antibodies left me a little bemused - over the fact that there is hobby in Australia that I hadn't heard of for decades. I also wonder why they are imported from Canada. Presumably, it is one of Canada's claims to fame - if you are into pigeons. (This reminds me of Gonzo from the Muppets, with his intense interest in chickens.)

Googling "racing pigeons Australia" in fact brings up 15,700 hits (if you limit it to Australian web sites - 153,000 if you don't!) This could make a guy feel paranoid. What else is going on around me in this country that I have never noticed?

Things get a little weird when you look at the first link on that google search (entitled, oddly enough, "Racing Pigeons Australia".) It explains that the first section:

"is for the dedicated pigeon fancier who is only interested in viewing close up photography of pigeons eyes."

Wow. I suspect that getting stuck next to a racing pigeon fancier at a singles dinner party might be some girl's idea of hell.

Shooting to kill

Just to prove that I can be as even handed as the next right wing Aussie blogger, and even though I don't like to go out of my way to support grandstanding Labor State premiers, I think I agree with them that the so-called "shoot to kill" provision in the anti terrorism bill deserves either amendment or ignoring.

The Australian runs a not bad summary of the issue in its article here.

The proposed bill's section is s105.23:

"An AFP member must not, in the course of taking a person into
custody or detaining a person under a preventative detention order,
use more force, or subject the person to greater indignity, than is
necessary and reasonable:

(a) to take the person into custody; or
(b) to prevent the escape of the person after being taken into
custody.

(2) An AFP member must not, in the course of taking a person into
custody or detaining a person under a preventative detention order,

(a) do anything that is likely to cause the death of, or grievous
bodily harm to, the person unless the AFP member believes
on reasonable grounds that doing that thing is necessary to
protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person
(including the AFP member); or

(b) if the person is attempting to escape being taken into custody
by fleeing—do such a thing unless:

(i) the AFP member believes on reasonable grounds that
doing that thing is necessary to protect life or to prevent
serious injury to another person (including the AFP
member); and
(ii) the person has, if practicable, been called on to
surrender and the AFP member believes on reasonable
grounds that the person cannot be apprehended in any
other manner.

This section in the proposed bill simply copies the power that is already in the Commonwealth Crimes Act. Also, to take one example, Queensland has a similar legislative power which is worth reading in detail by way of comparison:

"(1) This section applies if a police officer reasonably suspects a person--

(a) has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence punishable by life imprisonment; or

(b) has committed an offence punishable by life imprisonment and is attempting to escape arrest or has escaped from arrest or custody

(2) This section also applies if--

(a) a police officer reasonably suspects a person is doing, or is about to do, something likely to cause grievous bodily harm to, or the death of, another person; and

(b) the police officer reasonably suspects he or she can not prevent the grievous bodily harm or death other than in the way authorised under this section.

(3) It is lawful for the police officer to use the force reasonably necessary--

(a) to prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence punishable by life imprisonment; or

(b) to apprehend the person; or

(c) to prevent the escape of a person from arrest or custody; or

(d) to prevent the commission of an act mentioned in subsection (2).

(4) The force a police officer may use under this section includes force likely to cause grievous bodily harm to a person or the person's death.

(5) If the police officer reasonably believes it is necessary to use force likely to cause grievous bodily harm to a person or the person's death, the police officer must, if practicable, first call on the person to stop doing the act."

The difference is that the Queensland provision is talking about persons who are already suspected of having commited a serious offence (or are currently engaged in something that will harm others,) whereas the Commonwealth section is aimed at people who are the subject of preventative detention orders.

Now, such orders may only be granted in cases where:

"there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the subject:
(i) will engage in a terrorist act; or
(ii) possesses a thing that is connected with the preparation
for, or the engagement of a person in, a terrorist act; or
(iii) has done, or will do, an act in 1 preparation for, or
planning, a terrorist act; and

(b) making the order would substantially assist in preventing a
terrorist act occurring.

(3) A terrorist act referred to in subsection (2):
(a) must be one that is imminent; and
(b) must be one that is expected to occur, in any event, at some
time in the next 14 days."

Clearly, the proposed bill may be used to allow the police to nab people who may be seriously dangerous, so serious powers relating to arrest are needed. However, you would have to suspect that the very fact that a preventative detention order has been made will make the police more ready to assume that lethal force is necessary to "...protect life or to prevent serious injury to another person (including the AFP member) ". The Commonwealth section, although almost certainly intended to cover necessary steps if the danger is immediately present at the time of the arrest, does not spell that so clearly.

Frankly, I think the wording of the Queensland provision is better and clearer in that it's emphasis in section (2) is obviously more clearly on the "here and now" of the arrest: the person "... is doing, or is about to do" the thing that will cause death or gbh.

There was no nefarious intent in the Commonwealth drafters in putting the current Crimes Act provision in the Bill, and the Premiers have been guilty of grandstanding on this. But, it is still the case that the Commonwealth power is left a little ambiguous when you try to apply it to arresting someone for an possible future offence, not one that is already committed. The wording of the Commonwealth provision should therefore, in my view, be tightened.

But frankly, I doubt that it would matter much if the States just all keep their own laws on "shoot to kill" anyway. I am no expert, but I think that their provisions are not going to work dramatically differently to the AFP's. It just takes care and common sense (and good police training onrecognizingg quickly when the different levels of force are needed).

There, I have done it. Supported Labor Premiers. (Sort of.) Now must have a shower and come to my senses!

Other people's blogs

I don't recall how I stumbled onto neo neocon, but it is a particularly good little personal blog on all things neocon, and best of all is the reasons the author gives for her creating it:

"I'm a woman in my fifties, lifelong Democrat mugged by reality on 9/11. Born in New York, living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon. My friends and family are becoming sick of what they see as my inexplicable conversion, so I've started this blog to give vent to my frustration. I have a background as a therapist, and my politics make me a pariah in my profession, too. Little did I know that I moved in such politically homogeneous circles."
Tim Blair should link to it. But then, he should link to me too!

Next, I sometimes click on a random blog name on the "blogs updated" list that scrolls continuously on the Blogger site. That is how I found this one, from a Malaysian guy who hates his boss and has a strange turn of phrase. From his first post:

"Work wise, currently I'm attached to an investment company. The work description and job scope sound very dynamic but most of the time I'll be swinging my two beloved balls."

??

The next post, about his cat, notes:

"I guess female cats are not interested in him since he has no balls, secondly he can't swing his balls when he's not doing anything like I enjoy doing during office hour hehe...(He was already castrate when I adopted him)."

What exactly is he doing in his spare time in the office??

Another post complains about how tired he is because of Ramadan (it's true, then, as I had a previous post about this.) He complains:

"Not only that, the eyes feel so heavy too. So heavy that you would not care even if there is a bare stinky butt beside your face."

Next, he is posting that his wife is pregnant and it is a girl. What a worry. Just remember, I read it so that you don't have to.

Finally for now, while not really a blog as such, Newsbusters seems a pretty good professionally run conservative site on "liberal media bias" in the States.

Really, really trivial news

MSN-Mainichi Daily News: National News

See link above if you want to see a Japanese poodle crossing the road very safely on two legs.

"Passersby contacted police afterwards, saying the dog had given them renewed recognition of the importance of road safety.

Pluto walked on his hind legs into an office at Ise Police Station to receive the honor. Station head Etsujiro Kurachi addressed the canine saying, "Thank you, Pluto," and handed over the dog food prize."

Songs you don't normally expect at a wedding

In Mali, women debate circumcision

See link above for interesting story on female "circumcision" in West Africa. To quote:

"Female circumcision -- also known as female genital mutilation -- is widespread in West Africa, despite a smattering of national laws and campaigns to eradicate the practice. In Mali, for example, almost 92 percent of women of childbearing age have been circumcised, according to a recent government study.

But Mali is now spearheading a new regional initiative against female circumcision using an unusual medium: Griots like Gamara, who exert a powerful and indispensable role in traditional West African culture."

A Griot is a "member of the cast of traditional singers and storytellers" in that part of the world.

"Pitted against the anti-circumcision movement are powerful social and religious forces. Although the tradition of cutting off part or all of a girl's clitoris before marriage was practiced long before Islam arrived in Africa, many Muslim adherents describe it as a religious necessity.

Others, like Gamara, argue that female circumcision is hygienic, even though it can cause major medical problems if unclean instruments are used."

Hygienic?? What do they conceive the clitoris as doing to make a woman unhygienic?

""At the beginning it was very difficult to decide to sing against circumcision," recalled Kida, a nationally renowned singer and griot who often appears on Malian TV. "People said, 'Assitan, you shouldn't meddle with that. Because circumcision is part of our culture.'

"But I said no," Kida added. "Even doctors are telling people to stop."

Kida herself has been circumcised. But her three young daughters have not. She is currently recording a CD that includes songs promoting children's rights and speaking about the problems of female circumcision. But she says she approaches the subject gingerly when she sings at weddings or at other public occasions.

"I never sing about it in an aggressive way," Kida said, adding that she usually approaches the subject of female circumcision at the end of her act. "And often people will come up to me and say, 'This is good. What you have sung about circumcision is true.'"

Wedding receptions are a little different there...

Dumb question

BBC NEWS : Should Saddam die?

The BBC story above puts the two sides to the question of whether Saddam should be executed.

There is no great inconsistency, in my view, in being opposed to capital punishment as a possible consequence of ordinary domestic crime, but allowing that it should be available in the case of crimes against humanity. The argument for it in Saddams case is overwhelming, in terms of the on-going "hope" his life gives to domestic terrorists who are willing to take countless civilian lives to prove precisely nothing.

The Human Rights Watch guy cares more about procedure than anything else, and the idea that the death penalty is a "cruel and inhuman punishment."

"Now, should Saddam Hussein be found guilty, when it comes to his being executed the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman punishment that violates the right to life and the prohibition against torture. I know well how strongly many Iraqis feel about Saddam and others. But to impose the death penalty on these individuals will be a throwback to the ancien regime - it will suggest business as usual in terms of cruel and inhuman punishment."

To me, common sense dictates that such concerns, in the case of someone convicted of ordering the killing of hundreds or thousands of civilians, are outweighed by the gravity of the offence, no prospect of "rehabilitation" and the fact that, to the extent that other murderous leaders can be deterred, imprisonment for life with good chance to catch up on reading and see the wife and kids is rather pathetically inadequate.

As I said, it is also not just about Saddam; it is about stopping the continuing killing as far as possible as soon as possible.

Useful Hitchens article

Tribal Ignorance - What you think you know about Iraq's factions is all wrong. By Christopher Hitchens

See the link above to a good Hitchens article on the tribal groupings in Iraq, and how the Western media tends to misrepresent their situation. A crucial paragraph (the bit about the Kurds was news to me):

"To be a Sunni or a Shiite is to follow one or another Muslim obedience, but to be a Kurd is to be a member of a large non-Arab ethnicity as well as to be, in the vast majority of cases, a Sunni. Thus, by any measure of accuracy, the "Sunni" turnout in the weekend's referendum on the constitution was impressively large, very well-organized, and quite strongly in favor of a "yes" vote. Is that the way you remember it being reported? I thought not. Well, then, learn to think for yourself."

Those wacky Dutch

Found via Julian Calendar (see link on my blogroll) is this story. In the Netherlands, a man with a passing resemblance to "Dr Evil" has entered into a legal "civil union" with 2 bisexual women. The first modern government endorsed European form of polygamy?

What I find curious is that when you do a Google news search for "Netherlands polygamy" it comes up with a miserly 20 reports on this (and many of these are conservative American sites, not major news ones.)

I would have thought this would attract more attention in the MSM, as the idea of "civil union" legislation has been pushed a lot in the last year or two. But surely the gay lobby would not want to press for it to cover 3 -somes? I recall Mark Steyn warning in a column that if you allow gay marriage, the next push (which had already been started by some group in the States) would be to legalise polygamy.

God, think of the fun the Courts would have in deciding property settlements or child custody cases with more than one partner!

More on Latham Diaries

There's an interesting comment piece (the first of 2 parts apparently ) over on the APO website on the Latham Diaries. Written by former Latham "booster" David Burchell, I like this part best:

"In his rage and revulsion, Latham has doubtless traduced the reputations of some decent and honourable people, both in the ALP and elsewhere. (What his hapless ex-staffers did to deserve their various '‘serves'’, for instance, is hard to fathom.) There doesn'’t seem to be any particular strategy to this: as Latham sees it, he'’s just speaking the truth as he finds it. There'’s a kind of compelling brutal honesty to this approach, but also a strange emotional autism."

The general argument in the article is that Latham is obviously emotionally and physically unwell, but his basic points about the party are valid. Sure, but everyone knew about the factional problems endemic in the party before the Diaries anyway.

Posts to make you grind your teeth

So, the awful Cindy Sheehan has a permanent blog of sorts at Huffington Post. Her posts are excruciating to read, but then again, so are those of nearly everyone at Huffington. I suppose it's the Daily Kos for those a bit more grown up.

Cindy's latest words of wisdom:

"I have two points to make about the referendum vote in Iraq on Saturday. First of all, George told us in his headlong rush to disaster in Iraq that Saddam had WMD's and that Iraq was culpable for 9/11. George and his band of war monsters still despicably say 9/11 in every major speech in defense of the invasion and continued occupation. He never said "regime change" or spreading "freedom and democracy." If the constitution passes, what will be the next devious justification for the occupation?"

This can be criticised as being factually and morally in error in so many ways , I can't be bothered responding.

An earlier post is weirdly paranoid about using the military to help in the event of a dire outbreak of bird flu:

"The war machine and the people who serve it in our government are getting a little afraid themselves of not being able to keep the industrial military complex rolling in the bloody dough, so George and friends have come up with a new enemy whose atrocities also can't be contained to borders and that doesn't wear a national uniform: The Bird Flu. What kind of person who doesn't bow before the warmongers and war profiteers calls the military as his first plan of action when a health threat is supposedly brewing? Instead of calling out the National Guard (who by the way are still fighting, killing, and dying in Iraq), do you think his first call should have been to the CDC? Or to his Surgeon General, and not his military Generals? These people do not walk on this earth anywhere near reality or peace. Our new enemy of the state will be Birds who may be ill and we shall be very afraid every time we sneeze and pray that our government saves us from more imaginary threats. While we are praying, the war profiteers are laughing at us on our knees as they are counting their stacks of wicked and immorally gotten gains." (Emphasis mine)

Just how far will she have to go before she loses credibility even with the Huffington crowd?

By the way, I notice that Huffington Post is absolutely full of commentary on the Judith Miller story. For me, even with Professor Bunyip's useful commentary, it has become just too complicated to follow. It would appear that the whole matter seems to be fizzling out, and maybe that is why the Left is in a bit of a lather. (Of course, seeing I have lost track, I could be proved wrong.)

Arab freedom revolution continues (at snail's pace)

Stumbled across this today:

"A source in a private Saudi media company announced on Sunday that its company, in an agreement with Riyadh city secretariat, will display a children cinema retrospective during the three days of Eid al-Fitr to be the first cinema shown in the Kingdom, 20 years after banning such shows. The source said that the show will start on November 3 will be limited to women and children in the halls of one of the big hotels in the Saudi capital. The hall includes 1400 seats. Thirty year ago, the Saudi authorities used to permit the display of cinema films in private clubs but in the beginning of the 1980s prevented cinema shows in public places under the charge that they are religiously prohibited. On the other side, the authorities permit the use and selling of video films in public shops which sell tapes and CD ROM for most recent Arab and foreign films."

I am guessing that the dire risk of a unmarried man and woman touching hands in the darkness are behind the ban, but who knows.

It's pretty unbelievable, isn't it?

Never happy

Paul McGeough, the Sydney Morning Herald journalist whose unending pessimism about Iraq has received a fair bit of attention over at Tim Blair's, continues his dire predictions today.

It seems to me that his analysis is very unlikely to be original. To quote:

" This is a Clayton's constitution - a conflicted, contradictory unity bill for a country tearing itself apart, accepted in a vote dictated by the fault lines of Iraqi history.

Here are some of the elements of the constitution that mock notions of national unity and invite civil war."

And he goes on to talk about various aspects of the constitution that he thinks are likely to cause problems.

Now, I know that copies of the constitution are available, but I really doubt that McGough is making these judgments just on his own reading and analysis. His pronouncements are too dogmatic, too neat. For example:

"Laid out in its separate parts, this is a document that denies the very notion of Iraqi citizenship."

But if he is following some other commentator's or academic's line, he doesn' t acknowledge it.

I think he must be a fan of this site (Al Jazeera.com, which is not the same as the Al Jazeera TV network, nor Al Jazeera.net, which may or may not have something to do with the TV network. I wish these guys could come up with better product differentiation.) I had mentioned the .com website some time ago. It is rabidly anti-Bush, anti-Iraq constitution, and gives every conspiracy theory the light of day (although with comments allowed after articles, which usually does attract a lot of rebuttal.) Their take on the new constitution is here. The key paragraph:

"It seems that Bush'’s admin has finally found the solution: "Divide Iraq" and then pit the three mini states created against one another. It's not the first time something like this happened."

Al Jazeera.com is based in Dubai, apparently.

Anyway, time for some optimism please.

Lots of Goodies

Lots of good stuff on the Centre for Independent Studies website at the moment. Firstly, the transcript of a lecture given by Johan Norberg (his pro-globalisation views were mentioned by me last week)

The full paper by Helen Hughes on aboriginal problems being linked to their isolation from the economy generally is also to be found there. Frank Devine gave a bit of a backgrounder to how the paper came about recently in the Australian.

There's also a link to a decent article (look at the right hand column; I can't copy the link here for some reason) by Owen Harries on how wrong the predictions of "intellectuals" have historically been, and the possible reasons why. Hopefully, Mr Harries is himself wrong about the Iraq war, which he opposed.

Crime and punishment in Japan

The Japan Times Online

The Japan Times link is to a story about the Japanese criminal investigation system.

"Japan's criminal justice system lacks a fundamental notion that is manifest in other parts of the democratized world: the presumption of innocence, according to human rights advocates.

Suspects are still forced to make false confessions during interrogations in which legal representation is banned, and custody can last up to 23 days before charges are filed, lawyers and people who claim to have or were determined to have been falsely accused told a recent public meeting in Tokyo held by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations.

Arrested suspects are often detained in a police "daiyo kangoku" substitute prison for up to 23 days before indictment, and release on bail is unlikely as long as they plead innocent or remain silent."

It's no wonder US military authorities are reluctant to hand over their members to this system.

If you go to jail, it's not much fun either. A brief ABC radio report last year noted:

"Life on the inside is incredibly strict, conditions are Spartan, and intricate rules dictate every aspect of prison life – how to sit at a table, how to fold your clothes, never sit on the futon. Some prisons even dictate how to lie in bed. Prisoners who roll onto their stomachs during the night can be punished.

(Sound of bell ringing)

In the jail workshops, inmates work diligently, not allowed to speak, look at the clock, look at each other, or look out the window. There are regular reports of physical abuse by guards. In 2001 and 2002, several prisoners were killed by their keepers at Nagoya jail.

One of them died when guards pushed a high-pressure fire hose into his rectum. The force of the water caused massive internal trauma. The prison tried to claim the injuries were self-inflicted."

It pays to behave yourself when in Japan.

A bit of scenery

The Holocaust revisited

I have been meaning to recommend "Auschwitz", the BBC documentary that concentrates on the death camp of the title, but deals with the Holocaust in general too. It is currently showing on the ABC in Australia on Thursday nights.

It's a well made series, with a good balance between "talking head" interviews (both with survivors and some of the perpetrators) and dramatisations of various events.

Looking at the BBC website, it is clear that a lot of care went into the dramatisations. Some of them are precise re-enactments, filmed in the same location where the events took place. No wonder these scenes have such an authentic feel. (Actual locations featured a lot in Schindler's List too, if I recall.)

Still, in such documentaries, for emotional impact it is hard to beat first hand accounts delivered by the witnesses. This series does take more interest than most in the story from the other side. These interviews tend to be fairly short, however, and while most of the old men seem to regret their involvement now, they don't usually come across as being too haunted by it.

This week's episode was most upsetting when covering the (foreign national) Jewish children taken from occupied France. About 4,000 were separated from their families and deported; none of them survived. If you have children yourself, hearing such stories is particularly affecting.

When one aging Nazi soldier was asked about this, about how he could believe at the time that children deserved this fate (even if you believed that adult Jews were the source of all evil), he said (as best as I can recall) that they knew the children themselves were not responsible, but it was the Jewish blood in them that they feared and believed they had to eradicate.

This has been said by several of old soldiers; they genuinely believed at the time that Jews were so bad they deserved their fate.

I don't know a lot about this topic in particular - about how so many Germans could be so strongly convinced that the Jews deserved death. (OK, it is debatable how many German citizens without direct involvement in camps knew that the Jews were being exterminated. But in the BBC show it is often the men who were personally doing or witnessing the killing who are saying this.) I know the generalities about Nazi propaganda against the Jews. What I have trouble comprehending is how successful it was. And it wasn't as if Jews were more capable of being considered "non humans" because they were out of sight and not observable.

This is why it is worth revisiting this topic every few years. It is almost incomprehensible, yet it occurred.

There was a book out in the last few years that did deal with the issue of how responsible the German people has a whole should be seen. Guess I should just track it down and read it.

Finally, while looking around the Web at a few Holocaust sites before I posted, I found that there are actual photos of Amon Goeth, the commandant of the camp in Schindler's List, with his rifle on his balcony. (If you recall from the movie, shooting inmates from his balcony was one of his hobbies.) I didn't think the movie was a likely exaggeration, but I was still surprised to find photos of him which appear to confirm this habit.