I am sure Currency Lad could do a better job on this, but I can't let today's peculiar opinion piece by Michael Read in The Age go without comment.
The writer feels that, although he now has a perfectly good life, and can't remember much of his earlier difficulties due to a birth defect, he is so sorry for the pain his Mum went through that he believes it would have been better for her to have aborted him. As he summarises:
"My life in many ways has been a wonderful experience, but it has been achieved through the suffering of my mother. It would have been better for her had she aborted me. After all, my life then would never have been, and logically, I could not have regretted not living it, but my mother would almost certainly have had a better one."
Talk about your liberal death wishes....
The main thrust of the article, though, is about not being too judgmental on women who want abortions, even late term ones, such as the notorious incident involving a woman who aborted late due to probable dwarfism in the child.
There are many issues I have with the "logic" of this article.
Firstly, the point about a hypothetical abortion meaning that he would not be around to regret not living adds nothing to the argument about the morality of abortion or killing. I mean, adults killed don't harbour regrets either. Let's judge an act at the time it happens. (And let's not be too confident of being able to perceive alternative futures and the degree of happiness in them either.)
Perhaps inadvertantly, Read's comment on his hypothetical termination can be read to relate to issue of "personhood" and its relevance to the Peter Singer's utilitarian arguments about abortion. That is, if you abort a child before it has any significant self awareness, it is no moral wrong at all. (Remember, Singer would even allow a period of, say, a month after birth for parents to "accept" a child, and by his logic killing even a healthy new born is not necessarily "immoral".) This is where you can trust your intuition more than your "public intellectual".
Read is surely a utilitarain himself, with his emphasis in the article of wanting to see the maximum happiness. There are many, many problems with utilitarianism, but for the sake of the argument, if we try to apply it to his case, why does Read not factor in the happy ending? Having an adult son with a successful life is a good thing for his mother, surely. Achieving that happiness after overcoming physical adversity should make it especially profound, shouldn't it? Not to Mr Read, it seems.
And what does his mother think about this? He seems to deliberately avoid telling us her opinion (she is still alive.) Isn't this a vital factor if we are going to attempt some calculation of maximum happiness?
No, his aim is just to have us avoid judgement on the poor mother facing a possible hard life. So there is no point in being rigorous about it, he just wants us to concentrate on the negative possiblities and fears of the mother, regardless of how realistic they may be.
This points to one fundamental problem with utilitarianism: the nature of happiness itself and the difficulties in measuring it. I have posted here before on cognitive therapy for depression. It appeals to me becuase its fundamental idea (that all of your moods are in fact created by your thoughts, including your perceptions, your mental attitudes, beliefs and the way you interpret things) sounds right. And besides which, as a therapy it seems to clinically work.
If you philosophically agree with this understanding of moods, it makes the emphasis on "happiness" decidedly shaky grounds for deciding moral issues. Happiness (or the lack of it) is a cognitive reaction to events that may or may not be built on sound foundations in your cognitive world. What's more important is to look at those foundations.
(There's a lot of good stuff on the problems of trying to base morals on utilitarianism on the internet. Unfortunately, it is treated as a vague default position for many people who have never had the inclination or education to really think about the basis of morals.)
It's all well and good for Michael Read (and liberals generally) to emphasise sympathy for mothers who fear unhappiness. But when it comes to matters of life or death of a fetus/baby which would be viable outside of the womb (we are talking late term abortion), it is hardly the most important factor at stake.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Friday, July 22, 2005
Multiculturalism wars
A matter of respect - Opinion - theage.com.au
An opinion piece in the Age today (above) rushes to the defence of mulitculturalism. The argument seems to boil down to blaming Australia for not "sharing power" enough with its new migrants. The implication in the last paragraph is that we don't give the young men enough job opportunities:
"Perhaps when Terry Lane and Pamela Bone and Andrew Bolt and the others take on Muslim young people as work-experience trainees, and are prepared to admit ignorance and seek to listen and learn, the young people might be more willing to sit on the heads of the thugs who threaten them just as much as they threaten the rest of us."
And earlier in the article:
"Immigrants often see the self-serving nature of social practices of the "host" society far more clearly than members of that society's own chattering classes and politicians. Their children, imbued with the lessons of democracy and fairness in the new world, shed their parents' acquiescence to the contradictions and demand that its claims to justice and equality be realised."
Apart from the fun of seeing Terry Lane being criticised for what would normally be called a right wing opinion, this article seems very dubious. How about some empirical evidence to support the idea that Australia (or Britain for that matter) is somehow discriminating against the children of Muslim immigrants.
At least in Australia, just when did the increase in Muslim immigration kick in? (My guess would be from maybe the mid 1980's or even a bit later. Bit hard to say for me, never having lived in Sydney. Brisbane only started having an obvious presence of Muslims since, I reckon, about 5 to 10 years ago.) Surely it takes a bit of time for the children of a new migrant group to start to get higher positions in the jobs market. And look how successful European, Chinese, Vietnamese and other immigrant children are in our society now.
He would have to do a much better job of justifying this argument before I would give it any credence at all.
An opinion piece in the Age today (above) rushes to the defence of mulitculturalism. The argument seems to boil down to blaming Australia for not "sharing power" enough with its new migrants. The implication in the last paragraph is that we don't give the young men enough job opportunities:
"Perhaps when Terry Lane and Pamela Bone and Andrew Bolt and the others take on Muslim young people as work-experience trainees, and are prepared to admit ignorance and seek to listen and learn, the young people might be more willing to sit on the heads of the thugs who threaten them just as much as they threaten the rest of us."
And earlier in the article:
"Immigrants often see the self-serving nature of social practices of the "host" society far more clearly than members of that society's own chattering classes and politicians. Their children, imbued with the lessons of democracy and fairness in the new world, shed their parents' acquiescence to the contradictions and demand that its claims to justice and equality be realised."
Apart from the fun of seeing Terry Lane being criticised for what would normally be called a right wing opinion, this article seems very dubious. How about some empirical evidence to support the idea that Australia (or Britain for that matter) is somehow discriminating against the children of Muslim immigrants.
At least in Australia, just when did the increase in Muslim immigration kick in? (My guess would be from maybe the mid 1980's or even a bit later. Bit hard to say for me, never having lived in Sydney. Brisbane only started having an obvious presence of Muslims since, I reckon, about 5 to 10 years ago.) Surely it takes a bit of time for the children of a new migrant group to start to get higher positions in the jobs market. And look how successful European, Chinese, Vietnamese and other immigrant children are in our society now.
He would have to do a much better job of justifying this argument before I would give it any credence at all.
Give me space
Sitting ducks - Tips - Travel - theage.com.au
I missed this article from earlier this week about the erosion of airline seat space, especially in economy. It is ridiculous what the airlines expect us to put up with, especially on anything over a couple of hours.
Although I don't support spurious litigation, I am a bit surprised that the litigation brought by deep vein thrombosis sufferers against some of the airlines has not (to my knowledge) met with any success yet. I mean, the airlines must have had some concern about potential liability over this, because of the sudden torrent of in-flight guidance on how to avoid it (starting maybe 3 or 4 years ago?) It is one area where I think the success of such litigation would serve a useful social purpose. Otherwise, it is really just not possible to see a way that the public is ever going to get the airlines to come up with a more acceptable standard for seat space.
I missed this article from earlier this week about the erosion of airline seat space, especially in economy. It is ridiculous what the airlines expect us to put up with, especially on anything over a couple of hours.
Although I don't support spurious litigation, I am a bit surprised that the litigation brought by deep vein thrombosis sufferers against some of the airlines has not (to my knowledge) met with any success yet. I mean, the airlines must have had some concern about potential liability over this, because of the sudden torrent of in-flight guidance on how to avoid it (starting maybe 3 or 4 years ago?) It is one area where I think the success of such litigation would serve a useful social purpose. Otherwise, it is really just not possible to see a way that the public is ever going to get the airlines to come up with a more acceptable standard for seat space.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Take sugar tablets instead?
Efficacy of antidepressants in adults -- Moncrieff and Kirsch 331 (7509): 155 -- BMJ
Wow, this story in the British Medical Journal will cause a lot of controversy, I expect. Bottom line: it's not so clear that antidepressants are better than placebo. The article summary is:
"The NICE review data suggest that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors do not have a clinically meaningful advantage over placebo, which is consistent with other recent meta-analyses. In addition, methodological artefacts may account for the small effect seen. Evidence that antidepressants are more effective in more severe conditions is not strong, and data on long term outcome of depression and suicide do not provide convincing evidence of benefit. In children, the balance of benefits to risks is now recognised as unfavourable. We suggest this may also be the case for adults, given the continuing uncertainty about the possible risk of increased suicidality as well as other known adverse effects. This conclusion implies the need for a thorough re-evaluation of current approaches to depression and further development of alternatives to drug treatment. Since antidepressants have become society's main response to distress, expectations raised by decades of their use will also need to be addressed."
I should point out that placebo tablets will only work if you don't know they are placebo (so I am not seriously suggesting swapping your tablets for sugar ones!) However, as I have mentioned in an earlier post, cognitive therapy has got years of good results behind it now. Try it, depressed Lefties!
Wow, this story in the British Medical Journal will cause a lot of controversy, I expect. Bottom line: it's not so clear that antidepressants are better than placebo. The article summary is:
"The NICE review data suggest that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors do not have a clinically meaningful advantage over placebo, which is consistent with other recent meta-analyses. In addition, methodological artefacts may account for the small effect seen. Evidence that antidepressants are more effective in more severe conditions is not strong, and data on long term outcome of depression and suicide do not provide convincing evidence of benefit. In children, the balance of benefits to risks is now recognised as unfavourable. We suggest this may also be the case for adults, given the continuing uncertainty about the possible risk of increased suicidality as well as other known adverse effects. This conclusion implies the need for a thorough re-evaluation of current approaches to depression and further development of alternatives to drug treatment. Since antidepressants have become society's main response to distress, expectations raised by decades of their use will also need to be addressed."
I should point out that placebo tablets will only work if you don't know they are placebo (so I am not seriously suggesting swapping your tablets for sugar ones!) However, as I have mentioned in an earlier post, cognitive therapy has got years of good results behind it now. Try it, depressed Lefties!
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
More on Iraq / al Qaeda
The DIA and CIA Go MIA
This story is about the issue I raised previously, namely the disconcerting way the main stream media is, by and large, completely unconcerned about looking into the question of Iraq and al Qaeda. A good read.
This story is about the issue I raised previously, namely the disconcerting way the main stream media is, by and large, completely unconcerned about looking into the question of Iraq and al Qaeda. A good read.
A Jakarta Post opinion piece on London bombing
The Jakarta Post - After the bombs, London searching for the root cause of terrorism
Contrary to the headline, the above article contains nothing about the "search for the root cause of terrorism", but takes the opportunity to try to paint a moral equivalence between the conduct of the US and al-Qaeda. To quote:
"The aims of both al-Qaeda and some of these Western governments are somehow similar: Both "sides" believe in bombing and wars, both "sides" try to create the impressions that the other is evil and deserves to be destroyed in the name of (ironically) humanity, and both sides are spreading hatred and terror.
Both have used and sacrificed ordinary working class people, to achieve their ambitions, whatever these ambitions are. As Noam Chomsky has stated, George Bush used fear as a tool for his re-election, and had to manufacture another threat to American security to win his Presidency."
Appalling....
Contrary to the headline, the above article contains nothing about the "search for the root cause of terrorism", but takes the opportunity to try to paint a moral equivalence between the conduct of the US and al-Qaeda. To quote:
"The aims of both al-Qaeda and some of these Western governments are somehow similar: Both "sides" believe in bombing and wars, both "sides" try to create the impressions that the other is evil and deserves to be destroyed in the name of (ironically) humanity, and both sides are spreading hatred and terror.
Both have used and sacrificed ordinary working class people, to achieve their ambitions, whatever these ambitions are. As Noam Chomsky has stated, George Bush used fear as a tool for his re-election, and had to manufacture another threat to American security to win his Presidency."
Appalling....
Christopher Hitchens on Rove
Rove Rage - The poverty of our current scandal. By Christopher Hitchens
The link is to the ever readable Hitchens on the Rove/Wilson stuff. Excellent! (Although Professor Bunyip did a good job on this too.)
The link is to the ever readable Hitchens on the Rove/Wilson stuff. Excellent! (Although Professor Bunyip did a good job on this too.)
Avoiding the issue
From the same website that I linked to in my last post, which from a quick look seems generally to be a relatively moderate Islamic site, note this question and answer:
"If it is proved that a Muslim carried out the London bombings and I know something about him. Shall I call the non-Muslim police to arrest him? Or hand him to a Muslim schoalr or imam who can talk to him and convince him no to do that henious act again? Does this case have an origin in Fiqh literature?
Answer In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. According the Qur'an: (Whoever saves a human life, it is as if he has saved the entire humanity.) (Al-Ma`idah 5: 32) Therefore, if you found someone that is planning to attack civilians and innocent people, then you have to stop him by all legitimate means, including giving advice, preventing him from carrying out the crime, or even calling the police if he refuses to listen to you. There is no difference between Muslims and non-Muslims as for being perpetrators or victims, because every human life counts in Islam. The Qur'an, talking about the prohibition to kill people, used the word "nafs" which means "soul" without making a distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. "
See how the question says the person was already involved, but doesn't concentrate on whether to report him for that, but just on what to do to stop him doing it again. And the answer doesn't address the need to arrest him because he has already done the crime.
Is it too much for an Islamic leader to just say "yes, call the police if you believe he was involved"? And I am sure the UK police have Islamic liaison officers, as if that should matter anyway.
"If it is proved that a Muslim carried out the London bombings and I know something about him. Shall I call the non-Muslim police to arrest him? Or hand him to a Muslim schoalr or imam who can talk to him and convince him no to do that henious act again? Does this case have an origin in Fiqh literature?
Answer In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. According the Qur'an: (Whoever saves a human life, it is as if he has saved the entire humanity.) (Al-Ma`idah 5: 32) Therefore, if you found someone that is planning to attack civilians and innocent people, then you have to stop him by all legitimate means, including giving advice, preventing him from carrying out the crime, or even calling the police if he refuses to listen to you. There is no difference between Muslims and non-Muslims as for being perpetrators or victims, because every human life counts in Islam. The Qur'an, talking about the prohibition to kill people, used the word "nafs" which means "soul" without making a distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. "
See how the question says the person was already involved, but doesn't concentrate on whether to report him for that, but just on what to do to stop him doing it again. And the answer doesn't address the need to arrest him because he has already done the crime.
Is it too much for an Islamic leader to just say "yes, call the police if you believe he was involved"? And I am sure the UK police have Islamic liaison officers, as if that should matter anyway.
Everything you may never have wanted to know about this...
I am not really mocking Islam by linking to this detailed explanation of Islamic views on toilet paper. I was just genuinely curious about how detailed they get in their teachings on this.
However, you can't but help find the reference to using rocks or pebbles a bit funny, can you? Pity the poor desert dwellers, I suppose.
I am also curious about how many Muslims really follow the shaving pubic hair bit. I mean, it's not like your fellow Mosque attendees are ever likely to see, are they?
However, you can't but help find the reference to using rocks or pebbles a bit funny, can you? Pity the poor desert dwellers, I suppose.
I am also curious about how many Muslims really follow the shaving pubic hair bit. I mean, it's not like your fellow Mosque attendees are ever likely to see, are they?
Facing facts
TIME.com: When Denial Can Kill -- Jul. 25, 2005
The link is to a good essay from this week's Time magazine, about how Islamic leaders should face up to the fact that the Koran can be used to "justify" terrorism, and start their counter-arguments from that point (rather than from a blanket assertion that Islam is all about peace.) Well worth a read.
The link is to a good essay from this week's Time magazine, about how Islamic leaders should face up to the fact that the Koran can be used to "justify" terrorism, and start their counter-arguments from that point (rather than from a blanket assertion that Islam is all about peace.) Well worth a read.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Arab conspiracies
U.S. forces behind deadly children bomb: Iraqi experts -
See the above link for stupid propaganda that Arab media is still prepared to promote. It's a worry.
By the way, although I initially thought this website was connected to Aljazeera TV, it seems not to be.
Anyway, this Aljazeera website even has a special area for conspiracy theories, where it would seem every possible rumour gets a run, without any serious commentary at all.
Are Arabs especially pre-disposed to believing rumour and conspiracy? Of course the West has its fair share of conspiracy nutters too; but it is distressing to see the websites like this (which, from its commercial advertising, looks at at least a little main-streamish) playing such a role in promoting damaging and ridiculous rumours.
See the above link for stupid propaganda that Arab media is still prepared to promote. It's a worry.
By the way, although I initially thought this website was connected to Aljazeera TV, it seems not to be.
Anyway, this Aljazeera website even has a special area for conspiracy theories, where it would seem every possible rumour gets a run, without any serious commentary at all.
Are Arabs especially pre-disposed to believing rumour and conspiracy? Of course the West has its fair share of conspiracy nutters too; but it is distressing to see the websites like this (which, from its commercial advertising, looks at at least a little main-streamish) playing such a role in promoting damaging and ridiculous rumours.
Camel robot jockeys
The Australian: Robot jockeys saddle up [July 19, 2005]
Why haven't I seen this on TV yet? Robot sports, that's what the world is waiting for...
Why haven't I seen this on TV yet? Robot sports, that's what the world is waiting for...
Monday, July 18, 2005
Mad Katter on IR reform
Damn. On ABC Radio News this afternoon, I heard a snippet from mad Bob Katter about why he will oppose the Howard government's IR reforms. Unfortunately, I can't see it quoted anywhere on the net yet, so you will have to do with my paraphrase.
Bob said he will oppose it because even though he was involved in Joh Bjelke Peterson's fights with union, he does not want to see us go back to not just the 1960's, but the 1860's, when mining companies owned the children who wore numbers around their neck as they were sent down into the mines. (I am not making this up.)
Gee, I wonder why the union's ad campaigns don't mention that? I can see the ad now. Mum gets phone call threatening the sack if she can't change her shift. "But there must be some way I can keep my job?" she asks. Cut to the kids in sackcloth in the mine elevator.
Update: OK the actual quote now:
Bob said he will oppose it because even though he was involved in Joh Bjelke Peterson's fights with union, he does not want to see us go back to not just the 1960's, but the 1860's, when mining companies owned the children who wore numbers around their neck as they were sent down into the mines. (I am not making this up.)
Gee, I wonder why the union's ad campaigns don't mention that? I can see the ad now. Mum gets phone call threatening the sack if she can't change her shift. "But there must be some way I can keep my job?" she asks. Cut to the kids in sackcloth in the mine elevator.
Update: OK the actual quote now:
"They say I want to go back to the 1960s, the McEwen era, the old Country Party era, well that's absolutely true," he said.
"But it's a hell of a lot better to go back to 1960 than where they want to go, which is 1860, where little children went down mines with steel collars with numbers and were actually owned by the mine owners."
Space shuttle coming near you (well, me)
According to this bit of fun news over the weekend, (RAAF Base) Amberley - about 40 km west of Brisbane - is on the list of potential emergency landing sites for the space shuttle.
Is the runway there long enough? Well, it seems the Florida runway is 15,000 ft, with an extra 2,000 ft of paved overruns and Amberley is close enough to 10,000. So I guess it would do in a pinch. However, if I lived at Leichhardt (Ipswich suburb more or less right on the edge of the base) and I heard the shuttle was on its way in, I would be outta there pretty damn quick.
Is the runway there long enough? Well, it seems the Florida runway is 15,000 ft, with an extra 2,000 ft of paved overruns and Amberley is close enough to 10,000. So I guess it would do in a pinch. However, if I lived at Leichhardt (Ipswich suburb more or less right on the edge of the base) and I heard the shuttle was on its way in, I would be outta there pretty damn quick.
Webdiary's unsurprising slant on London
As Tim Blair noted (somewhere, I've lost it now), Webdiary was mysteriously silent for a long time on the London bombings. Possibly the technical problems afftecting the site recently?
In any event, this article (subtitled "commentary by Margo Kingston", but containing simply her very brief introduction to an article by John Richardson) is an entirely predictable rant that blames all of Islamic terrorism on, you guessed it, the West. America in particular. London only gets brief mention, but the blame the victim message is clear.
One "new" thing I noted in it was this:
"Then this week, the much quieter voice of an Iraqi humanitarian organization reported that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the US invasion began in March 2003 (Civilian Casualties In Iraq)."
The link is to a website here, the "World Peace Herald", which apparently is owned by the Moonies and seems to run a suspiciously sympathetic line on Islamofacsism (see story here, headed " 'To stop terrorism, accept pious Muslims on equal terms' ".)
Anyway, there is next to no detail on the Iraqi source of this new casualty figure, and a quick Google search adds nothing. No one should take it seriously without some proper detail. But that's no problem for Richardson (or Margo, if its "her" commentary piece).
Admittedly, Webdiary follows with a piece by Darlene Taylor which briefly attacks this sort of crap, but is mostly devoted to a review of David Williamson's latest play.
I knew Webdairy would eventually come to the party.
In any event, this article (subtitled "commentary by Margo Kingston", but containing simply her very brief introduction to an article by John Richardson) is an entirely predictable rant that blames all of Islamic terrorism on, you guessed it, the West. America in particular. London only gets brief mention, but the blame the victim message is clear.
One "new" thing I noted in it was this:
"Then this week, the much quieter voice of an Iraqi humanitarian organization reported that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the US invasion began in March 2003 (Civilian Casualties In Iraq)."
The link is to a website here, the "World Peace Herald", which apparently is owned by the Moonies and seems to run a suspiciously sympathetic line on Islamofacsism (see story here, headed " 'To stop terrorism, accept pious Muslims on equal terms' ".)
Anyway, there is next to no detail on the Iraqi source of this new casualty figure, and a quick Google search adds nothing. No one should take it seriously without some proper detail. But that's no problem for Richardson (or Margo, if its "her" commentary piece).
Admittedly, Webdiary follows with a piece by Darlene Taylor which briefly attacks this sort of crap, but is mostly devoted to a review of David Williamson's latest play.
I knew Webdairy would eventually come to the party.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)