news @ nature.com-Warnings rise over rising seas-Fresh predictions about climate change prompt news@nature.com to ask what we know about the future of our oceans.
As I have previously posted on the current relatively slow rate of sea level rises, it's only fair that I post about this new study indicating that (on worst estimates) the sea level rise could indeed be very dramatic within a hundred years.
These new estimates are so high above those previously indicated by the IPCC that I expect there may be some legitimate criticism of the studies to come soon. I also have doubts that it matches entirely with other possibilities recently mooted.
Meanwhile, I have been meaning to get some good maps to see where the beach may be in 100 years time, and consider buying land there.
UPDATE: Real Climate's take on the story is very important as a counterpoint to the way this story has been reported in the media. (For those who don't know, Real Climate is in no way a global warming sceptic site. Quite the opposite.)
What does all this news mean in practice? Reading the editorials in Science, and quotations from various researchers in newspaper articles, one might be under the impression that we should now expect "catastrophic sea-level rise" (as Science's Richard Kerr writes). Of course, what is catastrophic to the eye of a geologist may be an event taking thousands of years. In the Otto-Bliesner et al. simulations, it takes 2000-3000 years for Greenland to melt back to its LIG minimum size. And while we don't advocate sticking with the typical politician's time frame of 4 or 5 years, the new results do not require us to revise projections of sea level rise over the next century or so. This is because even with Arctic temperature continuing to rise rapidly, there will still be significant delay before the process of ice sheet melting and thinning is complete. There is uncertainty in this delay time, but this is already taken into account in IPCC uncertainty estimates. It is also important to remember that the data showing accelerating mass loss in Antarctica and rapid glacier flow in Greenland only reflect a very few years of measurements -- the GRACE satellite has only been in operation since 2002, so it provides only a snapshot of Antarctic mass changes. We don't really know whether these observations reflect the long term trend.
So, no need for me to retract my previous posts about there being no need (for the next few decades at least) to talk about Tuvalu sinking beneath the seas. You would never guess that from the general media, but I think Science magazine itself is rather to blame in this case.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Ouch...
news @ nature.com - Stem cells found in adult mouse testes -Procedure could yield an ethically sound source of stem cells.
From the above story in Nature:
Researchers in Germany have identified a potential source of reprogrammable cells in adults that could be used for regenerative therapy. The cells would be taken directly from the testis and cultured....
....it should be possible to produce similar results [to those with mice] with samples taken from human testicles through a biopsy...
From the above story in Nature:
Researchers in Germany have identified a potential source of reprogrammable cells in adults that could be used for regenerative therapy. The cells would be taken directly from the testis and cultured....
....it should be possible to produce similar results [to those with mice] with samples taken from human testicles through a biopsy...
Howard's popularity
The Australian: Howard love means never saying farewell [March 25, 2006]
Matt Price's piece in this Weekend's Australian notes the PM's apparent (and somewhat puzzling) popularity at the Commonweath Games. Here's how he is being received:
Last weekend I attended the swimming where, on the announcement of the PM presenting the medals, the spontaneous roar almost matched the reception for Leisel Jones.
A friend of mine has been working at the gymnastics, where the PM made a midweek evening appearance.
"The crowd went off," he told me. "At the end of the session, Howard stuck around to sign autographs and pose for photos and he was still there half an hour later when I left. There were all kinds of people queuing up to meet him. Just incredible, I couldn't believe it."
While covering the men's and women's 20km walk events - quite possibly the stupidest assignment in the known universe - the Howards were scheduled to greet competitors at the end. But when Jane Saville crossed the line, only Janette Howard was able to attend; the PM was held up organising the Cyclone Larry relief operation. While milling around the finish line, Janette Howard was mobbed by punters and volunteers; truly, I'm not making this up.
The rest of the article is about how no one quite understands why. It must drive Tim Dunlop mad. (He's been posting tirelessly on the Wheat Board scandal.)
The friendly reception may account for this too:
MELBOURNE outdoes Sydney when it comes to hosting large events such as the Commonwealth Games, the Prime Minister said, praising the friendliness of its residents and the sense of community it has created for visitors.
"[Melbourne] does these things better than any other city because there's a sense of community cohesion," John Howard told Melbourne radio yesterday.
As for how a cheerful reception for Howard makes Peter Costello feel, have a look at the Clark & Dawe bit from Thursday's 7.30 Report (seems only a transcript is up at the moment). I like this part:
INTERVIEWER: What are you actually doing there these days?
PETER COSTELLO: I'm the Federal Treasurer, Bryan. I'm running the Treasury, yes.
INTERVIEWER: Oh, really, the same job?
PETER COSTELLO: The same job, exactly, yes.
INTERVIEWER: You're obviously still enjoying it?
PETER COSTELLO: I love it, Bryan. I'll be bringing down my 211th Budget this year, so getting the hang of it nicely, you'd have to say.
Matt Price's piece in this Weekend's Australian notes the PM's apparent (and somewhat puzzling) popularity at the Commonweath Games. Here's how he is being received:
Last weekend I attended the swimming where, on the announcement of the PM presenting the medals, the spontaneous roar almost matched the reception for Leisel Jones.
A friend of mine has been working at the gymnastics, where the PM made a midweek evening appearance.
"The crowd went off," he told me. "At the end of the session, Howard stuck around to sign autographs and pose for photos and he was still there half an hour later when I left. There were all kinds of people queuing up to meet him. Just incredible, I couldn't believe it."
While covering the men's and women's 20km walk events - quite possibly the stupidest assignment in the known universe - the Howards were scheduled to greet competitors at the end. But when Jane Saville crossed the line, only Janette Howard was able to attend; the PM was held up organising the Cyclone Larry relief operation. While milling around the finish line, Janette Howard was mobbed by punters and volunteers; truly, I'm not making this up.
The rest of the article is about how no one quite understands why. It must drive Tim Dunlop mad. (He's been posting tirelessly on the Wheat Board scandal.)
The friendly reception may account for this too:
MELBOURNE outdoes Sydney when it comes to hosting large events such as the Commonwealth Games, the Prime Minister said, praising the friendliness of its residents and the sense of community it has created for visitors.
"[Melbourne] does these things better than any other city because there's a sense of community cohesion," John Howard told Melbourne radio yesterday.
As for how a cheerful reception for Howard makes Peter Costello feel, have a look at the Clark & Dawe bit from Thursday's 7.30 Report (seems only a transcript is up at the moment). I like this part:
INTERVIEWER: What are you actually doing there these days?
PETER COSTELLO: I'm the Federal Treasurer, Bryan. I'm running the Treasury, yes.
INTERVIEWER: Oh, really, the same job?
PETER COSTELLO: The same job, exactly, yes.
INTERVIEWER: You're obviously still enjoying it?
PETER COSTELLO: I love it, Bryan. I'll be bringing down my 211th Budget this year, so getting the hang of it nicely, you'd have to say.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Paris in Spring
International News Article | Reuters.com
It's funny how Australia and France take industrial relations reform differently, isn't it. Of course, our unions might have learnt something from the PR debacle of the storming of Parliament House in Howard's first term.
It's funny how Australia and France take industrial relations reform differently, isn't it. Of course, our unions might have learnt something from the PR debacle of the storming of Parliament House in Howard's first term.
Polygamy on HBO
The New Yorker: The Critics: On Television
So, the polygamous marriage show has started on HBO in America. As if you didn't suspect it already, the shows creators have fine liberal credentials:
The series was created by Will Scheffer and Mark V. Olsen, who are life partners as well as professional collaborators. They also serve as executive producers (as does Tom Hanks), and wrote five of the season’s twelve episodes (and co-wrote another two). Scheffer and Olsen have said in interviews that they aimed to create a nonjudgmental portrait of plural marriage, and it’s true that the series focusses more on the practical and emotional aspects of polygamy than on its moral or ethical aspects.
What interests me is this: many feminists or other liberals would, I suspect, object to polygamy on the basis that it arguably does not do much from the status of women. If a show portraying polygamy in a "non judgmental" light had been made by some clearly right leaning figures, would their sexual politics have been criticised? However, have it made by gay Hollywood liberals, I wonder how much this issue may be raised.
(Perhaps it is being raised, I have not spent much time looking for commentary on it. I just raise this as a point of interest.)
And while I am on this, it seems that openly gay writer's and producers have really never had a bigger influence in TV and movie production as they have had in the last 5 years or so. I am thinking Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives, (I presume) Will & Grace (which I don't find offensive, just not funny, even though I like the lead female); this polygamy show, some movie guys whose names I can't recall without googling, etc.
Funny how sexual matters seem to be somewhat of a priority in the stuff they are doing. Funny how ratings and movie earnings are down too. They may be cool and "out there" with their writing, but they aren't so good for business.
UPDATE: Saletan's take on why polygamy will never really catch on is a good read here at Slate. You can then read arguments for and against Saletan's position here.
So, the polygamous marriage show has started on HBO in America. As if you didn't suspect it already, the shows creators have fine liberal credentials:
The series was created by Will Scheffer and Mark V. Olsen, who are life partners as well as professional collaborators. They also serve as executive producers (as does Tom Hanks), and wrote five of the season’s twelve episodes (and co-wrote another two). Scheffer and Olsen have said in interviews that they aimed to create a nonjudgmental portrait of plural marriage, and it’s true that the series focusses more on the practical and emotional aspects of polygamy than on its moral or ethical aspects.
What interests me is this: many feminists or other liberals would, I suspect, object to polygamy on the basis that it arguably does not do much from the status of women. If a show portraying polygamy in a "non judgmental" light had been made by some clearly right leaning figures, would their sexual politics have been criticised? However, have it made by gay Hollywood liberals, I wonder how much this issue may be raised.
(Perhaps it is being raised, I have not spent much time looking for commentary on it. I just raise this as a point of interest.)
And while I am on this, it seems that openly gay writer's and producers have really never had a bigger influence in TV and movie production as they have had in the last 5 years or so. I am thinking Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives, (I presume) Will & Grace (which I don't find offensive, just not funny, even though I like the lead female); this polygamy show, some movie guys whose names I can't recall without googling, etc.
Funny how sexual matters seem to be somewhat of a priority in the stuff they are doing. Funny how ratings and movie earnings are down too. They may be cool and "out there" with their writing, but they aren't so good for business.
UPDATE: Saletan's take on why polygamy will never really catch on is a good read here at Slate. You can then read arguments for and against Saletan's position here.
Just silly
Hidden jobless figure may reach 17% - National - smh.com.au
From the article:
"There are about 2 million people who typically would have got jobs in the 1960s who can't get work now," said John Quiggin, professor of economics at the University of Queensland.
Professor Quiggin's calculations mean about 17.5 per cent of the labour force wants more work than it can get - more than triple the official 5.2 per cent jobless rate. Acceptable real unemployment estimates ranged between 10 and 20 per cent.
How much sense does it make to call the "underemployed" the "unemployed"? None at all, in my books.
From the article:
"There are about 2 million people who typically would have got jobs in the 1960s who can't get work now," said John Quiggin, professor of economics at the University of Queensland.
Professor Quiggin's calculations mean about 17.5 per cent of the labour force wants more work than it can get - more than triple the official 5.2 per cent jobless rate. Acceptable real unemployment estimates ranged between 10 and 20 per cent.
How much sense does it make to call the "underemployed" the "unemployed"? None at all, in my books.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Bingo
Time to change tack on Howard: Gillard - National - smh.com.au
Let's play "Labor Party self-analysis bingo" with Julia Gillard.
Arguing that her party had to "stand and fight for our values", Ms Gillard presented a forceful argument in the debate within Labor about whether it stood out clearly enough from the Coalition.
"We cannot shy away from the so-called 'culture wars' out of fear of being wedged by right-wing caricatures of Labor values," she said.
Speaking at a NSW Fabian Society Forum entitled "John Howard: 10 years on", Ms Gillard called for a new Labor vision...
She has called for him [Beazley]to be more inclusive..
It was not enough to assume Labor's view of Mr Howard would prevail.
"It was hoped if people woke up to his use of the politics of fear, Howard would fail. It was hoped if Howard was derided as divisive that he would be repudiated. But these strategies have failed."
I am sure I could come up with more if a complete text of the speech was available.
Kim, the clock is ticking to a Gillard showdown within the next 6 months.
Seems some contributors to Larvatus Prodeo are running a "Go Jules 2007" campaign. I should support this too, on the assumption I will still want a Liberal government after the next election.
UPDATE: Wow. Beazley mate Michael Costello has a red hot go at Gillard in the Australian this morning. I suspect this means Beazley wants to flush out any prospect of a challenge sooner rather than later. Just a sample from the article:
Gillard, on the other hand, [compared to Latham] has little memorable to say on substance. Her prescriptions whether on policy, or the future of the party, or on political tactics, are lightweight and banal.
But she is not about policy. She is about look at me, look at me, look at me. Her aim is the celebrity that brings public approval. And the way she has set out to get that celebrity is to savage her own party.
Her Fabian Society speech this week was empty of specifics.
etc, etc. Love it.
Let's play "Labor Party self-analysis bingo" with Julia Gillard.
Arguing that her party had to "stand and fight for our values", Ms Gillard presented a forceful argument in the debate within Labor about whether it stood out clearly enough from the Coalition.
"We cannot shy away from the so-called 'culture wars' out of fear of being wedged by right-wing caricatures of Labor values," she said.
Speaking at a NSW Fabian Society Forum entitled "John Howard: 10 years on", Ms Gillard called for a new Labor vision...
She has called for him [Beazley]to be more inclusive..
It was not enough to assume Labor's view of Mr Howard would prevail.
"It was hoped if people woke up to his use of the politics of fear, Howard would fail. It was hoped if Howard was derided as divisive that he would be repudiated. But these strategies have failed."
I am sure I could come up with more if a complete text of the speech was available.
Kim, the clock is ticking to a Gillard showdown within the next 6 months.
Seems some contributors to Larvatus Prodeo are running a "Go Jules 2007" campaign. I should support this too, on the assumption I will still want a Liberal government after the next election.
UPDATE: Wow. Beazley mate Michael Costello has a red hot go at Gillard in the Australian this morning. I suspect this means Beazley wants to flush out any prospect of a challenge sooner rather than later. Just a sample from the article:
Gillard, on the other hand, [compared to Latham] has little memorable to say on substance. Her prescriptions whether on policy, or the future of the party, or on political tactics, are lightweight and banal.
But she is not about policy. She is about look at me, look at me, look at me. Her aim is the celebrity that brings public approval. And the way she has set out to get that celebrity is to savage her own party.
Her Fabian Society speech this week was empty of specifics.
etc, etc. Love it.
Airline warning
BBC NEWS | Europe | EU issues 'unsafe' airlines ban
The EU has a list of unsafe airlines, most of which are in Congo, Sierra Leone and other places in which I assume I have a very small readership.
However:
Thailand's Phuket Airlines is on the list, as well as carriers from Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and North Korea.
Air Bangladesh makes the list too. You have been warned.
The EU has a list of unsafe airlines, most of which are in Congo, Sierra Leone and other places in which I assume I have a very small readership.
However:
Thailand's Phuket Airlines is on the list, as well as carriers from Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and North Korea.
Air Bangladesh makes the list too. You have been warned.
Litigation coming our way?
Guardian Unlimited Technology | Technology | Landmark libel award for chatroom insults
From the above:
A landmark legal ruling ordering a woman to pay £10,000 in damages for defamatory comments posted on an internet chatroom site could trigger a rush of similar lawsuits, a leading libel lawyer warned today.
Michael Smith, a Ukip activist who stood for the Portsmouth North seat last year, became the first person to win damages yesterday after being accused of being a "sex offender" and "racist blogger" on a Yahoo! discussion site....
Although ISPs have paid out for hosting defamatory comments, this case is thought to be the first time an individual has been found to have committed libel on a internet chat site.
In a way, it's surprising that such litigation has taken so long to start.
From the above:
A landmark legal ruling ordering a woman to pay £10,000 in damages for defamatory comments posted on an internet chatroom site could trigger a rush of similar lawsuits, a leading libel lawyer warned today.
Michael Smith, a Ukip activist who stood for the Portsmouth North seat last year, became the first person to win damages yesterday after being accused of being a "sex offender" and "racist blogger" on a Yahoo! discussion site....
Although ISPs have paid out for hosting defamatory comments, this case is thought to be the first time an individual has been found to have committed libel on a internet chat site.
In a way, it's surprising that such litigation has taken so long to start.
Add the imbalance of boys to girls, they won't need it for much longer
Beijing rules out changes to one-child policy - World - theage.com.au
From the story:
China's birth rate fell from 5.83 children per couple in the early 1970s to 2.1 children in 1990 and is now 1.8.
The original harsh policing, which involved widespread sterilisation, was replaced in the early 1990s by economic incentives to limit families to one child after widespread condemnation.
Mr Zhang acknowledged that abuses were still occurring but said authorities were cracking down on gender-selective abortions to correct the huge gender imbalance favouring males.
From the story:
China's birth rate fell from 5.83 children per couple in the early 1970s to 2.1 children in 1990 and is now 1.8.
The original harsh policing, which involved widespread sterilisation, was replaced in the early 1990s by economic incentives to limit families to one child after widespread condemnation.
Mr Zhang acknowledged that abuses were still occurring but said authorities were cracking down on gender-selective abortions to correct the huge gender imbalance favouring males.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
On Japan and immigration
The Japan Times Online
The article above is about how difficult it is to get Japanese to accept that they will need much bigger immigration in future to offset the declining population. (It's already on the way down.)
Oddly, it appears the Japanese don't even like tourists that much:
"The common Japanese view of foreigners is very unsparing at the moment. Twenty years ago, 3 out of 10 people didn't like the Chinese; today it is 7 out of 10. Many Japanese fear foreigners because they think they cause crime.
"Seventy percent of Japanese are against allowing more tourists. That's ridiculous. Tourists don't cause crime and the overwhelming majority of foreigners are good people. But negative thinking about foreigners here is strong."
You wouldn't know it while you are there. The importance of extreme politeness in its service industries makes the service in most western countries seem pretty poor by comparison.
The author of the article also has a particularly blunt turn of phrase :
The seeds of xenophobia are frequently fertilized by excretions from Kasumigaseki, such as the February comment by Former Trade Minister Takeo Hiranuma raising the horrifying prospect of a blue-eyed foreigner muddying the Imperial line.
I must try to use that line myself somewhere!
The article above is about how difficult it is to get Japanese to accept that they will need much bigger immigration in future to offset the declining population. (It's already on the way down.)
Oddly, it appears the Japanese don't even like tourists that much:
"The common Japanese view of foreigners is very unsparing at the moment. Twenty years ago, 3 out of 10 people didn't like the Chinese; today it is 7 out of 10. Many Japanese fear foreigners because they think they cause crime.
"Seventy percent of Japanese are against allowing more tourists. That's ridiculous. Tourists don't cause crime and the overwhelming majority of foreigners are good people. But negative thinking about foreigners here is strong."
You wouldn't know it while you are there. The importance of extreme politeness in its service industries makes the service in most western countries seem pretty poor by comparison.
The author of the article also has a particularly blunt turn of phrase :
The seeds of xenophobia are frequently fertilized by excretions from Kasumigaseki, such as the February comment by Former Trade Minister Takeo Hiranuma raising the horrifying prospect of a blue-eyed foreigner muddying the Imperial line.
I must try to use that line myself somewhere!
Porn wars in Indonesia
Guardian Unlimited | World dispatch | Indonesia's pornagraphy troubles
Interesting article on the Indonesia moves against "pornography":
Some of the bill's opponents argue that it is not more legislation that is needed, but better enforcement of existing regulations. Some newspapers, for instance, openly advertise massages that leave nothing to the imagination, and the police make virtually no attempt to clamp down on the numerous pirated porn film street vendors....
But the biggest gripe is with the articles on what is known locally as pornoaksi, or pornographic actions. These, the opposition argue, massively curtail individuals' rights, and particularly those of women.
The bill states not only that anyone engaging in obscene public acts such as spouses kissing, women showing their navels and people sunbathing could be arrested, but it also says that anyone has the right to detain the offenders.
But, there are some fighting hard against the bill, which goes to show the difference between Indonesian government and that in, say, Saudi Arabia:
Thousands-strong demonstrations demanding the bill be revised or even dropped have outnumbered the pro-legislation rallies.
The complaints are hitting home. The vice president, Jusuf Kalla, yesterday tried to reassure the Balinese by saying that the government does not support everything in the bill. Members of the parliamentary committee hearing civil society views on the bill have told Guardian Unlimited that virtually all of the pornoaksi articles have been withdrawn, and the two largest parties in parliament, Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, are in rare agreement that the bill needs major revisions.
Resolution of the crisis is, however, nowhere in sight
Interesting article on the Indonesia moves against "pornography":
Some of the bill's opponents argue that it is not more legislation that is needed, but better enforcement of existing regulations. Some newspapers, for instance, openly advertise massages that leave nothing to the imagination, and the police make virtually no attempt to clamp down on the numerous pirated porn film street vendors....
But the biggest gripe is with the articles on what is known locally as pornoaksi, or pornographic actions. These, the opposition argue, massively curtail individuals' rights, and particularly those of women.
The bill states not only that anyone engaging in obscene public acts such as spouses kissing, women showing their navels and people sunbathing could be arrested, but it also says that anyone has the right to detain the offenders.
But, there are some fighting hard against the bill, which goes to show the difference between Indonesian government and that in, say, Saudi Arabia:
Thousands-strong demonstrations demanding the bill be revised or even dropped have outnumbered the pro-legislation rallies.
The complaints are hitting home. The vice president, Jusuf Kalla, yesterday tried to reassure the Balinese by saying that the government does not support everything in the bill. Members of the parliamentary committee hearing civil society views on the bill have told Guardian Unlimited that virtually all of the pornoaksi articles have been withdrawn, and the two largest parties in parliament, Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, are in rare agreement that the bill needs major revisions.
Resolution of the crisis is, however, nowhere in sight
Don't put off your surgery too long
Dad's army: half of all surgeons want to retire within 15 years - National
This is not good news:
Almost half of Australia's surgical work force is aged over 55 and planning to retire within the next 15 years, just as demand for health services from ageing baby boomers reaches its peak.
Only 16 per cent of surgeons are under 40, meaning there is no army of younger specialists to take over, a survey of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons' 3800 members has found...
"The issues are overwhelming," he said. "Seventy per cent of people who are alive today will be alive in 2050, a third of the population will be over 65 in the next decade and there is a worldwide shortage of medical practitioners."
I wonder how much room there is for changes to the training of surgeons. Are they overly conservative in that regard?
UPDATE: it turns out that an article in The Age today gives a lot of detail about the changes to surgeon training that are being mooted now.
This is not good news:
Almost half of Australia's surgical work force is aged over 55 and planning to retire within the next 15 years, just as demand for health services from ageing baby boomers reaches its peak.
Only 16 per cent of surgeons are under 40, meaning there is no army of younger specialists to take over, a survey of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons' 3800 members has found...
"The issues are overwhelming," he said. "Seventy per cent of people who are alive today will be alive in 2050, a third of the population will be over 65 in the next decade and there is a worldwide shortage of medical practitioners."
I wonder how much room there is for changes to the training of surgeons. Are they overly conservative in that regard?
UPDATE: it turns out that an article in The Age today gives a lot of detail about the changes to surgeon training that are being mooted now.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Rushing to judgment on Iraq
The Australian: Paul Gray: Apologise to Latham [March 21, 2006]
The Australia today runs the above article in which the (apparently) essentially conservative Paul Gray gets all hot under the collar about Iraq being a total failure:
The principal error of Bush's policy is that it was a betrayal of the authentic conservative cause. Conservatives, in my lifetime at least, have always opposed the international spread of totalitarianism, whether it is state totalitarianism (communism) or terrorism. Through his Iraq war misadventure, Bush has sponsored the spread of totalitarianism.
Does this really make sense? There is no doubt that a totalitarian regime has been removed. The current issue is what type of regime will replace it in the long term. No doubt in the short term, at least, there is likely to be a democratic government. In the long term, who knows, but large voter turnout in past elections give strong reason to doubt that any large number of Iraqis want to return to totalitarianism.
Which countries around Iraq have now become more totalitarian due to the US invasion? (Hamas was elected for Palestine, sure, but have they said they are now the permanent government?) Although Al Qaeda may be operating in Iraq now, some people feel that their role in attempting to ferment the downfall of democracy will backfire in the long run, if it isn't happening already. So what makes Gray so confident that all is lost already? (He might have said that the cost has already been too high, which is a matter for individual judgment, but that does not seem to be the core of his argument.)
Furthermore, he writes:
So, after just three years, the most serious Western conservative political enterprise of the century so far has been officially consigned to the pages of history as a joke. This is Bush's doing.
It doesn't matter how many conservative commentators have also joined Gray in getting cold feet (he lists them all;) those who are calling this an abject failure are just guessing at the moment. While some predict the breakup of the nation, even at the worst case, are any of those regions likely to be as totalitarian as Saddam's regime? I have my doubts, but of course may be proved wrong.
To say things have not gone according to the pre-war optimists plans is a big understatement; on the other hand, to call it a massive failure at this point of time is gross overstatement (unless of course you were a pacificist or isolationist who never wanted to go there in the first place. However, Gray appears not to fall into those categories.)
Gray then finishes on a very bizarre note:
As Latham faces court tomorrow over assault, theft and malicious damage, someone should apologise to him.
What? This is somehow going to be relevant to the court charge? Or does he just mean, "Latham's having a tough time, let's just make him feel better by agreeing he was right about Iraq." What rubbish.
UPDATE: by another happy co-incidence, Christopher Hitchens has an article about the Iraqi problems over at Opinion Journal. Here's how he starts (excuse the length):
In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention ("to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "accelerate the emergence of the Messiah"), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq's largest confessional group that: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger."
Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. "Civil war" has replaced "the insurgency" as the proof that the war is "unwinnable." But in plain truth, the "civil war" is and always was the chief tactic of the "insurgency."
The rest of the article is important too. Interestingly, at the very time that the US public is losing resolve over Iraq, there appears to be increasing evidence (via the Iraqi documents only now being slowly released) to support Hitchen's view that Saddam was dangerous through his discrete assistance to al Qaeda and that the war in Iraq was relevant to the war on al Qaeda. (The recent claim that Saddam was helping encourage his own generals to believe there were WMD also seems highly relevant to the issue of the how excuseable the apparent intelligence failures were, but I don't see many anti-war writers mentioning this.)
Hitchens still writes convincingly and with what seems to be a significantly greater depth of background knowledge of the region than any other journalist.
The Australia today runs the above article in which the (apparently) essentially conservative Paul Gray gets all hot under the collar about Iraq being a total failure:
The principal error of Bush's policy is that it was a betrayal of the authentic conservative cause. Conservatives, in my lifetime at least, have always opposed the international spread of totalitarianism, whether it is state totalitarianism (communism) or terrorism. Through his Iraq war misadventure, Bush has sponsored the spread of totalitarianism.
Does this really make sense? There is no doubt that a totalitarian regime has been removed. The current issue is what type of regime will replace it in the long term. No doubt in the short term, at least, there is likely to be a democratic government. In the long term, who knows, but large voter turnout in past elections give strong reason to doubt that any large number of Iraqis want to return to totalitarianism.
Which countries around Iraq have now become more totalitarian due to the US invasion? (Hamas was elected for Palestine, sure, but have they said they are now the permanent government?) Although Al Qaeda may be operating in Iraq now, some people feel that their role in attempting to ferment the downfall of democracy will backfire in the long run, if it isn't happening already. So what makes Gray so confident that all is lost already? (He might have said that the cost has already been too high, which is a matter for individual judgment, but that does not seem to be the core of his argument.)
Furthermore, he writes:
So, after just three years, the most serious Western conservative political enterprise of the century so far has been officially consigned to the pages of history as a joke. This is Bush's doing.
It doesn't matter how many conservative commentators have also joined Gray in getting cold feet (he lists them all;) those who are calling this an abject failure are just guessing at the moment. While some predict the breakup of the nation, even at the worst case, are any of those regions likely to be as totalitarian as Saddam's regime? I have my doubts, but of course may be proved wrong.
To say things have not gone according to the pre-war optimists plans is a big understatement; on the other hand, to call it a massive failure at this point of time is gross overstatement (unless of course you were a pacificist or isolationist who never wanted to go there in the first place. However, Gray appears not to fall into those categories.)
Gray then finishes on a very bizarre note:
As Latham faces court tomorrow over assault, theft and malicious damage, someone should apologise to him.
What? This is somehow going to be relevant to the court charge? Or does he just mean, "Latham's having a tough time, let's just make him feel better by agreeing he was right about Iraq." What rubbish.
UPDATE: by another happy co-incidence, Christopher Hitchens has an article about the Iraqi problems over at Opinion Journal. Here's how he starts (excuse the length):
In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention ("to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "accelerate the emergence of the Messiah"), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq's largest confessional group that: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger."
Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. "Civil war" has replaced "the insurgency" as the proof that the war is "unwinnable." But in plain truth, the "civil war" is and always was the chief tactic of the "insurgency."
The rest of the article is important too. Interestingly, at the very time that the US public is losing resolve over Iraq, there appears to be increasing evidence (via the Iraqi documents only now being slowly released) to support Hitchen's view that Saddam was dangerous through his discrete assistance to al Qaeda and that the war in Iraq was relevant to the war on al Qaeda. (The recent claim that Saddam was helping encourage his own generals to believe there were WMD also seems highly relevant to the issue of the how excuseable the apparent intelligence failures were, but I don't see many anti-war writers mentioning this.)
Hitchens still writes convincingly and with what seems to be a significantly greater depth of background knowledge of the region than any other journalist.
Educated mother's stress
Heart and home must be part of the debate - Opinion - smh.com.au
Catharine Lumby expresses scepticism about how much weight you can put on scientific studies that find very early childhood childcare is stressful. Take this:
One of the problems with using narrowly scientific models to study children in social settings - whether we're talking child care, reading books or watching television - is that these studies assume a mathematical level of predictability about complex human experiences. It's not that research is irrelevant, it's that we need to be very clear about the value of different approaches. And we need to put them in context.
I can see her point. But then she uses these examples:
The problem with relying on neurobiological data to measure the wellbeing of children in child care is that a whole lot of other factors are being left out of the equation. And the scientific questions tend to be framed by prejudices about what is a "normal" state of affairs.
Are any neurobiologists, for instance, keen on studying the stress levels of women who can't get back into the workforce after their children go back to school so they can use the degree they slaved to get? Are any of them looking inside the brains of (mainly male) chief executives and trying to find the lobe that programs them to spend $25,000 sponsoring a golf day and zero on promoting paternity leave?
Yes, poor stressed mothers with degrees must be able to get back into the work force as soon as they possibly can, otherwise their life feels like such a waste. That what childcare should be all about.
Catharine Lumby expresses scepticism about how much weight you can put on scientific studies that find very early childhood childcare is stressful. Take this:
One of the problems with using narrowly scientific models to study children in social settings - whether we're talking child care, reading books or watching television - is that these studies assume a mathematical level of predictability about complex human experiences. It's not that research is irrelevant, it's that we need to be very clear about the value of different approaches. And we need to put them in context.
I can see her point. But then she uses these examples:
The problem with relying on neurobiological data to measure the wellbeing of children in child care is that a whole lot of other factors are being left out of the equation. And the scientific questions tend to be framed by prejudices about what is a "normal" state of affairs.
Are any neurobiologists, for instance, keen on studying the stress levels of women who can't get back into the workforce after their children go back to school so they can use the degree they slaved to get? Are any of them looking inside the brains of (mainly male) chief executives and trying to find the lobe that programs them to spend $25,000 sponsoring a golf day and zero on promoting paternity leave?
Yes, poor stressed mothers with degrees must be able to get back into the work force as soon as they possibly can, otherwise their life feels like such a waste. That what childcare should be all about.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)