This medical report on "treating" Egyptian men complaining of short penis length is, umm, noteworthy. But would you consider a stretched length of 7 cm "normal"? (I think stretched length is supposed to equate to erect length, isn't it?)
"Penile length and girth were measured twice using a tape measure in both flaccid and fully stretched states. Every patient was informed that if his flaccid and stretched penis size was 4 cm and 7 cm or more, respectively, it was considered normal....
None of the patients had short penis according to our measurements. Almost all patients overestimated the normal penile size."
Maybe I'll finally get someone to post a comment to my blog on this one!
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Watch out bloggers
While looking at the IWPR site (see last post,) I followed a link to Reporters Sans Frontieres, which I had never heard of before. Interesting site, especially for its list of reporters imprisoned, including 75 "cyberdissidents".
63 of them are in China, which I suppose is no great surprise. Most of the other countries on the list are more or less to be expected too (Iran, Libya, Syria, Vietnam and Tunisia), but also the Maldives. What sort of potential uprising is the Maldives worried about?
Meanwhile in Cuba, they are no cyberdissidents in jail (maybe they barely have the internet there), but there are 21 independent journalists rotting slowly in prison.
Come on, liberal friends of Castro in Hollywood and elsewhere, can't you exert some influence on the old guy to lighten up a bit?
63 of them are in China, which I suppose is no great surprise. Most of the other countries on the list are more or less to be expected too (Iran, Libya, Syria, Vietnam and Tunisia), but also the Maldives. What sort of potential uprising is the Maldives worried about?
Meanwhile in Cuba, they are no cyberdissidents in jail (maybe they barely have the internet there), but there are 21 independent journalists rotting slowly in prison.
Come on, liberal friends of Castro in Hollywood and elsewhere, can't you exert some influence on the old guy to lighten up a bit?
Tariq squeals on boss
I can't link directly to this, I don't think, but you find it by it going to the daily Iraqi Press Monitor summary for 28 June, on the web site for the Institute for War & Peace reporting. It seems Tariq Aziz is not helping Saddam's defence, if this Iraqi paper is correct:
"Aziz: Saddam Ordered Destruction of Shia Uprising
(Al-Mashriq) The special court to try Saddam Hussein and his regime's leaders has questioned ex-deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who confessed that Saddam ordered the destruction of the Shia uprising in the south in 1991. Saddam's orders had the power of the law and no one dared to negotiate with him, he said. He added that he had nothing to do with that issue because he was a foreign minister then. He said some of the regional leadership members of the Ba'ath party went to the south on a mission to places of tension, but he had no idea what they did there.
(Al-Mashriq is published daily by Al-Mashriq Institution for Media and Cultural Investments.)"
By the way, the IWPR site seems pretty good, and it apparently funded both by leftish and rightish organisations, including the US government.
"Aziz: Saddam Ordered Destruction of Shia Uprising
(Al-Mashriq) The special court to try Saddam Hussein and his regime's leaders has questioned ex-deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who confessed that Saddam ordered the destruction of the Shia uprising in the south in 1991. Saddam's orders had the power of the law and no one dared to negotiate with him, he said. He added that he had nothing to do with that issue because he was a foreign minister then. He said some of the regional leadership members of the Ba'ath party went to the south on a mission to places of tension, but he had no idea what they did there.
(Al-Mashriq is published daily by Al-Mashriq Institution for Media and Cultural Investments.)"
By the way, the IWPR site seems pretty good, and it apparently funded both by leftish and rightish organisations, including the US government.
Force fields for astronauts
New Scientist SPACE - Breaking News - Force fields may shield astronauts from radiation
This interesting story on a proposal for radiation shielding for astronauts on the moon.
It was a matter of considerable disappointment for my childhood dreams of being a wandering solar system astronaut to learn (as an adult) that space is, generally speaking, very dangerous from a radiation point of view. This got no consideration at all in the kid's (or adult's) science fiction I used to read, mainly because the science just wasn't really known. Now it does get a run in serious hard science fiction. (I just read a Charles Sheffield book in which colonists on Jupiter's moons have to wear super-conducting electronically shielded suits when they are on the surface, but they basically all live underground.) It does make the whole space undertaking much more difficult.
This article from New Scientist does not talk about living underground on the moon, but I always thought that covering a smallish crater with some sort of membrane, baking it solid then burying it with a meter or two of dirt was the way to go. No way would you need to ever bring "concrete" to the moon, as the article suggests at the end. A small electric bulldozer is what you need, and some innovative low gravity construction techniques. Fortunately, a lot of holes are "pre-dug" on the moon.
Presumably there may also be natural caves on the moon, and with its lower gravity, maybe they are bigger than average earth ones. I would have thought that extensive radar or accoustic sounding of possible sites would be one of the early colonization priorities for the moon.
Now I should really get back to work.
This interesting story on a proposal for radiation shielding for astronauts on the moon.
It was a matter of considerable disappointment for my childhood dreams of being a wandering solar system astronaut to learn (as an adult) that space is, generally speaking, very dangerous from a radiation point of view. This got no consideration at all in the kid's (or adult's) science fiction I used to read, mainly because the science just wasn't really known. Now it does get a run in serious hard science fiction. (I just read a Charles Sheffield book in which colonists on Jupiter's moons have to wear super-conducting electronically shielded suits when they are on the surface, but they basically all live underground.) It does make the whole space undertaking much more difficult.
This article from New Scientist does not talk about living underground on the moon, but I always thought that covering a smallish crater with some sort of membrane, baking it solid then burying it with a meter or two of dirt was the way to go. No way would you need to ever bring "concrete" to the moon, as the article suggests at the end. A small electric bulldozer is what you need, and some innovative low gravity construction techniques. Fortunately, a lot of holes are "pre-dug" on the moon.
Presumably there may also be natural caves on the moon, and with its lower gravity, maybe they are bigger than average earth ones. I would have thought that extensive radar or accoustic sounding of possible sites would be one of the early colonization priorities for the moon.
Now I should really get back to work.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Plastic skinless humans reach America
While looking at the Economist, I was surprised to learn that the controversial "Body Worlds" exhibit is now in the USA. I would thought that it would have attracted much more media controversy there. (It did when it came to England.)
for those who don't know, Body Worlds is an "anatomical" exhibition of real human bodies treated with polymers and plastics to preserve them. Have a look at the official home page here, and the Guardian's comments on it from 3 years ago now.
I read about some of the controversy when it was in England, but I don't know that it got much coverage in the Australian press.
The whole thing creeps me out. It is one thing to plasticise a human body for medical students to use. But to make a touring exhibition of such bodies in all sorts of weird semi-artist poses? It is horrifically ghoulish if you ask me. You know it is disturbing if the Guardian's art critic has his doubts too.
But if you want some wry amusement, look at this link on the official site to celebrity comments. Those who liked it (enough to be quoted) include this weird cross section of stars: Dustin Hoffman, Tina Turner, Demi Moore, Andre Agassi, Nick Nolte (whose liver is probably already pickled) and (of course) Bjork.
Come on conservative american's, has this one slipped past you a bit?
for those who don't know, Body Worlds is an "anatomical" exhibition of real human bodies treated with polymers and plastics to preserve them. Have a look at the official home page here, and the Guardian's comments on it from 3 years ago now.
I read about some of the controversy when it was in England, but I don't know that it got much coverage in the Australian press.
The whole thing creeps me out. It is one thing to plasticise a human body for medical students to use. But to make a touring exhibition of such bodies in all sorts of weird semi-artist poses? It is horrifically ghoulish if you ask me. You know it is disturbing if the Guardian's art critic has his doubts too.
But if you want some wry amusement, look at this link on the official site to celebrity comments. Those who liked it (enough to be quoted) include this weird cross section of stars: Dustin Hoffman, Tina Turner, Demi Moore, Andre Agassi, Nick Nolte (whose liver is probably already pickled) and (of course) Bjork.
Come on conservative american's, has this one slipped past you a bit?
Forgiving Debt
Just a quick mention of 3 of the several articles around skeptical of the benefits of debt forgiveness strategies currently being pursued by old musicians. The Economist here, which links to an IMF paper, and in today's Australian.
It is obvious that the endemic level of corruption and maladministration in government in Africa is at the heart of many countries' poverty problems. But how do you fix those problems? That is the hard question it seems no one knows how to answer.
Update: one other good and easy to follow article from Slate is here.
It is obvious that the endemic level of corruption and maladministration in government in Africa is at the heart of many countries' poverty problems. But how do you fix those problems? That is the hard question it seems no one knows how to answer.
Update: one other good and easy to follow article from Slate is here.
Just a bit more on Queensland justice
As mentioned in my last post, former Chief Magistrate and recent prison inmate Di Fingleton made an appearance on Enough Rope last night. As always, the show was very watchable, and it is good to see an interviewer ask the difficult questions, but also be a bit silly at times. He is a real talent.
Can't say the same for Ms Fingleton. The person who wants her job back (but she comes close to admitting she is just arguing this for the sake of maintaining a claim for compensation based on her old salary) says:
"ANDREW DENTON: What do you think you did to create such animosity towards you?
DI FINGLETON: I'm not perfect. I am impatient with people. I talk apparently over them a lot. I wouldn't do it with you 'cause you are the God around here. I am not perfect. "
Perhaps aggressive and rude are other ways of putting it to. Just what we want in our magistrates!
And as to why she was appointed a Magistrate and Chief magistrate in the first place:
"I started off being Chief Magistrate with a desire to do something which I explained. I have had a fairly quick rise to it, and I was part of an affirmative action by the then Attorney General, Matt Foley, to appoint women. Some of the magistrates were very conservative. Affirmative action puts a bad taste in people's mouths."
To be honest, I didn't think she would be so up front about this. Back to her personality though, where she talked about arguing with her husband that morning about "everything" ("it's all forgotten now" said jovial husband.) But I like this bit from our Di:
"Unfortunately for [husband] John, it compounded for him and he's actually been off work for a while. I suffered this thing that I hear that women suffer when their husband retires, they're home all the time. Anyone here? For the first two weeks, I said, "You want to use the computer? It's mine." We've got over that, he found the other computer. But, yeah, I suppose, to answer your question, I'm strong woman and I'm proud of it."
Oh yes, she sounds like a real likeable person at home too...
Then back to her comments about how she got the job:
"I want my job back. If that for some reason is impossible or in end I say - we'll be talking. But I know these people, you see. I have a history of involvement with the Labor Party. I don't like Beattie being so harsh with me. He says I'll get justice. They know what I went through. They know me as a person. "
And then this rousing non-sequitur:
"Because it was Queensland, perhaps it always had that colour of I only got it 'cause I was a woman or because I knew the Attorney-General."
Umm, no, it was not "because it was Queensland", it was because, as you said 5 minutes ago, you did get it cos you knew (Attorney General) Matt Foley, and you are a woman.
Perhaps I am a little unfair, because she goes on the say that Foley:
"...knew me very well and knew my achievements. He was not going to put up anyone who would fail, and I was not going to take it to fail. I was ambitious but I'm not silly. So I took the job in the best possible faith and did my job in the best possible faith."
So she got it cos she knew Foley, was a woman and (co-incidentally?) was also the best possible person for the job. Some co-incidence.
This is what has made the case such a pleasure for conservatives like me - how could you get a more perfect example of the dangers of cozy political appointments combined with affirmative action? It blew up in everyone's' face. Even those brave lawyers who took on her case:
So those lawyers now face possible negligence action, I presume she means. Bet they felt good watching the interview! Let's hope they defend the civil action and we get another High Court chance to kick around some Queensland lawyers. (Remember I already mentioned contributory negligence in my last post.)
In my view, the overall effect of the interview was far from helpful for her public image and her campaign for compensation. For the reasons mentioned in my last post, she should not get any judicial position back, and I am annoyed that Beattie has even offered that to her. (Maybe that is just part compensation tactics too.) I would like to see how she would go at the Magistrate's conferences they have from time to time. Christmas Drinks could be a hoot too.
Peter, give her a job in some harmless post like the Law Reform Commission, where she can be bitchy and aggressive without stuffing up too many people's professional lives.
And for god's sake, don't appoint judges and magistrates just because they are Labor women.
Can't say the same for Ms Fingleton. The person who wants her job back (but she comes close to admitting she is just arguing this for the sake of maintaining a claim for compensation based on her old salary) says:
"ANDREW DENTON: What do you think you did to create such animosity towards you?
DI FINGLETON: I'm not perfect. I am impatient with people. I talk apparently over them a lot. I wouldn't do it with you 'cause you are the God around here. I am not perfect. "
Perhaps aggressive and rude are other ways of putting it to. Just what we want in our magistrates!
And as to why she was appointed a Magistrate and Chief magistrate in the first place:
"I started off being Chief Magistrate with a desire to do something which I explained. I have had a fairly quick rise to it, and I was part of an affirmative action by the then Attorney General, Matt Foley, to appoint women. Some of the magistrates were very conservative. Affirmative action puts a bad taste in people's mouths."
To be honest, I didn't think she would be so up front about this. Back to her personality though, where she talked about arguing with her husband that morning about "everything" ("it's all forgotten now" said jovial husband.) But I like this bit from our Di:
"Unfortunately for [husband] John, it compounded for him and he's actually been off work for a while. I suffered this thing that I hear that women suffer when their husband retires, they're home all the time. Anyone here? For the first two weeks, I said, "You want to use the computer? It's mine." We've got over that, he found the other computer. But, yeah, I suppose, to answer your question, I'm strong woman and I'm proud of it."
Oh yes, she sounds like a real likeable person at home too...
Then back to her comments about how she got the job:
"I want my job back. If that for some reason is impossible or in end I say - we'll be talking. But I know these people, you see. I have a history of involvement with the Labor Party. I don't like Beattie being so harsh with me. He says I'll get justice. They know what I went through. They know me as a person. "
And then this rousing non-sequitur:
"Because it was Queensland, perhaps it always had that colour of I only got it 'cause I was a woman or because I knew the Attorney-General."
Umm, no, it was not "because it was Queensland", it was because, as you said 5 minutes ago, you did get it cos you knew (Attorney General) Matt Foley, and you are a woman.
Perhaps I am a little unfair, because she goes on the say that Foley:
"...knew me very well and knew my achievements. He was not going to put up anyone who would fail, and I was not going to take it to fail. I was ambitious but I'm not silly. So I took the job in the best possible faith and did my job in the best possible faith."
So she got it cos she knew Foley, was a woman and (co-incidentally?) was also the best possible person for the job. Some co-incidence.
This is what has made the case such a pleasure for conservatives like me - how could you get a more perfect example of the dangers of cozy political appointments combined with affirmative action? It blew up in everyone's' face. Even those brave lawyers who took on her case:
"ANDREW DENTON: The High Court made this very clear. They had a go at the judge, the prosecution and your defence team because this immunity lay within the Magistrates Act, the very act that you administer. How did you all miss it?
DI FINGLETON: You don't go around thinking, "I'll need criminal immunity", because more than anyone else you have to set a good example. You should not even be seen speeding or jaywalking.
ANDREW DENTON: Isn't this what you pay a defence team for, though, to find this stuff?
So those lawyers now face possible negligence action, I presume she means. Bet they felt good watching the interview! Let's hope they defend the civil action and we get another High Court chance to kick around some Queensland lawyers. (Remember I already mentioned contributory negligence in my last post.)
In my view, the overall effect of the interview was far from helpful for her public image and her campaign for compensation. For the reasons mentioned in my last post, she should not get any judicial position back, and I am annoyed that Beattie has even offered that to her. (Maybe that is just part compensation tactics too.) I would like to see how she would go at the Magistrate's conferences they have from time to time. Christmas Drinks could be a hoot too.
Peter, give her a job in some harmless post like the Law Reform Commission, where she can be bitchy and aggressive without stuffing up too many people's professional lives.
And for god's sake, don't appoint judges and magistrates just because they are Labor women.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Legal system re-think please
Well, I have only been blogging a relatively short time, but feel I can claim some sort of vindication about my earlier expressed views about our justice system.
Yesterday, the High Court quashed Di Fingleton's (former Queensland Chief Magistrate) conviction, which meant the court system finally discovered that she had legistlative immunity from prosecution.... after serving her sentence.
Her lawyers appear to have never realised this argument, as it was evidently not raised before the Queensland Court of Appeal, or (it would appear from the report) before the High Court. (It says the High Court raised the matter itself). In today's paper, the Chief Justice in Queensland admits he knew that this was a possible grounds of appeal, but it's not his (nor any judges') job to go suggesting to the lawyers before them what arguments to run.
I think this is technically correct, and is particularly true for trial judges. But doesn't it just confirm what I said in my earlier post that if you don't have an inquisitorial system, the courts are not philosophically inclined towards finding the truth, and justice becomes a bit of a game. In this case (as no doubt in countless others,) it results in people serving sentences before they are ultimately acquitted, and usually without compensation.
I don't think we have to uproot our system completely, but surely there ought to be scope for trial judges to take a more active role in seeing that justice is done. But like I said before, my feeling is that there is an institutional blindness to these sort of arguments in the Australian system in particular. (I am no expert, but in the last 30 years I think Britain has taken much bolder steps in having fundamental re-thinks about old rules of evidence, for example.)
And by the way, don't think I am really a personal supporter of Di Fingleton. The Queensland Labor Government went through a particularly bad period of appointing women to the courts deliberately to even up the gender balance. Having Labor connections has never hurt in seeking appointment to be a Magistrate either. She was obviously deeply unpopular with her fellow magistrates, and the fact that she would even think that she could "have her old job back" shows a lack of practical common sense, if you ask me. She will probably get some compensation, and I grudgingly think she probably deserves some. Not too much though - her own lawyers never raised the argument. I think they should use a "contributory negligence" principle and halve whatever compensation they would otherwise have given her. And don't go giving her another government job after compensation either.
I still don't feel all that sorry for her.
UPDATE:
I should have seen this coming, but the Chief Justice says he was misquoted by the Courier Mail in relation to his knowledge of the possible use of the legislative immunity section. However, his correction of the record hardly changes my basic argument. Here's the new quote:
Yesterday, the High Court quashed Di Fingleton's (former Queensland Chief Magistrate) conviction, which meant the court system finally discovered that she had legistlative immunity from prosecution.... after serving her sentence.
Her lawyers appear to have never realised this argument, as it was evidently not raised before the Queensland Court of Appeal, or (it would appear from the report) before the High Court. (It says the High Court raised the matter itself). In today's paper, the Chief Justice in Queensland admits he knew that this was a possible grounds of appeal, but it's not his (nor any judges') job to go suggesting to the lawyers before them what arguments to run.
I think this is technically correct, and is particularly true for trial judges. But doesn't it just confirm what I said in my earlier post that if you don't have an inquisitorial system, the courts are not philosophically inclined towards finding the truth, and justice becomes a bit of a game. In this case (as no doubt in countless others,) it results in people serving sentences before they are ultimately acquitted, and usually without compensation.
I don't think we have to uproot our system completely, but surely there ought to be scope for trial judges to take a more active role in seeing that justice is done. But like I said before, my feeling is that there is an institutional blindness to these sort of arguments in the Australian system in particular. (I am no expert, but in the last 30 years I think Britain has taken much bolder steps in having fundamental re-thinks about old rules of evidence, for example.)
And by the way, don't think I am really a personal supporter of Di Fingleton. The Queensland Labor Government went through a particularly bad period of appointing women to the courts deliberately to even up the gender balance. Having Labor connections has never hurt in seeking appointment to be a Magistrate either. She was obviously deeply unpopular with her fellow magistrates, and the fact that she would even think that she could "have her old job back" shows a lack of practical common sense, if you ask me. She will probably get some compensation, and I grudgingly think she probably deserves some. Not too much though - her own lawyers never raised the argument. I think they should use a "contributory negligence" principle and halve whatever compensation they would otherwise have given her. And don't go giving her another government job after compensation either.
I still don't feel all that sorry for her.
UPDATE:
I should have seen this coming, but the Chief Justice says he was misquoted by the Courier Mail in relation to his knowledge of the possible use of the legislative immunity section. However, his correction of the record hardly changes my basic argument. Here's the new quote:
In a related development, Queensland's Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey, was forced to deny that he had told The Courier-Mail he knew of Ms Fingleton's immunity from prosecution, but said nothing.
"I said no such thing," Justice de Jersey said.
"As the journalist acknowledged to me on Friday, I said only in response to his question that I had been aware of Section 21(a) of the Magistrates Act, the provision which exonerated Ms Fingleton.
"I had never conceived that provision could apply to her case.
"I was neither the trial judge nor a member of the Court of Appeal which heard the appeal. Even if I considered the provision arguably applicable, it would have been improper for me to intervene." (Italics mine)
I have also now read the High Court case quickly, and it appears that there is an earlier High Court case suggesting that trial judges should bring possible defences up with the jury even if the defence counsel has not raised the argument. I haven't had time to check this out yet, but certainly Kirby's reasons for judgment still spends a lot of time on deciding whether a court of appeal really has the right to reinstate, as it were, a defence which the accused's Counsel has already ignored at the first appeal (at the State level.)
It is all very complex, and another retired judge from Queensland apparently thinks the High Court was way off the mark anyway in being so sure that the immunity provision did apply. (You do get the feeling that the High Court does just love to put the boot into Queensland court's decisions.)
Not having formed my own opinion about the merits of the High Court decision yet, it may turn out that no one raised it before then because no Queensland lawyer thought it was applicable, and I might agree it doesn't apply. But surely Fingleton's own lawyers should have at least tried the argument before the trial judge.
So maybe my concerns about the adversorial system being illustrated by this case are not so valid. But I would like to think that a Chief Justice, if he had the view that a possible immunity provision had been entirely overlooked, could have at least suggested informally to some of the other judges involved that they don't forget to look at that. (My basic point being that the issue of seeing justice done should not be overwhelmed by undue weight being put on a non-interventionist approach by the judiciary. )
And as for my view on compensation for Di Fingleton, I am not so sure she deserves any now. She is apparently still saying she should have her chief magistrates job back.
I don't think she should have any judicial position back at all, and she should have enough common sense to know that it is because the public could not have any trust that she could now have an objective view on sentencing. She has been to jail and has strong subjective views on the experience. (She was quoted in the weekend press talking about it, and is due to talk to Andrew Denton about it on TV tonight.) Some people might say this is a good thing, as it gives her a unique understanding of the consequences of her job. While this sounds plausible, it is not practical. It is the same reasoning I use to argue against people who suffered child abuse becoming social workers as adults. An over-heightened subjectivity of the experience is just what you don't need if you want objective and consistent outcomes in future.
Anyway, her case for compensation can really only be based on showing that Crown law made a bad error in continuing the case in that they did not consider the immunity provision. But if her own lawyers overlook the argument too (or look at it but decide tactically that it is not worth running), and if the accused herself is a lawyer, it is a little hard to point the finger of blame too much.
If they had raised the defence at trial and been acquitted on those grounds, and the trial judge agreed that it was an obvious oversight by the Crown in not considering that argument before prosecuting, then I suppose compensation would be on. But in this case, I think I was probably being overly generous when I first suggested she should probably get even half of what she otherwise would.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
More "Age" Hyperbole on IR Reform
Well, it's to be expected from The Age, isn't it, but today's comments on IR reform by Ken Davidson are nonetheless noteworthy for their hyperbole.
"The Howard Government's aim is total victory in the class war that has been largely quiescent since industrial warfare was replaced by arbitration as part of the Australian settlement established by Australia's early prime minister and founding father, Alfred Deakin."
Yeah, well funny how the party that doesn't go on about class warfare is the one that delivers better wage growth to the workers.
"For Howard, victory is predicated on the belief that trade unions are no longer relevant to post-industrial society. But trade unions still play a role in ensuring that higher productivity is translated into higher wages so that firms compete on the basis of technical innovation, not on cutting wages."
This sounds stupid to me. What evidence is there that increased productivity does not translate into higher wages if a union is not involved.
"In the new era of flexibility, we are closer to Howard's free-market utopia of flexible wages, prices and organisational structures. This is leading to widening income differentials and insecurity, and will create social, and eventually economic, dystopia."
A definition:
"The Howard Government's aim is total victory in the class war that has been largely quiescent since industrial warfare was replaced by arbitration as part of the Australian settlement established by Australia's early prime minister and founding father, Alfred Deakin."
Yeah, well funny how the party that doesn't go on about class warfare is the one that delivers better wage growth to the workers.
"For Howard, victory is predicated on the belief that trade unions are no longer relevant to post-industrial society. But trade unions still play a role in ensuring that higher productivity is translated into higher wages so that firms compete on the basis of technical innovation, not on cutting wages."
This sounds stupid to me. What evidence is there that increased productivity does not translate into higher wages if a union is not involved.
"In the new era of flexibility, we are closer to Howard's free-market utopia of flexible wages, prices and organisational structures. This is leading to widening income differentials and insecurity, and will create social, and eventually economic, dystopia."
A definition:
dystopia n : state in which the condition of life is extremely bad as from deprivation or oppression or terror
Yeah sure Ken.
"Paradoxically, Howard's reforms, if implemented, will simply compound insecurity as all employers face the prospect of having to compete by cutting wages and conditions or risk being undercut by less scrupulous competitors.
Knowingly or unknowingly, Howard is trying to unleash a "race to the bottom" that will worsen Australia's balance of payments by making us even more uncompetitive in international high-value-added industries."
This is almost as good reading as this post from a Webdiary reader - one Nancy Peters, who is quoting from another "economist" (sorry it is long, but it is worth it for its breath taking implausibility):
"The US citizen will, over time, be reduced to earn the same wages as his Chinese and Filipino counterparts. He hasn't realized it yet, but he is being progressively reduced to sweatshop labour by being reduced to accepting a job at MacDonald's or Wal-Mart on US$ 7 per hour. Now manufacturing has been largely outsourced or relocated to China or other Asian nations. However, the time will come, maybe by 2015 or 2020, when his wages will be reduced sufficiently to make relocating manufacturing in Ohio an attractive proposition. Welcome to globalization and the New World Order. This is all wonderful of course if you are one of the owners of the means of production and the capital base. You can play one nation off against another, arbitrage wage rates and maximize profits, and reduce your labour force to compliant and malleable serfs. All this comes with the added benefit of "the Sword of Damocles" hanging over each employee's head in the form of a debt mountain. What a brilliant scheme this all is!"
Didn't One Nation used to go on with crap like this. Now it gets a run on Margo's Webdiary...
And Margo's profound comment at the end ..."Hi Nancy!"
A cool house
Dome House, Hawthorn - Reviews - Arts - Entertainment - theage.com.au
Have a look at the link for a picture of a very cool looking dome house in Melbourne. The review following gets pretty high falutin' though.
Have a look at the link for a picture of a very cool looking dome house in Melbourne. The review following gets pretty high falutin' though.
Prostitution pays well in Sydney
The Australian: Hooker keeps house sold by client [June 22, 2005]
Aw, don't you feel at least a little sorry for this guy? Usually its the woman who accidentally falls in love. And note that Ms Lin, age 31, now owns "several" investment properties in Sydney with its astronomical real estate prices. Just how much money does she earn?
But while we are on the topic of strange and sad legal cases involving chinese men in Sydney, this one from a few weeks ago takes a beating. (Summary: 59 yr old married chinese guy has gay love affair with much younger african guy who goes crazy and kills chinese guy's wife and 2 adult kids.) I don't mean to sound flippant, but this would have to be some sort of world benchmark for a guilt- inducing illicit affair.
Life is stranger than fiction, sometimes.
Aw, don't you feel at least a little sorry for this guy? Usually its the woman who accidentally falls in love. And note that Ms Lin, age 31, now owns "several" investment properties in Sydney with its astronomical real estate prices. Just how much money does she earn?
But while we are on the topic of strange and sad legal cases involving chinese men in Sydney, this one from a few weeks ago takes a beating. (Summary: 59 yr old married chinese guy has gay love affair with much younger african guy who goes crazy and kills chinese guy's wife and 2 adult kids.) I don't mean to sound flippant, but this would have to be some sort of world benchmark for a guilt- inducing illicit affair.
Life is stranger than fiction, sometimes.
In Defence of the Yuck Factor
Human Cloning: In Defence of the Yuck Factor
I link to the above article because the news story about the potential to use stem cells to grow ovaries and eggs (or sperm cells) for an infertile couple crosses over the boundary of my personal "yuck factor". And I think it is worthwhile defending having such a "factor" in the first place.
Peter Singer, and his ilk, for example, can appear to be perfectly rational and reasonable in their logic as to how they come to their radical positions, which to my mind shows there is a fundamental flaw in the whole process by which they got to the conclusion. (And one other thing that bothers me is the way that Peter Singer can appear in interviews to really be not so radical or crazy, a pretty nice guy in fact. It seems typical of interviews with him that the interviewer rarely directly quotes his most controversial statements back at him and challenges him to re-justify them. Especially, in his case, his view that a new born baby - healthy or not- does not really have any additional "right to life" over a fetus. Of course, he logically can have no problem with late term abortion, when even the feminists now seem to be giving ground on that.)
On infertility generally, at the risk of sounding heartless, I really wonder sometimes why there is so much research money spent on it. (Disclosure: I am blessed with 2 kids, and having married late in life, count myself very lucky in that there was no problem with their conception.) It just seems to me that priorities on medical spending have to be made, and going to such extremes as even thinking about "growing ovaries" as a way to overcome infertility is really hard to justify when they are so many life threatening illnesses and medical conditions calling out for a cure or alleviation.
The modern concentration on trying to cure infertility seems directly related to adoption falling out of fashion in the West. (And I do appreciate that adoption can be very hard on the mother.) What I would prefer to see, however, would be some relaxation of the rules relating to international adoption, as it seems cruel that there are countries with an excess of unwanted little ones, but their overseas adoption is frequently difficult and very expensive.
I link to the above article because the news story about the potential to use stem cells to grow ovaries and eggs (or sperm cells) for an infertile couple crosses over the boundary of my personal "yuck factor". And I think it is worthwhile defending having such a "factor" in the first place.
Peter Singer, and his ilk, for example, can appear to be perfectly rational and reasonable in their logic as to how they come to their radical positions, which to my mind shows there is a fundamental flaw in the whole process by which they got to the conclusion. (And one other thing that bothers me is the way that Peter Singer can appear in interviews to really be not so radical or crazy, a pretty nice guy in fact. It seems typical of interviews with him that the interviewer rarely directly quotes his most controversial statements back at him and challenges him to re-justify them. Especially, in his case, his view that a new born baby - healthy or not- does not really have any additional "right to life" over a fetus. Of course, he logically can have no problem with late term abortion, when even the feminists now seem to be giving ground on that.)
On infertility generally, at the risk of sounding heartless, I really wonder sometimes why there is so much research money spent on it. (Disclosure: I am blessed with 2 kids, and having married late in life, count myself very lucky in that there was no problem with their conception.) It just seems to me that priorities on medical spending have to be made, and going to such extremes as even thinking about "growing ovaries" as a way to overcome infertility is really hard to justify when they are so many life threatening illnesses and medical conditions calling out for a cure or alleviation.
The modern concentration on trying to cure infertility seems directly related to adoption falling out of fashion in the West. (And I do appreciate that adoption can be very hard on the mother.) What I would prefer to see, however, would be some relaxation of the rules relating to international adoption, as it seems cruel that there are countries with an excess of unwanted little ones, but their overseas adoption is frequently difficult and very expensive.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Japan and Whales
I'm with Currency Lad on this one. Good luck to you big blubbery blue things.
But out of interest, the Japan Times, trying to be even handed, has 2 columns recently, one pro and one anti whaling (both written by westerners it would seem.) The anti whaling one seems pretty common sensical to me. The pro whaling one is full of very spurious arguments, including this interesting bit:
'At Koganji temple in Yamaguchi Prefecture, the souls of over 1,000 whales are interred, along with 75 whale fetuses on the top of a hill, where he says, they can "command a view of their ocean home." He goes on to point out, "An approach where the Japanese accord the whale (the) status of a person because of its integral role in sustaining human life can clearly be contrasted with the view of cattle in the West, where no such status or respect is conferred."'
Sounds like an argument for being allowed to harpoon people too. (Or for cows being accorded the status of people - which reminds me of a lot of Gary Larson cartoons.) Vote 1 Daisy.
But out of interest, the Japan Times, trying to be even handed, has 2 columns recently, one pro and one anti whaling (both written by westerners it would seem.) The anti whaling one seems pretty common sensical to me. The pro whaling one is full of very spurious arguments, including this interesting bit:
'At Koganji temple in Yamaguchi Prefecture, the souls of over 1,000 whales are interred, along with 75 whale fetuses on the top of a hill, where he says, they can "command a view of their ocean home." He goes on to point out, "An approach where the Japanese accord the whale (the) status of a person because of its integral role in sustaining human life can clearly be contrasted with the view of cattle in the West, where no such status or respect is conferred."'
Sounds like an argument for being allowed to harpoon people too. (Or for cows being accorded the status of people - which reminds me of a lot of Gary Larson cartoons.) Vote 1 Daisy.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
A funny line
Anthony Lane, reviewing "Bewitched" in the New Yorker, doesn't like Will Ferrell in the role of Darrin. Then he adds:
"So who would make a decent Darrin? We know the fixings: a little slowness, a lot of chin ’n’ grin, and a tendency to arrive at his own jokes thirty seconds after they leave his mouth. I hear Senator Kerry is none too busy these days."
Good line...:)
"So who would make a decent Darrin? We know the fixings: a little slowness, a lot of chin ’n’ grin, and a tendency to arrive at his own jokes thirty seconds after they leave his mouth. I hear Senator Kerry is none too busy these days."
Good line...:)
Dirty Doctors
So, the media today is all over the evidence from the Dr Death inquiry that Dr Patel had very poor hand washing habits while he was at Bundaberg.
All well and good, but does the general public realise what a scandal the hand washing habits of doctors has been for decades? It is pretty clear to even the casual reader of medical journals that, despite attempts to introduce easier ways of getting doctors to clean their hands, compliance is still pathetic. Don't take my word for it, read this recent article from the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Look at the table on page 4: compliance amongst surgeons was worse than most other doctors! 36%!! What is it about surgeons that makes them so careless about this? A superiority complex? Just too busy to prevent cross infection?
An easier to read commentary on this study is the editorial from the same journal linked here: editorial A couple of quotes:
"How are we doing? It is too early to tell in the United States, where hand hygiene rates average 40% to 60% on a good day. However, European hospitals have been using alcohol-based rubs for many years, so it seems reasonable to look to Europe for evidence of success of the alcohol hand-rub strategy.....[in Europe] the good news is an increase in hand hygiene rates when physicians were aware of being observed; therefore, we can say that we respond to peer pressure, at least when evaluated as a group. The bad news is that the rates were only 61% when physicians thought someone was watching; when physicians did not think anyone was watching, rates averaged 44%.
In conclusion, after more than 150 years of prodding, cajoling, educating, observing, and surveying physicians, hand hygiene adherence rates remain disgracefully low."
Australian doctors are no different (see 1996 study here.) Which would indicate that at any given time there is about a 50/50 chance that your hospital doctor has not washed his or her hands before seeing you from his last patient. If a surgeon, the risk seems likely to be higher.
This is very, very bad.
All well and good, but does the general public realise what a scandal the hand washing habits of doctors has been for decades? It is pretty clear to even the casual reader of medical journals that, despite attempts to introduce easier ways of getting doctors to clean their hands, compliance is still pathetic. Don't take my word for it, read this recent article from the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Look at the table on page 4: compliance amongst surgeons was worse than most other doctors! 36%!! What is it about surgeons that makes them so careless about this? A superiority complex? Just too busy to prevent cross infection?
An easier to read commentary on this study is the editorial from the same journal linked here: editorial A couple of quotes:
"How are we doing? It is too early to tell in the United States, where hand hygiene rates average 40% to 60% on a good day. However, European hospitals have been using alcohol-based rubs for many years, so it seems reasonable to look to Europe for evidence of success of the alcohol hand-rub strategy.....[in Europe] the good news is an increase in hand hygiene rates when physicians were aware of being observed; therefore, we can say that we respond to peer pressure, at least when evaluated as a group. The bad news is that the rates were only 61% when physicians thought someone was watching; when physicians did not think anyone was watching, rates averaged 44%.
In conclusion, after more than 150 years of prodding, cajoling, educating, observing, and surveying physicians, hand hygiene adherence rates remain disgracefully low."
Australian doctors are no different (see 1996 study here.) Which would indicate that at any given time there is about a 50/50 chance that your hospital doctor has not washed his or her hands before seeing you from his last patient. If a surgeon, the risk seems likely to be higher.
This is very, very bad.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)