I just discovered (via a Google search to find something on Daily Kos) that the youngsters who swarm to that site have started to fill Wikipedia with articles pushing their anti-Bush agenda. See the entry here (on the "Downing Street Memos") and here (on the "movement" to impeach Bush).
Admittedly, these articles have been the subject of much Wiki community debate over their contents. However, it does seem pretty clear to me that the articles do need some right wing balancing, and that young Lefties seem to have a lot of time to spend on this sort of stuff. (Maybe they are more likely to be unemployed than fine upstanding right-wingers? Ha ha.)
I don't have enough time to do edits on these and similar articles. But I encourage you, dear reader, to have a go!
While I am talking of Bush, I note that Powerline today points out that Bush's low approval rating, which is giving much encouragement to the anti-Bush crowd at the moment, is far from exceptional in comparison with any of the last seven presidents. (In fact it is above the low points of all of the 7 previous presidents.) It's a good point to know.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Reasons to be optimistic overall
The Australian: Johan Norberg: Don't worry, be happy [October 12, 2005]
In case you missed it, yesterday's column in the Australian (above) is well worth reading, and memorising, for the next time you're at a dinner party with some "global" pessimist (which is perhaps most people.)
Update: Miranda Devine talks about this too in today's Sydney Morning Herald. (And takes a well deserved swing at John Doyle's recent speech.)
In case you missed it, yesterday's column in the Australian (above) is well worth reading, and memorising, for the next time you're at a dinner party with some "global" pessimist (which is perhaps most people.)
Update: Miranda Devine talks about this too in today's Sydney Morning Herald. (And takes a well deserved swing at John Doyle's recent speech.)
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Pessimism in Iraq?
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
See link above for a story indicating Iraqis are not well informed on the constitution that they are to vote on this weekend.
I think this website is relatively neutral. Certainly, its sponsors cover a wide range of organisations.
See link above for a story indicating Iraqis are not well informed on the constitution that they are to vote on this weekend.
I think this website is relatively neutral. Certainly, its sponsors cover a wide range of organisations.
Cautious optimism in Iraq?
Aljazeera.Net - Sunni party backs Iraq charter in deal
The above link is from Aljazeera.net, which I would not normally quote as authoritative, but it is interesting that it reports the last minute deal with one of the main Sunni parties (for it to support the constitution) in rather more optimistic terms than the western press. (See CNN's report, for example.)
The above link is from Aljazeera.net, which I would not normally quote as authoritative, but it is interesting that it reports the last minute deal with one of the main Sunni parties (for it to support the constitution) in rather more optimistic terms than the western press. (See CNN's report, for example.)
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Media alignments in IR reform
It's interesting to watch News Ltd -v- Fairfax press over the new IR reform.
The Australian has had 2 IPA pro reform columns in a row (yesterday and today). They give unionist Bill Shorten a run yesterday against it, but the editorial is strongly in favour.
At Fairfax, as I mentioned earlier today, Gerard Henderson indirectly addresses the issue in a "pro -ish" fashion, but a couple of uni academics get strong (I am tempted to say hysterical) anti reform columns in the SMH and The Age.
Haven't had a chance to see much of the ABC's reporting on it yet. Should I also look at the new Margot Kingston site on this topic? Maybe later...
The Australian has had 2 IPA pro reform columns in a row (yesterday and today). They give unionist Bill Shorten a run yesterday against it, but the editorial is strongly in favour.
At Fairfax, as I mentioned earlier today, Gerard Henderson indirectly addresses the issue in a "pro -ish" fashion, but a couple of uni academics get strong (I am tempted to say hysterical) anti reform columns in the SMH and The Age.
Haven't had a chance to see much of the ABC's reporting on it yet. Should I also look at the new Margot Kingston site on this topic? Maybe later...
Sex in America
Is there a new editor, as well as a new look, at Salon.com? Today's lead article is "Just like a woman", a 5 pager about men who prefer sex with plastic over flesh. The dolls are relatively realistic, but at $6,500 per doll that's a lot of money the guys could have spent on dates. (Although after dinner fun is no safer bet than with a silicone companion who can't run out of the room.)
I note that I posted briefly entry on Japanese sex dolls for hire last week. I felt I should post on the American sex doll scene so as to show a racial even-handedness when it comes to cringing and/or laughing at such matters.
There is way too much information on the topic in this article, and as I try to maintain a certain decorum in this blog, I won't post the more sordid details.
Just go read it yourself. You know you want to.
Meanwhile, a few weeks ago, Slate.com did an article about the latest survey of other sexual practices in America. While the article noted that the press mainly commented on the significantly higher rate of oral sex amongst teens, the other big point of the study was a much higher rate of anal sex, and the press just ignored that.
I blame "Sex and the City". (Seriously.) If ever there was a show that was going to make casual or adventurous sex look inviting, safe, and cool, that was it. Funny how the women seemed to have a lot in common with gay men. (Because it was produced and written by gay men, maybe?) And no, I didn't watch it that much. Maybe 8 episodes tops over its whole run.
At least (one hopes) it got explicit sex out of the sitcom format for a long, long time.
I note that I posted briefly entry on Japanese sex dolls for hire last week. I felt I should post on the American sex doll scene so as to show a racial even-handedness when it comes to cringing and/or laughing at such matters.
There is way too much information on the topic in this article, and as I try to maintain a certain decorum in this blog, I won't post the more sordid details.
Just go read it yourself. You know you want to.
Meanwhile, a few weeks ago, Slate.com did an article about the latest survey of other sexual practices in America. While the article noted that the press mainly commented on the significantly higher rate of oral sex amongst teens, the other big point of the study was a much higher rate of anal sex, and the press just ignored that.
I blame "Sex and the City". (Seriously.) If ever there was a show that was going to make casual or adventurous sex look inviting, safe, and cool, that was it. Funny how the women seemed to have a lot in common with gay men. (Because it was produced and written by gay men, maybe?) And no, I didn't watch it that much. Maybe 8 episodes tops over its whole run.
At least (one hopes) it got explicit sex out of the sitcom format for a long, long time.
The Churches and workplace reform
If the push is for jobs, the evidence is clear - Opinion - smh.com.au
Gerard Henderson in the SMH today (see above) makes a lot of sense. I always have time for his calm, reasoned (and conservative!) take on such matters.
The basic problem is that the Churches (or elements within them) can prefer theories of social justice over practice, just as the Left is want to do.
I must blog more on the general issue of the Churches and politics sometime...
Gerard Henderson in the SMH today (see above) makes a lot of sense. I always have time for his calm, reasoned (and conservative!) take on such matters.
The basic problem is that the Churches (or elements within them) can prefer theories of social justice over practice, just as the Left is want to do.
I must blog more on the general issue of the Churches and politics sometime...
Motherhood in Japan
Maid in Japan - World - smh.com.au
The link above is to a bit of a rambling, but still interesting, article in the Sydney Morning Herald today about the social reasons for a declining birth rate in Japan.
It is a complex issue. I have no issue with governments trying to take positive steps towards encouraging child bearing. But I think it unlikely that the Japanese government would see it as culturally appropriate for it to do much in this line.
Younger japanese people are much more westernised in attitude, and young men's attitude to sharing household responsibilities is much better than it was (or so I believe). Still, it is hard to imagine a sudden change in workplace culture that would allow and encourage fathers not to spend so many evenings away from the home. Husbands taking transfers to other towns for work is also common and this hardly helps child-rearing.
The funny thing is, the cultural attitudes that are at the heart of the issue are not ones that can be seen to encourage personal happiness. Why it is so hard to change them, then?
The link above is to a bit of a rambling, but still interesting, article in the Sydney Morning Herald today about the social reasons for a declining birth rate in Japan.
It is a complex issue. I have no issue with governments trying to take positive steps towards encouraging child bearing. But I think it unlikely that the Japanese government would see it as culturally appropriate for it to do much in this line.
Younger japanese people are much more westernised in attitude, and young men's attitude to sharing household responsibilities is much better than it was (or so I believe). Still, it is hard to imagine a sudden change in workplace culture that would allow and encourage fathers not to spend so many evenings away from the home. Husbands taking transfers to other towns for work is also common and this hardly helps child-rearing.
The funny thing is, the cultural attitudes that are at the heart of the issue are not ones that can be seen to encourage personal happiness. Why it is so hard to change them, then?
Monday, October 10, 2005
Extreme anti-global warming
With Brisbane having a terribly warm spring this past week, and its main water dam being down to 30 something percent, it might seem a little unwise to be expressing any skepticism about global warming. Truth is, I'm a bit of a fence sitter on the issue anyway.
But on the skeptic's side, some scientists noted recently that the sun may account for up to 30% of recent temperature increases. That's a big figure. I didn't notice this reported much in the main stream Australian press, but maybe I missed it.
If the sun is going to play that big a role, then mega engineering may be the answer. Popular Science ran an article about this a couple of months ago, and it is still on line. As I am keen on space travel generally, I like the idea of building giant space umbrellas, although I guess so many launches to put them into orbit might not do the atmosphere much good in the process. Maybe a better idea would be to make it from moon dirt and use a "mass driver" (an electro magnetic sled) to launch the bits into orbit. Or how about an asteroid being nudged into earth orbit and making it from that? I like the idea of putting an asteroid in earth orbit anyway, and then just working out what to do with it later. As I recall, some may be a good source of ore. Could it be done with a solar sail to "de-orbit" one? Just imagine the greenies reacting to a proposal to do that!
Another article with a similar space-based solution is here. The idea is not for one big umbrella, but a swarm of really little ones. Or even just a ring of particles in orbit to dissipate a couple of percent of sunlight from hitting the tropics. (How you successfully launch other desirable things through such a ring is not explained. Unless it can cope with that problem, it is a very silly idea.)
The other idea this article mentions is to make the atmosphere dirtier:
"Volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, pumped aerosols into the atmosphere and cooled the global climate by about a degree. Other researchers have suggested such schemes as adding metallic dust to smoke stacks, to flood the atmosphere and reflect more sunlight back into space."
So pollution may save the planet after all.
How about using nukes to cause a few volcanic eruptions? Must be some volcanic islands somewhere that no one really needs. Just move the lizards to somewhere else. Eruptions make for pretty sunsets too.
And you can get too much of a good thing with a volcano:
"Global cooling often has been linked with major volcanic eruptions. The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer". It was a time of significant weather-related disruptions in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815 in Indonesia. The volcano threw sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, and the aerosol layer that formed led to brilliant sunsets seen around the world for several years."
See link here. Wikipedia has a bit more about 1816's climate too.
This fiddling with climate is going to be tricky!
But on the skeptic's side, some scientists noted recently that the sun may account for up to 30% of recent temperature increases. That's a big figure. I didn't notice this reported much in the main stream Australian press, but maybe I missed it.
If the sun is going to play that big a role, then mega engineering may be the answer. Popular Science ran an article about this a couple of months ago, and it is still on line. As I am keen on space travel generally, I like the idea of building giant space umbrellas, although I guess so many launches to put them into orbit might not do the atmosphere much good in the process. Maybe a better idea would be to make it from moon dirt and use a "mass driver" (an electro magnetic sled) to launch the bits into orbit. Or how about an asteroid being nudged into earth orbit and making it from that? I like the idea of putting an asteroid in earth orbit anyway, and then just working out what to do with it later. As I recall, some may be a good source of ore. Could it be done with a solar sail to "de-orbit" one? Just imagine the greenies reacting to a proposal to do that!
Another article with a similar space-based solution is here. The idea is not for one big umbrella, but a swarm of really little ones. Or even just a ring of particles in orbit to dissipate a couple of percent of sunlight from hitting the tropics. (How you successfully launch other desirable things through such a ring is not explained. Unless it can cope with that problem, it is a very silly idea.)
The other idea this article mentions is to make the atmosphere dirtier:
"Volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, pumped aerosols into the atmosphere and cooled the global climate by about a degree. Other researchers have suggested such schemes as adding metallic dust to smoke stacks, to flood the atmosphere and reflect more sunlight back into space."
So pollution may save the planet after all.
How about using nukes to cause a few volcanic eruptions? Must be some volcanic islands somewhere that no one really needs. Just move the lizards to somewhere else. Eruptions make for pretty sunsets too.
And you can get too much of a good thing with a volcano:
"Global cooling often has been linked with major volcanic eruptions. The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer". It was a time of significant weather-related disruptions in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815 in Indonesia. The volcano threw sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, and the aerosol layer that formed led to brilliant sunsets seen around the world for several years."
See link here. Wikipedia has a bit more about 1816's climate too.
This fiddling with climate is going to be tricky!
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
The Left and War
Calling for peace is the easy option - Pamela Bone
See the above link for a nicely argued column by Pamela Bone in The Age.
See the above link for a nicely argued column by Pamela Bone in The Age.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Microsoft - racing to be last
ZDNet India : Microsoft to support PDF in Office 12
The title of the above link tells the story in a nutshell. Woop de do. I use Wordperfect 9 which came out in 2000 and it has built in conversion to .pdf.
It is particularly useful when emailing forms to people overseas, so you can be sure it will print out with formatting intact.
Speaking of Microsoft, the very unsuccessful movie "Timeline" has been showing on cable here recently. I read the Michael Crichton book (it was nice and pacey, but the basic reason for the time travel was a big let down). The bad guy is a computer genius nerd, and I had to laugh when I saw how the character (played by David Thewlis) was made to look. (See pic above.) Distinctly Gates-ian, don't you think?
Ramadan in practice
The New Culture of Ramadan
As the fasting month of Ramadan begins soon for Muslims, I had a look around the Net for some info on how exactly it is practiced. (I had heard somewhere before that many Muslims gain weight during the month, because of the large amount of food they eat at night to compensate for not eating during the day.)
The above link is to a year-old article from Saudi Arabia that is interesting. I didn't realise that shopping hours changed to extended night hours as well, and that the lack of sleep caused by eating and shopping at night makes many people grumpy at work, especially public servants!
And the weight gain bit is true:
"Most people actually gain weight in Ramadan. They fast from dawn to dusk, only to eat three meals in the seven hours of night: Iftar at sunset, dinner about 10 or 11 p.m. and then sahoor at 2 or 3 a.m.....
Sadly Ramadan is now the month of satellite TV programs — sit-coms, soap operas, and too much food."
Does sound awful.
As the fasting month of Ramadan begins soon for Muslims, I had a look around the Net for some info on how exactly it is practiced. (I had heard somewhere before that many Muslims gain weight during the month, because of the large amount of food they eat at night to compensate for not eating during the day.)
The above link is to a year-old article from Saudi Arabia that is interesting. I didn't realise that shopping hours changed to extended night hours as well, and that the lack of sleep caused by eating and shopping at night makes many people grumpy at work, especially public servants!
And the weight gain bit is true:
"Most people actually gain weight in Ramadan. They fast from dawn to dusk, only to eat three meals in the seven hours of night: Iftar at sunset, dinner about 10 or 11 p.m. and then sahoor at 2 or 3 a.m.....
Sadly Ramadan is now the month of satellite TV programs — sit-coms, soap operas, and too much food."
Does sound awful.
A study in contrasts
In the Australian today, there are 2 very contrasting opinion pieces on the Islamist problem. One by Phillip "let's not talk too harshly about premeditated murder least we offend" Adams, and the other by Mark "why doesn't the West believe them when they say they want to rule the world" Steyn.
The Phillip Adams column deserves strong attack. He hears only what he wants to hear, in that he ignores John Howard's oft-repeated line that the majority of Muslims are fine, upstanding, peace loving members of the community. Explicitly, when Howard talks of how Muslims "hate" the West, he is talking of the murdering extremists. Phillip claims:
" The chill of fear that passed through mainstream Australia at the PM's words would have been nothing to the dread felt within Muslim suburbs such as Sydney's Lakemba. Another nail in the coffin of co-operation. It's more encouragement for the sort of angry, alienated kids who turned themselves into bombs in London."
Only if, like you Phillip, they DO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT JOHN HOWARD AND KIM BEASLEY SAY.
Read this (from the other side of the world, where they have better hearing than in Phillip's office in Sydney) in the Gulf Times in Qatar:
"SYDNEY: Prime Minister John Howard assured Australian Muslims yesterday that they should not be frightened in the wake of the latest Bali bombings as they were seen as friends, not enemies.
Howard, whose government has been accused of targeting Muslims in tough new counter-terrorism laws, said that he wanted to reassure the nation'’s 300,000-strong Muslim minority that they should not feel alienated.
'“We see them as friends, we don'’t see them as enemies,'” Howard said.
'“We see them as here in the struggle, not as a group of people who should feel frightened and isolated and alienated.
'“This is as much of an attack on the way of life that a majority of them hold dear as it is the way of life that I hold dear and you hold dear,'” he told reporters."
Phillip Adams, like much of the Left, has a compulsion to encourage victimhood, and if there is a chance that someone will be slighted (however mistakenly) by anyone to the right of Adams, he will rush to hold their hand and sympathise with how misunderstood they are.
Mark Steyn's column, by comparison, makes the realistic point that semi-apologists (who try to find a way of turning the blame for attacks on the West) simply refuse to listen to what radical Islamists say. (Christopher Hitchens makes this point repeatedly too.) As usual, Steyn displays the type of bracing common sense that the Left has trouble coming to grips with.
The Phillip Adams column deserves strong attack. He hears only what he wants to hear, in that he ignores John Howard's oft-repeated line that the majority of Muslims are fine, upstanding, peace loving members of the community. Explicitly, when Howard talks of how Muslims "hate" the West, he is talking of the murdering extremists. Phillip claims:
" The chill of fear that passed through mainstream Australia at the PM's words would have been nothing to the dread felt within Muslim suburbs such as Sydney's Lakemba. Another nail in the coffin of co-operation. It's more encouragement for the sort of angry, alienated kids who turned themselves into bombs in London."
Only if, like you Phillip, they DO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT JOHN HOWARD AND KIM BEASLEY SAY.
Read this (from the other side of the world, where they have better hearing than in Phillip's office in Sydney) in the Gulf Times in Qatar:
"SYDNEY: Prime Minister John Howard assured Australian Muslims yesterday that they should not be frightened in the wake of the latest Bali bombings as they were seen as friends, not enemies.
Howard, whose government has been accused of targeting Muslims in tough new counter-terrorism laws, said that he wanted to reassure the nation'’s 300,000-strong Muslim minority that they should not feel alienated.
'“We see them as friends, we don'’t see them as enemies,'” Howard said.
'“We see them as here in the struggle, not as a group of people who should feel frightened and isolated and alienated.
'“This is as much of an attack on the way of life that a majority of them hold dear as it is the way of life that I hold dear and you hold dear,'” he told reporters."
Phillip Adams, like much of the Left, has a compulsion to encourage victimhood, and if there is a chance that someone will be slighted (however mistakenly) by anyone to the right of Adams, he will rush to hold their hand and sympathise with how misunderstood they are.
Mark Steyn's column, by comparison, makes the realistic point that semi-apologists (who try to find a way of turning the blame for attacks on the West) simply refuse to listen to what radical Islamists say. (Christopher Hitchens makes this point repeatedly too.) As usual, Steyn displays the type of bracing common sense that the Left has trouble coming to grips with.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Springtime photo
It's well and truly spring in Brisbane, with temperatures of around 30 degrees due over the weekend. This sunflower was grown in our backyard.
Now for something different
I have been to Tokyo, but missed these establishments while I wandered the back alleys of Akihabara looking at gadgets and cameras. To quote from the Japan Times article:
"A 21-year-old student, Hiroshi was enlisted by Dacapo to report on a visit to "LaLa," a newly opened shop in Tokyo's Akihabara district that rents private rooms furnished with a bath, toilet and, one other item . . . life-size female "mannequins."
"A 21-year-old student, Hiroshi was enlisted by Dacapo to report on a visit to "LaLa," a newly opened shop in Tokyo's Akihabara district that rents private rooms furnished with a bath, toilet and, one other item . . . life-size female "mannequins."
Businesses renting sex dolls have been springing up rapidly over the past two years, and may currently number over 100 in the Tokyo area alone. Most specialize in home delivery, but LaLa's stable of 17 latex ladies do their entertaining on the premises."
Double Jeopardy and Queensland
Queensland continues to be run by lawyers who seemingly refuse to accept that the legal system should have an interest in truth, not just procedure. The State Attorney General Mrs Lavarch (wife of former Keating government attorney general Michael Lavarch) has decided that Queensland will not reform double jeopardy laws, even though New South Wales and perhaps 2 other Labor led States are likely to do so.
This is all well covered in last week's Law Report on ABC Radio National (see transcript here.) It all arises from the Carroll case, where a twice convicted man still walks free (and according to the mother of the murdered baby, he would come into the shop where she worked and expect her to serve him at the check out. See the transcript of the Australian Story episode in which this part of the story was told.)
I still don't feel that I know enough about the Carroll case to comment fully about it. The part that I need to know more about is how badly they got the dental evidence at the first trial wrong (it appears that the match was "upside down", which sounds like some basic incompetence on the part of the expert witnesses. However, the dental evidence was re-visited in the second trial.)
I do not for the life of me understand why (on the appeal from the first trial) the court of appeal said that the trial judge should not have allowed in evidence from Carroll's first wife that it appeared to her that he used to bite his daughter in the same manner as appeared on the murdered baby (see Australian Story transcript.)
Anyway, even without understanding the whole Carroll case fully, the fact that Queensland's AG can't accept even a cautious reform of this ancient law is what drives me crazy.
And rushing in to support her is the current President of the Queensland Law Society (Rob Davis), who argues in precisely the manner which causes reasonable people to lose confidence in the legal system. The proposed reform as explained in the Law Report is this:
"The New South Wales model puts forward a very feasible solution... because it provides that the police on finding new evidence by way of DNA, for argument’s sake, that they would make application to the Director of Prosecutions if the Director of Prosecutions felt that there was fresh and compelling evidence they could make application to the Court of Criminal Appeal, so there are those two safeguards in place. The Court of Criminal Appeal could order one extra re-trial and the matter could then proceed, or they could dismiss it."
It would also only apply to "serious crime".
How does Rob Davis approach this? By huffing and puffing as follows:
"Rob Davis: Double jeopardy’s one of those things which sets us aside from totalitarian societies where governments can and do use the power of the legal system to oppress individuals.
Annie Warburton: But we’re just talking about proposals to allow the state just one more go at an accused person, in the case of serious crime where compelling, fresh new evidence has arisen. Surely that’s not oppressive?
Rob Davis: Yes, it is, because even one prosecution of an individual can absolutely destroy that individual in terms of their finances. The state has power to enlist the assistance of the best legal talent in bringing prosecutions; individuals have to rely on their own financial resources. Legal Aid is not always available, and when a person is prosecuted and the state fails, that individual doesn’t get compensated for all the time and effort and money that they’ve had to spend in defending their claim."
Well look Rob, if it's the financial burden on the innocent that you are worried about, that could be easily dealt with by the government providing for a guarantee of legal aid to all persons who face a second trial. For God's sake, the suggested reform is likely to result in a second trial once in a blue moon.
"Annie Warburton: The mother of murdered baby Deidre Kennedy, and the federal politician Peter Dutton, who’s been supporting her campaign all these years, maintain very forcefully that the majority of people want at least that small step towards reform to allow one more prosecution in serious cases where there’s compelling new evidence. Do you agree that that’s what most people want?
Rob Davis: No I don’t. Look, it’s a very tragic case and this is not a comment in relation to the horrendous situation that they found themselves in, but this is not one of those areas where you can just put one side to the public and say what does the public want, you also have to put to the public what’s the importance to them of being able to live their life in a free and open society. Do we want a society which is more oppressive, more totalitarian, where the individual can become inconvenient to the state and suffer repeated prosecutions. Or are we prepared to accept that to have a free and open society there are some costs. And one of the costs is that sometimes there may be guilty people who go free. But surely that’s far more preferable than a society in which many innocent people are either crushed by the power of the state, or can go to jail for crimes that they didn’t commit."
What a crock. Doesn't he trust the courts in the supervisory role they would have in even allowing a second trial to take place?
He is just displaying legal conservatism at its worst. It is the type of argument that is exploited by criminal lawyers in particular, because they know that certain redundant laws of evidence or criminal procedure can be used to their advantage.
This was dealt with well by Richard Ackland in his column in the Sydney Morning Herald this week. He is often very "precious" and I frequently do not agree with him, but this time I do. His column was about the attacks that a couple of prominant Sydney criminal lawyers made against Crown Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen after she gave a talk at a law school earlier this year. To quote from the column:
"Among the most salient of Cunneen's points is that technology has made the gathering of evidence in criminal cases more extensive, and indeed more reliable, than at any previous time. But that has led to more complex trials, because the challenge by defendants to the admissibility of strong, probative material, such as DNA evidence, takes on a greater importance.
The final point made by Ackland sums it up well:
"The Crown prosecutor's belief that the emphasis on process in criminal cases comes at the expense of discovering the truth, is something that should be said loudly and often. It appears that confidence in the administration of justice depends on keeping these issues quarantined from illumination.
That her speech was used to have her removed from prosecuting various retrials of earlier Sydney rape cases is illustrative of the very point her Sir Ninian Stephen Lecture made."
If you live in Queensland, or indeed any other State which similarly refuses to take the double jeopardy reform movement seriously, I suggest you write to your local member, and also to the opposition party to see what their policy is. I certainly intend to.
This is all well covered in last week's Law Report on ABC Radio National (see transcript here.) It all arises from the Carroll case, where a twice convicted man still walks free (and according to the mother of the murdered baby, he would come into the shop where she worked and expect her to serve him at the check out. See the transcript of the Australian Story episode in which this part of the story was told.)
I still don't feel that I know enough about the Carroll case to comment fully about it. The part that I need to know more about is how badly they got the dental evidence at the first trial wrong (it appears that the match was "upside down", which sounds like some basic incompetence on the part of the expert witnesses. However, the dental evidence was re-visited in the second trial.)
I do not for the life of me understand why (on the appeal from the first trial) the court of appeal said that the trial judge should not have allowed in evidence from Carroll's first wife that it appeared to her that he used to bite his daughter in the same manner as appeared on the murdered baby (see Australian Story transcript.)
Anyway, even without understanding the whole Carroll case fully, the fact that Queensland's AG can't accept even a cautious reform of this ancient law is what drives me crazy.
And rushing in to support her is the current President of the Queensland Law Society (Rob Davis), who argues in precisely the manner which causes reasonable people to lose confidence in the legal system. The proposed reform as explained in the Law Report is this:
"The New South Wales model puts forward a very feasible solution... because it provides that the police on finding new evidence by way of DNA, for argument’s sake, that they would make application to the Director of Prosecutions if the Director of Prosecutions felt that there was fresh and compelling evidence they could make application to the Court of Criminal Appeal, so there are those two safeguards in place. The Court of Criminal Appeal could order one extra re-trial and the matter could then proceed, or they could dismiss it."
It would also only apply to "serious crime".
How does Rob Davis approach this? By huffing and puffing as follows:
"Rob Davis: Double jeopardy’s one of those things which sets us aside from totalitarian societies where governments can and do use the power of the legal system to oppress individuals.
Annie Warburton: But we’re just talking about proposals to allow the state just one more go at an accused person, in the case of serious crime where compelling, fresh new evidence has arisen. Surely that’s not oppressive?
Rob Davis: Yes, it is, because even one prosecution of an individual can absolutely destroy that individual in terms of their finances. The state has power to enlist the assistance of the best legal talent in bringing prosecutions; individuals have to rely on their own financial resources. Legal Aid is not always available, and when a person is prosecuted and the state fails, that individual doesn’t get compensated for all the time and effort and money that they’ve had to spend in defending their claim."
Well look Rob, if it's the financial burden on the innocent that you are worried about, that could be easily dealt with by the government providing for a guarantee of legal aid to all persons who face a second trial. For God's sake, the suggested reform is likely to result in a second trial once in a blue moon.
"Annie Warburton: The mother of murdered baby Deidre Kennedy, and the federal politician Peter Dutton, who’s been supporting her campaign all these years, maintain very forcefully that the majority of people want at least that small step towards reform to allow one more prosecution in serious cases where there’s compelling new evidence. Do you agree that that’s what most people want?
Rob Davis: No I don’t. Look, it’s a very tragic case and this is not a comment in relation to the horrendous situation that they found themselves in, but this is not one of those areas where you can just put one side to the public and say what does the public want, you also have to put to the public what’s the importance to them of being able to live their life in a free and open society. Do we want a society which is more oppressive, more totalitarian, where the individual can become inconvenient to the state and suffer repeated prosecutions. Or are we prepared to accept that to have a free and open society there are some costs. And one of the costs is that sometimes there may be guilty people who go free. But surely that’s far more preferable than a society in which many innocent people are either crushed by the power of the state, or can go to jail for crimes that they didn’t commit."
What a crock. Doesn't he trust the courts in the supervisory role they would have in even allowing a second trial to take place?
He is just displaying legal conservatism at its worst. It is the type of argument that is exploited by criminal lawyers in particular, because they know that certain redundant laws of evidence or criminal procedure can be used to their advantage.
This was dealt with well by Richard Ackland in his column in the Sydney Morning Herald this week. He is often very "precious" and I frequently do not agree with him, but this time I do. His column was about the attacks that a couple of prominant Sydney criminal lawyers made against Crown Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen after she gave a talk at a law school earlier this year. To quote from the column:
"Among the most salient of Cunneen's points is that technology has made the gathering of evidence in criminal cases more extensive, and indeed more reliable, than at any previous time. But that has led to more complex trials, because the challenge by defendants to the admissibility of strong, probative material, such as DNA evidence, takes on a greater importance.
Further, she thought that it might be time to consider whether the pendulum has swung too far in favour of protection of the rights of the accused. "What must not be lost in the rhetoric of the criminal law and our zeal to afford every possible protection to accused persons is the fact that every time a guilty person is acquitted, the law, in a sense, has failed the community it exists to serve."
She knew it was heresy to say such a thing because it confronts some of the law's basic articles of faith, not to mention leaps of faith. Cunneen added, "There seems to be a fashion, among some in the criminal justice system, for a kind of misplaced altruism, that it is somehow a noble thing to assist a criminal to evade conviction."
And her final flourish: "Justice isn't achieved by ambush, trickery, dragging proceedings out in a war of attrition with witnesses. It's achieved by honesty, balance and proportion." '
The final point made by Ackland sums it up well:
"The Crown prosecutor's belief that the emphasis on process in criminal cases comes at the expense of discovering the truth, is something that should be said loudly and often. It appears that confidence in the administration of justice depends on keeping these issues quarantined from illumination.
That her speech was used to have her removed from prosecuting various retrials of earlier Sydney rape cases is illustrative of the very point her Sir Ninian Stephen Lecture made."
If you live in Queensland, or indeed any other State which similarly refuses to take the double jeopardy reform movement seriously, I suggest you write to your local member, and also to the opposition party to see what their policy is. I certainly intend to.
Cats and Madness (and the risks of rare steak)
I've mentioned before the possible mind altering effect of toxoplasma, the bug that is carried by cats. (The suggestion being that, just as infected rats have been shown to have a much reduced fear of cats, people with the bug in their brains might also take more risks in life.)
While wandering around the Web this week, I was very surprised to find that there have also been studies to see if there is a link with full blown schziophrenia. See this CDC study here. It's a bit of a worry. The summary:
"Since 1953, a total of 19 studies of T. gondii antibodies in persons with schizophrenia and other severe psychiatric disorders and in controls have been reported; 18 reported a higher percentage of antibodies in the affected persons; in 11 studies the difference was statistically significant. Two other studies found that exposure to cats in childhood was a risk factor for the development of schizophrenia."
I have read before that the rate of toxoplasma infection (as shown by blood studies) varies from country to country a great. France has a very high rate (around 80% !!,) believed to be from a fondness for eating rare meat. So, one would presume if there was any connection between toxoplasma and schziophrenia, it should up in that country's rates of madness. Seems like it does (although the study is very cautious about this):
"Whether any geographic association exists between the prevalence of toxoplasmosis and the prevalence of schizophrenia is unknown. France, which has a high prevalence of Toxoplasma-infected persons, was reported to have first-admission rates for schizophrenia approximately 50% higher than those in England (41). Ireland also has a high rate of Toxoplasma-infected persons in rural areas (42), confirmed by the high rate of infection in hospital personnel in our own study. "
Is there clear evidence that toxoplasma infection can cause schziophrenia like symptoms. Yep:
"Some cases of acute toxoplasmosis in adults are associated with psychiatric symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations. A review of 114 cases of acquired toxoplasmosis noted that “psychiatric disturbances were very frequent” in 24 of the case-patients (10). Case reports describe a 22-year-old woman who exhibited paranoid and bizarre delusions (“she said she had no veins in her arms and legs”), disorganized speech, and flattened affect; a 32-year-old woman who had auditory and visual hallucinations; and a 34-year-old woman who experienced auditory hallucinations and a thought disorder (11). Schizophrenia was first diagnosed in all three patients, but later neurologic symptoms developed, which led to the correct diagnosis of Toxoplasma encephalitis. Psychiatric manifestations of T. gondii are also prominent in immunocompromised persons with AIDS in whom latent infections have become reactivated."
So should cats be seen as a risk factor for schziophrenia? Seems a pretty good case exists:
"Epidemiologically, two studies have reported that adults who have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder had a greater exposure to cats in childhood. In one study, 84 (51%) of the 165 affected versus 65 (38%) of the 165 matched controls had owned a house cat in childhood (p = 0.02) (39). In the other study, 136 (52%) of the 262 affected versus 219 (42%) of the 522 matched controls owned a cat between birth and age 13 (odds ratio 1.53; p <>
Fascinating, hey? And I am very surprised that I had never heard of this before. (The CDC paper is nearly 2 years old now.) Maybe a world wide conspiracy of cat owners is suppressing this news from the MSM.
While wandering around the Web this week, I was very surprised to find that there have also been studies to see if there is a link with full blown schziophrenia. See this CDC study here. It's a bit of a worry. The summary:
"Since 1953, a total of 19 studies of T. gondii antibodies in persons with schizophrenia and other severe psychiatric disorders and in controls have been reported; 18 reported a higher percentage of antibodies in the affected persons; in 11 studies the difference was statistically significant. Two other studies found that exposure to cats in childhood was a risk factor for the development of schizophrenia."
I have read before that the rate of toxoplasma infection (as shown by blood studies) varies from country to country a great. France has a very high rate (around 80% !!,) believed to be from a fondness for eating rare meat. So, one would presume if there was any connection between toxoplasma and schziophrenia, it should up in that country's rates of madness. Seems like it does (although the study is very cautious about this):
"Whether any geographic association exists between the prevalence of toxoplasmosis and the prevalence of schizophrenia is unknown. France, which has a high prevalence of Toxoplasma-infected persons, was reported to have first-admission rates for schizophrenia approximately 50% higher than those in England (41). Ireland also has a high rate of Toxoplasma-infected persons in rural areas (42), confirmed by the high rate of infection in hospital personnel in our own study. "
Is there clear evidence that toxoplasma infection can cause schziophrenia like symptoms. Yep:
"Some cases of acute toxoplasmosis in adults are associated with psychiatric symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations. A review of 114 cases of acquired toxoplasmosis noted that “psychiatric disturbances were very frequent” in 24 of the case-patients (10). Case reports describe a 22-year-old woman who exhibited paranoid and bizarre delusions (“she said she had no veins in her arms and legs”), disorganized speech, and flattened affect; a 32-year-old woman who had auditory and visual hallucinations; and a 34-year-old woman who experienced auditory hallucinations and a thought disorder (11). Schizophrenia was first diagnosed in all three patients, but later neurologic symptoms developed, which led to the correct diagnosis of Toxoplasma encephalitis. Psychiatric manifestations of T. gondii are also prominent in immunocompromised persons with AIDS in whom latent infections have become reactivated."
So should cats be seen as a risk factor for schziophrenia? Seems a pretty good case exists:
"Epidemiologically, two studies have reported that adults who have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder had a greater exposure to cats in childhood. In one study, 84 (51%) of the 165 affected versus 65 (38%) of the 165 matched controls had owned a house cat in childhood (p = 0.02) (39). In the other study, 136 (52%) of the 262 affected versus 219 (42%) of the 522 matched controls owned a cat between birth and age 13 (odds ratio 1.53; p <>
Fascinating, hey? And I am very surprised that I had never heard of this before. (The CDC paper is nearly 2 years old now.) Maybe a world wide conspiracy of cat owners is suppressing this news from the MSM.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Read the fine print
In all of the news reports about Israel continuing operations in Gaza at the moment, few bother to give this bit of detail about the background to the current escalation (this is from the BBC):
"Meanwhile, shrapnel found in the bodies of people killed in last week's blast in northern Gaza came from Hamas' homemade rockets, the Palestinian Authority has said.
Its forensic report said the shrapnel resembled that used by the Palestinian militant group in its Qassam rockets.
Findings discredit Hamas' claim that Israel caused the Jabaliya blast
Hamas blamed Israel for the Jabaliya blast that killed at least 15 people, a charge Israel denies. The incident has led to a dramatic upsurge in violence.
The forensic report was published by the interior ministry's explosive unit.
The Palestinian Authority said Hamas militants mishandled the home-made weapons during a big rally in the Jabaliya refugee camp on Friday.
Hamas had earlier said Israeli planes had fired missiles into the crowd.
Following the blast, the group fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel, injuring several people.
Israel retaliated by firing missiles at a number of targets in Gaza during air raids and also by launching a massive series of arrests."
I did hear this mentioned on ABC radio this morning, but it is given little prominence in the web reporting at the moment.
"Meanwhile, shrapnel found in the bodies of people killed in last week's blast in northern Gaza came from Hamas' homemade rockets, the Palestinian Authority has said.
Its forensic report said the shrapnel resembled that used by the Palestinian militant group in its Qassam rockets.
Findings discredit Hamas' claim that Israel caused the Jabaliya blast
Hamas blamed Israel for the Jabaliya blast that killed at least 15 people, a charge Israel denies. The incident has led to a dramatic upsurge in violence.
The forensic report was published by the interior ministry's explosive unit.
The Palestinian Authority said Hamas militants mishandled the home-made weapons during a big rally in the Jabaliya refugee camp on Friday.
Hamas had earlier said Israeli planes had fired missiles into the crowd.
Following the blast, the group fired dozens of rockets into southern Israel, injuring several people.
Israel retaliated by firing missiles at a number of targets in Gaza during air raids and also by launching a massive series of arrests."
I did hear this mentioned on ABC radio this morning, but it is given little prominence in the web reporting at the moment.
Watch out if you are in Royal Brisbane hospital
Another discouraging story of a foreign trained doctor (a surgeon) in Queensland being "out of his depth" was reported today in the Courier Mail.
This came out of the ongoing health inquiry.
Dr Lakshman Jayasekera told inquiry commissioner Geoff Davies, QC, he was called in by a nurse to provide urgent help for the patient.
He said he was not working when "I received a telephone call from a theatre nurse, whose name I recall only as Gail, (who) called me and asked me to come in, using the words 'Lucky, can you come in as we have a patient who is going to die on the table'.
"I immediately went to the hospital and I found a patient that was in the process of being operated on by the Russian doctor and he had conducted an operation on this patient not knowing what to do."
Dr Jayasekera, an Australian-qualified surgeon and fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, said he completed the operation successfully and complained to a superior who asked him to supervise Dr Kotlovsky in future."
But the Russian doctor complains:
'Dr Kotlovsky described the allegations as "absolutely incredible".
"I would like to know what they are talking about," he said. "It is completely incorrect. I remember all my patients at Bundaberg Base Hospital."
In evidence at the inquiry last month, Dr Kees Nydam, a member of Bundaberg hospital's management team, described the case of Dr Kotlovsky as "a bit of a disaster".
Dr Nydam said he questioned if Dr Kotlovsky ever had the pediatric surgery qualifications he claimed to have achieved in Moscow.
This came out of the ongoing health inquiry.
Dr Lakshman Jayasekera told inquiry commissioner Geoff Davies, QC, he was called in by a nurse to provide urgent help for the patient.
He said he was not working when "I received a telephone call from a theatre nurse, whose name I recall only as Gail, (who) called me and asked me to come in, using the words 'Lucky, can you come in as we have a patient who is going to die on the table'.
"I immediately went to the hospital and I found a patient that was in the process of being operated on by the Russian doctor and he had conducted an operation on this patient not knowing what to do."
Dr Jayasekera, an Australian-qualified surgeon and fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, said he completed the operation successfully and complained to a superior who asked him to supervise Dr Kotlovsky in future."
But the Russian doctor complains:
'Dr Kotlovsky described the allegations as "absolutely incredible".
"I would like to know what they are talking about," he said. "It is completely incorrect. I remember all my patients at Bundaberg Base Hospital."
In evidence at the inquiry last month, Dr Kees Nydam, a member of Bundaberg hospital's management team, described the case of Dr Kotlovsky as "a bit of a disaster".
Dr Nydam said he questioned if Dr Kotlovsky ever had the pediatric surgery qualifications he claimed to have achieved in Moscow.
"Nursing staff, junior medical staff said 'this guy is a bit funny, we don't know exactly what'," Dr Nydam told former inquiry commissioner Tony Morris, QC.'
But is the doctor still working in Queensland hospitals? Yes indeed - now at Royal Brisbane hospital.
What's going on here? I trust that one result of this whole inquiry process will be some sort of urgent revision of how professional standards of surgeons are to be properly monitored and maintained.
Also, you can hardly criticise any patients in the Queensland public health system for questioning the capabilities of a foreign trained doctor who is treating them.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Sitcoms in History
With the recent deaths of Bob Denver and now Don Adams, I would be a little worried if I were the next aging 60's sitcom star with a head cold at the moment.
I was thinking about sitcoms generally, and my personal favourites over the years. If I had any substantial readership, I suppose I could try starting one of those blog meme things, but who could I "tag"...
Anyway, for what it is worth, here's how I would vote in some sitcom categories:
Current favourite sitcom: "Malcolm in the Middle," although I missed some of last season and it seems to have been off the air here for a while. Genuinely very funny, with clever writing. Not afraid to be silly, but the characters still maintain a certain reality. A close second may be "Scrubs", as I have been watching the first season repeated on the Comedy Channel in the last few weeks. Unfortunately, I think I have only seen one episode of the second series, as it was moved to some ridiculous time slot, and maybe the quality hasn't held.
[Australian TV executives sometimes have a bizarre way of hiding top notch sitcoms in obscure time slots for literally years, then finding that when they run them at prime time they are hits after all ("Frasier" is the prime example.)]
But generally, I have to say that sitcoms have not faired well in the last decade. I seem to remember many watchable sitcoms from the 1980's, but into the 90's the situation got much worse. "Friends" was good for the first season, and got sillier and sillier after that, tied with a somewhat irritating liberal take on everything. (It's credibility never recovered from having a duck living in the apartment.)
Favourite 60's sitcom: Get Smart, hands down. Addams Family, when viewed today, is still pretty good. Both have a certain ageless quality.
Favourite 80's sitcom: Maybe a tie between "Roseanne" (but only for the first 2 seasons) and "Cheers", which was consistently enjoyable, but the characters never felt 100% "real". How could any of them spend so much time in the pub? By the way, should the "Wonder Years" be called a sitcom? If it counts, the first 2 seasons were perhaps my favouite. (Again, it fell apart by the last season.)
Favourite 90's sitcom: Close tie between "Frasier" and "Seinfeld". These were both high quality, funny shows, but apart from them, the 1990's looked pretty bad.
Most overrated current sitcom: "Arrested Development", now being run on Comedy Channel. It's not awful by any means, and some good laughs to be had, but doesn't deserve all those Emmys.
Most unwatchable sitcom in the history of television: "Married with Children." Awful on every conceiveable level - and it ran for so long. I think I would prefer to watch some jive-talking black 70's sitcoms.
Most underappreciated sitcom of last decade: Bob Newhart's last sitcom - 1997's "George & Leo" ran on cable here on Saturday mornings not so long ago, and delighted me. I found it significantly funnier than his last version of the "Bob Newhart show" - the one in the inn in Vermont.
Best sitcom of all time: "Mary Tyler Moore." Very funny, but with sympathetic and realistic characters. The best sustained quality over many years for any sitcom. Still funny in repeats today, and observing 70's style is now part of the fun.
You may have noticed that no British sitcom makes the list. Well, they certainly are in a dire state now, and have been for years. I even remain ambivalent about "Fawlty Towers", it being a little too cruel and black for my taste, but I have seen every episode and admire its plotting and some of its humour. The problem with most British sitcoms is that they seem to have usually been done by only one or two writers, and it hard for them to maintain quality. American ones invariably have a raft of writers, and that must help.
I don't think "Blackadder" really counts as a sitcom. But it is probably the funniest British thing on TV over the last 22 years. (It started in 1983!!)
I was thinking about sitcoms generally, and my personal favourites over the years. If I had any substantial readership, I suppose I could try starting one of those blog meme things, but who could I "tag"...
Anyway, for what it is worth, here's how I would vote in some sitcom categories:
Current favourite sitcom: "Malcolm in the Middle," although I missed some of last season and it seems to have been off the air here for a while. Genuinely very funny, with clever writing. Not afraid to be silly, but the characters still maintain a certain reality. A close second may be "Scrubs", as I have been watching the first season repeated on the Comedy Channel in the last few weeks. Unfortunately, I think I have only seen one episode of the second series, as it was moved to some ridiculous time slot, and maybe the quality hasn't held.
[Australian TV executives sometimes have a bizarre way of hiding top notch sitcoms in obscure time slots for literally years, then finding that when they run them at prime time they are hits after all ("Frasier" is the prime example.)]
But generally, I have to say that sitcoms have not faired well in the last decade. I seem to remember many watchable sitcoms from the 1980's, but into the 90's the situation got much worse. "Friends" was good for the first season, and got sillier and sillier after that, tied with a somewhat irritating liberal take on everything. (It's credibility never recovered from having a duck living in the apartment.)
Favourite 60's sitcom: Get Smart, hands down. Addams Family, when viewed today, is still pretty good. Both have a certain ageless quality.
Favourite 80's sitcom: Maybe a tie between "Roseanne" (but only for the first 2 seasons) and "Cheers", which was consistently enjoyable, but the characters never felt 100% "real". How could any of them spend so much time in the pub? By the way, should the "Wonder Years" be called a sitcom? If it counts, the first 2 seasons were perhaps my favouite. (Again, it fell apart by the last season.)
Favourite 90's sitcom: Close tie between "Frasier" and "Seinfeld". These were both high quality, funny shows, but apart from them, the 1990's looked pretty bad.
Most overrated current sitcom: "Arrested Development", now being run on Comedy Channel. It's not awful by any means, and some good laughs to be had, but doesn't deserve all those Emmys.
Most unwatchable sitcom in the history of television: "Married with Children." Awful on every conceiveable level - and it ran for so long. I think I would prefer to watch some jive-talking black 70's sitcoms.
Most underappreciated sitcom of last decade: Bob Newhart's last sitcom - 1997's "George & Leo" ran on cable here on Saturday mornings not so long ago, and delighted me. I found it significantly funnier than his last version of the "Bob Newhart show" - the one in the inn in Vermont.
Best sitcom of all time: "Mary Tyler Moore." Very funny, but with sympathetic and realistic characters. The best sustained quality over many years for any sitcom. Still funny in repeats today, and observing 70's style is now part of the fun.
You may have noticed that no British sitcom makes the list. Well, they certainly are in a dire state now, and have been for years. I even remain ambivalent about "Fawlty Towers", it being a little too cruel and black for my taste, but I have seen every episode and admire its plotting and some of its humour. The problem with most British sitcoms is that they seem to have usually been done by only one or two writers, and it hard for them to maintain quality. American ones invariably have a raft of writers, and that must help.
I don't think "Blackadder" really counts as a sitcom. But it is probably the funniest British thing on TV over the last 22 years. (It started in 1983!!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)