The Old Bailey, of course, the criminal court in London that has been around for centuries.
You can now visit their site to search the complete record of proceedings there from 1674 to 1834!
This is of particular interest to Australians, since many of the original Aussies ended up here via that court.
For example, if you look at the link to "On this day in 1786" for today, and then click on the "see original" link at the side, you will see that the fate of one Christopher Hornsby, charged with stealing a silk hankerchief, was transportation for 7 years!
I must search my family name and see what pops up. Fascinating.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Two perspectives on France
Gerard Henderson's column today on the French and their riots is interesting. The key argument:
"France practises integration with respect to its ethnic minorities, from North Africa and Arab nations, in the sense that the French do not formally recognise their existence....
Anyone who has residence in France is expected to act like the French. There is no public recognition that immigrants to France - or their children or grandchildren - might like to preserve part of their ethnic culture or native language or that this might benefit France. There is no French equivalent of SBS and there are few government sponsored organisations for inter-ethnic dialogue. It's a case of when in France do as the French do."
Australia, on the other hand, is successfully multicultural, because it acknowledges that migrants might want to preserve part of their heritage:
"The fact is that multiculturalism has worked well in Australia and has contributed to an accepting society. The tests? Well, inter-marriage rates between ethnic groups are relatively high. And the level of ethnic motivated crime is relatively low. France's contemporary social problems have nothing to do with multiculturalism but, rather, much to do with its absence."
Mark Steyn's latest on Europe advances a not too dissimilar line, in that he points out that most European countries are bi-cultural (with one culture being Muslim.) Using the situation in Fiji as an example, he points out that this is inherently more unstable (at least when the minority starts to become the not so minority due to population growth) than multicultural countries, like the US and Australia. As he wittily puts it:
"One way to avoid it would be to go genuinely multicultural, to broaden the Continent's sources of immigration beyond the Muslim world. But a talented ambitious Chinese or Indian or Chilean has zero reason to emigrate to France, unless he is consumed by a perverse fantasy of living in a segregated society that artificially constrains his economic opportunities yet imposes confiscatory taxation on him in order to support an ancien regime of indolent geriatrics."
God, he can write!
"France practises integration with respect to its ethnic minorities, from North Africa and Arab nations, in the sense that the French do not formally recognise their existence....
Anyone who has residence in France is expected to act like the French. There is no public recognition that immigrants to France - or their children or grandchildren - might like to preserve part of their ethnic culture or native language or that this might benefit France. There is no French equivalent of SBS and there are few government sponsored organisations for inter-ethnic dialogue. It's a case of when in France do as the French do."
Australia, on the other hand, is successfully multicultural, because it acknowledges that migrants might want to preserve part of their heritage:
"The fact is that multiculturalism has worked well in Australia and has contributed to an accepting society. The tests? Well, inter-marriage rates between ethnic groups are relatively high. And the level of ethnic motivated crime is relatively low. France's contemporary social problems have nothing to do with multiculturalism but, rather, much to do with its absence."
Mark Steyn's latest on Europe advances a not too dissimilar line, in that he points out that most European countries are bi-cultural (with one culture being Muslim.) Using the situation in Fiji as an example, he points out that this is inherently more unstable (at least when the minority starts to become the not so minority due to population growth) than multicultural countries, like the US and Australia. As he wittily puts it:
"One way to avoid it would be to go genuinely multicultural, to broaden the Continent's sources of immigration beyond the Muslim world. But a talented ambitious Chinese or Indian or Chilean has zero reason to emigrate to France, unless he is consumed by a perverse fantasy of living in a segregated society that artificially constrains his economic opportunities yet imposes confiscatory taxation on him in order to support an ancien regime of indolent geriatrics."
God, he can write!
Whitlam and Saddam
Shame, Whitlam, shame - Tony Parkinson - Opinion - theage.com.au
See the link for a Tony Parkinson story on how Whitlam sought substantial money from Saddam Hussein to support the Labor Party election campaign in 1975. I don't recall this story at all, but it's a great one.
See the link for a Tony Parkinson story on how Whitlam sought substantial money from Saddam Hussein to support the Labor Party election campaign in 1975. I don't recall this story at all, but it's a great one.
Doco recommendation
The first part of a 2 part documentary "The Cult of the Suicide Bomber" was on the ABC tonight at 8.30. A British Channel 4 production, it was very good. If you missed it, you can at least see the next part next Monday.
It gave much insight into how Islamist suicide bombers started in Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. Most worrying was how it showed that such martyrdom is still admired today, even by those parents whose 13 or 15 yr old sons strapped explosives to themselves 20 years ago.
It really makes you wonder how such a mindset can be changed. Depressing, in a way.
It gave much insight into how Islamist suicide bombers started in Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. Most worrying was how it showed that such martyrdom is still admired today, even by those parents whose 13 or 15 yr old sons strapped explosives to themselves 20 years ago.
It really makes you wonder how such a mindset can be changed. Depressing, in a way.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Panic! Global warming to affect wine!
This PhD research noted on the ABC website would have to be one of the most trivial bits of global warming related research I have seen.
"Connoisseurs of Australian wine may have to learn to love a less tasty drop as climate change takes its toll on grape growing regions, a greenhouse conference will hear.
Leanne Webb, a PhD student with CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research says based on her modelling Australia's wine growing regions will become warmer and in almost all cases drier.
The bad news is that the flavour and aroma of grapes may suffer, resulting in poorer quality, less complex wines."
Gosh.
'"In most regions bud burst will be earlier ... and harvest day in all cases will be earlier," she says.
For example, in South Australia's Riverland, Australia's warmest and largest wine producing region, bud burst will occur four days earlier and harvesting will take place eleven days earlier by 2030.'
Panic! Maybe this will convince Howard to ratify Kyoto. He likes wine doesn't he? But wait a minute, there is something good to come from it:
"According to her model, by 2030 Riverina grape growers in New South Wales will need an extra 1500 to 8500 megalitres of water a year to irrigate their crops.
But what growers lose through irrigation they may gain in increased yield, she says.
"When it's warmer you tend to be able to produce more grapes per hectare," she says.'
So it's more wine but of less quality. Since most of the bottles I currently drink are under $10, I can live with this.
"Connoisseurs of Australian wine may have to learn to love a less tasty drop as climate change takes its toll on grape growing regions, a greenhouse conference will hear.
Leanne Webb, a PhD student with CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research says based on her modelling Australia's wine growing regions will become warmer and in almost all cases drier.
The bad news is that the flavour and aroma of grapes may suffer, resulting in poorer quality, less complex wines."
Gosh.
'"In most regions bud burst will be earlier ... and harvest day in all cases will be earlier," she says.
For example, in South Australia's Riverland, Australia's warmest and largest wine producing region, bud burst will occur four days earlier and harvesting will take place eleven days earlier by 2030.'
Panic! Maybe this will convince Howard to ratify Kyoto. He likes wine doesn't he? But wait a minute, there is something good to come from it:
"According to her model, by 2030 Riverina grape growers in New South Wales will need an extra 1500 to 8500 megalitres of water a year to irrigate their crops.
But what growers lose through irrigation they may gain in increased yield, she says.
"When it's warmer you tend to be able to produce more grapes per hectare," she says.'
So it's more wine but of less quality. Since most of the bottles I currently drink are under $10, I can live with this.
Gerard Henderson fighting the good fight
The World Today - Anti-terrorism laws: safety measure or political gameplay?
On Friday I heard The World Today on Radio National, in which there was a good stoush between the always cool, rational (and conservative) Gerard Henderson and Robert Toner (a New South Wales barrister on the side of the over-cautious civil libertarians) on the Federal government's anti terror legislation.
Things did get a bit heated as these extracts show:
"GERARD HENDERSON: Yeah, but the error you're making is, and many barristers make, you don't have to take…
ROBERT TONER: We're the ones that deal with it day in, day out.
GERARD HENDERSON: Yeah, but just a minute… is that you're talking about criminality, and I think… can I just finish? I think you underplay the significance of the threat. Let's just talk about Britain.
ROBERT TONER: What, of mass murder? Why should we?
GERARD HENDERSON: Could I just finish? If we just talk about Britain, not talk about Australia. What we're dealing here with is not criminals, so much as revolutionaries. Revolutionaries who come up with ideological doctrines deserve to be taken seriously.
If someone says to me they want to destroy our society, I have the good sense to take them seriously until proven otherwise. This is a revolutionary force at a new time of war. We are not dealing with normal acts of criminality for which barristers have dealt for many years."
And then:
"GERARD HENDERSON: All I'm saying is that if every State Premier, if every Territory leader, if the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader, the Federal Police, and all the State Police say something needs to be done, I don't think it's… I mean, it's very easy for someone for the Bar to say they're all wrong.
ROBERT TONER: Because they're spooked by the polls, they're spooked by the editorial writers of the Daily Telegraph.
GERARD HENDERSON: Oh are they? So they don't believe what they're doing? They're just spooked by people, they're just scared. I mean…
ROBERT TONER: Well, hang on a minute, this is out of balance.
GERARD HENDERSON: That is a ridiculous proposition. As a barrister you should be able to do better than that.
ELEANOR HALL: Now, I just need to intervene here."
Of course, I rate Henderson as the winner.
On Friday I heard The World Today on Radio National, in which there was a good stoush between the always cool, rational (and conservative) Gerard Henderson and Robert Toner (a New South Wales barrister on the side of the over-cautious civil libertarians) on the Federal government's anti terror legislation.
Things did get a bit heated as these extracts show:
"GERARD HENDERSON: Yeah, but the error you're making is, and many barristers make, you don't have to take…
ROBERT TONER: We're the ones that deal with it day in, day out.
GERARD HENDERSON: Yeah, but just a minute… is that you're talking about criminality, and I think… can I just finish? I think you underplay the significance of the threat. Let's just talk about Britain.
ROBERT TONER: What, of mass murder? Why should we?
GERARD HENDERSON: Could I just finish? If we just talk about Britain, not talk about Australia. What we're dealing here with is not criminals, so much as revolutionaries. Revolutionaries who come up with ideological doctrines deserve to be taken seriously.
If someone says to me they want to destroy our society, I have the good sense to take them seriously until proven otherwise. This is a revolutionary force at a new time of war. We are not dealing with normal acts of criminality for which barristers have dealt for many years."
And then:
"GERARD HENDERSON: All I'm saying is that if every State Premier, if every Territory leader, if the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader, the Federal Police, and all the State Police say something needs to be done, I don't think it's… I mean, it's very easy for someone for the Bar to say they're all wrong.
ROBERT TONER: Because they're spooked by the polls, they're spooked by the editorial writers of the Daily Telegraph.
GERARD HENDERSON: Oh are they? So they don't believe what they're doing? They're just spooked by people, they're just scared. I mean…
ROBERT TONER: Well, hang on a minute, this is out of balance.
GERARD HENDERSON: That is a ridiculous proposition. As a barrister you should be able to do better than that.
ELEANOR HALL: Now, I just need to intervene here."
Of course, I rate Henderson as the winner.
Foil hat warning
I strongly suggest Tony Kevin should read this.
(Everyone else should read it too; my posts have been too serious lately.)
(Everyone else should read it too; my posts have been too serious lately.)
The Dead in Iraq
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Flaws in the calculations of Iraqi war dead
There has been some renewed criticism lately of the media's alleged downplaying of the controversial Lancet study that put the number of war dead at a likely 100,000.
George Monbiot had an article in The Guardian about it last week. It drew a letter in response linked to at the top of this post from one Gil Elliot.
Strangely enough, the book which he wrote ("The 20th Century Book of the Dead") is one which I bought out of vague curiosity in a second hand shop in (I think) the early 1980's. It explains the numbers of deaths caused by humans (through war, deliberately induced famine, etc) throughout the 20th century, and it cautiously details the uncertainties and methods by which the numbers had been calculated. It certainly alerted me while relatively young to the fact that Stalin killed many, many more millions of his own subjects than Hitler ever did. (Being a point still not a matter of common knowledge in the West, in my opinion.)
Anyway, I have not followed the argument about the Lancet study as closely as I could. My reaction still remains the same: while the survey method might well work in some societies, I doubt that it would work so well in the, umm, highly excitable society that seems to be in place in Iraq. In other words, if ever there were a place where I would have cause to doubt the accuracy of answers to a survey on how many deaths you knew of, it would be Iraq. And bearing in mind that their study gave a possible (though very unlikely) minimum of 8,000 deaths, I would think that it is entirely justifiable to take a figure well within the lower range of possibilities in the study as being more accurate than the 100,000 "most likely" figure, given other information out of the country.
The authors of the study and their defenders complain that the Western leaders didn't question their methodology when used in other conflicts. Well, maybe they should have, but in any case when they rush their study into print in a highly politicised way, they should expect some pretty careful scrutiny and skepticism. The fact that they are professionals at this work doesn't cut much ice with me. Sometimes common sense points you in the right direction faster than science does.
There has been some renewed criticism lately of the media's alleged downplaying of the controversial Lancet study that put the number of war dead at a likely 100,000.
George Monbiot had an article in The Guardian about it last week. It drew a letter in response linked to at the top of this post from one Gil Elliot.
Strangely enough, the book which he wrote ("The 20th Century Book of the Dead") is one which I bought out of vague curiosity in a second hand shop in (I think) the early 1980's. It explains the numbers of deaths caused by humans (through war, deliberately induced famine, etc) throughout the 20th century, and it cautiously details the uncertainties and methods by which the numbers had been calculated. It certainly alerted me while relatively young to the fact that Stalin killed many, many more millions of his own subjects than Hitler ever did. (Being a point still not a matter of common knowledge in the West, in my opinion.)
Anyway, I have not followed the argument about the Lancet study as closely as I could. My reaction still remains the same: while the survey method might well work in some societies, I doubt that it would work so well in the, umm, highly excitable society that seems to be in place in Iraq. In other words, if ever there were a place where I would have cause to doubt the accuracy of answers to a survey on how many deaths you knew of, it would be Iraq. And bearing in mind that their study gave a possible (though very unlikely) minimum of 8,000 deaths, I would think that it is entirely justifiable to take a figure well within the lower range of possibilities in the study as being more accurate than the 100,000 "most likely" figure, given other information out of the country.
The authors of the study and their defenders complain that the Western leaders didn't question their methodology when used in other conflicts. Well, maybe they should have, but in any case when they rush their study into print in a highly politicised way, they should expect some pretty careful scrutiny and skepticism. The fact that they are professionals at this work doesn't cut much ice with me. Sometimes common sense points you in the right direction faster than science does.
John Howard's secrets of success
In The Australian today, an opinion piece with a (sympathetic) analysis of John Howard's success is an interesting read. This part stood out to me, because it is diametrically opposed to the view that some on the Left take on Howard's methods:
"For one thing, contrary to accepted wisdom, he's allowed backbenchers a greater policy role than probably any other Liberal leader. Howard, remember, saw first-hand the difficulty that Malcolm Fraser had in managing a large party room of ambitious MPs, and he's adopted a strategy the opposite of his predecessor's. Instead of attempting to restrict party dissent, Howard has tolerated it, and sometimes even encouraged it. No fewer than three policy journals are now published by Liberal MPs -- covering everything from vouchers for education to uranium mining. On the new anti-terror laws, Howard has genuinely listened to backbenchers such as Petro Georgiou and Malcolm Turnbull and taken their views into account -- even if he disagrees with them."
This made me think, the Labor Party can similarly be said to be a "broad church", but it causes it more grief than benefit. The reason, I suppose, would have to be the rigidity of the faction system, which presumably makes inter-faction compromises on policy much harder to achieve.
"For one thing, contrary to accepted wisdom, he's allowed backbenchers a greater policy role than probably any other Liberal leader. Howard, remember, saw first-hand the difficulty that Malcolm Fraser had in managing a large party room of ambitious MPs, and he's adopted a strategy the opposite of his predecessor's. Instead of attempting to restrict party dissent, Howard has tolerated it, and sometimes even encouraged it. No fewer than three policy journals are now published by Liberal MPs -- covering everything from vouchers for education to uranium mining. On the new anti-terror laws, Howard has genuinely listened to backbenchers such as Petro Georgiou and Malcolm Turnbull and taken their views into account -- even if he disagrees with them."
This made me think, the Labor Party can similarly be said to be a "broad church", but it causes it more grief than benefit. The reason, I suppose, would have to be the rigidity of the faction system, which presumably makes inter-faction compromises on policy much harder to achieve.
Identity crisis and terrorism
Greg Sheridan's article in the Saturday Australian was good, and Tim Blair has already quoted from one part of it with approval.
But I think another part of the article is also worth noting:
"There is really no common denominator among terrorists. They can be rich or poor, highly religious or not religious at all. The only common factor among many seems to be a crisis of identity that then runs into an identity entrepreneur, in the shape of a charismatic religious teacher or cell leader.
The identity entrepreneur solves the identity crisis for the young men. He instructs them on their identity. They are warriors in jihad, avenging the countless crimes of the infidel against Islam.
This is the sense in which the riots in France can have a connection with terrorism. It is not that the rioters have adopted terrorist ideology. But their nihilistic rage bespeaks a crisis of identity that is bound to find some of them falling into the hands of the identity entrepreneurs of radical jihad. "
Sounds very plausible to me.
But I think another part of the article is also worth noting:
"There is really no common denominator among terrorists. They can be rich or poor, highly religious or not religious at all. The only common factor among many seems to be a crisis of identity that then runs into an identity entrepreneur, in the shape of a charismatic religious teacher or cell leader.
The identity entrepreneur solves the identity crisis for the young men. He instructs them on their identity. They are warriors in jihad, avenging the countless crimes of the infidel against Islam.
This is the sense in which the riots in France can have a connection with terrorism. It is not that the rioters have adopted terrorist ideology. But their nihilistic rage bespeaks a crisis of identity that is bound to find some of them falling into the hands of the identity entrepreneurs of radical jihad. "
Sounds very plausible to me.
Ruddock to the rescue
There is no threat to freedom of speech - Opinion - smh.com.au
I have posted before about how much of the commentary on the sedition laws appears to have been based on an major misunderstanding in relation to the definition of "seditious intention"
Phillip Ruddock in the Sydney Morning Herald today (link above) confirms I was right. See this:
"One source of misunderstanding is that people have taken the term "seditious intention" to be an offence.
Seditious intention, for the purpose of this bill, is a definition - not an offence. Although it contains reference to things such as disaffection against the government, you cannot be charged with "seditious intention". The section of the act that mentions seditious intention is part of a wider provision setting out the requirements for declaring an association "unlawful",and in that context, it does not apply to individuals."
However, possibly this bit of the article is a little misleading:
"The existing and proposed laws allow for free speech by making sure people can call upon a good faith defence."
This is true for individuals, but I think that even the final bill does not make allowances for associations to make comment "in good faith". If so this is probably a legitimate ground for complaint against the provisions. The risk of leaving the legislation as it is more theoretical than practical, though, when one considers that the AG would have to convince a Federal Court judge to declare an association as unlawful.
Anyway, it is good to see the government finally speaking against the mistaken impression given in the media about what the sedition laws were covering.
I have posted before about how much of the commentary on the sedition laws appears to have been based on an major misunderstanding in relation to the definition of "seditious intention"
Phillip Ruddock in the Sydney Morning Herald today (link above) confirms I was right. See this:
"One source of misunderstanding is that people have taken the term "seditious intention" to be an offence.
Seditious intention, for the purpose of this bill, is a definition - not an offence. Although it contains reference to things such as disaffection against the government, you cannot be charged with "seditious intention". The section of the act that mentions seditious intention is part of a wider provision setting out the requirements for declaring an association "unlawful",and in that context, it does not apply to individuals."
However, possibly this bit of the article is a little misleading:
"The existing and proposed laws allow for free speech by making sure people can call upon a good faith defence."
This is true for individuals, but I think that even the final bill does not make allowances for associations to make comment "in good faith". If so this is probably a legitimate ground for complaint against the provisions. The risk of leaving the legislation as it is more theoretical than practical, though, when one considers that the AG would have to convince a Federal Court judge to declare an association as unlawful.
Anyway, it is good to see the government finally speaking against the mistaken impression given in the media about what the sedition laws were covering.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Terry Lane on this week's events
No more beating about the bogeyman - Opinion - theage.com.au
Terry's Age article this week (link above) is a real dog's breakfast. Long suffering from Howard Derangement Syndrome, he of course cannot let go of the idea that the police raids this week were probably just part of some diversionary tactic directed by the PM:
"Let's be generous here. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the happy coincidence of the Man of Steel's need for a bogeyman and the arrest of 17 "terrorists" has genuinely foiled a bomb plot. And let's assume too that the police who have benefited from extra money and power are not cynically rewarding their political master.
....Just suppose that for once we are not being deceived by self-serving opportunists; what should we make of events?"
However, he then swings over (via a fairly gratuitous swipe at ASIO's history) to making a point I can probably agree with. Namely, despite the government having an interest in repeatedly saying that the new anti terror legislation is not aimed at Muslims, in the present situation of course it is Muslims who will be being watched most closely. To quote:
"If the secret police are any good at their jobs they will target Muslim organisations. If there is any threat at all, we know that is where it comes from. In which case, let's stop beating about the bush and get it out in the open. The issue is not resolved when some Muslim puts his hand on his heart and tells us that "Islam means peace". We know that it doesn't. Right now we are not frightened of Baptists or Presbyterians."
And then his final paragraph is interesting, although completely devoid of practical suggestion as to how it is to be achieved:
"Putting a few ratbags behind bars will not solve the problem of an unsettling alien presence in the nation. The most urgent requirement is the assimilation of Muslims and the secularisation of Islam. The Man of Steel should tell us what he has in mind along those lines. We need an Ataturk."
[For any international readers, "Man of Steel" is his sarcastic nick for PM John Howard.]
Terry is famously athiestic, and it is his strong anti-religion views that have swung him away from the more "traditional" left wing view of multiculuralism, where it is deemed impolite to actually say that another culture's religious beliefs should be reformed or abandoned (while having no compunction about rubbishing your own country's Christian inheritance.)
So Terry has actually got himself into a position on Islam which is probably shared by many on the right side of politics, even the far right.
What do I think? Well, I am still reading bits and pieces about Islam and don't feel I have a solid basis for a detailed opinion yet. I don't know enough about the different branches of Islam and its history to have any good idea as to how it could be reformed. But of course, I have no issue with the question of assimilation. Clearly, other migrant groups have taken to assimilation in this country quite well, and I think one of the major ways of achieving this is through the younger generation's inter-marriage with Australian citizens. It is not clear to me how much the younger generation of Muslim immigrants to Australia are intermarrying. The publicity surrounding the gang rapes in Sydney suggest that there is not a hell of a lot of respect for Western women amongst some Muslim groups, which would also presumably mean little intermarriage.
I would not have thought that Australia has any substantial barriers to Muslims economically integrating here (in the same way apparently France has,) but then again I don't know (for example) how many work places make a prayer room available for Muslim staff either. (I am sounding very small "l" liberal when I say that, but I was chatting to a Malaysian guy and he explained how all office workplaces there have a prayer room for the Muslim men. I asked if it was a cause of resentment that they went and had a few 20 minute prayer breaks every day, but the chinese seem to live with it. I am not sure if a Muslim man here has ever had an issue with his non- Muslim boss over the need for prayer breaks.)
So, assimilation is a good idea, but I would like Terry to give us his personal (and practical) ideas about how to achieve that, rather than just making implied criticism of Howard for not addressing it.
Terry's Age article this week (link above) is a real dog's breakfast. Long suffering from Howard Derangement Syndrome, he of course cannot let go of the idea that the police raids this week were probably just part of some diversionary tactic directed by the PM:
"Let's be generous here. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the happy coincidence of the Man of Steel's need for a bogeyman and the arrest of 17 "terrorists" has genuinely foiled a bomb plot. And let's assume too that the police who have benefited from extra money and power are not cynically rewarding their political master.
....Just suppose that for once we are not being deceived by self-serving opportunists; what should we make of events?"
However, he then swings over (via a fairly gratuitous swipe at ASIO's history) to making a point I can probably agree with. Namely, despite the government having an interest in repeatedly saying that the new anti terror legislation is not aimed at Muslims, in the present situation of course it is Muslims who will be being watched most closely. To quote:
"If the secret police are any good at their jobs they will target Muslim organisations. If there is any threat at all, we know that is where it comes from. In which case, let's stop beating about the bush and get it out in the open. The issue is not resolved when some Muslim puts his hand on his heart and tells us that "Islam means peace". We know that it doesn't. Right now we are not frightened of Baptists or Presbyterians."
And then his final paragraph is interesting, although completely devoid of practical suggestion as to how it is to be achieved:
"Putting a few ratbags behind bars will not solve the problem of an unsettling alien presence in the nation. The most urgent requirement is the assimilation of Muslims and the secularisation of Islam. The Man of Steel should tell us what he has in mind along those lines. We need an Ataturk."
[For any international readers, "Man of Steel" is his sarcastic nick for PM John Howard.]
Terry is famously athiestic, and it is his strong anti-religion views that have swung him away from the more "traditional" left wing view of multiculuralism, where it is deemed impolite to actually say that another culture's religious beliefs should be reformed or abandoned (while having no compunction about rubbishing your own country's Christian inheritance.)
So Terry has actually got himself into a position on Islam which is probably shared by many on the right side of politics, even the far right.
What do I think? Well, I am still reading bits and pieces about Islam and don't feel I have a solid basis for a detailed opinion yet. I don't know enough about the different branches of Islam and its history to have any good idea as to how it could be reformed. But of course, I have no issue with the question of assimilation. Clearly, other migrant groups have taken to assimilation in this country quite well, and I think one of the major ways of achieving this is through the younger generation's inter-marriage with Australian citizens. It is not clear to me how much the younger generation of Muslim immigrants to Australia are intermarrying. The publicity surrounding the gang rapes in Sydney suggest that there is not a hell of a lot of respect for Western women amongst some Muslim groups, which would also presumably mean little intermarriage.
I would not have thought that Australia has any substantial barriers to Muslims economically integrating here (in the same way apparently France has,) but then again I don't know (for example) how many work places make a prayer room available for Muslim staff either. (I am sounding very small "l" liberal when I say that, but I was chatting to a Malaysian guy and he explained how all office workplaces there have a prayer room for the Muslim men. I asked if it was a cause of resentment that they went and had a few 20 minute prayer breaks every day, but the chinese seem to live with it. I am not sure if a Muslim man here has ever had an issue with his non- Muslim boss over the need for prayer breaks.)
So, assimilation is a good idea, but I would like Terry to give us his personal (and practical) ideas about how to achieve that, rather than just making implied criticism of Howard for not addressing it.
Capitalism for Peace
The Japan Times Online
See the link above for a short article on the idea being promoted by Erik Gartzke that capitalism is more important than democracy in ensuring world peace. Maybe this has been noted elsewhere on the Net, but if so I have missed it. The heart of the article is this:
"...Gartzke argues that "the 'democratic peace' is a mirage created by the overlap between economic and political freedom." That is, democracies typically have freer economies than do authoritarian states.
Thus, while "democracy is desirable for many reasons," he notes in a chapter in the latest volume of Economic Freedom in the World, created by the Fraser Institute, "representative governments are unlikely to contribute directly to international peace." Capitalism is by far the more important factor.
The shift from statist mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war. Markets generate economic opportunities that make war less desirable. Territorial aggrandizement no longer provides the best path to riches.
Free flowing capital markets and other aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together and raise the economic price of military conflict. "
Sounds at least half plausible.
See the link above for a short article on the idea being promoted by Erik Gartzke that capitalism is more important than democracy in ensuring world peace. Maybe this has been noted elsewhere on the Net, but if so I have missed it. The heart of the article is this:
"...Gartzke argues that "the 'democratic peace' is a mirage created by the overlap between economic and political freedom." That is, democracies typically have freer economies than do authoritarian states.
Thus, while "democracy is desirable for many reasons," he notes in a chapter in the latest volume of Economic Freedom in the World, created by the Fraser Institute, "representative governments are unlikely to contribute directly to international peace." Capitalism is by far the more important factor.
The shift from statist mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war. Markets generate economic opportunities that make war less desirable. Territorial aggrandizement no longer provides the best path to riches.
Free flowing capital markets and other aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together and raise the economic price of military conflict. "
Sounds at least half plausible.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Links, anyone?
I had a bit of a spike in visits this week, so it seems appropriate to issue a gentle reminder that there seem to be very few people who link to me. If I didn't want people to read this, I would write it all in a paper diary kept under the bed, with my Fortean Times magazines.
If you are a blogger who likes this site, don't just visit via book marks or someone's else's link. Please consider adding me to your blog roll.
If you are a blogger who likes this site, don't just visit via book marks or someone's else's link. Please consider adding me to your blog roll.
Important psychological research - not
I hope they weren't paid a government grant for this:
"Imagine two servings of ice cream, one featuring a five-ounce cup overfilled with seven ounces, the other a ten-ounce cup filled with only eight ounces. Objectively the under-filled serving is better, because it contains more. But a study conducted by Christopher Hsee found that unless these two servings are presented side by side, the seven-ounce serving is actually considered more valuable. Apparently, people do not base their judgment on the amount of ice cream available, which is difficult to evaluate in isolation. Instead, they rely on an easy-to-evaluate cue: whether the serving is overfilled or under-filled. Overfilling evokes positive feelings while under-filling evokes negative feelings, and these feelings dictate people's evaluations."
Emphasis is mine. Isn't that the reason for the result, and does it tells us anything valuable?
"Imagine two servings of ice cream, one featuring a five-ounce cup overfilled with seven ounces, the other a ten-ounce cup filled with only eight ounces. Objectively the under-filled serving is better, because it contains more. But a study conducted by Christopher Hsee found that unless these two servings are presented side by side, the seven-ounce serving is actually considered more valuable. Apparently, people do not base their judgment on the amount of ice cream available, which is difficult to evaluate in isolation. Instead, they rely on an easy-to-evaluate cue: whether the serving is overfilled or under-filled. Overfilling evokes positive feelings while under-filling evokes negative feelings, and these feelings dictate people's evaluations."
Emphasis is mine. Isn't that the reason for the result, and does it tells us anything valuable?
Who is lying about Iraq?
Commentary
Tim Blair has already linked to it, as have many right wing blogs. Still, just in case you missed it, there's the link. Powerline also links to some further comment about it here.
Tim Blair has already linked to it, as have many right wing blogs. Still, just in case you missed it, there's the link. Powerline also links to some further comment about it here.
France Fries Farmers
French hypocriscy (and stupidity) on its position on free trade is covered in a WSJ commentary piece. (The WSJ has been free for a week, so better link there soon if you want the whole article.) I will extract the key points:
"France's tirades have helped negotiators wake up to the fact that the 2003 reform was largely a shell game, shifting only a portion of European farm subsidies from the WTO's prohibited list of trade-distorting payments to its "acceptable" subsidy list. This was achieved primarily by "decoupling" subsidies from production, with the idea that this would discourage the overproduction of goods that has wreaked havoc on agricultural markets. At the end of the day, however, there was no change in support prices and subsidy levels, and hence no change in the overall level of European protection. As shown by an OECD study, this was a liberalization in name only, reducing the overall level of support by a meager two percentage points, from 57% to 55% -- nothing much to celebrate for Europe's WTO partners.
"France's tirades have helped negotiators wake up to the fact that the 2003 reform was largely a shell game, shifting only a portion of European farm subsidies from the WTO's prohibited list of trade-distorting payments to its "acceptable" subsidy list. This was achieved primarily by "decoupling" subsidies from production, with the idea that this would discourage the overproduction of goods that has wreaked havoc on agricultural markets. At the end of the day, however, there was no change in support prices and subsidy levels, and hence no change in the overall level of European protection. As shown by an OECD study, this was a liberalization in name only, reducing the overall level of support by a meager two percentage points, from 57% to 55% -- nothing much to celebrate for Europe's WTO partners.
..... This means foreign access to European markets remains difficult, if not impossible -- even for producers from Europe's former colonies in the African, Caribbean and Pacific regions and other least developed countries that face no tariffs. .... These countries are shocked by the incredible cynicism of a position that preaches development, but practices market closure when it comes to developing countries' farm exports....
The French position is even less understandable when it is recalled that, on the whole, French agriculture is amongst the most efficient in Europe. French farmers seem not to realize that they will be the main beneficiaries of even the limited farm liberalization that the Doha round appears capable of delivering. Take domestic subsidies, for example. European subsidies spent in the most inefficient member states keep their farmers in operation, and thereby restrict the sales of more efficient farmers, be they from the rest of the world or from the rest of Europe. The CAP is the most implacable foe of the European single market in farm products, and it is particularly harmful for the most efficient European -- often French -- farmers.
If reason were to prevail, French farmers would be among those pushing for deeper reductions in European subsidies than those tabled by the Commission. They would clearly win from such an approach."
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Meanwhile, in Iraq
Found via the IWPR website (click on the press summary for 9 November - it is still incorrectly listed as "October"):
"Armed Elements Captured
(Al-Mada) Border guards arrested seven armed Syrians in the Sinjar area of Nineveh province, a source at the interior ministry said. He said security forces raided a house in the al-Qadisiya area where they arrested the seven men who shot at a police patrol there. The source said security forces also raided terrorists' dens in the al-Nahrawan area of Baghdad, where they arrested 13 armed men. In addition, 10 Iranians were arrested at Sirwan checkpoint.
(Al-Mada is issued daily by Al-Mada institution for Media, Culture and Arts.)"
"Armed Elements Captured
(Al-Mada) Border guards arrested seven armed Syrians in the Sinjar area of Nineveh province, a source at the interior ministry said. He said security forces raided a house in the al-Qadisiya area where they arrested the seven men who shot at a police patrol there. The source said security forces also raided terrorists' dens in the al-Nahrawan area of Baghdad, where they arrested 13 armed men. In addition, 10 Iranians were arrested at Sirwan checkpoint.
(Al-Mada is issued daily by Al-Mada institution for Media, Culture and Arts.)"
Another reason to drink pinot noir
From Scientific American:
'"A chemical compound in wine reduces levels of a harmful molecule linked to Alzheimer's disease. In a recent study, resveratrol--one of several antioxidants found in wine--helped human cells break down the molecule, which contributes to the lesions found in the brains of Alzheimer's patients....
The pinot noir grape apparently boasts the most dietary resveratrol, but that may not be enough to fend off Alzheimer's. "It is difficult to know whether the anti-amyloidogenic effect of resveratrol observed in cell culture systems can support the beneficial effect of specific diets," Marambaud explains. "Resveratrol in grapes may never reach the concentrations required to obtain the effect observed in our studies."'
Still, that would be one medical research project that would be worth signing up for.
'"A chemical compound in wine reduces levels of a harmful molecule linked to Alzheimer's disease. In a recent study, resveratrol--one of several antioxidants found in wine--helped human cells break down the molecule, which contributes to the lesions found in the brains of Alzheimer's patients....
The pinot noir grape apparently boasts the most dietary resveratrol, but that may not be enough to fend off Alzheimer's. "It is difficult to know whether the anti-amyloidogenic effect of resveratrol observed in cell culture systems can support the beneficial effect of specific diets," Marambaud explains. "Resveratrol in grapes may never reach the concentrations required to obtain the effect observed in our studies."'
Still, that would be one medical research project that would be worth signing up for.
Stop that twittering
Bird calls may have meaning says an article here.
Well, it's pretty obvious some types of call do. But I have wondered recently, with the arrival of spring and its massive increase in bird noice around our house, what exactly is the point of the huge din that lorikeets and similar parrot-ish birds make of an evening as they fly into the trees?
I mean, you can sort of guess that morning calls may have something to do with, well, waking up and checking who's around you. But the evening racket they make? I mean, they don't talk about what they did today, do they? They're smart enough to know where their nest is without having to hear where the crowd is, aren't they?
Just wondering.
Well, it's pretty obvious some types of call do. But I have wondered recently, with the arrival of spring and its massive increase in bird noice around our house, what exactly is the point of the huge din that lorikeets and similar parrot-ish birds make of an evening as they fly into the trees?
I mean, you can sort of guess that morning calls may have something to do with, well, waking up and checking who's around you. But the evening racket they make? I mean, they don't talk about what they did today, do they? They're smart enough to know where their nest is without having to hear where the crowd is, aren't they?
Just wondering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)