Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Germany agonises over 30% childless women
From the above story:
"Germany was plunged into an anguished debate yesterday about how to encourage reluctant couples to breed after new figures showed Germany with the world's highest proportion of childless women.
Thirty per cent of German women have not had children, according to European Union statistics from 2005, with the figure rising among female graduates to 40%. Germany's new family minister, Ursula von der Leyen, said that unless the birth rate picked up the country would have to "turn the light out"."
And this:
"In Europe 2.1 is considered to be the population replacement level. This table shows the mean number of children per woman (2004 figures)
Ireland 1.99
France 1.90
Norway 1.81
Sweden 1.75
UK 1.74
Netherlands 1.73
Germany 1.37
Italy 1.33
Spain 1.32
Greece 1.29"
Australia's rate: about 1.75.
It would be interesting if anyone could come up with convincing cultural explanations for the variations between the European countries. I can see some pointing towards how "macho" a culture is (reflecting on how much a father is prepared to put in to helping raise a child.) But are Greek men close to Spainish men in this regard? And what about Italians and their supposed fondness for their families? Why is their rate significantly below that of, say, France, which to my mind has much less of a traditional reputation for big happy families? And how about Ireland. Did they hold onto Catholic attitudes to family planning much longer than the Italians themselves did?
Of course, it may just be that looking for such over-arching cultural explanations is a mistake. But it is a fun game.
In any event, Mark Steyn's frequently raised concerns about much of western European committing demographic suicide seems very well placed.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Thursday, January 26, 2006
More on abortion
Three Decades After Roe, a War We Can All Support - New York Times
By a further co-incidence to my recently posting about abortion, William Saletan (who writes for Slate and has written a book on the abortion issue in America) has written a piece in the New York Times (linked above) with which I can pretty much agree.
An extract:
"The problem is abortion - the word that's missing from all the checks you've written to Planned Parenthood, Naral Pro-Choice America, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Organization for Women. Fetal pictures propelled the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act through Congress. And most Americans supported both bills, because they agree with your opponents about the simplest thing: It's bad to kill a fetus.
They're right. It is bad. I know many women who decided, in the face of unintended pregnancy, that abortion was less bad than the alternatives. But I've never met a woman who wouldn't rather have avoided the pregnancy in the first place.
This is why the issue hasn't gone away. Abortion, like race-conscious hiring, generates moral friction. Most people will tolerate it as a lesser evil or a temporary measure, but they'll never fully accept it. They want a world in which it's less necessary. If you grow complacent or try to institutionalize it, they'll run out of patience. That's what happened to affirmative action. And it'll happen to abortion, if you stay hunkered down behind Roe."
This is not a million miles from what I said towards the end of my previous post.
He goes on to say (to the "pro choice" side):
"....you can't eliminate the moral question by ignoring it. To eliminate it, you have to agree on it: Abortion is bad, and the ideal number of abortions is zero. But by conceding that, you don't end the debate, you narrow it. Once you agree that the goal is fewer abortions, the only thing left to debate is how to get there."
And the idea is as follows:
"The pro-choice path to those results is simple. Help every woman when she doesn't want an abortion: before she's pregnant. That means abstinence for those who can practice it, and contraception for everybody else. Nearly half of the unintended pregnancies in this country result in abortions, and at least half of our unintended pregnancies are attributable to women who didn't use contraception. The pregnancy rate among these women astronomically exceeds the pregnancy rate among women who use contraception. The No. 1 threat to the unborn isn't the unchurched. It's the unprotected."
This makes a lot of sense. It is also why I could not wholeheartedly support the Right to Life movement, if it is still (as it was many years ago at least) dominated by those who take Catholic teaching against all contraception seriously.
I think Saletan is really spot on in showing a way forward here.
Update: I have corrected my initial mis-spelling of Saletan. I often go back and correct typos and my english after my initial post, and hope no one has noticed before I get to do the correction!
By a further co-incidence to my recently posting about abortion, William Saletan (who writes for Slate and has written a book on the abortion issue in America) has written a piece in the New York Times (linked above) with which I can pretty much agree.
An extract:
"The problem is abortion - the word that's missing from all the checks you've written to Planned Parenthood, Naral Pro-Choice America, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Organization for Women. Fetal pictures propelled the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act through Congress. And most Americans supported both bills, because they agree with your opponents about the simplest thing: It's bad to kill a fetus.
They're right. It is bad. I know many women who decided, in the face of unintended pregnancy, that abortion was less bad than the alternatives. But I've never met a woman who wouldn't rather have avoided the pregnancy in the first place.
This is why the issue hasn't gone away. Abortion, like race-conscious hiring, generates moral friction. Most people will tolerate it as a lesser evil or a temporary measure, but they'll never fully accept it. They want a world in which it's less necessary. If you grow complacent or try to institutionalize it, they'll run out of patience. That's what happened to affirmative action. And it'll happen to abortion, if you stay hunkered down behind Roe."
This is not a million miles from what I said towards the end of my previous post.
He goes on to say (to the "pro choice" side):
"....you can't eliminate the moral question by ignoring it. To eliminate it, you have to agree on it: Abortion is bad, and the ideal number of abortions is zero. But by conceding that, you don't end the debate, you narrow it. Once you agree that the goal is fewer abortions, the only thing left to debate is how to get there."
And the idea is as follows:
"The pro-choice path to those results is simple. Help every woman when she doesn't want an abortion: before she's pregnant. That means abstinence for those who can practice it, and contraception for everybody else. Nearly half of the unintended pregnancies in this country result in abortions, and at least half of our unintended pregnancies are attributable to women who didn't use contraception. The pregnancy rate among these women astronomically exceeds the pregnancy rate among women who use contraception. The No. 1 threat to the unborn isn't the unchurched. It's the unprotected."
This makes a lot of sense. It is also why I could not wholeheartedly support the Right to Life movement, if it is still (as it was many years ago at least) dominated by those who take Catholic teaching against all contraception seriously.
I think Saletan is really spot on in showing a way forward here.
Update: I have corrected my initial mis-spelling of Saletan. I often go back and correct typos and my english after my initial post, and hope no one has noticed before I get to do the correction!
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
The Left and the religious right
spiked-essays | Essay | The curious rise of anti-religious hysteria
The link is to a decent essay from Spiked on the Left's anti-religious hysteria. (We're talking American Left verses the Christian Right. Islam does not get a mention.)
The essay touches many topics - the somewhat hysterical reaction to "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" from some quarters, the reaction against Intelligent Design, and how some on the the Left advocate the promotion of a Left-ish morality to assure those on the right that the Right does not have an exclusive hold on the field.
That last point is interesting, because the writer notes the apparent cynicisim of such approach.
"At the end of the day, politically motivated calls among liberals and the left for morality are not so far from the way in which Christians 'use' The March of the Penguins or The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Both are cynical gestures driven by political calculations rather than by a moral inspiration that comes from the soul. What is particularly cynical is that these attempts to construct a 'moral dimension' are always aimed at others: those who apparently need 'simple' answers and 'meaning'. Such a cynical view of the public was clearly spelled out by William Davies of the London-based Institute for Public Policy research. 'The liberal, secular left has somehow to find ways of supplying citizens with emotional and metaphysical comforts even when it does not itself believe in such things', he warned (6)."
This last point (about the secular left not believing in "metaphysical comforts") seems very important to me, and I will add more to this post later.
The link is to a decent essay from Spiked on the Left's anti-religious hysteria. (We're talking American Left verses the Christian Right. Islam does not get a mention.)
The essay touches many topics - the somewhat hysterical reaction to "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" from some quarters, the reaction against Intelligent Design, and how some on the the Left advocate the promotion of a Left-ish morality to assure those on the right that the Right does not have an exclusive hold on the field.
That last point is interesting, because the writer notes the apparent cynicisim of such approach.
"At the end of the day, politically motivated calls among liberals and the left for morality are not so far from the way in which Christians 'use' The March of the Penguins or The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. Both are cynical gestures driven by political calculations rather than by a moral inspiration that comes from the soul. What is particularly cynical is that these attempts to construct a 'moral dimension' are always aimed at others: those who apparently need 'simple' answers and 'meaning'. Such a cynical view of the public was clearly spelled out by William Davies of the London-based Institute for Public Policy research. 'The liberal, secular left has somehow to find ways of supplying citizens with emotional and metaphysical comforts even when it does not itself believe in such things', he warned (6)."
This last point (about the secular left not believing in "metaphysical comforts") seems very important to me, and I will add more to this post later.
More confusion over global warming
Baffled Scientists Say Less Sunlight Reaching Earth
Note this from the story:
"Goode's team says there may be a large, unexplained variation in sunlight reaching the Earth that changes over the course of two decades or so, as well as a large effect of clouds re-arranging by altitude.
How do the findings play into arguments about global warming and the apparent contribution by industrial emissions? That's entirely unclear.
"No doubt greenhouse gases are increasing," Goode said in a telephone interview. "No doubt that will cause a warming. The question is, 'Are there other things going on?'"
What is clear is that scientists don't understand clouds very well, as a trio of studies last year also showed.
"Clouds are even more uncertain than we thought," Goode said."
Note this from the story:
"Goode's team says there may be a large, unexplained variation in sunlight reaching the Earth that changes over the course of two decades or so, as well as a large effect of clouds re-arranging by altitude.
How do the findings play into arguments about global warming and the apparent contribution by industrial emissions? That's entirely unclear.
"No doubt greenhouse gases are increasing," Goode said in a telephone interview. "No doubt that will cause a warming. The question is, 'Are there other things going on?'"
What is clear is that scientists don't understand clouds very well, as a trio of studies last year also showed.
"Clouds are even more uncertain than we thought," Goode said."
More documentaries you don't want to see
Film Article | Reuters.com
From the Reuter's story above:
"A wave of movies with messages swept through the Sundance Film Festival by its mid-point on Tuesday...
Former vice president Al Gore made the rounds at this top U.S. gathering for independent film, to promote the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," about his crusade against global warming.
Rosie O'Donnell came to this mountain town east of Salt Lake City with her documentary, "All Aboard! Rosie's Family Cruise," an inside look at the lives of gay families while on vacation."
Yikes...
From the Reuter's story above:
"A wave of movies with messages swept through the Sundance Film Festival by its mid-point on Tuesday...
Former vice president Al Gore made the rounds at this top U.S. gathering for independent film, to promote the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," about his crusade against global warming.
Rosie O'Donnell came to this mountain town east of Salt Lake City with her documentary, "All Aboard! Rosie's Family Cruise," an inside look at the lives of gay families while on vacation."
Yikes...
Too Late
The Blog | RJ Eskow: Heads Up: Bush Is Winning the NSA 'Headline War' | The Huffington Post
I don't often quote something from Huffington Post that I sort of agree with, but here is someone complaining the nation's press are making Bush win "the NSA 'Headline War'":
"If Democrats aren't careful, this will help fortify the GOP's reputation as the "manly, defend-America -at-all-costs party" and the Democrats as the "wring-your-hands-over-the-rights-of-terrorists" party."
It's too late already.
I don't often quote something from Huffington Post that I sort of agree with, but here is someone complaining the nation's press are making Bush win "the NSA 'Headline War'":
"If Democrats aren't careful, this will help fortify the GOP's reputation as the "manly, defend-America -at-all-costs party" and the Democrats as the "wring-your-hands-over-the-rights-of-terrorists" party."
It's too late already.
I guess oysters would be out of the question too
Dioxin alarm puts an end to harbour fishing - National - smh.com.au
From the story above, the dioxin levels in the Sydney Harbour fish must be rather high if this is the recommendation:
"Mr Macdonald said the ban did not apply to bait fishing or recreational fishing but he urged anglers to eat no more than 150 grams of fish caught in the harbour a month."
Moreover, the government hasn't bothered testing for quite a while:
"A spokesman for the minister said fish in the harbour had not been tested since 1990 and were tested last year only because work done at Homebush Bay had shown high levels of dioxin on the harbour floor. The bay, which has been closed to fishing since 1989, was found to have poisonous fish after tests in 1996 and 1998."
So, Homebush Bay has been shut for fishing for years, but it never occurred to the government that fish from there might be caught somewhere else in Sydney Harbour? Can this be a stupid as it sounds?
From the story above, the dioxin levels in the Sydney Harbour fish must be rather high if this is the recommendation:
"Mr Macdonald said the ban did not apply to bait fishing or recreational fishing but he urged anglers to eat no more than 150 grams of fish caught in the harbour a month."
Moreover, the government hasn't bothered testing for quite a while:
"A spokesman for the minister said fish in the harbour had not been tested since 1990 and were tested last year only because work done at Homebush Bay had shown high levels of dioxin on the harbour floor. The bay, which has been closed to fishing since 1989, was found to have poisonous fish after tests in 1996 and 1998."
So, Homebush Bay has been shut for fishing for years, but it never occurred to the government that fish from there might be caught somewhere else in Sydney Harbour? Can this be a stupid as it sounds?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Exploding heads reduce Democrat vote
President Bush makes a call of support to a pro-Life rally and hundreds of Daily Kos Democrat votes may be lost if they don't get on blood pressure pills fast.
Some of my "best picks" extracts from the Kos comments:
"I say to this dude with a "Stop Abortion" picket sign, "I have the answer to abortion: Shoot your dick. Take that tired piece of meat down to the ASPCA and let them put it to sleep."--Whoopi Goldberg"
So, an unintended pregnancy is always only the man's fault?
"PRO-LIFE only applies to those who can't live independently. Life is competitive. If you can breath for yourself, you're an enemy preventing republicans from getting rich and happy, which is why you deserve to die. It's an entire party of "christians" who don't believe in the gospels."
Uhuh.
"Had it! I told my husband we should seriously consider leaving before they close the borders. We should at least get passports while we still can."
Well, with Canada just gone conservative, I guess they will be looking further afield.
"if anyone ever says I can't abort my extra-chromosome kid I'm gonna kick them in the face. Sorry folks, I don't want to spend my time raisin' that kid.
I, you--NO ONE--has to "accept" whatever plops out. Having a kid, in the grand scheme of things is 1) not that special, and 2) not that hard to do."
Low points on the "warm and fuzzy" scale for that mother to be.
Now perhaps my favourite, written without (I think) a sense of irony:
"Good - all of you progressives come move to the blue states and we will leave all the dumbfuckistans in the red states to learn about intelligent design in school, reproduce like rabbits without birth control or abortion, pray that God will bring their jobs back from India, and spy on each other and turn each other in.
We, in the blue states, will work on creating sound environmental policies, alternative energies, excellent education for all, universal health care, excellent universities, burgeoning local economies, and civil rights for ALL Americans.
And then we will get our governors and senators to keep our tax dollars in our own states, as opposed to now, where they go to support those so-called "real American republicans" in the red states.
Ha!"
A scheme guaranteed to ensure that demographics will keep the White House in Republican hands for ever and a day.
Come on guys (and gals) - let's face it, as noted in this Time column, improved medical technology since Roe v Wade has given a new and different perspective on pregnancy, making it clearer than it ever was that some degree of restriction on abortion is apropriate, as unfettered access to abortion at any stage of a pregnancy would be offensive to most people.
As this detailed Time article also notes, the clear attitude of a large majority of Americans is that they are satisfied that abortion should be available in some circumstances, but they also feel it should not be easy. The actions of the various States in seeking restrictions and limitations are therefore entirely reflecting public opinion and represent democracy in action. Even if Roe v Wade were overruled, the polls mentioned in Time suggest that a State that tried to impose some sort of total ban may well suffer electorally.
What's the big deal then? The name of the game is already compromise and a State by State debate over the appropriate limits and restrictions on abortion. Overturning Roe would allow more restrictions to be legislated for early pregnancy, but it seems from the polls mentioned in Time that this would may not offend most people. It does not really make political sense (whatever you think of the morality) for either side to carry on as if abortion is a "winner takes all" issue. One would think that pro choicers could see this more clearly than pro-lifers, but those Kos contributions make you wonder.
UPDATE: by co-incidence, after writing this post, I saw one half of an PBS television documentary tonight ("The Last Abortion Clinic," shown on SBS in Australia) on the current "abortion war" in the USA. (The doco's website provides a fair bit of additional info on abortion in America too.) It did not really change anything in what I wrote. In fact, one person on the pro life side specifically confirmed that she felt no State electorate would accept a total ban on abortion. So instead, it was more a matter of finding what restrictions are acceptable enough to the public and the politicians.
No doubt some of the pro life tactics are tricky, and the pro choice lobby feels it is on the losing side at the moment. Well, maybe they just have to learn to live with democracy and public opinion. It seems to me that if pro choice supporters overreact against the idea of compromise, they just are painting themselves into more of a losing position.
Some of my "best picks" extracts from the Kos comments:
"I say to this dude with a "Stop Abortion" picket sign, "I have the answer to abortion: Shoot your dick. Take that tired piece of meat down to the ASPCA and let them put it to sleep."--Whoopi Goldberg"
So, an unintended pregnancy is always only the man's fault?
"PRO-LIFE only applies to those who can't live independently. Life is competitive. If you can breath for yourself, you're an enemy preventing republicans from getting rich and happy, which is why you deserve to die. It's an entire party of "christians" who don't believe in the gospels."
Uhuh.
"Had it! I told my husband we should seriously consider leaving before they close the borders. We should at least get passports while we still can."
Well, with Canada just gone conservative, I guess they will be looking further afield.
"if anyone ever says I can't abort my extra-chromosome kid I'm gonna kick them in the face. Sorry folks, I don't want to spend my time raisin' that kid.
I, you--NO ONE--has to "accept" whatever plops out. Having a kid, in the grand scheme of things is 1) not that special, and 2) not that hard to do."
Low points on the "warm and fuzzy" scale for that mother to be.
Now perhaps my favourite, written without (I think) a sense of irony:
"Good - all of you progressives come move to the blue states and we will leave all the dumbfuckistans in the red states to learn about intelligent design in school, reproduce like rabbits without birth control or abortion, pray that God will bring their jobs back from India, and spy on each other and turn each other in.
We, in the blue states, will work on creating sound environmental policies, alternative energies, excellent education for all, universal health care, excellent universities, burgeoning local economies, and civil rights for ALL Americans.
And then we will get our governors and senators to keep our tax dollars in our own states, as opposed to now, where they go to support those so-called "real American republicans" in the red states.
Ha!"
A scheme guaranteed to ensure that demographics will keep the White House in Republican hands for ever and a day.
Come on guys (and gals) - let's face it, as noted in this Time column, improved medical technology since Roe v Wade has given a new and different perspective on pregnancy, making it clearer than it ever was that some degree of restriction on abortion is apropriate, as unfettered access to abortion at any stage of a pregnancy would be offensive to most people.
As this detailed Time article also notes, the clear attitude of a large majority of Americans is that they are satisfied that abortion should be available in some circumstances, but they also feel it should not be easy. The actions of the various States in seeking restrictions and limitations are therefore entirely reflecting public opinion and represent democracy in action. Even if Roe v Wade were overruled, the polls mentioned in Time suggest that a State that tried to impose some sort of total ban may well suffer electorally.
What's the big deal then? The name of the game is already compromise and a State by State debate over the appropriate limits and restrictions on abortion. Overturning Roe would allow more restrictions to be legislated for early pregnancy, but it seems from the polls mentioned in Time that this would may not offend most people. It does not really make political sense (whatever you think of the morality) for either side to carry on as if abortion is a "winner takes all" issue. One would think that pro choicers could see this more clearly than pro-lifers, but those Kos contributions make you wonder.
UPDATE: by co-incidence, after writing this post, I saw one half of an PBS television documentary tonight ("The Last Abortion Clinic," shown on SBS in Australia) on the current "abortion war" in the USA. (The doco's website provides a fair bit of additional info on abortion in America too.) It did not really change anything in what I wrote. In fact, one person on the pro life side specifically confirmed that she felt no State electorate would accept a total ban on abortion. So instead, it was more a matter of finding what restrictions are acceptable enough to the public and the politicians.
No doubt some of the pro life tactics are tricky, and the pro choice lobby feels it is on the losing side at the moment. Well, maybe they just have to learn to live with democracy and public opinion. It seems to me that if pro choice supporters overreact against the idea of compromise, they just are painting themselves into more of a losing position.
Have a bucket ready for when you see the pic
lgf: Galloway Jumps the Shark
At last, the Big Brother concept contributes something useful to society by stripping an appalling politician of any remaining thread of credibility he may have been holding onto. (See link above.)
This also makes me think: which Australian politician would you like to see go the same way by appearing in Big Brother 06?
As I have a bare handful of regular readers, I will have to answer my own question.
Bob Brown might do it if it would raise money for whales or some such, but that voice and that earnestness - ratings would plummet.
I have it - Julia Gillard. I don't really wish her such misfortune, but there are reasons why she is a plausible candidate. She's single and so could flirt with the males in the house with impunity. Maybe put an 18 year old male virgin in there in the hope of setting up some sort of Mrs Robinson vibe. But the voice...maybe she can learn deaf signing instead and only use a combination of that and mime to make all of her points during the in depth discussions they have on masturbation, drinking, who they have slept with, drinking, funny places they have urinated in public, etc.
At last, the Big Brother concept contributes something useful to society by stripping an appalling politician of any remaining thread of credibility he may have been holding onto. (See link above.)
This also makes me think: which Australian politician would you like to see go the same way by appearing in Big Brother 06?
As I have a bare handful of regular readers, I will have to answer my own question.
Bob Brown might do it if it would raise money for whales or some such, but that voice and that earnestness - ratings would plummet.
I have it - Julia Gillard. I don't really wish her such misfortune, but there are reasons why she is a plausible candidate. She's single and so could flirt with the males in the house with impunity. Maybe put an 18 year old male virgin in there in the hope of setting up some sort of Mrs Robinson vibe. But the voice...maybe she can learn deaf signing instead and only use a combination of that and mime to make all of her points during the in depth discussions they have on masturbation, drinking, who they have slept with, drinking, funny places they have urinated in public, etc.
Sounds like something from "Futurama"
Take the Money and Die - Leaving your estate to your reanimated corpse. By William Saletan
From the Slate link above:
"Rich people are freezing their bodies and leaving their money to themselves. According to the Wall Street Journal, 142 people have had their heads or bodies frozen, roughly 1,000 have made similar arrangements, and at least a dozen (the rest are keeping mum, according to participants) have set up "revival trusts." The idea is to accrue wealth and shield it from taxes so you can collect it if scientists figure out how to revive you and keep you alive. More than 20 states permit "dynasty trusts" that can last centuries; lawyers are amending these to let the deceased collect if he returns. Questions: 1) Can your clone collect the money, or do doctors have to bring you back with your memories? 2) Do you have to return your life insurance payout? 3) If they figure out how to revive and cure you, isn't that good fortune enough?"
From the Slate link above:
"Rich people are freezing their bodies and leaving their money to themselves. According to the Wall Street Journal, 142 people have had their heads or bodies frozen, roughly 1,000 have made similar arrangements, and at least a dozen (the rest are keeping mum, according to participants) have set up "revival trusts." The idea is to accrue wealth and shield it from taxes so you can collect it if scientists figure out how to revive you and keep you alive. More than 20 states permit "dynasty trusts" that can last centuries; lawyers are amending these to let the deceased collect if he returns. Questions: 1) Can your clone collect the money, or do doctors have to bring you back with your memories? 2) Do you have to return your life insurance payout? 3) If they figure out how to revive and cure you, isn't that good fortune enough?"
Monday, January 23, 2006
What is it with former diplomats?
Tim Blair does a good job on former Aussie diplomat Richard Woolcott's piece in The Age last week, where he runs the usual line moaning about what he claims to be a poor "international standing" of this government. I think what he means is that the type of people he likes around to chat to around the world share his policitical tastes and assessments. That's all.
But what is it with former diplomats that they love to air their quasi policitical views and opinions? I am deeply sceptical that former diplomats should be given any special credence for their judgements on how Australia is perceived overseas. Especially if they were appointed to a plum post by what is now the Opposition, one can naturely assume a certain sympathy to the Labor view of the world. One can also assume that they keep in contact, once out of the department, with people of similar views. If you never got on with old Bloggs because you never saw eye to eye on his views on country X, you are hardly likely to keep up tea and bikkies with him for the next 20 years, are you?
I would also think that any former diplomats, even those with a conservative inclination, are not to be entirely trusted as having any superior knowledge of such things as "international standing". I mean, how exactly do you judge that concept anyway? Public opinion polls, which can swing wildly depending on news events from day to day? What "think tank" groups say? What other ex-diplomats write? What you former buddy from the States 30 years ago told you over lunch in Washington recently? It seems to me that "international standing" is such a nebulous thing that your average voter who reads widely probably has just as good a chance of guessing what it is as does your average former diplomat. In fact, never having been involved in controversial government policy before (as Mr Woolcott was) may make your "average punter" more objective.
It may just be "relevance deprivation syndrome" that causes them to publicise their views, but for the most part, their views are given far more publicity than they deserve.
But what is it with former diplomats that they love to air their quasi policitical views and opinions? I am deeply sceptical that former diplomats should be given any special credence for their judgements on how Australia is perceived overseas. Especially if they were appointed to a plum post by what is now the Opposition, one can naturely assume a certain sympathy to the Labor view of the world. One can also assume that they keep in contact, once out of the department, with people of similar views. If you never got on with old Bloggs because you never saw eye to eye on his views on country X, you are hardly likely to keep up tea and bikkies with him for the next 20 years, are you?
I would also think that any former diplomats, even those with a conservative inclination, are not to be entirely trusted as having any superior knowledge of such things as "international standing". I mean, how exactly do you judge that concept anyway? Public opinion polls, which can swing wildly depending on news events from day to day? What "think tank" groups say? What other ex-diplomats write? What you former buddy from the States 30 years ago told you over lunch in Washington recently? It seems to me that "international standing" is such a nebulous thing that your average voter who reads widely probably has just as good a chance of guessing what it is as does your average former diplomat. In fact, never having been involved in controversial government policy before (as Mr Woolcott was) may make your "average punter" more objective.
It may just be "relevance deprivation syndrome" that causes them to publicise their views, but for the most part, their views are given far more publicity than they deserve.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Sea level rises revisited
news @ nature.com�-Sea-level rise is quickening pace - Data crunch confirms model predictions of flooding coastlines.
In the interests of fairness to the "Tuvalu is sinking" crowd, readers are referred to the above article which indicates that maybe sea level rises are faster than I claimed in my previous post. However, I still don't see reason to panic.
As I noted before, Labor and the Greens are claiming that South Pacific islands are at risk of needing to evacuated due to sea level rises in the next decade. I noted that evidence from 2000 suggested a total rise in the next decade of maybe 8 mm. Even allowing for faster rises, I suggested allowing 12 mm as a rough "generous" estimate. (I am embarrassed to note that I called that "half a centimeter", rather than half an inch. I have revised the post now!)
Anyway, the News@nature story above points out that new estimates, using satellite data together with tide gauges, indicate that the current rate is maybe 3 mm per year. However, they also point out that the rate has gone up and down over the last century, and there would seem to be no clear understanding why it varies so much.
So, if we allow 3mm per year as the current rate, that would mean 30mm in a decade. Let's try to get it right this time - that would be 3 cm, or a bit over an inch.
(But also remember from my last post that the sea level sometimes actually drops dramatically around some islands too.)
I still therefore suspect that no one can realistically say that an increase in sea level in the order of 1 inch is going to mean Tuvalu needs to be evacuated.
In the interests of fairness to the "Tuvalu is sinking" crowd, readers are referred to the above article which indicates that maybe sea level rises are faster than I claimed in my previous post. However, I still don't see reason to panic.
As I noted before, Labor and the Greens are claiming that South Pacific islands are at risk of needing to evacuated due to sea level rises in the next decade. I noted that evidence from 2000 suggested a total rise in the next decade of maybe 8 mm. Even allowing for faster rises, I suggested allowing 12 mm as a rough "generous" estimate. (I am embarrassed to note that I called that "half a centimeter", rather than half an inch. I have revised the post now!)
Anyway, the News@nature story above points out that new estimates, using satellite data together with tide gauges, indicate that the current rate is maybe 3 mm per year. However, they also point out that the rate has gone up and down over the last century, and there would seem to be no clear understanding why it varies so much.
So, if we allow 3mm per year as the current rate, that would mean 30mm in a decade. Let's try to get it right this time - that would be 3 cm, or a bit over an inch.
(But also remember from my last post that the sea level sometimes actually drops dramatically around some islands too.)
I still therefore suspect that no one can realistically say that an increase in sea level in the order of 1 inch is going to mean Tuvalu needs to be evacuated.
Laughs about Iran
Telegraph | Opinion | Let's give Iran some of its own medicine
Mark Steyn's comments about what to do about Iran include this:
" Jack Straw has been at pains to emphasise that no military action against Iran is being contemplated by him or anybody else, but in a sign that he's losing patience with the mullahs Mr Straw's officials have indicated that they're prepared to consider the possibility of possibly considering the preparation of a possible motion on sanctions for the UN Security Council to consider the possibility of considering.
But don't worry, we're not escalating this thing any more than necessary. Initially, the FCO is considering "narrowly targeted sanctions such as a travel ban on Iranian leaders"....
Needless to say, the German deputy foreign minister, Gernot Erler, has already cautioned that this may be going too far, and that sanctions could well hurt us more than it hurts the Iranians. Perhaps this is what passes is for a good cop/bad cop routine, with Herr Erler affably suggesting to the punks that they might want to cooperate or he'll have to send his pal Jack in to tear up their tickets for the Michael Moore première at the Cannes Film Festival."
But really, even Steyn seems uncertain what can be done. Time for some creative thinking, world.
And finally, a (fairly rare) amusing but interesting bit from The Economist:
"IRAN'S president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says Israel is an alien implantation whose people should return to Europe or perhaps settle in Alaska. So it is an irony that Israel's president, Moshe Katzav, is in fact a Farsi-speaker born in Iran. Ditto Israel's defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, who is doubtless preoccupied nowadays with how to destroy Iran's nuclear programme. He is advised by Dan Halutz, Israel's former air-force commander and now chief of staff. Lieut-General Halutz was born in Israel, both his parents in Iran. They seem to have taught him a sense of humour. Asked how far Israel would go to stop Iran's nuclear programme, he replied: “two thousand kilometres”.
Mark Steyn's comments about what to do about Iran include this:
" Jack Straw has been at pains to emphasise that no military action against Iran is being contemplated by him or anybody else, but in a sign that he's losing patience with the mullahs Mr Straw's officials have indicated that they're prepared to consider the possibility of possibly considering the preparation of a possible motion on sanctions for the UN Security Council to consider the possibility of considering.
But don't worry, we're not escalating this thing any more than necessary. Initially, the FCO is considering "narrowly targeted sanctions such as a travel ban on Iranian leaders"....
Needless to say, the German deputy foreign minister, Gernot Erler, has already cautioned that this may be going too far, and that sanctions could well hurt us more than it hurts the Iranians. Perhaps this is what passes is for a good cop/bad cop routine, with Herr Erler affably suggesting to the punks that they might want to cooperate or he'll have to send his pal Jack in to tear up their tickets for the Michael Moore première at the Cannes Film Festival."
But really, even Steyn seems uncertain what can be done. Time for some creative thinking, world.
And finally, a (fairly rare) amusing but interesting bit from The Economist:
"IRAN'S president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says Israel is an alien implantation whose people should return to Europe or perhaps settle in Alaska. So it is an irony that Israel's president, Moshe Katzav, is in fact a Farsi-speaker born in Iran. Ditto Israel's defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, who is doubtless preoccupied nowadays with how to destroy Iran's nuclear programme. He is advised by Dan Halutz, Israel's former air-force commander and now chief of staff. Lieut-General Halutz was born in Israel, both his parents in Iran. They seem to have taught him a sense of humour. Asked how far Israel would go to stop Iran's nuclear programme, he replied: “two thousand kilometres”.
Talk about echo chambers
Kos (of Daily Kos) has written an about-to-be-published book with another lefty blogger, and quotes a very approving review from, guess who?:
"Two of the hottest Democratic bloggers, Markos and Jerome, prove with this book that they are also two of the sharpest and most insightful voices in the progressive movement. Crashing the Gate is an urgent and powerfully-written look both at what ails our democracy and what can heal it. Ultimately, they show that the fuel to reform our politics will not come from Party insiders but from "the netroots, grassroots, and the rise of people powered politics." -- Arianna Huffington, Editor, The Huffington Post"
Yeah OK, right wing authors don't exactly go looking for enemies to do endorsements either.
Thematically, the book sounds much the same as the "Patron Power" idea as endorsed on Margot Kingston's old website. (Although that would have to be one of the worst quasi-political names ever devised.) It is interesting how in both countries there is a perpetual whinge from those on the dissatisfied Left who are unhappy that they can't get their own national mainstream Left-ish party to get further Left. (I am sure there must be a better way of expressing that - but I am in a hurry!) It also continues even when there is a Labor or Democrat government actually in power. Politics in the West is largely Centrist now, but hey it beats killing or impoverishing millions with fascism, communism or economic stagnation, doesn't it?
"Two of the hottest Democratic bloggers, Markos and Jerome, prove with this book that they are also two of the sharpest and most insightful voices in the progressive movement. Crashing the Gate is an urgent and powerfully-written look both at what ails our democracy and what can heal it. Ultimately, they show that the fuel to reform our politics will not come from Party insiders but from "the netroots, grassroots, and the rise of people powered politics." -- Arianna Huffington, Editor, The Huffington Post"
Yeah OK, right wing authors don't exactly go looking for enemies to do endorsements either.
Thematically, the book sounds much the same as the "Patron Power" idea as endorsed on Margot Kingston's old website. (Although that would have to be one of the worst quasi-political names ever devised.) It is interesting how in both countries there is a perpetual whinge from those on the dissatisfied Left who are unhappy that they can't get their own national mainstream Left-ish party to get further Left. (I am sure there must be a better way of expressing that - but I am in a hurry!) It also continues even when there is a Labor or Democrat government actually in power. Politics in the West is largely Centrist now, but hey it beats killing or impoverishing millions with fascism, communism or economic stagnation, doesn't it?
Hollywood v The Red States
I thought Mark Steyn would have something witty to say in a review of "Brokeback Mountain", and he does:
"They don’t really talk much for the rest of the movie. But one chilly night, alone up on Brokeback Mountain, in the early hours in a pokey tent, something clicks. I’m no expert in gay seduction but I found this scene oddly unpersuasive: they go from opposite ends of the tent to penetrative anal sex in about six seconds....
And from that point on the film settles down into not so much a “gay western” but a gay version of Same Time Next Year:.."
I think more than one reviewer has called it a "chick flick" despite the gay protagonists. Which immediately made me think: if girlfriends and wives normally have a bit of trouble getting their male partners to go see a hetero chick flick, what chance do they have with a gay themed one?
The most remarkable thing about this year's Hollywood awards season is how much it looks like Hollywood has conspired to annoy the "Red States" in America. Brokeback, Syriana (CIA stuffs up the world), Transamerica (about a transexual), Munich (too sympathetic to Palestinians.) All we need is another Michael Moore documentary to make it a perfect liberal field.
To me, the current period in Hollywood seems a lot like the early to mid seventies, where (as I recall) there was not a lot of fun, happy or (for want of a better term) life affirming movies around. (Jaws and Star Wars changed that for about a decade.) Yet, critics praise that darker period as being very good creatively. Critics like the dark side more than the light, and so do Oscar voters, as the difficulty of a comedy actor winning one shows.
So let's hope Iraq improves soon, and the middle east does not blow up, so we can get back to more enjoyable movie fodder.
Further note: a post at Ed Driscoll made the same point about this year's films (as did many other places, I am sure), but Driscoll also points out that the very liberal Robert Altman is to get an award at this years Oscars. Hard to believe he won't be political in his acceptance.
"They don’t really talk much for the rest of the movie. But one chilly night, alone up on Brokeback Mountain, in the early hours in a pokey tent, something clicks. I’m no expert in gay seduction but I found this scene oddly unpersuasive: they go from opposite ends of the tent to penetrative anal sex in about six seconds....
And from that point on the film settles down into not so much a “gay western” but a gay version of Same Time Next Year:.."
I think more than one reviewer has called it a "chick flick" despite the gay protagonists. Which immediately made me think: if girlfriends and wives normally have a bit of trouble getting their male partners to go see a hetero chick flick, what chance do they have with a gay themed one?
The most remarkable thing about this year's Hollywood awards season is how much it looks like Hollywood has conspired to annoy the "Red States" in America. Brokeback, Syriana (CIA stuffs up the world), Transamerica (about a transexual), Munich (too sympathetic to Palestinians.) All we need is another Michael Moore documentary to make it a perfect liberal field.
To me, the current period in Hollywood seems a lot like the early to mid seventies, where (as I recall) there was not a lot of fun, happy or (for want of a better term) life affirming movies around. (Jaws and Star Wars changed that for about a decade.) Yet, critics praise that darker period as being very good creatively. Critics like the dark side more than the light, and so do Oscar voters, as the difficulty of a comedy actor winning one shows.
So let's hope Iraq improves soon, and the middle east does not blow up, so we can get back to more enjoyable movie fodder.
Further note: a post at Ed Driscoll made the same point about this year's films (as did many other places, I am sure), but Driscoll also points out that the very liberal Robert Altman is to get an award at this years Oscars. Hard to believe he won't be political in his acceptance.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
How to deal with Iran?
The Australian: Leanne Piggott: The sensible option on Iran [January 19, 2006]
The article above seems to have a controversial take on how to deal with the Iranian problem. In short, Ms Piggott (whose general political views I am not familiar with) thinks the West should support an Iranian opposition movement which most Western governments still list as a terrorist organisation. She thinks that they should not be counted as such, because they have only killed government officials, and have renounced violence since 2001. Then we just have to wait for the government to be overthrown internally.
Problem is, if the government is as bad as she notes it has been in the past (with 120,000 people executed since 1980!), will an internal uprising ever happen? Just how many years can the rest of the world afford to wait?
The article above seems to have a controversial take on how to deal with the Iranian problem. In short, Ms Piggott (whose general political views I am not familiar with) thinks the West should support an Iranian opposition movement which most Western governments still list as a terrorist organisation. She thinks that they should not be counted as such, because they have only killed government officials, and have renounced violence since 2001. Then we just have to wait for the government to be overthrown internally.
Problem is, if the government is as bad as she notes it has been in the past (with 120,000 people executed since 1980!), will an internal uprising ever happen? Just how many years can the rest of the world afford to wait?
Unlimited Wealth Just Around the Corner ...LOL
Astute readers may notice tiny Google Ads appearing here now. I'm not even sure how they work yet, these little bar headings at the top, except I am a little annoyed that the first name I see up there today is Noam Chomsky! (But clicking on it seems to lead no where at the moment.) Oh well, I think they said it can take a couple of days for the system to start working properly.
I note that there seems to be a significant chunk of the internet about how to make money from a blog, but most of it seems to be of the circular kind that involves showing other people how to make money from their blog. Maybe my best chance is to add a Paypal button and hope a mad millionaire who is particularly impressed with a post about cats being the cause of schizophrenia will reward me for saving the world.
I note that there seems to be a significant chunk of the internet about how to make money from a blog, but most of it seems to be of the circular kind that involves showing other people how to make money from their blog. Maybe my best chance is to add a Paypal button and hope a mad millionaire who is particularly impressed with a post about cats being the cause of schizophrenia will reward me for saving the world.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Tip toe-ing around Iran
Europe softens line on Iran to woo swing votes - World - Times Online
From the article:
"British, French and German diplomats had begun drafting the referral resolution before the IAEA. Diplomats said that it called on Iran to “extend full and prompt co-operation to the agency” and called for “additional transparency measures”. But it made no reference to the threat of sanctions.
The softening of the European position seemed to be aimed at wooing Moscow and Beijing, which have strong commercial links with Iran and are deeply opposed to any measures that might harm them.
“The question of sanctions against Iran puts the cart before the horse,” said Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, whose country has a $1 billion (£566 million) contract to build Iran’s nuclear reactor. “Sanctions are in no way the best, or the only, way to solve the problem.”
His view was echoed by a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman who favoured “patience” and the resumption of talks between Iran and the three leading European Union nations."
From the article:
"British, French and German diplomats had begun drafting the referral resolution before the IAEA. Diplomats said that it called on Iran to “extend full and prompt co-operation to the agency” and called for “additional transparency measures”. But it made no reference to the threat of sanctions.
The softening of the European position seemed to be aimed at wooing Moscow and Beijing, which have strong commercial links with Iran and are deeply opposed to any measures that might harm them.
“The question of sanctions against Iran puts the cart before the horse,” said Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, whose country has a $1 billion (£566 million) contract to build Iran’s nuclear reactor. “Sanctions are in no way the best, or the only, way to solve the problem.”
His view was echoed by a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman who favoured “patience” and the resumption of talks between Iran and the three leading European Union nations."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)