The New Yorker: The Critics: On Television
So, the polygamous marriage show has started on HBO in America. As if you didn't suspect it already, the shows creators have fine liberal credentials:
The series was created by Will Scheffer and Mark V. Olsen, who are life partners as well as professional collaborators. They also serve as executive producers (as does Tom Hanks), and wrote five of the season’s twelve episodes (and co-wrote another two). Scheffer and Olsen have said in interviews that they aimed to create a nonjudgmental portrait of plural marriage, and it’s true that the series focusses more on the practical and emotional aspects of polygamy than on its moral or ethical aspects.
What interests me is this: many feminists or other liberals would, I suspect, object to polygamy on the basis that it arguably does not do much from the status of women. If a show portraying polygamy in a "non judgmental" light had been made by some clearly right leaning figures, would their sexual politics have been criticised? However, have it made by gay Hollywood liberals, I wonder how much this issue may be raised.
(Perhaps it is being raised, I have not spent much time looking for commentary on it. I just raise this as a point of interest.)
And while I am on this, it seems that openly gay writer's and producers have really never had a bigger influence in TV and movie production as they have had in the last 5 years or so. I am thinking Sex and the City, Desperate Housewives, (I presume) Will & Grace (which I don't find offensive, just not funny, even though I like the lead female); this polygamy show, some movie guys whose names I can't recall without googling, etc.
Funny how sexual matters seem to be somewhat of a priority in the stuff they are doing. Funny how ratings and movie earnings are down too. They may be cool and "out there" with their writing, but they aren't so good for business.
UPDATE: Saletan's take on why polygamy will never really catch on is a good read here at Slate. You can then read arguments for and against Saletan's position here.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Just silly
Hidden jobless figure may reach 17% - National - smh.com.au
From the article:
"There are about 2 million people who typically would have got jobs in the 1960s who can't get work now," said John Quiggin, professor of economics at the University of Queensland.
Professor Quiggin's calculations mean about 17.5 per cent of the labour force wants more work than it can get - more than triple the official 5.2 per cent jobless rate. Acceptable real unemployment estimates ranged between 10 and 20 per cent.
How much sense does it make to call the "underemployed" the "unemployed"? None at all, in my books.
From the article:
"There are about 2 million people who typically would have got jobs in the 1960s who can't get work now," said John Quiggin, professor of economics at the University of Queensland.
Professor Quiggin's calculations mean about 17.5 per cent of the labour force wants more work than it can get - more than triple the official 5.2 per cent jobless rate. Acceptable real unemployment estimates ranged between 10 and 20 per cent.
How much sense does it make to call the "underemployed" the "unemployed"? None at all, in my books.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Bingo
Time to change tack on Howard: Gillard - National - smh.com.au
Let's play "Labor Party self-analysis bingo" with Julia Gillard.
Arguing that her party had to "stand and fight for our values", Ms Gillard presented a forceful argument in the debate within Labor about whether it stood out clearly enough from the Coalition.
"We cannot shy away from the so-called 'culture wars' out of fear of being wedged by right-wing caricatures of Labor values," she said.
Speaking at a NSW Fabian Society Forum entitled "John Howard: 10 years on", Ms Gillard called for a new Labor vision...
She has called for him [Beazley]to be more inclusive..
It was not enough to assume Labor's view of Mr Howard would prevail.
"It was hoped if people woke up to his use of the politics of fear, Howard would fail. It was hoped if Howard was derided as divisive that he would be repudiated. But these strategies have failed."
I am sure I could come up with more if a complete text of the speech was available.
Kim, the clock is ticking to a Gillard showdown within the next 6 months.
Seems some contributors to Larvatus Prodeo are running a "Go Jules 2007" campaign. I should support this too, on the assumption I will still want a Liberal government after the next election.
UPDATE: Wow. Beazley mate Michael Costello has a red hot go at Gillard in the Australian this morning. I suspect this means Beazley wants to flush out any prospect of a challenge sooner rather than later. Just a sample from the article:
Gillard, on the other hand, [compared to Latham] has little memorable to say on substance. Her prescriptions whether on policy, or the future of the party, or on political tactics, are lightweight and banal.
But she is not about policy. She is about look at me, look at me, look at me. Her aim is the celebrity that brings public approval. And the way she has set out to get that celebrity is to savage her own party.
Her Fabian Society speech this week was empty of specifics.
etc, etc. Love it.
Let's play "Labor Party self-analysis bingo" with Julia Gillard.
Arguing that her party had to "stand and fight for our values", Ms Gillard presented a forceful argument in the debate within Labor about whether it stood out clearly enough from the Coalition.
"We cannot shy away from the so-called 'culture wars' out of fear of being wedged by right-wing caricatures of Labor values," she said.
Speaking at a NSW Fabian Society Forum entitled "John Howard: 10 years on", Ms Gillard called for a new Labor vision...
She has called for him [Beazley]to be more inclusive..
It was not enough to assume Labor's view of Mr Howard would prevail.
"It was hoped if people woke up to his use of the politics of fear, Howard would fail. It was hoped if Howard was derided as divisive that he would be repudiated. But these strategies have failed."
I am sure I could come up with more if a complete text of the speech was available.
Kim, the clock is ticking to a Gillard showdown within the next 6 months.
Seems some contributors to Larvatus Prodeo are running a "Go Jules 2007" campaign. I should support this too, on the assumption I will still want a Liberal government after the next election.
UPDATE: Wow. Beazley mate Michael Costello has a red hot go at Gillard in the Australian this morning. I suspect this means Beazley wants to flush out any prospect of a challenge sooner rather than later. Just a sample from the article:
Gillard, on the other hand, [compared to Latham] has little memorable to say on substance. Her prescriptions whether on policy, or the future of the party, or on political tactics, are lightweight and banal.
But she is not about policy. She is about look at me, look at me, look at me. Her aim is the celebrity that brings public approval. And the way she has set out to get that celebrity is to savage her own party.
Her Fabian Society speech this week was empty of specifics.
etc, etc. Love it.
Airline warning
BBC NEWS | Europe | EU issues 'unsafe' airlines ban
The EU has a list of unsafe airlines, most of which are in Congo, Sierra Leone and other places in which I assume I have a very small readership.
However:
Thailand's Phuket Airlines is on the list, as well as carriers from Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and North Korea.
Air Bangladesh makes the list too. You have been warned.
The EU has a list of unsafe airlines, most of which are in Congo, Sierra Leone and other places in which I assume I have a very small readership.
However:
Thailand's Phuket Airlines is on the list, as well as carriers from Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and North Korea.
Air Bangladesh makes the list too. You have been warned.
Litigation coming our way?
Guardian Unlimited Technology | Technology | Landmark libel award for chatroom insults
From the above:
A landmark legal ruling ordering a woman to pay £10,000 in damages for defamatory comments posted on an internet chatroom site could trigger a rush of similar lawsuits, a leading libel lawyer warned today.
Michael Smith, a Ukip activist who stood for the Portsmouth North seat last year, became the first person to win damages yesterday after being accused of being a "sex offender" and "racist blogger" on a Yahoo! discussion site....
Although ISPs have paid out for hosting defamatory comments, this case is thought to be the first time an individual has been found to have committed libel on a internet chat site.
In a way, it's surprising that such litigation has taken so long to start.
From the above:
A landmark legal ruling ordering a woman to pay £10,000 in damages for defamatory comments posted on an internet chatroom site could trigger a rush of similar lawsuits, a leading libel lawyer warned today.
Michael Smith, a Ukip activist who stood for the Portsmouth North seat last year, became the first person to win damages yesterday after being accused of being a "sex offender" and "racist blogger" on a Yahoo! discussion site....
Although ISPs have paid out for hosting defamatory comments, this case is thought to be the first time an individual has been found to have committed libel on a internet chat site.
In a way, it's surprising that such litigation has taken so long to start.
Add the imbalance of boys to girls, they won't need it for much longer
Beijing rules out changes to one-child policy - World - theage.com.au
From the story:
China's birth rate fell from 5.83 children per couple in the early 1970s to 2.1 children in 1990 and is now 1.8.
The original harsh policing, which involved widespread sterilisation, was replaced in the early 1990s by economic incentives to limit families to one child after widespread condemnation.
Mr Zhang acknowledged that abuses were still occurring but said authorities were cracking down on gender-selective abortions to correct the huge gender imbalance favouring males.
From the story:
China's birth rate fell from 5.83 children per couple in the early 1970s to 2.1 children in 1990 and is now 1.8.
The original harsh policing, which involved widespread sterilisation, was replaced in the early 1990s by economic incentives to limit families to one child after widespread condemnation.
Mr Zhang acknowledged that abuses were still occurring but said authorities were cracking down on gender-selective abortions to correct the huge gender imbalance favouring males.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
On Japan and immigration
The Japan Times Online
The article above is about how difficult it is to get Japanese to accept that they will need much bigger immigration in future to offset the declining population. (It's already on the way down.)
Oddly, it appears the Japanese don't even like tourists that much:
"The common Japanese view of foreigners is very unsparing at the moment. Twenty years ago, 3 out of 10 people didn't like the Chinese; today it is 7 out of 10. Many Japanese fear foreigners because they think they cause crime.
"Seventy percent of Japanese are against allowing more tourists. That's ridiculous. Tourists don't cause crime and the overwhelming majority of foreigners are good people. But negative thinking about foreigners here is strong."
You wouldn't know it while you are there. The importance of extreme politeness in its service industries makes the service in most western countries seem pretty poor by comparison.
The author of the article also has a particularly blunt turn of phrase :
The seeds of xenophobia are frequently fertilized by excretions from Kasumigaseki, such as the February comment by Former Trade Minister Takeo Hiranuma raising the horrifying prospect of a blue-eyed foreigner muddying the Imperial line.
I must try to use that line myself somewhere!
The article above is about how difficult it is to get Japanese to accept that they will need much bigger immigration in future to offset the declining population. (It's already on the way down.)
Oddly, it appears the Japanese don't even like tourists that much:
"The common Japanese view of foreigners is very unsparing at the moment. Twenty years ago, 3 out of 10 people didn't like the Chinese; today it is 7 out of 10. Many Japanese fear foreigners because they think they cause crime.
"Seventy percent of Japanese are against allowing more tourists. That's ridiculous. Tourists don't cause crime and the overwhelming majority of foreigners are good people. But negative thinking about foreigners here is strong."
You wouldn't know it while you are there. The importance of extreme politeness in its service industries makes the service in most western countries seem pretty poor by comparison.
The author of the article also has a particularly blunt turn of phrase :
The seeds of xenophobia are frequently fertilized by excretions from Kasumigaseki, such as the February comment by Former Trade Minister Takeo Hiranuma raising the horrifying prospect of a blue-eyed foreigner muddying the Imperial line.
I must try to use that line myself somewhere!
Porn wars in Indonesia
Guardian Unlimited | World dispatch | Indonesia's pornagraphy troubles
Interesting article on the Indonesia moves against "pornography":
Some of the bill's opponents argue that it is not more legislation that is needed, but better enforcement of existing regulations. Some newspapers, for instance, openly advertise massages that leave nothing to the imagination, and the police make virtually no attempt to clamp down on the numerous pirated porn film street vendors....
But the biggest gripe is with the articles on what is known locally as pornoaksi, or pornographic actions. These, the opposition argue, massively curtail individuals' rights, and particularly those of women.
The bill states not only that anyone engaging in obscene public acts such as spouses kissing, women showing their navels and people sunbathing could be arrested, but it also says that anyone has the right to detain the offenders.
But, there are some fighting hard against the bill, which goes to show the difference between Indonesian government and that in, say, Saudi Arabia:
Thousands-strong demonstrations demanding the bill be revised or even dropped have outnumbered the pro-legislation rallies.
The complaints are hitting home. The vice president, Jusuf Kalla, yesterday tried to reassure the Balinese by saying that the government does not support everything in the bill. Members of the parliamentary committee hearing civil society views on the bill have told Guardian Unlimited that virtually all of the pornoaksi articles have been withdrawn, and the two largest parties in parliament, Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, are in rare agreement that the bill needs major revisions.
Resolution of the crisis is, however, nowhere in sight
Interesting article on the Indonesia moves against "pornography":
Some of the bill's opponents argue that it is not more legislation that is needed, but better enforcement of existing regulations. Some newspapers, for instance, openly advertise massages that leave nothing to the imagination, and the police make virtually no attempt to clamp down on the numerous pirated porn film street vendors....
But the biggest gripe is with the articles on what is known locally as pornoaksi, or pornographic actions. These, the opposition argue, massively curtail individuals' rights, and particularly those of women.
The bill states not only that anyone engaging in obscene public acts such as spouses kissing, women showing their navels and people sunbathing could be arrested, but it also says that anyone has the right to detain the offenders.
But, there are some fighting hard against the bill, which goes to show the difference between Indonesian government and that in, say, Saudi Arabia:
Thousands-strong demonstrations demanding the bill be revised or even dropped have outnumbered the pro-legislation rallies.
The complaints are hitting home. The vice president, Jusuf Kalla, yesterday tried to reassure the Balinese by saying that the government does not support everything in the bill. Members of the parliamentary committee hearing civil society views on the bill have told Guardian Unlimited that virtually all of the pornoaksi articles have been withdrawn, and the two largest parties in parliament, Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, are in rare agreement that the bill needs major revisions.
Resolution of the crisis is, however, nowhere in sight
Don't put off your surgery too long
Dad's army: half of all surgeons want to retire within 15 years - National
This is not good news:
Almost half of Australia's surgical work force is aged over 55 and planning to retire within the next 15 years, just as demand for health services from ageing baby boomers reaches its peak.
Only 16 per cent of surgeons are under 40, meaning there is no army of younger specialists to take over, a survey of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons' 3800 members has found...
"The issues are overwhelming," he said. "Seventy per cent of people who are alive today will be alive in 2050, a third of the population will be over 65 in the next decade and there is a worldwide shortage of medical practitioners."
I wonder how much room there is for changes to the training of surgeons. Are they overly conservative in that regard?
UPDATE: it turns out that an article in The Age today gives a lot of detail about the changes to surgeon training that are being mooted now.
This is not good news:
Almost half of Australia's surgical work force is aged over 55 and planning to retire within the next 15 years, just as demand for health services from ageing baby boomers reaches its peak.
Only 16 per cent of surgeons are under 40, meaning there is no army of younger specialists to take over, a survey of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons' 3800 members has found...
"The issues are overwhelming," he said. "Seventy per cent of people who are alive today will be alive in 2050, a third of the population will be over 65 in the next decade and there is a worldwide shortage of medical practitioners."
I wonder how much room there is for changes to the training of surgeons. Are they overly conservative in that regard?
UPDATE: it turns out that an article in The Age today gives a lot of detail about the changes to surgeon training that are being mooted now.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Rushing to judgment on Iraq
The Australian: Paul Gray: Apologise to Latham [March 21, 2006]
The Australia today runs the above article in which the (apparently) essentially conservative Paul Gray gets all hot under the collar about Iraq being a total failure:
The principal error of Bush's policy is that it was a betrayal of the authentic conservative cause. Conservatives, in my lifetime at least, have always opposed the international spread of totalitarianism, whether it is state totalitarianism (communism) or terrorism. Through his Iraq war misadventure, Bush has sponsored the spread of totalitarianism.
Does this really make sense? There is no doubt that a totalitarian regime has been removed. The current issue is what type of regime will replace it in the long term. No doubt in the short term, at least, there is likely to be a democratic government. In the long term, who knows, but large voter turnout in past elections give strong reason to doubt that any large number of Iraqis want to return to totalitarianism.
Which countries around Iraq have now become more totalitarian due to the US invasion? (Hamas was elected for Palestine, sure, but have they said they are now the permanent government?) Although Al Qaeda may be operating in Iraq now, some people feel that their role in attempting to ferment the downfall of democracy will backfire in the long run, if it isn't happening already. So what makes Gray so confident that all is lost already? (He might have said that the cost has already been too high, which is a matter for individual judgment, but that does not seem to be the core of his argument.)
Furthermore, he writes:
So, after just three years, the most serious Western conservative political enterprise of the century so far has been officially consigned to the pages of history as a joke. This is Bush's doing.
It doesn't matter how many conservative commentators have also joined Gray in getting cold feet (he lists them all;) those who are calling this an abject failure are just guessing at the moment. While some predict the breakup of the nation, even at the worst case, are any of those regions likely to be as totalitarian as Saddam's regime? I have my doubts, but of course may be proved wrong.
To say things have not gone according to the pre-war optimists plans is a big understatement; on the other hand, to call it a massive failure at this point of time is gross overstatement (unless of course you were a pacificist or isolationist who never wanted to go there in the first place. However, Gray appears not to fall into those categories.)
Gray then finishes on a very bizarre note:
As Latham faces court tomorrow over assault, theft and malicious damage, someone should apologise to him.
What? This is somehow going to be relevant to the court charge? Or does he just mean, "Latham's having a tough time, let's just make him feel better by agreeing he was right about Iraq." What rubbish.
UPDATE: by another happy co-incidence, Christopher Hitchens has an article about the Iraqi problems over at Opinion Journal. Here's how he starts (excuse the length):
In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention ("to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "accelerate the emergence of the Messiah"), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq's largest confessional group that: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger."
Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. "Civil war" has replaced "the insurgency" as the proof that the war is "unwinnable." But in plain truth, the "civil war" is and always was the chief tactic of the "insurgency."
The rest of the article is important too. Interestingly, at the very time that the US public is losing resolve over Iraq, there appears to be increasing evidence (via the Iraqi documents only now being slowly released) to support Hitchen's view that Saddam was dangerous through his discrete assistance to al Qaeda and that the war in Iraq was relevant to the war on al Qaeda. (The recent claim that Saddam was helping encourage his own generals to believe there were WMD also seems highly relevant to the issue of the how excuseable the apparent intelligence failures were, but I don't see many anti-war writers mentioning this.)
Hitchens still writes convincingly and with what seems to be a significantly greater depth of background knowledge of the region than any other journalist.
The Australia today runs the above article in which the (apparently) essentially conservative Paul Gray gets all hot under the collar about Iraq being a total failure:
The principal error of Bush's policy is that it was a betrayal of the authentic conservative cause. Conservatives, in my lifetime at least, have always opposed the international spread of totalitarianism, whether it is state totalitarianism (communism) or terrorism. Through his Iraq war misadventure, Bush has sponsored the spread of totalitarianism.
Does this really make sense? There is no doubt that a totalitarian regime has been removed. The current issue is what type of regime will replace it in the long term. No doubt in the short term, at least, there is likely to be a democratic government. In the long term, who knows, but large voter turnout in past elections give strong reason to doubt that any large number of Iraqis want to return to totalitarianism.
Which countries around Iraq have now become more totalitarian due to the US invasion? (Hamas was elected for Palestine, sure, but have they said they are now the permanent government?) Although Al Qaeda may be operating in Iraq now, some people feel that their role in attempting to ferment the downfall of democracy will backfire in the long run, if it isn't happening already. So what makes Gray so confident that all is lost already? (He might have said that the cost has already been too high, which is a matter for individual judgment, but that does not seem to be the core of his argument.)
Furthermore, he writes:
So, after just three years, the most serious Western conservative political enterprise of the century so far has been officially consigned to the pages of history as a joke. This is Bush's doing.
It doesn't matter how many conservative commentators have also joined Gray in getting cold feet (he lists them all;) those who are calling this an abject failure are just guessing at the moment. While some predict the breakup of the nation, even at the worst case, are any of those regions likely to be as totalitarian as Saddam's regime? I have my doubts, but of course may be proved wrong.
To say things have not gone according to the pre-war optimists plans is a big understatement; on the other hand, to call it a massive failure at this point of time is gross overstatement (unless of course you were a pacificist or isolationist who never wanted to go there in the first place. However, Gray appears not to fall into those categories.)
Gray then finishes on a very bizarre note:
As Latham faces court tomorrow over assault, theft and malicious damage, someone should apologise to him.
What? This is somehow going to be relevant to the court charge? Or does he just mean, "Latham's having a tough time, let's just make him feel better by agreeing he was right about Iraq." What rubbish.
UPDATE: by another happy co-incidence, Christopher Hitchens has an article about the Iraqi problems over at Opinion Journal. Here's how he starts (excuse the length):
In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention ("to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "accelerate the emergence of the Messiah"), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq's largest confessional group that: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger."
Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. "Civil war" has replaced "the insurgency" as the proof that the war is "unwinnable." But in plain truth, the "civil war" is and always was the chief tactic of the "insurgency."
The rest of the article is important too. Interestingly, at the very time that the US public is losing resolve over Iraq, there appears to be increasing evidence (via the Iraqi documents only now being slowly released) to support Hitchen's view that Saddam was dangerous through his discrete assistance to al Qaeda and that the war in Iraq was relevant to the war on al Qaeda. (The recent claim that Saddam was helping encourage his own generals to believe there were WMD also seems highly relevant to the issue of the how excuseable the apparent intelligence failures were, but I don't see many anti-war writers mentioning this.)
Hitchens still writes convincingly and with what seems to be a significantly greater depth of background knowledge of the region than any other journalist.
Educated mother's stress
Heart and home must be part of the debate - Opinion - smh.com.au
Catharine Lumby expresses scepticism about how much weight you can put on scientific studies that find very early childhood childcare is stressful. Take this:
One of the problems with using narrowly scientific models to study children in social settings - whether we're talking child care, reading books or watching television - is that these studies assume a mathematical level of predictability about complex human experiences. It's not that research is irrelevant, it's that we need to be very clear about the value of different approaches. And we need to put them in context.
I can see her point. But then she uses these examples:
The problem with relying on neurobiological data to measure the wellbeing of children in child care is that a whole lot of other factors are being left out of the equation. And the scientific questions tend to be framed by prejudices about what is a "normal" state of affairs.
Are any neurobiologists, for instance, keen on studying the stress levels of women who can't get back into the workforce after their children go back to school so they can use the degree they slaved to get? Are any of them looking inside the brains of (mainly male) chief executives and trying to find the lobe that programs them to spend $25,000 sponsoring a golf day and zero on promoting paternity leave?
Yes, poor stressed mothers with degrees must be able to get back into the work force as soon as they possibly can, otherwise their life feels like such a waste. That what childcare should be all about.
Catharine Lumby expresses scepticism about how much weight you can put on scientific studies that find very early childhood childcare is stressful. Take this:
One of the problems with using narrowly scientific models to study children in social settings - whether we're talking child care, reading books or watching television - is that these studies assume a mathematical level of predictability about complex human experiences. It's not that research is irrelevant, it's that we need to be very clear about the value of different approaches. And we need to put them in context.
I can see her point. But then she uses these examples:
The problem with relying on neurobiological data to measure the wellbeing of children in child care is that a whole lot of other factors are being left out of the equation. And the scientific questions tend to be framed by prejudices about what is a "normal" state of affairs.
Are any neurobiologists, for instance, keen on studying the stress levels of women who can't get back into the workforce after their children go back to school so they can use the degree they slaved to get? Are any of them looking inside the brains of (mainly male) chief executives and trying to find the lobe that programs them to spend $25,000 sponsoring a golf day and zero on promoting paternity leave?
Yes, poor stressed mothers with degrees must be able to get back into the work force as soon as they possibly can, otherwise their life feels like such a waste. That what childcare should be all about.
Monday, March 20, 2006
The "Oil in Euros" argument
Kenneth Davidson in The Age gives us an uncritical review of the "pre-emptive strike to prevent trading oil in Euro's" interpretation of US policy in the Middle East. This got a good run on many Left leaning sites in the run up to the Iraq invasion. Now it is being cited as a reason why the US will attack Iran.
This argument has always smelt wrong to me. However, when I search the Internet to see who thinks it is wrong, I haven't found all that many sites dealing with it in detail. (Perhaps it is so silly there is no need to.) A case of a good conspiracy theory getting all around the world while the truth is still stuggling with its pants?
Any reader who has some really good links about it is welcome to provide them. In the meantime, I take heart from a Salon.com column which argues that the idea is not very credible. If the rabidly Bush hating Salon does not think much of the theory, I think I can safely assume it is largely rubbish.
This argument has always smelt wrong to me. However, when I search the Internet to see who thinks it is wrong, I haven't found all that many sites dealing with it in detail. (Perhaps it is so silly there is no need to.) A case of a good conspiracy theory getting all around the world while the truth is still stuggling with its pants?
Any reader who has some really good links about it is welcome to provide them. In the meantime, I take heart from a Salon.com column which argues that the idea is not very credible. If the rabidly Bush hating Salon does not think much of the theory, I think I can safely assume it is largely rubbish.
How not to sound balanced
Contesting what is sacred - Opinion - theage.com.au
Karen Armstrong, whose work I have not read, but who I understand has been criticised for being too soft on Islam, doesn't do much to dispel that image today in The Age:
How do we move forward? Washington's threatening posture towards Iran can only lead to an increase in hostility between Islam and the West, and we must expect more conflicts like the cartoon crisis.
Oh come on. How about a teensie mention of a certain "threatening posture" repeated several times from Iran to Israel?
She writes:
Instead of allowing extremists on both sides to set the agenda, we should learn to see these disputes in historical perspective, recalling that in the past, aggressive cultural chauvinism proved to be dangerously counterproductive. The emotions engendered by these crises are a gift to those, in both the Western and the Islamic worlds, who, for their own nefarious reasons, want the tension to escalate; we should not allow ourselves to play into their hands.
All very high-minded, but rather useless when you get to the specifics of how to deal with a nation bent on developing a capacity for nuclear weapons while simultaneously hoping out loud for the destruction of a neighbour state. And it's not as if diplomacy and face saving ways around it have not been tried or offered.
I am not suggesting that the way forward is necessarily through military action. But "let's just be nice and respect one another" is patently not the answer in some situations.
Karen Armstrong, whose work I have not read, but who I understand has been criticised for being too soft on Islam, doesn't do much to dispel that image today in The Age:
How do we move forward? Washington's threatening posture towards Iran can only lead to an increase in hostility between Islam and the West, and we must expect more conflicts like the cartoon crisis.
Oh come on. How about a teensie mention of a certain "threatening posture" repeated several times from Iran to Israel?
She writes:
Instead of allowing extremists on both sides to set the agenda, we should learn to see these disputes in historical perspective, recalling that in the past, aggressive cultural chauvinism proved to be dangerously counterproductive. The emotions engendered by these crises are a gift to those, in both the Western and the Islamic worlds, who, for their own nefarious reasons, want the tension to escalate; we should not allow ourselves to play into their hands.
All very high-minded, but rather useless when you get to the specifics of how to deal with a nation bent on developing a capacity for nuclear weapons while simultaneously hoping out loud for the destruction of a neighbour state. And it's not as if diplomacy and face saving ways around it have not been tried or offered.
I am not suggesting that the way forward is necessarily through military action. But "let's just be nice and respect one another" is patently not the answer in some situations.
Cannabis in England (and here)
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Where there's smoke ...
I didn't mean to start a drug theme today, but while looking for something else, I found the above lengthy story from December 2005 which seems pretty balanced and interesting.
Update: and by further co-incidence, The Age mentions cannabis and political response to it today too. The head of the Victorian Drug Prevention Council writes:
So what approaches should we take to reduce harm? Last year in the Victorian Premier's Drug Prevention Council, we undertook research among 13 to 29-year-olds, both users and non-users. It showed that we should use graphic imagery and realistic situations to illustrate the physical side effects of long-term and heavy marijuana use. These include depression and anxiety, as well as the social downsides such as loss of friends and the effects on family.
What "graphic imagery" can be used to show the physical side effects of marijuana use if you are talking of mental problems being the growing concern? He says research shows that moralist sounding warnings to young folk don't work. But how do you avoid sounding moralist when criticising a drug that may give temporary pleasure but can have long term dangers?
In fact, I seem to recall (sorry no time to google for it now) that there was some evidence to suggest that "drug education" programs at school, somewhat counterintuitively, actually encouraged experimentation. It's all a difficult area.
I didn't mean to start a drug theme today, but while looking for something else, I found the above lengthy story from December 2005 which seems pretty balanced and interesting.
Update: and by further co-incidence, The Age mentions cannabis and political response to it today too. The head of the Victorian Drug Prevention Council writes:
So what approaches should we take to reduce harm? Last year in the Victorian Premier's Drug Prevention Council, we undertook research among 13 to 29-year-olds, both users and non-users. It showed that we should use graphic imagery and realistic situations to illustrate the physical side effects of long-term and heavy marijuana use. These include depression and anxiety, as well as the social downsides such as loss of friends and the effects on family.
What "graphic imagery" can be used to show the physical side effects of marijuana use if you are talking of mental problems being the growing concern? He says research shows that moralist sounding warnings to young folk don't work. But how do you avoid sounding moralist when criticising a drug that may give temporary pleasure but can have long term dangers?
In fact, I seem to recall (sorry no time to google for it now) that there was some evidence to suggest that "drug education" programs at school, somewhat counterintuitively, actually encouraged experimentation. It's all a difficult area.
"Ice" havoc
Four Corners - 20/03/2006: The Ice Age
Tonight's Four Corners story on "ice" use in (I think) Sydney looks like a must watch program for those who like to be appalled by self destructive human behaviour. A few questions already:
* why would these awful looking users agree to be part of such a program? Maybe they explain in the show.
* the show site says this:
Remarkably, authorities appear to be ill-prepared to stop the ice wave that is sweeping the country. Australia has no dedicated treatment programs. Jails are the main rehab facilities. There are no legal substitute drugs. Research funds are scarce.
One suspects that lack of preparedness may have something to do with an assumption that a drug which causes a high rate of psychosis should not become overly popular. How silly to apply common sense.
However, if there is a need to tell people the bleeding obvious, I suppose it should be done via ads on whatever medium soon-to-be-psychotic addicts watch. (Of course, few would watch the ABC, I am betting.)
It certainly seems that the famous US ad, showing eggs being smashed as being "your brain on drugs" is an entirely appropriate one for this drug. Except it should be "Mick" or someone from tonight's show, so you can see the glamourous physical effect it has too.
Tonight's Four Corners story on "ice" use in (I think) Sydney looks like a must watch program for those who like to be appalled by self destructive human behaviour. A few questions already:
* why would these awful looking users agree to be part of such a program? Maybe they explain in the show.
* the show site says this:
Remarkably, authorities appear to be ill-prepared to stop the ice wave that is sweeping the country. Australia has no dedicated treatment programs. Jails are the main rehab facilities. There are no legal substitute drugs. Research funds are scarce.
One suspects that lack of preparedness may have something to do with an assumption that a drug which causes a high rate of psychosis should not become overly popular. How silly to apply common sense.
However, if there is a need to tell people the bleeding obvious, I suppose it should be done via ads on whatever medium soon-to-be-psychotic addicts watch. (Of course, few would watch the ABC, I am betting.)
It certainly seems that the famous US ad, showing eggs being smashed as being "your brain on drugs" is an entirely appropriate one for this drug. Except it should be "Mick" or someone from tonight's show, so you can see the glamourous physical effect it has too.
Drumming up business
It Came From the Planet Garage - Los Angeles Times
From the above story, about home made "flying saucers" causing UFO reports around Los Angeles:
The saucers are made in the garages of Gaylon Murphy and Steve Zingali, who get their kicks shocking people and hope to earn a few bucks hawking their remote-controlled saucers. After all, a few UFO sightings can only be good for business.
"We fly them in formation. It's pretty funny," said Murphy, a cardiovascular surgeon and Aliso Viejo resident. "People stop, people scream; one cabdriver ran his car up off the road."
Sounds like he does it to help drum up business.
From the above story, about home made "flying saucers" causing UFO reports around Los Angeles:
The saucers are made in the garages of Gaylon Murphy and Steve Zingali, who get their kicks shocking people and hope to earn a few bucks hawking their remote-controlled saucers. After all, a few UFO sightings can only be good for business.
"We fly them in formation. It's pretty funny," said Murphy, a cardiovascular surgeon and Aliso Viejo resident. "People stop, people scream; one cabdriver ran his car up off the road."
Sounds like he does it to help drum up business.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
What the universe seems made of
news @ nature.com - Physicists get their hands on the second round of WMAP data.
So, further analysis of satellite data indicates that the universe did start with a bang and the "inflation" kicked in immediately. It would be somewhat helpful if we knew what was behind inflation, but as far as I know that is still a big mystery. This data also helps confirm that the part of the universe we can see - atoms and such like - make up only 4 % of the total. As is said in the above story:
"This idea that the universe is 74% dark energy and 22% dark matter is really crazy; it relates to nothing we can measure on Earth," says Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, Illinois, who is not part of the WMAP team. "Every time we get observations that say 'Yes, the model is still working', we are surprised."
All very strange.
So, further analysis of satellite data indicates that the universe did start with a bang and the "inflation" kicked in immediately. It would be somewhat helpful if we knew what was behind inflation, but as far as I know that is still a big mystery. This data also helps confirm that the part of the universe we can see - atoms and such like - make up only 4 % of the total. As is said in the above story:
"This idea that the universe is 74% dark energy and 22% dark matter is really crazy; it relates to nothing we can measure on Earth," says Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, Illinois, who is not part of the WMAP team. "Every time we get observations that say 'Yes, the model is still working', we are surprised."
All very strange.
Stupid
HIV's grim comeback - National - theage.com.au
The Age reports an increase in HIV rates in Victoria. The story opens with this:
IT CAME as a rude shock to those gathered in a Prahran theatre in February last year. The men, some with HIV and some without, were having a frank discussion about safe sex, led by popular drag queen Vanessa Wagner. They were talking about a well-known Melbourne gay venue. The HIV-positive men nominated a particular area where you went to have unprotected sex if you were infected with the virus. No, said the HIV-negative men, that was where you went if you were negative.
"We had the lights up in the theatre and we could just see all these jaws dropping," says one of the organisers, Greg Iverson, president of People Living With HIV-AIDS Victoria. "It was a real wake-up call. We realised that the two communities weren't talking to each other about HIV."
Hmmm. I suppose that there may be some point in having a choice between the "postive" and "negative" sex areas, in that any sane negative man would presumably prefer to stick to a partner who at least claims to not be positive. But it sounds from the story that the reason the negatives were so shocked was because they had unsafe sex with the positive men, based on a false assumption.
If that is the case, then the point of the story should not so much be that the two sides were not talking to each other; it should be that the safe sex message of not trusting your partner to be HIV negative (especially on a casual encounter) has been lost on these dills.
The Age reports an increase in HIV rates in Victoria. The story opens with this:
IT CAME as a rude shock to those gathered in a Prahran theatre in February last year. The men, some with HIV and some without, were having a frank discussion about safe sex, led by popular drag queen Vanessa Wagner. They were talking about a well-known Melbourne gay venue. The HIV-positive men nominated a particular area where you went to have unprotected sex if you were infected with the virus. No, said the HIV-negative men, that was where you went if you were negative.
"We had the lights up in the theatre and we could just see all these jaws dropping," says one of the organisers, Greg Iverson, president of People Living With HIV-AIDS Victoria. "It was a real wake-up call. We realised that the two communities weren't talking to each other about HIV."
Hmmm. I suppose that there may be some point in having a choice between the "postive" and "negative" sex areas, in that any sane negative man would presumably prefer to stick to a partner who at least claims to not be positive. But it sounds from the story that the reason the negatives were so shocked was because they had unsafe sex with the positive men, based on a false assumption.
If that is the case, then the point of the story should not so much be that the two sides were not talking to each other; it should be that the safe sex message of not trusting your partner to be HIV negative (especially on a casual encounter) has been lost on these dills.
Drug trial disaster
The Australian: Survivor guilt for beating drug bullet [March 18, 2006]
For a few days now, the media has been reporting a drug trial that went wrong in England. Initially I assumed that the people who have nearly died (it seems at least one will die eventually) had some delayed reaction. However, in the Australian today (see above) the full details of how it went wrong are set out, and it was a case of immediate illness and disaster as soon as the drug was given. Has a drug trial ever gone as badly wrong as this?
Perhaps the amount given was a human error and that explains it. As the above story notes:
John Henry, a clinical toxicologist at St Mary's Hospital, London, told reporters: "The dose they were using is the whole key here. What was their target dose and what did they start with?
"They should have started with a minuscule dose and given it to the first two volunteers to see if there was any reaction. Then they should have moved on to the next two volunteers and multiplied the dose. You can't, in all conscience, give six people the same dose and hope they will all react perfectly.
"It is just common sense."
For a few days now, the media has been reporting a drug trial that went wrong in England. Initially I assumed that the people who have nearly died (it seems at least one will die eventually) had some delayed reaction. However, in the Australian today (see above) the full details of how it went wrong are set out, and it was a case of immediate illness and disaster as soon as the drug was given. Has a drug trial ever gone as badly wrong as this?
Perhaps the amount given was a human error and that explains it. As the above story notes:
John Henry, a clinical toxicologist at St Mary's Hospital, London, told reporters: "The dose they were using is the whole key here. What was their target dose and what did they start with?
"They should have started with a minuscule dose and given it to the first two volunteers to see if there was any reaction. Then they should have moved on to the next two volunteers and multiplied the dose. You can't, in all conscience, give six people the same dose and hope they will all react perfectly.
"It is just common sense."
Friday, March 17, 2006
Death on the South Pacific
Police 'danced with witness' - The Nation - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au
This inquest into the shipboard death of a mother on a South Pacific fun cruise is an intriguing story. The death occurred in 2002 on the Pacific Sky, which does the sort of cruises David Williamson had so much fun on recently.
Anyway, it appears that the mother died of an overdose of the "date drug" GBH, after some (allegedly) consensual sex with some bloke she just met (an activity apparently out of character for the mother). Some details are here, here and here. It seems that the police have not come up with a clear suspect to charge, but note there are 8 "persons of interest". Their photo was published recently, which is somewhat unfair if only one of them was the one who administered the drug. (Don't follow the link if you share my reservation.) Their names keep getting splashed around too, which again strikes me as perhaps a little unfair.
Today's story notes how the police investigating on the ship danced with witnesses before the interview. I am not sure that this technique is recommended in police operations manuals.
The case would all make for a good movie, but maybe it would need to be fictionalised a bit to make it not quite so sordid.
Update: would photoshopping David Williamson into the photo of the 8 persons of interest be funny? Maybe, but probably not worth the defamation action...
(I also had some bad spelling in the post originally, but could not edit it for hours due to a Blogger fault. I must learn to spell check before posting, not after...)
This inquest into the shipboard death of a mother on a South Pacific fun cruise is an intriguing story. The death occurred in 2002 on the Pacific Sky, which does the sort of cruises David Williamson had so much fun on recently.
Anyway, it appears that the mother died of an overdose of the "date drug" GBH, after some (allegedly) consensual sex with some bloke she just met (an activity apparently out of character for the mother). Some details are here, here and here. It seems that the police have not come up with a clear suspect to charge, but note there are 8 "persons of interest". Their photo was published recently, which is somewhat unfair if only one of them was the one who administered the drug. (Don't follow the link if you share my reservation.) Their names keep getting splashed around too, which again strikes me as perhaps a little unfair.
Today's story notes how the police investigating on the ship danced with witnesses before the interview. I am not sure that this technique is recommended in police operations manuals.
The case would all make for a good movie, but maybe it would need to be fictionalised a bit to make it not quite so sordid.
Update: would photoshopping David Williamson into the photo of the 8 persons of interest be funny? Maybe, but probably not worth the defamation action...
(I also had some bad spelling in the post originally, but could not edit it for hours due to a Blogger fault. I must learn to spell check before posting, not after...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)