All AH, k? | Big Brother | Breaking News 24/7 - news (14-06-2006)
From the above:
BIG Brother contestants Jaime and Katie appeared to engage in oral sex during Monday night's Adults Only show - not that anyone was offended by that.
A Channel 10 spokeswoman yesterday said the network did not receive a single complaint, despite web forums reporting the show was "soft porn" showing "hardcore" rewards room scenes.
Why doesn't this show, and what it tells us about the media and its viewers, bother more people in the way that it bothers me?
It's not just that it is used as sexual titillation; it's the whole concept of the show being a competition with one winner, a bunch of exhibitionists as the contestants, and that there is an audience willing to watch them. And a media that gives it free publicity all the time.
There is more honour, in my mind, in paid porno stars making videos (at least if it involves safe sex) than there is in this show. At least then everyone knows what they are getting paid, what the risks are, and that stupid competitiveness or analysis of their "personality" is not part of the voyeuristic motives of the viewers.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Gore needs you
Gore to train 1,000 to spread word about climate - Reuters.com
Why not give out copies of the DVD for free? Why does it need the magic of a trained disciple to present the slide show?
All sounds just a touch messianic, doesn't it?
Why not give out copies of the DVD for free? Why does it need the magic of a trained disciple to present the slide show?
All sounds just a touch messianic, doesn't it?
Challenging job
Aljazeera.Net - Palestinian tourism minister quits
They have a position of tourism minister? Talk about a tough challenge coming up with tourism campaign for Gaza.
(OK, I know there is the West Bank too.)
They have a position of tourism minister? Talk about a tough challenge coming up with tourism campaign for Gaza.
(OK, I know there is the West Bank too.)
Hopeful approach to preventing/treating Alzheimer's
New Scientist Breaking News - Alzheimer's vaccine shows success in mice
If it works, maybe just give it to everyone at age 70, unless you starts to show signs of problems earlier.
If it works, maybe just give it to everyone at age 70, unless you starts to show signs of problems earlier.
Update note
If you saw my long-ish post yesterday on Iraq, make sure you read the update. (I worry that these get overlooked.)
Monday, June 12, 2006
Wrong whatever you do
Boing Boing: Bush could have gotten Zarqawi long ago
OK, this may not be new for some readers, but it is something I had either overlooked or have forgotten.
Boing Boing, which is good on pop culture but always liberal in any political post, notes the brief Salon article that points out that in 2002, before the Iraq invasion, Bush had a chance to take out an Al-Zarqawi camp in Northern Iraq, but chose not to.
The reasons given depend on the source. MSNBC said in 2004 it was because Bush did not want to take out a justification for invading Iraq. The ABC had a Four Corners relevant to this that I obviously missed. It reported a CIA agent as saying that the reason was that Bush did not want to appear to be a "gunslinger" while he was trying to build up French support for an invasion. Of course, most Salon and Boing Boing readers will take the first explanation over the second any day, even though if he had attacked the camp, it is pretty clear he would have been criticised.
Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard article referred to a couple of post ago has details from Colin Powell's speech (not contradicted according to Hayes) in which it was pointed out that although the camp itself was in a part of Iraq not fully controlled by Saddam, Zarqawi and associates were in the Sunni triangle in the lead up to the invasion. As Hitchens and others have pointed out, Iraq was not then the sort of place in which figures with a terrorist profile could get around without the State knowing.
What have we learned in the last 12 months? That Saddam liked to pretend even to his generals that he had WMD up his sleeve. That al Qaeda people, including Zarqawi, were not only in Northern Iraq setting up terrorist camps, but were also in the Sunni triangle.
Even in the (unlikely) event that Saddam had no knowledge or interest in al Qaeda in Iraq whatsoever, why is anyone surprised that the USA legitimately thought that if he had WMD (as he pretended to) he would be prepared to pass them onto al Qaeda?
UPDATE: I wrote the above before reading Hitchen's latest piece in Slate. (It's not the one that was reprinted in the Australian.) It is excellent stuff. An extract:
It is from this source [Jordan]that we know that Zarqawi was in Baghdad at least as early as June 2002, almost a year before the invasion. Indeed, as the Senate intelligence committee report has confirmed, it was in that month that the G.I.D. contacted the Saddam Hussein regime to "inform" the Iraqis that this very dangerous fellow was on their territory. Given the absolute police-state condition of Iraq at that time, it is in any case impossible to believe that such a person was in town, so to speak, incognito. And remember that in 2002, even states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were at least ostensibly expelling known al-Qaida members from their turf or else arresting them. Only Saddam's Iraq (—which did not reply to the Jordanian messages) —was tolerating and encouraging the presence of men who were on the run from Afghanistan.
It is customary to dismiss evidence of this kind with a brisk and pseudo-knowing sneer about the "secular" nature of Saddam's regime and thus its presumed incompatibility with theocratic fanatics. Quite how this CIA-sponsored "analysis" has survived this long is beyond me. At least from the time of its conclusion of hostilities with Iran, Baghdad became a center of jihadist propaganda and sponsorship. Saddam himself started to be painted and photographed wearing the robes of an imam. He began a gigantic mosque-building program. He financed the suicide-murderers who worked against the more secular PLO. He sent money to the Muslim separatists in the Philippines. His closest regional ally was the theocracy in Sudan, which had been the host of Osama Bin Laden.
As opposed to this, we have Phillip Adams in his column today saying this:
Zarqawi's death will not reduce terrorism in Iraq. It will, however, briefly endorse one of Bush's dubious justifications of his war - that alleged link between 9/11, Saddam and bin Laden. Al-Qa'ida arrived in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. The coalition gave them a red carpet. But despite disenchantment with Bush and his war, most US voters still believe their President's bizarre allegations that 9/11 was a double-act involving Saddam and bin Laden. And here's a trophy head to prove it.
This is rich. The Left is simply unable to point to any statement by Bush or his cohorts that that they believed Saddam was behind 7-11. Yet they still blame Bush for (apparently) a significant percentage of Americans believing a connection existed. (By the way, I would like to know the way that polling was done in some detail before getting too uptight about how smart the US public is.)
I have seen nothing at all in the Bush administration's reaction to last week's events to show they tried to use it to bolster an argument (a Saddam/9-11 connection) that they never made anyway. For Adams to claim that showing him dead "was a trophy head to prove it" is just ludicrous.
On the other hand, Adams and his cohorts continue repeating their memes ad naseum, encouraging the blind allegiance to allegations that are becoming increasingly discredited or (such as in the case of the suggestion that Bush misled the public on Saddam and 9-11,) outright lies.
The history of all this in 30 years time is not to going to read the way Adams expects.
UPDATE 2: Here's what the New Yorker says about it:
According to Iraq’s former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who claims that he discovered the information in the archives of the Iraqi secret service, Zarqawi travelled to Iraq in 1999, around the same time as Zawahiri. Saddam Hussein was courting Al Qaeda at the time. Inspired, perhaps, by Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah, he may have believed that he could use terrorists to conduct his foreign policy without undermining his rule. Contrary to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s assertion before the U.N. Security Council, in February, 2003, that Zarqawi provided the link to Al Qaeda in Iraq, bin Laden and Zawahiri spurned Saddam’s overtures.
Sources for that last bit of information would be...? I should go double check the Congressional inquiry again, I suppose.
OK, this may not be new for some readers, but it is something I had either overlooked or have forgotten.
Boing Boing, which is good on pop culture but always liberal in any political post, notes the brief Salon article that points out that in 2002, before the Iraq invasion, Bush had a chance to take out an Al-Zarqawi camp in Northern Iraq, but chose not to.
The reasons given depend on the source. MSNBC said in 2004 it was because Bush did not want to take out a justification for invading Iraq. The ABC had a Four Corners relevant to this that I obviously missed. It reported a CIA agent as saying that the reason was that Bush did not want to appear to be a "gunslinger" while he was trying to build up French support for an invasion. Of course, most Salon and Boing Boing readers will take the first explanation over the second any day, even though if he had attacked the camp, it is pretty clear he would have been criticised.
Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard article referred to a couple of post ago has details from Colin Powell's speech (not contradicted according to Hayes) in which it was pointed out that although the camp itself was in a part of Iraq not fully controlled by Saddam, Zarqawi and associates were in the Sunni triangle in the lead up to the invasion. As Hitchens and others have pointed out, Iraq was not then the sort of place in which figures with a terrorist profile could get around without the State knowing.
What have we learned in the last 12 months? That Saddam liked to pretend even to his generals that he had WMD up his sleeve. That al Qaeda people, including Zarqawi, were not only in Northern Iraq setting up terrorist camps, but were also in the Sunni triangle.
Even in the (unlikely) event that Saddam had no knowledge or interest in al Qaeda in Iraq whatsoever, why is anyone surprised that the USA legitimately thought that if he had WMD (as he pretended to) he would be prepared to pass them onto al Qaeda?
UPDATE: I wrote the above before reading Hitchen's latest piece in Slate. (It's not the one that was reprinted in the Australian.) It is excellent stuff. An extract:
It is from this source [Jordan]that we know that Zarqawi was in Baghdad at least as early as June 2002, almost a year before the invasion. Indeed, as the Senate intelligence committee report has confirmed, it was in that month that the G.I.D. contacted the Saddam Hussein regime to "inform" the Iraqis that this very dangerous fellow was on their territory. Given the absolute police-state condition of Iraq at that time, it is in any case impossible to believe that such a person was in town, so to speak, incognito. And remember that in 2002, even states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were at least ostensibly expelling known al-Qaida members from their turf or else arresting them. Only Saddam's Iraq (—which did not reply to the Jordanian messages) —was tolerating and encouraging the presence of men who were on the run from Afghanistan.
It is customary to dismiss evidence of this kind with a brisk and pseudo-knowing sneer about the "secular" nature of Saddam's regime and thus its presumed incompatibility with theocratic fanatics. Quite how this CIA-sponsored "analysis" has survived this long is beyond me. At least from the time of its conclusion of hostilities with Iran, Baghdad became a center of jihadist propaganda and sponsorship. Saddam himself started to be painted and photographed wearing the robes of an imam. He began a gigantic mosque-building program. He financed the suicide-murderers who worked against the more secular PLO. He sent money to the Muslim separatists in the Philippines. His closest regional ally was the theocracy in Sudan, which had been the host of Osama Bin Laden.
As opposed to this, we have Phillip Adams in his column today saying this:
Zarqawi's death will not reduce terrorism in Iraq. It will, however, briefly endorse one of Bush's dubious justifications of his war - that alleged link between 9/11, Saddam and bin Laden. Al-Qa'ida arrived in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. The coalition gave them a red carpet. But despite disenchantment with Bush and his war, most US voters still believe their President's bizarre allegations that 9/11 was a double-act involving Saddam and bin Laden. And here's a trophy head to prove it.
This is rich. The Left is simply unable to point to any statement by Bush or his cohorts that that they believed Saddam was behind 7-11. Yet they still blame Bush for (apparently) a significant percentage of Americans believing a connection existed. (By the way, I would like to know the way that polling was done in some detail before getting too uptight about how smart the US public is.)
I have seen nothing at all in the Bush administration's reaction to last week's events to show they tried to use it to bolster an argument (a Saddam/9-11 connection) that they never made anyway. For Adams to claim that showing him dead "was a trophy head to prove it" is just ludicrous.
On the other hand, Adams and his cohorts continue repeating their memes ad naseum, encouraging the blind allegiance to allegations that are becoming increasingly discredited or (such as in the case of the suggestion that Bush misled the public on Saddam and 9-11,) outright lies.
The history of all this in 30 years time is not to going to read the way Adams expects.
UPDATE 2: Here's what the New Yorker says about it:
According to Iraq’s former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who claims that he discovered the information in the archives of the Iraqi secret service, Zarqawi travelled to Iraq in 1999, around the same time as Zawahiri. Saddam Hussein was courting Al Qaeda at the time. Inspired, perhaps, by Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah, he may have believed that he could use terrorists to conduct his foreign policy without undermining his rule. Contrary to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s assertion before the U.N. Security Council, in February, 2003, that Zarqawi provided the link to Al Qaeda in Iraq, bin Laden and Zawahiri spurned Saddam’s overtures.
Sources for that last bit of information would be...? I should go double check the Congressional inquiry again, I suppose.
About the future Palestine
TCS Daily - Creating Palestine
The article above takes a tough line on what is necessary to create what could be called a "viable" Palestinian State. (Very little, argue the authors. They point out that there are many tiny countries with less than ideal geography.)
But their earlier article that they link to, about the neverending call by Arabs for Israel to comply with UN Resolution 242 (ie, going back to the pre-1967 Six Day War borders) is even more interesting. The gist of it is that they argue (fairly convincingly, it seems to me) that the resolution as finally passed was specifically meant to leave the precise final boundaries open. In other words, not to require that all occupied land be returned.)
Can't say I have heard this argument before, but then I am no expert on Middle East history. (Like many people, the post 9/11 world has made me take much more of an interest in it.)
The article above takes a tough line on what is necessary to create what could be called a "viable" Palestinian State. (Very little, argue the authors. They point out that there are many tiny countries with less than ideal geography.)
But their earlier article that they link to, about the neverending call by Arabs for Israel to comply with UN Resolution 242 (ie, going back to the pre-1967 Six Day War borders) is even more interesting. The gist of it is that they argue (fairly convincingly, it seems to me) that the resolution as finally passed was specifically meant to leave the precise final boundaries open. In other words, not to require that all occupied land be returned.)
Can't say I have heard this argument before, but then I am no expert on Middle East history. (Like many people, the post 9/11 world has made me take much more of an interest in it.)
Inconstant constants
ScienceDaily: Variable Physical Laws
This seems very important, although what exactly it means for cosmology is not at all clear:
On April 21 this year new findings were published in Physical Review Letters implying that a dimensionless constant – the ratio between the electron mass and the proton mass – has changed with time.
And shortly measurements will be presented in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society showing that another dimensionless constant, called the fine structure constant, is also varying with time.
This seems very important, although what exactly it means for cosmology is not at all clear:
On April 21 this year new findings were published in Physical Review Letters implying that a dimensionless constant – the ratio between the electron mass and the proton mass – has changed with time.
And shortly measurements will be presented in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society showing that another dimensionless constant, called the fine structure constant, is also varying with time.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Now if only I spoke Japanese
Love and marriage in Japan | White weddings | Economist.com
An amusing article about "fake" Western weddings at one particular fake church in Japan:
Weddings are what it does, at ¥5m ($46,000) a time for 100 guests, five times a day.
The couples who come have already married before at a city registrar. Their wedding at St Grace Cathedral and similar places offers only the outward trappings of a Christian wedding. Most establishments get couples and their guests through the service in 40 minutes; one cut-rate place does it in 20. Catering is where the money is made, while most other wedding services—flowers, choir, even harpist—are subcontracted.
The most sought-after is the Western “priest”. These are supplied by an ecclesiastical talent agency complete with fake ordination papers, should anyone bother to ask. For impoverished actors, models and English-language teachers, the work is manna: the pay is ¥10,000-15,000 a service, and you can do eight a day. One young Westerner, who earns ¥10m a year for a three-day week, says the work is not easy: unlike acting, where at least you get a break, you have to be a priest all day, and speak flawless Japanese to boot.
An amusing article about "fake" Western weddings at one particular fake church in Japan:
Weddings are what it does, at ¥5m ($46,000) a time for 100 guests, five times a day.
The couples who come have already married before at a city registrar. Their wedding at St Grace Cathedral and similar places offers only the outward trappings of a Christian wedding. Most establishments get couples and their guests through the service in 40 minutes; one cut-rate place does it in 20. Catering is where the money is made, while most other wedding services—flowers, choir, even harpist—are subcontracted.
The most sought-after is the Western “priest”. These are supplied by an ecclesiastical talent agency complete with fake ordination papers, should anyone bother to ask. For impoverished actors, models and English-language teachers, the work is manna: the pay is ¥10,000-15,000 a service, and you can do eight a day. One young Westerner, who earns ¥10m a year for a three-day week, says the work is not easy: unlike acting, where at least you get a break, you have to be a priest all day, and speak flawless Japanese to boot.
Zarqawi in pre-war Iraq
Their Man in Baghdad
Stephen Hayes article above, about Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war is important.
The Atlantic agrees that he was there, but caims that Zarqawi was not really connected with al-Qaeda at all during that time. However, it seems that the article does not really explain what he was doing in the Sunni triangle prior to the war.
All very interesting.
Stephen Hayes article above, about Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war is important.
The Atlantic agrees that he was there, but caims that Zarqawi was not really connected with al-Qaeda at all during that time. However, it seems that the article does not really explain what he was doing in the Sunni triangle prior to the war.
All very interesting.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Anti terrorism story missed
Captain's Quarters
I missed this from earlier in the week:
A terrorist cell plotted to shoot down an Israeli airliner over Switzerland but was foiled by intelligence services, Swiss prosecutors said yesterday.
Seven people of north African origin are under arrest in connection with the alleged plot, said a statement from the federal prosecutor's office.
I guess it must be all those Swiss soldiers in Iraq that provoked this terrorist plan that (no doubt) would have endangered Swiss lives.
I missed this from earlier in the week:
A terrorist cell plotted to shoot down an Israeli airliner over Switzerland but was foiled by intelligence services, Swiss prosecutors said yesterday.
Seven people of north African origin are under arrest in connection with the alleged plot, said a statement from the federal prosecutor's office.
I guess it must be all those Swiss soldiers in Iraq that provoked this terrorist plan that (no doubt) would have endangered Swiss lives.
Death on the beach
Artillery fire kills 12, wounds dozens on Gaza beach | Jerusalem Post
Bad time for such an incident to happen. That it was an accident would seem to be strongly supported by this (from the report in the The Jerusalem Post):
According to Galant, the IDF is currently investigating two possible options: misfiring of an artillery round or a dud that exploded on the Gaza beach.
"Even when a tragic and unfortunate incident takes place, it does not mean that we are not committed to defending the citizens of southern Israel who face continuous barrages of Kassam rockets," he said.
The IDF confirmed the Gaza coast deaths, saying that it regretted the harm done to innocent civilians and offering the Palestinians any assistance needed, including evacuation to Israeli hospitals.
Neither The Age , the ABC nor The Australian's reports mention this offer of help in Israeli hospitals. (In fact, The Australian's story is one of the least balanced and inflammatory versions I have read.) The Guardian, to its credit, does mention the offer of assistance. Funny what gets left out of reporting on the Middle East.
Bad time for such an incident to happen. That it was an accident would seem to be strongly supported by this (from the report in the The Jerusalem Post):
According to Galant, the IDF is currently investigating two possible options: misfiring of an artillery round or a dud that exploded on the Gaza beach.
"Even when a tragic and unfortunate incident takes place, it does not mean that we are not committed to defending the citizens of southern Israel who face continuous barrages of Kassam rockets," he said.
The IDF confirmed the Gaza coast deaths, saying that it regretted the harm done to innocent civilians and offering the Palestinians any assistance needed, including evacuation to Israeli hospitals.
Neither The Age , the ABC nor The Australian's reports mention this offer of help in Israeli hospitals. (In fact, The Australian's story is one of the least balanced and inflammatory versions I have read.) The Guardian, to its credit, does mention the offer of assistance. Funny what gets left out of reporting on the Middle East.
John Marsden again
The reputation rapists at large - Opinion - smh.com.au
Mike Carlton comes to John Marden's defence in the Sydney Morning Herald today. He says (of the successful criminal injuries compensation case):
[Judge]Taylor did not find that Marsden had abused anybody, let alone the eight-year-old boy. He came to no such conclusion.
This was a civil case - not a criminal trial with rules of evidence, cross-examination and a jury - in which a man, referred to as "F", had sought money from the Victims Compensation Tribunal for sexual abuse he claimed to have suffered as a child in the '60s.
The tribunal had turned him down. In 2001, F appealed before Taylor in the District Court. There was general medical and specialist psychiatric evidence to support his case. The judge accepted that evidence, found that F had been sexually assaulted, and awarded compensation of $40,000.
But at no stage during the hearing, nor in Taylor's written judgement of July 6, 2001, was any offender or alleged offender named. The word "Marsden" never appeared. Despite the emphatic assertions of Hicks and Fife-Yeomans, it did not happen. Not verbally. Not in print - I have read the judgement. There was no laying of guilt.
For some extracts from the initial report, see my previous post here.
There's something fishy about this, I think. While Carlton is presumably correct about what the judgement says, he seems to be suggesting that in the whole process of making this claim Marsden's name was not brought up. But that surely can't be correct, can it? When a victim makes a claim for compensation in New South Wales, he or she does not have to name the alleged offender? For that matter, if they fail, why is the name not mentioned in the appeal?
Also, I am pretty sure that the original report about this (the link is now dead) said that the successful victim claims he was warned off proceeding with a criminal case by Marsden. (Behaviour which would not be inconsistent with what happened in the defamation action. But then again it might be a recent invention based on the reporting of the defamation case.)
I would love to see a more detailed explanation of what happened in this victim's case. Will the ABC, which pursues other controversial legal cases, take this on in a documentary? (I think it deserves more than a 30 minute Australian Story, though.)
I am also surprised that journalist David Marr has not taken this on. He must have known Marsden, surely, and be "outraged" (I can hear his plummy voice saying it already) by slurs against a fellow gay lawyer. Or does Marr know something about Marsden he would prefer not to say? (Just a guess...)
Mike Carlton comes to John Marden's defence in the Sydney Morning Herald today. He says (of the successful criminal injuries compensation case):
[Judge]Taylor did not find that Marsden had abused anybody, let alone the eight-year-old boy. He came to no such conclusion.
This was a civil case - not a criminal trial with rules of evidence, cross-examination and a jury - in which a man, referred to as "F", had sought money from the Victims Compensation Tribunal for sexual abuse he claimed to have suffered as a child in the '60s.
The tribunal had turned him down. In 2001, F appealed before Taylor in the District Court. There was general medical and specialist psychiatric evidence to support his case. The judge accepted that evidence, found that F had been sexually assaulted, and awarded compensation of $40,000.
But at no stage during the hearing, nor in Taylor's written judgement of July 6, 2001, was any offender or alleged offender named. The word "Marsden" never appeared. Despite the emphatic assertions of Hicks and Fife-Yeomans, it did not happen. Not verbally. Not in print - I have read the judgement. There was no laying of guilt.
For some extracts from the initial report, see my previous post here.
There's something fishy about this, I think. While Carlton is presumably correct about what the judgement says, he seems to be suggesting that in the whole process of making this claim Marsden's name was not brought up. But that surely can't be correct, can it? When a victim makes a claim for compensation in New South Wales, he or she does not have to name the alleged offender? For that matter, if they fail, why is the name not mentioned in the appeal?
Also, I am pretty sure that the original report about this (the link is now dead) said that the successful victim claims he was warned off proceeding with a criminal case by Marsden. (Behaviour which would not be inconsistent with what happened in the defamation action. But then again it might be a recent invention based on the reporting of the defamation case.)
I would love to see a more detailed explanation of what happened in this victim's case. Will the ABC, which pursues other controversial legal cases, take this on in a documentary? (I think it deserves more than a 30 minute Australian Story, though.)
I am also surprised that journalist David Marr has not taken this on. He must have known Marsden, surely, and be "outraged" (I can hear his plummy voice saying it already) by slurs against a fellow gay lawyer. Or does Marr know something about Marsden he would prefer not to say? (Just a guess...)
Sea level again
Christopher Pearson: Rising tide of bad science | Opinion | The Australian
From what I can recall of past columns, Pearson's scepticism of global warming may be too extreme, but his column today on sea level rise is pretty good. (Basic message: it's defintely not the case that any islands are currently suffering from global warming induced sea level rises, and indeed any serious effect is quite a way off yet.)
He is right to criticise Labor on this. As I noted in a past post, Albanese is well and truly a gullible dill who does not appear capable of independent fact checking. As Pearson says:
Our island neighbours may well have claims on our foreign aid, but as a matter of charity rather than any sort of entitlement. In the absence of compelling evidence, and in defiance of Darwin's model, Labor shouldn't be encouraging them to believe that they are the victims of profligate coal, gas and oil-fired economies. Nor should it be creating unrealistic expectations that, as the largest regional consumer of fossil fuels, Australia has endless obligations to a new class of mendicants from Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Carteret or the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.
My other posts on sea level rises are here, here here and here.
From what I can recall of past columns, Pearson's scepticism of global warming may be too extreme, but his column today on sea level rise is pretty good. (Basic message: it's defintely not the case that any islands are currently suffering from global warming induced sea level rises, and indeed any serious effect is quite a way off yet.)
He is right to criticise Labor on this. As I noted in a past post, Albanese is well and truly a gullible dill who does not appear capable of independent fact checking. As Pearson says:
Our island neighbours may well have claims on our foreign aid, but as a matter of charity rather than any sort of entitlement. In the absence of compelling evidence, and in defiance of Darwin's model, Labor shouldn't be encouraging them to believe that they are the victims of profligate coal, gas and oil-fired economies. Nor should it be creating unrealistic expectations that, as the largest regional consumer of fossil fuels, Australia has endless obligations to a new class of mendicants from Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Carteret or the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.
My other posts on sea level rises are here, here here and here.
Friday, June 09, 2006
An unusual death
The Japan Times Online - Brake, software probed in Tokyo elevator death
What surprises me, in a way, is that elevator deaths seem so uncommon. I mean, I just would have thought they would malfunction with dangerous consequences much more often.
What surprises me, in a way, is that elevator deaths seem so uncommon. I mean, I just would have thought they would malfunction with dangerous consequences much more often.
Polar bears' problem
The Japan Times Online - '98 Arctic thaw laid to warm ocean, not hot air
Not sure whether this is really relevant to global warming arguments or not, but still it's interesting.
Not sure whether this is really relevant to global warming arguments or not, but still it's interesting.
An Austin Powers moment
The Aljazeera.net reporting of the death of Al Zarqawi contains an item about the reaction of his family. It seems that even though they had to distance themselves from him after the (very unpopular) hotel bombings in Amman, they are now happy to talk of him being a martyr.
There is also mention of how a nephew feels "so sad" about it. When reading this, I had a sudden reminder of the funny/clever part of the first Austin Powers movie, where the death of one of the evil henchmen is followed by scenes of how his very "all american" family are upset by the news.
There is also mention of how a nephew feels "so sad" about it. When reading this, I had a sudden reminder of the funny/clever part of the first Austin Powers movie, where the death of one of the evil henchmen is followed by scenes of how his very "all american" family are upset by the news.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Euthanasia and consequences
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Call for no-consent euthanasia
The key part of this argument is all to do with moral philosophy:
Prof Doyal says withdrawing life-saving treatment from severely incompetent patients - which may involve turning off a ventilator, ending antibiotics or withdrawing a feeding tube - is "believed to be morally appropriate because it constitutes doing nothing. It is disease that does the dirty work, not the clinician. Yet this argument cannot wash away the foreseeable suffering of severely incompetent patients sometimes forced to die avoidably slow and distressing deaths."
He draws a parallel with a father who sees his baby drowning in the bath and fails to do anything to save it. The father foresaw the certainty of the death and did nothing and would therefore be morally considered to have killed the child.
"Clinicians who starve severely incompetent patients to death are not deemed by law to have killed them actively, even if they begin the process by the removal of feeding tubes. The legal fiction that such starvation is not active killing is no more than clumsy judicial camouflage of the euthanasia that is actually occurring."
First of all, I thought that there was quite a lot of confidence that most cases of withdrawal of treatment did not cause unnecessary suffering. (Or at least, if suffering was detected, there is no issue with administering pain relief, even if an unintended consequence is shortening life.) So I am not sure that unnecessary suffering is really the issue.
But this Professor's arguments are all based on an acceptance that consequentialism is the right way to make ethical decisions. Peter Singer is also a "consequentialist", which should send up warnings.
Rather than have me bang on about why it consquentialism is a problem, have a look at the good Wikipedia article about its critics. (All hail Wikipedia.)
The key part of this argument is all to do with moral philosophy:
Prof Doyal says withdrawing life-saving treatment from severely incompetent patients - which may involve turning off a ventilator, ending antibiotics or withdrawing a feeding tube - is "believed to be morally appropriate because it constitutes doing nothing. It is disease that does the dirty work, not the clinician. Yet this argument cannot wash away the foreseeable suffering of severely incompetent patients sometimes forced to die avoidably slow and distressing deaths."
He draws a parallel with a father who sees his baby drowning in the bath and fails to do anything to save it. The father foresaw the certainty of the death and did nothing and would therefore be morally considered to have killed the child.
"Clinicians who starve severely incompetent patients to death are not deemed by law to have killed them actively, even if they begin the process by the removal of feeding tubes. The legal fiction that such starvation is not active killing is no more than clumsy judicial camouflage of the euthanasia that is actually occurring."
First of all, I thought that there was quite a lot of confidence that most cases of withdrawal of treatment did not cause unnecessary suffering. (Or at least, if suffering was detected, there is no issue with administering pain relief, even if an unintended consequence is shortening life.) So I am not sure that unnecessary suffering is really the issue.
But this Professor's arguments are all based on an acceptance that consequentialism is the right way to make ethical decisions. Peter Singer is also a "consequentialist", which should send up warnings.
Rather than have me bang on about why it consquentialism is a problem, have a look at the good Wikipedia article about its critics. (All hail Wikipedia.)
A Danny Katz piece
Subliminal scholarship, schoolboy-style - Danny Katz - Opinion - theage.com.au
I have mentioned before how I think Danny Katz is a great humourist. If only he could write something decent for Australian TV comedy. (Who knows, maybe he does?)
Anyway, his column above made me laugh.
I have mentioned before how I think Danny Katz is a great humourist. If only he could write something decent for Australian TV comedy. (Who knows, maybe he does?)
Anyway, his column above made me laugh.
More detail, Ken
Nuclear electricity is just more expensive - Opinion - theage.com.au
Kenneth Davidson in The Age, talking about nuclear power, makes this surprising comment:
Lovelock's Gaia theory, which treats the Earth as a kind of living organism, is as revolutionary as the Renaissance was 500 years ago when man displaced God at the centre of the world. It means that the survival of the Earth as a self-regulating ecosystem must take precedence over individual rights.
All hail Mother Gaia!
I think Ken should specify which "individual rights" he has in mind here.
Kenneth Davidson in The Age, talking about nuclear power, makes this surprising comment:
Lovelock's Gaia theory, which treats the Earth as a kind of living organism, is as revolutionary as the Renaissance was 500 years ago when man displaced God at the centre of the world. It means that the survival of the Earth as a self-regulating ecosystem must take precedence over individual rights.
All hail Mother Gaia!
I think Ken should specify which "individual rights" he has in mind here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)