Summit reaction

The most disturbing and dis-spiriting things about the 2020 Summit do not include the entirely predictable fact that it ended up with barely a single entirely novel idea. Rather, they were:

1. the sight of the assembled "best and brightest" during the final summing up session appearing to think that it was all an outstandingly worthwhile exercise;

2. Kevin Rudd being so very obviously buoyed by all the love in the room.

I didn't fully appreciate before that the Australian "intelligentsia" (and a considerable number of business leaders as well) were such a needy bunch that this faux act of being "listened to" would make them all swoon. Who knew that the media would (by and large) also roll over?

Of course, the papers are letting their "usual suspects" be as cynical as they like; but there is no doubt that the editorial stance of the Fairfax press in particular has been entirely gullible on the issue of the value and purpose of the exercise. The ABC TV coverage's "bookend" comments that I saw (although I missed most) were so bad they gave the impression that Rudd's PR team had a direct feed into the teleprompt.

Honestly, it has actually felt like watching a insidious process of corruption of the nation.

Maybe my badly shaken faith in the common sense of the people will be partially restored if we get some cynicism reported via some - any - disillusioned attendees over the next few days.

But you know what this whole exercise has made me secretly yearn for? Some actual, immediate crisis or disaster for this PM to have to make a hard decision about; rather than this nauseous concentration on both building up his own profile and defusing potential enemies.

UPDATE: Annabel Crabb has written up the summit as a religious event all about the PM, and this line struck me as the funniest:

On one visit to the Economy group, he [Rudd] arrived among a standing group of summiteers and promptly seated himself on the floor. He did not wash anyone's feet or anything, but the "Suffer the little economists to come unto me" theme was obvious enough nevertheless.

Don't believe him

The Sakai is the limit - Food & Wine - Activities & Interests - Travel

In this story in the Sydney Morning Herald (mainly about one very expensive restaurant in Tokyo,) the writer claims of he and his wife:

We had thought we could cope on a daily food and transport budget of $100 or just under ¥10,000. But whether we are in the glittering Ginza or the relative grunge of Electric City, our only affordable meal seems to be tiny watery noodle meals with small servings of beer or sake.

These little lunches, whether from semi-automated train station cafeterias or battered old diners, cost an easy $30 combined and still leave us hungry enough to chew our hands.

Now, unless Mr Thompson and his wife have unusually large calorific needs or desires, this is absolute rubbish.

Anyone can find a filling and tasty meal in Tokyo, especially at lunch, for around $8 to $12. Apart from the train stations, the department stores all have good, cheap eating. It's not even hard in upmarket Ginza. And it's not all noodles I am talking about either.

The one thing I routinely tell people about Japan is that, while accommodation is relatively expensive (and hotel rooms are small for the price), the cost of eating is not so expensive, unless your do want to go to higher end restaurants or eat all the time in your hotel.

If the SMH wants to pay me to demonstrate the ease of eating on $45 a day in Tokyo, I would be happy to oblige.

A very American end of the world

Escape, Carolyn Jessop's memoir of life with the FLDS, condensed. - Slate Magazine

Slate gives us a handy summary of some of the beliefs and practices of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (being the Texan group which recently had the kids removed.)

This part is particularly odd:

In a favorite children's game, called Apocalypse, kids act out the FLDS vision of the end of the world. According to FLDS lore, Native Americans who were mistreated and killed in pioneer days will be resurrected in the end times, when God will allow them to wreak vengeance on those who wronged them (the presumably also-resurrected settlers). In return for this indulgence, "resurrected Indians" will also be "required to take on the job of protecting God's chosen people"—FLDS members—by killing FLDS enemies with invisible tomahawks that can sever a person's heart in half. Very cowboys and Indians!

Bad, bad idea

Rock bottom | Comment is free

Have a look at the trailer at the movie website (there's a link in the article.) Yes, it looks like just about the worst concept for a movie comedy, ever.

Photo time

I went camping the weekend before last, and I have a few photos to prove it:


This tent is old. I bought it when I was about 18 or 19, used it for a few years, then packed it away for about 26 years until having kids inspired me to resume camping again. To my surprise, it had not rotted away or been consumed by vermin. Now I get to bore any other family we travel with by explaining this story of remarkable tent longevity, and making "how long can a tent last?" observations, every time I am setting it up or taking it down. Oh - the yellow inflatable canoe - it's nearly as old too.


This is sunrise the first morning. Either that or a thermonuclear explosion over distant Caboolture. (I'm such a romantic.)

This type of skinny spider was everywhere:


But for a really weird looking one, try this:


If it's a new species, it should be named after Des, who was the one who spotted it and insisted I take a photo just in case he was its discoverer.

The last photo is of sunrise on the second day, with added cloud:


The place, incidentally, was the Lake Somerset Holiday Park, which is huge, has excellent facilities, and very friendly management. Just bring something that floats in which to potter about, and it's great.

Over 45? Sit down, relax

Exercise May Lead To Faster Prostate Tumor Growth

What all middle aged men have been waiting for: an excuse to sit around and get fat.

The experimental model that this is based on is not exactly close to real life, though:

The researchers implanted prostate tumors subcutaneously in the flanks of 50 mice and then put half of the mice in cages with exercise wheels and half in cages with no wheels. All mice were fed the same diet. On average, the exercising mice ran more than half a mile each day.

So, next thing is to try to do this a bit more realistically:

The researchers are currently conducting a validation study, in mice, in which tumors are injected directly into the prostate, thereby better simulating human prostate cancer, Jones said.

Just how big is a mouse prostate? How do you tell if it's enlarged?

So-called neutral

Washington Watch: Doing good business with evil | Jerusalem Post

An interesting opinion piece from the Jerusalem Post, complaining how the Swiss will deal with whoever they like (currently, Iran) if it suits them.

The whole topic of the role Switzerland played during WWII is something about which I don't know much. Put it on the almost endless list of "things worth reading a book about one day." (I like to imagine that this is what heaven is for: a very, very long time to catch up on reading.)

Contradictory evidence

Study Sees an Advantage for Algae Species in Changing Oceans - New York Times

Bah! Just after I spend time catching up on ocean acidification, and trying to encourage readers to worry about the effect on carbonate-incorporating algae, a new study indicates that they have actually done better under increased CO2 levels, contrary to previous studies and expectations. (Who would have guessed that it makes a difference if you bubble gas into the water, rather than simply add acid to it?)

Neither the article above, or the other one it links to, talk about whether this means this is an automatic way the earth is increasing the oceans as a CO2 sink. But my guess is that it can't be hurting in that regard.

However, the article also says that this research doesn't mean the coral reefs are safe from acidification.

And: I also wonder whether someone will come up with a concern about too much algae being produced in some regions with too much acidification. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I didn't think you really wanted a lot of certain types of algae in shallow waters.

More information required.

And no gloating please, Andrew Bolt.

UPDATE: It gets worse (for my previous post.) According to the Ocean Acidification blog, there's an article in Science that is claiming we simply don't know enough to be able to dismiss coral reef's ability to adapt to increased acidification. I think the suggestion is that other types of coral will simply replace the ones that are more sensitive to it.

But then: the worriers have made a response already. And they make the point that, when corals have disappeared in the past due to high ocean acidification, they have taken millions of years to recover.

It's a big gamble, isn't it? My gut reaction is still that increasing the acidity of the entire ocean by a factor of 2 or 3 over a relatively short period of time (a century or so?) is a dangerous experiment to be playing. We can't even stop the first part of it, due to the lag time in CO2 absorption, but we can try and stop the worst of it.

Boeing 777 crash still a worry

There was a safety bulletin put out by the British Air Accident Investigations Branch in February 2008, regarding the Boeing 777 crash at Heathrow.

The circumstances of the accident are described (while at 720 feet from landing, one engine reduced power, followed by the other within 7 seconds, and then they wouldn't respond to the request for increased thrust.) There was some rubbish found in the fuel tanks, but it seems that is not the obvious answer. The fuel itself did not seem to be contaminated.

Odd, hey? At the end it says they are looking at the high pressure fuel pumps, and the fuel system generally.

Rice woes

As Australia dries, the world suffers - International Herald Tribune

I didn't realise until recently that Australia's rice production was internationally significant. Normally:

Annual world production totals 600 million tonnes with only 25 million tonnes traded outside the country of origin. While Australian rice represents only around 0.2% of world rice production, remarkably Australia exports represent over 4 % of world trade.

That's about a million tonnes of rice. But we won't be exporting a grain this year:

A few dozen growers - most using water pumped from underground - will harvest just 18,000 tonnes for domestic consumption, it is forecast.

But one thing that puzzles me about this is the question of where we grow rice in this country:

Rice is grown on some 145,000 ha of land, mainly in the irrigated areas of south-eastern Australia. Eighty per cent of rice produced in Australia is of medium-grain Japonica varieties, which are well suited to high summer temperatures without the humidity of tropical climates.

Huh? Haven't we routinely got water to excess in the Ord River dam in WA, as well as in many North Queensland dams? Isn't rice generally well suited to the tropics?

Here's my brilliant Australia 2020 suggestion: let's try growing rice where the water is! (Thank you, thank you, it was nothing really.)

Three words

PM's 2020 pledge for every child | The Australian

So this is Rudd's great idea for 2020 Australia? Expensive, unnecessary, and lame.

At least someone at the Sydney Institute called it right:

Barclays Capital chief executive Nicholas Johnson, who in moving a vote of thanks said: "I thought he was meant to be an economic conservative, sounded like an old-fashion socialist to me".

That can be arranged...

Emissions will drop when we end the reliance on coal

The link is to Kenneth Davidson's column in The Age today, which begins:

IF FORCED to choose, I would prefer to live on top of a nuclear waste dump than a carbon dioxide dump, which is both the Government and Opposition's preferred method of dealing with the greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal to produce electricity.

Actually, I share quite a bit of Davidson's scepticism about geosequestration of CO2 from coal fired plants ever being viable on a large scale.

UPDATE: seeing I have lately had a surge of new visitors (thanks, AB!), I should refer people to a post I did about geosequestration last year, which notes some new ideas that sound somewhat more promising to me that trying to pump huge volumes of gas into the ground.

Be prepared to be shocked

Our Local Correspondents: Up and Then Down

If you are interested in elevators (and who isn't?), you must read this very long essay about them in The New Yorker.

I must admit I didn't know this:

In most elevators, at least in any built or installed since the early nineties, the door-close button doesn’t work. It is there mainly to make you think it works. (It does work if, say, a fireman needs to take control. But you need a key, and a fire, to do that.) Once you know this, it can be illuminating to watch people compulsively press the door-close button. That the door eventually closes reinforces their belief in the button’s power. It’s a little like prayer.

Wasn't it around the early 1990's that call buttons in the economy section of aircraft also mysteriously stopped having any effect?

A notable passing

One of the great physicists of the 20th century, John Wheeler, has died, aged 96. The New York Times obituary is here, but for a very personal observation of what he was like as a teacher, go to this tribute at Cosmic Variance. He certainly sounds like a lovely man.

Look who the Truthers have for company

Ahmadinejad casts doubt over 9/11 | Jerusalem Post

The Iranian President must be spending time on Truther websites:

Though Iran has condemned the al-Qaida attacks on New York and Washington in the past, this was the third time in a week Ahmadinejad questioned the death toll, who was behind the attacks and how it happened.

"Four or five years ago, a suspicious event occurred in New York. A building collapsed and they said that 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names," Ahmadinejad told Iranians in the holy city of Qom.

Robert Fisk must feel proud.

IT Crowd returns

The second series of The IT Crowd starts on the ABC tonight. It's one of the very few recent British sitcom-ish shows that makes me laugh, but the humour is very silly. Here's 8 minutes from the first series, which gives you a good idea of the characters:

Taking ocean acidification seriously

Oh. There's another link to this blog today (and praise) from Andrew Bolt, and now I'm going to deal with an issue that I expect may earn his scorn. Don't leave me, new readers! I try to be very reasonable about this, you know!

It's been quite a while since I explained why I decided it's a good idea to reduce CO2 production, and to do it with urgency. My position is that it doesn't matter whether or not the Earth is looking cooler for a year or two at the moment: the effect of ocean acidification is something that started being viewed with serious alarm by marine scientists over the last 5 years especially, and that concern is not going away.

For some easy to read primers on the problem, try these three Australian sites here, here and here. (Australia has special reason to be concerned, as will become apparent soon.) The lengthy Royal Society report of 2005 on this, which is actually pretty easy to read, is here.

I'll list a few key points so you don't even have to follow the links:

a. increased atmospheric CO2 levels have already increased the acidity level of the ocean by 30% over the last couple of hundred years;

b. the steep climb expected in further CO2 emissions on a "business as usual" scenario could lead to about a 300% increase in acidity, although even then it will be slightly alkaline. (If you want to, you can insist that the change be called a reduction in ocean alkalinity instead of an increase in acidity; it makes no difference to the life that lives there.)

c. even if all CO2 production stopped today, the ocean will continue getting more acid by at least the same amount as it already has, and it will take thousands of years for ocean chemistry to get it back to pre-industrial levels. (The chemistry of the earth means that even when the ocean has been much more acidic, it eventually comes back to something close to what we've currently had for a long time - see the next point.)

d. ocean pH is believed not to have been as low as its current level for a very long time (one article mentions 430,000 years; another mentions 40 million years, but I am not sure which pH level it is referring to.) One article indicates that if "business as usual" continued beyond 2100, the oceans will eventually get to a pH that hasn't been seen for 300 million years! In any case, it's the rate of current change that is a big part of the problem:

During the Ordovician, atmospheric carbon levels were much higher, but had risen gradually, allowing the oceans to remain saturated with calcium carbonate, and life had flourished.

But, 250 million years ago, the formation of the Siberian Traps through a massive volcanic eruption caused a sudden and massive shift in oceanic pH, and nearly 90 percent of oceanic species went extinct. He noted that the extinctions followed lines that were predictable; species we'd expect to be sensitive to carbonate concentrations died, while those that have finer control over their physiology largely made it through the extinctions.

e. Australians have good reason to worry: cold water takes in CO2 faster, and the large Southern Ocean waters should therefore become most acidic first, and the acidity levels are expected to spread north. Warm water coral reefs might already be being affected by sensitivity to even the current levels of increased acidity, although there are still uncertainties about this.

On the Science Show this week, some scientists express their deep concern.

Look, no one says that the oceans will go completely and utterly barren everywhere, but the concern is that the change from what they are like now could be very dramatic indeed, over a very short space of time. Most significantly here in Australia, is the possible absolute collapse of coral reefs as we know them. In that Science Show transcript, one American scientist notes:

Unfortunately the picture for acidification is much fuzzier but also much uglier, and that's because corals seem to have little in the way that they can escape from the effects of acidification. It's actually the case that corals can survive, at least in the laboratory, in highly acid waters, but they turn into little sea anemones, they stop building skeletons altogether. As a consequence what you will have is a world of coral reefs but coral reefs without skeletons, which really aren't reefs at all. So that these structures that we can see from space and which so many organisms depend upon in terms of the three-dimensional complexity will simply cease to exist.

Even if you view large scale changes to the reefs of the world as only an aesthetic loss, the other major concern noted in the various articles is that acidification affects many types of plankton, upon which much bigger things feed, which in turn are eaten by things on which humans like to feast. And these plankton also have a role in sinking CO2 to the bottom of the ocean, so if their population goes down, more CO2 is left to go into the ocean to make it more acid, etc.

Of course, the scientists are still working on it all, and the ecological effects of such large scale change are not entirely clear. But I think from a common sense point of view, massive changes in ocean ecology sound dangerous. And remember that it will take thousands of years for pH to drop. (Adding stuff to the oceans to make them less acidic would have to be on such a large and expensive scale it doesn't really seem feasible, although there are people coming up with ideas.)

In an earlier post about this, I mentioned that I would like to see any skeptical arguments about ocean acidification. (Andrew Bolt correctly points out that some predictions of the Great Barrier Reef's demise due to ocean warming have, at the very least, been very premature. But Andrew's hope today that a reef's ability to recover from a nuclear blast is a good sign doesn't exactly address the big picture of acidification. Acidification is a much more long term process, that is already well underway.)

Googling for "ocean acidification skeptics" doesn't bring up much. Some have taken recently to (rather conspiratorially) claiming that scientists are starting to "talk up" ocean acidification because they realise that recent cooler temperatures mean people will stop believing in global warming. (Of course, as even the articles listed here indicate, many marine scientists have been talking about it with alarm for the last few years in particular, ever since the Royal Society report of 2005 really gave the issue a lot of attention.)

The only site I have found (admittedly in a quick search) with a detailed attempt to rebut ocean acidification science is here, by one Dr Floor Anthoni of a New Zealand group called "Seafriends". Dr Anthoni appears to have no academic background in biology; his qualifications seem to be only in computer science and electronics.

He claims that some of his own discoveries mean that ocean acidification is not property understood, and it will not be as big disaster as predicated. (He claims the ocean will become "more productive", but also says "...there could be some unexpected and unforeseen surprises. The world has been changing and adapting to major changes since it came out of the last ice age, and the changes caused by fossil fuel will be relatively small.")

Well, I would be inclined to take Dr Anthoni more seriously if he actually had qualifications in a relevant field, and didn't come across as a generic contrarian on most things to do with the greenhouse gas issue.

It seems that, more so than with climate change due to greenhouse, it is extremely hard to find a scientist in the field who doubts the serious ecological consequences of large amounts of CO2 in the oceans.

Here's my concluding thought: at least with global warming, it is possible to argue there will some "upside". Fewer people in colder countries will die during winter, plants may grow faster to supply food, the residents of Greenland are already happier; that kind of thing. And to look at the really big picture, surely the world is better off being quite a few degrees hotter than having much of North American and Europe under hundreds of meters of ice. (That's the scenario of global warming preventing an overdue ice age.)

Ocean acidification on the other hand seems to have no upside at all. (I am discounting the credibility of Floor Anthoni on this.)

The only thing that may seem a vague "positive" is that some research noted in the Ocean Acidification blog seems to indicate that some algae may do better. But (from memory, without having time to Google this right now) algal blooms don't have a good reputation, especially in shallow coastal waters, where their decay sucks the oxygen out of the sea and makes it sterile of larger life. Algal blooms in the deep ocean might have some carbon sink effects, but the reason iron fertilization of the ocean is viewed with much scientific skepticism is due to the uncertainty as to whether the carbon taken in really does make it to the bottom of the sea for any length of time.

Overall, the change of all coral reefs into something with much, much less diverse life, and fewer carbon sinking plankton in the deep ocean, will surely be a bad thing, with food chain and other consequences that indeed sound worrying.

I also haven't even repeated here the point in my original post that past CO2 levels of just under 1,000 ppm (we're well over a third of the way there) were around when some scientists think that anoxic oceans made large amounts of hydrogen sulphide which killed land animals in mass extinctions.

It seems fully deserving of all the attention it can get, and as I said at the start, is of itself a compelling reason to take the need for urgent CO2 reduction very seriously.

Tell me where I am wrong...

UPDATES: I've been fiddling with this post all day, adding stuff mostly.

I actually have found a post by an academic who briefly mentions some reasons for thinking that coral reefs (and some plankton/algae) may be more adaptable to pH change than some fear. But he notes that the lab experiments are (so far) contradictory on the issue. It's not enough to relieve my concerns.

Jennifer Marohasy's blog contains lots of skeptical posts about coral reef danger, although a lot of them are on the issue of warming waters, not acidification.

Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, who Andrew Bolt strongly criticised for exaggerating coral reef danger, has his own blog too. He admits his early predictions were too dire about the speed with which reefs could die, but I think he defends himself pretty well overall. Have a look at this thread in which he debates Peter Ridd.

A clarification: at one point I mention some types of plankton as having a role as carbon sinks, but later I mention the skepticism about whether algae is an efficient carbon sink. I think they are not contradictory statements because plankton and algae come in different varieties, only some of which use carbonate and are likely to be the best at being permanent carbon sinks. If that type doesn't grow so well in acidified oceans, the plankton/algae mix may swing towards the type which is not likely to be good at taking up carbon permanently, even if you do have more of them due to "fertilization" by CO2.

Correct me anyone if you think I have misread that from the articles.

Excuse me while I hold my applause

The announcement that current Queensland Governor Quentin Bryce will be the next Governor General has met almost universal acclaim. (Even Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair remain silent on the question of the merit of her appointment, apart from Bolt thinking it politically savvy.)

However, for a conservative like me, the appointment of a female lawyer with a background in academia, administrative law, human rights and a stint as Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, sets off my automatic cynicism neurons, even before checking what she has been doing lately. And unlike Bill Hayden, who came over all conservative as a result of his appointment, we've seen Quentin in the State equivalent role for some time, and can read her many speeches. It seems a safe bet that she will not be having the same conservative sentiments overcome her anytime soon.

A quick look around the internet gives some indication for at least fellow conservatives to exercise caution before praising her appointment to the high heavens:

1. This story by Courier Mail journo Des Houghton, mentioned briefly in the Australian's editorial, may have been based on the gossip of just one disgruntled Government House employee for all I know. But then again, maybe he/she/they was/were disgruntled for good reason:

....staff are leaving in droves with departures including three chefs, an under butler, a chauffeur, a personal assistant and a second footman.

Staff complain of unnecessary interference by Ms Bryce, who even insisted that gardens be torn up so purple and pink flowers could be planted for International Women's Day.

There has been an exodus of long-serving staff since Ms Bryce, an ardent feminist, was given the plum job in July 2003.

2. Des, who doesn't seem to be a fan, followed up with this story at the end of last year:

GOVERNOR Quentin Bryce, or Queen Bee as she is now known in vice-regal circles, has authorised spending in the order of $150,000 for a history of the Queensland governors.

In an echo of the Peter Beattie appointment of Ross Fitzgerald to write a state history, I'm told no tenders were called. The commission went to historian Peter Forrest and his wife Shirley, also a historian. Longreach-born Forrest has written six books including a history of Bryce's hometown, Ilfracombe. A history of Queensland governors may seem like a cure for insomnia, but Forrest tells me his work will be a "broad-brush history of Queensland through the prism of the governors' lives". The world through Quentin Bryce's eyes? I can't wait.

3. In many, though not all, of her speeches as Governor, she starts by either "acknowledging the traditional owners" of the land, or even in one or two odd cases, merely "gives thanks" to them. I understand it is quite the standard thing for our Premier Anna Bligh to "acknowledge" them. I am not entirely sure what Quentin is "thanking" them for, however. Not fighting too hard last century? Giving her permission to turn up (like Greer claims to seek.)

The habit can be harmless enough, if somewhat grating to conservatives who don't share a romantic view of indigenous culture, at least if there are aboriginals in the audience. But Bryce does tend to gush somewhat if they are the audience:

I give thanks to the indigenous peoples of the land: the Dreaming, the ancestors; the generations who survived and who remain with us.

We are grateful and proud to live beside you...

They always have a warm welcome for me. They share their stories with me. They inspire and teach me how to be an elder.

4. Going back to 1998, Green Left was happy to laud her contribution to a meeting to protest against a private abortion Bill that a conservative ACT local politician (Paul Osborne) was trying to get up to restrict abortion:

Quentin Bryce argued that women's control of their fertility is a basic human right. Osborne's bill violates the UN Declaration of Human Rights and international statutes to which the Australian government is a signatory.

Oh great, the Governor General to be is a lawyer who thinks that you can't succeed in even placing limitations on abortion because of a UN Treaty?

5. The Age reminds us of the nasty little note that tarnished her reputation as Sex Discrimination Commission (I had forgotten this until now; thanks Andrew Jaspan!):

In 1990 Alexander Proudfoot, a doctor with the federal Health Department's Therapeutic Goods Administration, complained to the Human Rights Commission that women's health centres in the ACT operated in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act. Under Freedom of Information, Dr Proudfoot had got a case file from Ms Bryce on which she had written a note, "another example of a male wasting our time with trivia". The 10 words grew into a mountain of legalese as the doctor pursued Ms Bryce through the system.

Finally, after four years and various hearings, the complaint was dismissed with Commissioner Robert Nettlefold, QC, saying her "unfortunate notation" was "an expression of frustration and annoyance".

6. In her recent International Women's Day Address, she makes this dubious point:

Each year, the number of women in our country who are subjected to physical, emotional and sexual assault is almost invisibly growing; while, insidiously, the number of convictions for rape is steadily declining.

Women are both being treated worse, and finding it harder to get a rape allegation believed? I'd like to see the figures and some decent analysis of them before I accept this argument of deteriorating conditions for modern Australian women. (From memory, such claims of increased violence against women usually come from surveys which define abuse very widely.)

And then back to the gush:

I adore International Women’s Day:
• all that it means and offers;
• its secure and valued place on the global stage;
• our local celebrations of its spirit and infinite promise.

Infinite promise, eh? And this:

In our own communities we need to re-engage and collaborate, to think harder about our obligations and connections, as women shaping our own futures.

Above all, we need to require more of ourselves.

Women are often accused of 'wanting it all.’

I think we should want more.

Forget the old orthodoxies.

Be outrageous in your desires, your list of wants:

Quentin forgets to mention this one: women should try and have a career that is almost exclusively in academia or government appointed positions. It tends to help in the "time off to have a family" department.

Having said all that, for all I know she may just be the loveliest, most hard working GG ever, who will charm absolutely everyone. Or not. (She certainly seems to have had a busy diary of speeches as Governor, I'll grant you that.) But excuse me if I see grounds for suspecting that she might not be warmly received by everyone in her future performance as GG.

Where your eyes don't go

There's a They Might be Giants song with the same title as this post which is a tuneful take on the horror of having an unconscious mind that could be getting up to anything. I've always liked this line:

Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders
What the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of

Brain scientists are still pondering this issue of when the conscious mind become aware of decisions the brain has already made, as a Nature News story tells us. (As usual, this will probably disappear soon, so I need to take out large extracts):

Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it, according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while making a decision, the researchers could predict what choice people would make before they themselves were even aware of having made a decision....

Haynes and his colleagues imaged the brains of 14 volunteers while they performed a decision-making task. The volunteers were asked to press one of two buttons when they felt the urge to. Each button was operated by a different hand. At the same time, a stream of letters were presented on a screen at half-second intervals, and the volunteers had to remember which letter was showing when they decided to press their button.

When the researchers analysed the data, the earliest signal the team could pick up started seven seconds before the volunteers reported having made their decision. Because of there is a delay of a few seconds in the imaging, this means that the brain activity could have begun as much as ten seconds before the conscious decision. The signal came from a region called the frontopolar cortex, at the front of the brain, immediately behind the forehead.

If you think you heard about this type of experiment before, you'd be right. It is building on some (now) quite old results of Libet, whose experiment was quite similar in design, as the article explains:

Libet's study has been criticized in the intervening decades for its method of measuring time, and because the brain response might merely have been a general preparation for movement, rather than activity relating to a specific decision.

Haynes and his team improved the method by asking people to choose between two alternatives — left and right. Because moving the left and right hands generates distinct brain signals, the researchers could show that activity genuinely reflected one of the two decisions.

But all is not lost for free will yet:

...the experiment could limit how ‘free’ people’s choices really are, says Chris Frith, who studies consciousness and higher brain function at University College London. Although subjects are free to choose when and which button to press, the experimental set-up restricts them to only these actions and nothing more, he says. “The subjects hand over their freedom to the experimenter when they agree to enter the scanner," he says....

But results aren't enough to convince Frith that free will is an illusion. “We already know our decisions can be unconsciously primed,” he says. The brain activity could be part of this priming, as opposed to the decision process, he adds.

Part of the problem is defining what we mean by ‘free will’.

Personally, I like to look in the mirror every morning and say "stop making decisions without me" ten times while I shave.

Gratuitous political postscript: I hope they never include Brendan Nelson in these tests. No ten seconds for him: I reckon he must surely have about about a 10 hour gap between speaking and recognition of what his stream of consciousness has already come up with.

More money than sense

$5m in will for right-to-die campaign

Who knew that the late (Labor) Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Clem Jones, was worth $150 million? And that he still wanted to be in politics after his death by funding the cause of euthanasia law reform?

This bequest is so stupid, it's verging on the positively offensive. Who on earth thinks that euthanasia has (to date) failed as a political cause because it can't get enough media attention? It gets a huge amount of coverage, most of it written by a profession (journalism) with an undeniably soft-Left tendencies. Whenever it comes up as a media topic, there is a flood of letters tot he editor from euthanasia reform supporters.

Aren't the chances high that the Northern Territory or ACT will have a go at implementing it again, now that we have Labor at Federal level?

Frankly, it's hard to see how the executors are going to find useful ways to spend the money. If I were them I wouldn't touch Philip Nitschke with a barge pole: his inability to rouse himself with too much concern about the merely bored wanting to kill themselves make him his cause's own worst advocate.

Surely it would be better spent on work directly relieving the suffering of the dying who either can't, or don't want to, accept euthanasia as an option. I would have thought that $5 million could fund at least a few palliative care beds indefinitely, or pay for a facility to be built in a place that has none at all at the moment. It would then be used for some direct relief of suffering, rather than helping a movement that the media can't get enough of.