Saudi women unveil opinions online | csmonitor.com
As you might expect, the internet (and blogging) are tightly controlled in Saudi Arabia:
Deeply conservative, Saudi Arabia is among the most restrictive countries in regard to Internet access in the world, with most traffic going through a central hub at KACST in Riyadh. The biggest number of sites blocked are pornographic sites, followed by sites that discuss drugs, religion, and terrorism...
One female blogger (http://www.classic-diva.blogspot.com/) said that she was stopped from using the Internet at home for several months after her conservative brothers grew suspicious about why she was spending so much time online.
"I've been blogging since April 2005. It's a way to vent out my frustrations and to write," said Jo, who asked only that her first name be used. "My family knows that I have a site, but they don't have a concept of what blogging is."
Saudi families care so much about the welfare of their daughters, it's touching. (Sarcastic tone required for that sentence.)
Monday, June 19, 2006
Sunday, June 18, 2006
A lukewarm Pixar
The New Yorker: The Critics: The Current Cinema
I saw Cars today, with kids in tow. (Does that count as a pun?)
Like all Pixar films, it's pretty to look at, although The Incredibles was much better and exciting visually in my opinion.
Overall, it is just a so-so movie. The script is not as funny as most Pixar outings; the characterisation is weaker than it should be; it is a clever concept, but not delivered with much charm.
I agree with most points made by Anthony Lane in his review above. For those interested, I would rank Pixar films roughly as follows:
Excellent: Toy Story, Monsters Inc, The Incredibles, A Bug's Life
Overrated, but not at the bottom of the heap: Finding Nemo
Not very good: Toy Story 2, Cars.
I saw Cars today, with kids in tow. (Does that count as a pun?)
Like all Pixar films, it's pretty to look at, although The Incredibles was much better and exciting visually in my opinion.
Overall, it is just a so-so movie. The script is not as funny as most Pixar outings; the characterisation is weaker than it should be; it is a clever concept, but not delivered with much charm.
I agree with most points made by Anthony Lane in his review above. For those interested, I would rank Pixar films roughly as follows:
Excellent: Toy Story, Monsters Inc, The Incredibles, A Bug's Life
Overrated, but not at the bottom of the heap: Finding Nemo
Not very good: Toy Story 2, Cars.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
An appalling murder
Sister stabbed to death for loving the wrong man - Britain - Times Online
You have to read this to believe it:
A BUSINESSMAN is facing a life sentence for stabbing his sister to death in front of his two young daughters in a so-called honour killing.
Azhar Nazir, 30, and his cousin, 17, used four knives to cut Samaira Nazir’s throat and repeatedly stab her after she fell in love with an asylum-seeker from what they saw as an unsuitable caste.
Miss Nazir, 25, had rejected suitors lined up to meet her in Pakistan and had been summoned to the family home in Southall, Middlesex.
The father, also called Azhar, Nazir and the youth launched the attack and at one point dragged her by her hair back into the property....
Miss Nazir, a businesswoman described as “strong-willed”, was heard to shout at her mother, Irshad Begum: “You are not my mother any more.” She was then held down as a scarf was tied around her neck and her throat was cut in three places. Nazir’s daughters, aged 2 and 4, were screaming and were splattered with blood. Police fear that they were ordered to watch as a warning to them...
The amount of blood on the children suggested that they were only feet from the attack. A neighbour spotted Miss Nazir’s bloodstained arm emerge momentarily from the front door before she was dragged back inside and the door slammed shut.
You have to read this to believe it:
A BUSINESSMAN is facing a life sentence for stabbing his sister to death in front of his two young daughters in a so-called honour killing.
Azhar Nazir, 30, and his cousin, 17, used four knives to cut Samaira Nazir’s throat and repeatedly stab her after she fell in love with an asylum-seeker from what they saw as an unsuitable caste.
Miss Nazir, 25, had rejected suitors lined up to meet her in Pakistan and had been summoned to the family home in Southall, Middlesex.
The father, also called Azhar, Nazir and the youth launched the attack and at one point dragged her by her hair back into the property....
Miss Nazir, a businesswoman described as “strong-willed”, was heard to shout at her mother, Irshad Begum: “You are not my mother any more.” She was then held down as a scarf was tied around her neck and her throat was cut in three places. Nazir’s daughters, aged 2 and 4, were screaming and were splattered with blood. Police fear that they were ordered to watch as a warning to them...
The amount of blood on the children suggested that they were only feet from the attack. A neighbour spotted Miss Nazir’s bloodstained arm emerge momentarily from the front door before she was dragged back inside and the door slammed shut.
Squealing lefty piggies
Half apologies for the heading, but as my readership drops off over the weekend, I may as well ratchet up the rhetoric.
Anyway, in case you haven't noticed, Robert Manne and Mike Carlton both take great umbrage at Keith Windschuttle being appointed to the ABC Board.
Carlton says this:
The naming of the loopy polemicist Keith Windschuttle to the board of the ABC is the most hilarious appointment to public office since the mad Emperor Caligula threatened to make his horse a consul of Rome.
More a case of the Left simply smarting from quite a lot of success Windschuttle has had in his critical review of their academic work. (Windshuttle's work may also not be perfect, but the characterisation of him as "loopy" just doesn't gel with his writings and the media interviews I have seen.)
Laughably, Manne writes this:
Will Windschuttle at least tolerate the expression of views contrary to his own? To judge by his recent writing, he will not. In a recent lecture in New Zealand, Windschuttle launched a standard
neo- conservative attack on the "adversary culture" of the left intelligentsia. In this lecture radical Muslims were characterised as "barbarians outside the walls who want to destroy us", whose sinister work was aided by left-wing intellectuals, representative of "the decadent culture within".
So how would you characterise "radical Muslims", Robert? As fellows who would just like to invite us in for a nice cup of tea and a chat about our differences. And is there any doubt that if a strong "conservative" morality did dominate the West that the radical Islamists would not be quite so perturbed about the "decadent West"?
Oh poor delicate Friends of the ABC; to have one more person on the board who doesn't agree with the Lefty slant of the ABC will just be the biggest crisis.
As I have said before: it is not the job of the government funded national broadcaster to be primarily Left leaning in order to "even up" the right wing leanings of any commercial radio, TV or print network. A government funded national broadcaster should attempt an even handed approach that does indeed give ample opportunity to the Right to present its views without derision.
In fact, over the last couple of years, I have been pleased that in TV political commentary, The Insiders makes a good attempt to even up the left leaning commentary. On Radio National, Michael Duffy's "Counterpoint" is also an admirable attempt to bring a modicum of balance. But these shows are but one hour a week each, when (for examples):
* Phillip Adams gets 4 hours of radio a week (and, I believe, a sizeable production team) to push his agenda every week.
* The other day I heard Bush Telegraph, a Radio National show that is presumably designed to cover issues relevant to rural Australia. Guess what they were covering: gay marriage. They made it "rural" by interviewing a lesbian mother in Atherton in Queensland. The host made it perfectly clear that he agreed with gay marriage as a concept.
* Stephen Crittendon got another run as morning host on Radio National last week. He is completely incapable of hiding his left sympathies, and I always have to grit my teeth when his completely biased questions are asked.
Having said this, I agree with Gerard Henderson in his (5 minute!) segment on Radio National on Friday. Namely, the board won't actually change anything anyway, as it cannot directly affect the management of the ABC. So there is not point in complaining about the politicisation of the Board in any event.
Anyway, in case you haven't noticed, Robert Manne and Mike Carlton both take great umbrage at Keith Windschuttle being appointed to the ABC Board.
Carlton says this:
The naming of the loopy polemicist Keith Windschuttle to the board of the ABC is the most hilarious appointment to public office since the mad Emperor Caligula threatened to make his horse a consul of Rome.
More a case of the Left simply smarting from quite a lot of success Windschuttle has had in his critical review of their academic work. (Windshuttle's work may also not be perfect, but the characterisation of him as "loopy" just doesn't gel with his writings and the media interviews I have seen.)
Laughably, Manne writes this:
Will Windschuttle at least tolerate the expression of views contrary to his own? To judge by his recent writing, he will not. In a recent lecture in New Zealand, Windschuttle launched a standard
neo- conservative attack on the "adversary culture" of the left intelligentsia. In this lecture radical Muslims were characterised as "barbarians outside the walls who want to destroy us", whose sinister work was aided by left-wing intellectuals, representative of "the decadent culture within".
So how would you characterise "radical Muslims", Robert? As fellows who would just like to invite us in for a nice cup of tea and a chat about our differences. And is there any doubt that if a strong "conservative" morality did dominate the West that the radical Islamists would not be quite so perturbed about the "decadent West"?
Oh poor delicate Friends of the ABC; to have one more person on the board who doesn't agree with the Lefty slant of the ABC will just be the biggest crisis.
As I have said before: it is not the job of the government funded national broadcaster to be primarily Left leaning in order to "even up" the right wing leanings of any commercial radio, TV or print network. A government funded national broadcaster should attempt an even handed approach that does indeed give ample opportunity to the Right to present its views without derision.
In fact, over the last couple of years, I have been pleased that in TV political commentary, The Insiders makes a good attempt to even up the left leaning commentary. On Radio National, Michael Duffy's "Counterpoint" is also an admirable attempt to bring a modicum of balance. But these shows are but one hour a week each, when (for examples):
* Phillip Adams gets 4 hours of radio a week (and, I believe, a sizeable production team) to push his agenda every week.
* The other day I heard Bush Telegraph, a Radio National show that is presumably designed to cover issues relevant to rural Australia. Guess what they were covering: gay marriage. They made it "rural" by interviewing a lesbian mother in Atherton in Queensland. The host made it perfectly clear that he agreed with gay marriage as a concept.
* Stephen Crittendon got another run as morning host on Radio National last week. He is completely incapable of hiding his left sympathies, and I always have to grit my teeth when his completely biased questions are asked.
Having said this, I agree with Gerard Henderson in his (5 minute!) segment on Radio National on Friday. Namely, the board won't actually change anything anyway, as it cannot directly affect the management of the ABC. So there is not point in complaining about the politicisation of the Board in any event.
The new lunar lander
Son of Apollo
You might have noticed the Air & Space Smithsonian magazine currently in newstands in Australia has a cover story on the new lunar lander being developed. (I always like the covers, but don't buy the magazine often.) The story is on line (link above.)
You might have noticed the Air & Space Smithsonian magazine currently in newstands in Australia has a cover story on the new lunar lander being developed. (I always like the covers, but don't buy the magazine often.) The story is on line (link above.)
Friday, June 16, 2006
Cat out of the bag
Iran would 'use nuclear defense' if threatened | Jerusalem Post
From the story above:
Iran's defense minister on Thursday vowed that his country would "use nuclear defense as a potential" if "threatened by any power."
Speaking following a meeting with his Syrian counterpart Hassan Ali Turkmani in Teheran on Thursday, Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar emphasized that Iran "should be ready for confronting all kinds of threats."
Teheran has denied accusations by the US and its allies that Iran was seeking uranium enrichment technologies in order to develop nuclear weapons, saying its program was only meant to generate electricity.
From the story above:
Iran's defense minister on Thursday vowed that his country would "use nuclear defense as a potential" if "threatened by any power."
Speaking following a meeting with his Syrian counterpart Hassan Ali Turkmani in Teheran on Thursday, Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar emphasized that Iran "should be ready for confronting all kinds of threats."
Teheran has denied accusations by the US and its allies that Iran was seeking uranium enrichment technologies in order to develop nuclear weapons, saying its program was only meant to generate electricity.
This is Modern Art
Let us pray at the Church of the Missing Head - Comment - Times Online
A funny/serious criticism of what passes for Art in Britain now:
There is no reason why anyone even vaguely familiar with the risible modus operandi of the contemporary art world should be surprised at what happened to David Hensel’s sculpture of a laughing head entitled One Day Closer to Paradise. He submitted it to the academy but, in the course of transit, it got mistakenly separated from its plinth. The empty plinth was judged on its own merit to be worthy of exhibition, while the sculpture itself was rejected.
Sounds hard to believe, but it seems to be serious.
As the article then explains:
When, in 1917, Marcel Duchamp handed down his great commandment that, henceforth, anything can be art, he unwittingly kicked off a new religion. He supplied generations of talentless students (and professors) with a charlatan’s charter. The brainless fanatics of this simple creed are now teaching in every art school in the country. Indeed, we’ve been suffering this intolerant and prescriptive orthodoxy for decades because, under the auspices of the new faith’s high priests at the Tate and the Arts Council, this religion, state-funded needless to say, runs all aspects of contemporary art on our behalf. ....
For those of us who are completely baffled by the decisions of the State Art religion, the Arts Council has recently supplied a handbook called Culture Matters. In its pages we are informed that, to qualify for Arts Council support, art must be “challenging”, because the Arts Council only believes in something called “Challenging Contemporary Art”. It sees its job not as promoting excellence across the whole range of contemporary styles but only in that corner that it deems “challenging”.
A funny/serious criticism of what passes for Art in Britain now:
There is no reason why anyone even vaguely familiar with the risible modus operandi of the contemporary art world should be surprised at what happened to David Hensel’s sculpture of a laughing head entitled One Day Closer to Paradise. He submitted it to the academy but, in the course of transit, it got mistakenly separated from its plinth. The empty plinth was judged on its own merit to be worthy of exhibition, while the sculpture itself was rejected.
Sounds hard to believe, but it seems to be serious.
As the article then explains:
When, in 1917, Marcel Duchamp handed down his great commandment that, henceforth, anything can be art, he unwittingly kicked off a new religion. He supplied generations of talentless students (and professors) with a charlatan’s charter. The brainless fanatics of this simple creed are now teaching in every art school in the country. Indeed, we’ve been suffering this intolerant and prescriptive orthodoxy for decades because, under the auspices of the new faith’s high priests at the Tate and the Arts Council, this religion, state-funded needless to say, runs all aspects of contemporary art on our behalf. ....
For those of us who are completely baffled by the decisions of the State Art religion, the Arts Council has recently supplied a handbook called Culture Matters. In its pages we are informed that, to qualify for Arts Council support, art must be “challenging”, because the Arts Council only believes in something called “Challenging Contemporary Art”. It sees its job not as promoting excellence across the whole range of contemporary styles but only in that corner that it deems “challenging”.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
More on Islam and violence
Islam: A religion of peace?
Found via Little Green Footballs is the article above from a Canadian paper that seems to take a pretty objective look at the question of just how much justification you can find in the Koran (and other Islamic material) for modern day Islamic violence.
It's a good read.
Found via Little Green Footballs is the article above from a Canadian paper that seems to take a pretty objective look at the question of just how much justification you can find in the Koran (and other Islamic material) for modern day Islamic violence.
It's a good read.
The sort of cases family court lawyers have to put up with
My Way News - Mom, Dad in Court Over Son's Circumcision
CHICAGO (AP) - Groups opposed to circumcision are watching the case of an 8-year-old suburban Chicago boy whose divorced parents are fighting in court over whether he should have the procedure.
The child's mother wants him circumcised to prevent recurring, painful inflammation she says he's experienced during the past year. But the father says the boy is healthy and circumcision, which removes the foreskin of the penis, is an unnecessary medical procedure that could cause him long-term physical and psychological harm.
"The child is absolutely healthy," the father said during a break in a court hearing on the matter Wednesday. "I do not want any doctor to butcher my son."
The father has help from a lawyer who is:
...an Atlanta attorney who specializes in circumcision cases.
I wonder if he advertises that in the Yellow Pages.
He [the lawyer] called the surgery "a bizarre American custom."
It is also one which could end recurring bouts of inflammation!
Good grief, if the mother can show the kid was taken to a doctor 5 time over the last year with this problem, what type of idiot father would fight this. (Seemingly, one who is under the sway of the bizarre anti circumcision groups that I have mentioned before in this blog.)
CHICAGO (AP) - Groups opposed to circumcision are watching the case of an 8-year-old suburban Chicago boy whose divorced parents are fighting in court over whether he should have the procedure.
The child's mother wants him circumcised to prevent recurring, painful inflammation she says he's experienced during the past year. But the father says the boy is healthy and circumcision, which removes the foreskin of the penis, is an unnecessary medical procedure that could cause him long-term physical and psychological harm.
"The child is absolutely healthy," the father said during a break in a court hearing on the matter Wednesday. "I do not want any doctor to butcher my son."
The father has help from a lawyer who is:
...an Atlanta attorney who specializes in circumcision cases.
I wonder if he advertises that in the Yellow Pages.
He [the lawyer] called the surgery "a bizarre American custom."
It is also one which could end recurring bouts of inflammation!
Good grief, if the mother can show the kid was taken to a doctor 5 time over the last year with this problem, what type of idiot father would fight this. (Seemingly, one who is under the sway of the bizarre anti circumcision groups that I have mentioned before in this blog.)
On having children
Why childless people hate me. By Emily Yoffe
This is a good, personal article about what happens when advice columnist Yoffe dares to suggest to a woman that she might want to re-think a decision to be childless.
This is a good, personal article about what happens when advice columnist Yoffe dares to suggest to a woman that she might want to re-think a decision to be childless.
Did they blow themselves up?
Shrapnel from beach blast not ours: Israel | The World | The Australian
This is a fascinating turn of events. One would hope that shrapnel evidence, examined by more international experts, would answer this definitively one way or the other.
On the whole issue of what goes on in Gaza, I must say that I find the Palestinian attitude non-sensical. The militants who spend all their time building and firing home made rockets into Israel don't seem to kill anyone very often. (That's not to suggest that the Israelis should ignore it. I can't imagine what it is like to live with the threat of a random missile coming through your roof at any time.)
But given that the Palestinians are so clearly outgunned by the Israeli response, which is targeted but inevitably kills civilian bystanders from time to time, why do they insist on continuing with the homemade missile campaign?
What is the Palestinian public opinion on this? Do they demand their authority take police action to stop the missile campaign that invokes the much more damaging response?
Do they all think that random acts of violence against Israel are worth it no matter what the consequences?
UPDATE: Possible progress in stopping the rockets reported today in the Jerusalem Post. What did it take? Just a threat of retaliation against the Hamas leadership directly.
UPDATE 2: just found this article in the CSM about the number of rockets that have been lobbed into Israel:
Less than a mile from Gaza, Sderot residents can easily make out the bucolic fields and houses of Beit Hanoun, the Palestinian village used by rocket launchers as cover. Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal told reporters that since April 2001, some 3,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza into southern Israel, most of them at Sderot, killing five residents. The attacks have ravaged the Sderot's economy - and even started a small exodus. More would leave if they could afford it.
In recent months, the town has been averaging 80 rockets a month, an uptick from before the disengagement.
This is a fascinating turn of events. One would hope that shrapnel evidence, examined by more international experts, would answer this definitively one way or the other.
On the whole issue of what goes on in Gaza, I must say that I find the Palestinian attitude non-sensical. The militants who spend all their time building and firing home made rockets into Israel don't seem to kill anyone very often. (That's not to suggest that the Israelis should ignore it. I can't imagine what it is like to live with the threat of a random missile coming through your roof at any time.)
But given that the Palestinians are so clearly outgunned by the Israeli response, which is targeted but inevitably kills civilian bystanders from time to time, why do they insist on continuing with the homemade missile campaign?
What is the Palestinian public opinion on this? Do they demand their authority take police action to stop the missile campaign that invokes the much more damaging response?
Do they all think that random acts of violence against Israel are worth it no matter what the consequences?
UPDATE: Possible progress in stopping the rockets reported today in the Jerusalem Post. What did it take? Just a threat of retaliation against the Hamas leadership directly.
UPDATE 2: just found this article in the CSM about the number of rockets that have been lobbed into Israel:
Less than a mile from Gaza, Sderot residents can easily make out the bucolic fields and houses of Beit Hanoun, the Palestinian village used by rocket launchers as cover. Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal told reporters that since April 2001, some 3,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza into southern Israel, most of them at Sderot, killing five residents. The attacks have ravaged the Sderot's economy - and even started a small exodus. More would leave if they could afford it.
In recent months, the town has been averaging 80 rockets a month, an uptick from before the disengagement.
Why Japan wants whales
Masako Fukui: Pro-whalers' stand hard to swallow | Opinion | The Australian
The above article appears to answer the puzzling question about why the Japanese government insists on having commercial whaling when all the evidence suggests that the Japanese public just doesn't care:
The problem is that although whales are mammals, Japan defines whaling as a fisheries issue. The kanji character for whale is a combination of two parts, the first being the sign for fish. Nearly all kanji characters for fish names, from snapper to kingfish, are of the same two-part design. So it's no surprise that Japan's diplomatic charge at the IWC is led by the Fisheries Agency, a rather stuffy and conservative government department compared with the more elitist and outward-looking Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Fisheries Agency officials fear that if Japan backs down on whaling, it will also have to back down on other fisheries issues, such as tuna and salmon. That may sound like rampant paranoia, but history tells another story.
In 1982, when the IWC voted for the moratorium on commercial whaling, the US pressured Japan not to lodge a formal objection to the ban. Under article 5 (3) of the convention, any member state can opt out of binding resolutions simply by lodging a formal objection within 90 days. In return for compliance, the US granted Japan continued access to fish in US waters. But that was later revoked, mainly as a result of domestic pressures within the US, teaching the boys at the Fisheries Agency a valuable lesson: compromising is a bad idea.
Sounds a plausibe explanation to me.
The above article appears to answer the puzzling question about why the Japanese government insists on having commercial whaling when all the evidence suggests that the Japanese public just doesn't care:
The problem is that although whales are mammals, Japan defines whaling as a fisheries issue. The kanji character for whale is a combination of two parts, the first being the sign for fish. Nearly all kanji characters for fish names, from snapper to kingfish, are of the same two-part design. So it's no surprise that Japan's diplomatic charge at the IWC is led by the Fisheries Agency, a rather stuffy and conservative government department compared with the more elitist and outward-looking Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Fisheries Agency officials fear that if Japan backs down on whaling, it will also have to back down on other fisheries issues, such as tuna and salmon. That may sound like rampant paranoia, but history tells another story.
In 1982, when the IWC voted for the moratorium on commercial whaling, the US pressured Japan not to lodge a formal objection to the ban. Under article 5 (3) of the convention, any member state can opt out of binding resolutions simply by lodging a formal objection within 90 days. In return for compliance, the US granted Japan continued access to fish in US waters. But that was later revoked, mainly as a result of domestic pressures within the US, teaching the boys at the Fisheries Agency a valuable lesson: compromising is a bad idea.
Sounds a plausibe explanation to me.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Let's invade Turkey
Turkey's anti-American pop culture. By Richard Morgan
Well, seems they are expecting it anyway. From the above
Slate article:
All last year Turkish bookstores were hard-pressed to keep the best-selling novel Metal Storm on shelves. The novel, written like one of Tom Clancy's international potboilers, depicts a U.S. invasion of Turkey in March 2007. Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld are characters, although the U.S. president is a nameless, nap-loving warmonger who defers most of his decision-making to fellow members of Skull and Bones. In the book, whose title is America's name for its invasion, the U.S. military swiftly bombs then overtakes Ankara and Istanbul (the U.S. president, who is also deeply evangelical, aims to restore Istanbul to its Christian Byzantine glory). ...
The Americans' motive is Uncle Sam's lust for the country's rich borax supply (Turkey is home to 60 percent of the world's borax, a mineral used in weapons, radiation shields, and space technology). In the second phase of its invasion, Operation Sèvres (named after the World War I treaty in which the West gutted the Ottoman Empire), the United States creates a Kurdish state and lets longtime Turkish enemies Greece and Armenia ravage what's left of the country. A lone Turkish secret agent counters by stealing a nuclear weapon and vaporizing Washington.
And this is popular in a friendly, more or less Westernised, Islamic country. I wonder what the plots are in the best selling novels in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
(By the way, I didn't know that bit about Turkey and borax.)
Well, seems they are expecting it anyway. From the above
Slate article:
All last year Turkish bookstores were hard-pressed to keep the best-selling novel Metal Storm on shelves. The novel, written like one of Tom Clancy's international potboilers, depicts a U.S. invasion of Turkey in March 2007. Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld are characters, although the U.S. president is a nameless, nap-loving warmonger who defers most of his decision-making to fellow members of Skull and Bones. In the book, whose title is America's name for its invasion, the U.S. military swiftly bombs then overtakes Ankara and Istanbul (the U.S. president, who is also deeply evangelical, aims to restore Istanbul to its Christian Byzantine glory). ...
The Americans' motive is Uncle Sam's lust for the country's rich borax supply (Turkey is home to 60 percent of the world's borax, a mineral used in weapons, radiation shields, and space technology). In the second phase of its invasion, Operation Sèvres (named after the World War I treaty in which the West gutted the Ottoman Empire), the United States creates a Kurdish state and lets longtime Turkish enemies Greece and Armenia ravage what's left of the country. A lone Turkish secret agent counters by stealing a nuclear weapon and vaporizing Washington.
And this is popular in a friendly, more or less Westernised, Islamic country. I wonder what the plots are in the best selling novels in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
(By the way, I didn't know that bit about Turkey and borax.)
Useless research update
Press Release - 13 June 2006 University of Bath
“Understanding how children perceive celebrities like David Beckham and the other brands they encounter will help us to formulate better policies on responsible marketing to children,” said Dr Agnes Nairn from the University of Bath’s School of Management.
“We asked the children to tell us about the things they were most into, and were surprised to find that even amongst 7-11 year olds the most intense discussions were about celebrities.
“This says a lot about our celebrity-obsessed society and supports the idea that celebrities like Beckham have become branded commodities that are available for consumption.
“More importantly, though, is the role that Beckham plays as a complex cultural figure used by children to discuss moral values and understand ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
“This realisation could help teachers create engaging materials for PHSE classes. For example, ‘Let’s discuss right and wrong today’ may not be very appealing to children but, ‘What do you think about Beckham being sent off?’ would not only be guaranteed to get their attention, but would also stimulate important debates.”
“Understanding how children perceive celebrities like David Beckham and the other brands they encounter will help us to formulate better policies on responsible marketing to children,” said Dr Agnes Nairn from the University of Bath’s School of Management.
“We asked the children to tell us about the things they were most into, and were surprised to find that even amongst 7-11 year olds the most intense discussions were about celebrities.
“This says a lot about our celebrity-obsessed society and supports the idea that celebrities like Beckham have become branded commodities that are available for consumption.
“More importantly, though, is the role that Beckham plays as a complex cultural figure used by children to discuss moral values and understand ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
“This realisation could help teachers create engaging materials for PHSE classes. For example, ‘Let’s discuss right and wrong today’ may not be very appealing to children but, ‘What do you think about Beckham being sent off?’ would not only be guaranteed to get their attention, but would also stimulate important debates.”
Fake houses
Boing Boing: Electrical substations disguised as houses
This is a peculiar item on Boing Boing, about Canadian public utilities building fake house exteriors in the 50's and 60's to hide electrical substations.
Neat idea.
I often wonder why, at least in Brisbane, Telestra exchanges are often built like brick fortresses with hardly any windows. Wouldn't a little more natural light cut down the electrical costs a bit, as well making the building look better from the outside? Or is there some specific reason you don't want windows in a telephone exchange?
This is a peculiar item on Boing Boing, about Canadian public utilities building fake house exteriors in the 50's and 60's to hide electrical substations.
Neat idea.
I often wonder why, at least in Brisbane, Telestra exchanges are often built like brick fortresses with hardly any windows. Wouldn't a little more natural light cut down the electrical costs a bit, as well making the building look better from the outside? Or is there some specific reason you don't want windows in a telephone exchange?
What can I say?
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Bugs in Japan
Japundit � Duck Season . . . Rabbit Season . . . BUG SEASON!
See the link above for a short discourse on the rather odd Japanese kids obsession with Rhino Beetles. I contributed comment number 8, by the way.
See the link above for a short discourse on the rather odd Japanese kids obsession with Rhino Beetles. I contributed comment number 8, by the way.
The open letter
Janet Albrechtsen in today's Australian rips into John Howard for backing down on the sale of the Snowy River scheme. Personally, I don't see it as an issue worth getting too worked up about either way.
Still, her column does have this paragraph which I can agree with:
But perhaps most irritating is the fact that Howard's backflip only encourages our collective letter writers to keep on writing. The apparent victory by the 57 assorted luvvies, political has-beens and political never-beens will make them think their sentimental jottings have policy substance. These letters are blots on the political landscape that invariably feature artistes trying to prove they can do more than memorise scripts by signing up to something drafted by retirees suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.
One hopes that their saccharine superficiality has been carried prominently by newspapers such as The Australian as a cute reminder that collectivists are now reduced to the pathetic business of writing collective letters. But after Howard's surrender last week, they received a fillip.
Yes, this "open letter" tactic has irritated for a long time. Firstly, how many people actually read them (or, more importantly, people who have not yet made up their mind about an issue.) Do they think that people care what actors and former diplomats and such like think about economic and other issues? I guess some people might if the actor has some particularly high public profile for, I don't know, niceness and the common touch. But once they are highly successful, people surely just see them as rich and idle enough to dabble in politics. And even if one of them could influence the public, joining in the collective letter dilutes their own input.
No, it always seems to be mostly about posturing from a political side that everyone already knows is nearly ubiquitous in the arts world. (And in the world of retired diplomats, too.)
Still, her column does have this paragraph which I can agree with:
But perhaps most irritating is the fact that Howard's backflip only encourages our collective letter writers to keep on writing. The apparent victory by the 57 assorted luvvies, political has-beens and political never-beens will make them think their sentimental jottings have policy substance. These letters are blots on the political landscape that invariably feature artistes trying to prove they can do more than memorise scripts by signing up to something drafted by retirees suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.
One hopes that their saccharine superficiality has been carried prominently by newspapers such as The Australian as a cute reminder that collectivists are now reduced to the pathetic business of writing collective letters. But after Howard's surrender last week, they received a fillip.
Yes, this "open letter" tactic has irritated for a long time. Firstly, how many people actually read them (or, more importantly, people who have not yet made up their mind about an issue.) Do they think that people care what actors and former diplomats and such like think about economic and other issues? I guess some people might if the actor has some particularly high public profile for, I don't know, niceness and the common touch. But once they are highly successful, people surely just see them as rich and idle enough to dabble in politics. And even if one of them could influence the public, joining in the collective letter dilutes their own input.
No, it always seems to be mostly about posturing from a political side that everyone already knows is nearly ubiquitous in the arts world. (And in the world of retired diplomats, too.)
Sad story
The Age has been following the very sad story about a Victorian hospital causing severe brain damage in a baby through a simple mistake. The reports are here and here.
The one month baby was taken to hospital with persistent vomiting. Then:
...two days later he was diagnosed with pyloric stenosis — a condition that blocks the flow of food into the small intestine — and was booked in for surgery.
About 1am on September 19, consultant surgeon Paddy Dewan assessed the baby, conducted a tutorial on the condition for Dr Foo and recommended intravenous fluids to treat dehydration. At this point the boy's treatment went tragically wrong. Instead of a solution containing 5 per cent glucose, he was given a concentration of 50 per cent glucose, which led to his severe brain damage.
Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo, who had responsibility for prescribing and recording the fluids, maintains the solution was specified by Professor Dewan but another doctor present at the time rejects the claim.
Nurses caring for the baby raised concerns about the solution, which was described as unusual, but were reassured by Dr Foo that it was correct. Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo might not have understood their concerns.
In todays paper, it is reported that Professor Dewar:
...said he ordered a solution of 5 per cent dextrose, or glucose, which was to be made up using the hospital's supply of a 50 per cent concentrate.
An alleged transcription error by resident doctor Lea Lee Foo meant the baby was given a 50 per cent solution, causing massive brain damage. Dr Shobha Iyer and Dr David Tickell allegedly failed to check the fluids or adequately examine the baby later in the day.
Professor Dewan said it was unbelievable that the error was not picked up by any of the staff, and a culture where junior staff were not encouraged to question orders was partly to blame.
A few things to note here: the nursing staff questioned the solution, which I am guessing must be very unusual for a baby. (Your comments reader Geoff?) The parents tried to warn the doctors that the baby was getting worse, but the other doctors missed the problem with the solution too.
All very sad. For me, the lesson seems to be to question hospital staff a lot, to the point of being a real pest, if things seem to be going badly.
The one month baby was taken to hospital with persistent vomiting. Then:
...two days later he was diagnosed with pyloric stenosis — a condition that blocks the flow of food into the small intestine — and was booked in for surgery.
About 1am on September 19, consultant surgeon Paddy Dewan assessed the baby, conducted a tutorial on the condition for Dr Foo and recommended intravenous fluids to treat dehydration. At this point the boy's treatment went tragically wrong. Instead of a solution containing 5 per cent glucose, he was given a concentration of 50 per cent glucose, which led to his severe brain damage.
Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo, who had responsibility for prescribing and recording the fluids, maintains the solution was specified by Professor Dewan but another doctor present at the time rejects the claim.
Nurses caring for the baby raised concerns about the solution, which was described as unusual, but were reassured by Dr Foo that it was correct. Ms Young told the board that Dr Foo might not have understood their concerns.
In todays paper, it is reported that Professor Dewar:
...said he ordered a solution of 5 per cent dextrose, or glucose, which was to be made up using the hospital's supply of a 50 per cent concentrate.
An alleged transcription error by resident doctor Lea Lee Foo meant the baby was given a 50 per cent solution, causing massive brain damage. Dr Shobha Iyer and Dr David Tickell allegedly failed to check the fluids or adequately examine the baby later in the day.
Professor Dewan said it was unbelievable that the error was not picked up by any of the staff, and a culture where junior staff were not encouraged to question orders was partly to blame.
A few things to note here: the nursing staff questioned the solution, which I am guessing must be very unusual for a baby. (Your comments reader Geoff?) The parents tried to warn the doctors that the baby was getting worse, but the other doctors missed the problem with the solution too.
All very sad. For me, the lesson seems to be to question hospital staff a lot, to the point of being a real pest, if things seem to be going badly.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
A whole new world of stupidity
New Scientist News - Abuse of prescription drugs fuelled by online recipes
It seems that abuse of prescription drugs is a big issue in the States (and no doubt it happens here too.) The internet allows users to quickly pass on information on how to abuse the drugs:
For instance, some sites suggest ways of tampering with skin patches designed to slowly release the opioid painkiller fentanyl. Users sometimes extract the drug from a patch to eat, inject or smoke. Yet a single patch can contain enough fentanyl to kill several people, according to toxicologist Bruce Goldberger from the University of Florida in Gainesville. "It's like Russian roulette - you just don't know how much drug you're going to get," he says....
Surveys by the US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) suggest the number of emergency hospital visits involving oxycodone misuse increased about 10-fold between 1996 and 2004. Estimates suggest that in 2004 there were more than 36,000 admissions involving misuse of the drug, now nicknamed "hillbilly heroin".
Drug companies have to go out of their way to make the medicine harder to abuse:
The good news is that some barriers to tampering seem to be genuinely effective. Disgruntled recreational users report online that one methylphenidate drug called Concerta, a stimulant used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is very difficult to crush and snort. One user's verdict reads: "No effects to very minimal with an irritated nose full of chunks."
While we are talking about abuse of things intended for other puproses, here's my semi-obscure piece of drug lore (found in some time ago in a Fortean Times article). If you eat enough nutmeg, you'll trip out.
Actually, this site claims its effects were relatively well known, with its users including Charlie Parker and Malcolm X (!)
This interested me particularly, as I recalled an old Carl Barks Uncle Scrooge comic that I read as a child about Uncle Scrooge's addiction to nutmeg tea. (It didn't make him trip out, though.) I remembered asking my father if he knew about nutmeg tea; he just laughed.
You can see some extracts of this comic here and here.
I presume that the hallucinogenic effects were unknown to Carl Barks. Why he would chose nutmeg tea is something of a mystery, though. (I am sure I read someone on the internet who suggested that maybe it meant that all of Uncle Scrooge's riches were just a hallucination caused by his drug habit.)
Of course, it goes without saying that I am against all forms of drug induced mood alteration, except for alcohol in moderation. My readership is so small that I think I can safely assume I am not spreading harmful ideas too widely.
It seems that abuse of prescription drugs is a big issue in the States (and no doubt it happens here too.) The internet allows users to quickly pass on information on how to abuse the drugs:
For instance, some sites suggest ways of tampering with skin patches designed to slowly release the opioid painkiller fentanyl. Users sometimes extract the drug from a patch to eat, inject or smoke. Yet a single patch can contain enough fentanyl to kill several people, according to toxicologist Bruce Goldberger from the University of Florida in Gainesville. "It's like Russian roulette - you just don't know how much drug you're going to get," he says....
Surveys by the US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) suggest the number of emergency hospital visits involving oxycodone misuse increased about 10-fold between 1996 and 2004. Estimates suggest that in 2004 there were more than 36,000 admissions involving misuse of the drug, now nicknamed "hillbilly heroin".
Drug companies have to go out of their way to make the medicine harder to abuse:
The good news is that some barriers to tampering seem to be genuinely effective. Disgruntled recreational users report online that one methylphenidate drug called Concerta, a stimulant used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is very difficult to crush and snort. One user's verdict reads: "No effects to very minimal with an irritated nose full of chunks."
While we are talking about abuse of things intended for other puproses, here's my semi-obscure piece of drug lore (found in some time ago in a Fortean Times article). If you eat enough nutmeg, you'll trip out.
Actually, this site claims its effects were relatively well known, with its users including Charlie Parker and Malcolm X (!)
This interested me particularly, as I recalled an old Carl Barks Uncle Scrooge comic that I read as a child about Uncle Scrooge's addiction to nutmeg tea. (It didn't make him trip out, though.) I remembered asking my father if he knew about nutmeg tea; he just laughed.
You can see some extracts of this comic here and here.
I presume that the hallucinogenic effects were unknown to Carl Barks. Why he would chose nutmeg tea is something of a mystery, though. (I am sure I read someone on the internet who suggested that maybe it meant that all of Uncle Scrooge's riches were just a hallucination caused by his drug habit.)
Of course, it goes without saying that I am against all forms of drug induced mood alteration, except for alcohol in moderation. My readership is so small that I think I can safely assume I am not spreading harmful ideas too widely.
A reminder of the Saddam regime
Graves reveal clues to Saddam brutality - World - theage.com.au
From the above article:
"There are 200 sites registered with the Ministry of Human Rights. Witnesses led us to these sites," said chief investigating judge Raed al-Juhi of the Iraqi High Tribunal.
"These witnesses stated that some vehicles had taken people on the highway to somewhere and brought back no one. Our formal documents refer to over 100,000 victims (from 1991)," Judge Juhi said. "The unofficial information we have, that is not documented until now, refers to more than 180,000 victims."
From the above article:
"There are 200 sites registered with the Ministry of Human Rights. Witnesses led us to these sites," said chief investigating judge Raed al-Juhi of the Iraqi High Tribunal.
"These witnesses stated that some vehicles had taken people on the highway to somewhere and brought back no one. Our formal documents refer to over 100,000 victims (from 1991)," Judge Juhi said. "The unofficial information we have, that is not documented until now, refers to more than 180,000 victims."
On the nature of Islam
Good old Archbishop George Pell. The Sydney Morning Herald today calls him "the country's most influential catholic", which is surely a bit of an overstatement. He is far too much of a straight talking conservative for that. I also suspect that a small majority of Catholics here (and in most western countries) are of the soft left variety now.
Anyway, he is quoted in the SMH today as saying:
Australia had not been much changed by the rising Islamic threat after September 11, 2001, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, said. But this could change depending "on how many terrorist attacks" Islamic extremists could "bring off successfully". "The million-dollar question" was whether intolerance was a modern distortion of Islam or arose out of internal logic. "It's difficult to find periods of tolerance in Islam. I'm not saying they're not there, but a good deal of what is asserted is mythical."
He obviously is not in the Karen Armstrong camp. She gave an interview in Salon recently and had this to say about the Koran and violence:
[Interviewer]: Sam Harris, in his book "The End of Faith," has seven very densely packed pages of nothing but quotations from the Quran with just this message. "God's curse be upon the infidels"; "slay them wherever you find them"; "fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." And Sam Harris' point is that the Muslim suicide bombings are not the aberration of Islam. They are the message of Islam.
[Armstrong]: Well, that's simply not true. He's taken parts of those texts and omitted their conclusions, which say fighting is hateful for you. You have to do it if you're attacked, as Mohammed was being attacked at the time when that verse was revealed. But forgiveness is better for you. Peace is better. But when we're living in a violent society, our religion becomes violent, too. Religion gets sucked in and becomes part of the problem. But to isolate these texts as though they expressed the whole of the tradition is very mischievous and dangerous at this time when we are in danger of polarizing people on both sides. And this kind of inflammatory talk, say about Islam, is convincing Muslims all over the world who are not extremists that the West is incurably Islamophobic and will never respect their traditions. I think it's irresponsible at this time.
[Interviewer]: But many people would say you can't just pick out the peaceful and loving passages of the sacred scriptures. There are plenty of other passages that are frightening.
[Armstrong]: I would say there are more passages in the Bible than the Quran that are dedicated to violence. I think what all religious people ought to do is to look at their own sacred traditions. Not just point a finger at somebody else's, but our own. Christians should look long and hard at the Book of Revelation. And they should look at those passages in the Pentateuch that speak of the destruction of the enemy.
I think Armstrong is being rather disingenuous here though; it seems she is pretending for a moment that the New Testament, which after all is the modern basis of Christianity, doesn't represent a dramatic change in the view of violence from that contained in parts of the Old Testament. (The Book of Revelation is in its own weird category of its own, and there was considerable disagreement centuries ago over whether it should be included in the Bible at all. Anyway, it's not as if Catholicism in my lifetime has ever paid it much attention. I suppose American fundamentalism pays it more attention, and this form of Christianity is what seems to annoy Armstrong the most.)
As for the correct reading of the Koran, here I am somewhat at a loss to have an independent opinion. The practical problem is, from my cursory look at the book, it seems unreadable as narrative. (I have the same reaction to the Book of Mormon. It seems to come with the territory when the book is claimed to be a direct and unalterable dictation from God. He needs an editor badly.) The Wikipedia entry on the Koran goes some way to explaining why it is so unreadable.
So what does a conservative like me do? Side with the conservative Archbishop, of course! Put it this way: I suspect he may be closer to the truth and that Armstrong, in her project to rehabilitate all religions into one (read the rest of her interview), probably sides with the softer interpretions of Islamic history because it suits her ideas better.
Anyway, he is quoted in the SMH today as saying:
Australia had not been much changed by the rising Islamic threat after September 11, 2001, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, said. But this could change depending "on how many terrorist attacks" Islamic extremists could "bring off successfully". "The million-dollar question" was whether intolerance was a modern distortion of Islam or arose out of internal logic. "It's difficult to find periods of tolerance in Islam. I'm not saying they're not there, but a good deal of what is asserted is mythical."
He obviously is not in the Karen Armstrong camp. She gave an interview in Salon recently and had this to say about the Koran and violence:
[Interviewer]: Sam Harris, in his book "The End of Faith," has seven very densely packed pages of nothing but quotations from the Quran with just this message. "God's curse be upon the infidels"; "slay them wherever you find them"; "fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." And Sam Harris' point is that the Muslim suicide bombings are not the aberration of Islam. They are the message of Islam.
[Armstrong]: Well, that's simply not true. He's taken parts of those texts and omitted their conclusions, which say fighting is hateful for you. You have to do it if you're attacked, as Mohammed was being attacked at the time when that verse was revealed. But forgiveness is better for you. Peace is better. But when we're living in a violent society, our religion becomes violent, too. Religion gets sucked in and becomes part of the problem. But to isolate these texts as though they expressed the whole of the tradition is very mischievous and dangerous at this time when we are in danger of polarizing people on both sides. And this kind of inflammatory talk, say about Islam, is convincing Muslims all over the world who are not extremists that the West is incurably Islamophobic and will never respect their traditions. I think it's irresponsible at this time.
[Interviewer]: But many people would say you can't just pick out the peaceful and loving passages of the sacred scriptures. There are plenty of other passages that are frightening.
[Armstrong]: I would say there are more passages in the Bible than the Quran that are dedicated to violence. I think what all religious people ought to do is to look at their own sacred traditions. Not just point a finger at somebody else's, but our own. Christians should look long and hard at the Book of Revelation. And they should look at those passages in the Pentateuch that speak of the destruction of the enemy.
I think Armstrong is being rather disingenuous here though; it seems she is pretending for a moment that the New Testament, which after all is the modern basis of Christianity, doesn't represent a dramatic change in the view of violence from that contained in parts of the Old Testament. (The Book of Revelation is in its own weird category of its own, and there was considerable disagreement centuries ago over whether it should be included in the Bible at all. Anyway, it's not as if Catholicism in my lifetime has ever paid it much attention. I suppose American fundamentalism pays it more attention, and this form of Christianity is what seems to annoy Armstrong the most.)
As for the correct reading of the Koran, here I am somewhat at a loss to have an independent opinion. The practical problem is, from my cursory look at the book, it seems unreadable as narrative. (I have the same reaction to the Book of Mormon. It seems to come with the territory when the book is claimed to be a direct and unalterable dictation from God. He needs an editor badly.) The Wikipedia entry on the Koran goes some way to explaining why it is so unreadable.
So what does a conservative like me do? Side with the conservative Archbishop, of course! Put it this way: I suspect he may be closer to the truth and that Armstrong, in her project to rehabilitate all religions into one (read the rest of her interview), probably sides with the softer interpretions of Islamic history because it suits her ideas better.
Monday, June 05, 2006
More on safer nuclear
Nuclear power | The shape of things to come | Economist.com
The article is a short but interesting summary of safer nuclear reactor designs in the works. (The Pebble Bed design I have blogged about before also gets a brief mention.)
The article is a short but interesting summary of safer nuclear reactor designs in the works. (The Pebble Bed design I have blogged about before also gets a brief mention.)
How low can you go?
Scotland on Sunday - Family entertainment?
I have not commented on this year's Big Brother. However, the brainiacs at Larvatus Prodeo obviously devote some time to following it. (This is one program about which being a cultural snob is well deserved!)
From what I gather, this year's Australian version is perhaps not quite as grubby as last year's. (I could be wrong.) But if you want to see how low this type of show can go, have a look at the above report on the current UK version:
With debate raging about how low television standards can go, most vitriol at present is focused on Channel 4's Big Brother, a competitive popularity contest which bizarrely forces extreme personalities to fight for a £70,000 prize by being themselves.
After on-screen sex last year, series seven has plumbed new depths with its selection of candidates including a Scottish homosexual with suicidal tendencies, a teenage boy who wants to be a girl and a Tourette Syndrome sufferer. Even hardened media watchers are astonished.
Brian McNair, professor of communication at the University of Strathclyde, said: "You really have to question what that show is doing this year. The contestants are getting younger and younger and at least one of them showed signs of having mental health issues."
I wait for similar developments here next year. (I assume it will be back. I remain perplexed at the MSM coverage this show gets.)
I have not commented on this year's Big Brother. However, the brainiacs at Larvatus Prodeo obviously devote some time to following it. (This is one program about which being a cultural snob is well deserved!)
From what I gather, this year's Australian version is perhaps not quite as grubby as last year's. (I could be wrong.) But if you want to see how low this type of show can go, have a look at the above report on the current UK version:
With debate raging about how low television standards can go, most vitriol at present is focused on Channel 4's Big Brother, a competitive popularity contest which bizarrely forces extreme personalities to fight for a £70,000 prize by being themselves.
After on-screen sex last year, series seven has plumbed new depths with its selection of candidates including a Scottish homosexual with suicidal tendencies, a teenage boy who wants to be a girl and a Tourette Syndrome sufferer. Even hardened media watchers are astonished.
Brian McNair, professor of communication at the University of Strathclyde, said: "You really have to question what that show is doing this year. The contestants are getting younger and younger and at least one of them showed signs of having mental health issues."
I wait for similar developments here next year. (I assume it will be back. I remain perplexed at the MSM coverage this show gets.)
Anti spam help
Jetable.org - Home
This sounds like a very good idea:
To avoid spam, jetable.org provides you with a temporary email address. As soon as it is created, all the emails sent to this address are forwarded to your actual email address.
Your antispam address will be deactivated after the lifespan you selected comes to its end.
Found via Red Ferret Journal, which I must add to my links one day.
This sounds like a very good idea:
To avoid spam, jetable.org provides you with a temporary email address. As soon as it is created, all the emails sent to this address are forwarded to your actual email address.
Your antispam address will be deactivated after the lifespan you selected comes to its end.
Found via Red Ferret Journal, which I must add to my links one day.
Pat O'Shane's turn
Again, the law shoots and misses - Opinion - smh.com.au
Paul Sheehan's article is worth reading. Controversial New South Wales magistrate Pat O'Shane is its main subject.
Another case of a legal figure getting a mysteriously charmed run in that State.
Paul Sheehan's article is worth reading. Controversial New South Wales magistrate Pat O'Shane is its main subject.
Another case of a legal figure getting a mysteriously charmed run in that State.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Caz rips into romanticised heroin
A very interesting post over at Avatar Briefs about the arts' infatuation with heroin addiction.
The extracts from Dalrymple are also fascinating.
By the way, what has happened to Major Anya? Has her blog permanently disappeared?
The extracts from Dalrymple are also fascinating.
By the way, what has happened to Major Anya? Has her blog permanently disappeared?
Fennel with parmesan
Maybe most of the sophisticated epicurean world knows about roast fennel and parmesan, but I only cooked this dish for the first time this weekend. Fennel is a vegetable that (I think it is fair to say) had little attention paid to it in Australia until the 1990's. I have used it in other recipes, but never got around to cooking it alone as a side vegetable.
Anyway, the recipe I followed was dead easy: vertically slice up a big bulb into about 8 thin pieces, fry them for a few minutes in 2 tablespoons each of butter and olive oil (with salt and pepper), shove in oven to bake for 25 minutes, sprinkle about 1/2 cup of grated parmesan on top and put back in oven for 5 minutes to melt the cheese. Very pleasing. Even Mrs Opinion Dominon likes it despite her claim to not be a fan of aniseed flavour generally.
Anyway, the recipe I followed was dead easy: vertically slice up a big bulb into about 8 thin pieces, fry them for a few minutes in 2 tablespoons each of butter and olive oil (with salt and pepper), shove in oven to bake for 25 minutes, sprinkle about 1/2 cup of grated parmesan on top and put back in oven for 5 minutes to melt the cheese. Very pleasing. Even Mrs Opinion Dominon likes it despite her claim to not be a fan of aniseed flavour generally.
On religion in Europe
I found this article in last Friday's Australian (about how religion and politics in Europe have changed in the last couple of centuries) to be interesting, but overly brief. (Actually, it reads as a heavily edited down version of a longer article or talk.) Here's a sample:
Rather than Europe becoming more secular in the past 200 years, I suspect the religious instinct has simply metabolised into other forms. This was most obvious in the case of the political religions. These began with the radical Jacobins during the French Revolution, who made the first attempt to create a "new man" so as to realise heaven on earth through violence. The result was hell for many people, with a quarter of a million people murdered simply for adhering to their traditional Christian beliefs.
The metabolisation of the religious instinct was also evident in the two big creeds of the 19th century. Classical nation states used schools, patriotic myths, anthems, flags and monuments to achieve the goal of turning peasants with localised loyalties into Frenchmen, Germans or Italians....
Marxist socialism was another totalising creed. The 1848 Communist Manifesto was called a "catechism" until Engels renamed it. Mankind's expulsion from the garden of Eden was the Christian original for Marxist notions of man's alienation from his perfect self. There was no chosen people, but instead a saviour class called the proletariat. Instead of an apocalypse, there would be a cleansing revolution, the prelude to the restoration of a lost communist paradise. Then man would be reborn in harmony with his original true self.
On Saturday I heard the author, Michael Burleigh, being interviewed on the ABC, and he elaborated on these ideas a little more. His book on the topic could be good; if only I had time to read anything lately.
Rather than Europe becoming more secular in the past 200 years, I suspect the religious instinct has simply metabolised into other forms. This was most obvious in the case of the political religions. These began with the radical Jacobins during the French Revolution, who made the first attempt to create a "new man" so as to realise heaven on earth through violence. The result was hell for many people, with a quarter of a million people murdered simply for adhering to their traditional Christian beliefs.
The metabolisation of the religious instinct was also evident in the two big creeds of the 19th century. Classical nation states used schools, patriotic myths, anthems, flags and monuments to achieve the goal of turning peasants with localised loyalties into Frenchmen, Germans or Italians....
Marxist socialism was another totalising creed. The 1848 Communist Manifesto was called a "catechism" until Engels renamed it. Mankind's expulsion from the garden of Eden was the Christian original for Marxist notions of man's alienation from his perfect self. There was no chosen people, but instead a saviour class called the proletariat. Instead of an apocalypse, there would be a cleansing revolution, the prelude to the restoration of a lost communist paradise. Then man would be reborn in harmony with his original true self.
On Saturday I heard the author, Michael Burleigh, being interviewed on the ABC, and he elaborated on these ideas a little more. His book on the topic could be good; if only I had time to read anything lately.
Back to Marsden..
Well, as I guessed, there was a damaging John Marsden allegation to come, and it came via News Limited on the day of his funeral. Questionable timing, but a pretty important story.
For those who missed it, and there must be many given that it seems much of the media is not wanting to cover it, the report is that an adult man received criminal injuries compensation in 2001 based on his claims that as an 8 year old, Marden sexually molested him. This means the judge found that the incidents were proved on the civil standard of "balance of probabilities".
More from the report itself:
In his judgment of July 6, 2001, NSW District Court judge Ken Taylor accepted "on the balance of probabilities" that Marsden had sexually abused Mr Fraser after swimming lessons, after football training and after a junior rugby league grand final.
"The appellant (Mr Fraser) is supported by the psychological evidence. Resistance to his version of events has been slight. On the basis of the material before the court, it has concluded that it is more likely than not that the events occurred as stated by the appellant (Mr Fraser)," Judge Taylor said.....
In 1992, Mr Fraser, who was being treated for "severe depression and psychosexual dysfunction", told his psychiatrist that he had been sexually abused by Marsden. This was more than two years before NSW Labor frontbencher Deirdre Grusovin named Marsden in parliament as a "pederast" and more than three years before two Seven Network current affairs programs alleged Marsden had had underage sex.....
Mr Fraser described in graphic detail how he was sexually assaulted on three separate occasions as an eight- and nine-year-old boy by Marsden, who coached rugby league and taught swimming at St John's College (now St Patrick's), Campbelltown, where he later established his first law practice.
Marden's brother has not taken the allegation well. The Melbourne Age notes just this:
Controversy dogged Mr Marsden right up to the service with a newspaper claim that previously suppressed court records showed he was a pedophile. His brother Jim described the reports as "a scurrilous lie that should be flushed down the toilet".
The media treatment of this story is interesting of itself. Most Australian media appears to be giving it a wide berth. Perhaps because of the funeral day timing? Perhaps because they don't realise how scandalous it is? I think there is a tendency amongst some to think that if a matter can't be proved on a criminal standard of proof, then you are allowed to treat it as "unproven". No doubt, that is how Marsden would have wanted people to view it.
It leaves open fascinating questions such as how many within the profession knew about this. Did his own brother know about it? Did it give the Law Society any concerns (if they knew about it at all.) Note that the judge is quoted as saying that "resistence to his [the complainant's ] version of events has been slight."
I await some more detailed analysis of this story.
For those who missed it, and there must be many given that it seems much of the media is not wanting to cover it, the report is that an adult man received criminal injuries compensation in 2001 based on his claims that as an 8 year old, Marden sexually molested him. This means the judge found that the incidents were proved on the civil standard of "balance of probabilities".
More from the report itself:
In his judgment of July 6, 2001, NSW District Court judge Ken Taylor accepted "on the balance of probabilities" that Marsden had sexually abused Mr Fraser after swimming lessons, after football training and after a junior rugby league grand final.
"The appellant (Mr Fraser) is supported by the psychological evidence. Resistance to his version of events has been slight. On the basis of the material before the court, it has concluded that it is more likely than not that the events occurred as stated by the appellant (Mr Fraser)," Judge Taylor said.....
In 1992, Mr Fraser, who was being treated for "severe depression and psychosexual dysfunction", told his psychiatrist that he had been sexually abused by Marsden. This was more than two years before NSW Labor frontbencher Deirdre Grusovin named Marsden in parliament as a "pederast" and more than three years before two Seven Network current affairs programs alleged Marsden had had underage sex.....
Mr Fraser described in graphic detail how he was sexually assaulted on three separate occasions as an eight- and nine-year-old boy by Marsden, who coached rugby league and taught swimming at St John's College (now St Patrick's), Campbelltown, where he later established his first law practice.
Marden's brother has not taken the allegation well. The Melbourne Age notes just this:
Controversy dogged Mr Marsden right up to the service with a newspaper claim that previously suppressed court records showed he was a pedophile. His brother Jim described the reports as "a scurrilous lie that should be flushed down the toilet".
The media treatment of this story is interesting of itself. Most Australian media appears to be giving it a wide berth. Perhaps because of the funeral day timing? Perhaps because they don't realise how scandalous it is? I think there is a tendency amongst some to think that if a matter can't be proved on a criminal standard of proof, then you are allowed to treat it as "unproven". No doubt, that is how Marsden would have wanted people to view it.
It leaves open fascinating questions such as how many within the profession knew about this. Did his own brother know about it? Did it give the Law Society any concerns (if they knew about it at all.) Note that the judge is quoted as saying that "resistence to his [the complainant's ] version of events has been slight."
I await some more detailed analysis of this story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)