Safer nuclear power for all

With the recent revival of talk of nuclear power for Australia, it seems to me that there is surprisingly little coverage given to a "new" design for safer reactors that basically can't meltdown. I am talking of modular pebble bed reactors. Links of interest are:
Wired magazine
PBMR Pty Ltd ( I guess don't expect this to be entirely objective)
An astronomy website article (why discuss it there, I dunno. Actually, this looks like it is just cut from Wikipedia)

Anyway, sounds rather promising, don't you think?

Update: I'm having problems making the PBMR link work for some reason. Just go to the Wikipedia article and find its link to it at the end.

Now for some science

This articleScience & Technology at Scientific American.com: Inconstant Constants -- [ COSMOLOGY ] -- Do the inner workings of nature change with time? is a full length free one on the Scientific American website, and is not too bad.

I dip into Scientific American every now and then, but find its articles often have a bit of a readability issue. I think it is because they are often written by the researchers themselves, not journalists or specialist science writers. The articles therefore come across as, well, stodgy, for want of a better word.

New Scientist has a lively, often humorous, style, but seems to perhaps run too many "wacky" ideas by loner scientists. And (from what I can gather) they also seem to have a bit of an accuracy issue in that mag too.

I used to like "Discover" a lot, and bought it regularly for well over a decade. It was never very newsy as such, but had some good writers. I think it changed ownership, the style changed a bit, and besides, with any magazine, I think you eventually tire of them and need a break. Maybe I should try it again.

Back to the Scientific American article, it contains this curious bit of trivia:

"One ratio of particular interest combines the velocity of light, c, the electric charge on a single electron, e, Planck's constant, h, and the so-called vacuum permittivity, 0. This famous quantity, = e2/20hc, called the fine-structure constant, was first introduced in 1916 by Arnold Sommerfeld, a pioneer in applying the theory of quantum mechanics to electromagnetism. It quantifies the relativistic (c) and quantum (h) qualities of electromagnetic (e) interactions involving charged particles in empty space (0). Measured to be equal to 1/137.03599976, or approximately 1/137, has endowed the number 137 with a legendary status among physicists (it usually opens the combination locks on their briefcases)."

Care for a vinegar aperitif?

The Japan Times Online
The link is to a Japan Times story on the increasing popularity of drinking vinegar. I'm not sure that it'll catch on here somehow.

As the article indicates, a lot of this is about the Japanese being into trendy health products. I believe that was a large reason for the increase in the sales of Western red wine there last decade. I just drink it for fun.

Oh, and for all you sake fans out there...try the Australian one Go-Shu. It's good.

Dr Patel inquiry site

Bundaberg Hospital Commission of Inquiry homepage

For those of you with too much time on your hands, here's the home page for the "Dr Death" inquiry in Queensland. Has any other inquiry of this nature had such an open and Web friendly approach?

As for the scandal itself - it is almost delightfully appalling, assuming of course you or a near and dear one was not its victim. I just love that a Courier Mail journalist found out the Dr's overseas problems though a Google search. Pity no one at the hospital thought of doing that too when they first starting getting worried.

Transcripts are available - several days old - on the website. And like all inquiries, much of it is taken up by lawyering amongst themselves. Still, seems like a lot of interesting stuff in there.

Media Watch does story about nothing..nothing new

For those of you who missed Media Watch last night, the main story went something like this:

a. the ABC buys doco on suicide for Compass
b. Compass host watches it and is very worried that one segment gives viewers too much idea on how to do it. Wants it cut.
c. ABC asks outside expert (a Professor in mental health) what he thinks. He agrees. May encourage viewers with the inclination to try the method.
d. Program airs with one minute cut.
e. Doco producer (or director) is not so happy. Says it didn't show how to use the plastic bag.
f. Media Watch points out that the decision to cut is consistent with ABC editorial guidelines
g. Media Watch seems slightly miffed that it also was not allowed to show the missing minute as part of its story
h. Media Watch says ABC didn't really do anything wrong, but Liz finishes with:

"We're in favour of responsible reporting of suicide so understand the ABC's decision to err on the side of caution, but there has to be some space left for the full and frank views of people like Lisette Nigot."

Well she got a bloody doco shown on national TV about it didn't she!!

In my books, this is called A NON STORY.

The last comment by Liz (quoted above) meant next to nothing. Why did they bother with this story at all? Where exactly was the
"debate and controversy about the decision to cut or censor, depending on how you see it, a documentary shown on ABC TV's Compass last week." Just in the corridors of the ABC, I suspect. I don't think it raised a blip anywhere else.

I look forward to more non stories to come.

An old article about Robert A. Heinlein's house!

site: Robert A. Heinlein - Archives - PM 6/52 Article

For those of you who used to like Heinlein before his books became full of windbaggery. Here, via Jerry Pournelle's website, an old Popular mechanics article on the long gone sci-fi authors home.

It's a lot smaller than I imagined. And you can't open any window.

Should I mention sperm again?

The Genius Factory - My short, scary career as a sperm donor. By David Plotz

An interesting read, this story. I had missed the fact that the sperm bank of Nobel Prize winners was shut already.

Well said DD

The New Yorker: The Critics: The Current Cinema

Can't say I have read many reviews by David Denby, but I must say that this review of Batman Begins and Mr & Mrs Smith is a well written piece not just just on these movies, but the general problem with so much of Hollywood product these days. And don't get me wrong - I have even less time for most foreign film. And Australia film - what a joke.

Warning toilet humour... (alternative title: Don't try this at home)

An amusing toileting story of high adventure in New Scientist.

But surely this can't be right (see sentence in appropriate hue):

"A team stationed in Anchorage, Alaska, and led by Joseph McLauglin from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, surveyed 132 climbers in June 2002. They found that 29% had diarrhoea at least once on their average 18-day trek on the mountain. And 39% reported seeing snow contaminated with faeces in or near their camps. But that did not stop nearly a quarter of climbers from collecting snow for drinking water directly from camps. Only 16% of climbers said they always boiled their drinking water.

Furthermore, fewer than half said they always washed their hands after defecating, with 16% admitting using rocks and snow instead of toilet paper. A shameful 11% confessed to pooping directly into the snow."

Guess the snow would be good for those with piles.

How to have better sperm...

So watching group sex improves sperm quality. Funny things, testicles.

Actually, the headline is probably more attention grabbing than accurate. The article points out that sperm motility increases by a marginal fraction, but volume significantly decreases. Overall, I would have thought the guys watching just a woman were going to end up more fertile.

But now - I see the version of this story on news@nature seems to contradict the decrease in volume aspect in New Scientist. Seems even science journalists have trouble getting the story straight.

Incidentally I wonder what would happen if you tested this on gay men. Would be funny if their sperm also subconsciously adjusted to naked women.

Hmm 

Pining for Paul

What sort of pathetic excuse for a column in The Age is this?

A 20-something law lecturer (so it seems from the chronology suggested in the article) pines for a return to the startling vision of one Paul Keating PM.

"This is not to say that Howard is a bad person, just not the great leader that we need. I might be relaxed and comfortable, as Howard wants - but this is not the stuff that gets hearts racing, minds thinking and dreams satisfied."

I agree that Keating got many people's heart racing, especially at the thought of being able to hit his head with a large blunt object.

"Over the past nine and a bit years in which Howard has been Prime Minister, the equilibrium of opportunity that made Australia the lucky country in the 1980s and into the 1990s has slowly unravelled, leading to a lack of balance and lost hope for many."

How does this reconcile with the lowest unemployment rate for 28 YEARS?

"Keating was so much more than Italian suits, French clocks and "the recession we had to have". He was (and remains) a true inspiration. He made me believe I could do anything and be anybody. Unconnected, truly talented, passionate, kind, genuine, he left school at 15 to fight for what he believed in - the Labor way. A man who, without a prominent surname, networks on which to rely or a degree from a sandstone institution, became the most significant treasurer in Australian history, a compassionate prime minister and a respected leader on the international stage. He lit the candle of opportunity and hope for me and others in the tail end of generation X, even if many of us failed to appreciate his role."

Talk about hagiography.

Let's face it chum, however much he inspired you, his personality guarantees that nothing could delight the Liberals more than having Paul re-join the party.

" While Australia might not be under imminent military attack, there certainly is a festering battle to save the richness of the Australian spirit and the vision of the Australian community from eternal myopia. Keating's finest hour could still lie ahead."

Pass the bucket someone. What a joke. The column reads like it was written by a young teenager with a crush.

Test pic - guess where 

The spirit of generosity from The Age, and some comments on IR reform

Pamela Bone in The Age, grudgingly accepts something good happens under the Howard government. But could this government have intended such an outcome? Nah, course not:

"If Natsem's analysis is correct - and I must suppose it is - then I will be uncharitable enough to say that declining inequality has been an accidental consequence of the Government's policies rather than the reason for them. For in most things it does, as in the recent budget and the proposed changes to industrial relations - giving top income earners a much higher tax cut than those on the bottom, giving more money to private schools than to public, reducing workers' protection from unfair dismissal - the Government shows it is not about creating a more equal society."

"More equal" obviously equals "good" in this analysis, which is being rather simplistic. The whole basis of capitalism involves some degree of "unequal"; but then again there has to be room for genuine argument on how much "unequal" remains acceptable to keep a modicum of social coherence, at least.

Amongst analysis of the Howard government's industrial relations reforms, I haven't seen much comment about the relevance of wage mobility (not sure if this is the correct term, but maybe you get the drift.) This was the subject of one of the regular economics commentators' columns some years ago. I recall it pointed out that although the wage disparity between workers as a whole in the USA was much greater than in Australia, there was also a strong tendency for the individual low income earners to be on that lowest rung for a relatively short time. Australian's wage mobility was not so favourable.

To the average Australian visitor, the US economy and the way its society as a whole runs feels too laisse faire. Europe is definitely too much into nanny state overregulation. The nice thing about Australia is that we seem, for the most part, to always be aiming for the happy medium, and by and large hitting it.

I am no economist or IR expert, and find I do not have the time to study it sufficiently to have a firm view. But it does seem that the Howard IR reforms are not likely to have as draconian an effect as Labor and the unions are naturally want to say. It does seem to me that the IR system is in need of simplification, as it has become an industry in and of itself.

For example, the whole IRC minimum wage fixing system seems rather pointlessly adversarial - creating many full time jobs in the constant to and fro of attempting to justify ambit claims and counterclaims. Why not free up this bunch of lawyers and "experts" on this and let them do other things while the new body pulls its own figures out of the air without so much wasted breathe?

And as for unfair dismissal: well, isn't one of the main problems with current state laws on this (not sure about federal) is that the onus of proof is turned against the employer? No wonder most employers can't be bothered defending them.

I suspect that the ease of instituting an unfair dismissal claim has the same unintended consequence of the (former) generosity of the courts in personal injury claims against Councils and such like. Namely, it only encourages the complainant/plaintiff to dwell on the matter and not get on with their life. This is really quantifiable in the medical side of personal injury case, where it has been long established that those who litigate always take longer to "get over" their back injury (to take a very common example.)

Some otherwise genuine cases of people unfairly dismissed will no doubt go unrecompensed because the risk and cost of having to prove a case in the other jurisdictions will be too expensive. But I suspect that this will be a very small proportion of the overall body of IR claimants under the current system. Time to look at both the greater good I think.

Let's suck the Howard reforms and see.

Just how often is Blogger down?

Margo's happy again - sort of

Oh joy. Margo'’s coming out of her depression.

"“I sat in Judi Moylan'’s office on Tuesday reading a few of the 3,000 emails she'’s got from Australians since she became the public face of the Liberal rebel'’s plan to civilise our mandatory detention regime"

I wouldn'’t let it be too widely known that prime contender for the nation'’s most emotionally over-wrought journalist/commentators is starting to hang around the office, Judi.

"“As democracy cracks from side to side, interesting things are starting to happen."”

Hmm, not sure what that even means. Is it a good thing or bad?

"“OK, our government won'’t hold respectable open inquires any more, even into scandals like the kidnapping and deportation of an Australian citizen, and the 11 month incarceration and scandalous neglect -– perhaps even physical and sexual abuse - of a mentally ill Australian permanent resident."”

Kidnapping? Perhaps sexual abuse. Let Margo add some drama to the already cracking democracy, shall we?

"“Well, who needs the government, if that'’s their attitude."

Margo and cohorts are setting up the Nation of Margopia?

"“Don'’t get depressed at how powerless you are. Have a look around and work out how you too can defend your democracy. It'’s fun, and it'’s scary for those political “representatives” and business leaders who think they'’ve won their fight to crush our right to know what they'’re really doing for themselves at the expense of us and our future."”

Uhuh. Yes, I know Howard and Big Business gloat all the time over their brandies at the club about how they have crushed all knowledge of the stuff they are currently being pursued over by Margo'’s pack.

"“You can bet Howard and his heavies will try to destroy the careers of Moylan and her fellow rebels. So how about those of you who live where they do joining the local Liberal Party branches to keep them in politics?"

Margo approves branch stacking when it for members she approves of.

"“Anything is possible."

Except Margo writing a cool-headed rational commentary on the Howard government.

" We'’re only powerless if we think we are. And that'’s exactly what the destroyers of our democracy want us to think."”

Do the phrases "“straw man argument"” and "“conspiracy paranoia"” mean anything to Margo?

Democracy is working exactly as it can and should over this whole migration policy stuff, and in fact, I have also long thought that certain aspects of immigration policy were too tough and should be modified.

Margo, go and do and your stuff; it doesn'’t bother me at all to have such a healthy robust democracy demonstrated in part by the fact that you are not in jail, a gulag or even a readjustment camp for the perpetually outraged. But please, for the sake of any borderline credibility as a political commentator, stop trying to paint this (and the re-election of the Howard government generally,) as a dire threat to democracy.

Death to Megafauna

This story is interesting, not least because the issue is such a sensitive one for those with an overly romantic vision of how aborigines lived in harmony for thousands of years with the Australian environment, looking after it until Europeans came and started the degradation that continues....etc etc.

I have always been of the view that it is rather pointless to give credit to a - um, how should I put this? - technologically challenged culture for not doing something that it just didn't have the technology to do anyway. So if the countryside when they ran the place was pretty pristine...well, it would be if you didn't have metal tools, guns, tractors or dynamite, wouldn't it.

Even so, they still made a significant change to the environment due to their burning practices, so the country they "lived in harmony with" was pretty different from the country they first walked into.

As to the megafauna's demise, this article seems to make it clear that the jury is very out on the precise role, if any, the early inhabitants had. Anyway, can't it just be a combination of humans eating them, changing the environment with fire, and natural climate change as well? And it may have been different factors in different degrees in different parts of the countryside. That would seem more likely to me than being dogmatically on one side or the other of the opposing camps.

By the way, I am sorta glad we don't have 200kg , 2.5 m tall flat faced kangaroos around anymore..imagine the dint they could put in your radiator!

Things to remember about Joh

This seems a pretty good summary of the more unsavoury aspects of Joh Bjelke Peterson's years, adding a few things I didn't know, and some stuff I had forgotten. Don't know about Russ Hinze being a talented minister though.

And remember - I am a conservative!

Errrk! A different sort of reconstruction in Iraq

Institute for War and Peace Reporting

My only comment is how much money they charge for this. Must be a fortune in that country.

Dangerous profession number 49 in Iraq

Institute for War and Peace Reporting

I bet it's not American Express!

Institute for War and Peace Reporting

Phillip Adams on "outing" Kennedy

Phillip Adams writes about his disgust at Derryn Hinch speculating (or claiming, I know not which) that the late Graham Kennedy died of AIDS. Fair enough.

However, Adams' take on Kennedy's "never pretending to be straight" seems a bit odd. I heard Adams' Late Night Live broadcast a few months ago about Kennedy, at which Noelene Brown was a guest. Adams repeated there what he claims in the column; namely, that Adams knew that Kennedy was obviously gay and even asked him to "speak out" in the interests of law reform for all gays. Kennedy declined.

This was the first time I ever heard it said that Kennedy was out and out gay. If I had given the matter any thought, I suppose I would have said that maybe he was bisexual, but purely "gay" seemed a little unlikely in light of the type of ribald, heterosexually inclined humour he showed on Blankety Blanks, for example. But of course, this was well before out and out gay or camp hosts like (god forbid) Julian Clary were anywhere to be seen.

Anyway, what was interesting was that Adams told his story and then asked Noelene to comment on Graham's sexuality. She sounded quite uncomfortable and said (to paraphrase) that she knew it was a very private and personal matter for Graham and she was not comfortable going into any discussion about that at all.

At the time Adams did this show I assume that Kennedy was well beyond caring, but nonetheless it seemed to me that if one of Kennedy's closest friends thought it wasn't appropriate for her to be discussing a sick man's sex life, then it wasn't appropriate for Adams to be doing so either. Especially when a large part of the preamble (Adams, long time friend of gays everywhere, seeking law reform for them) is a bit self aggrandizing.

More on Corby

I heard a Melbourne QC on Radio National this morning say that in Australia, 90% of people charged with an offence plead guilty, and of the 10% that go to trial, about half of those are found not guilty. Still, pretty surprising to me that around 95% of those "charged" are found guilty here, one way or another. I have no idea how broadly based these figures are: I presume it covers everything from minor driving offences to murder.

Further on my skepticism on the Australian system, it is amusing to hear some QC's saying that the defence case was quite weak and may well have not worked here either, and some other barrister saying the opposite (that is, she would have been acquitted here.)

And tonight on Lateline, they seemed to want to try to embarrass John Howard (being interviewed) by running a story that in 2002 he made a stopover in the Maldives, apparently mainly to ask for a pardon for a convicted druggie there. Can't see why Tony Jones would want to raise that now; Howard has made it clear before tonight that it is too early to be talking about that sort of thing when there is an appeal process to go through in Indonesia.

Corby Case - What should I think?

I find it hard to know what to think about the Corby case. I am always leery of pundits who decide what the proper outcome of a trial should have been when they were not in the court watching proceedings. However, it is somewhat of a surprise to hear that the head judge has never acquitted anyone on a drugs charge. There is no doubt that asian legal systems are different from our.

(I seem to recall reading that the Japanese system is somewhat similar, in that it is a virtual given that if you are charged with a crime you will be found guilty. I presume most oriental based systems would be somewhat similar. I stand to be corrected by any reader who knows better.)

I know they say the Indonesian system is based on the European system. But I assume that European judges would not have the same strike rate as our Indonesian friend.

What I do know about the English criminal trial system, and what has bothered me for years, is that it is not philosophically based on any sense of an objective search for truth. It is more about the game than the truth, I think.

Put it this way: the judge will instruct the jury that it is all about what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt (BRD). Not only that, it is about whether the Prosecutor has presented sufficient to establish an offence BRD.

There is no role here for the judiciary to push an investigation or the presentation of evidence along any particular line or direction, even if certain lines of enquiry may well be what a judge or jury, interested in knowing what really happened , would like to see pursued.

It is my understanding that the European system is more philosophically inclined to the objective sense of finding out what happened, and to my mind that can only be a good thing.

However, you'll be hard pressed to find a lawyer in Australia (at least in private practice) who has given much thought about this. I think that is because they quickly become part of the game and gamesmanship of our system, and then cannot see the wood for the trees.

UPDATE:

I thought Media Watch did a pretty good job last night on the media circus around the Corby case. Its the first edition since Ms Jackson took over that seemed to have some real meat to it. I was particularly amused at the John Laws phone call segment.

Tim Blair provides a very useful service by pointing out that even under Indonesian law, the sentence is harsh. I guess it sounds worthwhile appealing after all. (I was worried about the outcry if her sentence was increased on appeal!)

Oh, and "inquisitorial" is the phrase I was looking for to describe the european criminal law system. As opposed to adversarial english based system.

Margo's in a Fascist State!

Margo Kingston, probably not for the first time, but who can be bothered checking, officially declares Australia to be a fascist state:

"The "them" is getting bigger every day. First they came for the interlopers, then they came for the undesirables, then they came for the mentally ill, then they came for...

So let's tell it like it is. Let's feel proud to do so, and let's see the vitriol rained down on us for what it is, the scream of the fascists and their yes people now dominating the "governance" of this nation."

Published in that grand journal of political commentary, the Northern Rivers Echo. I wonder what they pay for this. Maybe nothing; they have a lot of pages to fill.

Never trust a futurist

Being a "futurist" seems to be a licence to write any particular guff and get publicity for it in the bargain. I am very very sceptical of the type of stuff in this recent story , especially about mind upload. I mean, we are 50 or more years aways from Astroboy and Asimov's fiction world of robots, and what have we now - a few demo models in Japan that can do a dance on stage and walk up a few stairs before the batteries run out. No moon base, no trips to Mars, and not even a reliable heavy lift rocket.

Sure, things develop and change in the world of science and technology in amazing and interesting ways - just that few people who try to see how those changes will pan out any more than, say, 10 years into the future, rarely seem to get it right.

I have read good articles about this before..must link to them if I can find one on the net.

And remember, Richard Neville calls himself a futurist. Ha!

Margo and Jack - what a team

Margo Kingston's Webdiary has become all but unreadable with her bizarre appointment of Jack Robertson as co-editor, or some such. Why would she put one of the most verbose, useless contributors in part control. Only Robert Bosler or Marilyn Shepherd could concieveably be worse. (Actually, Robert in charge could be pretty funny.)

Of all the improvements Margo and Jack could possibly make to their over-wrought undertaking, the bleeding obvious seems to elude them - set a word limit! Who has time to read such rambling posts? I think my days (well, minutes) of wry amusement by dipping my toe into Webdiary may be coming to an end.

Muslims on the Moon

Missed this odd news story last month.

What I want to know is what are Muslims astronauts on the Moon going to do? The Moon's always going to be in their view. Has an Iman given this any thought? Maybe Muslims will inherit the earth while the rest of us leave. (Talking long term future here!)

My posts too long

I can tell my posts are too wordy. Sorry..will try harder. Short..sharp..to the point.. stop now.

Ms Rau talks!

Saw Ms Rau at her press conference on several news shows tonight.

Interesting to note that all reporters made the comment that her statement was at times "rambling" or "hard to follow", and that she denied she had ever been mentally ill.

Why then did they not let us hear any of those parts in her own voice? Instead, all focused on her more rational statements, including the claim for compensation; that she had been locked in a cage like an animal...etc.

The nearest I saw to any hint of madness from her own mouth was her answering the question "why did you keep giving false names" with "I had my reasons". Yes, a strong hint of madness there...but she sounded and looked relatively sane while she said it.

Look, there are a couple of obvious lessons from the Rau and Solon cases:

1. Our system for nationally co-ordinating Missing Persons reports seems pretty crappy, and needs to be made truely national (within hours of reporting) and easy to use for all government authorities at all levels. Just spend a few million bucks setting that up, John Howard, with some face recognition software thrown in, and you will be on a winner.

2. Mental health services are also pretty crappy, but this is pretty much entirely a State issue. (With the exception of the need to ensure the operators of detention centres start paying more attention to when fellow inmates start worrying about the mental health of one of thier own, and get the person checked faster than it took in Rau's case.)

3. Immigration officials have to start checking the new, you-beaut, centralised and computerised missing persons data base before they deport, not after.

4. It kinda helps if relatives of the mentally ill report said missing relative a bit faster than the 5 of 6 months months it took Cornelia's sister to do it. Boy, was that glossed over quickly in the Four Corners story a few weeks ago. Blink and you would've missed it.

None of this stuff is going to dint the Federal government's popularity, cos most voters recognise that mad people who persistently give false names sometimes end up being on the receiving end of serious mistakes and less than perfect administrative decisions.

Can't wait to see what Margo Kingston's crowd say about the interview. More gnashing of teeth I am sure.

Why Media Covers Big Brother..for god's sake can someone explain??

Can someone...anyone...explain to me why the newspapers cover every god damn episode of Big Brother , as if it were news??

This drives me crazy. To see any random 5 minutes of this show (especially the adult's only version) causes me instant despair as to Australian "youff" society. OK, OK, "despair" is to too strong...Just that I find it so incredible that children, teens or adults should want to watch such crap. Oh..maybe tonight they'll talk about jerking off, or how many lovers they have had, or best sex positions for a tight vagina, or ....I cannot believe it. The conversations would be cringe inducing if I overheard them at a party or pub...but the idea that a TV channel can make money from broadcasting them across the nation. And that there is a market for it!

OK, so there is a market for this. I have to live with this unpalateable fact. The heading of this post points to my main question...why does the "quality" media (News Limited papers, but also the Fairfax press) give it daily publicity? Because it is a contest? (Then why doesn't "Millionaire cop a report every Tuesday?) Because BB is popular? Well, isn't it getting less and less popular each year, but still it gets daily report, at least on the press websites. Anyway, just how much overlap could there really be between the demographics of braodsheet paper readers and BB viewers?

And beside which, why doesn't someone in the other media outlets say "hey, why do we have to give a crap show, from an unrelated company, any publicity at all? "

I come to bury Joh, not to...

Look, I like John Howard and his government quite a lot. It's not perfect; no government ever is. I support the Iraq war efforts, and think that the Left has lost all sight of common when it tries to ignore the undoubted good in ridding the world of one its harshest and bloodiest regimes. It would please me enormously to see Tony Blair win the election against the predicted electoral backlash at the time he joined the Iraq effort. I am pretty happy to see a conservative new Pope (with the added benefit of his being a former "liberal". Nothing is quite as pleasing as a liberal who changes his tune.)

So you can see where I am coming from policitically.

However, one thing that is sticking in my conservative craw is the reverence with which Joh Bjelke Peterson's death and funeral have been covered.

Yesterday I was home at 2.15 pm and saw his State funeral being covered live on Channels 7, 9, the ABC and Skynews on cable. On radio 612 (ABC) it was also being broadcast. The coverage seemed barely short of that given to the late Pope. Not to mention the breathless interruptions to programs while he was dying, usually just to say "he's not dead yet!"

Come on guys..is this much respect deserved for a Premier and his government who came out so badly in the Fitsgerald Inquiry? There was the smell of corruption around his government for years before the inquiry, but the extent of it was still surprising. He only avoided a criminal conviction himself by the skin of his teeth.

I had little time for some of the Left's agenda at the time. Their furore over the street marching legislation was self-defeating, but then choosing idealogically sound, self-satisfying grandstanding over practical steps to actually change things seems a common characteristic that the Left. As I recall it, Joh said you can't have street marches without a permit, and (so I am told by left leaning friends) made legistlation with an extremely wide definition of what could constitute a march. But it was not like political meetings or gatherings were banned per se. Just ones on the streets; especially city streets at lunch time. The justification, accepted by most Joh voters, was that marchs were too disruptive. So how did the Left react to the legistlation? By having more street marches, timed to be most disruptive for city traffic, thus cemeting Joh's original justification in the minds of his supporters.

Does a total ban on street marches alone ever stop democracy? Do street marches in Australia ever achieve much more than satisfy the emotional needs of the marchers? (OK, OK, I can see that street marches or rallies in certain countries at certain times have had dramatic political consequences - eg Beirut. But in Australia? Can't think of an obvious case where one has.)

And the sackings of the electrical trade unionists, who were conducting an industrial dispute by interrupting everyone's electical supply. Not much sympathy there when all got the sack, and as it turned out, did not need to be re-engaged.

But back to anti-Joh. Even giving him a huge "benefit of doubt" about the degree of personal knowledge about the goings on in the government and its arms, he has to take the can for presiding over such a corrupt government and doing nothing to stop it. And then the ludicrous "Joh for PM" campaign. I don't think even my dear old Mum (who has never voted Labor in her life, and has the typical admiration for Joh that most people her age had) thought that was a good idea.

Ok, he did some decent things in terms of modernization of Queensland. Hard not to when you are in charge for so long. And for obscure reasons, some things in Queensland were run well compared to other states (public hospitals, and some legislation was pretty progressive.) But, my feeling is still that his death attracted way too much attention. It would be entirely appropriate for the media to not forget the word "disgraced" in front of the words "former Premier."

First Post

So this is how to blog. Let me fiddle with this before I start serious work....