Miscellaneous stuff

A quick round up from this morning's browse of the web:

Daniel Pipes and Janet Albrechtsen in the Australia : both good reads.

The Economist gave George W a tick for education reform (it seems to be working).

Christopher Hitchens points out that the legislation at the core of the Plame/Rove debacle was always a bad idea.

An academic in The Age suggests the forced closure (or take over by the government?) of all private primary schools as a way of forcing all children to learn the "civic values" of Australian society. I can imagine the State Treasurers rolling their eyes at this one. Get real, Dennis.

In Indonesia, they take their cricket farming very seriously (it sounds like something being discussed on Landline):

"He added that the association would not accept crickets bred outside its membership because their quality could not be assured.

"We tried buying crickets from common farmers once. The crickets they bred had a very high water content. Only 1 kg of dried crickets was derived after roasting four kg of them, whereas only 2.5 kg of live crickets bred through the program could produce one kg of dried crickets. Besides that, due to inferior feeding techniques, their protein content was found to be lower too," said Bayu, who comes from Gunung Kidul.

Dried crickets can last for six months after being vacuum packed. Before being packed, live crickets are immersed in hot water at 70 degrees centigrade.

They are then roasted in an oven for seven to 12 hours. A one-kg pack of dried crickets can be sold at Rp 110,000.

"These crickets are also delicious, crispy when fried and eaten immediately," said Bayu, while offering a plate of fried crickets."

Fun from Scamming

Aimless web surfing while I should be working has led me this morning to this site, which is quite amusing. (It's copies of email correspondence between scammers and their attempted victims, who in fact are just taking the scammers for a ride.)

I haven't the time to read too much yet, but this one (involving Marty McFly as the "victim" is fun. As is this one, with Juan Perez Jnr as the correspondent. Actually, just about every second story is pretty damn funny.)

I don't spend much time on internet humour, but this is good.

A Brain Change?

Goodness, what odd things can happen in this world of blogging. Alan Brain (see left) kindly recommended this site in a post a few weeks ago, and now appears to be undergoing a not unwelcomed dramatic alteration in his life, due to hormonal changes the source of which he says are a medical mystery. Not only that, he wants to complete the task, as it were, inviting donations.

I don't think he is joking; he sounds sincere. But unusually "matter of fact" about it. He wasn't on 4 corners tonight, was he?

No one has commented on this yet as far as I can see from my blog role. Certainly there are no comments on his site to his "new image" post. I can just imagine everyone out there being slack jawed like me wondering what to make of it.

That is all I can think of to say about it ....

Pearson on Ronald Wilson

Christopher Pearson's article in the Weekend Australia about the late Ronald Wilson was a sizzling read, and I expect a strong counter attack will be mounted by Wilson's liberal admirers.

It is my understanding that Wilson's close involvement with the Uniting Church, which had a historic role in the "stolen children" issue, made him eminently unsuited to head that enquiry. Too much potential for misplaced guilt by association to make him an objective judge of the matter.

Feeling away morality

I am sure Currency Lad could do a better job on this, but I can't let today's peculiar opinion piece by Michael Read in The Age go without comment.

The writer feels that, although he now has a perfectly good life, and can't remember much of his earlier difficulties due to a birth defect, he is so sorry for the pain his Mum went through that he believes it would have been better for her to have aborted him. As he summarises:

"My life in many ways has been a wonderful experience, but it has been achieved through the suffering of my mother. It would have been better for her had she aborted me. After all, my life then would never have been, and logically, I could not have regretted not living it, but my mother would almost certainly have had a better one."

Talk about your liberal death wishes....

The main thrust of the article, though, is about not being too judgmental on women who want abortions, even late term ones, such as the notorious incident involving a woman who aborted late due to probable dwarfism in the child.

There are many issues I have with the "logic" of this article.

Firstly, the point about a hypothetical abortion meaning that he would not be around to regret not living adds nothing to the argument about the morality of abortion or killing. I mean, adults killed don't harbour regrets either. Let's judge an act at the time it happens. (And let's not be too confident of being able to perceive alternative futures and the degree of happiness in them either.)

Perhaps inadvertantly, Read's comment on his hypothetical termination can be read to relate to issue of "personhood" and its relevance to the Peter Singer's utilitarian arguments about abortion. That is, if you abort a child before it has any significant self awareness, it is no moral wrong at all. (Remember, Singer would even allow a period of, say, a month after birth for parents to "accept" a child, and by his logic killing even a healthy new born is not necessarily "immoral".) This is where you can trust your intuition more than your "public intellectual".

Read is surely a utilitarain himself, with his emphasis in the article of wanting to see the maximum happiness. There are many, many problems with utilitarianism, but for the sake of the argument, if we try to apply it to his case, why does Read not factor in the happy ending? Having an adult son with a successful life is a good thing for his mother, surely. Achieving that happiness after overcoming physical adversity should make it especially profound, shouldn't it? Not to Mr Read, it seems.

And what does his mother think about this? He seems to deliberately avoid telling us her opinion (she is still alive.) Isn't this a vital factor if we are going to attempt some calculation of maximum happiness?

No, his aim is just to have us avoid judgement on the poor mother facing a possible hard life. So there is no point in being rigorous about it, he just wants us to concentrate on the negative possiblities and fears of the mother, regardless of how realistic they may be.

This points to one fundamental problem with utilitarianism: the nature of happiness itself and the difficulties in measuring it. I have posted here before on cognitive therapy for depression. It appeals to me becuase its fundamental idea (that all of your moods are in fact created by your thoughts, including your perceptions, your mental attitudes, beliefs and the way you interpret things) sounds right. And besides which, as a therapy it seems to clinically work.

If you philosophically agree with this understanding of moods, it makes the emphasis on "happiness" decidedly shaky grounds for deciding moral issues. Happiness (or the lack of it) is a cognitive reaction to events that may or may not be built on sound foundations in your cognitive world. What's more important is to look at those foundations.

(There's a lot of good stuff on the problems of trying to base morals on utilitarianism on the internet. Unfortunately, it is treated as a vague default position for many people who have never had the inclination or education to really think about the basis of morals.)

It's all well and good for Michael Read (and liberals generally) to emphasise sympathy for mothers who fear unhappiness. But when it comes to matters of life or death of a fetus/baby which would be viable outside of the womb (we are talking late term abortion), it is hardly the most important factor at stake.

Multiculturalism wars

A matter of respect - Opinion - theage.com.au

An opinion piece in the Age today (above) rushes to the defence of mulitculturalism. The argument seems to boil down to blaming Australia for not "sharing power" enough with its new migrants. The implication in the last paragraph is that we don't give the young men enough job opportunities:

"Perhaps when Terry Lane and Pamela Bone and Andrew Bolt and the others take on Muslim young people as work-experience trainees, and are prepared to admit ignorance and seek to listen and learn, the young people might be more willing to sit on the heads of the thugs who threaten them just as much as they threaten the rest of us."

And earlier in the article:

"Immigrants often see the self-serving nature of social practices of the "host" society far more clearly than members of that society's own chattering classes and politicians. Their children, imbued with the lessons of democracy and fairness in the new world, shed their parents' acquiescence to the contradictions and demand that its claims to justice and equality be realised."

Apart from the fun of seeing Terry Lane being criticised for what would normally be called a right wing opinion, this article seems very dubious. How about some empirical evidence to support the idea that Australia (or Britain for that matter) is somehow discriminating against the children of Muslim immigrants.

At least in Australia, just when did the increase in Muslim immigration kick in? (My guess would be from maybe the mid 1980's or even a bit later. Bit hard to say for me, never having lived in Sydney. Brisbane only started having an obvious presence of Muslims since, I reckon, about 5 to 10 years ago.) Surely it takes a bit of time for the children of a new migrant group to start to get higher positions in the jobs market. And look how successful European, Chinese, Vietnamese and other immigrant children are in our society now.

He would have to do a much better job of justifying this argument before I would give it any credence at all.

Give me space

Sitting ducks - Tips - Travel - theage.com.au

I missed this article from earlier this week about the erosion of airline seat space, especially in economy. It is ridiculous what the airlines expect us to put up with, especially on anything over a couple of hours.

Although I don't support spurious litigation, I am a bit surprised that the litigation brought by deep vein thrombosis sufferers against some of the airlines has not (to my knowledge) met with any success yet. I mean, the airlines must have had some concern about potential liability over this, because of the sudden torrent of in-flight guidance on how to avoid it (starting maybe 3 or 4 years ago?) It is one area where I think the success of such litigation would serve a useful social purpose. Otherwise, it is really just not possible to see a way that the public is ever going to get the airlines to come up with a more acceptable standard for seat space.

Take sugar tablets instead?

Efficacy of antidepressants in adults -- Moncrieff and Kirsch 331 (7509): 155 -- BMJ

Wow, this story in the British Medical Journal will cause a lot of controversy, I expect. Bottom line: it's not so clear that antidepressants are better than placebo. The article summary is:

"The NICE review data suggest that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors do not have a clinically meaningful advantage over placebo, which is consistent with other recent meta-analyses. In addition, methodological artefacts may account for the small effect seen. Evidence that antidepressants are more effective in more severe conditions is not strong, and data on long term outcome of depression and suicide do not provide convincing evidence of benefit. In children, the balance of benefits to risks is now recognised as unfavourable. We suggest this may also be the case for adults, given the continuing uncertainty about the possible risk of increased suicidality as well as other known adverse effects. This conclusion implies the need for a thorough re-evaluation of current approaches to depression and further development of alternatives to drug treatment. Since antidepressants have become society's main response to distress, expectations raised by decades of their use will also need to be addressed."

I should point out that placebo tablets will only work if you don't know they are placebo (so I am not seriously suggesting swapping your tablets for sugar ones!) However, as I have mentioned in an earlier post, cognitive therapy has got years of good results behind it now. Try it, depressed Lefties!

More on Iraq / al Qaeda

The DIA and CIA Go MIA

This story is about the issue I raised previously, namely the disconcerting way the main stream media is, by and large, completely unconcerned about looking into the question of Iraq and al Qaeda. A good read.

A Jakarta Post opinion piece on London bombing

The Jakarta Post - After the bombs, London searching for the root cause of terrorism

Contrary to the headline, the above article contains nothing about the "search for the root cause of terrorism", but takes the opportunity to try to paint a moral equivalence between the conduct of the US and al-Qaeda. To quote:

"The aims of both al-Qaeda and some of these Western governments are somehow similar: Both "sides" believe in bombing and wars, both "sides" try to create the impressions that the other is evil and deserves to be destroyed in the name of (ironically) humanity, and both sides are spreading hatred and terror.

Both have used and sacrificed ordinary working class people, to achieve their ambitions, whatever these ambitions are. As Noam Chomsky has stated, George Bush used fear as a tool for his re-election, and had to manufacture another threat to American security to win his Presidency."

Appalling....

Christopher Hitchens on Rove

Rove Rage - The poverty of our current scandal. By Christopher Hitchens

The link is to the ever readable Hitchens on the Rove/Wilson stuff. Excellent! (Although Professor Bunyip did a good job on this too.)

Avoiding the issue

From the same website that I linked to in my last post, which from a quick look seems generally to be a relatively moderate Islamic site, note this question and answer:

"If it is proved that a Muslim carried out the London bombings and I know something about him. Shall I call the non-Muslim police to arrest him? Or hand him to a Muslim schoalr or imam who can talk to him and convince him no to do that henious act again? Does this case have an origin in Fiqh literature?

Answer In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. According the Qur'an: (Whoever saves a human life, it is as if he has saved the entire humanity.) (Al-Ma`idah 5: 32) Therefore, if you found someone that is planning to attack civilians and innocent people, then you have to stop him by all legitimate means, including giving advice, preventing him from carrying out the crime, or even calling the police if he refuses to listen to you. There is no difference between Muslims and non-Muslims as for being perpetrators or victims, because every human life counts in Islam. The Qur'an, talking about the prohibition to kill people, used the word "nafs" which means "soul" without making a distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. "

See how the question says the person was already involved, but doesn't concentrate on whether to report him for that, but just on what to do to stop him doing it again. And the answer doesn't address the need to arrest him because he has already done the crime.

Is it too much for an Islamic leader to just say "yes, call the police if you believe he was involved"? And I am sure the UK police have Islamic liaison officers, as if that should matter anyway.

Everything you may never have wanted to know about this...

I am not really mocking Islam by linking to this detailed explanation of Islamic views on toilet paper. I was just genuinely curious about how detailed they get in their teachings on this.

However, you can't but help find the reference to using rocks or pebbles a bit funny, can you? Pity the poor desert dwellers, I suppose.

I am also curious about how many Muslims really follow the shaving pubic hair bit. I mean, it's not like your fellow Mosque attendees are ever likely to see, are they?

Facing facts

TIME.com: When Denial Can Kill -- Jul. 25, 2005

The link is to a good essay from this week's Time magazine, about how Islamic leaders should face up to the fact that the Koran can be used to "justify" terrorism, and start their counter-arguments from that point (rather than from a blanket assertion that Islam is all about peace.) Well worth a read.

Arab conspiracies

U.S. forces behind deadly children bomb: Iraqi experts -

See the above link for stupid propaganda that Arab media is still prepared to promote. It's a worry.

By the way, although I initially thought this website was connected to Aljazeera TV, it seems not to be.

Anyway, this Aljazeera website even has a special area for conspiracy theories, where it would seem every possible rumour gets a run, without any serious commentary at all.

Are Arabs especially pre-disposed to believing rumour and conspiracy? Of course the West has its fair share of conspiracy nutters too; but it is distressing to see the websites like this (which, from its commercial advertising, looks at at least a little main-streamish) playing such a role in promoting damaging and ridiculous rumours.

Camel robot jockeys

The Australian: Robot jockeys saddle up [July 19, 2005]

Why haven't I seen this on TV yet? Robot sports, that's what the world is waiting for...

Mad Katter on IR reform

Damn. On ABC Radio News this afternoon, I heard a snippet from mad Bob Katter about why he will oppose the Howard government's IR reforms. Unfortunately, I can't see it quoted anywhere on the net yet, so you will have to do with my paraphrase.

Bob said he will oppose it because even though he was involved in Joh Bjelke Peterson's fights with union, he does not want to see us go back to not just the 1960's, but the 1860's, when mining companies owned the children who wore numbers around their neck as they were sent down into the mines. (I am not making this up.)

Gee, I wonder why the union's ad campaigns don't mention that? I can see the ad now. Mum gets phone call threatening the sack if she can't change her shift. "But there must be some way I can keep my job?" she asks. Cut to the kids in sackcloth in the mine elevator.

Update: OK the actual quote now:

"They say I want to go back to the 1960s, the McEwen era, the old Country Party era, well that's absolutely true," he said.

"But it's a hell of a lot better to go back to 1960 than where they want to go, which is 1860, where little children went down mines with steel collars with numbers and were actually owned by the mine owners."

Space shuttle coming near you (well, me)

According to this bit of fun news over the weekend, (RAAF Base) Amberley - about 40 km west of Brisbane - is on the list of potential emergency landing sites for the space shuttle.

Is the runway there long enough? Well, it seems the Florida runway is 15,000 ft, with an extra 2,000 ft of paved overruns and Amberley is close enough to 10,000. So I guess it would do in a pinch. However, if I lived at Leichhardt (Ipswich suburb more or less right on the edge of the base) and I heard the shuttle was on its way in, I would be outta there pretty damn quick.

Webdiary's unsurprising slant on London

As Tim Blair noted (somewhere, I've lost it now), Webdiary was mysteriously silent for a long time on the London bombings. Possibly the technical problems afftecting the site recently?

In any event, this article (subtitled "commentary by Margo Kingston", but containing simply her very brief introduction to an article by John Richardson) is an entirely predictable rant that blames all of Islamic terrorism on, you guessed it, the West. America in particular. London only gets brief mention, but the blame the victim message is clear.

One "new" thing I noted in it was this:

"Then this week, the much quieter voice of an Iraqi humanitarian organization reported that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the US invasion began in March 2003 (Civilian Casualties In Iraq)."

The link is to a website here, the "World Peace Herald", which apparently is owned by the Moonies and seems to run a suspiciously sympathetic line on Islamofacsism (see story here, headed " 'To stop terrorism, accept pious Muslims on equal terms' ".)

Anyway, there is next to no detail on the Iraqi source of this new casualty figure, and a quick Google search adds nothing. No one should take it seriously without some proper detail. But that's no problem for Richardson (or Margo, if its "her" commentary piece).

Admittedly, Webdiary follows with a piece by Darlene Taylor which briefly attacks this sort of crap, but is mostly devoted to a review of David Williamson's latest play.

I knew Webdairy would eventually come to the party.

Iraqi doctor and other troubles

Doctors in Iraq

The link above is about the trouble doctors in Iraq face regarding their personal security.

I could be wrong, but I would have thought that most of the kidnapping for money was being done by criminal gangs, rather than insurgents wanting to topple the government. But if that is correct, just how many criminals are there in that country? Perhaps 300 doctors have been kidnapped since Saddam fell? That's a hell of a lot of criminals to be in on this money raising scheme.

I find it really hard to fathom the depravity of some of the actions against Iraqis recently. Today's suicide bombing in Baghdad, in which a suicide bomber is prepared to take out about 24 kids for the sake a killing one or two US soldiers, is especially appalling.

How can they possibly think that actions like these will ultimately help their cause? I mean, even if the USA just up and left tomorrow , the behaviour of the terrorists has surely already completely alienated them from the great majority of the Iraqis who have had their first taste of democracy and freedom. Are they not smart enough to know they have lost already? Is no one getting on Iraqi television and telling them this each night?

Iraq/al Qaeda

For anyone who missed it, via Powerline I found this useful summary regarding al Qaeda and Iraq. I am waiting for it to appear in The Age. Any decade now, it might.

What I find most disturbing is the wilful blindness of the MSM to this side of the story. And those on the Left who refuse to budge in their original belief that there is was connection. It seems very similar to the "fake turkey" meme so riduculed over at Tim Blair. Some ideas just get stuck in the MS media's little mind, then in some of the MSM's consumer's mind. Reading a wide range of blogs is the cure, but some refuse to take it.

Journalism is only the very roughest first draft of history, but how many people appreciate that?

Terror Blogging

Domestic duties will likely make my blogging rate slow down quite a a bit this week.

As to London, it seems that there is little left to blog about given the great flood of blog entries on the story. If another Sep 11 scale attack happened, would all the blog servers cope, I wonder. I am not implying any criticism of blogging on this; in fact it is amazing how much interesting and high quality commentary there is from pure "amateurs" in the blogosphere.

I like what Christopher Hitchens has said on this, both on Slate and on ABC Radio National on Friday morning. (I figure there is no need to link, as I presume most people of conservative leaning follow him pretty closely since his dramatic break from the "let's blame the victim" Left after 9-11.)

Paul Sheehan in the Sydney Morning Herald today is good too. I find he can be rather hit or miss in his commentary, but this seems a pretty solid "hit".

Of course, the SMH can't let his views uncontradicted, so they also feature Tariq Ali in the same edition blaming the West for its "state terror" against such nice people such as Saddam and the Taliban. Interestingly, Tariq uses the phrase "Islamo-anarchists" for the terrorists, as opposed to "Islamo fascists" as per Hitchens. But surely "anarchy" is exactly the opposite of what Islamic fundamentalists want in a government of their creation. "Fascism" as defined on dictionary.com, is exactly the right word.

While I was at dictionary.com, I just had to double check the correct meaning of "fatuous" to make sure if it was the word for Ali's column. (" Vacuously, smugly, and unconsciously foolish.") Yep, that's it!

Webdiary: technical problem fixed; mental problems continue

Over at Webdiary, the entry on the government's intended IR reforms has this (unremarkable) comment from one Jay White:

"I have noticed a constant theme from Howard haters since the last election. That is that somehow the Government lied about adverse interest rate rises under a Latham Government.

This is another myth and blatant mistruth. The Government never claimed that Latham's policies would cause interest rate rises. What they did claim was that interest rates have always on average been lower under a Coalition Government measured post world war II against a Labor one. Truth, do the math if you do not believe me." etc

The response from another Webdiary reader, Peter Woodforde:

"Achtung, achtung! Deeply disturbing, typically nasty and sarcastic post.

Jay White: (muttering about J Winston Howard’s quite dishonest election campaign interest rates smoke and mirrors fandango) “do the math if you do not believe me” Indeed.

Yeah, and we Australians are always talkiin’ about “the math” Young Republican Roto-rooter Jay.

You wanna come here, then learn the bloody lingo sport. All the other refugees do, or at least have a go.

If it’s good enough for people running from Saddam, Tienanmen or the Taliban, then it’s also good enough for the Boys from Brazil or Kalifornia uber Alles.

And kindly leave your flaming “math” behind you. It’s not just a cultural-linguistic glitch, Jay-low. It’s boots-and-bloody-all, hated tele-imperialism.

What might add up in Wall Street, the Ozarks and Hollywood don’t work here, mate. Despite all appearances, we have a crack at being civilised on our day. Have a crack yourself.

And hand in your guns, White Supremacy and market liberalisation to the bloke at the door, who will lodge them in his furnace for safekeeping."

And remember, this is a moderated commentary site. Take your medication and lie down for a while Peter.

Problems in Uganda

I don't want to decry efforts to help Africa, but when you read articles like this one (concerning one particular problem in Uganda) it just boggles the mind as to how that continent's ongoing governance problems can ever really be addressed by the West. Well, short of colonial rule again.

I hope the article is accurate, as I notice that the same magazine (the Tablet) also has an article from Madeleine Bunting, who I criticised about 4 posts ago.

Feeeed me

CNN.com - Baby girl weighs in at nearly 14 pounds - Jun 29, 2005

No comment necessary. (But the parents do look normal- check the second picture in the box.)

Gone North by Northwest

Telegraph | News | Ernest Lehman

A little sad to see the passing of one of the best screenwriters of last century. For me, he is most noteworthy for the extremely witty and entertaining original script for "North by Northwest", for which (as I recall, and as the above article indicates) he spent a lot of time personally researching the trip Roger O Thornhill (Gary Grant) was to make in the film. I think I have a book on the shelf that contains an extended interview with him. Must look it up.

10,000 Pharaohs?

From this story (Rampage before dawn ignites protest chaos) in The Scotsman on the rabble riots in Edinburgh, can someone explain this:

"In the Springkerse area of Stirling, protesters pulled the protective iron grill from the windows of a Burger King restaurant and smashed its windows. The wall was dubbed in graffiti: "10,000 Pharaohs Six Billion Slaves.""

Where does the magic figure of 10,000 come from?

Maybe it's the deodorant

This article Ovulating women favour dominant men's smell - Sniff test suggests when, and with whom, women are most likely to cheat suggestst that women can be just as shallow as men.

But really, if it is all based on how attractive women find the smell of armpit sweat, I hope the study took adequate account of the possible lingering effect of different deodorants. Maybe more "dominant" men buy stronger lasting deodorants, even if they were told not to use it for a few days before the trial?

I also question what use this sort of research really is. It has a certain level of interest, but basically we all know some men get more than other men, don't we? Do we have to do studies to really work out precisely what it is that gives some men the edge?

Unhelpful commentary on Africa

Still bearing the white man's burden - Opinion - theage.com.au

This column, by a Guardian writer, is of interest for a couple of reasons. She complains that the Live 8 and G8 events don't help Africans much to the extent that they re-inforce a perceived status of Africans as passive victims. On a certain level, I can more or less agree.

But then, being a Guardian columnist, she can't help herself and has to come back to arguing that they really are, after all, victims (of capitalism):

"The West, in its rapacious and impatient greed, destroys with contempt or indifference all that it can't appropriate for its own aggrandisement. Africa exposes - like no other continent - the hubristic arrogance of the Western industrialised countries that dominate the globe and are forcing an entire species into one model of human development - a model with catastrophic shortcomings."

What does she think the West can learn from Africa?:

"Now is precisely the point at which we need to learn about the genius of Africa's own history of development, which, Lonsdale suggests, lies in the extraordinary resilience and self-sufficiency to survive and adapt in habitats not always conducive to human life. The resilience is derived in part from an investment in relationships (rather than things); partly it lies in the qualities of self-disciplined willpower that sustain individuals against all the odds. These are skills we've forgotten or may never have had, but the coming centuries suggest we'll need to learn them from Africans."

Wow, she can tell us what we need to learn from Africa not just now, but for centuries to come. I guess she is talking about global warming, and perhaps suggesting that when the heat goes up we will be best served by going back into little clan based villages re-learning how to scratch around the deserts to find a bit of sustenance?

But seriously, this is useless commentary at its best. At heart, it is a whinge about history and another attempt to ascribe a degree of moral superiority to indigenous populations. (Africans are so much more into relationships than, say, Italian families, or Asian countries. That was sarcasm by the way.)

Most importantly, it suggests nothing practical about how anyone really can help poor dying Africans in their current plight. Just having the West stand around and agree that the African continent is not completely a bunch of passive losers won't much help those who need food, modern drugs, clean water and less bullet holes in the head today.

Optimism in science and life

All regular readers (all 3 of you?) know that I like popular science magazines. I see a new Aussie one has started, called Cosmos. Unfortunately, the website is nothing but an index to their first edition, and the "news" section is just all of the company's press releases about the magazine.

I have not (yet) bought the first edition, but from my quick browse of it in the newsagent, its style reminds me very much of the dear departed Omni magazine. For the first few years, I really liked Omni. (I think I still have a cardboard carton's worth, waiting for the day I need to find some old half remembered article.) I enjoyed its short fiction, its speculative science, and (most importantly) its optimism.

An optimistic view of the potential for science and technology to solve many of the problems of the world is now sadly lacking. Know-nothing (or know-very-little) teachers from the 1970's onwards have trained young students to be pessimistic, aided and abetted by an environmental movement with a romantic and completely incorrect belief that, left alone, the world would never change and be perfect. Indeed, there is little optimism for the potential of human kind to even be around for any cosmologically significant time.

Anyway, no magazine keeps the same quality forever, and Omni gradually became worse and finally died.

I wish Cosmos some luck if it is going to go with an optimistic world view. But I guess one thing I am pessimistic about is the limited potential readership for a glossy science magazine in Australia.

Incidentally, while I have not really thought this out very extensively, I am of the view that the modern conservative is well and truly the optimist compared to those on the left of politics. Optimistic that people can treat each other well without the need for over-regulation by government or thought police. More optimistic on technology and science too. Certainly, it is less beholden to the environment movement, for which the only approved technology seems to be noisy ugly wind mills.

The little black dog

The little black dog that colours your life grey - Opinion - theage.com.au

The link is to Greg Barnes' article in The Age today going on about his apparent perpetual dark mood.

While he gives anti-depressants a mention (they don't solve his problem), he says nothing about cognitive therapy, which for some years now has been seen as a real success story for treating depression.

I am no expert, but sounds to me like cognitive therapy is exactly the sort of thing he should be trying.

Criticism of Critics - War of the Worlds

I saw War of the Worlds yesterday. I don't have the time or inclination to do full movie reviews here, but as I enjoy reading movie criticism even if I don't see the movie, I like to point out good and bad criticism I have found.

Reaction to this movie seems to be pretty divided between those who found it extremely tense and scary, and those who claim to have felt nothing. Science fiction is a bit problematic for some people who can just never imagine themselves in an alternative situation other than the present or historic world. Never understood that myself, but I can't be too harsh, because I happen to belong to a relatively small sub set of people who like science fiction but are left cold by most fantasy (including, dare I admit it, Tolkien in both book and cinema versions.)

Anyway, count me in the group who found the movie emotionally gruelling and a wonder to behold. But, I found it so tense and affecting that I find it a little hard to strongly recommend to a non science fiction fan as an enjoyable night out.

Now to stupid criticisms of it. Roger Ebert's just about takes the cake. I have rarely seen a stupider review, especially from someone who is well read, knows the source material, and is capable of liking science ficition. He attacks the lack of apparent (or explained) logic of the aliens. (Seems bleeding obvious to me that it is a terraforming project going on. But this is simply not the type of movie that needs an explanation spelt out too bluntly. Its angle - to show an other-worldly attack simply from the point of view of an ordinary man trying to escape it - has rightly been much praised for being more realistic than something like the woeful "Independence Day".) He likes nothing about the tripods. To quote:

"All of this is just a way of leading up to the gut reaction I had all through the film: I do not like the tripods. I do not like the way they look, the way they are employed, the way they attack, the way they are vulnerable or the reasons they are here. A planet that harbors intelligent and subtle ideas for science fiction movies is invaded in this film by an ungainly Erector set. "

This is not serious movie criticism, in my books. And basically, it is attacking a movie for being too faithful to the fundamentals of the original book.

I have just gone and checked what Ebert thought of Independence Day. He gave it 1/2 a star more, although also questions the logic of much of the film! Really, for me this has blown all of his credibility when it comes to science fiction reviews.

Now my other point is that I have read 2 Australia reviewers (will link later) who have mentioned a "logic" flaw that is given an explanation in the film.
(Slight spoiler warning for what follows)

This is to do with the fact that the car the Tom Cruise character gets in to drive away from the mayhem works, when all other cars are disabled due to electro magnetic pulse.

Do these critics pay no attention at all? The explanation (that the car had just been repaired, a fact Tom knew because he had earlier had a conversation with the mechanic) could only have been clearer if the script writer had come into the cinema, stopped the movie and gave them a personal recitation of the (already perfectly audible) lines again. (Now I admit, the nature of the repair explained in the film may not be perfect - it referred to a new solenoid being put it, whereas the other cars stopped on the road presumably had more wrong with their electronics than that -but at least it is a semi-plausible explanation towards having this car work when others had stopped.)

These critics seem to suggest there is simply no explanation given in the film. I just cannot believe they missed it.

Update: I have been trying to think of a good analogy to Ebert's dislike of the tripods. Maybe it's like complaining that the film of "The Old Man and the Sea" spends too much time in a boat.

Doctors and abortion in Australia

eMJA: Abortion: time to clarify Australia's confusing laws

The link is to a Medical Journal of Australia article from last year talking about the muddled legal position in Australia for abortion. (The article calls for a debate, and arose from the same abortion for dwarfism case that is in the news at the moment.)

Disturbingly, the report says:

"A survey of Australian clinical geneticists and obstetricians specialising in ultrasound showed that about 75% believed that termination for fetal dwarfism should be available as a clinical option at 24 weeks."

This is a sign if ever there was one that you don't leave medical ethics up to the doctors alone to decide.

Meanwhile in England, the doctors are talking about the general issue of late term abortions. It would seem that the UK legislation does actually do the tough job of setting time limits, although it is still possible "in extreme circumstances" to get an abortion after the first 24 weeks. It is not clear from the MJA article, but I presume that it should be at least harder for a woman there to abort for dwarfism after 24 weeks.

One of the most irksome things about this issue in Australia is the resistance to even discussion of time limits that comes from some of the pro choice lobby. I may add to this later.

Bosler Alert !

Margo Kingston's Webdiary - smh.com.au

The link above is to another very deep and meaningful - yet typically obscure - entry by Margo's artist in residence Robert Bosler.

This entry is reflecting on Latham's legacy, told from the poetic view point of a very confused person coming home:

"You are a spouse. It’s been a long day, they all are, even the days off feel long now.

Your own spouse will be home soon."

As opposed to someone else's spouse?

Then on to Mark Latham:

"He was never to be Prime Minister, we know that now. Yet he was about creating a new Prime Ministership, and this he may well yet achieve."

He's already "achieved" leaving us with a PM who isn't mad, which is something to his credit. And as to meta meaning of Latham:

"The Latham message is still working through."

Yes, like a dose of salts, as they used to say.

" It is not so much a message we can receive of words, nor of actions. It’s one of inner belief."

The message is that you must be - read that again - you must be - who you are. Yours is not to go through the motions of life, nor to have life happen to you. Yours is to live it."

Preferably in a calmer way than Mark, though.

Robert's picture of our life in the burbs then gets decidedly schizophrenic:

"John Howard is on the news. You don't support Howard, and your feelings are sure of that. You do support John Howard, and, equally, you feel sure of that. You are sure, too, that it’s now well into the national time of ne'er the two shall meet. In these things, you feel secure, and having long ago arrived at your conclusions, you can now relax."

And to summarise:

"Before Latham, something within us slowly died. John Howard appealed to that part of us. He does it still. He appeals to the deadedness within us.

Mark Latham burst onto the scene and appealed to the life within us. We raged at him. We saw hope in him. One way or another, we were motivated once again by real life in politics, and we responded."

Yes indeed, by voting against an immature, unstable, bitter and twisted character and setting back his party's hope of return to government even further.

Get out your tape measures

This medical report on "treating" Egyptian men complaining of short penis length is, umm, noteworthy. But would you consider a stretched length of 7 cm "normal"? (I think stretched length is supposed to equate to erect length, isn't it?)

"Penile length and girth were measured twice using a tape measure in both flaccid and fully stretched states. Every patient was informed that if his flaccid and stretched penis size was 4 cm and 7 cm or more, respectively, it was considered normal....

None of the patients had short penis according to our measurements. Almost all patients overestimated the normal penile size."

Maybe I'll finally get someone to post a comment to my blog on this one!

Watch out bloggers

While looking at the IWPR site (see last post,) I followed a link to Reporters Sans Frontieres, which I had never heard of before. Interesting site, especially for its list of reporters imprisoned, including 75 "cyberdissidents".

63 of them are in China, which I suppose is no great surprise. Most of the other countries on the list are more or less to be expected too (Iran, Libya, Syria, Vietnam and Tunisia), but also the Maldives. What sort of potential uprising is the Maldives worried about?

Meanwhile in Cuba, they are no cyberdissidents in jail (maybe they barely have the internet there), but there are 21 independent journalists rotting slowly in prison.

Come on, liberal friends of Castro in Hollywood and elsewhere, can't you exert some influence on the old guy to lighten up a bit?

Tariq squeals on boss

I can't link directly to this, I don't think, but you find it by it going to the daily Iraqi Press Monitor summary for 28 June, on the web site for the Institute for War & Peace reporting. It seems Tariq Aziz is not helping Saddam's defence, if this Iraqi paper is correct:

"Aziz: Saddam Ordered Destruction of Shia Uprising
(Al-Mashriq) The special court to try Saddam Hussein and his regime's leaders has questioned ex-deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who confessed that Saddam ordered the destruction of the Shia uprising in the south in 1991. Saddam's orders had the power of the law and no one dared to negotiate with him, he said. He added that he had nothing to do with that issue because he was a foreign minister then. He said some of the regional leadership members of the Ba'ath party went to the south on a mission to places of tension, but he had no idea what they did there.
(Al-Mashriq is published daily by Al-Mashriq Institution for Media and Cultural Investments.)"


By the way, the IWPR site seems pretty good, and it apparently funded both by leftish and rightish organisations, including the US government.

Force fields for astronauts

New Scientist SPACE - Breaking News - Force fields may shield astronauts from radiation

This interesting story on a proposal for radiation shielding for astronauts on the moon.

It was a matter of considerable disappointment for my childhood dreams of being a wandering solar system astronaut to learn (as an adult) that space is, generally speaking, very dangerous from a radiation point of view. This got no consideration at all in the kid's (or adult's) science fiction I used to read, mainly because the science just wasn't really known. Now it does get a run in serious hard science fiction. (I just read a Charles Sheffield book in which colonists on Jupiter's moons have to wear super-conducting electronically shielded suits when they are on the surface, but they basically all live underground.) It does make the whole space undertaking much more difficult.

This article from New Scientist does not talk about living underground on the moon, but I always thought that covering a smallish crater with some sort of membrane, baking it solid then burying it with a meter or two of dirt was the way to go. No way would you need to ever bring "concrete" to the moon, as the article suggests at the end. A small electric bulldozer is what you need, and some innovative low gravity construction techniques. Fortunately, a lot of holes are "pre-dug" on the moon.

Presumably there may also be natural caves on the moon, and with its lower gravity, maybe they are bigger than average earth ones. I would have thought that extensive radar or accoustic sounding of possible sites would be one of the early colonization priorities for the moon.

Now I should really get back to work.

Plastic skinless humans reach America

While looking at the Economist, I was surprised to learn that the controversial "Body Worlds" exhibit is now in the USA. I would thought that it would have attracted much more media controversy there. (It did when it came to England.)

for those who don't know, Body Worlds is an "anatomical" exhibition of real human bodies treated with polymers and plastics to preserve them. Have a look at the official home page here, and the Guardian's comments on it from 3 years ago now.

I read about some of the controversy when it was in England, but I don't know that it got much coverage in the Australian press.

The whole thing creeps me out. It is one thing to plasticise a human body for medical students to use. But to make a touring exhibition of such bodies in all sorts of weird semi-artist poses? It is horrifically ghoulish if you ask me. You know it is disturbing if the Guardian's art critic has his doubts too.

But if you want some wry amusement, look at this link on the official site to celebrity comments. Those who liked it (enough to be quoted) include this weird cross section of stars: Dustin Hoffman, Tina Turner, Demi Moore, Andre Agassi, Nick Nolte (whose liver is probably already pickled) and (of course) Bjork.

Come on conservative american's, has this one slipped past you a bit?

Forgiving Debt

Just a quick mention of 3 of the several articles around skeptical of the benefits of debt forgiveness strategies currently being pursued by old musicians. The Economist here, which links to an IMF paper, and in today's Australian.

It is obvious that the endemic level of corruption and maladministration in government in Africa is at the heart of many countries' poverty problems. But how do you fix those problems? That is the hard question it seems no one knows how to answer.

Update: one other good and easy to follow article from Slate is here.

Just a bit more on Queensland justice

As mentioned in my last post, former Chief Magistrate and recent prison inmate Di Fingleton made an appearance on Enough Rope last night. As always, the show was very watchable, and it is good to see an interviewer ask the difficult questions, but also be a bit silly at times. He is a real talent.

Can't say the same for Ms Fingleton. The person who wants her job back (but she comes close to admitting she is just arguing this for the sake of maintaining a claim for compensation based on her old salary) says:

"ANDREW DENTON: What do you think you did to create such animosity towards you?

DI FINGLETON: I'm not perfect. I am impatient with people. I talk apparently over them a lot. I wouldn't do it with you 'cause you are the God around here. I am not perfect. "

Perhaps aggressive and rude are other ways of putting it to. Just what we want in our magistrates!

And as to why she was appointed a Magistrate and Chief magistrate in the first place:

"I started off being Chief Magistrate with a desire to do something which I explained. I have had a fairly quick rise to it, and I was part of an affirmative action by the then Attorney General, Matt Foley, to appoint women. Some of the magistrates were very conservative. Affirmative action puts a bad taste in people's mouths."

To be honest, I didn't think she would be so up front about this. Back to her personality though, where she talked about arguing with her husband that morning about "everything" ("it's all forgotten now" said jovial husband.) But I like this bit from our Di:

"Unfortunately for [husband] John, it compounded for him and he's actually been off work for a while. I suffered this thing that I hear that women suffer when their husband retires, they're home all the time. Anyone here? For the first two weeks, I said, "You want to use the computer? It's mine." We've got over that, he found the other computer. But, yeah, I suppose, to answer your question, I'm strong woman and I'm proud of it."

Oh yes, she sounds like a real likeable person at home too...

Then back to her comments about how she got the job:

"I want my job back. If that for some reason is impossible or in end I say - we'll be talking. But I know these people, you see. I have a history of involvement with the Labor Party. I don't like Beattie being so harsh with me. He says I'll get justice. They know what I went through. They know me as a person. "

And then this rousing non-sequitur:

"Because it was Queensland, perhaps it always had that colour of I only got it 'cause I was a woman or because I knew the Attorney-General."

Umm, no, it was not "because it was Queensland", it was because, as you said 5 minutes ago, you did get it cos you knew (Attorney General) Matt Foley, and you are a woman.

Perhaps I am a little unfair, because she goes on the say that Foley:

"...knew me very well and knew my achievements. He was not going to put up anyone who would fail, and I was not going to take it to fail. I was ambitious but I'm not silly. So I took the job in the best possible faith and did my job in the best possible faith."

So she got it cos she knew Foley, was a woman and (co-incidentally?) was also the best possible person for the job. Some co-incidence.

This is what has made the case such a pleasure for conservatives like me - how could you get a more perfect example of the dangers of cozy political appointments combined with affirmative action? It blew up in everyone's' face. Even those brave lawyers who took on her case:

"ANDREW DENTON: The High Court made this very clear. They had a go at the judge, the prosecution and your defence team because this immunity lay within the Magistrates Act, the very act that you administer. How did you all miss it?

DI FINGLETON: You don't go around thinking, "I'll need criminal immunity", because more than anyone else you have to set a good example. You should not even be seen speeding or jaywalking.

ANDREW DENTON: Isn't this what you pay a defence team for, though, to find this stuff?

DI FINGLETON: I will be taking legal advice, obviously."

So those lawyers now face possible negligence action, I presume she means. Bet they felt good watching the interview! Let's hope they defend the civil action and we get another High Court chance to kick around some Queensland lawyers. (Remember I already mentioned contributory negligence in my last post.)

In my view, the overall effect of the interview was far from helpful for her public image and her campaign for compensation. For the reasons mentioned in my last post, she should not get any judicial position back, and I am annoyed that Beattie has even offered that to her. (Maybe that is just part compensation tactics too.) I would like to see how she would go at the Magistrate's conferences they have from time to time. Christmas Drinks could be a hoot too.

Peter, give her a job in some harmless post like the Law Reform Commission, where she can be bitchy and aggressive without stuffing up too many people's professional lives.

And for god's sake, don't appoint judges and magistrates just because they are Labor women.

Legal system re-think please

Well, I have only been blogging a relatively short time, but feel I can claim some sort of vindication about my earlier expressed views about our justice system.

Yesterday, the High Court quashed Di Fingleton's (former Queensland Chief Magistrate) conviction, which meant the court system finally discovered that she had legistlative immunity from prosecution.... after serving her sentence.

Her lawyers appear to have never realised this argument, as it was evidently not raised before the Queensland Court of Appeal, or (it would appear from the report) before the High Court. (It says the High Court raised the matter itself). In today's paper, the Chief Justice in Queensland admits he knew that this was a possible grounds of appeal, but it's not his (nor any judges') job to go suggesting to the lawyers before them what arguments to run.

I think this is technically correct, and is particularly true for trial judges. But doesn't it just confirm what I said in my earlier post that if you don't have an inquisitorial system, the courts are not philosophically inclined towards finding the truth, and justice becomes a bit of a game. In this case (as no doubt in countless others,) it results in people serving sentences before they are ultimately acquitted, and usually without compensation.

I don't think we have to uproot our system completely, but surely there ought to be scope for trial judges to take a more active role in seeing that justice is done. But like I said before, my feeling is that there is an institutional blindness to these sort of arguments in the Australian system in particular. (I am no expert, but in the last 30 years I think Britain has taken much bolder steps in having fundamental re-thinks about old rules of evidence, for example.)

And by the way, don't think I am really a personal supporter of Di Fingleton. The Queensland Labor Government went through a particularly bad period of appointing women to the courts deliberately to even up the gender balance. Having Labor connections has never hurt in seeking appointment to be a Magistrate either. She was obviously deeply unpopular with her fellow magistrates, and the fact that she would even think that she could "have her old job back" shows a lack of practical common sense, if you ask me. She will probably get some compensation, and I grudgingly think she probably deserves some. Not too much though - her own lawyers never raised the argument. I think they should use a "contributory negligence" principle and halve whatever compensation they would otherwise have given her. And don't go giving her another government job after compensation either.

I still don't feel all that sorry for her.

UPDATE:

I should have seen this coming, but the Chief Justice says he was misquoted by the Courier Mail in relation to his knowledge of the possible use of the legislative immunity section. However, his correction of the record hardly changes my basic argument. Here's the new quote:

In a related development, Queensland's Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey, was forced to deny that he had told The Courier-Mail he knew of Ms Fingleton's immunity from prosecution, but said nothing.

"I said no such thing," Justice de Jersey said.

"As the journalist acknowledged to me on Friday, I said only in response to his question that I had been aware of Section 21(a) of the Magistrates Act, the provision which exonerated Ms Fingleton.

"I had never conceived that provision could apply to her case.

"I was neither the trial judge nor a member of the Court of Appeal which heard the appeal. Even if I considered the provision arguably applicable, it would have been improper for me to intervene." (Italics mine)

I have also now read the High Court case quickly, and it appears that there is an earlier High Court case suggesting that trial judges should bring possible defences up with the jury even if the defence counsel has not raised the argument. I haven't had time to check this out yet, but certainly Kirby's reasons for judgment still spends a lot of time on deciding whether a court of appeal really has the right to reinstate, as it were, a defence which the accused's Counsel has already ignored at the first appeal (at the State level.)

It is all very complex, and another retired judge from Queensland apparently thinks the High Court was way off the mark anyway in being so sure that the immunity provision did apply. (You do get the feeling that the High Court does just love to put the boot into Queensland court's decisions.)

Not having formed my own opinion about the merits of the High Court decision yet, it may turn out that no one raised it before then because no Queensland lawyer thought it was applicable, and I might agree it doesn't apply. But surely Fingleton's own lawyers should have at least tried the argument before the trial judge.

So maybe my concerns about the adversorial system being illustrated by this case are not so valid. But I would like to think that a Chief Justice, if he had the view that a possible immunity provision had been entirely overlooked, could have at least suggested informally to some of the other judges involved that they don't forget to look at that. (My basic point being that the issue of seeing justice done should not be overwhelmed by undue weight being put on a non-interventionist approach by the judiciary. )

And as for my view on compensation for Di Fingleton, I am not so sure she deserves any now. She is apparently still saying she should have her chief magistrates job back.

I don't think she should have any judicial position back at all, and she should have enough common sense to know that it is because the public could not have any trust that she could now have an objective view on sentencing. She has been to jail and has strong subjective views on the experience. (She was quoted in the weekend press talking about it, and is due to talk to Andrew Denton about it on TV tonight.) Some people might say this is a good thing, as it gives her a unique understanding of the consequences of her job. While this sounds plausible, it is not practical. It is the same reasoning I use to argue against people who suffered child abuse becoming social workers as adults. An over-heightened subjectivity of the experience is just what you don't need if you want objective and consistent outcomes in future.

Anyway, her case for compensation can really only be based on showing that Crown law made a bad error in continuing the case in that they did not consider the immunity provision. But if her own lawyers overlook the argument too (or look at it but decide tactically that it is not worth running), and if the accused herself is a lawyer, it is a little hard to point the finger of blame too much.

If they had raised the defence at trial and been acquitted on those grounds, and the trial judge agreed that it was an obvious oversight by the Crown in not considering that argument before prosecuting, then I suppose compensation would be on. But in this case, I think I was probably being overly generous when I first suggested she should probably get even half of what she otherwise would.

More "Age" Hyperbole on IR Reform

Well, it's to be expected from The Age, isn't it, but today's comments on IR reform by Ken Davidson are nonetheless noteworthy for their hyperbole.

"The Howard Government's aim is total victory in the class war that has been largely quiescent since industrial warfare was replaced by arbitration as part of the Australian settlement established by Australia's early prime minister and founding father, Alfred Deakin."

Yeah, well funny how the party that doesn't go on about class warfare is the one that delivers better wage growth to the workers.

"For Howard, victory is predicated on the belief that trade unions are no longer relevant to post-industrial society. But trade unions still play a role in ensuring that higher productivity is translated into higher wages so that firms compete on the basis of technical innovation, not on cutting wages."

This sounds stupid to me. What evidence is there that increased productivity does not translate into higher wages if a union is not involved.

"In the new era of flexibility, we are closer to Howard's free-market utopia of flexible wages, prices and organisational structures. This is leading to widening income differentials and insecurity, and will create social, and eventually economic, dystopia."

A definition:

dystopia n : state in which the condition of life is extremely bad as from deprivation or oppression or terror

Yeah sure Ken.

"Paradoxically, Howard's reforms, if implemented, will simply compound insecurity as all employers face the prospect of having to compete by cutting wages and conditions or risk being undercut by less scrupulous competitors.

Knowingly or unknowingly, Howard is trying to unleash a "race to the bottom" that will worsen Australia's balance of payments by making us even more uncompetitive in international high-value-added industries."

This is almost as good reading as this post from a Webdiary reader - one Nancy Peters, who is quoting from another "economist" (sorry it is long, but it is worth it for its breath taking implausibility):

"The US citizen will, over time, be reduced to earn the same wages as his Chinese and Filipino counterparts. He hasn't realized it yet, but he is being progressively reduced to sweatshop labour by being reduced to accepting a job at MacDonald's or Wal-Mart on US$ 7 per hour. Now manufacturing has been largely outsourced or relocated to China or other Asian nations. However, the time will come, maybe by 2015 or 2020, when his wages will be reduced sufficiently to make relocating manufacturing in Ohio an attractive proposition. Welcome to globalization and the New World Order. This is all wonderful of course if you are one of the owners of the means of production and the capital base. You can play one nation off against another, arbitrage wage rates and maximize profits, and reduce your labour force to compliant and malleable serfs. All this comes with the added benefit of "the Sword of Damocles" hanging over each employee's head in the form of a debt mountain. What a brilliant scheme this all is!"

Didn't One Nation used to go on with crap like this. Now it gets a run on Margo's Webdiary...

And Margo's profound comment at the end ..."Hi Nancy!"

A cool house

Dome House, Hawthorn - Reviews - Arts - Entertainment - theage.com.au

Have a look at the link for a picture of a very cool looking dome house in Melbourne. The review following gets pretty high falutin' though.

Prostitution pays well in Sydney

The Australian: Hooker keeps house sold by client [June 22, 2005]

Aw, don't you feel at least a little sorry for this guy? Usually its the woman who accidentally falls in love. And note that Ms Lin, age 31, now owns "several" investment properties in Sydney with its astronomical real estate prices. Just how much money does she earn?

But while we are on the topic of strange and sad legal cases involving chinese men in Sydney, this one from a few weeks ago takes a beating. (Summary: 59 yr old married chinese guy has gay love affair with much younger african guy who goes crazy and kills chinese guy's wife and 2 adult kids.) I don't mean to sound flippant, but this would have to be some sort of world benchmark for a guilt- inducing illicit affair.

Life is stranger than fiction, sometimes.

In Defence of the Yuck Factor

Human Cloning: In Defence of the Yuck Factor

I link to the above article because the news story about the potential to use stem cells to grow ovaries and eggs (or sperm cells) for an infertile couple crosses over the boundary of my personal "yuck factor". And I think it is worthwhile defending having such a "factor" in the first place.

Peter Singer, and his ilk, for example, can appear to be perfectly rational and reasonable in their logic as to how they come to their radical positions, which to my mind shows there is a fundamental flaw in the whole process by which they got to the conclusion. (And one other thing that bothers me is the way that Peter Singer can appear in interviews to really be not so radical or crazy, a pretty nice guy in fact. It seems typical of interviews with him that the interviewer rarely directly quotes his most controversial statements back at him and challenges him to re-justify them. Especially, in his case, his view that a new born baby - healthy or not- does not really have any additional "right to life" over a fetus. Of course, he logically can have no problem with late term abortion, when even the feminists now seem to be giving ground on that.)

On infertility generally, at the risk of sounding heartless, I really wonder sometimes why there is so much research money spent on it. (Disclosure: I am blessed with 2 kids, and having married late in life, count myself very lucky in that there was no problem with their conception.) It just seems to me that priorities on medical spending have to be made, and going to such extremes as even thinking about "growing ovaries" as a way to overcome infertility is really hard to justify when they are so many life threatening illnesses and medical conditions calling out for a cure or alleviation.

The modern concentration on trying to cure infertility seems directly related to adoption falling out of fashion in the West. (And I do appreciate that adoption can be very hard on the mother.) What I would prefer to see, however, would be some relaxation of the rules relating to international adoption, as it seems cruel that there are countries with an excess of unwanted little ones, but their overseas adoption is frequently difficult and very expensive.

Japan and Whales

I'm with Currency Lad on this one. Good luck to you big blubbery blue things.

But out of interest, the Japan Times, trying to be even handed, has 2 columns recently, one pro and one anti whaling (both written by westerners it would seem.) The anti whaling one seems pretty common sensical to me. The pro whaling one is full of very spurious arguments, including this interesting bit:

'At Koganji temple in Yamaguchi Prefecture, the souls of over 1,000 whales are interred, along with 75 whale fetuses on the top of a hill, where he says, they can "command a view of their ocean home." He goes on to point out, "An approach where the Japanese accord the whale (the) status of a person because of its integral role in sustaining human life can clearly be contrasted with the view of cattle in the West, where no such status or respect is conferred."'

Sounds like an argument for being allowed to harpoon people too. (Or for cows being accorded the status of people - which reminds me of a lot of Gary Larson cartoons.) Vote 1 Daisy.

A funny line

Anthony Lane, reviewing "Bewitched" in the New Yorker, doesn't like Will Ferrell in the role of Darrin. Then he adds:

"So who would make a decent Darrin? We know the fixings: a little slowness, a lot of chin ’n’ grin, and a tendency to arrive at his own jokes thirty seconds after they leave his mouth. I hear Senator Kerry is none too busy these days."

Good line...:)

Dirty Doctors

So, the media today is all over the evidence from the Dr Death inquiry that Dr Patel had very poor hand washing habits while he was at Bundaberg.

All well and good, but does the general public realise what a scandal the hand washing habits of doctors has been for decades? It is pretty clear to even the casual reader of medical journals that, despite attempts to introduce easier ways of getting doctors to clean their hands, compliance is still pathetic. Don't take my word for it, read this recent article from the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Look at the table on page 4: compliance amongst surgeons was worse than most other doctors! 36%!! What is it about surgeons that makes them so careless about this? A superiority complex? Just too busy to prevent cross infection?

An easier to read commentary on this study is the editorial from the same journal linked here: editorial A couple of quotes:

"How are we doing? It is too early to tell in the United States, where hand hygiene rates average 40% to 60% on a good day. However, European hospitals have been using alcohol-based rubs for many years, so it seems reasonable to look to Europe for evidence of success of the alcohol hand-rub strategy.....[in Europe] the good news is an increase in hand hygiene rates when physicians were aware of being observed; therefore, we can say that we respond to peer pressure, at least when evaluated as a group. The bad news is that the rates were only 61% when physicians thought someone was watching; when physicians did not think anyone was watching, rates averaged 44%.

In conclusion, after more than 150 years of prodding, cajoling, educating, observing, and surveying physicians, hand hygiene adherence rates remain disgracefully low."

Australian doctors are no different (see 1996 study here.) Which would indicate that at any given time there is about a 50/50 chance that your hospital doctor has not washed his or her hands before seeing you from his last patient. If a surgeon, the risk seems likely to be higher.

This is very, very bad.

Shock - Back to the Future not so scientific!

New Scientist Breaking News - No paradox for time travellers

What an interesting snippet from New Scientist on time travel this is. Actually, I recommend you at least read the conclusion section of the paper too, here. Nah, it's too good, let's just quote it now:

"According to our model, if you travel into the past quantum mechanically, you would only see
those alternatives consistent with the world you left behind you. In other words, while you are
aware of the past, you cannot change it. No matter how unlikely the events are that could have led
to your present circumstances, once they have actually occurred, they cannot be changed. Your
trip would set up resonances that are consistent with the future that has already unfolded.

This also has enormous consequences on the paradoxes of free will. It shows that it is perfectly
logical to assume that one has many choices and that one is free to take any one of them. Until
a choice is taken, the future is not determined. However, once a choice is taken, and it leads to
a particular future, it was inevitable. It could not have been otherwise. The boundary conditions
that the future events happen as they already have, guarantees that they must have been prepared
for in the past. So, looking backwards, the world is deterministic. However, looking forwards, the
future is probabilistic.

This completely explains the classical paradox. In fact, it serves as a kind
of indirect evidence that such feedback must actually take place in nature, in the sense that without
it, a paradox exists, while with it, the paradox is resolved. (Of course, there is an equally likely
explanation, namely that going backward in time is impossible. This also solves the paradox by
avoiding it.)"

So I think that means Marty McFly never should have started fading from view when his Dad looked like missing out on meeting his mother.

Believe it, or not

Tim Blair points out what a dill Terry Lane (ABC National Radio presenter, and Age columnist) is, linking us to his Age column which seems to positively lament the fact that the West is rather unlikely to go through a violent communist uprising any day soon.

Well yesterday I happened to catch some of Terry's radio show "The National Interest" and heard some of an interview with one John Perkins. From what I heard, this was a typically "soft" left leaning Radio National host interview, in which not even the slightist probe or scepticism is raised because, well, he agrees with the interviewer's world view and we wouldn't want to question that pretty anti-Amercian/anti-capitalism story would we?

John Perkins is author of a book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" which is all about his previous career as an economist in which he helped the USA economically enslave and ruin 3rd world countries. ( His claim, not mine.) As he said himself to Mr Lane, although selling well now, the book has not attracted much media attention, and I must admit some quick Google searching does have trouble turning up "serious" reviews from journals or newspapers.

The Amazon link here gives you an idea of what the book is about.

But the bit I love is the links to his other books. Mr Perkins gave up economics for Shamanism, it would seem, and written a lot about it. Have a look at his own website, and this positive reader review of one of his books:

"SHAPESHIFTING is a real gem! Author John Perkins takes us with him on an amazing journey to comprehend the methods used by shamen around the world to vanish and reappear, transform into plants and animals, heal seemingly inoperable medical conditions, and travel through space and time. He tells fascinating stories of how he overcame his initial skepticism and doubt to became one with a chair, transform herbs into a newspaper, and travel through time and space as a blue ball of light."

Gee, I wonder if he turned up in the ABC radio studio as a ball of light, or changed The Age back into some herbs for Terry's edification.

Now to be fair, going nutty in a New Age way does not necessarily mean that what he wrote about his past life is unreliable. However, if some of his Confessions appear a bit, well, fictional, some questions about this later career path might be worthwhile don't you think Terry? Did you fail to Google his name?

Terry is notoriously atheist, and I can't imagine he has much time for New Age shapeshifting either.

(And I have not listened to the whole program, available at the RN link above, only the last 15 min or so. Hope I am not wrong, cos I don't have time to listen to it today.)

Money for nothing for Jim Soorley

Australian readers may well be aware of the irksome Jim Soorley, big mouth former Labor Lord Mayor of Brisbane (which of itself is no small job, given Brisbane City Council's extremely large size by Australian standards.) A former priest, he's now a decidedly anti-Catholic atheist (or agnostic perhaps?) friend of Phillip Adams.

I recall reading some years ago that as a priest he upset some of his suburban flock (I think it was in Brisbane) by insisting on displaying an "aboriginal" flag in his church. The regular flying of same flag took place in front of city hall all during his reign as Lord Mayor.

Always willing to shoot his mouth off, and irritating State and Federal Labor politicians no end, he somehow swung a job on his retirement from the council as a regular columnist on Brisbane's magazine style Sunday Mail newspaper.

What he does is something like blogging, just commenting on whatever he wants , but with nothing like the links to let anyone read the source or check facts. In other words, it's easier than most commentary orientated blogging. By far.

Just look at today's column here.

I would summaries its stories as follows:

* a piece of fluff commentary about Russell Crowe;

* a recommendation of a novel he is reading;

* pure speculation that ye olde weather forecasters were better than the Weather Bureau today;

* an unequivocal repeat of the line that "at least" 100,000 Iraqi deaths were caused by the war;

* a stunningly broad brush comment about Global Warming, but against even considering nuclear power as an option. This I have to show in full:

"WE NOW know that continued use of fossil fuels is causing global warming with all the associated problems of drought, salination, floods and tsunamis.

Arguments are building for nuclear power to be the new green energy source for the world. I struggle to take this argument seriously and to believe that intelligent people can overlook the downsides.

I never thought we'd forget the horrors of the Cold War and the threat of extinction from nuclear bombs in the wrong hands, to say nothing of Chernobyl and the human misery caused by that industrial accident. Yet all that seems forgotten as the marketing of nuclear energy begins big time.

Be afraid, this is a world-wide PR campaign to con us that nuclear energy is clean, green and safe. The waste will kill for hundreds of millions of years. We must resist those who say that "we'll find a way to dispose of it ? don't worry"."

Tsunami's!! Caused by global warming!

* a comment on the Dr Death inquiry which seems to pick up a bit of news talk that some College of Surgeons audit of the doctor is going to suggest that the overall death rate was "within the norm". Here's Jim's commentary:

"WELL, the first substantive analysis on Dr Jayant Patel's surgery has taken place. It shows that both his death rate and transferrals to other hospitals were about the norm.

In other words, an independent audit shows a medical error rate within acceptable limits. While this won't provide any comfort to patients who feel badly treated, it should send a message to the Premier to stop his grandstanding and concentrate on fixing the problems in Queensland Health."

Here, as far as I can see, is what this commentary is based on (from ABC Online, for 16 June):

"Meanwhile the Australasian College of Surgeons says it is premature to comment about a report into Dr Patel's performance.

A team of medical experts has been auditing surgical outcomes at the Bundaberg hospital.

Newspaper reports suggest the draft study shows the medical error rate of Dr Patel may be within acceptable limits.

College president Russell Stitz says the full analysis is yet to be done.

"We understand that it's imminent but it's not yet out and to make statements before the full analysis is obviously inappropriate," Dr Stitz said.

"So we're all looking forward to the full report, which is by committee chairman Peter Woodruff, who's a vascular surgeon and a previous vice-president of the College of Surgeons."

The State Health Minister has asked for the final report to be completed by the end of the month."

(I don't think it takes a genius to work out that the averages won't particularly matter anyway if there is clear and compelling evidence, as there already seems to be, that he was grossly negligent or incompetent in some of the particular cases. )

Jim never liked Peter Beattie; his wildly unjustified commentary is done just to be able to have another jibe at him.

I trust you can see why this annoys me. He's just jots down whatever comes into his head, sticking to old figures, old leftie/ greenie beliefs, old political rivalries, (but not his old religious beliefs,) without any care for subtle things likes facts.

I hate to dignify his activity with publicity, and part of the problem is that the more people complain in letters to the editor about a columnist like this, the more the paper thinks he is worth keeping. I stopped buying the paper years ago, but my mum likes it for the weekly TV guide and gives it to me.

By the way, if you want a fact-free speech from his, seems it will set you back $3,500 to $5,000.

Advice on wife beating

If you haven't seen this, have a look at this funny/not funny post on Mufti advice on wife beating/hitting/whatever.

The Islamic advice websites are often inadvertently funny/disturbing.

I like the Gore Vidal quote (upper right) on Its a Matter of Opinion too.