news @ nature.com- Al Gore: Eco matinee idol�-An Inconvenient Truth showcases science of climate change.
From the above review about Al Gore's global warming doco:
If you find Gore to be a refreshingly un-phoney politician with more brains than most whole administrations, you will love this film. If you find Gore boring, annoying or prone to strange shifts in tone, you may well tire of shots of him gazing into the middle distance and ruminating, in voice-over, about the tragedies he's known and how each eventually taught him something about global warming.
Sounds a good bet that I would fall into the second category.
In the film, Gore gives his presentation in front of an audience from which sympathetic murmurs can be occasionally heard. One audience member wears a T-shirt that reads 'Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly', referring to Fox News' famously conservative talking-head. If these people are going to be the only ones buying tickets, Gore will be preaching to the choir.
As to the science in it, the review defers to the Real Climate review, which gave most of the science a tick.
They also note that:
Much of the footage in Inconvenient Truth is of Al Gore giving a slideshow on the science of global warming. Sound boring? Well, yes, a little.
I don't think I will be rushing to check it out.
UPDATE: This Slate article on the problems with the movie is well worth reading.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
On the Code
Amongst the many articles about the historical "claims" in the Da Vinci Code, the one in Slate recently seemed to me to be one of the better summaries.
(I started the book, but the writing style has put me off coming back to it. I think it is worse than Michael Crichton on a bad day, and that's saying something.)
UPDATE: For the most savage, and very funny, review of the movie read Anthony Lane's in The New Yorker. There are so many lines I would like to quote, I just don't know which one to pick. Just go read it.
(I started the book, but the writing style has put me off coming back to it. I think it is worse than Michael Crichton on a bad day, and that's saying something.)
UPDATE: For the most savage, and very funny, review of the movie read Anthony Lane's in The New Yorker. There are so many lines I would like to quote, I just don't know which one to pick. Just go read it.
Our anti war protesters just aren't in the same league
You may have heard about how Japan and Korea are having a confrontation of sorts over some disputed islands. There have been some weird anti-Japanese protests by Koreans as a result, but perhaps covering yourself with (so he says) 187,000 bees and jumping on a Japanese flag takes some beating. (Watch the video at the link.)
If only Cindy Sheehan were so creative.
If only Cindy Sheehan were so creative.
3 interesting science stories
All from today's Science Daily:
1. Bad news: a study suggesting that the high end of climate change predictions are more likely. Time to start work on big space umbrellas as a possible solution.
2. Cats are evil in so many ways: Children who are exposed to cats soon after birth may have an increased risk of developing eczema. But exposure to dogs? Being exposed to two or more dogs at home suggested a slightly protective, but not significant, effect on children's risk of developing eczema.
3. Plug in hybrid cars certainly seem a good idea. Plug them into the wall overnight while you are home, and the heaps of people who travel no more than 40 km per day might never use petrol. (In fact, the model described here can run on ethanol solely. No oil at all. Take that, Saudi Arabia.)
1. Bad news: a study suggesting that the high end of climate change predictions are more likely. Time to start work on big space umbrellas as a possible solution.
2. Cats are evil in so many ways: Children who are exposed to cats soon after birth may have an increased risk of developing eczema. But exposure to dogs? Being exposed to two or more dogs at home suggested a slightly protective, but not significant, effect on children's risk of developing eczema.
3. Plug in hybrid cars certainly seem a good idea. Plug them into the wall overnight while you are home, and the heaps of people who travel no more than 40 km per day might never use petrol. (In fact, the model described here can run on ethanol solely. No oil at all. Take that, Saudi Arabia.)
Matt Price line for the day...
Happy Chappy enjoys seat of power | Matt Price | The Australian
Labor, we were told by Julia Gillard before the resumption of parliament, would be giving the Treasurer a comprehensive working over.
"It's Peter Costello's first day in the big chair," she said, referring to Happy Chappy's stint as Acting Prime Minister. "Labor will be taking Peter Costello outside his very narrow comfort zone."
And it's true. By the end of question time, Costello's comfort zone had been upgraded from unsealed bush track to four-lane bitumen freeway.
Labor, we were told by Julia Gillard before the resumption of parliament, would be giving the Treasurer a comprehensive working over.
"It's Peter Costello's first day in the big chair," she said, referring to Happy Chappy's stint as Acting Prime Minister. "Labor will be taking Peter Costello outside his very narrow comfort zone."
And it's true. By the end of question time, Costello's comfort zone had been upgraded from unsealed bush track to four-lane bitumen freeway.
Why is this singer successful?
Madonna's new move: crucifixion - Music - Entertainment - smh.com.au
No need for emetics when instead you could just read the above description of Madonna's new stage show.
I have never, ever, understood her appeal. Must be that people just like quasi-political, nutty-mystical, pretend-slutty singing acts in a way I can't figure.
And will she be even-handed in her silly use of religious icongraphy? How about a flash of a depiction of Mohammed during the show?
No need for emetics when instead you could just read the above description of Madonna's new stage show.
I have never, ever, understood her appeal. Must be that people just like quasi-political, nutty-mystical, pretend-slutty singing acts in a way I can't figure.
And will she be even-handed in her silly use of religious icongraphy? How about a flash of a depiction of Mohammed during the show?
Monday, May 22, 2006
Bad news from Syria
Guardian Unlimited | World dispatch | Arrested development
From the article:
Syria is in the throes of one of its biggest crackdowns on dissidents in many years. As many as 12 reformers and writers have been arrested this month in a new show of strength by the regime.
From the article:
Syria is in the throes of one of its biggest crackdowns on dissidents in many years. As many as 12 reformers and writers have been arrested this month in a new show of strength by the regime.
And it's not because of pregnancy...
Menstruation Is Fast Becoming Optional - Yahoo! News
From the above (quite lengthy) story:
Still, surveys also show most women consider monthly periods normal. Small wonder: Girls learn early on that menstruation is a sign of fertility and femininity, making its onset an eagerly awaited rite of passage.
The period is "way over-romanticized," says Linda Gordon, a New York University professor specializing in women's history and the history of sexuality.
Not by men, that's for sure.
From the above (quite lengthy) story:
Still, surveys also show most women consider monthly periods normal. Small wonder: Girls learn early on that menstruation is a sign of fertility and femininity, making its onset an eagerly awaited rite of passage.
The period is "way over-romanticized," says Linda Gordon, a New York University professor specializing in women's history and the history of sexuality.
Not by men, that's for sure.
Housing issues
Homes 'unfit for animals' | News | The Australian
It seems to rarely be mentioned in media reports about housing quality issues in aboriginal communities, but isn't one of the problems here (at least in some areas of Australia) the complicating cultural issue that a house in which a person has died will be abandoned for some time (months I think) before any person will re-occupy it? I actually forget who was telling me about this - I remember discussing it with a brother, but maybe I have read about it somewhere else.
I don't know how big a problem this really is, but with death rates in some communities being what they are, it certainly would mean you would have to have a hell of a lot of "spare" housing to deal with this issue.
I know I have heard from time to time of projects to create really rugged remote aboriginal housing that needs virtually no maintenance, as the care and maintenance of the housing is a very big issue. However, this does nothing to address the issue of abandonment. I remember suggesting to my (lefty) brother that maybe the solution would be a very sophisticated style of tent (with a portable solid floor?) that could be moved off the spot where someone had died. That I would suggest that they live in something less than solid house dismayed him. But honestly, some really creative solutions to the housing issue are needed, aren't they?
(Of course, how to stop tents catching alight if a fire is lit inside is another issue. But I think there must be a model of temporary housing from some indiginous community somewhere in the world that could be adapted.)
It seems to rarely be mentioned in media reports about housing quality issues in aboriginal communities, but isn't one of the problems here (at least in some areas of Australia) the complicating cultural issue that a house in which a person has died will be abandoned for some time (months I think) before any person will re-occupy it? I actually forget who was telling me about this - I remember discussing it with a brother, but maybe I have read about it somewhere else.
I don't know how big a problem this really is, but with death rates in some communities being what they are, it certainly would mean you would have to have a hell of a lot of "spare" housing to deal with this issue.
I know I have heard from time to time of projects to create really rugged remote aboriginal housing that needs virtually no maintenance, as the care and maintenance of the housing is a very big issue. However, this does nothing to address the issue of abandonment. I remember suggesting to my (lefty) brother that maybe the solution would be a very sophisticated style of tent (with a portable solid floor?) that could be moved off the spot where someone had died. That I would suggest that they live in something less than solid house dismayed him. But honestly, some really creative solutions to the housing issue are needed, aren't they?
(Of course, how to stop tents catching alight if a fire is lit inside is another issue. But I think there must be a model of temporary housing from some indiginous community somewhere in the world that could be adapted.)
A standard response
The familiar echo of Aboriginal condemnation - Opinion - theage.com.au
The article above takes the "standard" old style aboriginal interest group response to the aboriginal abuse issues raised last week.
Rather than acknowledge the longstanding structural disadvantage experienced by remote Aboriginal communities, the complicity of the Australian Government in their creation and neglect, and a national responsibility to make real changes, Brough's immediate response to Rogers' revelations was to announce the existence of a pedophile ring of senior Aboriginal men. No evidence has been produced, and it seems clear that none exists.
Where did Brough's allegation come from? Such a "ring" would, of course, give the minister a convenient solution to his need to be seen to be doing something: an evil group of Aboriginal men, a target small enough to rapidly identify and punish, would serve as a scapegoat and provide a quick fix for his problem. But if we look further back into the long history of Aboriginal-white relations, it becomes clear that such claims have often helped governments to justify interventionist indigenous policies.
Is the writer suggesting that "non interventionist" policies have never been tried, even under the long reign of Labor and ATSIC? Does she really want the solution to this to be left up to the same bunch of aboriginal leaders and academics who have been around for the last 30 years worrying more about land rights, and whether Aboriginal cultures 200 years ago were abusive to women or not, than what's going on now?
The article above takes the "standard" old style aboriginal interest group response to the aboriginal abuse issues raised last week.
Rather than acknowledge the longstanding structural disadvantage experienced by remote Aboriginal communities, the complicity of the Australian Government in their creation and neglect, and a national responsibility to make real changes, Brough's immediate response to Rogers' revelations was to announce the existence of a pedophile ring of senior Aboriginal men. No evidence has been produced, and it seems clear that none exists.
Where did Brough's allegation come from? Such a "ring" would, of course, give the minister a convenient solution to his need to be seen to be doing something: an evil group of Aboriginal men, a target small enough to rapidly identify and punish, would serve as a scapegoat and provide a quick fix for his problem. But if we look further back into the long history of Aboriginal-white relations, it becomes clear that such claims have often helped governments to justify interventionist indigenous policies.
Is the writer suggesting that "non interventionist" policies have never been tried, even under the long reign of Labor and ATSIC? Does she really want the solution to this to be left up to the same bunch of aboriginal leaders and academics who have been around for the last 30 years worrying more about land rights, and whether Aboriginal cultures 200 years ago were abusive to women or not, than what's going on now?
About Marsden
Case for the damnation of Marsden - Opinion - smh.com.au
Paul Sheehan did not like John Marsden.
What Sheehan's brings up was already on the public record. I don't recall the part about witness intimidation though.
If what Sheehan says is a correct version of what the trial judge at the defamation action found [that Marsden had on the balance of probabilities - which is the standard of proof in a civil case - asked a prisoner to get a witness to change his position,] why was Marsden allowed to still practice as a solicitor at all?
I still predict some new, damaging, information about Marsden will come out soon.
Paul Sheehan did not like John Marsden.
What Sheehan's brings up was already on the public record. I don't recall the part about witness intimidation though.
If what Sheehan says is a correct version of what the trial judge at the defamation action found [that Marsden had on the balance of probabilities - which is the standard of proof in a civil case - asked a prisoner to get a witness to change his position,] why was Marsden allowed to still practice as a solicitor at all?
I still predict some new, damaging, information about Marsden will come out soon.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Scruton on Mills
OpinionJournal - Featured Article
If you missed it, Roger Scruton has an essay above on John Stuart Mill. Scruton is always worth reading (especially if you a conservative!)
If you missed it, Roger Scruton has an essay above on John Stuart Mill. Scruton is always worth reading (especially if you a conservative!)
Mountain coming through
LiveScience.com - Land Speed Record: Mountain Moves 62 Miles in 30 Minutes
A mountain near the Montana-Wyoming border once moved 62 miles in a half-hour in a catastrophic scenario that could be repeated elsewhere, scientists say...
"We think the slide motion was catastrophic," Aharonov told LiveScience. "According to our calculation, the motion took less than 30 minutes."
I guess being overtaken on a freeway by a mountain would be catastrophic.
A mountain near the Montana-Wyoming border once moved 62 miles in a half-hour in a catastrophic scenario that could be repeated elsewhere, scientists say...
"We think the slide motion was catastrophic," Aharonov told LiveScience. "According to our calculation, the motion took less than 30 minutes."
I guess being overtaken on a freeway by a mountain would be catastrophic.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
At last - Mission:Impossible 3
I finally got to see MI3 tonight. My comments:
Good points: script is quite good really. The acting is more even than in previous M:I movies, and in fact I would say Cruise and Phillip S Hoffman actually do very good acting, within the limits of this kind of material. Exotic locations are used (although shown very briefly - see my comments below,) and there is very seamless and unintrusive use of computer effects. (You know that certain things can't be being done "for real", but it is almost impossible to tell where the artifice begins. For example, one very cleverly done scene almost makes you believe those super realistic rubber masks could really work. There is also a jumping off a building sequence which - at least initially, before the editing starts cutting it up too much - looks as real as it possibly could.) The movie has some (limited) humour, and some scenes of human warmth, and in that sense is more "realistic" than M:I1. However, its tone is darker, with a genuinely sadistic villain, and as such ends up being not as much fun.
But, there is a lot to like.
Bad or distracting points: the direction. For the last few years, I have seen very few one hour shows on TV. I am therefore unfamiliar with the popular work of JJ Abrams. However, direction of M:I3 is claustrophobic, for want of a better term. It seems he is inordinately fond of close to medium length shots, where it looks like the camera is no more than a few meters from the actors.
This is fine for some sequences, where it can help rack up the tension, especially in the opening scene. But after 30 minutes or so, I really found myself wondering why this movie was shot so tight for so long. Especially during the action sequences, I longed for wider shots to make better sense of what was going on around Cruise.
There is also a quasi-handheld sort of style for all of the action sequences. It's not exactly jittery, but I did start longing for smoother camera movement in many sequences, and less choppy editing.
I hate overly fast editing. It is, to my mind, the major problem with younger action movie directors since the 1990's, and is the special "trademark" of directors who have come from an advertising or music video background. (I especially despise it in dance and musical numbers, where it takes away all sense of the quality of the dancing itself.) M:I3's action sequences are nearly all edited too quickly (especially parts of the Shanghai sequences,) but (fortunately) not so quickly as to ruin the movie.
I mentioned in an earlier post how well I thought Brian De Palma directed the first M:I movie, and it was this more "traditional" style of direction and editing that I missed.
I don't think I have (yet) read any reviewer who has mentioned the "tightness" of so many of the shots, which I find surprising. (To me, it seemed such an obvious and distracting feature of Abram's style.) Slate's review did say: "The action scenes are thrilling in the modern, quick-cut, disorienting way." I can agree with that.
Overall: I have lingered on the downside for too long. Many people don't notice this sort of thing anyway. And overall, I was happy to have seen it and would happily see another M:I installment. Still, M:I 1 stands clearly ahead as my favourite. The less said about M:I 2 the better, although it does help M:I 3 look very good by comparison.
UPDATE: It's not just me. Here's one reviewer (who really didn't like the movie at all):
It's filmed almost entirely in close-ups and medium shots, in extremely shallow focus with no depth of field. (It's something of a sick joke that Abrams elected to use the extra-wide CinemaScope aspect ratio, as he tends to obscure or blur out anything that isn't smack dab in the center of the frame.) There's no oomph to the images, and the monotonous, confusingly edited action scenes just lie there, dead.
I don't agree that the action sequences "lie dead"; I just thought they could have been better with a different director. But certainly, he seems to have almost no interest in the composition of shots.
Good points: script is quite good really. The acting is more even than in previous M:I movies, and in fact I would say Cruise and Phillip S Hoffman actually do very good acting, within the limits of this kind of material. Exotic locations are used (although shown very briefly - see my comments below,) and there is very seamless and unintrusive use of computer effects. (You know that certain things can't be being done "for real", but it is almost impossible to tell where the artifice begins. For example, one very cleverly done scene almost makes you believe those super realistic rubber masks could really work. There is also a jumping off a building sequence which - at least initially, before the editing starts cutting it up too much - looks as real as it possibly could.) The movie has some (limited) humour, and some scenes of human warmth, and in that sense is more "realistic" than M:I1. However, its tone is darker, with a genuinely sadistic villain, and as such ends up being not as much fun.
But, there is a lot to like.
Bad or distracting points: the direction. For the last few years, I have seen very few one hour shows on TV. I am therefore unfamiliar with the popular work of JJ Abrams. However, direction of M:I3 is claustrophobic, for want of a better term. It seems he is inordinately fond of close to medium length shots, where it looks like the camera is no more than a few meters from the actors.
This is fine for some sequences, where it can help rack up the tension, especially in the opening scene. But after 30 minutes or so, I really found myself wondering why this movie was shot so tight for so long. Especially during the action sequences, I longed for wider shots to make better sense of what was going on around Cruise.
There is also a quasi-handheld sort of style for all of the action sequences. It's not exactly jittery, but I did start longing for smoother camera movement in many sequences, and less choppy editing.
I hate overly fast editing. It is, to my mind, the major problem with younger action movie directors since the 1990's, and is the special "trademark" of directors who have come from an advertising or music video background. (I especially despise it in dance and musical numbers, where it takes away all sense of the quality of the dancing itself.) M:I3's action sequences are nearly all edited too quickly (especially parts of the Shanghai sequences,) but (fortunately) not so quickly as to ruin the movie.
I mentioned in an earlier post how well I thought Brian De Palma directed the first M:I movie, and it was this more "traditional" style of direction and editing that I missed.
I don't think I have (yet) read any reviewer who has mentioned the "tightness" of so many of the shots, which I find surprising. (To me, it seemed such an obvious and distracting feature of Abram's style.) Slate's review did say: "The action scenes are thrilling in the modern, quick-cut, disorienting way." I can agree with that.
Overall: I have lingered on the downside for too long. Many people don't notice this sort of thing anyway. And overall, I was happy to have seen it and would happily see another M:I installment. Still, M:I 1 stands clearly ahead as my favourite. The less said about M:I 2 the better, although it does help M:I 3 look very good by comparison.
UPDATE: It's not just me. Here's one reviewer (who really didn't like the movie at all):
It's filmed almost entirely in close-ups and medium shots, in extremely shallow focus with no depth of field. (It's something of a sick joke that Abrams elected to use the extra-wide CinemaScope aspect ratio, as he tends to obscure or blur out anything that isn't smack dab in the center of the frame.) There's no oomph to the images, and the monotonous, confusingly edited action scenes just lie there, dead.
I don't agree that the action sequences "lie dead"; I just thought they could have been better with a different director. But certainly, he seems to have almost no interest in the composition of shots.
In the Sydney Morning Herald today
A few items of note in the paper today:
Richard Glover, the lefty but sometimes amusing columnist/broadcaster (I quite like his writings about his family), has a very worthwhile column in which he points out that the media (and politicians) love to let accidents become the story. For example, in relation to the Private Kovco lost CD incident:
The lost CD is not a story about corruption. Or laziness. Or self-interest. Or malevolence. It is the story of an accident. That simple.
By leaving a CD in a computer drive, did the officer indicate disrespect for Private Kovco, or a lack of attention to her work? If anything, the opposite. She grabbed a few minutes before a flight to go over her report...
In ethical terms, who has behaved badly here? The defence officer who fell foul of an accident or the two people who made conscious decisions to make sure that accident had maximum impact?
And in relation to the the aboriginal stories of this week:
On Tuesday night, Mal Brough, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, said he believed that pedophile rings were operating in some Aboriginal communities.
Everyone agrees there are pedophiles in these communities, and that they turn a blind eye to each other's crimes. Yet some believed Brough had used the wrong word in describing this as a "ring". And so we spent the rest of the week on the topic of whether Brough had accidentally used the wrong word.
Here's what was notable: officials in the Northern Territory seemed more passionate and angry about Brough's verbal accident - variously described as "ignorant", "offensive" and "a disgrace" - than they were about the hideous crimes themselves.
And so we prefer trivia to substance; an accident to a complex debate. Heads must roll. Brough must apologise.
I agree with Richard, but I can't see that he would display the same generosity of spirit towards any errors in intelligence leading to the Iraq War.
Mike Carleton for once says something that is worthwhile, and which seems not to have been said elsewhere (although I haven't paid very close attention to the story). This is about the claims of LTCDR Robyn Fahy that the Navy has treated her very badly (and had a Navy reserve doctor find her mentally ill, when others could not):
But Fahy also claimed she had been beaten up "on a daily basis" while a student at the defence force academy. "I can't remember a day where I wasn't punched, or hit, or slapped, or spat upon," she said.
To my mind and experience, this doesn't ring true. Bashed every day for three years? It stretches credibility, suggesting there are two sides to this story. Which I understand is indeed the case.
But here the Defence Force is in a bind. While Fahy is able to go public - and fair enough - the navy is gagged by the privacy laws, which prevent any detailed response to her.
From what I saw of it, the 7.30 Report story on her expressed no scepticism of this. I also heard Fahy's father, after Labor had called for a full judicial inquiry, say that the family did not want this, they just wanted the Navy to admit a mistake had been made and apologise. This suggested to me that the father thought her daughter's obsession with vindication had become unhealthy. What Carlton says is exactly right; the defence force is in a bind in PR terms in these type of cases, and media attention does nothing to really help the "victim".
Finally, Alan Ramsey continues to earn a pay cheque by writing an opinion piece comprised of enormous slabs of other people's words, and some really clever name calling of politicians (John Howards gets called "toad" today, in what is such a ridiculous introduction I can't be bothered re-printing it.)
Of more interest to me is Ramsey's take on the aboriginal issues. His political analysis is highly nuanced:
The multiplicity of official reports in the last 15 to 20 years dealing specifically or in part with the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children would make you weep. They are there, in government files and on the public record, by the number. What have the politicians done about them? Not a bloody thing, really.
This is "talkback radio" analysis. The point is not that nothing has been attempted in this area at all, just that what has been done has not been working, or (for any programs that have worked, such as the improvements in communities that have gone "dry") they have not been applied widely enough across all States and territories.
No, it's always much more gratifying for Alan to call a politician a name:
And all the ignorant chest-beating that went on this week from John Howard's young Brisbane cabinet minister, Malcolm Brough - who is known behind his back as "Mal-Bro", after the macho cigarette commercial of 25 years ago - disregards the mass of evidence available to government that institutionalised neglect is destroying Aboriginal families and reducing its people to exploited drunks, layabouts and sexual predators. It's not a failure of "law and order", always the easy fallback of lazy politicians with not a clue what else to do.
He's right to the extent that the problems are complex; but he's wrong to pander to lefty activists by suggesting it is all government's fault because not enough is spent on aborigines generally.
And despite this childish swipe a Brough, Ramsey goes on to quote (with approval) an old report that does claim there are pedophile rings in parts of aboriginal Australia:
"The existence of pedophile rings operating in a number of country areas of NSW is a major concern. (One Aboriginal-family-violence worker interviewed, stated she knew of children who had 'disappeared' with men who had driven into towns and taken them away with them.) This problem of predatory behaviour is not just confined to rural NSW, but has been identified as being prevalent nationwide."
Does Ramsay give Brough any credit for bravely saying something that the (Labor) Northern Territory government denies vehemently? Not at all.
Why is he still employed? He has been Australia's most embarrassing "serious" political commentator for so long.
Richard Glover, the lefty but sometimes amusing columnist/broadcaster (I quite like his writings about his family), has a very worthwhile column in which he points out that the media (and politicians) love to let accidents become the story. For example, in relation to the Private Kovco lost CD incident:
The lost CD is not a story about corruption. Or laziness. Or self-interest. Or malevolence. It is the story of an accident. That simple.
By leaving a CD in a computer drive, did the officer indicate disrespect for Private Kovco, or a lack of attention to her work? If anything, the opposite. She grabbed a few minutes before a flight to go over her report...
In ethical terms, who has behaved badly here? The defence officer who fell foul of an accident or the two people who made conscious decisions to make sure that accident had maximum impact?
And in relation to the the aboriginal stories of this week:
On Tuesday night, Mal Brough, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, said he believed that pedophile rings were operating in some Aboriginal communities.
Everyone agrees there are pedophiles in these communities, and that they turn a blind eye to each other's crimes. Yet some believed Brough had used the wrong word in describing this as a "ring". And so we spent the rest of the week on the topic of whether Brough had accidentally used the wrong word.
Here's what was notable: officials in the Northern Territory seemed more passionate and angry about Brough's verbal accident - variously described as "ignorant", "offensive" and "a disgrace" - than they were about the hideous crimes themselves.
And so we prefer trivia to substance; an accident to a complex debate. Heads must roll. Brough must apologise.
I agree with Richard, but I can't see that he would display the same generosity of spirit towards any errors in intelligence leading to the Iraq War.
Mike Carleton for once says something that is worthwhile, and which seems not to have been said elsewhere (although I haven't paid very close attention to the story). This is about the claims of LTCDR Robyn Fahy that the Navy has treated her very badly (and had a Navy reserve doctor find her mentally ill, when others could not):
But Fahy also claimed she had been beaten up "on a daily basis" while a student at the defence force academy. "I can't remember a day where I wasn't punched, or hit, or slapped, or spat upon," she said.
To my mind and experience, this doesn't ring true. Bashed every day for three years? It stretches credibility, suggesting there are two sides to this story. Which I understand is indeed the case.
But here the Defence Force is in a bind. While Fahy is able to go public - and fair enough - the navy is gagged by the privacy laws, which prevent any detailed response to her.
From what I saw of it, the 7.30 Report story on her expressed no scepticism of this. I also heard Fahy's father, after Labor had called for a full judicial inquiry, say that the family did not want this, they just wanted the Navy to admit a mistake had been made and apologise. This suggested to me that the father thought her daughter's obsession with vindication had become unhealthy. What Carlton says is exactly right; the defence force is in a bind in PR terms in these type of cases, and media attention does nothing to really help the "victim".
Finally, Alan Ramsey continues to earn a pay cheque by writing an opinion piece comprised of enormous slabs of other people's words, and some really clever name calling of politicians (John Howards gets called "toad" today, in what is such a ridiculous introduction I can't be bothered re-printing it.)
Of more interest to me is Ramsey's take on the aboriginal issues. His political analysis is highly nuanced:
The multiplicity of official reports in the last 15 to 20 years dealing specifically or in part with the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children would make you weep. They are there, in government files and on the public record, by the number. What have the politicians done about them? Not a bloody thing, really.
This is "talkback radio" analysis. The point is not that nothing has been attempted in this area at all, just that what has been done has not been working, or (for any programs that have worked, such as the improvements in communities that have gone "dry") they have not been applied widely enough across all States and territories.
No, it's always much more gratifying for Alan to call a politician a name:
And all the ignorant chest-beating that went on this week from John Howard's young Brisbane cabinet minister, Malcolm Brough - who is known behind his back as "Mal-Bro", after the macho cigarette commercial of 25 years ago - disregards the mass of evidence available to government that institutionalised neglect is destroying Aboriginal families and reducing its people to exploited drunks, layabouts and sexual predators. It's not a failure of "law and order", always the easy fallback of lazy politicians with not a clue what else to do.
He's right to the extent that the problems are complex; but he's wrong to pander to lefty activists by suggesting it is all government's fault because not enough is spent on aborigines generally.
And despite this childish swipe a Brough, Ramsey goes on to quote (with approval) an old report that does claim there are pedophile rings in parts of aboriginal Australia:
"The existence of pedophile rings operating in a number of country areas of NSW is a major concern. (One Aboriginal-family-violence worker interviewed, stated she knew of children who had 'disappeared' with men who had driven into towns and taken them away with them.) This problem of predatory behaviour is not just confined to rural NSW, but has been identified as being prevalent nationwide."
Does Ramsay give Brough any credit for bravely saying something that the (Labor) Northern Territory government denies vehemently? Not at all.
Why is he still employed? He has been Australia's most embarrassing "serious" political commentator for so long.
Humour
Canadian culture in heavyweight division | Matt Price | The Australian
Matt Price makes me laugh. From this morning's column:
Absurd talk about Bill Shorten being parachuted in to replace Kim Beazley. Why can't people believe the union leader's earnest denials as revealed in interviews with channels Seven, Nine, Ten, SBS, the ABC, community television, Southern Cross radio, Hello, GQ, Better Homes and Gardens, Vanity Fair, Tattoo Monthly, the Beaconsfield Bugle, CNN and anybody else who bothers to ask.
Matt Price makes me laugh. From this morning's column:
Absurd talk about Bill Shorten being parachuted in to replace Kim Beazley. Why can't people believe the union leader's earnest denials as revealed in interviews with channels Seven, Nine, Ten, SBS, the ABC, community television, Southern Cross radio, Hello, GQ, Better Homes and Gardens, Vanity Fair, Tattoo Monthly, the Beaconsfield Bugle, CNN and anybody else who bothers to ask.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Reading the noosphere
RedOrbit - Science - Can This Black Box See Into the Future?
The Global Consciousness Project does not seem to have attracted much publicity. However, it is the sort of highly speculative science project that appeals to me.
Above is a very non-critical article about it, which quotes quite a few scientist sounding types who are (apparently) believers.
I would not take the article on face value at all, but have a look at the site for the project itself, which is more cautious in its claims.
(The term "noosphere" is explained here.)
The Global Consciousness Project does not seem to have attracted much publicity. However, it is the sort of highly speculative science project that appeals to me.
Above is a very non-critical article about it, which quotes quite a few scientist sounding types who are (apparently) believers.
I would not take the article on face value at all, but have a look at the site for the project itself, which is more cautious in its claims.
(The term "noosphere" is explained here.)
A strange one
Turkey is as good a place as any to die: solicitor's journey ends abroad
Controversial gay and drug taking Sydney lawyer John Marsden has died.
I have only ever seen media stories about him, which included some interviews. To me, his character seemed grating in the extreme, yet he had a significant circle of supporters in high places.
I see that High Court judge Michael Kirby will speak at his funeral. Of course, the matter of their sexuality will feature highly.
Now that he is gone, I half expect that with a personal life as hedonistic as Marsden's, there will be some further revelations about his personal affairs.
Controversial gay and drug taking Sydney lawyer John Marsden has died.
I have only ever seen media stories about him, which included some interviews. To me, his character seemed grating in the extreme, yet he had a significant circle of supporters in high places.
I see that High Court judge Michael Kirby will speak at his funeral. Of course, the matter of their sexuality will feature highly.
Now that he is gone, I half expect that with a personal life as hedonistic as Marsden's, there will be some further revelations about his personal affairs.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Get on with it!
Iraq: Dijail Attacks Linked to Saddam Trial
It would appear from the above article that the residents of Dijail are now being terrorised by Saddam loyalists because they are potential witnesses against him:
Dozens of residents of Dijail, about 65 kilometres north of Baghdad in the Salaheddin province, have been abducted or killed in the last two months while travelling along the road to the capital.
The attacks are widely believed to be connected to the case against Saddam and seven of his associates, who are charged with killing 148 people in the town in 1982 following a failed assassination attempt against the former dictator.
The kidnappings and murders began in late March at makeshift roadblocks set up by insurgents near al-Mishahida, a village about 45 kilometres away which is a known centre of the Sunni Arab insurgency....
Some in the town are now regretting their insistence that Saddam stand trial for the 1982 killings.
"If we would have known that this would have happened to us, we would never filed a complaint against Saddam and his deputies," said one man, Ali Essa.
"We've paid the price twice - first in the Eighties and again today."
Read the article for more detail.
This is terrible. I have said before that the longer his trial and execution take (is there anyone who thinks the trial process won't end in that?) the more mayhem there will be from mad loyalists who think there is some hope while ever their leader is alive.
It never seems to be suggested that there is anyone else to fill the vacuum that Saddam's death will create for his followers, so hopefully their motivation for taking revenge attacks will fade quickly.
So - they just have to get with the trial with greater haste than that displayed so far.
It would appear from the above article that the residents of Dijail are now being terrorised by Saddam loyalists because they are potential witnesses against him:
Dozens of residents of Dijail, about 65 kilometres north of Baghdad in the Salaheddin province, have been abducted or killed in the last two months while travelling along the road to the capital.
The attacks are widely believed to be connected to the case against Saddam and seven of his associates, who are charged with killing 148 people in the town in 1982 following a failed assassination attempt against the former dictator.
The kidnappings and murders began in late March at makeshift roadblocks set up by insurgents near al-Mishahida, a village about 45 kilometres away which is a known centre of the Sunni Arab insurgency....
Some in the town are now regretting their insistence that Saddam stand trial for the 1982 killings.
"If we would have known that this would have happened to us, we would never filed a complaint against Saddam and his deputies," said one man, Ali Essa.
"We've paid the price twice - first in the Eighties and again today."
Read the article for more detail.
This is terrible. I have said before that the longer his trial and execution take (is there anyone who thinks the trial process won't end in that?) the more mayhem there will be from mad loyalists who think there is some hope while ever their leader is alive.
It never seems to be suggested that there is anyone else to fill the vacuum that Saddam's death will create for his followers, so hopefully their motivation for taking revenge attacks will fade quickly.
So - they just have to get with the trial with greater haste than that displayed so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)