I find Janet Albrechtsen an annoying little commentator. I think my views of her were summed up in the comments she made on becoming an ABC Board member. These included, though not included in that link, that as a lawyer she would help the ABC Board with governance*.
Surely she should have had some better claims than that. Anyhow in her column of yesterday she concludes that we have no right-wing cartoonists because left-wing politics is "an emotional, instinctive, utopian kind of world" whereas conservatism is "more rational, analytical and pragmatic" ("Conservatism is no laughing matter " Opinion 3/1).
It is a strange world indeed where "compassion" can be considered a taunt. It is also a strange world in which the opposites are "left-wing" and "conservatism", and where a philosophy that basicallly says "let's not change stuff" is considered more rational or analytical than the progressives who actually imbue their position with extensive theorising in economics, political science and sociology.
While I did offer the last two paras to the Australian in the form of a letter to the editor, they only published two, I suppose giving some semblence of balance. The first of these letters goes on to make the suggestion that humour can only be made at the expense of the powerful, which may be true, but does not fully explain the pattern noted by Albrechtsen.
My criticism is, however, far more directed at the world view of Albrechtsen than the subject. Like many she has created her own "strawman" of her "opponents", has created a view wherein the actors are far more co-ordinated than is possible and used terms a bit like Humpty Dumpty - to mean what she wants them to mean.
* As a personal aside, lawyers are the last people you want on Board's to help with governance, because their focus is on reducing risk for Board members as opposed to getting outcomes for shareholders (or other stakeholders).
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Announcement
Prior to the commencement of the final Test in the Ashes series I wish to announce that I am making myself unavailable for selection in future Australian Test and one-day cricket teams and all first-class cricket.
This will mean I can spend more time with my blog, and hopefully get around to posting more regularly. I won't make that a New Year's resolution, because I've never kept one of thos in my life.
This will mean I can spend more time with my blog, and hopefully get around to posting more regularly. I won't make that a New Year's resolution, because I've never kept one of thos in my life.
The Revenge Killing of Saddam
Today Gerard Henderson in his SMH column gives a quick survey of world leader responses and comes to the conclusion that the death sentence on Saddam Hussein has general support. I've previously made my views known, and nothing in Henderson's column changes them.
Henderson notes that Saddam could not be imprisoned for life in Iraq and in response to suggestions he be imprisoned in exile in the same manner as Napoleon suggests this is not viable in the era of terrorists. Perhaps Henderson hasn't noticed the extent to which terrorism has changed from the days of plane hijackings to hold hostages for the release of Palestinians, but it is hard to understand or believe a claim that holding Saddam a prisoner could create any more terrorism than invading their country.
While he is at it Henderson also has a go at the ABC for interviewing Geoffrey Robertson who equates the death penalty to a revenge killing. The complaint is that Robertson's views were presented without any alternative view and the interviewer just accepting his claims. This criticism confuses balance as needing to occur within all programs as opposed to across the whole schedule. As Henderson himself effectively notes the only other sound grabs broadcast in news bulletins were of approving world leaders, and in that sense the short interview with Robertson was creating balance in the ABC's coverage.
Henderson notes that Saddam could not be imprisoned for life in Iraq and in response to suggestions he be imprisoned in exile in the same manner as Napoleon suggests this is not viable in the era of terrorists. Perhaps Henderson hasn't noticed the extent to which terrorism has changed from the days of plane hijackings to hold hostages for the release of Palestinians, but it is hard to understand or believe a claim that holding Saddam a prisoner could create any more terrorism than invading their country.
While he is at it Henderson also has a go at the ABC for interviewing Geoffrey Robertson who equates the death penalty to a revenge killing. The complaint is that Robertson's views were presented without any alternative view and the interviewer just accepting his claims. This criticism confuses balance as needing to occur within all programs as opposed to across the whole schedule. As Henderson himself effectively notes the only other sound grabs broadcast in news bulletins were of approving world leaders, and in that sense the short interview with Robertson was creating balance in the ABC's coverage.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Kevin Rudd's Reply
Kevin Rudd has been given a reply in the Oz to John Howard.
In part he writes;
The Prime Minister's fundamentalism is driven in large part by the neo-liberalism of Friedrich Hayek, who argued that the only determinant of human freedom was the market. In fact, Hayek also argued that any form of altruism was dangerous because it distorted the market. To avoid inefficiencies, altruism had to be purged from the human soul. Hayek described altruism as something belonging to primitive societies that had no place in the modern world.
By contrast, social democrats offer a different narrative for our country's long-term future. To values of liberty, security and opportunity, we add social democratic values of equity, sustainability and compassion.
Social democrats believe in the market. But we don't believe in market fundamentalism. We don't believe in an unconstrained market. We believe passionately in public goods such as education and health. We accept the reality of market failure, as we have seen most recently and most spectacularly with the failure to respond to global climate change. We also believe in the intrinsic dignity of human beings.
In the final analysis Rudd is wrong in his precepts - it is not right to ask whether one "believes" in the market, whether fundamental or not. The operation of markets is the subject of scientific inquiry, and the question of whether markets "fail" or not is an empirical question.
The question at issue is actually a moral question. The moral question is what does it mean to be good. Or another way - how ought I behave. Hayek believes to be good is to not interfere in the choices of an individual. Rudd, like I and many others, say that to be good is to treat others the way I myself would like to be treated (the so called Golden Rule.
Now is not the time for it - but the evolution of capitalism from feudalism can only occur in the presence of the moral principle of the Golden Rule.
In part he writes;
The Prime Minister's fundamentalism is driven in large part by the neo-liberalism of Friedrich Hayek, who argued that the only determinant of human freedom was the market. In fact, Hayek also argued that any form of altruism was dangerous because it distorted the market. To avoid inefficiencies, altruism had to be purged from the human soul. Hayek described altruism as something belonging to primitive societies that had no place in the modern world.
By contrast, social democrats offer a different narrative for our country's long-term future. To values of liberty, security and opportunity, we add social democratic values of equity, sustainability and compassion.
Social democrats believe in the market. But we don't believe in market fundamentalism. We don't believe in an unconstrained market. We believe passionately in public goods such as education and health. We accept the reality of market failure, as we have seen most recently and most spectacularly with the failure to respond to global climate change. We also believe in the intrinsic dignity of human beings.
In the final analysis Rudd is wrong in his precepts - it is not right to ask whether one "believes" in the market, whether fundamental or not. The operation of markets is the subject of scientific inquiry, and the question of whether markets "fail" or not is an empirical question.
The question at issue is actually a moral question. The moral question is what does it mean to be good. Or another way - how ought I behave. Hayek believes to be good is to not interfere in the choices of an individual. Rudd, like I and many others, say that to be good is to treat others the way I myself would like to be treated (the so called Golden Rule.
Now is not the time for it - but the evolution of capitalism from feudalism can only occur in the presence of the moral principle of the Golden Rule.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Who Cares About Homicide
Listening to the latest reports about the state of the Civil War in Iraq (well, that's what it looks like to me) I was intrigued by the reports of the number of deaths. That on any one day there could be fifty deaths was reported as an extraordinarily high death count.
But then I got to thinking - what is the homicide rate in the US. In 2004 there were 17,357 homicides in the US, according to the National Centre for Injury Prevention and Control. Of these 11,624 were inflicted by firearm.
How many Iraqis are dieing each year? Maybe George Bush doesn't really care when there are 47 homicides a day in the land of the free? I know the Iraq population is only about a tenth that of the US - but all the same it sounds to me like in the US definition of freedom there is one thing missing - freedom from having your life taken by another.
But then I got to thinking - what is the homicide rate in the US. In 2004 there were 17,357 homicides in the US, according to the National Centre for Injury Prevention and Control. Of these 11,624 were inflicted by firearm.
How many Iraqis are dieing each year? Maybe George Bush doesn't really care when there are 47 homicides a day in the land of the free? I know the Iraq population is only about a tenth that of the US - but all the same it sounds to me like in the US definition of freedom there is one thing missing - freedom from having your life taken by another.
Howard in defence of Howard
So John Winston Howard has felt it necessary to write an op ed piece for the Oz to respond to Kevin Rudd's claims Howard is "an extremist and a market fundamentalist".
It is an interesting defence that Howard puts up. Lots of arguing that the welfare state is still in place, therefore the charge is wrong kind of stuff. He is big on the idea that the Government has its eye on both the private sector camp and government services. He says "policies such as the private health insurance rebate and support for non-government schools are especially attractive to many low income earners. Why should only high income earners enjoy genuine choice?" It is a cute line but quite misleading - despite all the funding elite private schools charge over $20,000 a year.
The modern Liberal equation of competition equals choice really ignores the reality that such policies only generate choice at the top end of the market. And underneath it all is devoid of any concept of a moral dimension - except a highly inconsistent moral dimension that the role of the state is to get out of the road of economic endeavour other than to guarantee property rights (defence, contract, police), yet at the same time run a line of "ethical" moralising on issues historically associated with the Church.
This gets to the point where the likes of Tony Abbott believe that what is important is choice, except a woman's right to choose whether to become a mother.
The real issue of concern to me is that Kevin Rudd has rattled off his view of still being a social democrat, being a christian concerned with fairness, but not showing any sign yet of how he brings that about.
At least he should take heart that the PM is already digging himself in on a strategy of labelling Rudd as "the same old ALP" - because I suspect that if his Shadow Ministry stops being lazy on policy, they will genuinely surprise Howard.
It is an interesting defence that Howard puts up. Lots of arguing that the welfare state is still in place, therefore the charge is wrong kind of stuff. He is big on the idea that the Government has its eye on both the private sector camp and government services. He says "policies such as the private health insurance rebate and support for non-government schools are especially attractive to many low income earners. Why should only high income earners enjoy genuine choice?" It is a cute line but quite misleading - despite all the funding elite private schools charge over $20,000 a year.
The modern Liberal equation of competition equals choice really ignores the reality that such policies only generate choice at the top end of the market. And underneath it all is devoid of any concept of a moral dimension - except a highly inconsistent moral dimension that the role of the state is to get out of the road of economic endeavour other than to guarantee property rights (defence, contract, police), yet at the same time run a line of "ethical" moralising on issues historically associated with the Church.
This gets to the point where the likes of Tony Abbott believe that what is important is choice, except a woman's right to choose whether to become a mother.
The real issue of concern to me is that Kevin Rudd has rattled off his view of still being a social democrat, being a christian concerned with fairness, but not showing any sign yet of how he brings that about.
At least he should take heart that the PM is already digging himself in on a strategy of labelling Rudd as "the same old ALP" - because I suspect that if his Shadow Ministry stops being lazy on policy, they will genuinely surprise Howard.
Merry Christmas
Big topic in the office - and elsewhere - is it appropriae in a culturally diverse Australia to wish colleagues a Merry Christmas or should we wish them a sanitised "fesitive season" greeting?
I've come to a pretty simple conclusion that we should stick to Merry Christmas especially if connected to wishes of peace and joy. In reality we only have a "festive season" because of Christmas - so wishing people a happy "festive season" is referentially the same. Secondly wishing people a Merry Christmas doesn't mean that one is necessarily tieing anything to the date - after all we know the date of Christmas was chosen to coincide with pagan mid-winter festivals, not because it was the date of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
Finally, even when we practice religious tolerance we don't, and should not, outlaw prosletysing. If someone wants to say Merry Christmas because they are a believer, the fact the other person isn't a believer shouldn't be a reason to stop them. And the person receiving the greeting, even if of a different faith, should not take offence - the wishes are well intended and are offered by someone who cares about you. Only a particularly insular christian would not wish a Merry Christmas to non-believers.
I've come to a pretty simple conclusion that we should stick to Merry Christmas especially if connected to wishes of peace and joy. In reality we only have a "festive season" because of Christmas - so wishing people a happy "festive season" is referentially the same. Secondly wishing people a Merry Christmas doesn't mean that one is necessarily tieing anything to the date - after all we know the date of Christmas was chosen to coincide with pagan mid-winter festivals, not because it was the date of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
Finally, even when we practice religious tolerance we don't, and should not, outlaw prosletysing. If someone wants to say Merry Christmas because they are a believer, the fact the other person isn't a believer shouldn't be a reason to stop them. And the person receiving the greeting, even if of a different faith, should not take offence - the wishes are well intended and are offered by someone who cares about you. Only a particularly insular christian would not wish a Merry Christmas to non-believers.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Happy "Liberal" Feet
Thanks to Crikey for pointing out that the movie Happy Feet is creating outrage in some parts of America.
It appears the movie has been labelled big-time objectionable by someone on Rupert's Fox channel. The ultimate criticism was that the film was like an animated Inconvenient Truth. This, of course, comes from that section of the US commentariat that thinks "liberal" is akin to "subversive radical".
What's funniest is that one of the earliest "postmodern" critiques I read was a book that outlined the theory that Donald Duck comic books were US capitalist propoganda. Yet the same people who want to criticise "left leaning" themes in cultural presentations (like, why can't they be) are the same who want an education system that doesn't teach students how to "read" texts in that way.
It appears the movie has been labelled big-time objectionable by someone on Rupert's Fox channel. The ultimate criticism was that the film was like an animated Inconvenient Truth. This, of course, comes from that section of the US commentariat that thinks "liberal" is akin to "subversive radical".
What's funniest is that one of the earliest "postmodern" critiques I read was a book that outlined the theory that Donald Duck comic books were US capitalist propoganda. Yet the same people who want to criticise "left leaning" themes in cultural presentations (like, why can't they be) are the same who want an education system that doesn't teach students how to "read" texts in that way.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Murdoch and Packer Punting on Broadband
Well, we've now had the daily double - Packer and Murdoch both decrying the state of broadband in Australia. It started with Murdoch who said "When you have broadband - real broadband, not the type they're talking about here - where you get, say, 20Mbps of data into your home, it changes everything. People then spend a lot of time with their laptops and computers. In Australia we only have a couple of million people on broadband and they don't even get 1Mb."
Packer followed last night saying "I think that Telstra is in ... is perfectly entitled to say that, you know, I want to make a commercial rate of return on the investment that I'm putting in. And if it such a good deal, why isn't someone else doing it? And to the extent that the Government wants, as the Government should want, a best practice broadband infrastructure, if the Government has got to do something to help Telstra get a commercial return.
Someone might like to explain the market structure in Australia in which Murdoch and Packer are joint venture partners with Telstra in a Pay TV business - leaving Australia devoid of the competition between fixed line telephone operators and Pay TV operators that some claim would see this change. Two leading economists Joshua Gans and Jerry Haussman argued in a recent AFR article Telstra should be required to divest its HFC network as part of T3.
Is this some orchestrated campaign by Packer and Murdoch with their Payy TV partner? Or is it some softening up for the Government concerned that broadband is becoming an election issue.
I guess the final word goes to Crikey who noted "You have to almost admire the hide of Rupert Murdoch, managing on the one platform to demand major tax cuts and that the government spend $10 billion to $12 billion on broadband that will just happen to help his own business. As one of the world’s biggest content providers, there’s plenty of self-interest riding for Rupert."
Or does the final word really belong to the Pay TV consortium under its original monicker of PMT?
Packer followed last night saying "I think that Telstra is in ... is perfectly entitled to say that, you know, I want to make a commercial rate of return on the investment that I'm putting in. And if it such a good deal, why isn't someone else doing it? And to the extent that the Government wants, as the Government should want, a best practice broadband infrastructure, if the Government has got to do something to help Telstra get a commercial return.
Someone might like to explain the market structure in Australia in which Murdoch and Packer are joint venture partners with Telstra in a Pay TV business - leaving Australia devoid of the competition between fixed line telephone operators and Pay TV operators that some claim would see this change. Two leading economists Joshua Gans and Jerry Haussman argued in a recent AFR article Telstra should be required to divest its HFC network as part of T3.
Is this some orchestrated campaign by Packer and Murdoch with their Payy TV partner? Or is it some softening up for the Government concerned that broadband is becoming an election issue.
I guess the final word goes to Crikey who noted "You have to almost admire the hide of Rupert Murdoch, managing on the one platform to demand major tax cuts and that the government spend $10 billion to $12 billion on broadband that will just happen to help his own business. As one of the world’s biggest content providers, there’s plenty of self-interest riding for Rupert."
Or does the final word really belong to the Pay TV consortium under its original monicker of PMT?
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Jonestown Part 2
My post on Jonestown has elicited a response which I will comment on here.
The last chapters of Jonestown take us to Chris Masters core of concern. It is not so much a concern with Alan Jones, but with how the whole city of Sydney and hence NSW politics, and to a far lesser degree Australian politics, has allowed itself to become subject to the "power" of this broadcaster.
My anonymous commentor falls into this trap, trying to describe the Jones radio show as some kind of "higher democracy" and praising Jones for getting resulys. This perhaps opens up a more interesting question of whether the media (or the "fourth estate" to borrow the French revolutionary term) is performing its role. I have a colleague who decries modern media of being only interested in reporting "a horse race or celebrity", and look at the coverage of politics ad you see just that.*
I suggest people read the book if they want to claim that Jones is some kind of modern democratic form. The theory that he is accountable to his audience is wrong, given that he controls what his audience is able to hear.
Read the chapter on his voluminous correspondence, read the chapters on the causes he "chooses" to take up.
If Jones were truly engaged in some democratic form I suggest he might actually care about the conclusion in "cash-for-comment". As Hitler proved - a demagogue is not a democrat.
* As an example this weekend's newspaper coverage of both Beazley's and Debnam's leadership, both devoid of anything about what the politicians might stand for.
The last chapters of Jonestown take us to Chris Masters core of concern. It is not so much a concern with Alan Jones, but with how the whole city of Sydney and hence NSW politics, and to a far lesser degree Australian politics, has allowed itself to become subject to the "power" of this broadcaster.
My anonymous commentor falls into this trap, trying to describe the Jones radio show as some kind of "higher democracy" and praising Jones for getting resulys. This perhaps opens up a more interesting question of whether the media (or the "fourth estate" to borrow the French revolutionary term) is performing its role. I have a colleague who decries modern media of being only interested in reporting "a horse race or celebrity", and look at the coverage of politics ad you see just that.*
I suggest people read the book if they want to claim that Jones is some kind of modern democratic form. The theory that he is accountable to his audience is wrong, given that he controls what his audience is able to hear.
Read the chapter on his voluminous correspondence, read the chapters on the causes he "chooses" to take up.
If Jones were truly engaged in some democratic form I suggest he might actually care about the conclusion in "cash-for-comment". As Hitler proved - a demagogue is not a democrat.
* As an example this weekend's newspaper coverage of both Beazley's and Debnam's leadership, both devoid of anything about what the politicians might stand for.
Milton Friedman
Charles Richardson writing in Crikey (subscription required for full item) has fallen into hagiography of Milton Friedman. To claim "his great achievement was to rehabilitate the notion, now accepted almost universally, that inflation is primarily a monetary phenomenon" is to ignore the fact that the theory he espoused was all about setting money supply targets and a supposed direct relationship. Yes, he did remind us that monetary policy was important, but he was completely wrong on how to run the policy.
And yes Friedman was a great libertarian, but his incessant drumming on establishing that the purpose of a corporation is the generation of shareholder value is responsible for much of the governance dilemmas of the 1990s and is directly responsible for the obsenity of "options".
The best column I've seen so far is by Ross Gittins in the SMH
And yes Friedman was a great libertarian, but his incessant drumming on establishing that the purpose of a corporation is the generation of shareholder value is responsible for much of the governance dilemmas of the 1990s and is directly responsible for the obsenity of "options".
The best column I've seen so far is by Ross Gittins in the SMH
Monday, November 13, 2006
Jonestown
The less than flattering review by Ross Fitzgerald in the Oz makes me feel it is time to blog on Jonestwon.
I have very nearly finished the book (about twenty pages to go) - and thus far I haven't read anything "new". I mean the story of the Queensland upbringing, the school teaching jobs, the departure from Kings, the Rugby coaching, the London arrest are all pretty old ground. The fact that Jones likes the company of twenty something males is also not particularly new, his fascination with various sporting favourites being particularly common knowledge.
The territory that Masters explores and has made headlines is the labelling of Jones as a homosexual, though I'm not sure if he ever claims that Jones is anything more than a "platonic" homosexual (though there are some fumbling moments later in the book that are never truly consumated). What I do find fascinating though is the relevation in the book about the two females he was linked to in his younger days, Madonna Schacht and Inge Bishop. Jones is claimed to have boasted of bedding them both, claims which both deny. The question of Jones' sexuality is only of interest to me because of the extent to which he seems to have constructed a lie of being an active heterosexual.
This, combined with the extent to which he morphs his own history regularly, raises some real questions about a man whose own image is one of resolute adherence to truth. This ultimately goes to the book's claim, the one that Fitzgerald dismisses as psycho-babble, that Jones suffers narcissistic personality disorder.
While using websites is not a great way to diagnose mental illness, it does seem that one could conclude that Jones is not a well man. Anyone who has subjected themselves to the experience of listening to him would both know his tendency to hold simultaneously mutually exclusive positions and that the "rages explode without warning like terrorist bombs" - a claim Fitzgerald dismisses as foolish.
Reading either transcripts where Jones is actually taken on by someone he can't intimidate, or his ludicrously pompous "correspondence" shows the measure of a man whose ludicrous sense of self-importance is clearly out of control. If Jones truly had friends in the "pick and stick" club they would help him adress these behaviours, not pander to his insecurity.
It reminds me of the film "The Aviator" and the way the relationship between Howard Hughes and Katherine Hepburn is portrayed - if Hepburn had been a true friend of Hughes she would have helped him get well, not wallowed in the insanity.
I have very nearly finished the book (about twenty pages to go) - and thus far I haven't read anything "new". I mean the story of the Queensland upbringing, the school teaching jobs, the departure from Kings, the Rugby coaching, the London arrest are all pretty old ground. The fact that Jones likes the company of twenty something males is also not particularly new, his fascination with various sporting favourites being particularly common knowledge.
The territory that Masters explores and has made headlines is the labelling of Jones as a homosexual, though I'm not sure if he ever claims that Jones is anything more than a "platonic" homosexual (though there are some fumbling moments later in the book that are never truly consumated). What I do find fascinating though is the relevation in the book about the two females he was linked to in his younger days, Madonna Schacht and Inge Bishop. Jones is claimed to have boasted of bedding them both, claims which both deny. The question of Jones' sexuality is only of interest to me because of the extent to which he seems to have constructed a lie of being an active heterosexual.
This, combined with the extent to which he morphs his own history regularly, raises some real questions about a man whose own image is one of resolute adherence to truth. This ultimately goes to the book's claim, the one that Fitzgerald dismisses as psycho-babble, that Jones suffers narcissistic personality disorder.
While using websites is not a great way to diagnose mental illness, it does seem that one could conclude that Jones is not a well man. Anyone who has subjected themselves to the experience of listening to him would both know his tendency to hold simultaneously mutually exclusive positions and that the "rages explode without warning like terrorist bombs" - a claim Fitzgerald dismisses as foolish.
Reading either transcripts where Jones is actually taken on by someone he can't intimidate, or his ludicrously pompous "correspondence" shows the measure of a man whose ludicrous sense of self-importance is clearly out of control. If Jones truly had friends in the "pick and stick" club they would help him adress these behaviours, not pander to his insecurity.
It reminds me of the film "The Aviator" and the way the relationship between Howard Hughes and Katherine Hepburn is portrayed - if Hepburn had been a true friend of Hughes she would have helped him get well, not wallowed in the insanity.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Climate Change and Media Watch
It is hard to figure out what to make of Media Watch's attack on Andrew Bolt's writings on climate change.
It seems to me that this focus on the first of Bolt's claimed ten errors isn't really in the proper Medi Watch territory of highlighting the careless or practised plagiraism, or the careless or practised misuse of information. It seems to me territory over which reasonable minds could differ and does realy plays to those who label Media Watch as a modern day commie conspiracy (or words to that effect).
On the actual matter of greenhouse/global warming, I recall an AUstralia and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Canberra in 1975 where I first heard the theory of greenhouse from scientists promoting nuclear power. I believed it then as I believe it now, but not that nuclear is the answer.
As I've already posted here the Gore movie is full of unnecessary dramatisation that weakens rather than strengthens the argument.
One of the latest "sceptic" argument is that we don't need to worry about greenhouse - it is just like the Y2K problem, lots of hype - but the world didn't end then. Problem is that because of all the hype every computer program on the planet was scrubbed looking for bits of code that would fail because of the date problem. No one ever did the stocktake afterwards but most companies did find one that if they had all triggered unsuspectingly on the one day could have had cataclysmic consequences.
That for me is the lesson on climate change - how hard is it to say we should get on and fix the emissions problem because the outcome if the scientists are right is SO bad, and when it is incontrovertibly clear there will be nothing we can do.
It seems to me that this focus on the first of Bolt's claimed ten errors isn't really in the proper Medi Watch territory of highlighting the careless or practised plagiraism, or the careless or practised misuse of information. It seems to me territory over which reasonable minds could differ and does realy plays to those who label Media Watch as a modern day commie conspiracy (or words to that effect).
On the actual matter of greenhouse/global warming, I recall an AUstralia and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Canberra in 1975 where I first heard the theory of greenhouse from scientists promoting nuclear power. I believed it then as I believe it now, but not that nuclear is the answer.
As I've already posted here the Gore movie is full of unnecessary dramatisation that weakens rather than strengthens the argument.
One of the latest "sceptic" argument is that we don't need to worry about greenhouse - it is just like the Y2K problem, lots of hype - but the world didn't end then. Problem is that because of all the hype every computer program on the planet was scrubbed looking for bits of code that would fail because of the date problem. No one ever did the stocktake afterwards but most companies did find one that if they had all triggered unsuspectingly on the one day could have had cataclysmic consequences.
That for me is the lesson on climate change - how hard is it to say we should get on and fix the emissions problem because the outcome if the scientists are right is SO bad, and when it is incontrovertibly clear there will be nothing we can do.
Death Sentence
I made it into Crikey's comments section yesterday with a comment on their coverage of the Saddam Hussein verdict.
Your intro yesterday that "there is no doubt Saddam deserves to die" rests on two premises; that Saddam is guilty of a "heinous crime", and that for that crime the appropriate penalty is death. There are a number of difficulties with this proposition. To begin with if we believe in the "rule of law" you have to find a law that Hussein broke and there isn't one on the Iraq statute books. If you believe in the concept of "crimes against humanity" then the charge needed to be brought by an international court. So the first part itself is problematic, at least matching the crime to the court. The second part is that some of us believe the death penalty is never warranted, no matter how severe the crime. So I think there is a lot of doubt that Saddam deserves to die, while not defending his rule or conduct in any way. PS How many Iraqi citizens have the coalition of the willing now killed? When do George Bush and John Howard go on trial?
Your intro yesterday that "there is no doubt Saddam deserves to die" rests on two premises; that Saddam is guilty of a "heinous crime", and that for that crime the appropriate penalty is death. There are a number of difficulties with this proposition. To begin with if we believe in the "rule of law" you have to find a law that Hussein broke and there isn't one on the Iraq statute books. If you believe in the concept of "crimes against humanity" then the charge needed to be brought by an international court. So the first part itself is problematic, at least matching the crime to the court. The second part is that some of us believe the death penalty is never warranted, no matter how severe the crime. So I think there is a lot of doubt that Saddam deserves to die, while not defending his rule or conduct in any way. PS How many Iraqi citizens have the coalition of the willing now killed? When do George Bush and John Howard go on trial?
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Justice, Closure and Victims
I am confused about how our society based on its Judeo-Christian ethics has over recent times reverted to the Old Testament version where-in justice is measured as an "an eye for an eye".
The sub-editor's description ("Instead of being dispassionate, prosecutors should fight for victims") of Miranda Devine's column summarised her argument completely (SMH, 2 Nov). Devine seems to believe the purpose of the criminal justice system is retribution for victims. In the name of achieving that retribution any legal tactic should be employed.
This is based on the assumption that, of course, the prisoner in the dock is always guilty - because the prosecution wouldn't have been mounted otherwise. That therefore any legal tactic is okay, and that to have judghements overturned because of the tactics is unreasonable because the most important right is that of the victim.
I think the pathway to this insanity was the psycho-babble of "closure". Clearly, when victims or families of victims get caught up in the legal procedures some time after a crime, that "re-opens" the set of mental and emotional traumas undergone at the time of the crime. So the victim potentially has to relive the crime.
This has morphed into the idea that the victim cannot have "closure" until after the trial. But that closure is because the trial process itself prohibits closure, not that the trial process and "punishment of the criminal" (or vindication) is necessary for closure.
The purpose of a criminal justice system is to ensure that the penalties for crime, which primarily exist as appropriate punishments designed to deter crime, are applied to the guilty. To ensure the process is just the system has very strict rules of procedure. To breach those rules is to have a system that is not just.
If guilty criminals go free because prosecutors over-step these rules, then the blame rests with the prosecutors, not the system.
To imagine that the purpose of the criminal justice system is retribution, and that retribution will be what makes the victim or victim's families feel better is simply a delusion. The teaching of the New Testament was that the victim needs to forgive those who have done them wrong. It has been a far more sturdy moral compass than the new age ethics of hate and revenge.
The sub-editor's description ("Instead of being dispassionate, prosecutors should fight for victims") of Miranda Devine's column summarised her argument completely (SMH, 2 Nov). Devine seems to believe the purpose of the criminal justice system is retribution for victims. In the name of achieving that retribution any legal tactic should be employed.
This is based on the assumption that, of course, the prisoner in the dock is always guilty - because the prosecution wouldn't have been mounted otherwise. That therefore any legal tactic is okay, and that to have judghements overturned because of the tactics is unreasonable because the most important right is that of the victim.
I think the pathway to this insanity was the psycho-babble of "closure". Clearly, when victims or families of victims get caught up in the legal procedures some time after a crime, that "re-opens" the set of mental and emotional traumas undergone at the time of the crime. So the victim potentially has to relive the crime.
This has morphed into the idea that the victim cannot have "closure" until after the trial. But that closure is because the trial process itself prohibits closure, not that the trial process and "punishment of the criminal" (or vindication) is necessary for closure.
The purpose of a criminal justice system is to ensure that the penalties for crime, which primarily exist as appropriate punishments designed to deter crime, are applied to the guilty. To ensure the process is just the system has very strict rules of procedure. To breach those rules is to have a system that is not just.
If guilty criminals go free because prosecutors over-step these rules, then the blame rests with the prosecutors, not the system.
To imagine that the purpose of the criminal justice system is retribution, and that retribution will be what makes the victim or victim's families feel better is simply a delusion. The teaching of the New Testament was that the victim needs to forgive those who have done them wrong. It has been a far more sturdy moral compass than the new age ethics of hate and revenge.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Climate Change
I finally got around to seeing Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" tonight in Auckland. It is a chilling movie, as the site it points you to makes out. The single most chilling fact is the direct relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature over the years.
Unfortunately the full power of the film is destroyed by Gore using the analogy of the boiled frog. This is the one that goes "a frog dropped in boiling water will jump out, but one put in tepid water that is heated to boiling will boil to death." I know Karl Kruszelnicki wrote in his Sydney Morning Herald Good Weekend column "Myth Conceptions" that this was simply not true - indeed the frog dropped in hot water will have the protein in its muscles rendered useless, while the frog in rising temperature water will indeed react.
So it is a pity to see it being recycled in what is otherwise an intriguing movie - both about climate change and politics.
Unfortunately the full power of the film is destroyed by Gore using the analogy of the boiled frog. This is the one that goes "a frog dropped in boiling water will jump out, but one put in tepid water that is heated to boiling will boil to death." I know Karl Kruszelnicki wrote in his Sydney Morning Herald Good Weekend column "Myth Conceptions" that this was simply not true - indeed the frog dropped in hot water will have the protein in its muscles rendered useless, while the frog in rising temperature water will indeed react.
So it is a pity to see it being recycled in what is otherwise an intriguing movie - both about climate change and politics.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Cultivating grass
My last post received an anonymous comment that asked a question about my profile. So I thought I should put the record straight.
I have a number of hobbies/interests but my older daughter took to telling her uni mates that her Dad's hobbies were "playing bridge and cultivating grass". This was good to get a good eyebrow raise and so I took to adding it to my corporate CV and now my blog profile.
But the grass I cultivate is not the one everyone's mind seems to leap to - it is instead oplismenus. You can see some details at the Royal Batanic Gardens, North Sydney Council or Hornsby Herbarium. This is commonly known as "basket grass" and is a native grass. It is a native grass in the little it of bushland behind my house and I have been making one small patch very much bigger. The other native grass I have patches of is "right angle grass". And I had a great deal of excitement when I discovered some good patches of "scurvy weed" amongst the wandering jew.
Unfortunately I haven't developed the ability to post photos here yet so I can't show you.
And - anonymous - to organise the game of bridge we need to know who you are.
I have a number of hobbies/interests but my older daughter took to telling her uni mates that her Dad's hobbies were "playing bridge and cultivating grass". This was good to get a good eyebrow raise and so I took to adding it to my corporate CV and now my blog profile.
But the grass I cultivate is not the one everyone's mind seems to leap to - it is instead oplismenus. You can see some details at the Royal Batanic Gardens, North Sydney Council or Hornsby Herbarium. This is commonly known as "basket grass" and is a native grass. It is a native grass in the little it of bushland behind my house and I have been making one small patch very much bigger. The other native grass I have patches of is "right angle grass". And I had a great deal of excitement when I discovered some good patches of "scurvy weed" amongst the wandering jew.
Unfortunately I haven't developed the ability to post photos here yet so I can't show you.
And - anonymous - to organise the game of bridge we need to know who you are.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
The End of Democracy
Now that is one heck of a title, but there is some interesting evidence mounting that democracy as we know it is coming to an end. That view of democracy that we have grown used to is one of representatives being chosen by the people and that this will be a process of merit, through the process of first convincing people to support you and then the electorate at large.
The creation of political parties was not a threat to that process, in fact it added to the process. The party brand communicated something about your philosophical stance, and the process of party pre-selection created a process of contest where potential politicians honed their skills.
However, in the modern era the collapse of party memberships and the creation of more electoral and ministerial staff has created the era of the "stack". This was a device most familiar to the ALP. Recently two leading (factional) warriors of the ALP have outed the behaviour in Fabian Society speeches. The first contribution by Rodney Cavalier asked Could Chifley win Labor preselection today? The second by Robert Ray asked Are factions killing the ALP?. They both conclude that it is not factionalism per se but the apparatchiks who are.
Back when Labor was still ruling supreme in Canberra and Alexander Downer was attempting to be Liberal leader, Gerard Henderson wrote a history of the Liberal party called "Menzies' Child". In it he opined that the Liberal party needed to learn the skills of developing the professional politicians that the ALP had learnt.
However, I don't think he expected the outcome that we saw described in the ABC Four Corners program The Right Stuff. That this was not merely inflammatory or one off has become clear with the more detailed description in John Hyde Page's excellent read The Education of a Young Liberal.
It is an extraordinary turn of affairs that the people of NSW and Australia at elections in 2007 will not be offered a team of candidates whose skill is policy analysis or their ability to argue a proposition, but their ability to survive in the battle of the application of patronage.
The creation of political parties was not a threat to that process, in fact it added to the process. The party brand communicated something about your philosophical stance, and the process of party pre-selection created a process of contest where potential politicians honed their skills.
However, in the modern era the collapse of party memberships and the creation of more electoral and ministerial staff has created the era of the "stack". This was a device most familiar to the ALP. Recently two leading (factional) warriors of the ALP have outed the behaviour in Fabian Society speeches. The first contribution by Rodney Cavalier asked Could Chifley win Labor preselection today? The second by Robert Ray asked Are factions killing the ALP?. They both conclude that it is not factionalism per se but the apparatchiks who are.
Back when Labor was still ruling supreme in Canberra and Alexander Downer was attempting to be Liberal leader, Gerard Henderson wrote a history of the Liberal party called "Menzies' Child". In it he opined that the Liberal party needed to learn the skills of developing the professional politicians that the ALP had learnt.
However, I don't think he expected the outcome that we saw described in the ABC Four Corners program The Right Stuff. That this was not merely inflammatory or one off has become clear with the more detailed description in John Hyde Page's excellent read The Education of a Young Liberal.
It is an extraordinary turn of affairs that the people of NSW and Australia at elections in 2007 will not be offered a team of candidates whose skill is policy analysis or their ability to argue a proposition, but their ability to survive in the battle of the application of patronage.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Political Blogs
Observant readers (if I have any still) will note I've added two politicians blogs to my blogroll. Join me in thanking Senators Andrew Bartlett and Kate Lundy for trying to keep democracy real.
I was hesitant to add them and sort of thought I should go looking for a good Liberal blog but relying on the Grods review of political blogs it just doesn't look like there are any out there yet.
If anyone reading this knows of good politician blogs they might like to let us all know.
I was hesitant to add them and sort of thought I should go looking for a good Liberal blog but relying on the Grods review of political blogs it just doesn't look like there are any out there yet.
If anyone reading this knows of good politician blogs they might like to let us all know.
Monday, September 18, 2006
The Coming Collapse of China
The Economist has included a survey that has again marvelled at the impact of the emerging economies of India and China.
The lead article concludes;
But regardless of how the developed world responds to the emerging giants, their economic power will go on growing. The rich world has yet to feel the full heat from this new revolution.
The Economist is of course but one of a growing list of commentaries on the wonder of the growing emerging economies. Living in Australia it is hard not to ignore the impact the growth in China has had, as it is the source of our resources "boom". However, it is fascinating to note exactly how little attention our politicians seem to give it.
Two examples. I was listening to Peter Costello's budget speech this year and noted how according to the speech all the wonders were of the Howard Government's making and no mention of China. And today I was at an ALP forum where WA Prenmier Alan Carpenter was extolling the wonders of their 14% growth as if it was all the doing of the WA Government and very little or no mention of China.
Yet I have on my bookcase a little book called "The Coming Collapse of China" by Gordon G. Chang. The volume poses some simple questions like how long the people will remain subjegated, how long the West will abide by the WTO Charade, how long investment can be expected to continue in a regime that doesn't properly secure the interests of investors, how the state owned enterprises will unfold and most significantly how stable the Chinese banking system is.
I would not dare to suggest I know one way or the other what the future will bring. However, the list of potential triggers is so great and the number of mitigants so low, that the possibility of collapse should be in everyone's scenario plans and quite reasonably in the near term. Certainly a collapse in China would be a far more significant shock than the Asian currency crisis (and one should note it was just before the collapse of these economies that commentators had decided to agree that the Asian Tigers would continue on their high growth paths for the foreseeable future). There seems little evidence that there are any reasonable plans for the sudden and severe contractionary effects it would have on the Australian economy.
The trade deficit and the further impact of loss of minerals exports would make any monetary expansion highly dangerous as the immediate consequence would be to increase imports against declining exports. Fiscal solutions of expanded Government programs of nation building may be ignored as being archaically Keynesian, but even if implemented would take a while to ramp up.
Perhaps all the talk about infrastructure planning might be well placed - but not for a to do list in the current expansion but as a to do list when we face a contraction.
The lead article concludes;
But regardless of how the developed world responds to the emerging giants, their economic power will go on growing. The rich world has yet to feel the full heat from this new revolution.
The Economist is of course but one of a growing list of commentaries on the wonder of the growing emerging economies. Living in Australia it is hard not to ignore the impact the growth in China has had, as it is the source of our resources "boom". However, it is fascinating to note exactly how little attention our politicians seem to give it.
Two examples. I was listening to Peter Costello's budget speech this year and noted how according to the speech all the wonders were of the Howard Government's making and no mention of China. And today I was at an ALP forum where WA Prenmier Alan Carpenter was extolling the wonders of their 14% growth as if it was all the doing of the WA Government and very little or no mention of China.
Yet I have on my bookcase a little book called "The Coming Collapse of China" by Gordon G. Chang. The volume poses some simple questions like how long the people will remain subjegated, how long the West will abide by the WTO Charade, how long investment can be expected to continue in a regime that doesn't properly secure the interests of investors, how the state owned enterprises will unfold and most significantly how stable the Chinese banking system is.
I would not dare to suggest I know one way or the other what the future will bring. However, the list of potential triggers is so great and the number of mitigants so low, that the possibility of collapse should be in everyone's scenario plans and quite reasonably in the near term. Certainly a collapse in China would be a far more significant shock than the Asian currency crisis (and one should note it was just before the collapse of these economies that commentators had decided to agree that the Asian Tigers would continue on their high growth paths for the foreseeable future). There seems little evidence that there are any reasonable plans for the sudden and severe contractionary effects it would have on the Australian economy.
The trade deficit and the further impact of loss of minerals exports would make any monetary expansion highly dangerous as the immediate consequence would be to increase imports against declining exports. Fiscal solutions of expanded Government programs of nation building may be ignored as being archaically Keynesian, but even if implemented would take a while to ramp up.
Perhaps all the talk about infrastructure planning might be well placed - but not for a to do list in the current expansion but as a to do list when we face a contraction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)