Sharpening Stones, Walking on Coals

Where is the 'Welfare to work' for QANTAS?

2005-06-16T16:01:00.000+10:00

From the Smh:

Mr Howard has decided not to allow Singapore Airlines to fly the Pacific route until a review of aviation policy is completed, The Weekend Australian newspaper reported.

In other words QANTAS can continue to overcharge on the route, costing both Australian travellers and business people as well as the tourism operators in Australia who rely on trade from American tourists.

That's right the next time that our goverment manages to lay the boots into another minority (single mothers seem to be the flavour of the month) by arguing that they need to be exposed to the rigours of the economy and free markets just rememer this. (And for the matter the sugar industry, car industry etc etc).

Time for some good old fashioned knee-jerk reaction

2005-05-23T13:29:00.000+10:00

From The Age:

A teenage girl apparently tried to kill herself the day after a Melbourne judge ordered her to justify in front of her father - who faces incest charges against her and her brother - why she did not want to testify in his presence.

The story - which includes a partial transcript makes the judge's actions seem pretty inexcusable.

Is there a judge in the country who isn't aware of the issues concerning the cross-examination of victims of sexual offences? What was the stupid bastard thinking?

I really hope more comes out about this story.

Bagaric's flawed argument

2005-05-17T17:01:00.000+10:00

Dear God this is what happens when you leave news reading and blogging til the afternoon.

I only picked up today's Age at 4:30 to find that Mirco Bagaric and Julie Clarke - a pair of Deakin Law lecturers are getting a whole lot of front page publicity for advocating the legalisation of torture.

They follow it up with an opnion article here (note this is the same one from the SMH).

The response has been enormous to say the least.

John Quiggin reiterates his position that I have always found fairly on the money, while Ken Parish takes it apart to show the problems with having laws supporting torture, while over at the view from Benambra the chorus gets a little louder.

Though i haven't read the main article the academics are publishing in the US I have to say if it is as bad as the aforementioned opinion piece I don't think to many great minds are going to be moved by it.

Lets take a choice bit -

There are three main counter-arguments to even the above limited approval of torture. The first is the slippery slope argument: if you start allowing torture in a limited context, the situations in which it will be used will increase.

This argument is not sound in the context of torture. First, the floodgates are already open - torture is used widely, despite the absolute legal prohibition against it. Amnesty International has recently reported that it had received, during 2003, reports of torture and ill-treatment from 132 countries, including the United States, Japan and France. It is, in fact, arguable that it is the existence of an unrealistic absolute ban that has driven torture beneath the radar of accountability, and that legalisation in very rare circumstances would in fact reduce instances of it.

Come on!

What's that word used to describe arguments like this? Oh that's right, Bullshit.

Firstly I doubt that there are abosolute legal prohibitions on torture where it is used extensively, and even when it is prohibited in many countries the hugely flagrant use of it will not be changed by simply creating a small legal zone where it is acceptable.

Furthermore would these academics believe that there really was a 'ticking bomb' scenario in any of the cases of torture that Amnesty has had reported to it?

A cascade of links for those with nothing else to do

2005-05-16T11:07:00.000+10:00

Miss Piss does a little futurism on the dark lord of Southbank

John Quiggin calls for a US withdrawl from Uzbekistan. (more later)

Via Mark Bahnsich - Even in post-conversion of gruel to diahorrea state (or after the judicial homicide depending on who you ask), the Terri Schiavo circus rolls on

Though it's on the level of total kick in the nuts brow and offensive to many who endured the crimes being satirised I can't help but laugh out loud at this Whisky bar post

Oh god, Assignment due at the end of the week and I am doing this crap........

Pull Hair, scream, get angry, hit shit etc etc

2005-05-12T19:00:00.000+10:00

This Article by William Saletan had me aubidly groaning about halfway through, I was enraged by the end.

Saletan is one of the most astute, clever watchers of American politics. Though often his ideas aren't groundbreaking, he often brings them together in ways that are intended to kind of force a new perspective. He's one of my favorite writers. His writings on America's abortion wars are amongst the best I've read.

But his case for 'intelligent design' being taught was absolutely terrible. In a nutshell it's basically along the lines of 'Intelligent design is crap, but good proper science will weed it out so we shouldn't be worried'

But the real clunker comes in right near the end

[ID proponents]Calvert and Harris call this assumption a big tent. But guess what happens to a tent without poles.

Perversely, evolutionists refuse to facilitate this collapse. They prefer to dismiss ID proponents as dead-end Neanderthals. They complain, legitimately, that Calvert and Harris are trying to expand the definition of science beyond "natural explanations." But have you read the definition Calvert and Harris propose? It would define science as a continuous process of "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." Abstract creationism can't qualify for such scrutiny. Substantive creationism can't survive it. Or if it can, it should.

Saletan has bought the arguments of Behe, Dembski, Wells and the wider ID movement hook, line and sinker. Not that he agrees with them but that he believes in this 'equal time' message that students will naturally sidle towards evolution because of it's inherent worth.

He doesn't realise that the whole point of 'equal time' measures is simply to create debate, to muddy the waters. ID'ers who have at least a partial grip on reality (ie. Behe) know that the argument can never be won, but if it can be created.

The point of the ID 'controversy' is to create a little space that people who embrace anti-Darwinism can hide in. If there's a controversy about Evolution, one can side with the skeptics and still appear sane. If this is removed then all of a sudden people have to confront the terribly anti-science stance they take by embracing this nonsense.

It's the same reason Stephen Jay Gould refused to debate creationists, that by debating (or in the case of the Kansas controversy allowing equal time in the classroom) you only give creationists the legitamacy they crave.

I hope the the official denials are correct

2005-04-29T13:49:00.000+10:00

>

The Munch masterpieces "The Scream" and "Madonna" have been incinerated, according to newspaper Dagbladet, citing criminal sources and a top secret police report.

This saddens me incredibly. Munch's work has provided me with everything from inspiration to comfort. To think that these pieces are lost forever makes me alternately despondent and angry.

I think I'll write something more on him another time.



Today's piece of Quiz vanityblogging
2005-04-29T12:58:00.000+10:00




Your Brain is 46.67% Female, 53.33% Male



Your brain is a healthy mix of male and female

You are both sensitive and savvy

Rational and reasonable, you tend to keep level headed

But you also tend to wear your heart on your sleeve



What Gender Is Your Brain?

Aw there's nothing like a quiz for a bit of self reassurance.  I bet whatever the result it would reflect well on me somehow.  Where is the quiz that is really going to induce a bit of good old fashioned self loathing?

Where's the quiz to tell me I am selfish?
Where's the quiz to tell me I'm lazy?
 



Ah right............
2005-04-29T12:52:00.000+10:00
Slate first alerted me, then a little clarification came in but I still have trouble sorting this out.


Reflecting.........
2005-04-28T23:15:00.000+10:00
Rachel Roberts on that photo:

....if Abu Ghraib teaches us anything, it is that under certain circumstances every culture is capable of perpetrating senseless atrocity.


On another train of thought for an article, I tracked down that photo by googling and there was a page just full of all the photos. Did I see these so much that I became desensitised last year?. It punched me in the gut.

What Rachel seems to miss is that some were unmoved.

Senator James Inhofe (OK):

I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment....

This reaction was sadly not atypical.. But why such intense hostility to the criticism?

It's not just a phenomena that is peculiar to war supporters. Think of the indifference and even hostility exhibited here down under by some to the verifiable conditions inside Immigration detention centres, or the reaction of some catholic church figures to the sex abuse scandal.

I can remember the weekly vox pop in the Onion one week put it perfectly when the guy in the blue shirt remarked that it was "All liberal media hysteria about a few thousand children getting assfucked". (Quote from memory, subscription required)

Forgive my rambling- let me make it a little sharper.

Do people like Inhofe and Mariadaga really see themselves and their organisations as victims? I wonder whether the siege mentality was before these events or in response to them?

Is it that they are incapable of accepting that the institutions and causes they believe in could be wrong? Or is the outrage really about having to accept they can be?



Against Self Interest?
2005-04-27T18:35:00.000+10:00
Mark Bahnsich meditating on What's the matter with Kansas, or why poor people keep voting for evil right wing parties:


 However, reflecting on my professed support for non-authoritarian and participative administration, isn’t it possible that poor people in late modern States face a culture of control and coercion from Government? A culture of surveillance and harrassment from authorities of all kinds - cops, social workers, welfare bureaucrats? Anyone had much to do with Centrelink or the Job Network lately? Maybe there’s some reason in the appeal of the small government message to those who are burdened with mutual obligations?

If there is a surefire right of passage in our society it is learning the frustration
of dealing with government departments and banks.  You watch your parents tear their hair out for years but only when you deal with them yourself do you begin to wonder what a whole lifetime of this will do.

But addressing Mark's point a little closer,  the counter argument that comes to mind is then why do  poor urban electorates (or congressional districts) still go to Labour (or the Democrats).  Poorer people in these electorates are often under tighter surveillance by bureaucrats because the services are nearer, rather than people in towns cast further away.  Same goes in the States.

Don't assume that self interest just lies in policy areas we normally fuss over.The Republicans direct government Pork to America's rural states in astounding volumes, little need I mention the existence of the National party.  Pork can be a lot more persuasive than a potential handout to rural voters.  A city based voter may be looking for unemployemnt or health benefits that help them out in lean times in a job market, but an unemployed rural voter may be thinking that keeping the ethanol plant down the street open or more money to fund rural road crews is far more attractive.  For people in many rural areas the idea of a job market is kind of laughable.  What's the saying about all politics being local?

Consider the amazing rhetorical feat the Repbulicans pull off by advertising themselves as an anti-establishment party. They do it on Abortion and Gays, while Howard did it to Aboriginals and 'illegals' .  Often a political party that is seen to take  concrete steps against problems (perceived or real) that they have felt powerless to stop can gain massive support from people who would not agree with a large part of their agenda otherwise.

I can remember laughing with company at a woman arguing on talkback in 2000 that we should shoot at refugee boats.  I bet I know who got her vote the next year.


Can Lynton Crosby Rekindle his old magic?
2005-04-27T17:13:00.000+10:00
You can never repeat a good waterfight, nor it seems for political consultants a xenophobically charged election

From the Guardian:

 The BNP has little chance of winning the parliamentary seat but is attempting to ratchet up its support base in the hope of capturing up to 10 seats in next year's Barking and Dagenham council elections, all of which need only a 5% swing.
 Regional officials of the BNP are being told to study the Barking campaign as an example of how sophisticated the party's techniques are getting.
 Whether or not Lynton Crosby's able to turn things around for the tories, he seems to have been unable to repeat one thing - the crushing of the populist party to the right of his own. 
 The differences between One Nation and the BNP are manifold, not least that the BNP seems better organised (to the point they have manged to create some vaguely coherent policies and have built a genuine grassroots movement behind them). It is however instructive
that Michael Howard hasn't been able like his namesake to bring the nutcase right's support into his party. And it matters a lot more to the major parties in the UK beacuse they don't wind up with the preferences.

At this point the malevolent Jabbaesque figure of Kim Beazley laughs from deep within my subconscious - "Go on - vote Green, You know you'll put me ahead of the libs, you did it for Mark, you'd have done it for Simon and I know you'll surrender your self respect and do it for me again - mwahahahahahahahahahaha"


Nice One
2005-04-26T18:48:00.000+10:00
In the Cheapskate edition of Crikey today (no link) Stephen Mayne drew my attention to this one on Insiders :

BARRY CASSIDY: Just before we start, to your mind what will be the legacy of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen?
PETER COSTELLO: I think he will be seen as the outstanding premier of Queensland. I think some of his achievements will live for a very long time.

Costello seems to have misjudged the mood.  Though the fawning of Ron Boswell and the rest of the Queensland Nats was expected, Sir Joh finally kicking the can has provided an interesting and surprisingly candid response. The death of a shithouse public figure normally gets a lot more respect, especially considering he still has a lot of deluded supporters out there. Seemingly only child molesters, traitors and Christopher Skase could previously get bollocked this soon but a lot of the Broadsheet media has put the boots into him, somewhat guardedly none the less. Even the tabloids have had a little fun.

He was by all fair accounts probably the worst head of government Australia has ever seen. He was corrupt*, authoritarian, racist and perhaps in a way reassuring that our political system survived the little tyrant he would have happily been.

His death really spurs the question now of whether Howard is the worst living politician (retired or active) in Australia.

*-You can't defame the dead, and like anyone reads this anyway


2005-04-26T18:42:00.000+10:00






American Cities That Best Fit You:


65% San Francisco

65% Washington, DC

60% Boston

60% Los Angeles

60% Philadelphia
 
 
Which American Cities Best Fit You?
Well everyone who knows me knows of my love for the States..............


Film Review - Old Boy
2005-04-26T18:15:00.000+10:00
Oh Yeah!!!!!!!!!!

That was good

It's seems strange that this film got such a limited run here in the rainy city.  I'd been meaning to see it for ages after a limited run at the Lumiere but only got to go to an 11:50 lateshow Sunday nite at the Nova.  This film has got rave reviews left right and centre, is Korean (very 'in' with Iran in world cinema at the moment)

The opening is very cool - guy hanging off a building's edge - kind of scary guy holding him by his tie - some verbal exchanges - a flashback

Though it is a little slow to get started it gets moving with a hell of a lot to take in - a guy is locked up with no explanation for 15 years, we learn he is framed for the murder of his wife while he is in.  He eventually escapes determined to seek revenge.  In a japanese restaurant he receives a teasing call from his kidnapper, he then eats a live octopus.

Does the octopus symbolise his need to try to conrol the swirling events around him?  Or is it as he hints a need for Vitamin A and E?  He doesn't mention D, which I always thought was the one that needs sunlight to be catalysed...

The film is rich in symbols - scissors, ants, hands, people looking through windows and mirrors.  It is kind of classical in many ways - lots of rich themes of revenge and honour, with a touch of Euro art cinema influence in there.

But it has this awesome sense of the kinetic throughout - both in action sequences and the flashbacks of various characters.  Too many films kind of rely on tricks of shredding chronology, putting in references to other films to compensate for the fact they really don't have good shot composition or editing.  This is a quality film, made by a talented hand, though not exactly for everyone.

The ending is a little overcooked, bit too heavy in emphasising themes but its easily forgivable.  I won't dare say how it gets there - it's a film that you've got to go along on the ride for.

Oh yeah for the faint of heart I don't think this would be a too good a one.


The Age opinon page - you're all a bunch of commie sissies
2005-04-26T12:07:00.000+10:00
Carney and Leunig's opinion pieces that took unusually contradictory and badly needed stances on the ANZAC day fracas last Saturday have been countered by a double whammy of pieces in Todays' opinion page.

Hendo gets the ball rolling with a 'told you so' piece bollocking those on the left - particularly Whtlam, Cairns et al for welcoming the victory of the North Vietnamese and an end to the Vietnam war, but he doesn't consider the implication of his position. Does he distinguish whether people were opposed to the war or supported the North Vietnamese. There certainly were those who did in Australia and throughout the West. But the obvious implication that he is making is that anyone who maybe thinks that American strategy in Vietnam wasn't entirely sensible and justified by that very fact supported the Communists.

Manwhile Ted Larkin takes on Leunig's Saturday Column with the argument of "If it weren't for us Soldiers you wouldn't be drawing that stupid big nosed crap" And as with all arguments against doves, and in a quick deflection to Godwin's law - he drags out Hitler:

But does he really mean to argue that Hitler's Germany could have been stopped or that slavery could have been abolished in America by any means short of bayonet point?

Well, uh I'll take you up on that one Ted.

I do believe that both could have been stopped short of bayonet point. In the case of Hitler lets not forget that many sat idly by as he rose to power figuring they could use him or that he could not do all that much harm. Even as someone who believes that WWII was a 'just war' it is pretty obvious that at many points Hitler could have been stopped both by Foreign powers and the Germans themselves before we needed WWII.

Both Larkin and Hendo seem incapable of observing that War itself is a pretty clumsy instrument with which to act - albeit sometimes in extreme cases necessary. The Kosovo war only gave Milosevic and excuse to go beserk with the Ethnic cleansing that NATO was trying to stop. And need i say Iraq?

The main point of Leunig's article - and something that so many Hawks miss is that war ultimately dehumanises those who take part in it - no matter whose side they are on. I've met enough veterans who will still believing the cause was right still personally struggle with the knowledge that they killed people. This alone is a good enough reason to know that in most cases, war is not the answer.

Update:
Ken Parish on Hendo
Paul Norton over at Prof Q's says it better than I can


Film review - Closer
2005-03-07T00:58:00.000+11:00
Th most recent film I have seen was Closer, directed by Mike Nichols.  It was a film that I'm still finding it hard to make up my mind about.

The four central characters in it are hardly there to engender your sympathy. They are a doctor (Clive Owen), a photographer (Julia Roberts), an obituary writer (Jude Law) and a stripper (Natalie Protman).   I won't delve into the plot to simply hold back spoilers, but rather because it's not what I really want to talk about.  Suffice to say the film seems to center around a need to be at pivotal moments in the characters relationships.  That gives the film its strengths and weaknesses.

The dialogue is sharp, almost brutal at points.  The characters seem to all enjoy a degree of sadism in the way they manipulate each other, the way they dump bad news on each other.  It sometimes feeels a little stagey (it's based on a play) but Nichols keeps the visuals interesting enough, especially in a sequence where Law torments Owen in a sex chatroom.

This is not an honest film, as some have suggested.  Just because the characters often say what seems to be the first thing that pops into their heads as they argue does not mean they are being honest.

The film kind of stretches thin towards the end.  There's a delightful confrontation betweeen Owen and Law where Owen really shows how much of a nasty old bastard and better actor he is than Law.  After that the huge gaps that are delberately left in the story, bringing closure becomes a little tricky as they try to seal it up with an uncovincing showdown between Portman and Law.

It's a film that has lots of great music, lots of kick arse dialogue and with the current wave of five dollar tightarse tuesdays in Melbourne, there's no excuse not to see it.