Larvatus Prodeo

3 years, 5 months ago

. 6 Comments

The editorial in Workers Online looks at advice from a US pollster to the Labour movement. The key message - it’s not the economy, stupid, it’s how the economy impacts on ordinary people:

As a general rule where the issue is about managing the economy or handling terrorism or keeping taxes low, Republicans and conservatives have a marked advantage, with more than two thirds of voters perceiving they are superior on the issue.

But bring people into the equation, particularly working people, and the numbers swing around. By merely adding the words ‘for working people’ to the question ‘who is better at managing the economy?’, Democrats pick up 30 percentage points.

Likewise change the proposition ‘keeping taxes down’ to ‘fighting for fairer taxes for working people’ and the issue goes from being a negative for the left to a positive.

It’s early days, but the trends seem to translate into Australian politics as well. And if they do they add a new dimension to the ‘accepted wisdom’ that Labor needs to be stronger on the economy.

As Fingerhut observes, merely going out and engaging in an economic argument - even when you have better arguments than your conservative opponents - does nothing more than shift the debate onto their turf.

In other words, becoming a daily commentator on the current account deficit, employment figures and interest rates might get media, but if you do not draw the connection between economic indicators and people’s lives you are not advancing your cause.

This is where the current campaign over industrial relations comes in - this is where the economy actually impacts on people’s working lives.

Stripped of the fluff, the Prime Minister’s pitch appears to be “if we are going to compete with China and India, then you will have to give up rights and drop your wages”.

All of a sudden he is on our turf and, as the polls are showing, it is not a place he wants to be.

News

Published

3 years, 5 months ago

. 18 Comments

As something of a followup to yesterday’s post, I’m interested to note that Tim Blair says the Good News is fighting back. Tim’s post is a link to Chrenkoff, who leads with the good news about Iraq and democracy:

Traveling overseas can definitely broaden your horizons, not to mention make you appreciate your home even more:

[Spc. Christopher] Bean, 20, of Port Gibson, finished up a year-long stint in Baghdad as a truck driver with the 594th Transportation Co., a 101st Airborne division. His time in the military has given him a different perspective on the Fourth of July.

“In Iraq, we’re not fighting for ourselves,” said Bean, from his home base in Fort Campbell, Ky. “We’re over there fighting so the Iraqis can have their own Fourth of July.”

One of the things that struck Bean most about his time in Iraq was the people themselves. Most of the Iraqis he met were proud to have the Americans there, he said, and watching them go through their daily lives made him appreciate the historic significance of our Independence Day.

“Being there really opens your eyes to what our forefathers went through to get the freedom we have today,” he said.

Nation-building is never quick and never easy; hard-work and heartache are today, and the results often only years if not decades ahead. But the Iraqi people, with the assistance of the Coalition, have commenced their journey, and despite all the hardships, every day is another step forward.

Far be it from me to suggest that Dr Chrenkoff, whose good news is gathered from his trusty computer, should not advocate that travel broadens the mind.

However, someone who’s actually done some travel, and knows a thing or two about international relations aside from what he reads on the web, former US ambassador Peter Galbraith (incidentally the son of the famous economist), reports for the New York Review of Books on what exactly is involved in building freedom and democracy in Iraq:

When President Bush spoke to the nation on June 28, he did not mention Iran’s rising influence with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. He did not point out that the two leading parties in the Shiite coalition are pursuing an Islamic state in which the rights of women and religious minorities will be sharply curtailed, and that this kind of regime is already being put into place in parts of Iraq controlled by these parties. Nor did he say anything about the almost unanimous desire of Kurdistan’s people for their own independent state.

Galbraith argues that there is in fact no common identity of the “Iraqi people”. The most effective members of the Iraqi forces, the Kurdish peshmerga, have no loyalty to Iraq per se, but to Kurdistan. The Sunni insurgency cannot win, but aren’t likely to be defeated either - for 35 years, Saddam Hussein faced guerilla warfare from Kurds and Shi’ites. And what of the Shi’ites?

SCIRI and Dawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They propose to make Islam the principal source of law, which most immediately would affect the status of women. For Muslim women, religious law��rather than Iraq’s relatively progressive civil code��would govern personal status, including matters relating to marriage, divorce, property, and child custody. A Dawa draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such freedom altogether to peoples not “of the book,” such as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan), Zoroastrians, and Bahais.

This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam’s fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq’s southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern��and legislate��without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq’s American-written interim constitution��the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).

And strangely, the good news brigade haven’t been highlighting the agreement of another country to train Iraqi forces as good news. In fact, they’ve been completely silent. Why? The country in question is Iran.

On July 7, the Iranian and Iraqi defense ministers signed an agreement on military cooperation that would have Iranians train the Iraqi military. The Iraqi defense minister made a point of saying American views would not count: “Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries.” However, even if the training is deferred or derailed, it is only the visible��and very much smaller��component of a stealth Iranian encroachment into Iraq’s national institutions and security services.

Galbraith knows of what he speaks. He also served in a diplomatic capacity in Kurdistan during the 1990s. His career as a US diplomat was derailed in part because of his strong warnings that the INC mob weren’t representative of Iraqi aspirations, despite Ahmed al-Chalabi’s (then) status as a neo-con pinup boy.

I just wanted to bring readers the news of what the Coalition of the Willing is fighting for in Iraq.

The Politics of Science

Published

Shaun Cronin

3 years, 5 months ago

. 18 Comments

The editorial in the June 18th issue of New Scientist states:

It would be difficult to think up a worse way of deciding where to put your nuclear waste. First, conduct the process in secret: lock the project’s scientists behind closed doors and do not allow them to publish to their peers. Then, abandon science as a way to select suitable sites and choose instead a politically convenient location near a nuclear plant.

That, in essence, is what the UK did in the 1980s and 1990s when it chose deep rocks beneath the sprawling nuclear complex at Sellafield in north-west England as the preferred destination for its radioactive waste. The government eventually rejected that site in 1997, on scientific grounds.

The choosing of the Sellafield site was purely political. Nirex, the agency responsible for choosing the site, admitted that Sellafield (and another site) were chosen by the criteria of their support for nuclear activities rather than any scientific basis. This is a good example of the dangers of politicised science.

The main arena where science collides with politics is in the United States. The report Politics and Science in the Bush Administration by the Committee On Government Reform — Minority Office lists quite a few areas where the Bush Administration has either suppressed or distorted scientific findings. The most egregious examples of political interference have been in regards to climate change. But let’s look at a lesser known example that has found its way into Australian parliament via the abortion debate.

A few years ago a group of Republican congressmen pressured the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to change a web page that stated there was no link between breast cancer and abortion. The NCI caved in and made a change to indicate that such a link was inconclusive. As Chris Mooney writes there is no valid link between breast cancer and abortion. This is a standard tactic in regards to applying political pressure to science. When the facts are inconvenient create the idea that controversy or doubt exists where there is actually none.

Unfortunately as blogged by yours truly back in March, it has been raised in Australian parliment by Senator Ron Boswell as one of his questions of notice to Tony Abbott.

Climate change is another area in which the Bush Administration has suppressed or altered data. Reports on climate change from the Environmental Protection Agency have been deliberately altered to reflect conclusions in line with the Bush Administration’s ideals as documented here . Another example is the bullying of certain scientists by Republican Joe Barton. And it is bullying. Barton’s request for information is a blatant attempt to intimidate and harass scientists.

While science is not a democracy in regards to how theories achieve ascendancy, the process works in a democratic context. Peer review cannot work if results are suppressed or censored. Scientists cannot work if they are subject to political interference and their freedom is compromised. Progress in science is based on openness and sharing of information. Science as a process has integrity. It also has authority for the general public as a source of objective information. It belongs to us all and not to narrow political and ideological concerns whether right or left. Undue government influence on science affects free speech and the ability of the public to judge whether the actions of the government are in the best interests of the people.

For the history buffs (both science and political) the story of Trofim Lysenko is a good (but extreme) example what happens when science is subordinated by the state.

Note that this piece is a companion piece to The Gender of Science. A third piece on the corporate influence on science I intend to post in a few days (timely in light of the Pan Pharmaceutical court case).

Good News

Published

3 years, 5 months ago

. 248 Comments

One constantly repeated theme by RWDB commenters in the wake of the London atrocities was summed up in this statement - part of a comment by EP:

I think the majority of Muslims should put some more critical distance between themselves and al-Qaeda.

Specifically, I want to see every decent Imam issuing an fatwa against Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and terrorism.

This demand, in RWDBland where there are only black and white and never shades of grey, then quickly becomes a standard by which individual Muslims or Islamic leaders can be condemned, as in this comment by Rob or innumerable posts by Tim Blair.

I don’t know what the direction of causality is (and you have to avoid post ergo propter hoc thinking here), but either RWDB bloggers are echoing right-wing op/ed writers or the other way round. Either way, the great individualists of the Right seem to operate in a very co-ordinated collective way.

One of the things most praised about blogging is that people can instantly link to evidence. But how does that work in practice? The RWDBs set up a criterion - Islamic leaders must condemn terrorism - and then engage in something of a competition with each other to find links to stories or websites where unrepresentative Islamic leaders don’t behave in the way they demand. What’s completely ignored in this argument by linking is that such figures as Sheikh Omran are on the fringes of Islamic sentiment in Australia. But apparently proceeding on the principle that a link is as good as a wink to a blind bat, any news story or website that seems to support the a priori position of the blogger or commenter is supposed to be a knock-down argument.

Never mind the fact that Islam is an incredibly diverse faith, with all sorts of different varieties nationally and spiritually. If I were to assert that all Christians are Republican loonies, I’d be jumped on immediately - and rightly so. But RWDBs have no trouble making the most gross generalisations based on the most unrepresentative pieces of “evidence”.

It’s exactly the same scenario as in the controversy over good news from Iraq, where Arthur Chrenkoff claimed to be presenting a balanced picture, highlighting reports sourced from dubious and biassed propaganda to suggest that everything in Iraq was going much more swimmingly than the media presented. Never mind the context of the presuppositions that go into the reporting by Western journalists, and the balance of evidence on how well things are going in Iraq.

One link does not an argument make, if it’s not representative of the broad picture. And it’s odd that the RWDBs, so fond of presenting the “good news” from Iraq, don’t trouble themselves to jump into comments threads or rush to put up a post when Australian Islamic leaders do condemn terrorism.

Just in - news for EP. 100 Imams in the UK met last week and a fatwa is now being drafted to make clear that suicide bombers place themselves outside Islam, and that Muslims have a moral duty to cooperate with police to apprehend perpetrators and prevent future attacks. This is what EP asked for. Will he be happy with this good news, I wonder?

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Ecclesiastical Style

Published

Continue reading ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Ecclesiastical Style’

3 years, 5 months ago

in Politics, Religion and Sociology

. 104 Comments

Via DREADNOUGHT, news that a document seeking to exclude homosexual men from the Catholic priesthood is sitting on Pope Benedict’s desk awaiting a decision.

Conservative American gay blogger Andrew Sullivan writes:

The document would put the Vatican’s full authority behind banning all gay men from seminaries and the priesthood, regardless of their commitment to celibacy or faithfulness to Church teachings. Their very existence as involuntary homosexuals would make them ineligible for the priesthood. Money quote:

[T]he document will reject a solution that some seminaries, religious communities and bishops have tended to adopt in recent years - that it doesn’t matter if a candidate is gay, as long as he’s capable of remaining celibate. “I suspect some people, in good will, have gravitated to this idea,” one bishop said. “But that’s not what the church is saying, and this document will make that clear.” To date, there’s been no indication of what the pope intends to do.

Just ponder what this might mean. The Church concedes that gay people are involuntarily gay; the Church asks them to commit to a life without sex or physical or emotional intimacy; if they are priests, the conundrum is resolved anyway: celibacy is mandatory for gays and straights alike, and, so the very distinction becomes moot.

THE TURN TOWARD BIGOTRY: But now the policy could become something much, much different: even if gay priests live up to all their responsibilities, even if they embrace celibacy wholly, even if they faithfully serve the Church, they would still be deemed beneath being priests, serving God, or entering seminaries. Why? Because, in pope Benedict’s own words, they are “objectively disordered,” indelibly morally sick in some undefined way, and so unfit, regardless of their actions, to serve God or His people. It is no longer a matter of what they do or not do that qualifies or disqualifies them for the priesthood; it is who they are. Not since the Jesuits’ ban on ethnic Jews, regardless of their conversion or Christian faith, has the Church entertained such pure discrimination. The insult to gay Catholics is, of course, immeasurable. It is also an outrageous attack on the good, great and holy work so many gay men and lesbians have performed in the Church from its very beginnings. Father Mychal Judge, for example, the fire-fighters’ priest who died in the ruins of the World Trade Center ministering sacraments to fire-men, would retroactively be deemed unfit for the priesthood. So would literally thousands and thousands of gay priests, bishops, cardinals and popes over the centuries. The old doctrine, however cruel and inhumane, at least concentrated on moral acts and made no distinctions between who committed them. It laid out clear rules and insisted that gays and straights abide by them equally. The proposed policy would instead focus on a human being’s very core - and exclude him or her as a result. That kind of discrimination is the definition of bigotry. This is the Church? This is God’s voice for human dignity and equality in the world? This is an institution that says all are welcome at the Lord’s table? I can only hope and pray that pope Benedict doesn’t go there. And if he does, I hope that heterosexual Catholics will rise up and defend their gay priests and friends and family members against this unconscionable attack.

(P.S. I am leaving aside, of course, the long history of discrimination and subordination of heterosexual women in the Church. It is equally indefensible, in my view, but the arguments for and against women priests has a different lineage and history that, for now, is best discussed in a different context.)

Dreaddie is right to pick up on the resonance between this possible action and more scientific studies claiming that homosexuality is genetically determined.

From what I’ve read of Cardinal Ratzinger’s work, there’d be no chance that the Church would accept arguments based on biological determinism - as these are contrary to an ontology that is central to the Catholic faith, and because the then Cardinal expressed strong concern about the possible implications of genetically engineering humans.

However, it is clear that the Church would be accepting a position that same-sexualities are a matter of the essence of a person, rather than an orientation towards acts, which are deemed sinful but which don’t affect the moral worth of the person per se.

The symbolism of this action - from the Catholic perspective - would be very problematic and I tend to think that for this reason, the document would not be issued with its current reasoning. What hasn’t been picked up in the commentary is that the argument against the ordination of homosexual men is identical in form with that against the ordination of women.

desperate lies

Published

Administrator

3 years, 5 months ago

in Life and Sociology

. 56 Comments

If you are caught cheating on the spouse, don’t expect any sympathy from your fellow Australians. Adultery has emerged as the No. 1 social sin in a study of what we consider acceptable behaviour.

More than half of those surveyed told University of NSW researchers they would think less of a person who had strayed than someone who had dobbed their husband into police or conducted abortions.

But the disapproval figures are mild when compared with what we perceive as community attitudes. Indeed, the study shows we like to think of ourselves as far more tolerant than others when it comes to homosexuality, drugs and marital infidelity.

Michael Pelly writing in the Sydney Morning Herald in October last year about a study on community attitudes.

The No. 1 taboo was adultery, with 54 per cent saying they personally would think less of someone dubbed a philanderer. Next was the drunken office flirt (44 per cent), followed by the promiscuous single woman (35 per cent), police informer (33 per cent) and the occasional marijuana smoker (31 per cent).

The lowest disapproval rating was for the young woman who had a single sexual relationship before she got married. At 12 per cent it was well under the 29 per cent average for the 10 categories.

However, when it came to guessing the attitudes of others, the disapproval average rose to 69 per cent. The figure for sex before marriage rose to 54 per cent, but the widest gap was for the HIV-positive man (14 per cent and 76 per cent).

The study was to be used to assess the efficacy of tests for defamation where juries are asked to put aside their own opinions and consider the opinions of others. The study’s findings indicated we generally overestimate the level of intolerance in society, thinking ourselves more tolerant than others.

There was one exception:

For plaintiffs, the ideal jury would be comprised of practising Christians. They are more inclined to find certain behaviour unacceptable and to believe others think the same. "In fact, all those who said they belonged to a religion were significantly more likely to feel antipathy."

I am pleased to know that somebody loves people like me.

I didn’t look for further details about the study’s methodology and applications. I just want to say that I read the community attitudes on adultery this way:

Adultery happens, that’s OK, as long as it doesn’t happen to me. Because we don’t want to be seen as unhip, uptight or uncool by admitting that it’s wrong and that we hate it.

Continue reading ‘desperate lies’

��That’s the way the world is going��

Published

3 years, 5 months ago

. 124 Comments

That was Peter Beattie’s mantra on the issue of a national identity card on the ABC’s Insiders, and this, just one passage in a rambling string of thoughts.

Not to me it doesn’t. Why don’t we have it? I suggested a number of those things in the past and this debate has been around since 1987 and it simply won’t go away and as I said, if you consider just some of the issues I’ve talked about - what happened with Cornelia Rau, for example? What’s happening in terrorism, I think as well as identity theft, all those things can in my view be dealt with in part at least with having a national ID card system. We all have a tax file number anyway and if anybody thinks there aren’t obviously things like credit checks on their ability when they come to borrow money, they’re kidding themselves. An ID card system - if somebody has nothing to hide it’s not a problem. Yes we need safeguards, people need to access their records to check what’s kept on them is accurate and fair. A lot of the opposition to the ID card has disappeared and I don’t think this is the same climate as it was in 1987. As far as I’m concerned this is about commonsense, national security. One of the things we discussed Barrie at a recent COAG meeting was a national smart card. Now most States are looking at it, we are. By smart card I mean, I’d love to have a card which means that I can use it to access EFTPOS, ATM. I can use it for credit, to pay for a train, bus, ferry the whole lot. Now if you can have one card to do that - that removes a lot of the cumbersome problems people have managing their finances. That’s the way the world is going, why not have that?

This is a deep and complex issue, and impossible to canvas in one short post or interview so I’ll only add a few simple thoughts of my own. Is it really the way the world is going? And do we really want to go this way? It appears that the identity card exceptions are amongst the wealthiest and most stable democracies in the world, particularly the English speaking world. And I’m interested to find out how this fits with our stated goals of spreading freedom and democracy when the many citizens of sick nations who yearn for those two things are often subjected to the vagaries of routine identity check and inspections that are the raison d’etre of these systems. In all cases where the cards are introduced, carrying them is compulsory. Being stopped by police and not having your card comes with serious consequences attached.

Also, historically, far too many of these cards have had information embedded in them that can lead to real oppression (I don’t buy the argument that we are in any way immune from the possibility of an oppressive government eventuating here) from information like a group classification, where ethnic identity is noted, a situation that has in the past made it easier for genocidal acts to eventuate. And of course I’m at a loss in understanding just how these cards will inure us against terrorist attack?

For some serious background, many of the answers to Beattie’s assertions can be found at Privacy International. I particularly liked the market value argument as a good reason not to pursue this course of action.

One unintended repercussion of ID card systems is that they can entrench widescale criminal false identity. By providing a one stop form of identity, criminals can easily use cards in several identities. Even the highest integrity bank cards are available as blanks in such countries as Singapore for several pounds. Within two months of the new Commonwealth Bank high security hologram cards being issued in Australia, near perfect forgeries were already in circulation. This conundrum has been debated in Australia, the UK and the Netherlands. It relies on the simple logic that the higher an ID cards value, the more it will be used. The more an ID card is used, the greater the value placed on it, and consequently, the higher is its value to criminal elements.

It appears that we have just begun this little fight for this one last piece of privacy and humanity, but given the effect that intrusive tools like our ASIO anti-terrorism laws and corporate and governmental electronic personal data collection can have on our civil liberties, I’m not sure the fight really matters any more.

The Sexual Life of Us

Published

3 years, 5 months ago

in Culture, Life and Sociology

. 14 Comments

On Friday night on sbs, there was a repeat of a doco on the new puritanism in America, inspired by the reaction to Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction. All this is of course a subset of the culture wars with their demon of the 60s and sexual liberation. What I think we miss with some of these discussions - which tend to focus on an absolute sexual morality vs. an absence of morality - is that new sexual ethics may have emerged in the last decade or two (and I use the word “ethics” advisedly).

For instance, having a bonk buddy or a “friend with benefits”. Absolutely not something I’m averse to. But how do you negotiate the emotional commitments involved in such a relationship?

I think my first awareness of this sort of intimate relationship was through reading Armistead Maupin’s (wonderful) Tales of the City. There’s no doubt that the naming of the practice originated with American gay culture in the 70s and 80s. I can’t cite you any stats on how prevalent such relationships are, but there’s no doubt the concept now exists and is named in popular culture. Think Sex & the City, chick lit and young womens’ mags, for instance.

I think also that people negotiate the ethics of such interactions without too much guidance from still emergent social norms. Probably because we still tend to think that there’s either an absolutist (usually normally “Christian”) morality or nothing. But any ethic emerges from its instantiation in peoples’ lives. There’s every benefit to be gained from discussing new forms of social and sexual interaction.

Privatising education profit, socialising the losses

Published

3 years, 5 months ago

. 28 Comments

The foreign University startup much touted by Brendan Nelson, Carnegie Mellon, is going to get a great big handout for the SA Govt to inure itself against any losses incurred in its competition with Australian Universities for the full fee paying dollar of Australian and overseas students.

“Once signed, the South Australian Government will commit up to $20 million in support over the next four years. The assistance package includes scholarships, operational supports and start up grants,” he said…… “The State Government plans to introduce the Carnegie Mellon University Bill 2005 , a piece of supporting legislation, into parliament when it resumes after Estimates, appropriately this is the fourth of July.”

Associate Dean Brenda Peyser.

“The Government is guaranteeing us against a big loss for that initial start-up, but after that, it’s just us,” said Ms Peyser, in Adelaide for an international education conference and related meetings. “Had the South Australian Government not come to us to talk about it (setting up in Adelaide), we may not have done this because it would never have occurred to us that this was a possibility.”

Confused? One would have thought that in the brave new world of higher education that is being created by the Govt there was going to be a genuine marketplace for education services; that it was going to be every Uni for itself, and let the degrees fall where they may. It appears that for Carnegie Mellon the exception will be the rule and the only way to profitability is through the public purse. You’ve got to love the self justification provided though.

“There are a number of emerging democracies in this region,” Ms Peyser said. “It’s an exciting thing for a school like ours to be able to do what it does in an environment where you can actually potentially make a change on the leadership of nations.”

Ah yes, it’s the preemptive education doctrine. Too bad that kind of thinking wasn’t applied to a different scenario three years ago.

There is an early double standard being established here, cutbacks for home grown institutions, and generous welfare provisions for overseas education providers. I don’t remember reading anything anywhere, where Brendan Nelson has said that the playing field will be tilted for new overseas entrants and winners picked.

As an aside, in his interview on Four Corners Brendon Nelson explicitly said that the country needed to lift its game in many important areas.

DR BRENDAN NELSON: Why is it - in a country where we are bleeding in physics and chemistry and biology and humanities and social science, why are we running courses in golf course management, surfboard riding, paranormal scepticism, aromatherapy? You can do makeup application for drag queens at Swinburne.
TICKY FULLERTON: But that’s at the fringe, Minister, isn’t it? I mean, isn’t the real reason that your policies have led to a massive increase in courses like business and IT, and that it isn’t actually - there is no economic incentive for these universities to really focus on encouraging people to go into the highbrow arts or the pure sciences, the sorts of things that universities were really built upon?

DR BRENDAN NELSON: Well, in fact, firstly in terms of commerce, management and IT, the universities are responding to a demand that’s been in the community for more people to undertake those courses and programs.

And yes, you can bet what the curriculum proposed by Carnegie Mellon will consist of, and yes, it’s not physics, chemistry or biology.

“The branch will offer post graduate degrees and executive education courses and is expected to attract hundreds of post graduate students from Asia-Pacific, as well as local students. It will initially offer Masters degree programs in Public Policy and Management and in Information Technology.

To say that the minister is confused about his own policies and ideological thrust, and is replacing good education policy with ideological purity is to state the bleeding obvious.

Saturday Salon

Published

3 years, 5 months ago

in Miscellaneous

. 55 Comments

An open thread where you can, at your weekend leisure, discuss whatever you like.

LP Cocktail Hour

Published

3 years, 5 months ago

in Life and Miscellaneous

. 37 Comments

Well, it’s almost five on a Friday afternoon and the working week is done. Lay down yr political cudgels, dim the lights, light a candle, and join me in cocktail hour. As is now public knowledge, I had 5 too many cocktails on Thursday night.

The problem I think was all the sugar round the rim of the glass. I’m sure that’s what gave me such a bad headache!

I was drinking a Sidecar. Or two. Or five.

What’s yr favourite cocktail?

NB I am totally not fazed if I get accused of oppressing alcoholics!

The shorter Bolt: Locutus of Borg edition

Published

3 years, 5 months ago

in Culture

. 79 Comments

In today’s shorter Andrew Bolt.

This week’s report on black disadvantage shows what few dare say: Aborigines must assimilate or suffer.

The Borg.

“We are the Borg. Lower your shields and power down your weapons. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

The Bolt.

“I am Locutus of Bolt. Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.”

Cultural collectivism doesn’t get any nuttier than this.

Sorry is not the hardest word after all

Published

3 years, 5 months ago

. 104 Comments

Riddle me this one and all. Apologies by the PM for Rau and Alvarez due to their maltreatment at the hands of a government department and yet nothing for the indigenous people of Australia, many of whom have suffered for so many decades at the hands of similar bureaucracies designed to help them.

“Both Cornelia Rau and Mrs Alvarez are owed apologies for their treatment, and on behalf of the Government I give those apologies to both of those women who were the victims of mistakes by the department,” Mr Howard told reporters.

How and why is this different?

The Gender of Science

Published

Shaun Cronin

3 years, 5 months ago

in Sociology

. 19 Comments

The Sunday papers are perfect in their role. Good sports coverage and not to demanding intellectually. The accompanying lift-out magazines tend to be all gossip and cooking and you are done with them in about half and hour and then ready for a lie down in preparation for the day’s TV sporting action. Hence it was a pleasant surprise to find an article by mathematician Clio Cresswell on science, maths and reasons why women (who tend to study science/maths in almost equal numbers at school with better average results) do not make the transition to the same studies in higher education in the Sunday Telegraph a few weeks ago.

Cresswell doesn’t avoid the question of whether there are innate differences between men and women. Citing Baroness Susan Greenfield, studies find that men and women do think differently. Male thought tends towards analytical problem solving and solutions where as female thought tends towards understanding complex inter-relationships. (note that Creswell points out the such studies are broad and not able to classify an individual). Cresswell states that “For me, the true beauty of maths lies in its encapsulation of complex inter-relationships, not its ability to solve problems.”

Cresswell also mentions that “I’ve always had a lot of trouble with the idea of male and female differences. If I didn’t, I don’t think I would have survived in a field that epitomises masculine thinking.” This is a good point and reinforces that there is no division of maths into “male” or “female” varieties. Maths is devoid of gender. Viewing maths as a series of analytical problems or a complex series of patterns and relationships are both equally valid and useful approaches.

The nagging question does remain of why women are underrepresented in sciences. I do not believe it is due to innate ability (the history of science would put paid to that idea. Anyway, such differences would need to be very large to eliminate social factors). And PZ Meyers today at Pharyngula blogs on The Cost Of Being A Woman In Science which documents an alarming inequality between men and women over the stages of a science competition. PZ also links to a Swedish study that shows women applicants had to be 2.5 times more productive to be rated with the same competency as male applicants.

These are not the only studies that indicate a bias against women in science. And this problem needs to be recognized and not sidetracked into fallacious debates concerning innate abilities in regard to science ability.

Note that the problem is not confined to western nations. India is experiencing a similar issue with women failing to pursue careers in science.

Some may be interested to know that the most-cited theoretical physicist is Lisa Randall who teaches at Harvard.

And the ABC is screening DNA: The Secret of Life starting tonight. If not for circumstances Rosalind Franklin might have been one of the names well remembered for unlocking the secret of DNA.

Religion, Politics and Blogging

Published