Rapturous Thinking

The Aker Thread We Had To Have

2010-05-24T19:38:00.000-07:00

I'm furious with Akermanis. I heckled him at the game on Saturday, and I'll probably be joining people with a banner against him next week. The Channel 7 outrage is far more serious, but I love AFL, and I'm a Dog's fan. This is personal.

Nevertheless, I think what is going on is a bit more complex than the commentary recognises. For a start, I don't think Akermanis is exceptionally homophobic. People have rightly mocked his "some of my best friends are gay" response when put under the spotlight, but the fact is that's still a big step forward from the "bash them all" response real bigots display. It's worth remembering that Aker is a rare thing in football - a bloke who chose to marry a highly intelligent, highly educated woman rather than someone who was either stupid, or trying desperately to pretend to be so. He is also rumoured to have refused to demand Brisbane trade someone he thought had committed rape because he wouldn't play with him. Two steps up on your stereotype knucklehead.

Aker is, however, arrogant. This is a statement somewhat lower in the controversy-creating stakes than the Pope's Catholicism. He's also a bit homophobic. And since he thinks he's better than everyone else - particularly better than the blokes he plays with and against - he assumes they're more homophobic. If he's only half ready for a player to come out, they must not be ready at all.

I think he's wrong about this, or at least half wrong. If a player who was unpopular for other reasons, or who was struggling to get a regular game came out now I think it wouldn't go well. However, if a popular talented player came out first it would change, well not everything, but a lot.

I don't believe AFL is more homophobic than Rugby League. For generations League has defined itself in opposition to Union on the basis that Union players were "a bunch of poofters". Certainly 2010 is a less homophobic point to come out than 1995. The problem is that players like Ian Roberts don't grow on trees. Roberts was a legend of the game, and a really nice bloke as well. If an equivalent in AFL (Brad Johnson, Adam Goodes) came out no one would have a word to say against them. There are quite a few players of lesser stature who would at least win universal support within their club.

I think there's a generational shift going on. Akermanis's comments were made in response to an AFL campaign to encourage acceptance in sport. A campaign a lot of players (including his coach and one of his teammates) have got on board with enthusiasm. Younger players have grown up with heroes who have come out as gay from other sports or the media. Aker doesn't see that because he's too caught up in the idea he's better than these young whipper-snippers.

But here's the thing I think is really interesting. If I'm right about this, then what it proves is that Akermanis knows homophobia is bad - if he didn't why would it be important to him to think he's got less of it than everyone else. In other words, deep in the changing rooms of the AFL the message is already seeping through: being bigoted is not something to be proud of.

A Work of Art

2010-04-06T04:15:00.000-07:00

Given my pseudonym it would be remiss of me not to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyI5hAvkIug

Wouldn't This Solve Everything?

2010-02-25T00:43:00.001-08:00

Reading about the crisis in Greece and Spain at the moment I can't help thinking there is a simple solution to the mess, and one which would simultaneously help with a lot of other problems as well.

I'm very much a believer in the line "for every complex problem there is a simple solution - and it's usually wrong'. But I keep wondering if this is not the exception.

With the exception of Ireland, the Eurozone countries in the biggest trouble are those around the Mediterranean, blessed with lots of sunlight (and in Spain's case wind). According to Paul Krugman, who I tend to believe on such matters, the way out of the Global economic crisis is for creditor countries like Germany and China to start spending more.

So isn't the answer to have the Germans invest big time in solar-thermal and wind projects in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, as well as upgrading the European Grid to bring that power to other parts of Europe.

Results: Lots of jobs for the countries that most need it; tax revenues for Greece and others who might otherwise be in danger of defaulting; German investors get assets that will be worth a lot as the energy crisis hits; Europe becomes to a large extent energy independent removing the danger of being held hostage by Russia and cutting the flow of funds to oil rich enemies; a major dent is put into global warming.

And the downside is?

Greetings and Depression

2009-12-28T01:28:00.000-08:00

I've been struggling with depression a bit recently. Not down there with the worst I've been through, and even my lowest moments don't really compare with what some people suffer, but after two years pretty much free of the thing its not a lot of fun.

In the process I've been reminded of some of the things people do, clearly with out meaning to that make these bouts worse. I'm not sure how unusual I am in this. I've never read anyone else talk about these sorts of interactions as particularly troublesome, but I figure that if they are common they're worth mentioning because it really shouldn't be hard for readers to avoid doing them.

Greetings are a particular problem for me. Being bothered by greetings and goodbye's is supposed to be one of the marks of Asperger's, and its something that has always made me self diagnose on that point. In particular I'm troubled by the vague questions that seem impossible to answer. A particular bugbear is "What's happening?" A perfectly reasonable query from someone arriving late at an event, but really frustrating when you run into someone and they fire it at you with no obvious context. I have absolutely no idea how one is supposed to answer. Should you talk about the current state of geopolitics, discuss the last five minutes of your life, of give them an update of what has happened to you since you last saw them.

This is actually quite stressful for me at any time, because if I'm supposed to do one of these I don't really want to get it wrong. Sometimes I can make a joke out of it, but that effort is usually beyond me when I'm depressed. It all feels like there is some secret handshake and if I don't know the correct response I'm being failed as a human being.

Even the standard "How are you?", fine normally, can be a problem when I'm depressed. If the person asking is someone I'm not close to I take it as a totally boilerplate greeting and answer "fine, and you?" It's not true of course, but I figure they don't really want to know, its just a piece of politeness. If the person is someone I'm really close to I might confess how I'm really feeling. Where it really hurts is if its someone I'm close enough to that I don't want to lie to them - as they might really care - but not close enough I feel I can burden them with my worries. I once had someone look on me with amazement when I literally writhed in pain after he asked this question. I just wasn't sure which way to go.

Nevertheless, as a rule I think the "How are you?" is polite without being demanding. What I really hate is some of the more intrusive inquiries. On one occasion a friend of friends asked me "So what brilliant things have you been doing lately?" No maybe he says this to everyone - its his own boilerplate. Or maybe based on our one and a half previous conversations he really does think I do brilliant things all the time. But the problem was that at the time I was deeply anxious about how little I had achieved in the last two months. If someone had offered me a noose and a handy hanging point right then, I reckon it might have been all over red rover. I've avoided the guy ever since, and I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm terribly rude.

The worst aspect of this is when I don't answer the question properly, and the inquisitor gives me a sort of stare, that is apparently meant to mean: You haven't answered my question, instead treating it as a routine greeting. I demand you give me a full explanation of your state of being forthwith, because I have the right to do this. Twenty-five years of non-violence behind me and I swear one day I am going to slap someone who does this.

The worst aspect of this is social situations where there are a mix of people, some of whom are genuine friends and some who are likely to do this sort of thing. Yesterday I was feeling pretty down and remembered a social event of exactly this nature. I knew that some of the people there would cheer me up, but attending meant desperately navigating around, trying to avoid those likely to greet me this way. I nearly didn't go, and the soothing presence of friends was almost entirely counter-balanced by the other factors.

I suppose a different personality would say "I find it really intrusive when you ask questions like that," but most of the time that's not me.

So for anyone who knows me in real life, consider this a head's up. And if you don't, you might want to think about how what you say affects those given to glumness and a certain literalness of interpretation.

Misreading the By-elections

2009-12-07T02:22:00.000-08:00

One of the odd things about the post-mortems written on the Higgins and Bradfield by-elections is the common assumption that the starting point for the Greens should be the combination of the Green and Labor votes in 2007.

In some cases this is just people who hate the Greens setting an ridiculously high bar so they can gloat about it not being reached, but the extraordinary thing is that some people actually seem to believe it, including some Greens who are downcast that it was not achieved.

It’s rather hard to imagine why anyone would expect such a thing. The ALP is many things, but amongst those it is the party of Martin Ferguson and Michael O’Connor, of Dick Adams and Gary Gray and Peter Walsh. It is the party which for 15 years sent Graeme Campbell to Canberra. On the issues the Greens ran on - climate change and refugees – all these people are well to the right of Malcolm Turnbull and some of them are more hardline than Tony Abbott. It’s unlikely any of them would vote Green ahead of a Liberal, particularly a moderate such as Kelly O’Dwyer. Why would one expect the voters they represent to do so?

The people who voted Labor in Higgins in 2007 had 12 options before them. To vote Green, or Liberal or for one of eight other candidate, or informalise their vote or to not turn up and risk a fine. By far the largest portion chose the Greens. We’ll have to wait for all the prepoll and postal votes to come in, but it appears that those who didn’t turn up are a very, very comfortable second. Those who chose the Liberals don’t seem much more numerous than those who chose the DLP or the Sex Party.

In Bradfield there were 24 options, and the Greens again streeted the field, although it seems the fine-riskers may have been closer to the rest of the pack.

The closest thing I can find to a justification for the expectation that the Greens will pick up almost all Labor voters is the theory that voters are tribal, and with generations of hating the Liberals in their blood Labor voters will always back the most obvious opponent. It’s an odd theory, when you consider that the Liberal vote has declined in Higgins over recent years. Some of this may be new people moving in, but mostly its former Liberal voters shifting their first preference. Not a lot of tribal loyalty there.

What’s more the conclusion is totally a-historical. Consider two elections in Liberal held seats in which neither the Greens nor Labor ran. In Menzies the Democrats took 22%, and two other candidates got 10.2%, of which a little over half flowed to the Democrats on preferences. The combined Labor and Democrat vote at the previous election had been 39.5%, so the Democrat primary was barely half this figure.

In Warringah in 1993 the ALP and Democrats combined for 38.1%. Two years later the Democrats got 15.9%. An extraordinary 13.5% voted informal. If so many Labor voters wouldn’t support the Democrats over a Liberal when the Democrats were in their hey-day, why would you expect them to all back the Greens now? Note that the Liberal candidates in those cases were Kevin Andrews and Tony Abbott – possibly less attractive figures to Labor votes than O’Dwyer.

Acting Locally

2009-08-22T07:15:00.000-07:00

There’s a beautiful piece in The Age today, which doesn’t seem to be online, about a school where almost all the children came from refugee families. A teacher asked children to bring in their favourite book from home. Most didn’t, and those that did produced very damaged copies – in one case only two pages were left.

The teacher put out a call for help, and was absolutely deluged in offers. Not only did people line up to hand over books they were no longer using, many dipped into their pockets (in one case to the tune of $2000) to buy new ones. The target has already been exceeded ten times over, and presumably this publicity will send it higher. Moreover, all sorts of other support is being offered – people with no connection to the school are offering to come in and read to the children, or construct containers for storing the books etc.

It’s all very inspiring in the way many films try to be, while being true and real and not-faked up at all.

I think it also provides an indication of how some of the problems we often see as intractable are anything but, if we can only find the right triggers for action.

This might seem a big claim. The responses have solved the immediate problem of a shortage of books in the children’s homes. We’ll have to wait quite a while to discover if they will solve the real issue of limited reading, let alone social disadvantage. And all this is just one school – there are hundreds across Australia with similar problems, along with thousands of individual students at schools where the problem is less universal.

It’s a big leap from this to saying we can beat Global Warming or war. However, I think the case that these problems are soluble with enough commitment has been made adequately elsewhere. The question has always been “is that commitment achievable?” Examples like this indicate the answer is yes if we can find the right triggers.

Something about this case caused people to take the steps required to fix the problem. The efforts they made are not all that much smaller (and in the case of the $2000 donor not smaller at all) than that required to solve the world’s macro problems. Of course only a minority of those who received the plea for help acted. Maybe there’s a finite number of people who will ever step up to the plate, but I’d like to think not. Some of those who gave to this cause were probably the usual suspects – the same people on Oxfam’s regular donor list and volunteers for all sorts of causes.

But I doubt it. I’ll bet some were people who don’t give a lot the rest of the time. This appeal touched them, they saw the problem as being manageable, and they did something.

It’s the reason for the slogan “think global, act local”. Most people find it difficult to relate to global problems, or those too big to be solved through individual action. The solution, at least sometimes, is to break the problem down into manageable parts – often based on geography – and get people to deal with these. An appeal for books to solve the problem of children growing up without them in the home, without the specific manageable case of a single rather small school, would probably have produced much less of a response.

This is one of the less acknowledged reasons why those who argue Australia shouldn’t “take the lead” on fighting Climate Change because we only produce 2% of the problem are talking utter horseshit. It’s not just that this approach would have seen us stay out of both World Wars (desirable as that may have been in the first case) or individuals refuse to pay taxes if even some others are evading.

It’s that its only by breaking the problem down to more manageable scale we can get it addressed at all. My suburb only produces 0.0001% of the worlds Greenhouse Gasses. However, making it carbon neutral is a goal that might inspire people in a way that zero national emissions might not – it’s possible to imagine it happening and one person making a difference to it.

If we can make examples like this attractive we might be on the path to putting together the pieces to get the whole jig saw fixed.

Why e-books Scare The Hell Out Of Me

2009-08-15T23:08:00.001-07:00

There’s an article in The Age today about the anticipated rise of the e-book. Although they admit there have been problems with products such as the kindle, those quoted generally think that electronic books will largely replace paper versions for new sales within three years.

There are some obvious benefits for society in this. All those saved trees for a start. What is more, by eliminating the cost of printing, e-books will slash costs. Falling costs are obviously good for society in general, but they’re even better for books, which provide a public good by raising education and promoting ideas. Lower costs, more reading, more reading, smarter society. Sounds great.

Except of course for the problems of royalty-free distribution. I use this term to avoid the emotion concerning the term “piracy”, which many argue is an inappropriate way to describe copyright violations.

The danger is that e-books will make it so easy for people to distribute copies of books without paying royalties to the author that it will become impossible for almost anyone to make a living from writing them. Or editing them for that matter. Of course, at the moment most writers don’t make enough to live on from writing, but they do make enough to provide some recompense for their time – to make it affordable to go part time, for example, or to take a year off work and living on a mix of ones savings and anticipated royalties.

If royalties drop close to zero, that won’t happen. New books will either be written in a tearing hurry, without proper editing, or they’ll be the preserve of the independently wealthy. A few academics may convince their universities to let them take the time to write, although the trend at the moment is in the opposite direction. Some people may be able to cobble something together out of work they have done for another purpose, such as a set of lectures prepared for university. However, quality novels, and books presenting genuinely new ideas may become an endangered species.

Optimists can point to the music industry against this theory. Peer-to-peer filesharing has slashed musicians’ income, and may have harmed the production of new music, but it hasn’t killed the field. However, musicians have two advantages over writers.

Firstly they have another major source in income in the form of live gigs. Spending months writing and recording music you’ll never get paid for can to some extent be seen as a loss-leader, or advertising, for gigs. This argument gets oversold a lot by those who don’t realise how expensive touring is, but it still has some merit. Despite the rise of spoken word performances and author lectures it doesn’t really apply to writers.

Moreover, it’s possible to sell individual songs for 99c each, at which price some people will choose them over a free version which is harder to find and carries a (small) risk of prosecution.

Most books can’t be broken up the way CDs can into individual saleable units. It’s true that most authors don’t get paid more than $2 a copy or so as it is, unless their product is a large textbook or glossy coffeetable material. However, if one allows for the cost of editing, marketing etc its unlikely to be practical to sell e-books for less than $5 at an absolute minimum, more likely $10. At that price it is all too tempting for people to buy one book every few years, and otherwise depend on filesharing.

Even if more books are read this way (and even more acquired because people obtain free copies they start and then abandon quickly) the royalties will quickly drop to a point where writing books is a totally unfinancial prospect.

The Buggy-Whip Factor

Now clearly I have a financial interest here. My standard of living is supplemented by income from a parent’s books. The royalties of that will dry up pretty soon anyway, but obviously it makes me identify with the producers rather than the consumers. What is more, I hope to have a book published soon. I’ve never expected it would make me rich, or even a living wage, but I do hope it will be a noticeable part of my annual budget for a while.

It’ll be out before e-books are really having an impact, but a future career looks pretty dicey.

Now when people connected to an industry in decline whinge or seek to see it protected they get compared to buggy-whip manufacturers. Lots of people lost their jobs when horses and carts were replaced by motorcars, but there were new jobs in the new industries and (other than the unforeseen climate change consequences) we were all better off. The government should provide support and retraining for those affected, but subsiding buggy-whips or banning cars to protect them, is a bad idea.

The difference here is that people didn’t want buggy-whips once cars came in. Books are different. People will still want to read them, will want people to write them. They just won’t want to be the ones who pay.

The writers and editors may be the first to suffer, but if the quantity and quality of books produced falls dramatically everyone else will lose as well.

I don’t have any suggestions on how to stop the tide. Legal restraints on kindle production aren’t realistic. But that doesn’t stop me worrying.

Cap and Trade: Good, BAD, BAD, Good

2009-06-26T21:47:00.000-07:00

The Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill has passed the US has passed the US House. There's two bits of good news here and two bits of bad. Unfortunately the bad news is a whole lot bigger than the good, but I think one of the good pieces is maybe the most interesting.

First the first good news - something passed. That's a big step forward for America, and sends a signal to the rest of the world that everyone has to get on board about doing something about global warming.

Bad 1. It's a watered down bill, that will end up doing as much for the profit lines as some big polluters as it will about actually slowing climate change.

Bad 2. It barely passed, 219 to 212. That's not a good sign for getting through the Senate. Although it should have 50 votes, getting the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster will be much harder. The margin is slightly deceptive - at least three people voted against it because it wasn't tough enough, but they (and maybe some others) probably would have come on board if their votes were needed. Equivalent people in the Senate would probably help bring it to a vote. Nate Silver discusses the prospects.

Good 2. It does suggest that Obama knew what he was doing. His failure to press for a better bill was to me perhaps the greatest failure of his administration so far. Was he doing this because he knew he couldn't pass a stronger bill, even if he used his authority? Or because he just didn't care that much about climate change compared to other priorities? This outcome suggests the former is more likely. Why does this matter? Well for one thing I think there is a high chance that Obama's power is going to grow. If his healthcare bill passes, the economy picks up, and there are no terrorist disasters he is going to develop an authority that may be very hard Congress to resist, particularly if the Republican's keep losing their leadership.

There's another reason though. Billions of people around the world have invested a log of hope in Obama. If he fails because he is blocked by Congress or other forces some will be disillusioned, but others will just redouble their efforts. But if he fails because of a lack of personal commitment, that will be a very hard blow to take, and may do a lot of damage to the idea that change can be achieved through democratic means. The possibility he's doing all he can may just be symbolic, but its a very important symbol.

Pop Stops War

2009-05-17T05:28:00.000-07:00

As I type this the Eurovision Song Contest is playing in the background. It was easy to stop watching - Norway is so far ahead in the voting its hard to imagine anything will change.

A lot of Europeans cringe at the mention of the contest. The music is often so bad, the lyrics so unoriginal, the emotion so fake that's all pretty understandable. But in Australia its treated as high camp - hugely popular in the Gay and Lesbian community and ironic inner city inhabitants who wouldn't be seen dead at this sort of music the rest of the year. If I'd slept more last night I might be at a fundraiser where you could watch it on the big screen.

But whether you love or hate the clothes, music and presenters, its worth spending just a minute to consider the real benefit of the event. It was created in the 1950s, when Europe was desperately searching for a way to prevent another war. The European Union was the most important product of this search, along with the court of human rights and other bodies that managed to pull in even more of the continent's nations. Besides these Eurovision might seem pretty trivial. But it is all a part of the process of building a common European identity. The hope was that the more one saw of another nation's culture, the less likely you were to invade.

Modern technology and the fall of the Wall has given the whole project a renewed lease of life. Western Europe doesn't need it any more, and aside from the Scandinavians they don't much care either. But for Eastern Europe, so recently at war and with unresolved conflicts still to be address, anything that instills fondness for the neighbours has value. The fact that everyone gets to vote these days is important too - when you've just voted for Bosnia to win the contest you probably don't feel so much like bombing them back to the Stone Age. It's even better if they've just given you 12 points - but even 5 or 6 will do.

It's hard to prove that Eurovision works. It's a pretty flimsy basis for continental peace after all. But these things build up. Once Europe was in a continuous state of war. Peace for any nation was a temporary aberration, and for the whole place to be free of war at once was almost unimaginable. Last year, when Russia and Georgia went to war, the first conflict anywhere west of the Urals for 9 years, it was like an event from another era. Which in fact it was.

You may, like me, think that the Norwegian entry was so boring it ranks as three minutes of your life you'll never get back. But spend some time in the cemeteries of Flanders if you need to be reminded there are worse things than boredom.

They Couldn't Get It Right, Even When It Benefited Them

2009-04-26T18:30:00.000-07:00

The outbreak of swine flu is frightening. It may peter out (although that will still mean hundreds of deaths. Or it could kill millions.

One reassuring thought is that it seems to be fairly susceptible to Tamiflu and Relenza, the drugs based on the work of Graeme Laver. This will mean a lot of people who would have died otherwise will be saved, and even those who would have lived will have a much less hellish experience.

So the citizens of all those countries that stocked up heavily against the Avian flu threat should be feeling very grateful. That doesn't really include the US. While they probably hold the largest stocks in the world, on a per capita basis they're way behind. The funny thing about his is that apparently Dick Cheney held many shares in Hoffman La Roche, the company marketing Tamiflu. I remember reading (and responding angrily to) emails claiming the stockpiles were a conspiracy to enrich him.

So even when Chaney stood to benefit, the Bush administration couldn't do the right thing and create appropriate defenses against dangerous threats.

BTW, at one point Australia was lagging well behind the rest of the developed world in building a stockpile. Bob Brown became alarmed and asked a lot of questions in the Senate. He was told the situation had changed, and our stockpiles were being rapidly added to, and we would soon have the 2nd or 3rd largest per capita stocks in the world. It's not clear if Bob's pushing contributed to this, but naturally I like to think so.

You Can't Always Get What You Want

2009-04-25T19:04:00.000-07:00

In 1993 The Herald-Sun published a front page headline indicating that John Hewson had been elected Prime Minister at the federal election. It was a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment. Hewson had lost to Paul Keating, despite the campaigning of most of Australia's daily papers, including the Herald-Sun.

Celebrating Labor supporters printed the page on t-shirts, with "You can't always get what you want" underneath.

I rather doubt the headline "Conservatives Win Power in Iceland" will achieve the same prominence, but in some ways it is actually more embarrassing. The Hun had to race to the presses and arguably went with the best information available at the time. Not only is the pressure to report on an election in a tiny country across the other side of the world rather less intense, but the facts never supported the headline here - as can be seen from reading the text. (I'm not linking because presumably they'll change it eventually. I tried for a screen shot, but for some reason it wouldn't load properly).

However, as we have seen on global warming, it is clear that The Australian believes truth is whatever they want it to be.

UPDATE: It seems I overestimated The Australian's commitment to truth, or at least their desire to not be embarrassed. Despite the fact that the headline is being mocked on blogs much more read than mine, 24 hours later its still there. We'll see if it lasts.

Unbelievable!

2009-04-08T18:12:00.000-07:00

This is truly disgusting.

For anyone unfamiliar with The First Stone controversy you can read about it here. But that's only the part that became public. There is a much nastier side to it, which (luckily for Garner) never came out.

A friend of mine was a student at Ormond, and friends with the women harassed by the women who made the complaint, and close to some of their main supporters. At one point she her boss told her "I've dobbed you in to talk to a friend of mine, Helen Garner". He, and Garner, were expecting her to present the women's side of the story so she could use it in her book. My friend turned him down flat, saying (approximately) "Those women have made their choice not to talk to Garner. I'm certainly not going to rat on them."

When the book came out my friend appeared as a minor character, identified in such a way that virtually anyone who had met her would know who she was. She didn't have a big part, but the description of her was completely untrue and vicious in a society where promiscuity in women is not regarded favourably. There's no doubt Garner can write, but the stylishness of her words didn't make the content any different from if she had written that my friend was a slut nine times. Garner never met my friend, but felt completely comfortable trashing her reputation for the crime of refusing to betray her friends.

My friend's contract was not renewed, surprise surprise, she dropped out of her course, broke up with her boyfriend and spent two years depressed. The break-up may not have been caused by Garner, but having colleagues sidle up to him and ask "so what do you think of X's cameo smirk, smirk" probably didn't help. Certainly the other factors were directly attributable to the book.

It's a legitimate matter for debate whether Garner's moral failings should prevent her winning literary awards. But an award for "work that advances the position of women and girls in society"? That is a disgrace of epic proportions.

Yes its true that those who gave this award would not have known about what happened to my friend - at least the aspects of having her boss try to force her. They may even have thought that character in The First Stone was fictitious. However, the fact that Garner is out to ruin the lives of any woman younger than herself who dares to cross her path is hardly a secret.

The credibility of the prize is utterly destroyed.

The Demise of Family First

2009-03-21T20:47:00.000-07:00

After the last election Kim at Larvateus Prodeo joyfully announced that Family First's poor result was finished. I considered it to early to be so sure. In many ways the FF position in 2007 mirrored that of the Greens in 1998. Similar vote, each party left with one ongoing Senator.

The Australian Greens had 2 state MPs and one member in the ACT assembly at this point, while Family First has two in South Australia. Granted the WA Greens, technically a separate party had 3 state MPs. However, the Christian Democrats are almost as closely aligned with Family First as the two Green parties were, and they've got two members in the NSW Legislative Council. All up the situations look pretty comparable.

Given the subsequent rise of the Greens I wasn't confident Family First were dead.
However, circumstances have changed.

Post 98 the Greens needed some wins, and they got them. First electing avid Risstrom to Melbourne City Council (not only the first Green Party local councilor in Victoria, but to the most prestigious and powerful council). Then Lee Rhiannon was elected to the NSW Upper House. Some good by-election results (along with some bad ones) kept things rolling along until WA added another couple of state MPs and Queensland got a big swing at the 2001 election. All this before Tampa.

Family First's situation has been the opposite. They didn't run in the ACT or NT elections, did badly in WA and failed to make much impact at the various by-elections.

Now the Queensland result has been devastating. In 2006 Family First got over 4% in almost every seat they contested in Queensland, and broke 10% in two. This time they are currently above 4% in four seats (although to be fair they will probably creep over in two more). No result is above 5%.

Let's acknowledge two things. Firstly it was a harder election for them. There were more independents running than last time, the Daylight Saving Party gave a bit of competition in the South-East and they had a Green in every seat (last time their best results were where Greens didn't run). A close election also usually makes it harder for smaller parties.

On top of this Family First no doubt knew they couldn't win anywhere and would not have tried that hard.

Still, all that taken into account this is a terrible result for them. They've been outvoted by the Daylight Saving mob, on totals if not averages. They've dropped totally off the radar at a time when their Senator's profile has never been higher. They've demonstrated they have no serious party machine in Queensland and should not be taken seriously as able to deliver on preference deals.

Prior to the next federal election there are two more state polls: Tasmania and South Australia. Family First didn't run in the last Tasmanian poll, and I don't expect to see them contest this one. In South Australia they will probably hold the seat that is up for re-election, but unless they can go forwards in a big way they will be entering the federal election at a very low ebb. A half senate election will see them wiped out, with the two SA state MPs hanging on as a strange reminder of times past.

I have argued elsewhere that in a Double Dissolution they have a chance of winning a seat or two, and I still think this is correct. However, even this will just delay the inevitable, since they will certainly be short term Senators.

I think we can now be pretty confident right-wing religious influence in our parliament will soon be confined to the ranks of the major parties.

Counting One's Unblessings

2009-03-17T04:28:00.000-07:00

Pavlov's Cat has a predictably charming piece about feeling slightly depressed and trying to cheer oneself up by counting one's blessings. As she notes this can be ruined by a small voice in one's head:

The lemon tree was not killed by the 47 degree heat and is thriving. Yes, but its roots are probably what's blocking next door's plumbing.

Obama won the election. Yes, but look at the state of the world.

I particularly like this one: Labor's in federally and in nearly all the states. Yes, but how can you tell?

I think we may be observing the origins of a meme.

The first comment is also a gem.

I haven't been depressed lately (lovesick yes, but it's not the same thing). Nevertheless the last few weeks have not been filled with good news, so I would like to add my own: Cadbury's dairy milk chocolate is going to go fair trade, lifting thousands, perhaps millions out of poverty. Yes but all hope of weightloss is now definitely dead.

Why the Queensland Election Matters

2009-03-14T23:55:00.000-07:00

Many blog commentators are running with the theme, “The Queensland election hardly matters. State governments don’t do much these days anyway.” This line is perhaps a little stronger than usual because the powers of Brisbane City Council, for example over transport, mean the Queensland Government is arguably less powerful than its equivalents.

Nevertheless, I think the claim is wrong. This isn’t just because I think state governments still do a lot of important things, although I do, it’s because I think this election has far more significance for the future of Australian politics than most. For that reason its disappointing that those in a position to know regard the electorate as more than usually disengaged.

The background to this is that I have thought for some time that the Liberal Party is in danger of collapse as a serious political force. I doubt the collapse will come quickly, and I expect them to keep winning occasional state elections for some time to come. Nevertheless, I think without external salvation the combination of a declining talent base and an inability to face up to the implications of climate change will discredit them as a serious possibility for government, and without this the Liberals whole raison d’être ceases.

When I proposed this theory some time ago I noted that a global economic crisis in Rudd’s first term of government could change this, and give the Libs the liferaft they need. I’m sure I’ve seen one of those around here somewhere, so I think there is a real chance the Libs can avoid the fate I have predicted for them, but I still think it will be touch and go.

So why does this Qld election matter? For two main reasons. Firstly it is the first outing of the Liberal National Party, formed in a less than ideal manner. If Springborg wins then winners are grinners, all the internal nastiness associated with the formation of the LNP will be forgotten and the new revived force will breathe life into the Coalition north of the Tweed, providing them with great assistance at future federal elections.

If they lose, however, there will be deep recriminations. It should be easy to beat tired fourth term governments, particularly when the economic situation is not good. All the elements in the Liberal Party who were done over in the process of forming the LNP will reappear full of recriminations and the battle will rage throughout the period when federal preselections should be taking place. With a tiny membership in marginal Brisbane seats, branch staking will run rife. The federal campaign will be a shemozzle, and after that the recriminations will be even worse. Many areas of Brisbane already lack the healthy party infrastructure to cope if someone of talent does turn up. Give it two years of infighting and there’ll be almost nothing left, both in Brisbane and a number of regional centres.

I’d make an exception here for the loss by one or two seats. In this case its possible the party will hold together as people see themselves as being just a by-election or two away from victory.

So this election could go a long way to determining whether the Liberals are a serious force in one fifth of the country. A fifth, moreover, that is particularly heavily endowed with marginal seats.

The other major reason I think it matters is in regard to the Greens. If the Liberals do collapse I don’t believe this will usher in some sort of permanent Labor rule. But it is a bit hard to see what would represent the alternative. One possibility is the rise of the Greens to the status of major opposition party, with the ALP becoming the dominant party of the right. The obstacle to this is the way the Greens keep flunking opportunities to gain toeholds in the Lower Houses of mainland state parliaments (and of course the House of Representatives).

If the Greens could win a few Lower House seats, and their MPs be seen as doing a good job, public perceptions could really change when people are desperate for an alternative to Labor Governments. The following election could see a raft of Green MPs, and one or two elections later government ceases to be ridiculous. But at the moment, ridiculous is exactly the word.

The problem is particularly acute in Queensland. Lacking a state Upper House, and without a senator, the Queensland Greens have much less of a party structure than the other states. Historically, the quality of their candidates has also been lower on average, and this is hardly surprising. The absence of any local councillors compounds the problem.

Having temporarily acquired an MP through Ronan Lee’s defection this election offers an unusual opportunity for the Greens to make that breakthrough. Doing so would put the Queensland Greens on an entirely different footing, and provide a significant boost for efforts to win lower house seats in other states. The fact that Lee is not the favourite candidate of many Greens is unfortunate, but would not necessarily diminish the significance of such a victory. If Larissa Waters were to be elected in Mt Coo-tha, with or without Lee, the achievement would be unambiguous.

Now let me state that I consider the chance of a Green victory small in either case, and negligible anywhere else. I consider the chance of LNP failure much larger. But both will be worth watching on Saturday night.

Music To Change The World By

2009-03-07T22:24:00.000-08:00

Thornton McCamish quotes David Nichols in The Age today on U2. "This was a band that was made for people like me - middle class male, with a social conscience. And that annoys me even more. I don't need a soundtrack to my social conscience."

This annoyed me quite a lot, as does a lot of the criticism of Bono and U2. I'm also middle class and male and I bloody well do need a sound track to my social conscience. I find activism rewarding, but also bloody hard. Music, particularly music with political lyrics, helps inspire me to do what needs to be done.

Now I don't know David Nichols. I have no idea what he has done with his social conscience. I couldn't find evidence in his latest blog posts when I googled him. If he achieves a lot without the need for political lyrics good for him, but I resent the sneering condemnation of anyone who finds music reaffirming in their beliefs.

I'd add here that U2 have never been the most important band for me in sparking my activism. As my introductory post indicates, I prefer a much more obscure solo artist. And there are plenty of others who've meant more to me than the Irish foursome. I only own two of their albums, and can't find one of those. But I like the Joshua Tree and listening to it is more likely to raise than lower my next donation to Oxfam. I'd add that lyrics opposing violence or poverty don't seem so bad when you compare them with the self-indulgent paeans to one's current love object that make up the bulk of the music industry's output.

This whole thing seems to me to go with the frequent dissing of Bono for his activism. Now there are many, many ways I think Bono could be a better spokesperson for the movement to abolish poverty. Constructive criticism is good. Even carping criticism is fair enough if it comes from people at the coalface - representatives from the world's poor or the NGO workers who spend years in hell to make a difference. But you seldom hear it from those places.

The NGOs aren't always happy with Bono (still less with Geldof), but they don't go in for slagging the pair off as Irish millionaires who should shut their mouths except to sing. They know the two have saved millions of lives. If they'd been smarter and less arrogant they could have saved more, but I'll take their achievements any day over most of their critics, who can't seem to do a damned thing to make the world a better place other than sneer at the most visible representatives of those who are trying.

The Real Threat

2009-03-01T17:21:00.000-08:00

In the last few weeks I have, by implication, been called a murderer at least twice. Once was by Miranda Devine (with slightly more toned down versions by the usual suspects). She was alleging that environmentalists had sacrificed the lives of the people who died in Victoria's terrible bushfires by opposing fuel reduction burns. That very few environmentalists do oppose fuel reduction burns was irrelevant to her, as was the fact that the Victorian government seldom listens to the things the environment movement is pushing for anyway. Oh and that many of the most lethal fires went through areas that had been burnt recently anyway.

All this is old news. However, we've now had the spectacle of a Green Party member calling all those Greens who don't oppose flouridation murderers as well. Now I, like most of the fellow Greens I have spoken, to had a pretty open mind on flouridation. The opposition to her motion to condemn flouridation came from people who were concerned that process was being steamrolled and there was not adequate time to assess the issues. Only a handful had actually made up their mind in favour of flouridation.

I have read what appear to be intelligent arguements that conclude that overall the damage from flouride is larger than the benefit, and I was prepared to consider that these might be right. I knew that anti-flouridation campaigns had been discredited by some of the nutters who were involved, but tried to put this aside. Just because crazy people believe something doesn't mean it is necessarily crazy.

But the more the anti's spoke the more concerned I became. Many of the "facts" they claimed were things I was pretty sure were wrong. For example that the WHO was opposed. So I did a little research.

It didn't take long. I'm told National Greens policy on the matter is for a thorough inquiry into the issue, although I can't actually find it in our policy volume. However, if this policy exists its now out of date, because the NHMRC has done just such a study. It's a metastudy of all the recent research in the field (which is far more substantial than I had been lead to believe) and concludes that the only negative effects are aesthetic (discoloured teeth). As someone who suffers from this I don't trivailise its significance - if it affects one's love life it matters - but its certainly better than endless painful (and expensive) dentistry.

It's true that some studies have found small increases in serious conditions such as bone fracture rates in fluoridated areas, but even more have found reductions. Overall assessment is no net effect, and this applies for all the alleged forms of damage.

The important point here is not the issue of fluoridation itself. While the dangers are vastly less than opponents allege, it is also clear that the benefits are smaller than was originally thought, and are smaller still where good dental services exist. Much of the country has survived for many years without fluoride. If it was blocked it would not be a tragedy.

The danger is to the Greens. It is essential as a party that we make our decisions based on good science. The consequence of abandoning that path are all to clear in the last, unlamented, US administration.

This doesn't mean we should jump at every technology that has been proved "safe". There are arguments against Genetically Modified foods that go well beyond safety. Even if one considers the science settled here (and I'm not convinced it is) there is a case for opposition, at least temporarily. Even with fluoride, one can argue that philosophically people should not be forced to drink something they don't want, even if their fears are groundless.

But if we oppose these things we need to do it for good reasons, not because someone read something on an unreferenced website produced by an individual with clear mental health issues. If we go down that path we are in serious danger, because we will attract to the party people who don't understand how science works, and scare of those that do.

For The Record

2009-02-19T03:40:00.000-08:00

Some people are celebrating the news that Hugo Chavez is free to run for another term as president of Venezuela. Not me. This is not to say I think everything Chavez has done is bad. Far from it. My understanding is he has reduced poverty dramatically at home, and some of his foreign interventions have been positive as well.

But I don't trust the guy. He shows every sign of being a demagogue. Power corrupts, and Chavez strikes me as more than usually corruptible. I expect a steady decline in the quality of his governing. At some point he may just cancel elections altogether

A lot of Chavez's opponents are much nastier than he is, but there are plenty of good people who are against him as well. We shouldn't assume that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I'm putting this here so I can point to it in a few years time when the Right are using Chavez's failings as a stick to beat the left. But I also hope that any starry-eyed lefties reading it pay attention. We've been down this road far too many times before.

The Limis of Consensus

2009-02-15T01:39:00.000-08:00

One area where I am not fully in tune with the party I belong to is the issue of consensus (I'm referring to the decision making process here, so maybe it should be capitalised). I think it has its place, and the world would be better if it was used more often, but I don't hold with the view (common in the Greens) that it should be used in all cases.

Consensus only works with fundamentally reasonable people, who have a commitment to working together in future for common goals, and are therefore willing to make compromises to maintain the relationships. Some people seem to think this is really always the case, its just that some people don't realise it and behave badly. But if they could just be brought to see...

We now have a consensus advocate in the most powerful position in the world, and we've seen just how limited its use can be. Even from a position of very little power, the Republican leadership were willing to block and frustrate, even though they knew that it would only take 2-3 defections for their strategy to come undone. Eventually it did, but they were so committed to opposition they prefered to take this risk than negotiate reasonable compromises.

Of course, within the Greens you seldom encounter people as nasty as Senate Republicans. Nevertheless, I think this is a demonstration that consensus is limited in its application. I'm glad Obama tried it, and I'd still like to see it used more widely, but also with caution.

Do Nuclear Weapons Reductions Matter?

2009-02-05T19:02:00.000-08:00

Inspired as I was by Obama's campaign, and his inauguration speech, I've had my heart broken by politicians too many times before, so I've felt plenty of caution as well. His appointments have been mixed. Some great, some terrible.

In terms of the moves he has made so far, they've mostly been good, but not surprising. Removing the global gag rule was wonderful, but we all knew he'd do it. Clinton did the same thing. But there are two things he's done that have given me hope that here we have someone more FDR than WJC.

The first is the more even-handed rhetoric on the Middle East, and the appointment of George Mitchell. I'm pessimistic this will work, but its great to see him trying. Even more exciting is the proposal to slash nuclear weapons by 80%, with the sweetner to the Russians of an abandonment of the missile defense shield on their borders.

Pretty much anyone who values peace will think this is a good thing, but I suspect most people will see it as a fairly small move. Cutting nuclear weapons on each side from 5000 to 1000 still gives us the capacity to wipe out civilization and cause suffering on an unprecedented scale. If the other 4000 bombs were (literally) overkill, does it really help if we get rid of them?

I'd argue yes, for several reasons. Combined these make the proposal a huge step forward.

1. Every weapon is a danger. It can be stolen, misfired or the vehicle carrying it could be in a crash. The US has had several near-misses. I'd imagine the Russians have had more so. Getting rid of 80% cuts this risk by 4/5ths. Probably more, since the remainder will be better guarded.

2. The message it sends to the world is very potent. Bush's pause on weapons reductions has legitimated the quest for nukes by Iran and North Korea and the expansion of India and Pakistan's programs. Demonstrating that grown-ups get rid of weapons, not add to them, is an invaluable message. Particularly to those nations that are at least partially democratic.

3. Should the worst happen and we really do have an all out nuclear war 1000 bombs on each side is enough to destroy the world. But there's a lot of evidence that in this circumstance quite a large proportion of the bombs won't go off. The technology will fail, or the human operators will resist. A few hundred bombs from each side would still add up to more deaths than from all the wars in history combined, but there might be something left to rebuild. Five times as many - no way.

4. The missile defense shield Obama is offering to give up in the deal is a destabilizing influence. Getting rid of it bolsters the chance of peace.

5. Keeping nukes is expensive. Building the defense shield much more so. The money saved will be very, very useful elsewhere.

6. Nuclear weapons contain highly enriched uranium, or plutonium. When they are decommissioned this is burnt in nuclear reactors. In the process there is less need to dig up new uranium. Since uranium from the ground has only 0.7% U235, while bombs are mostly 235 one bomb will power a lot of power stations for a long time. Avoiding digging up all that uranium is good for the environment, and for the indigenous people on whose land many of the mines sit. It also means there is a lot less depleted uranium sitting around waiting to be used. And the uses DU is put to are generally pretty nasty.

7. If you want to get to zero nuclear weapons, you have to go through the stage of having 1000 first. Obama may not be able to take us down entirely, but this move can pave the way for his successors, if they wish to follow through.

Of course the plan may fail. If Putin won't come to the party then Obama isn't likely to get rid of the bombs unilaterally. But even if that happens we still get something good out of the whole thing. Putin's ethical bankruptcy is exposed to the world, and the global population still sees Obama showing real leadership, which may encourage them to demand the same thing from their leaders.

All in all, I think its really good news.

Ethiopia At Risk

2009-02-01T19:01:00.000-08:00

I got an email today about a crisis in Ethiopia. Again. The rains failed. Again. Millions are at risk. Again.

But this isn't just another gloom and doom story. Apparently UNICEF programs for treating malnourished children have been working, and infant mortality has fallen significantly (not sure if that is in the statistical sense or in common parlance).

Rather than asking for money, the email asked everyone to raise awareness, both of the dangers but also of the successes. To tell people that foreign aid can work, and if we move fast we can prevent another tragedy. One of the ways they ask us to do this is postings on our blogs.

Given that my webtracker is still telling me no one reads this site at all, which clearly is not entirely true, I've no idea whether I'm achieving much at all with a post on the topic, but I think its a worthy idea. Info here.

How Moving Are These?

2009-01-24T20:18:00.000-08:00

Of all the areas on which one might hope the US President would work for change, the Middle East was perhaps the one that inspired least optimism, at least in me. I figured that Obama would be too scared to take on the more hardline Israeli partisans, given the "broken alliance" between American Jews and blacks, and the pressure of the republican rumours on his religion. It certainly seemed that way during the campaign and the period between election and inauguration.

But his words since then inspire hope even here. I've been a strong supporter of Israel since I was a child, but the behaviour of its governments in recent years make clear that for its own good, as well as that of the Palestinians, it needs a president who can pull it into line. If Obama can do that, what can't he do?

The Compulsory Inauguration Post

2009-01-22T06:19:00.000-08:00

I didn't want to just be repeating what everyone else was saying, so I wasn't initially going to post on the inauguration. However, there are so many rich gems in this event I don't see any harm in holding them up to the light to catch yet another glint.

One point that has been made before is that Obama's heritage is about more than being black. When he was born it was still illegal for black men to marry white women in quite a few states. His election isn't just going to mark a breakthrough for blacks, its going to make what used to be called miscegenation completely legitimate, indeed actually cool.

I was reminded how significant this is when something triggered a memory of the sitcom CBS "Kate and Allie", about two single mothers who move in together. In one episode one of the characters finds herself at the dentist when the lights go out, combining her two worst phobias. She's talked through her fears by a charming sounding man, who eventually she asks out. He's doubtful, but agrees. Then the lights come on and it is clear he is black (and very good looking).

He warns her that they will experience racism going out together, but she initially thinks she'll cope. However, eventually she decides it is all too hard. When breaking it off with him she says, "You know my kids thought it was great we were seeing each other. Maybe soon it won't matter." I was surprised when I saw this episode. This was the late 80s. In Greenwich Village. Surely such things were now the province of Deliverance country?

The actors who played Kate and Allie's kids would be past thirty now, too old even to have been the shocktroops of Obama's campaign. But they're part of the generation that did this. And their children won't understand the episode at all.

Update: I looked up the show on Wikipedia and discovered that one of the kids went onto play Leo's daughter Mallory in The West Wing. How sweet is that?

A New Word

2009-01-18T05:43:00.000-08:00

I've always wanted to invent a new word. One that describes a concept we're vaguely aware of in such a way that it comes to the front of our brain and people find it a really useful addition to the language.

I've decided we need a word for mistakes so bad they completely discredit the maker. We all make mistakes of course, particularly online. In the heat of an Internet discussion its natural to sometimes misremember a statistic, or quote something from a source you thought was reliable or just get some fact rather wrong. If you do this too often people will rightly start to ignore what you have to say. But its permissible to err now and then.

On the other hand, sometimes people come up with claims that are so wrong you know there is no point reading the rest of what they have to say on the topic, or in extreme cases on anything. I think we need a word for this, and the word I have chosen is "zong". It can be a noun, a very or an adjective.

If you say that Obama is secretly a Muslim, you've made a zong. If you inform the world that the Earth's temperature is determined by heat rising from the center rather than light from the Sun, you've zonged. The claim that violence is as much a female activity as male is a zong statement.

To some extent whether something is a zong or not depends on who is making it. An American who bases some argument on the belief that Canberra has more crime (absolute, not per head) than Sydney has made a mistake. An Australian saying the same thing is zong. The discrepancy in population is so large, and so well known to locals, that anyone who thinks this could possibly be true is not operating in the reality based universe.

The great thing about the zong is you don't have to work out whether someone is lying or merely delusional. You can just note that they've zonged and move on. Of course its a fairly subjective judgment to distinguish zongs from mere mistakes, but sometimes it isn't that hard to tell.

So dear reader, if you think this is a useful concept, I urge you to take the word in hand, and slap down trolls with relish.

Those Awful 60s

2009-01-15T18:10:00.000-08:00

Conservatives hated the 60s, and they hate them even more in retrospect. But whatever their problems with feminism, black rights, anti-war protests and the beginnings of environmentalism, no one blames the people actually born in that decade. They were too young to be involved, and often too young even to be accused of being brainwashed.

But in Australia the people born in the 60s are giving the Liberal Party another reason to hate the decade. Because when they put someone of that group in a leadership position the outcome seems to be pretty consistently disastrous. Let's look at the list:

* John Brogden. The right hated him, but he looked the best thing a state Liberal party had until he called Bob Carr's wife a "mail order bribe" and resigned. Leading to them losing the unloseable election.
* Matt Birney. It's not obvious what was so bad about Birney, but he didn't last long as leader of the WA Libs, and is now out of parliament.
* Troy Buswell. It certainly is obvious what was wrong with Buswell. A lot of politicians hate women, but most manage to hide it better.
* Will Hodgman. Hasn't done too badly yet, but hasn't really been tested either.
* Iain Evans was considered an effective minister, but the shortness of his term as leader of the SA opposition says a lot.
* Lawrence Springborg. The Libs now have to admit some ownership of him now that they agreed to be assimilated. He's lost two elections so far, but if he wins the third all will be forgiven. However, if he loses this one it will be no ordinary defeat. The LNP will likely fracture into many shiny pieces, far worse off against a fifth term government than if they had stayed as two.

There are a few, such as WA Libs deputy leader Steve Thomas, who have been in positions of some significance without drastically screwing up, but also without covering themselves with glory.

Federally there are a few figures of note. Joe Hockey, Chris Pyne, Greg Hunt. But its noticeable how short the talent is compared to those born in the later half of the 50s.

It could be argued that this is simply a function of timing. It's hard to look good when you are the leader of the opposition, particularly against a relatively new government. But the thing is that these guys have actually had it a lot easier than their predecessors. They've been up against state Labor governments that were showing signs of tiredness, yet they couldn't hold it together.

Of course there is still time for newcomers to save the decade for the Liberals. The youngest members are not even 40. But the signs are not good. The Vic Libs have barely a member of the state parliament born in that decade. When Baillieu goes, possibly after a period under the 50s born Terry Mulder, they'll probably hop straight to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O%27Brien_(Victorian_politician), born in the 70s. There are not a lot of names on the tips of people's tongues in other states either.

Goodbye President Gore

2009-01-14T19:07:00.000-08:00

At first its funny. Then it just hurts.

An End to War II

2009-01-13T01:41:00.000-08:00

I was thinking more about this post, particularly after a denialist tried to argue that we hadn't got rid of war so we'd never beat climate change so we shouldn't even try.

Two points are hardly enough to demonstrate a long term downward trend in warfare. However, to plot the number of wars occurring around the world each year is a big job.

But I think we can make the case by looking at a decadal scale and moving away from my focus on the numbers of conflicts to look at the proportion of the global population killed. Unless 2009 turns out to be a very bad year it is clear that the naughties will be the least warlike decade for a very, very long time.

Consider. Since 2000 (inclusive) the numbers killed in wars around the world are under 6 million. This includes civilians who died from the more direct effects of war, but not the wider consequences of the misdirection of resources. Most of these were in the DRC, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Somalia. All the other conflicts combined would account for less than a million because they were either brief, confined to small population areas or relatively low intensity. So unless 2009 is much worse than its predecessors the numbers killed for the decade will be less than 1 per 1000 people on the planet.

The 90s were worse. I don't have the figures, but the DRC, Somalia and Afghanistan were as bad or worse. Darfur is basically referred horrors from South Sudan The invasion of Kuwait and global response killed fewer people than the current Iraq war, but Rwanda makes up for that. And there were more sites for medium-sized wars, such as the former Yugoslavia, Algeria, Angola and the Liberia/Sierra Leone conflagarations.

The 80s were worse yet. The Iran-Iraq war probably led the pack, but various conflicts in Central America, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Angola, Mozambique and Peru meant the death toll would have been larger than over the last ten years, divided by a smaller population.

However, it is when you get back to the 70s that things really go to pot. We don't have to argue over whether Pol Pot's killing of his own population meets my definition of experiencing war to see that the death toll was far worse. For a start there were events in Cambodia that clearly do meet the definition. But Bangladesh, being so much bigger was probably worse. The various Portugese colonies did not win their independence without bloodshed, and civil wars followed in Angola and Mozambique, while in East Timor the Indonesians reduced the population by a third. The Vietnam war saw a considerable portion of its casualties, and there were events such as the Yom Kippur War to keep the body count ticking over.

In the 1960s the Vietnam conflict alone would come close to have killed 0.1% of the global population, but if that's not enough there was the Congo Crisis, Biafra, The Six day War and all sorts of horrors in Indonesia.

The Korean War may not have been quite as bloody as Vietnam, but it certainly outranked any modern conflict. Meanwhile, almost 200,000 died so Algeria could get its independence, mostly in the 50s. Tibet was invaded, various African states had to fight for their independence and the Vietnamese were doing the same.

I don't think I need to discuss the 40s, but the 30s included quite a lot of events we now think of as part of World War II, such as the Japanese invasion of China and Italian occupation of Ethiopia. I think there was a bit of conflict in Spain at the time was well.

I could go on, but all this bloodshed is pretty grim, and I think the point is made. In each of the decades I have listed a small portion of the wars that actually occurred, yet the ones I have included added up to a larger number of casualties, adjusted for population, than we have seen this decade. Nothing going on in Gaza is likely to shift that.

Another way of making the same case would be to consider that at the moment only about 10% of the nations on Earth are experiencing war, and since they're generally smaller to medium sized nations, the proportion of the global population is even smaller. On the other hand, on the definition I used Australia experienced war for about a third of its first 72 years, and we're not usually thought of as a war-wracked country.

War is on its way out, and only environmental catastrophe, or a major spread in nuclear weapons, is likely to bring it back.

It might be argued that with the death toll having fallen globally to one person in ten thousand per year that war really isn't doing that much damage any more, and any benefits from further decline will be swallowed up through overpopulation or environmental disasters. This is possible, but the direct casualties of war really are the tip of a very large iceberg. Eisenhower's speech about the costs of military expenditure are as true now as they were then. At the moment wars are still sufficiently common that most people accept these costs, but if they continue to decline there will come a point where people really will demand the beating of swords into plowshares. The benefits unleashed will be easily enough to feed the world and protect the environment, if we use them wisely.

Climate Change, Relativity and The Right

2009-01-11T21:28:00.000-08:00

John Quiggin and Mark Bahnisch have discussions going on what I think is one of the most interesting topics around - why has The Right in Australia and North America strapped itself so fervently to the mast of climate change denialism, and what are the implications when the population fully wakes up to their dishonesty?

Neither piece adds anything hugely new, but they are well worth reading if you haven't explored this issue in depth before (I've been obsessed by it for over a decade).

I was more interested by this comment from nanks

One of the properties of science is that it stands in the way of desire.
Desire dreams a future world where the desire is fulfilled. Building that future world does not have unforeseen consequences - unforeseen is undesired.
Science stands in stark constrast as it presents a world ‘as it is’, severely curbing the scope of desire and clarifying the consequences of actions.
Science then is the enemy of people who desire a future without consequences.

At university I did an essay on the idea that much of the science fiction written in the 30s-60s was a way for white male techies to deal with their disappointment at the realization that Relativity Theory meant conquering the galaxy was impossible, at least if you wanted a heroic return to your loved ones. I also argued that science fiction writers (and readers) of that period were further troubled by the implication from relativity that multiple observers could see contradictory things, all of which were correct, with no superior frame of reference. To people who were used to being the winners of the world (privileged by race, gender and often class in the most powerful nation on Earth) the idea that your vision of reality was no more correct than that of others was something of a shock, and science fiction gave them a number of ways to deal with this.

The right would be appalled by all this postmodernism[1]. So apparently was the marker - I fairly consistently got high marks in the English Department for work I considered mediocre, but the one time I handed in something I thought was really good the department (widely reviled as a haven for postmodernism) didn't think much of it.

However, given the way the anglophone Right are destroying their future by burning their credibility over Global Warming I think it might be worth looking at the idea again. Science fiction of the era I was writing about was not necessarily right-wing. Its most popular author was the proudly left-liberal Isaac Asimov and there were others of similar ilk. Nevertheless, the readership was very much the same demographic as the majority of climate change deniers.

Both the relativity-fearing sf readers, and the denialists were/are people used to getting their own way, both individually and as a class. Then along comes an unfortunate scientific fact and their dreams for eternal growth are shattered. While some SF of the era simply avoided the problems relativity posed (Warp Drive, wormholes in space) some was more creative, finding ways exploration of the galaxy could occur without offending Einstein. Unfortunately, it seems most of the Australian, American and Canadian Right (plus elements elsewhere) are incapable of this creativity, and their only response to unfortunate scientific facts are ostrich-inspired.

[1] I enjoyed the postmodern analysis deployed in the English Department. However, I had no truck then, and never have had since, with the form of postmodernism promoted by some philosophers of science that argues either that there is no concrete reality, or that it is fundamentally unknowable and science is slave to social prejudices and ideology. When a tutor tried to argue that scientists changed their mind in response to social forces, but not to unexpected evidence, I could hardly believe my ears. At the time the idea was presented as one of the Left. I've been amused to see it become (firmly unacknowledged) the mainstay of the right as they try to argue that tens of thousands of climatologists have no relationship with reality.

On Beauty II

2009-01-09T23:33:00.000-08:00

This is a more considered extension to this.

Recently I've had a few conversations with the woman referred to in the previous post. She often mentions or alludes to her poor body image. She says that when she gains a few kilos she feels fat and unattractive and this affects her self-image generally. Nothing unusual in that, except that I consider her the most physically beautiful woman I've ever had a conversation with. Obviously a subjective judgment, but everyone else who knows her pretty much concurs. Reflecting on her comments I think of the T-shirt that says, "There are 3 billion women in the world who don't look like supermodels, and 8 who do." The thing is that here is a woman who really does look like a supermodel (albeit one with fluorescent hair and piercings) and she still feels bad about her appearance.

I suspect that the heaviest she ever gets to is probably within her medically approved BMI, and when she's actually feeling good about herself she's probably unhealthily thin.

So what does one say in these situations? Is it best to point these things out, or to note that really they're not that important compared to the fact that a) she's well on the way towards a PhD in a hot area of science b) she has great values and politics, c) she's a very talented artist and d) she's witty and charming company.

Logically any of these things is more important than appearance or weight (at least as long as it isn't life threatening). But its probably true that is she's worrying about her appearance reassurance on that will, at least in the short term, be more effective than telling her it doesn't matter compared to her brains.

I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, although I comfort myself that saying something supportive is probably good, even if I don't hit the perfect note. But its also a pretty remarkable illustration of how good society is at making women feel lousy about their looks, and themselves in general.

Welcome Back to the Fold, Bangladesh

2009-01-09T05:52:00.000-08:00

If it bleeds it leads, so all the attention over the summer break has been on the horrors in Gaza. I don't wish to minimize either the tragedy of a thousand lost lives, nor the damage this is doing to the rest of the Middle East, but in the process something much more important has been missed. Something good.

Bangladesh held a democratic election on December 29. There was not a lot of violence, international monitors judged it free and fair. The better of the two coalitions won, but that's almost incidental - there isn't as much difference between the two parties as one would like. The important thing is that the will of the people was expressed. Oh, and there is a woman Prime Minister. Again. It's been that way for most of the last 20 years.

Bangladesh has 150 million people, the seventh most of any country on Earth, so what happens there matters. It's desperately poor, had a horrific 20 years under Pakistani rule after independence from Britain, followed by another horrific 20 years of coups and warfare. It is more threatened by Global Warming than any other large nation, both in the form of rising sea levels, and from increased pulsing of water from the Himalayas if glaciers cease to store the winter rains.

But for all that there is hope. For almost 20 years it has had substantial economic growth and falling poverty. It's once appallingly high fertility rate is down to 3.1 (although this is a small increase on 2000 figures). Provided it can hold onto a democratic culture it may survive the ravages ahead in some sort of reasonable shape.

However, in early 2007 things got a bit shaky. After three democratic elections (in which power changed each time) the polls were postponed indefinitely. Bangladesh has a unique system where a caretaker government steps in for three months every five years to run the country while the elections are held, to prevent the incumbents rigging things. Not a bad idea in theory, but this time the caretakers kept extending their term, arguing that things weren't ready. Leaders of both major parties were arrested. A coup looked a real danger.

But now the elections have been held, the somewhat more left-wing Awami League and their allies won an overwhelming victory, and it looks like everything will go back to normal.

It's great news for the local population, but also for the world at large. The proportion of the world living in functioning (albeit imperfect) democracies has been increasing at least since the mid 80s, with a huge surge when Eastern Europe was freed from Soviet domination around the same time Bangladesh, Chile and several Central American countries had their first fair elections for quite a while.

It's getting to the point where the only non-democracies other than China and Vietnam are in Africa and the Middle East, and the recent election in Ghana shows there is progress there as well. If there is not significant backsliding, and we can keep picking up a democracy here and there we may soon get to a point where being anything other than democratic is so frowned on it becomes unsustainable.

But the "if" in the last sentence is a big one. Russia has lost so many of the key features of a democracy it is doubtful it still deserves the term. Mexico, Thailand and Indonesia are shaky, as are quite a few smaller countries. Losing Bangladesh from the fold could have been the start of an avalanche.

Instead, we have the situation where the four largest Muslim majority nations all have democratically elected governments, surely a first. Neither Pakistan nor Nigeria have the ongoing record that would allow one to call them democracies, but the idea that Islam and fair elections are incompatible is looking very hard to defend.

Vale Helen

2009-01-07T23:00:00.000-08:00

I tried to get this published under my real name, but it wasn't wanted. So, at last, this blog gets to fulfill one of the original reasons for its creation, as a fall-back for work rejected elsewhere.

Suzman's Legacy

I wonder how many of the people enjoying the cricket from Sydney realise it probably wouldn’t be happening without a woman who died on New Year's Day. Once again I'm reminded that "It is never a tragedy when an old (wo)man dies", but it is certainly a time for reflection.

Helen Suzman is not nearly as famous around the world as Nelson Mandela or Desmond Tutu. That's fair enough - they were the legitimate leaders of the black majority. She represented a minority within a minority; the whites who wanted justice. And while she faced death threats and sacrificed plenty, you can't compare her suffering with Mandela's decades on Robben Island.

But as a trailblazer for the future she is perhaps even more significant than either of these great men. Mandela will probably be one of the last leaders ever to legitimately institute a campaign of violence against tyranny, and have to deal with the questions of when and how to turn it off. Tutu, as a religious leader against oppression, is also representative of a great tradition whose peak may well have passed.

But Suzman, the parliamentary activist, who used her position as a platform to give a voice, and credibility, to those struggling outside represents a movement whose time has come. Ingrid Betancourt, Wangari Maathai and our own Bob Brown are current examples but there will be many more. Some, like her, doing time as the sole representative of the cause in large parliaments.

Suzman was not the first in such a role, William Wilberforce being her most famous predecessor. However, her position could hardly have been starker – the sole anti-apartheid activist for 13 years in the South African Parliament as well as the only woman and only Jew. Outnumbered 160-odd to one she demonstrated that courage and wit can shake the conscience of a nation, and by the time she retired she left a healthy parliamentary opposition which would be crucial to bringing about the end of Apartheid.

Suzman was not a Green (I've never heard of her even mentioning the environment, and her economic views were center-right). However, she is particularly relevant for Green parliamentarians because, like them, she stood up both for the minority who elected her, and for a much larger constituency who could not vote. Non-Green readers may assume I'm referring to non-human species here, but I think a more relevant analogy is with future generations.

Anyone who believes electoral politics is an important part of social change will regularly be frustrated by cynics who adore lines such as “whoever you vote for a politician will be elected” and “if voting changed anything they’d make it illegal”. Yet Suzman, operating in perhaps the most twisted version of a democracy in the world of her day managed to lay the foundations of a better nation in a way that would have been utterly impossible if the constituents of Houghton hadn’t stood by her with their votes. The government tapped her phone, issued her with death threats, rejigged the boundaries of her constituency and she kept coming back.

In the process she legitimized the idea forming in some white South Africans’ minds that Apartheid was wrong, as evidenced by the steady growth in support for her Progressive Party and its successors. Perhaps equally importantly, she demonstrated to the black majority that not all whites were against them, and that there might be hope for change not written in blood. Meanwhile, by exposing the most egregious examples of Apartheid’s obscenities she achieved many small changes which benefited numerous individuals’ lives. And when change finally came, she used her moral authority to draw attention to the failings of the Mbeki regime.

One of the key factors in Suzman’s success was her pointed use of language, so upon her death I'll raise a toast to the woman who could tell a government minister he needed to “go about your constituency, heavily disguised as a human being”. May we often see her like again.

Foot shooting II

2009-01-07T22:13:00.000-08:00

I was thinking overnight about my last post. With so much rubbish out there on the Internet why did I post on this, something well outside any areas of expertise I have?
Am I going to end up like the figure in the xkcd cartoon?

Part of it is that this was a piece of stupidity coming from a perspective I have some time for. I'm not planning on chasing down every bit of madness from misogynist men on this topic, be they those who want to abuse sex workers or those who want to persecute them in God's name.

But the other thing was that this is such an unusual argument, yet one from a source that seems to be granted considerable credibility within that wing of the feminist movement. The most hardline members of the anti-sex work wing of feminism want to stop all hetrosexual sex. Yet here is someone effectively calling for Johns to stop seeing prostitutes or strippers and instead ask more women to sleep with them unpaid. Weird. So weird it just called out for a post (or two).

True the author says respect is required. I'm sure that everyone can agree on that. But in some ways respect makes things worse. Giving the flick to a guy who lurches up and "says how about a shag?" is not always easy, but it can be a lot harder to reject someone you like as a person, but have no interest in sexually. When I've expressed interest in romantic relationships with women I knew and been turned down it didn't look like they were enjoying the experience.

Again, all this has little bearing on the author's core position, but in some ways that makes it even stranger - why put it there when its not even a necessary step?

Foot shooting

2009-01-07T06:01:00.000-08:00

I've been mulling a post for a while on prostitution and pornography, but I'm wary of saying too much. In part this is an issue where I think men need to spend more time listening to women than sounding off themselves.

While the last link on my blogroll might suggest clear support for the pro-sex industry wing of feminism, my mind is not entirely made up. There are certainly women I respect on the other side and while Heather Corinna is often lumped in with the "pro-sex" side she's really somewhere in the middle (and I think moves around a little).

When you're genuinely uncertain about something a really bad arguement can provide quite a strong push in the other direction, even when you are aware it doesn't really matter that much. This was very much the case for me when I was reading through a thread on a very different area of feminism that briefly morphed into a discussion of these issues. One poster stated "I don’t even know where to start with this. So I’m going to direct you here"

On which one comes to this gem "Sex is fun, and it feels good, and it is widely available to anyone who treats others respectably with kindness and asks."

In one sense this is totally irrelevant. The fact that many men can't get sex without paying for it is not much of an argument for prostitution being legalised or condoned. Not having anyone want to sleep with you is not a legitimate excuse for rape. If prostitution is, as the author argues, a form of sexual violence then the incapacity of the "johns" to get sex elsewhere counts for nothing at all.

So why put in such a complete piece of rubbish? I don't know, but it certainly suggests the author is deeply out of touch with reality, and makes it hard to take her seriously on everything else.

Confirmation Bias

2008-12-27T19:45:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine posted this link on her facebook site. It's an article about opening up monogamous relationships. I'm responding, not the article itself, but to one of the comments, which claims: Having been in and known dozens and dozens of people involved with open relationships, I can think of less than a handful for whom it has worked.

Of course defining which relationships "work" and which don't can be pretty hard, but it struck me that a case could be made that most relationships don't "work" at least if your test is having them last for life.

When I was at university I knew of perhaps three openly non-monogmous relationsips, although there were probably a few others who were keeping it quiet. Naturally this was out of hundreds (possibly thousands) of relationships within my friendship circle over the years.

The other day I opened the newspaper to an interview with someone who was part of one of those non-monogmous relationships, who has now become a moderately famous author. His partner is drifting around during the interview, occasionally intervening. And yes, its the same partner. They've been together more than 20 years, since well before I met them.

The thing is, I can only think of four other relationships from my peer group that have made the distance. So the "failure" rate is actually a lot higher for the conventional relationships than the very small sample of open relationships.

But when monogamous relationships break up outside observers seldom blame monogamy. When open or polyamourous relationships don't last, it's the first thing everyone else grabs for.

It's not a very original observation of course. It's called Confirmation Bias. When we see something that supports our prejudices we file it away as evidence, when it counteracts what we expect we often, although not always, disregard it.

But it would be nice if, on a lefty website, people of explicitly progressive politics were not so clearly applying it to bash others.

The Psephology of Giving

2008-12-25T19:02:00.000-08:00

I am a big fan of the Internet sites that raise money for charities by having ads played to you when you either click the link, or use them as a search engine. Collectively they have raised millions, translating to hundreds of millions of meals for the hungry, thousands of square meters of rainforest saved, hundreds (at least) of children taught to read and so on. Admittedly some of this is illusion, with money shuffled from one charity to another, but it still looks like the net effects are positive.

One of the smaller sites in this regard is Search Kindly. They use the Google Search engine, but get to pass on half the income from sponsors to charities, rather than it all going to Google. Search Kindly differs from other such sites in that you get to choose which charity you want the money to go to. They've tried this in a few ways, but at the moment run polls each month where those using the site can choose from a list of six charities. Whichever gets the most choices gets the money for the month. You don't have to choose when you use the search engine, but I usually do.

Only very rarely do the options include a charity I actually think would be a bad choice, but there is no doubt that some would make the money go a lot further than others. At the start of this month I was pleased to see the Grameen Bank on the list, and enthusiastically voted for them every day. Alas by mid month it was clear they would come third (although at least there are consolation prizes for 2nd and 3rd). I decided to switch to MedShare International, a charity I'd never heard of before, but who sound like they've got a great program, collecting medical supplies Western Hospitals can't use for shipping to aid groups in the fourth world.

The thing that struck me about this is that it is a rare case of voting where you get to see the score as the vote progresses (I mean rare in terms of things that matter, not worthless web surveys). If the vote was run like an Australian preferential secret ballot I'd have voted Grameen 1, Medshare 2, but what if it was a US plurality style ballot? Even if I had known Grameen was probably not going to make it, I might have voted for them anyway. However, confronted with the clear reality of a two-horse race I shifted my vote.

I don't really have a conclusion to this (other than use Search Kindly or Ripple or one of the others out there), but it does provide yet more evidence why preferential voting is better than First Past the Post. It's just crazy that one can be left with this choice between voting for what you really believe in, and voting for what might actually win, sometimes without even the information Search Kindly offers to facilitate.

Maintain Your Rage

2008-12-21T23:41:00.000-08:00

I haven't blogged on the disaster that is the White Paper on Carbon Trading. That's simply because the dissection of what is wrong with this abomination has been done better by many more prominent bloggers.

What I don't think has been covered nearly as well is what those who want a biosphere that lasts longer than the warranties on the more reliable dishwashers should do. One of the nasty aspects of the ETS is that it doesn't leave any room for people to take direct action by, for example, acquiring Green Power. All that happens is that the emissions you have saved become available for polluters to snap up at bargain basement rates.

Lobbying is clearly also not effective - if it was we wouldn't have this debacle. As for working the system from within, well Cortney Hocking's line that "Peter Garrett is the only man in history to have more power as lead singer in a rock band than as a federal minister" is now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Donating to GetUp's ad campaign is a good first step, but seriously, if you want to make a difference in the long run I think the options are down to one: Join the Greens. If you're already a member, up your involvement or donations.

I don't really like saying this because I am a great believer in pursuing multiple strategies, and I always distrust the people who have the same answer to every problem. Since involvement in the Greens has been my primary form of activism for a long time, pushing it to hard makes me feel like one of those Socialist Alternative members chanting "One solution, revolution". But seriously, what is the alternative?

It's not like the Greens don't need your help. Whether it is more bodies on polling day handing out HTV cards, more people willing to put up their hands as candidates or campaign managers, or just someone willing to counteract the nutters who still dominate the occasional branch and working group the party needs people. And it needs money. If you're angry, the link is here.

Shocked I Say

2008-12-19T00:47:00.000-08:00

This morning, news radio carried the same story several times (as they do):

"The man whose house was hit by a plane yesterday said he was surprised..."[1]

On one occasion they changed it to "shocked". I can only assume that the writers have taken their Christmas break early.

[1] I may have the way they described him wrong, but the relevant part is right.

I'm Starting to Relate to Farmers

2008-12-16T20:24:00.000-08:00

My house has three trees in the backyard. One is a fig tree, which has been deeply appreciated by many friends. One is an olive tree, which produced nothing the first year I was here, but gave me some very nice olives the second, although salting is a lot of work.

I had no idea what the third one was, and since it looked like it might die the first year didn't pay it much attention, other than putting on a bit of graywater in the hope it wouldn't. Now after, producing nothing at all for two years it has come out in a whole lot of very small plums.

They're not really good to eat, but I thought they might be good soup-making material, having made some wonderful soups from plums you wouldn't eat straight at a former house. A week ago only a few were ripe, but there were scores (literally) that were only a few days off. Then came the rains. Leaving aside the ones that are still a few weeks off, so many of those scores have split that this is what I was able to harvest.

On Beauty

2008-12-15T05:34:00.000-08:00

There's a very moving (and beautifully written) post over at Hoyden about the Beauty Myth and what happens to women's self identity as they age and are no longer noticed/praised for being desirable. Although the thread sometimes degenerates there are several comments as insightful and revelatory as the original.

I'm particularly cautious of thread derailment on feminist topics so I thought I'd post over here and just link there.

I'm interested in the other side of the coin - how to avoid perpetuating and reinforcing the message. For a long time I'd almost never comment on a woman's appearance at all, lest it be reinforcing of the idea that this was what matters. More recently I've slipped into sometimes telling a woman how attractive she looks, and it struck me the other day that I've said nice things about one particular friend's looks more often than her intellect/academic success. (Since she's well into a PhD in a hot area of science the latter is considerable, but she's not entirely confident of her abilities, so its not like such comments would be superfluous)

I realised that as a society we're so conditioned to talk about women in terms of their appearance that it takes a fair amount of effort not to. Certainly such effort is pretty minor compared to the efforts women have to go to in order to block out the messages that their worth is measured in milli-Helens[1], but I'm pondering how important this is, and if any comments are too many. May post in more depth later.

[1] In case this is not self-explanatory, the milli-Helen was a measure of beauty proposed at one point on the basis that if Helen of Troy had "the face that could launch a thousand ships" beauty could be measured on the scale of how many ships would be launched to rescue/recapture an individual. I'm not sure how tongue in cheek the idea was, but besides the sexist (and hetrosexist) assumptions, it is does reveal that in a society where cultural notions of beauty are strongly reinforced such a scale is much less use than one in which diverse visions of beauty are encouraged.

Sigh

2008-12-14T20:15:00.000-08:00

When I started this blog I never expected it to top the readership charts, or draw so many page views I could run advertising that would make me rich. But I rather hoped someone would read it. Thus my excitement when anyone comments.

After a failed attempt to put a tracker on some time ago I made another effort two weeks ago. This time it seems to have worked, and I've been emailed two weekly records of all the visits to the site in that time.

And the figure is....drumroll....none.

Yes, no one at all has visited this site in that time according to the tracking device. No pageviews at all. Either it is filtering out my own visits, or its not working.

It really doesn't do a lot for my efforts to convince myself I can get a book published.

The Year To End All Wars

2008-12-09T21:40:00.000-08:00

Mark 2068 in your diaries. It’s the year humanity will achieve its crowning glory – an end to war.

OK, I’m not actually serious with that. The date is based on a calculation so rough it barely deserves the name, but I’m trying to make a serious point. Unlikely as it may seem, we are on target to end perhaps the greatest blight on human happiness in history, and in the life time of some people alive today.

I suspect that most people, off the cuff, would say that war is getting more common in the world today, and scoff at the idea we are on a trajectory towards ending it. But this perception is false, based on three factors:

• We have a general tendency to think bad news is increasing, even when it is not
• Wars are now more reported than ever before, so we hear about atrocities in far off lands of which we know little.
• The wars that are occurring may well be becoming more bloody – at least in absolute terms – which creates a perception there are more of them.

There is no doubt new technology is allowing killing on a greater scale than ever before, and as the world’s population grows it is to be expected that death tolls will rise.

But the happier side of the coin is that the number of wars in the world is on the decline, and has been for quite a while. My very rough estimate is that every three years two wars are ended and one new one starts. A slightly less rough assessment is that there are 20 wars in the world today. On this basis it will take 60 years to end war entirely, thus the date above.

Now there are many, many things one can quibble over in these figures. The definition of war is not that easy, as is defining when many conflicts start and finish.. I’m sure I’ve also left out a few wars from the table below, and would be grateful for corrections (although of course I’d prefer that there are no more horrors to confront) I’ve put my definitions at the bottom. Feel freed to disagree with them, but I’m fairly confident that on almost any consistent definition you can use my broad conclusion is robust – the number of wars in the world is in long term decline.

The obvious fly in this ointment is that environmental degradation increases conflict and will lead to more wars. Already the Dafur conflict may well have been caused, at least in part, by desertification of the Sahel.

But against this there is the fact that wars tend to breed more wars, and peace breeds more peace. Conflicts on a nation’s borders lead to destabilisation, most clearly seen in the way civil war in Liberia engulfed surrounding nations. On the other hand, the more countries there are that are free of wars the more support there is for the humanitarian and peace-keeping missions, as well as the trade sanctions and moral pressure which collectively have contributed to ending quite a few of the world’s conflicts.

I think we’re in a race, to get the number of wars in the world down to the point where virtuous circles take over and war is put behind us like smallpox before global warming fans the embers of an unstoppable number of blazes.

I’m far from certain we’ll win this race, but there is a much better chance than most people realise that we might.

Nation’s experiencing wars[1] begun since 1993 (5)
DRC
Dafur
South Ossetia/Abkhazia[2]
Iraq
Ivory Coast

Nations whose experience of war stopped since 1993 (12)
Aceh
Algeria
Angola
Bosnia
Bougainville
Djibouti
East Timor
Guatemala
Liberia
Northern Ireland
Peru
Sierra Leone

Nations experiencing continuing wars (15)
Afghanistan
Burma
Casmance
Chad
Columbia
Eritrea
Israel/Palestine
Kurdish Turkey
Lebanon
Mindanao
Niger Delta
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Uganda
West Papua

Wars that started and ended between 1993 and 2008 (7)
Burundi
Chechnya
Guinea-Bissau
Kosovo/Servbia
Nagorno-Karabakh
Nepal
Rwanda

I’ve chosen 1993 as the starting point because it gives us as long a timeline as possible while still avoiding the events surrounding the ending of the Cold War, which stopped quite a few conflicts, while starting several others. If you take the starting period back to 1983 you’ll find the ratio of wars ended to wars begun is even more promising.

There are also a couple of wars I’ve found difficult to classify. Officially the war in South Sudan is over, but I’m not confident enough to put it in the second column. I’m also not sure whether Pakistan belongs in the first or the third column or should not be listed at all since it is more a powderkeg than an active war. The South Thailand insurgency is another puzzle – it started well before the era, but has spiked since 2004.

On these numbers we’re actually doing slightly better than my estimate, but several of the wars that have been brought to a close were quite small, so I’ll round down.

If I’m right, by 2023 we should have ended around ten of the current wars, although five new ones will have started. This doesn’t strike me as incredible at all. Certainly some of the wars listed in columns 1 and 3 look intractable (it’d be a braver blogger than I who predicted the end to the Israel/Palestine conflict, or peace in Somalia). However, many of these look like they could come to an end a good deal earlier. The peace treaty for Mindanao was defeated on an 8-7 vote. The Columbian FARQ and the LRA in Uganda look close to collapse and I’m pretty confident South Ossetia and Abkhazia will end up as peaceful independent states. It’s quite likely historians will judge that war already over.

It’s true three of the new wars are a whole lot bloodier than the ones that have come to an end, but if we can get the number of active conflicts in the world into single figures I think we’ll see fresh enthusiasm for positive global intervention.

And just think – if we could cut the number of wars in the world by a fifth in a period where George W Bush was president, imagine what’s possible when we actually have a president desirous of peace.

[1]I use the term “Nation’s experiencing war” to refer to situations where a political conflict is killing more than 1 person per hundred thousand per year. I think its important to look at the actual costs, rather than whether war has been officially declared. Of course the cost of war is measured in injuries and economic damage as well, but deaths per head of population are easier to measure and seem a pretty good starting point. The rate of 1/100,000 is completely arbitrary. However, as I have said I think the general conclusion stands up whether you use a higher or lower rate as long as one is consistent.

I have excluded from this definition cases such as Zimbabwe where a government is killing large numbers of its people, but the killing pretty much all goes one way. Whatever this should be called, I don’t think it is war. It’s pretty easy to demonstrate however, that atrocities of this form are also in long term decline – another reason for optimism.

A more difficult exclusion is conflicts that are not based on national or religious feeling, or political ideology, cf the Mexican battles over control of the drug trade. I’ve left these out because they’re harder to track, but also because, horrific as they may be, the death rate is usually lower than “proper” wars.

[2]The conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are so linked in cause and likely outcome I am counting them as one. Even combined, the death toll is still one of the lowest on the list.

Good News From Switzerland

2008-12-04T19:24:00.000-08:00

In Switzerland, over two-thirds of voters supported heroin provision to heavily addicted people. This is good news for those with a heroin problem, as the program saves lives, and it is also good news for the Swiss burghers who won't have their houses burgled as a result.

More importantly, it's good news for people in equivalent situations in a whole lot of countries. The overwhelming nature of the vote will send a message to jelly-backed politicians elsewhere. It is regrettable that a bill for legalization of cannabis went down at the same time, but in the long run I suspect the success will count for more than the defeat.

This is also very good news for the Greens. Personally I don't believe our policies are the major bar to electoral success. Lack of money and an absence of experience in government are bigger problems. Where our policies do get in the way its usually because they are badly written and need to be rethought.

However, there are some policies that do hurt our chances, and drugs and law and order are chief amongst them. The problem is that our policies here are basically right (give or take a bit of tweaking). They would save lives, cut crime and save money. We can't abandon them without selling our soul. Electorally they are a burden we have to bear, although of course writing them more clearly would reduce the damage.

So Switzerland's vote is very good news. For one thing it proves these are not policies the population will never accept. For another it gives us something to point to. Most people won't listen, but for a few, the fact that 68% of a developed nation backed something might make them question their knee-jerk opposition.

More to the point, this is a tide that will be very hard to hold back. Several other nations are considering adopting something similar. In a globalised world it will get harder and harder to scaremonger about a policy that not only exists in many comparable countries, but is demonstrably saving lives.

Are They Really That Dumb?

2008-11-26T18:06:00.000-08:00

Today I received two emails about Steve Conroy's mandatory ISP filtering plan. One of them from someone I have a massive crush on, which usually helps when trying to get petitions signed, no? But I just can't get excited about signing the petition (although of course I sign a lot of petitions that make me depressed rather than excited).

Because this idea is so dumb I kind of hope they do it. I imagine at the moment there is a fair level of support for the idea - I mean filtering out child prOn or stopping kids seeing ordinary p0rn sounds like a good idea huh? But the consequences will be so disastrous, and so ineffective, that any government that does it is going to take some serious heat. And not just from a small minority of libertarians and techno geeks who're currently worried. No if they actually do this thing everyone who uses the web will hate them. Which is a lot of voters.

Ok the heat will be shared because the Coalition will have voted for it too, but the government will still get the blame, and the Greens in particular will stand to benefit.

So what is going on? Well one possibility is that they are so stupid they don't realise what a disaster it will be, despite every technical person warning them. Well it is Stephen Conroy we're talking about here, but its still a bit hard to believe.

Next option is that they can see the train wreck coming, but are so stubborn they just won't let go. Ahh, here's the part where the Steve Conroy bit starts to make sense. Still, surely there are more senior ministers who aren't willing to throw away 5% of the vote and the country's economic competitiveness to satisfy one man's obsession.

Which leaves us with option three. They know it is a dog, but for the moment a popular dog. So what they want is to be seen pushing it as much as possible, and then have it sunk by someone else. They can say "we tried, we really tried" to all the people who think it is a good idea until they have to use it, and blame its failure on someone else. Since the Liberals and Greens are both currently opposing the idea that works well. It probably won't hurt the Greens - they'll lose a few votes, but gain a roughly equal number.

On the other hand the Libs will probably be hurt whichever way they go. Vote against it and they will be tarred with supporting kiddie fiddlers or something. Vote for it and they will be part of the problem that put the country into the computer stone age. But if they let it through they'll be a small part of the problem, with Labor getting most of the blame.

So the whole thing becomes a giant game of chicken, watching to see whether the Libs lose their nerve and wave it through.

The country may have changed a year ago, but wedge politics didn't die.

Victory

2008-11-05T23:47:00.000-08:00

It's probably impossible to make any genuinely original contribution to one of the biggest stories of all time. So I'll leave it at this short note on one point I haven't seen made explicitly before or after the election:

Besides all the other reasons to celebrate, its worth noting that one of the hardest jobs in the world right now must be being an Al Queda recruiting agent, particularly in Africa. That has to be good for almost everyone.

The Poor Will Not Be With You Always

2008-10-14T17:54:00.000-07:00

Apparently it is Global Blog Action Day today, or something like that, and the theme for this year is poverty. So...

I doubt we will ever remove relative poverty. Certainly all attempts to create a sufficiently egalitarian society for this to be realistic have failed. But I think we can aspire to end absolute poverty. And since that would rank with ending war in the greatest human achievements of all time, it seems to me a pretty worthy goal.

And clearly this is achievable. Human productivity has risen so much over the last couple of centuries that there now certainly is enough for everyone to have adequate food, clean water, decent if spartan housing and basic medical cover. Yes all that and still enough for large sections of the world to live in unimaginable luxury.

Global Warming will make things much, much tougher, but science isn't going to stop. The productivity of the world, from an economic point of view, will slow, but its unlikely to go much backwards, even per head.

So ending poverty is all about willpower. We haven't done it because, collectively speaking, we simply don't care enough. The developed world giving 1% of its wealth to the poor would do it, just as the UN agreed on it back in 1970. (Note the agreed figure is 0.7% government aid, the rest is to come from private individuals. Indeed, the target is a lot easier to reach these days than it was back then. A goodly chunk of the rich world is now in China and India. The money doesn't even have to flow across national boundaries. The traditionally rich world needs to look after Africa and substantial sections of Asia and Latin America, but it no longer has to worry about the whole rest of the world.

It's true that local wars mean that some regions are resistant to anything the wealthy world can do, but that's actually a pretty small proportion of global poverty. The main thing that is needed now is good aid (not the stuff that ends up with the military and in politicians' pockets) and fair trade. And one of the main things stopping that from happening is the lack of belief that it can work. It really is a case of "nothing to fear but fear itself".

I think the most important thing to do is to keep the pressure on governments to increase aid, or at least not cut it in the face of the credit crunch. But private giving is important as well, and the wonders of the Internet mean you can do that without costing anything but your time.

Most famously. But one can do even better with the search engines that send their profits to charity rather than shareholders. Here or here. You can even feed the world by playing games online. It's true these online measures are a bit of a drop in the ocean. And in some cases the sponsors are other aid organisations, so in a sense the money is just going round in circles, unless they succeed in getting you to actually donate (or buy from their online stores). Which is why its important not to lose site of the main game of putting pressure on the politicians. But these websites do make a powerful point. The rich world is now so rich, credit crisis not withstanding, that it only takes a little of that wealth slopping over the sides to end absolute poverty. So little of the wealth in fact, that we wouldn't even miss it if it was gone.

A Good Man Died Today, One Of The Country's Best

2008-10-07T02:47:00.000-07:00

Last week when Paul Newman died Pavlov's Cat quoted A Prarie Home Companion, "It's never a tragedy when an old man dies. Forgive him for his shortcomings, and thank him for all his love and care."

By that token, Graeme Laver's death a few days before Newman's, but of which we only heard today, wasn't a tragedy either. Nevertheless, its still sad.

I had the honour of speaking with him a few times, and he seemed like a genuinely nice and caring person. However, if there was any sainthood in him, then it was buried from me. As far as I know he never risked his life for his work, or donated most of his worldly wealth to help the poor. Yet in two stunning achievements he dwarfed the good that Newman did the world through decades of joyous acting, long years of activism and $250 million raised for charity.

Laver's first great achievement was so obscure I'd barely heard of it until today. He discovered a better way to break the influenza virus down into constituent parts, without damaging these parts. The second is slightly more famous. He created such large, clear crystals of neuraminidase, (a component of the flu virus) that pharmaceutical companies have been able to design two drugs, Relenza and Tamiflu to lock onto one of the few stable parts of this everchanging virus and make flu treatment drugs that actually work.

Neither Relenza nor Tamiflu are perfect. Relenza is difficult to take, and needs to be given almost as soon as symptoms start to really be effective. Given the difficulties in telling early flu symptoms from the common cold this is pretty hard. Strains of the flu virus are already showing signs of developing resistnace to Tamiflu.

But the fact remains that when you look at things to be really, really scared of an influenza pandemic lies behind Global Warming and Nuclear War, but ahead of pretty much everything else. The Spanish flu killed 20-40 million in a much less populated world. The next one was always going to be worse, unless someone invented a flu drug first (or a way of making vaccines faster than we can at the moment).

The stockpiles of Relenza and Tamiflu built up around the world give us a fighting chance against the next pandemic, even if the odds are still on dead numbered in seven figures. With any luck there'll be another, better drug in a few more years.

And then there's the matter of the thousands who die of ordinary 'flu every year, and the millions who suffer considerably. Tamiflu in particular has made a difference to a lot of them.

Of course we know that if Laver had chosen to wash cars for a living someone would have made his discoveries eventually. But eventually would probably have been decades later. These don't seem to have been discoveries pipping his rivals by weeks. The years Laver gave us could make all the difference.

Sex Sells - And Sometimes It Should

2008-10-03T21:28:00.001-07:00

We're all familiar with the use of sex to sell, well everything. It keeps happening because it works. And when you have a worthy cause to sell, it can create something of a conundrum: Use the tried and true method, or hold back through ethical concerns.

Declare yourself, a Hollywood campaign to get young people to register to vote in the 2008 elections (with the sometimes explicit acknowledgment that most who do so will be backing Obama) don't seem to have any qualms. I'm pretty sure there will be mixed feelings from supporters about the pneumatic beauties in skimpy bikinis in some of the ads. However, in this one they've found away around the problem: Make the sex relevant to what you're saying. It's also funny, none of which stops it being hot.

And yes, I know, every blogger worth their salt knows how to embed a Youtube. I don't alright. I never claimed to be technologically competent at everything. Perhaps its just as well there's probably no one listening.

Playing For Peace

2008-09-06T21:58:00.000-07:00

At the bottom of this post are links to two of the most inspiring articles I've read for a while. Australian readers may want to go straight there. Anyone from overseas might need a little background to make sense of them.

Australian Rules Football is an odd sport. Until about 30 years ago it was only really played in southern and north-western Australia, areas that include about half the national population. Americans sometimes describe it as a mix of basketball and soccer, although its more accurately a mix of soccer, rugby and a game played by the Indigenous population of Western Victoria. It's most similar modern sport is Gaelic football, which appears to be a derivative created by Irish gold diggers returning from the Victorian gold rush.

In the late 70s the people who ran the major leagues decided a little local game would not survive as more than a curiosity in the face of competition with global sports like rugby and what most of the world considers football. So they started an aggressive expansion campaign, joining up all the state-based leagues and making a push into the rugby playing north-east of Australia. Now they're moving on, trying to spark interest overseas.

Where this really gets interesting is that some of their expansion strategies have caused them to act in ways that are having some remarkable spin-offs. Football is something of a religion in many Aboriginal Indigenous communities, and the league realised that the skills of players from some of these areas form one of the game's greatest attractions. They've set up coaching programs in places that have been desperately under-resourced by the government. Children are only allowed to play if they attended school the previous week, and this has been the most successful program in Australian history in addressing truancy in remote communities.

More suprisingly, the league singled out South Africa as the best prospects for growth. They've approached schools in some of the poorest townships offering to supply sporting gear and administration money on the condition the schools teach Australian rules. For these schools battling parental unemployment over 50%, soaring rates of HIV and drastic underfunding this is a godsend. Some inspirational and hilarious stories have come out of this program.

One aspect of the international push is the creation of an international cup for all nations playing our rules other than Australia. None of these nations are remotely competitive with the local teams, although there is an on-again, off-again competition with Ireland in a hybrid of Aussie rules and Gaelic football. However, for teenagers and young adults from many developing nations getting a flight to Australia paid to come and play is pretty exciting. Soon, the AFL hopes, we'll have players from these countries playing at the highest level.

A joint Israeli/Palastinian team has been created to compete in the cup. Most of the players had never heard of Australian rules football before they were invited to play, let alone seen a game. They'd probably be thrashed by a weak team in an outback country league. One might think that you'd be better off doing the same thing with soccer or basketball teams. I believe such things are happening too, but as one of these articles makes clear, the very fact that the sport is new to the players can be a strength not a weakness, and of course the assistance from the League might be harder to obtain for an established sport.

When your team loses as badly as mine did this weekend its easy to hate football for a few days. But reading these pieces was as good as the best wins.

Ready. Here they are.

This Should Be Fun

2008-08-30T21:31:00.000-07:00

Just recently we've had the spectacle of Global Warming deniers trying to claim that they are the true defenders of the enlightenment. I suspect that this isn't a line their American equivalents would run. The US Right is so interwoven with religious fundamentalists that even secularists don't want to claim the enlightenment crown too fiercely.

That's not true here. Australian fundamentalists are useful to the Right, but they are pretty peripheral, and not powerful enough to get offended when their allies start talking about the enlightenment as a good thing.

But the Australian Right these days is caught up in worship of Republicans. Most decry the fundamentalist wing of Bush's coalition, but also downplay it. In particular, they don't want anything to do with creationism, and want to pretend its not a crucial part of the movement they support. Bush, they say was in an alliance of convenience with creationists because of all the other things they had in common - he didn't really deny evolution.

So it will be interesting to see how they handle the reported fact that Sarah Palin is a creationist, as well as a global warming sceptic. It's no great surprise. In America the two usually go hand in hand. But its going to be fun watching the Craig Emersons of the world explain how it is the environmentalists who are the new church persecuting modern Gallileos, when the new standard bearer for global warming deniers believes the world was created in six days.

Why Is America So Bad At Sport?

2008-08-15T03:48:00.000-07:00

Looking at the Olympics medal table I just can't help wondering "Why is America so bad at sport?" The question is seldom asked, and may seem ridiculous - America dominates world sport, dontcha know? They've dominated the Olympics since the East Germans stopped their cheating regime. Even with homeground advantage and 1.3 billion people China's trailing them in the medal count, although they have more gold.

Until you look closer. This is usually done with number of medals per capita, and that's kindof dry. So lets look at it this way - how would things be going if the EU competed as one team.

At the point of typing it would be US 14 gold, 12 silver, 17 bronze, EU 27 gold, 30 silver, 30 bronze.
Bit of a masacre really.

No fair you cry - The EU is bigger than America. Indeed it is. So lets cut it down to first nine nations to sign up, who happen to have a population very similar to the US. That brings it down to 19 gold, 17 silver, 20 bronze.

And this is just the summer olympics. In winter its not unusual for European nations with less than ten million people to outscore America. On a per capita basis including the winter olympics raises the risk of the ultimate humiliation, Americal being beaten on a per capita basis by Canada.

An alternative way to look at it is: How would America go if each state competed seperately. Well whichever one of Michigan and Maryland Michael Phelps chose to reprsent would be doing fine, but everyone else would be feeling pretty grim. Even California wouldn't stack up too well. It's not just Europe of course - Australia smashes America (and everyone else) on a per capita basis, as does South Korea. The Americans may beat impoverished nations (with a few exceptions like Zimbabwe) but that's about it.

Some argue that the problem is that teh best American athletes get snapped up by the big money in Basketball, Football and Baseball. Besides the obvious question why these sports are so much more of a threat than soccer, the fact is that this is a very gendered view of the world. Women athletes are financially better off in Olympic sports than competing in the amateur competitions in football or baseball. Yet America's women are bring home even less gold than the men (mainly for lack of a Michelle Phelps).

This isn't a bag America post. Australia places far too much reliance on sporting results for its national pride. Much better to lead the world in solar cell design or medial breakthroughs than following a black line up and down a pool. I just think its an interesting question.

When Britian's sporting results tanked in the 80s and 90s some lefties delighted in blaming Thatcher. Supposedly she had sold off the sporting ovals many poorer schools used, and this had made it harder for kids to take up sport. I'd love to be able to pin this one on George Bush, but I somehow doubt I can. Anyone with any ideas?

More Liberal Doom

2008-08-07T21:22:00.000-07:00

Having for a long time hidden their declining numbers behind secrecy laws the Vic Libs are now letting it all hang out. Some statistics worth keeping in mind from today's Age (can't find online):

Of the 13,373 "members" almost 2000 became unfinancial recently. Presumably some of them just haven't got round to rejoining, but quite a few may never be back.

6% (not a typo) are under 30, while 27% are over 75. In other words their numbers will be below 10,000 in a few years. There's simply no way they will get the new recruits to replace those who are not long for this world.

A quarter are in 3 electorates - Kooyong, Higgins and Wannon. They don't have a single member or Kororoit. I'm not sure if there is a single seat where the Greens membership is zero. The Age mentions having just 153 members in Gippsland, but this doesn't seem that bad to me - its a National seat and I'd imagine there are plenty of people who will join whichever arm of the coalition is dominant there. But that would only depress their numbers in two seats. Clearly there are a lot of state electorates where they would struggle to have a viable branch going.

And On That Note

2008-08-07T06:02:00.000-07:00

Highly relevant to the post below. Since the New Zealand Greens did not ignore the lesson of 1999. Since then they've worked hard to appeal to Kiwis living in Oz.

In the lead-up to this year's election they're even having campaign launches and fundraisers over here, including one 7pm Tuesday August 12 at the Horse Bizarre on the corner of Little Lonsdale and Hardware Lane in the city. It's a great little pub. Entry $7.

Global Voters

2008-08-07T03:18:00.000-07:00

One of my obsessions at the moment is expatriates and voting.

Expats from democratic countries increasingly tend to be younger and more educated than the general population. If they don't already have a broader view of things than their compatriots before they leave the country, they sure do once they've spent some time overseas.

In other words they are the people most likely to be concerned about global environmental issues. They're also relatively likely to be concerned about war, human rights abuses, racism and poverty.

Exactly the sort of people I want to vote. Unfortunately most don't. A few have dual citizenship and vote in both their country of origin and of residence, but far more vote in neither. When they do, they can make a real difference. The New Zealand Greens only got MPs because in 1999 Kiwis living in Bondi and Brisbane lifted the Green vote from 4.8% to 5.2%, just above the crucial 5% threshold.

So I'm really pleased to see the Obama campaign is putting resources into galvanising this group, including Youtubes such as this and this (I forgive Gwyneth for taking the oscar that was rightfully our Cate's and giving that god-awful speech.)

I'd ~~encourage~~ beg anyone who is reading this to pass it on to any American expats you know. And if you're an expatriate from somewhere else yourself, remember for when your country goes to the polls. A network of people who care about two countries could be an essential ingredient in saving the world.

Gambling the Future

2008-07-28T20:27:00.000-07:00

It's pretty obvious to everyone who understands the basics of climatology (and many who don't) that the plans by some Liberals to oppose an ETS until everyone else has one are a short term move. In a few years time when the current La Nina has faded and global warming is even more in people's faces than today the Libs will be trying to shake off the image of having done nothing about the problem under Howard. Nelson's prevaracating is just going to make things harder.

But that's not the real problem for the Liberals in all this. In a decade people will remember Howard, but Nelson will be a blip on the memory screen. The bigger problem is this. Party membership is down to 13,400 in Victoria (from 45,000 at its peak) and half of them are over 62. Membership would be lower, per capita, in most other states, although the age ratios may not be quite as bad.

I suspect that truly reviving the party membership is a lost cause, but if there is any hope it has to rest with the several thousand students who signed up for university Liberal Club memberships at universities around the country in February and March. Every year thousands of first years sign up, and every year most of them slip through the party's fingertips, never getting engaged or involved.

Now is actually a pretty crucial time for addressing that. Clubs are gearing up for student elections, and the smarter Liberal presidents will be calling all those members and seeing if they can get them to participate in a team. Participation may go nowhere, but its an opportunity to network people in with those already involved, build a bit of experience and love of the contest (or at least hatred of the opposition).

Now the question for Nelson is, who does he want to attract to this year's Liberal tickets: Young people who are politically conservative but concerned about their own future and that of their generation? Or a bunch so scientifically inept they believe everything Andrew Bolt tells them and so lacking in long term planning they can't give a stuff about anything past the next beer?

Either way, these people will make up a goodly chunk of the future of the party. Choose wisely

Priceless

2008-07-28T16:35:00.000-07:00

Grafitto spotted today:

There is no emoticon for existential despair.

Personally I think that @( might do the trick if not already taken, but somehow I don't think the author was looking for a suggestion.

Not Getting It

2008-07-25T23:47:00.000-07:00

There's an interesting/frustrating discussion over at LP.

One frustrating aspect is that the original poster wanted to have a feminist discussion and it got hijacked by some men drawn like flies to the honeypot at the mention of breasts, who've turned the focus very much to women's sexuality and whether its women's fault they don't like their bodies. No doubt this is frustrating to the women who wanted to take part in the original discussion.

But its also frustrating to me, because I have to admit I'm actually much more interested in issues resembling those the men have been raising than the original topic. On the other hand, I don't want to be part of yet another thread hijack where women are prevented from talking about the issues they're interested in by men coming along and doing a slightly more sophisticated version of "giggle, she said breasts".

So after one post far back on that thread, I thought I'd express myself here, losing 99.9% of the potential audience, but at least not adding to the hijack.

The incomparable Pavlov's Cat sum's up the women's frustration like this

stop assuming that just because men think of women’s breasts exclusively as “sexual apparatus”, women also must think of them that way. Because most of us Just. Do. Not.

To which my response is: I hear you. I understand women don't think of them that way. What I don't understand is how you do think of them.

A lot of the thread is taken up with questions of breast reduction because some of the dimmer men seem obsessed by the idea that women would be doing this in order to make themselves more attractive to men. The point is made, over and over again, that women have breast reduction surgery for lots of other reasons - back pain, ability to exercise etc. You don't have to be too bright to grasp this point. As PC says:

Breasts are objects of desire to most blokes, and to women who fancy other women. To the rest of us, they are a source of constant worry, either because (1) they are large, weighty objects necessitating expensively engineered bras and will give us shocking back and neck problems by the time we’re 40, (2) because the world is full of blokes who think it’s acceptable to comment audibly on (if not actually grab) the breasts of anyone who happens to be passing, (3) because we have good reason to fear either failing to breastfeed our children with them successfully or getting cancer in them

But the problem I have, and i imagine a lot of other blokes share, is that this doesn't explain why so many more women have breast enlargement than reduction operations. None of these reasons, or anything like them, seem to explain why a woman would want to make her breasts bigger unless its to increase their chance of attracting a man.

Dr Cat does offer,

or (4) because we think they are ‘too small’ and we have not yet thought through the logic of this enough to realise that if a bloke’s attitude to you depends on the size of your breasts then the smart thing to do is get away from him as quickly as possible.

But this pretty much takes us back to the women concerned seeing their breasts as ways of attracting men. It's not just the minority of women who have breast enhancement surgery I'm trying to work out, its all those who spend time trying to make their breasts look bigger, make their cleavage more visible etc, when its not actually about trying to score.

Why does this matter? (Besides the obvious point that its another excuse for a straight man to talk about breasts) Well if women did see their breasts purely as sexual advertisements then one could conclude that every time a woman tried to enhance her breasts, make them more visible etc she was trying to pick up. Not necessarily (or even usually) me of course, but pick up someone. In such a situation, it would be reasonable to think that polite advances would receive either a favourable response or something equivalent to "actually I'm chasing someone else, but thanks for the compliment".

Now most men have worked out that this is not the case. A woman wearing a revealing neckline may be distinctly uninterested in advances from anyone, and if we're reasonable human beings we try to respect this. But that doesn't mean we don't have all sorts of trouble trying to work out when a woman is actually interested in being approached, and when she isn't. I certainly do.

Some men deal with this by hitting on every woman they're attracted to, and taking plenty of slaps on the basis that sometimes it will work out. Others tend to respond with great caution, avoiding asking someone out on a date for fear of giving offense, and spending a lot of evenings alone in front of the TV in consequence.

Obviously I fall into the second category.

Presumably if I had a better understanding of what women who want their breasts to look/be bigger, but aren't really seeing them sexually, were thinking I'd be a bit more popular.

Alas I don't think the thread in question has enlightened me much, which is fair enough, since that wasn't the intention.

Dying to save the planet

2008-07-15T03:34:00.000-07:00

The news on global warming is so bad these days its easy to just lose oneself in a funk of depression. So its important to remember that this is a problem we certainly can solve, if we have the political will.

To replace all electricity sources in the world with renewables, plus back-up storage would cost about 3% of GDP over the next ten years, even if there are no significant breakthroughs in that time. That's a lot of money - about 1.5 trillion dollars. More if you allow for increased consumption. Do it more slowly and the cost comes down a lot, but then again this is just the electricity component. Phasing out petrol and doing something about emissions from agriculture are likely to cost more.

These sort of figures lead the inactivitsts to say its all too hard. They prefer to avoid the fact that the world spent more than this on invading Iraq. Generally speaking most people assume that if we're going to come up with those amounts of money we're either going to have to slash defense budgets, or do things that really hurt.

But I wonder if bequests are not an alternative source of this kind of money.

Very soon, the Baby Boomers are going to start dying in large numbers. The oldest are 62, which is getting close to the point where mortality rates shoot upwards. Let me stress this is not something I am happy about. I don't go in for the Boomer-bashing common amongst my fellow Xers, and those born before the boom. And discussion of Boomer mortality can't but remind me that my parents are pre-Boomers and I don't want them dying any time soon.

But Boomers will die whether I want them to or not, and its worth thinking about the consequences. The Boomers are not just the largest generation in the history of the developed world, and the richest. They are also the first with fewer offspring than themsleves.

Prior to the Boomers, even childless people usually had quite a few nephews and nieces to leave their wealth to. Boomers, generally speaking, do not. They might have one or two, but mostly their younger relatives are quite well provided for by a mix of parents and other uncles and aunts. They are in a position to leave a fair chunk of their wealth to charity without leaving those close to them in poverty.

In most countries this is going to be a huge boon to the state. Death duties haven't raked in all that much up till now, because people with children exploit loopholes to avoid them. But as more and more of those dying don't need to worry about close relatives, that's likely to change.

Australia is stupid enough to be one of the few nations without probate taxes, and we're really going to feel the pinch.

Nevertheless, this is all a bit of a side issue, since probate taxes are usually a relatively small portion of the total. The real test is going to be what wealthy people who don't have kids to provide for choose to do with their money. Many will shower it on relatives who don't need it, or find other ways to fritter it up against the wall. Others will give to art galleries and museums - worthy causes but not world-saving.

But if people get serious about putting the money into a mix of environmental projects and aid to the developing world, we may find that problems that seem intractable are a lot easier to fix than we thought.

Mayo Malaise

2008-07-11T03:43:00.000-07:00

After three US posts its time to get back to Australian politics. As noted below I think the Liberals' troubles are far more long-term than most people recognise, and particularly a product of their lack of recruiting talent.

As exhibit A I'd like to present the field for preselection for the Mayo by-election. To understand my case you need to realise that Mayo is not just another seat. For Adelaidean Libs it really is THE seat. Labor holds six seats in Adelaide, and they pushed the other two Liberal MPs pretty close. Were it not for disastrous candidate selection they would probably have taken Boothby, and if the government is returned at the next election its likely they'll rectify that this time.

Sturt was held by less than 1%. Anyone taking over the seat can't count on a long career.

Mayo is a different story. With a margin of 7% in a bad election its not likely they'll lose it anytime soon. Since it's creation the only scare the Libs have ever had there was the truly freak result in 1998, and even that ended up being a wider margin than it looked at first. What's more, its not particularly vulnerable to redistributions - it generally borders Liberal held seats, or the Liberal voting parts of Labor marginals.

The other two Liberal South Australian seats are Grey and Barker, and they'll never preselect anyone who isn't a local. Perhaps some one who grew up there could go back, but otherwise if you want to represent them you have to go the Sophie route, which is a bit too arduous for most people.

So if you're an ambitious Liberal from Adelaide your choice is to win Mayo, go for the Senate (and give up on being leader, deputy or treasurer) or move interstate. So this field is basically the cream of the crop. If a South Australian Liberal doesn't have their hand in the air for Mayo they're not serious.

So lets look at what's come forward: Ian Evans is the current front runner. He's been state leader so the party obviously thinks something of him and he could hit the ground running. However, he's 49 and there is a reason his leadership is ex. They could do worse, but he's clearly no star.

The other candidate who gets lots of mentions is Jamie Briggs, who apparently is one of the geniuses behind Workchoices. It's important to stress here that this was someone who was presumably involved in a lot of the detail - and it was the detail of Workchoices that really bit the Liberals. It was one thing to go for class warfare, another to produce a document so long and complex employers found it a nightmare and were unwilling to go into battle for. He does at least have the advantage of being young, but if he has any other positives no one seems to know what they are.

If there is anything to the other 7 candidates it doesn't seem to be making the media either, other than the millionaire businessman Bob Day. Despite spending a heap of his own money Day suffered an 8.6% 2PP swing against him on his only prior electoral outing, in a seat where scandal had pulled down the Liberal MP's support last time. It's possible one of the other 6 is actually a genius who just hasn't shown their colours yet, but I'm not betting on it.

We all know South Australia is a state in decline, but seriously, this is one of the Liberals' best chances to put some talent on their bench as part of the long rebuilding. If it doesn't happen here, why should one expect it anywhere else.

Has The West Wing changed the world?

2008-07-01T02:00:00.000-07:00

In honour of my first real comment (see immediately previous post). I thought I would riff off the comment that Obama "is Jed Bartlett, and I swear to God, his speeches are written by Aaron Sorkin".

I'm inclined to think that, Obama's script actually was written by Sorkin to the extent that, without The West Wing, Obama wouldn't have one the nomination. Even if he had, his chances of winning the presidency would have been a lot lower.

The question of whether art, and particularly popular culture, can "make a difference" is an old one. It's probably the single biggest debate I have with my parents. They just don't accept that politics turns, except to the most flimsy degree, on such fripperies. I have a tendency to overstate the case, perhaps because one of the first campaigns I was devoted to was to get sportspeople and musicians to boycott South Africa, which I believe drastically hastened the fall of Apartheid.

So that bias stated, here is why I think The West Wing cleared the way for Obama:

1) Most obviously the program legitimised liberalism. Millions of Americans who thought "liberal" was a dirty word tuned in because they had the hots for Donna or Josh, or like the snappy drama. They may not have had their politics turned 180 degrees, but it sure made liberal politicians look worthy of consideration. For evidence I'd point to the 2000 poll that showed Jed Bartlett winning a plurality in a theoretical contest against Gore and Bush.

2) It encouraged liberals to fight for what they believed in. Pre- The West Wing (and still to a large extent today) the message we kept hearing was that liberals couldn't win as liberals. They needed to triangulate and abandon at least half their core beliefs to win. Much of the debate was over which beliefs to drop. The West Wing sent a powerful message the other way - when Bartlett tests the water before backing down his popularity plunges. It's only when he stands up for unpopular positions that voters like him again. Of course Obama has compromised on many liberal positions - perhaps because he doesn't believe in them, or perhaps because he thinks disavowing them will get him elected. But he's stood his ground and fought with remarkable toughness on some surprising issues, and I think The West Wing helped his supporters, and perhaps he himself, not go to water at the idea of talking to Iran.

3) The West Wing has broken some of the cynicism about politics amongst leftists. The key to the Obama campaign is the way it has turned voters into donors and activists. Vast numbers of people who have volunteered or sent in money because Obama inspires them. To achieve that inspiration he had to overcome cynicism. I know that this cynicism is vastly lower in the US than Australia (and probably Europe as well) but I'm pretty sure it was a problem. There's no doubt that people around the world have had that cynicism about US politics worn down by The West Wing. I'd imagine the same goes at home as well. By weakening the wall, Sorkin opened people's minds to the possibility the Real Thing was out there, and many of them have decided Obama is it. Take away a few thousand volunteers, a few million dollars and a few hundred thousand people who convinced family and friends to back him and Obama wouldn't be where he is.

Speaking of America

2008-06-24T04:29:00.000-07:00

This clarifies a lot of the thoughts that have been swirling round for a while.

I started out pretty sceptical about Obama. He seemed more trustworthy than Clinton but even more moderate, and not in a good way. After a while I came to support him, but mostly on the basis that there was a chance he'd seek genuine change. I didn't think it was all that likely, but there was no way in hell Hilary would.

Slowly however he's got to me. First in Iowa, then Philadelphia and then with the graduation speech filling in for Teddy Kennedy. Was it possible that this man was actually the Real Thing? Could such a thing exist in American politics?

Now I know why. As the article says "His naïve-sounding calls for change are persuasive largely because he’s already managed to improve one of our most intractable political problems: the decades-old, increasingly virulent plague of terrible speechifying."

It's important not to be swept away. We've seen some pretty terrible politicians who could give great speeches. But as the article argues, speechifying style isn't "merely a sauce on the nutritious bread of substance", it can tell us much. The fact that Obama's style is to speak to us as though we are intelligent, at the same time as raising our spirits with soaring rhetoric, tells us that he actually wants to address at least one of the World's most challenging problems.

He may fail, but by God it's nice to have someone who's trying.

A Word for Jimmy

2008-06-21T02:10:00.000-07:00

Over at the Possum Box someone provides their thoughts on why they think McCain will win the US election. Obviously there are millions of such pieces circulating on the web, along with a similar number giving the opposite view.

In the course of this, the author has a few swipes at Jimmy Carter, including claiming that "the fact that the experience of the Carter administration is still fresh in people’s minds" is one of the reasons Obama will lose. Pointing out that 28 years ago is hardly fresh, and about 20% of the electorate were not even born when Carter was president, is easy.

What irks me more however, is that an Australia blog is posting yet another attack on Carter. It's not surprising that most of the English speaking world has a dim view of Jimmy. One-term presidents rarely get a good write up from history, and in a lot of fields he was a particularly ineffective president; although I'd imagine he's better remembered in the countries where his tentative support for human rights got political prisoners released and laid the groundwork for the spread of democracy through Latin America.

But you'd think that Australians could keep in mind Carter's other great legacy. In the 1970s the National Academy of Sciences, feeding off the work of James Lovelock, became concerned that CFCs could damage the ozone layer. At the time there was no proof and Dupont and other CFC manufacturers fought a strong campaign against legislation "until evidence could be produced".

Carter recognised that any evidence might well be in the form of global Armageddon and acted. He got CFCs banned for some uses in the US, and legislated for this to gradually be extended. Reagan stopped the extension, but didn't reverse the existing bans.

We now know just how important that decision of Carter's was. If it hadn't been for Carter, being a fair skinned Australian of my generation would have been not dissimilar to being a gay male American in the late 80s - you would have spent a lot of time at funerals wondering which of you was going to be next.

It's not just that the whole of the ozone layer would have extended over most of southern Australia through spring and early summer, sending cancer rates soaring and making some crops unviable. Ozone depletion has changed wind patterns over the Southern Ocean and the Bureau of Meteorology considers it a major factor in the never-ending drought gripping Victoria (and possibly South-West WA). You think the Murray's in a bad state now - imagine it if Carter hadn't shown the courage to act.

Americans are unlikely to ever really appreciate Carter's contribution to the planet. But Australians, tens of thousands of whom owe him our lives, really should do better.

PS: In searching for links to add to this post one thing that is really obvious is how few progressive or centrist commentators mention Carter's role in this. There is a hint of it on the Wikipedia page about ozone depletion, but nothing on the page about Carter, and when you Google terms like Jimmy Carter + Ozone almost everything you get is rightwing attacks mocking him and Al Gore.

They’re (probably) not coming back

2008-05-14T00:01:00.000-07:00

To be cross posted at LP, where there may actually be some comments.

Everyone knows the Liberals are in trouble, with the possible exception of Alexander Downer. However, looking at the discussion, both on blogs and in the MSM, this seems to be perceived to mean: They can’t win in 2010, probably not in 2013. However, the assumption seems to be that at some point the Liberals will be back (possibly merged with the Nationals). Much advice has been given based on the notion that ambitious Liberal leaders should be positioning themselves to lead in 2013 or 2016, rather than now.

I disagree. I believe that 2010 is likely to be the best chance the Liberals will ever have to get back into government. If they can’t win then, or at least give it a decent shake, there will probably never be another Liberal-led federal government in Australia.

A big call I know, but my thesis is that the Liberals are caught between two crises, both of which will likely see them whither in the long term. Every election will become harder to win, and after a while it will become difficult for them to even sustain the position of official opposition.

There are other, smaller problems, but the first core issue is the savage decline in their recruitment, both in raw numbers and in talent. The second is the way they have put themselves on the wrong side of history on many political issues, creating millstones they will struggle to shake off.

There are obvious questions about what this will mean for the structure of Australian federal politics, and what will happen at state level. I have theories about each of these, but I’ll save these for subsequent posts.

Declining Talent

Anyone who has spent any time around the youth wings of the Liberal party (be it the Young Liberals or the Liberal Students) knows there is a problem. I don’t have reports on South Australia or the territories, but in the larger states and Tasmania it is clear talented Liberals under 30 are such an endangered species those that do exist should have a keen interest in Bob Brown’s EPBC challenge.

Membership numbers are hard to obtain, and estimates of talent are subjective, but whether you look to John Hyde Page’s The Education of a Young Liberal, or survey recent student elections, there’s plenty of evidence that the party has far fewer (non-stack) young members, and those that exist are less likely to be intelligent, articulate and dedicated.

The lack of talent can be seen when younger Liberals get put in positions of authority or leadership. Hamish Jones was perhaps the most high profile such disaster, but others exist, most recently the case of the party staffers sacked for being stupid enough to update their anti-Baillieu blog from Liberal Party head offices.

The problem for the Libs is not that such idiots exist; it’s that these people get preselected or employed in positions of influence because there aren’t enough others to fill all the spots required. At the moment they’re mostly running in unwinnable seats or serving behind the scenes, but as the baby boomers retire from politics people like Jones – with all Buswell’s weaknesses and none of his strengths - are going to start appearing in marginal, and even previously safe, seats.

Even if the Liberals can turn around this recruiting problem its going to be quite a while before people recruited next year will be ready for senior positions. But does anyone really think that, out of power everywhere and with their vote plumbing record lows, the next few years will be a fertile recruiting era? The problem is worsened by the fact that there is now a severe shortage of worthy mentors for any bright young sparks who do come along.

In 2010 the Libs will have a leadership team that includes, in some combination, Malcolm Turnbull, Brendon Nelson, Julie Bishop, Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin, Eric Abetz and possibly Peter Costello. All born between 1953 and 1958. The talent is hardly overwhelming, but it’s not entirely absent either. By 2016, and possibly earlier, many of these will be gone. Almost certainly their replacements will be worse, particularly if the party suffers a wipe-out at the next election and is struggling to fill its front bench. One can expect more Lindsay leaflets, more chair-sniffing incidents, more internal conflict.

The Wrong Side of History

One of the outstanding features of the Howard Government was a preference for short-term advantage over long term planning. This has done incalculable damage to Australia, but it’s not going to be good for the party either.

The most obvious example of this is in regard to Global Warming. People who have been damaged, and are aware they have been damaged, by higher temperatures or rising sea levels will be very hard to persuade to vote Liberal. By 2030, and possibly a lot sooner, this will be most of the population of Australia. With Howard gone the Liberals might try to distance themselves from him in this area, were it not that a fair few of their remaining MPs have outed themselves as denying anthropogenic global warming altogether, a position that in a few years time will be electoral poison.

There are a number of other issues that will individually do the Liberals far less damage, but may collectively add up to a significant problem. Underfunding of education, infrastructure and research are unlikely to really bite with most of the electorate, but the people who will be most concerned will also be those who would be mostly likely to address the talent decline.

In a few elections time the Liberals may once again win votes by demonising asylum seekers, but there won’t be any votes in their record on Tampa per se. On the other hand, the ethnic communities that coped the brunt of this behaviour will by then be a significant share of the electorate, and it’s hard to imagine how the Liberals will be able to win even marginal support from these groups.

A few caveats

All this is probable, rather than certain. Perhaps an issue that favours the Liberals will become significant enough to balance Global Warming. A series of bombings by Islamic fundamentalists in Australian cities would seem the most likely such scenario, but it’s possible to construct others.

Alternatively it is possible that a future Liberal leader will prove so inspiring he or she will single-handedly reverse the party’s membership crisis.

Nevertheless, I maintain that by far the most likely way for the Liberals to ever win government again is for a global recession to affect the Australian economy so badly that, come 2010, the argument that Labor can’t manage money has resonance while there are still enough Liberal MPs with something resembling a clue for them to take advantage of it.

Late 2020 submission

2008-04-18T23:14:00.000-07:00

I didn't make a submission to the 2020 summit. Partly I've been influenced by those, like Guy Rundle, who argue the whole thing is undemocratic. Also I figured that any idea I had would have been proposed by at least one other person.

I certainly haven't read all the submissions (who has) but so far I haven't seen any mention of the following suggestion, so I thought I may as well post it here.

My proposal would be a major investment in universities in regional centres. For reasons everyone is probably very familiar with I'm all for a massive increase in investment in the tertiary sector, particularly the research component. I'd like to see Australia reach the OECD average, instead of slipping steadily towards half that level.

That's certainly an idea many summitteers will be pushing. I'm not sure how many will be talking about regional allocation though. Spending the money in the regions has a few advantages. Firstly, with our major cities bursting at the seams its a great way to promote decentralization. It will also help overcome the "elitist tag" that gets dumped on anyone who wants to spend more on knowledge related fields.

We're already putting more (although nowhere near enough) into teaching medicine at regional universities in the hope the graduates will be more likely to stay outside the cities and address the shortage of rural doctors. I think this might work for other fields as well (note the "might").

But finally, I think there is a lot to be said for having at least a couple of university towns - places where the university is the driver of the local economy and everyone knows this. So even people who have no direct connection with tertiary education know that what is good for the university is good for them and feel connected.

There is no way we can establish an Oxford by 2020 even in a regional centre which already has a university. However, I think that by 2020 we can get JCU, UNE or Deakin Warnambool to the point where they are considered as good in many areas as the Universities of Melbourne or Sydney, and they're on the way to being considered in similar terms to many of the American university towns.

I wouldn't want to see any money taken out of the city universities, but I'm happy for them to get a shrinking proportion of a growing pie if the government gets serious about more tertiary funding.

Anybody out there?

2008-04-02T05:21:00.001-07:00

Having been at this for a week or so, I do wonder whether I have had so much as a single reader. Can't really blame anyone if I don't. I'm far from sure I've yet said anything worth reading.

However, if by chance you have stumbled on this site and read at least one other post besides this, please do tell me. I can probably manage to come up with a prize for the first comment received, particularly if you actually manage to respond to something I've said.

Is there really a man shortage?

2008-04-02T00:35:00.000-07:00

One of the comediennes in the comedy festival said something in passing about "We've got a man shortage in this country". She said it as if it was something we all knew, her value-add was combining it with whatever else she was talking about.

At her age (mid-20s) its clearly untrue, but when applied to people in their 30s and 40s I think it is one of those factoids that is out there, largely unquestioned but probably untrue.
I'll admit I have something of a vested interest in knocking this one down. If there really is a shortage of eligible men in my age-group then my non-existent love life looks even more pathetic than it might otherwise.

Still, I think the basis of the claim is pretty dodgy. Whenever a news outlet refers to a "man shortage" in a particular age group and area they point out either the ratio of men to women in that demographic, or the ratio of single men and women. (These things are a pretty easy story for lazy journalists whenever a new batch of census data comes out).

But its not that simple. Most obviously, such stats leave out people who are same-sex inclined. The general belief is that there are more male homosexuals than female ones, so the supporters of the myth will wail about how this makes things worse - that's if they don't blame the whole thing on too many gay men.

For most people, that's where the situation ends. But it ignores at least two complicating factors, both of which significantly shift the balance IMHO.

Firstly, it assumes everyone only has one partner. I think that honest polyamory is too rare to be a significant factor here (as possible evidence, my spell-checker doesn't even recognise the word). But what about people who are having affairs. There are plenty of cases where married men have at least one mistress, who is sufficiently committed to the man that she's out of the singles market. The same thing happens in reverse of course, but far less often. I googled "infidelity statistics" and came up with claims that:

22 percent of married men have strayed at least once during their married lives.

14 percent of married women have had affairs at least once during their married live

I'm not sure the site is the most reliable, but I don't think there is much doubt about the general trend. Of course, more of the men will have had sex with prostitutes, so that may even the balance a little. Nevertheless, if even 5% more married/defacto men are having ongoing relationships on the side it's enough to soak up all the supposed excess of single women.

The other factor is something I's imagine is harder to back up with research, but is anecdotally pretty strong. The whole "number of men divided by number of women" thing assumes that every heterosexual person wants a relationship.

Its fair to say that pretty much every unpartnered man I know, or have known, wants some sort of sexual contact. Some want an ongoing relationship. Some are just after casual sex. Many would take whatever they can get. And of course some are a lot choosier than others. However, I've only ever met two men under 60 who, for a period of over a month, were saying they didn't want something1. On the other hand, its very common for women, particularly post-breakups, to decide they're really not interested for a while. The while can be just a month or two, but I've known it to stretch out to years.

It always ends of course, but at any one time there's an awful lot of women who're actively avoiding relationships. Account for that, and you'll find the 30s-40s man shortage is just another media myth.

1It may or may not be significant that one of them was gay.

Follow up to Earth Hour

2008-03-31T04:31:00.000-07:00

Someone I'd never before heard of called James Bow had a good post on Earth Hour, giving another reason to take part.

This sort of behaviour is actually pretty typical of the right in the US and Australia these days. In America it may not bite them too hard. A range of factors mean there is a receptive audience for it, which may just be large enough to keep them in business.

However, in Australia it just strikes people as weird, and is one of the reasons the Liberal Party does not have a future, a theme I'll return to many times on this page.

Where will the people go?

2008-03-30T20:29:00.000-07:00

Australia’s major cities are struggling under the burden of fast population growth. Massive congestion and unaffordable house prices are two of the symptoms. Some people would prefer that we shut the borders to slow the growth, but this isn’t practical for a variety of reasons.

Better town planning, particularly better public transport, would certainly help. However, a big part of the answer has to be, as the wonderful Possum has argued, to encourage more people to move to regional areas.

Possum deals with questions of why this is needed, and how to get people to move, but leaves aside the issue of where we want the people to go. There is no point starting growth in areas where natural limitations will mean we soon run into the same problems, or where any growth will be at the cost of destroying priceless natural areas.

I’ve been trying to think where one would fit an extra ten million people into Australia. I think the figure is pretty realistic. At current rates of growth it is about what we will put on between now and 2050. I don’t think we need to worry too much about population growth beyond that point. By that time Australia’s natural growth will have reversed and the growth will be entirely from immigration. What is more, 2050 looks to be about the point where global population will peak and start to decline.

While it is likely that, even in a world of declining population, there will still be plenty of people keen to move to a wealthy nation like Australia, the moral imperative to take large numbers of people will be lessened, and it is quite likely that we will simply take enough to counter the natural fall in our population from birthrates below replacement.

So where would these 10 million go?

I’d say ideally none to outer Sydney, but infill projects such as Green Square will take a fair few, so perhaps 100,000 there.

Melbourne is straining, but I think with better public transport we could take another 500,000 in the north and west – they still won’t sprawl as far as Cranbourne.
Perth 500,000
Brisbane 300,000
Adelaide 300,000

So the big five cities, that currently hold most of Australia’s population will be able to take less than 20% of the growth before they start seriously compromising quality of life.

Looking at the next tier of cities I’d guess something like this (figures very rough):

Darwin 150,000
Gold Coast 100,000
Townsville 100,000
Canberra 100,000
Newcastle 100,000
Geelong 100,000
Wollongong 50,000
Hobart 50,000

So we’re still barely past a quarter. I agree with Possum that building entire new cities is not a good way to go. Instead we need to bolster regional centres. As I noted on Possum’s blog, I think university towns are the way to go. I think Warrnambool, for example could go from being a city of about 30,000 as it is today, to being a thriving centre of 150,000 people based around a world class university centred on the current Deakin university site.

Still, if we are talking about cities of 100-200 thousand people we will need something like 70 of them to take on the people expected. It seems unlikely doesn’t it? So what’s the answer: Fit more in the big cities, have the new regional centres grow to half a million each rather than 150,000 or actually have 70 new substantial cities?

Earth Hour

2008-03-29T22:06:00.000-07:00

I was always a bit suspicious of Earth Hour. There's nothing wrong with symbolic actions, but people need to understand what they are doing is symbolic, not think they've done their bit to stop global warming by switching off the lights for an hour. I'm not sure a lot of Earth Hour participants get this.

Combined with a general suspicion of a the woofers (WWF) this lent some sympathy for the large proportion of the environment movement who have labled it a croc. When Crikey ran a piece showing how companies could get credit for being part of Earth Hour without actually doing anything (why are office lights on at 8pm on a Saturday anyway?) my suspicions deepened.

Nevertheless, I joined in last night, and realised there may be a quite unintentional benefit to the whole thing: It was really nice. Sitting around by candlelight chatting with friends is a pleasure not a chore.

This is a good thing on several levels:

* I subscribe to the view that pleasure is, of itself, a good thing. Sometimes negative factors outweigh the pleasure gained, but I'm not sure thats the case this time.
* An evening with friends unencumbered by TV is pretty much the textbook case of social capital building.
* If people are reminded how nice it can be to do without electricity for a while it may genuinely produce a change in behaviour, unlike a one off diet that just encourages people to splurge afterwards.

But I still think WWF needs to make companies do something meaningful to get credit for taking part.

What’s With the Name?

2008-03-22T04:35:00.000-07:00

I’ve used Feral Sparrowhawk as a nom de net for a while on other people’s blogs. It may be pretentious, and it’s certainly obscure, but it is my attempt to honour two artists whose work has influenced me more than any others. One of these is reasonably famous, while the other one deserves more publicity than I can provide, but you do what you can.

In both cases the name comes from what I consider a truly stunning work of art. In each case the piece in question is one of those things you can experience over and over again, and find something new each time. Both works referred to served as my introduction to a superb, and hugely influential, body of work. And in each case the piece in question gave me one of those extraordinary moments of revelation and joy you cherish your whole life, although I think those are stories for another time.

The original idea came from Penelope Swales’ inspirational meditation on environmental activism and deep ecology Black Carrie. The song is dotted with references to sparrows. To understand the multi-layered symbolism and references you need to read the full lyrics, or better still hear it performed. However, the pertinent line runs, “Sparrows, although feral, remind me that sparrows are not to blame for what they are…we’re like sparrows, we’re not to blame for what we are.”

A note for non-Australian readers*: sparrows are an introduced species in Australia and something of a pest, taking up ecological space that would otherwise be filled by native species, often endangered.

Feral sparrow was thus the first pseudonym I came up with. However, it doesn’t really sound right, and anyway no one meeting me is likely to consider my totem animal a sparrow.

More people are probably familiar with the other part of the name. Ursula Le Guin’s Earthsea books are fairly popular with teenage readers, predecessors of sorts for Harry Potter. Some readers come back to them later and discover, as I did, just how deep the waters run. Much as I enjoy JK Rowling, she can’t compare with Le Guin’s wisdom. Btw, stay well away from the abomination which is the television version of Earthsea – it’s worse than you could possibly imagine.

Le Guin’s father was a leading anthropologist and all her writings draw heavily on myths and cultural practices common across many civilizations. Central to the books is that names have power, and the characters only tell their true names to those they trust most intensely and have “usenames” by which the rest of the world knows them. The central character’s usename is Sparrowhawk, because an early sign of his magical abilities was his capacity for calling birds of prey fromt eh skies.

Arguably, I’m not much of a hawk either, but in rare moments of maximum intellectual clarity it can seem that problems I have been struggling with are laid out before me like an open field before a circling raptor. It may not happen often, but I treasure the sensation above almost all others, and aspire to achieve that clarity more often. Feral sparrowhawk gives me, in a sense, a personality to live up to.

* in the unlikely event there are any