Chasing the Norm

Dr Dennis Jensen: (Via Andrew Bolt)

A trained expert?

“The Prime Minister has obviously not been following the crisis in climate science: the junk science, the corruption, the collusion and the endemic lack of peer review. The member for Page talks about consensus. Think about consensus on religion here for a second. The consensus of trained experts is that a Christian god, in consensus terms, particularly in Australia, exists. So why do you reject that consensus?”

Wait … what ? First the Prime Minister is a rather devout Christian, and while the member for page, Janelle Saffin may be an atheist, she voted in the NSW parliament to keep the Lords Prayer a part of the standing orders.

But more importantly, Who are these “trained experts” ? Priests? As in a profession for whom a professed “faith” in god is the very requirement to become a member? That’s like claiming you’ll get a fair view of if politicians are honest by asking only politicians. And how on gods green earth might these “trained experts” have devined “particularly in Australia” that a christian god in fact exists? Is there some local evidence that particularly sways those down under? or perhaps some opposed evidence accepted abroad but rejected here?

Attempts to “prove” god exists generally died out in the 18th & 19th centuries, when enlightened figures (almost exclusively believers themselves) showed that it couldn’t be done, and ought not to be attempted, for reason’s grubby hands would simply sully the beauty of faith (questions like “could God microwave a burrito so hot he couldn’t eat it rather demean us all). Many like John Paul II still argued that faith and reason are not entirely incompatible, and of this there may be merit (if God exists he created reason ex post facto) but thats a long way from claiming mans reason can prove god.

“The fact is there is no such thing as consensus science. If there is a consensus, it is not science and if it is science it is not consensus—period. I will quote the late, great Michael Crichton on some of the history of consensus science and the damage that it can do:
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.
In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.”

Now this quote follows directly on from the one above. That’s important because Jensen is using it to show that science doesn’t hold all the answers and often important scientific claims face overwhelming objections. That’s very true. Only Jensen is citing cases from the rise of the scientific revolution, when the consensus was informed not by competing scientific data (at least as we would understand it), but was directly informed by over 1000 years of superstitiously informed witchery, derived from…. a consensus view of gods existence. And if science’s consensus should be inherently doubted as Jensen is implying, what approach will he take should his wife be taken by fever? Would he accept modern sciences consensus view or demand an alternate approach?

At least Jensen is doing one good public service, by spouting such nonsense despite having a PhD (in materials engineering on ceramics) he is proving you don’t need to be that bright to get a doctorate. That’s a useful service. That he was also an air traffic controller with this grasp of logic is much more worrying.
The Chaser’s CNNN ran a sketch in 2004 showing people of the street mis-interpreting and simply not-understanding the issues debated in modern politics, before bringing down a stamp “This person votes”. In light of Jensen’s comments, I think we need the resurrect the sketch with a new stamp “This person votes on your behalf”.

Watching the Q & A special last night featuring 200 school kids and the Prime Minister, many twitter’s (both journos and political junkies) wondered aloud how many Young Liberals were in the audience, such was their willingness to attack and push the Prime Minister on issue. The press this morning are declaring the kids victory

However, while the polls show reasonable support, it’s no surprise why Rudd is not popular with young voters (Those <30).

First, Rudd won them over in 2007 not for what he represented but who he threatened to defeat: Howard. Even in the heady days of Kevin 07 there was prescious little love for the man. He looked and sounded like a daggy dad, a perception even appearences on Rove and commercial FM couldn't shift. He can tell a joke, and his natural preference for discussing policy specifics rather than vision or principles bores or is ignored by younger voters. (This same communication problem emerged again last night, where he only really began to bring the crowd around when discussing specifics of dealing with climate change. When he had no clear policy, such as a question on raising the drinking age or copyright laws he fumbled and resorted to cliches about following 'evidenced based policy' as a way to end the discussion).

In policy, Rudd's government has been if anything deeply hostile to young voters interests.
- Education: Rudd’s spending here is welcome, but its changes to University support schemes (blocked by the opposition) only fix some problems on the margins, and created immediate crises for many who just finished school. It hasn’t addressed the fundamental financial difficulty faced by students, who unlike Rudd’s generation don’t want free education, just to make things a little easier (like putting education supplies such as Text books on HECS, clear & easy to understand support schemes, and attention to housing and youth unemployment issues).
– The Internet filter: (which strangely didn’t come up last night in Q&A) is also a hot burning issue, as it is seen as directly interfering with the way of life of young people, and communicates that the government doesn’t understand the internet and doesn’t trust them either. Which plays off the two eternal points of dispute between all kids and authority: Understanding and Trust. Not acting on an R18+ rating for games is also seen as a lack of leadership and weakness.
– Economics: Most young people hated work choices with a passion. Not being business owners themselves, and doubting the wisdom of the liberals claims that young people can always negotiate conditions (or simply leave), they saw themselves as the almost intended victims of the scheme. Even those mid20’s young professionals who stood to benefit from the package took it as a affront to their values and sign of the ownership of the Howard Government by big business. Yet youth unemployment is the highest out of all age brackets, at almost 19%, nearly four times the national average. Included in this is a significant amount of under-employment too, especially for students. New conditions in the Fair Work Australia package such as a minimum three hour work shift, are both welcomed by some, but also seen as punishing others) It’s easy to say you oppose current workplace legislation, its much much harder to be responsible for every bad boss, difficult circumstance or poor student in the country.
- Social issues: While Rudd has significantly expanded the rights of homosexual couples and grudgingly acquiesced to ceremonies for civil unions in the ACT, he has communicated an image of strong social conservatism that is repellant to many young people. It’s one thing for a conservative senior citizen (Howard) to articulate such views, its another for a supposed center-left baby boomer to also claim so. Not only is it the policy Rudd has followed, but the seeming unwillingness to discuss or accept the legitimacy of any other point of view. All such talk of Euthanasia, or Drug liberalisation (even Harm Minimisation) has likewise been kept well and truly off the agenda of discussion.

In short, Rudd was neither popular coming in, has yet to address any major youth issues in policy, and seems to communicate a message of deliberate avoidance, in a wonkish and daggy way to most young Australians. Rudd’s been able to do so, because he figures (rightly) that Young voters have no where else to go. Turnbull was a bit too much of a wealthy ne’er do well to attract them, and Abbott is seen as a reactionary throw back, especially with his comments on virginity (though his exercise vitality and sense of fight will attract some young men). If they vote Green (as they do in numbers slightly above their parents/grandparents) their preferences will inevitably flow back to the ALP, and more and more once they’ve reached voting age they live in the cities in safer ALP seats.

So Rudd wont face an electoral backlash for it, and fronting the kids as he did last night will earn some browny points, especially the way he quickly (and for once humanely) responded on issues of racism (Indian attacks/Burqa ban) and insisted that Australia should be a tolerant and open society. How this squares with his censorship of the net, disavowal of gay rights and restrictions on alcohol (indeed for a moment he seemed to support raising the drinking age to 21, before quickly retreating) is hard to tell. And yes, every up coming generation feels ignored by those in power, longing for the day it can take over and punish their own kids in the way they faced. But still, it sucks.

Kevin ‘10: Yeah guess so..

An thought provoking and amusing piece from The Jakarta Post:

Do Asians have a sense of humor?
Nury Vittachi
…
A teacher who wanted only to be known as Man-sir had sent me links to several articles which said the biggest threat to world peace was the culture gap between West and East. “Experts say the best bet for bridging that potentially catastrophic gap is shared entertainment: movies, sport, and in particular, humor,” he wrote.

But that’s the problem. “Westerners consider Asians to be wildly unfunny. And several non-Western cultural groups, such as Muslims and Mainland Chinese, they consider humorless to a dangerous degree,” Man-sir wrote. “We need to prove Asians can be funny.”
…
Intelligent, sensible people do not waste time on people who insult them. So I dropped what I was doing and phoned him at once. The world’s most pressing problem was a drastic shortage of Islamic humor, he explained. “Locating and distributing this will defuse global tension by showing that Muslims can be funny, charming and self-deprecating.” Thinking about it, I realized words like “funny” and “charming” aren’t used a lot about Osama Bin Laden, the only Muslim most Westerners can name. Man-sir was right about something else, too: Asian comedians are as rare as braincells in the Jonas Brothers’ fan club.

I’ll leave aside the question of asian’s being funny ( Anh Do always cracks me up), but the role of humor as a political weapon is a critical and under-discussed issue in shaping the psychological nature of the war on terrorism. This is something one of my favourite comedians Lewis Black noted way back in 2002: The fundamental difference between the west and its attackers was that we could laugh. We could laugh at ourselves, we could laugh at them, and relief from the burdens of life through humor, and in that we could find perspective. Given our moral descent into torture and the angry stridency that even 7 years later still marks our (esp the US’s) debate on terrorism, it’s worth reminding ourselves of this virtue.

Humor has always been a deadly political weapon. Peter Costello was at best a decent parliamentary performer, but elevated to god of the chambers by the press for his ability to wield humor. Throughout history the greatest leaders have often been the ones with strong senses of humor. Doris Keane Godwin places significant emphasis on Abraham Lincoln’s ability to tell a good joke as a key asset, not only for relieving tension between his stressed war cabinet, and as an internal stress relief mechanism. When Lincoln was told his best general general Ulysses S Grant was a drinker he declared he wanted to know what he drank and send a crate of it to all his military leaders. When he was waylaid by a minor case of smallpox he still managed to tell his secretary that he rather liked the disease, for it at ensured he could give something to every office seeker who arrived in his office. FDR, Churchill, Kennedy and others possessed either a keen wit or a genial good humor that kept them going. Australia’s longest serving politician Robert Menzies was a favourite after dinner speaker for his supply of anacdotes and loved public meetings where he could verbally parry and strike at hecklers.

Australia seems ill served today, with Rudd seeming a rather humorless man (and Howard before him couldn’t tell a joke to save his life), but observers of the USA can’t fail to have noted the dead pan humor of Obama. His great delivery ensures pre-written jokes crackle before audiences, but it’s also spontaneous too as demonstrated in his recent Q&A with Republicans last week. While Obama’s command of the details was critical, the clinching fact for many was Obama’s ability to deploy humor and keep the mood light in the face of his angry and sometimes uncivil opponents. While many in the USA are so blindingly angry (and many on TV pretending to be so to gain their money/support), Obama’s ability to use humor while initially off putting will in time come to be seen as evidence he is truely in command and fits comfortably into the suit of President of the United States of America.

It also sends an inspiring message to the world, that the west is not dismayed and frightened or even distracted by the threat of terrorism or even economic strife. The psychological war element of WW2 shifted when the British were able to keep getting up, going to work and living their lives despite Hitlers threatening forces just 150 miles away. Against a much weaker and much more dependent on psychological (It’s called terror for a reason) we in the free world, west and east, whatever our culture or location, humor is a powerful weapon. It shows how little our opponents are compared to ourselves and will act as an important release valve during tough debates about how to fight a battle that never ends and targets our loved ones at home.

Below the fold a few good War on Terror jokes and video of Obama’s pre-election roast(McCain was also pretty funny). If you know any good related jokes, please post them in the comments.

Continue reading…

Discussing the pro’s & con’s of Democrats passing the health care bill in the US, Reason.com’s Peter Suderman writes

the choice for Democrats may actually be whether they want they want to be portrayed as so single-minded in their determination to push their unpopular agenda on the public that they are willing to use party-line voting and any sort of obscure procedural trickery they can come up with to get it passed, or whether they want to be able to make the argument that they responded to the public’s clear concerns and backed off an incredibly unpopular piece of legislation when they had the chance.

Suderman of course doesn’t want the bill to pass, but his reasoning is an all too clear example of the fear the political class have of a voter backlash for their actions. Indeed the political class and Center-Left wing politicians, especially in the USA are almost paranoid in its worry about appeasing the voters, to the extent it ends up doing a much poorer job & therefore looking much less competent than it should otherwise. To fix this, left wing leaders need to take a leaf out of conservatives like Reagan, Bush and Howard and have the courage of their convictions. The media and political class will always be jumpy, but our leaders ought to know better. Obama seemed to promise this at the start, but the fear seems to have crept in of late.

As I wrote yesterday, one of the things that most hurt the push for humanitarian interventions was Bill Clinton’s ardent desire not to see any US troops killed during his time in office. Not only is this a cowardly way to be commander-in-chief, it stems from a fear of public outrage that probably never existed. As George Bush Jnr demonstrated, even with controversial wars like Iraq the public will tolerate reasonable numbers of casualties (far less than previous era’s, but well above zero) without losing support for the action or politically punishing the leadership. The public know the military is there to fight and sometimes die for their saftey and whilst wishing every soldier comes home safe, know that isn’t possible. But Clinton never trusted them to be that reasonable and so subverted where and how the military was deployed, in ways that ended up making him look weak and perhaps even hurting the countries saftey (ie only firing the occasional missile at Osama rather than more deliberate activity)

In the case of Obama, he seems desperate to avoid the public seeing him and democrats as partisan warriors. Part of this is rational, an elevated debate is critical for the good of the nation, and will help Democrats get more of their policies through, but it’s also largely political fear driving the calculation as Sunderman endorses above, worrying that being “willing to use party-line voting and any sort of obscure procedural trickery” will see Democrats punished at the polls.

The problem with this claim is that it radically over-estimates the public’s dislike or distrust of partisan conflict. Whether cynicism or founding father like wisdom about the benefits of a partisan discourse, people don’t actually mind partisan conflict. Indeed they want it. Most people have a clear party preference, and even if they will occasionally vote for the other side they are happy to see blows traded. If this was not the case, Republicans would have been significantly punished for their uniquely oppositional abuse of senate procedures over the last 12 months. Nothing like it has been seen before, and whilst polls indicate Republicans are less popular than Democrats, its not by much, and the public seem to be just as receptive to Republican arguments as to Democratic ones. What the parties do in the legislature has almost no effect on whether people are likely to agree with them on if Health Care is the right choice or what to do about the deficit.

This fear of the public by the political class is also having a crippling effect over the deficit. Having made the deficit a big issue, the political class are petrified about telling the public the ways to deal with it: Cutting entitlements and raising taxes. Yet where it has occurred elsewhere (like Australia under Howard in 1996, or the US under Reagan), whilst there is initial public outrage, this is quickly forgotten and accepted if results are begun to be seen. Without these two policies, the deficit can not be seriously addressed, yet neither Republicans (who now claim to be defenders of entitlements like medicare) and democrats (who’ve passed some of the largest tax cuts in history in the last few years) are willing to risk seriously engaging with the public on this.

This all proves why Obama is so important and necessary. He does know these are problems, he does seem to want to seriously address them, and in his language he is slowly trying to elevate the discussion. But he still seems to fear the public outright (or his advisors do and are holding sway) and so is both looking weak politically, but also failing to be the engine of reforming government into a capable and competent force once more that they had wanted. Liberals like Obama (and Rudd) would do well to look at the confidence shown by Conservatives in government, recognise that any opposition will be short term and know that if their solutions are as good as promised, the public will reward them at the election for it.

I somewhat understand why the Indian media is so keen to play up the idea that Indians are victimised in Australia. The government is pissed at Rudd over Uranium/NPT, and its always popular to play the nationalist card. What I don’t understand is why the Australian media seems to be aiding them:

INDIA’S high commissioner, Sujatha Singh, will return to Delhi for talks next week amid rising diplomatic tension over attacks on Indian students in Australia. Mrs Singh made a stinging complaint to the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, over the attacks in Melbourne, labelling Victoria a state ”in denial” over the severity of the problem.
Word of the envoy’s return came after India’s External Affairs Minister, S. M. Krishna, issued a strong statement on the attacks, demanding they be “stopped forthwith”. Mrs Singh will travel to Delhi to explain her perspective on the violence, which threatens to seriously damage relations between the nations.

This sounds like a major diplomatic incident. Especially in an era of easy phone, electronic and video communication, recalling a diplomat to discuss a problem is a gesture heavy with meaning. Indeed my first thought on reading the story was ‘what has set of this new row’ that such a step would be made.

Only it turns out, Singh isn’t heading back because of the attacks, and this is all just routine: (From the same article a few paragraphs down)

Some Indian media outlets are reporting she has been “recalled” because of the controversy surrounding the attacks. But a government source said the meetings were not out of the ordinary and Mrs Singh was not being “summoned back”. “She is scheduled to come back on routine consultation duties scheduled from 10 to 16 February to apprise the government and minister of her on-the-ground assessment … and also to apprise the government here of steps taken by the Australian authorities.”

“Diplomat returns for routine briefing, will discuss current events” isn’t as good a story but it has one fundamental advantage: It’s actually the truth.

If Australian’s reaction to the attacks on Indian students has seemed low key, its fundamentally because Australians don’t believe their is a racist attitude towards Indians in their community, and so put the attacks down to either random chance/bad luck (walking alone at 2am in some areas is never a wise idea) or occasional nutters which every society has. The Government and police could certainly have done a better job responding, but socially its not an issue. However constant attacks by the Indian media that claim Australia is racist, and media reports that seem to suggest a significant conflict is occuring between our two nations have the potential to actually trigger negative sentiments by Australians towards indians. No one likes being called racist, and in the minds of the nutters out there inclined to already hate people based on their race, an attack might switch from being simple petty hatred to defending their countries pride and reputation.

The media in both Australia and India have a duty to report fairly and accurately the details (the recent fraudulent claims about a petrol attack on an Indian man being a perfect example of the need to be cautious), but also to keep the issue in perspective and not let their desire for conflict (for reasons of sales over ideology/nationalism) interfere with their jobs and basic allegiance to the truth.

Christopher Hitchens on North Korea:

Here are the two most shattering facts about North Korea. First, when viewed by satellite photography at night, it is an area of unrelieved darkness. Barely a scintilla of light is visible even in the capital city. (See this famous photograph.) Second, a North Korean is on average six inches shorter than a South Korean. You may care to imagine how much surplus value has been wrung out of such a slave, and for how long, in order to feed and sustain the militarized crime family that completely owns both the country and its people.

But this is what proves Myers right. Unlike previous racist dictatorships, the North Korean one has actually succeeded in producing a sort of new species. Starving and stunted dwarves, living in the dark, kept in perpetual ignorance and fear, brainwashed into the hatred of others, regimented and coerced and inculcated with a death cult: This horror show is in our future, and is so ghastly that our own darling leaders dare not face it and can only peep through their fingers at what is coming.

While the Iraqi people have suffered due to the Bush Administrations botching of the invasion of Iraq, it is the people of the world who are still in abject dictatorship which have suffered the most. Designed as a giant confidence play to strike fear and the necessity of submission into dictators world wide, its controversy, bungling and cost have instead given ultimate re-assurance. Among the dead lies the idea of Humanitarian Interventions, a liberal idea of cautious military use to protect individuals, turned into a conservative rock tune of freedom and change by mid-afternoon.

While there were mistakes and setbacks in the 1990’s (in particular Clinton’s and other democratic leaders significant over-estimation of public unwillingness accept the loss of life towards such aims), progress had been made in establishing the idea as a viable policy option, with mechanisms and even discussion of standing forces to be dedicated towards the task rising. But that option has been fundamentally damaged, and the discussion returned to a taboo, both by liberals who now fear the underlying motives of any self-professed moral activity by government/the military and conservatives who either don’t see any rewards (those ungrateful iraqis!) or now out of office have re-found their worry about military over-reach and the power of government to affect societal change.

None of this is to say that we should invade North Korea, or that they’d be free were it not for Bush (obviously not). But the option for policy makers has been removed from the table, and is awkwardly side-stepped when brought up in polite company or the halls of academia and foreign policy commentators. Even now, nearly 7 years on from Iraq, the wounds are still too raw for us to escape the inevitable comparison: If you advocate humanitarian invasion you’re a Neo-Con with hidden imperialist motives, if you argue a better society can be brought about, few see anything but images of suicide bombs and IED’s filling their imagination.

Appropriately implemented Humanitarian Intervention I would argue is a fundamental element of a peaceful, democratic world society. Implementing the norm of Sovereignty in 17th century Europe may have brought us freedom from religious wars (well largely) but we also need to ensure that governments can no longer hide behind the security of their own borders to avoid responsibility for their crimes against their citizens and humanity at large. Many countries make the shift to democracy on their own, but some stubborn few have to be blasted out. Until we can return to a discussion about even that possibility (again in the context of full discussion and needing an appropriate process such as UN authorization) then the oppressed, shrinking slaves of places like North Korea will continue to suffer alone and in the dark.

Today marks 360 years since the death of Rene Descartes. Descartes is the first of the modern philosophers in that he represents the emergence of the scientific and thus modern mindset. Indeed that the man on the street largely sees himself in terms of mind and body is due to this philosopher. Descartes sought to bring certainty to knowledge, and sitting in an oven one day (he tells us it was cold) he realised the only thing he could be certain of was that he was a thinking thing. This is the origin of the famous cogito ergo sum, “I think therefore I am”. Which has entranced & dismayed philosophers and undergraduates everywhere for hundreds of years. Yet while the quest for certainty is admirable, it is also deeply misleading and ultimately damaging. Both in what little benefit results from certainty and more practically in misleading us about the worth of knowledge we already have. Descartes project philosophically ended soon after his death, but in misunderstanding the value of knowledge, much of the scientific community is risking our very lives.

The love of certainty over the shifting and transitory is as old as philosophy itself. Plato’s entire project involved the repudiation of the empirical and political in favour of establishing certainty. Many philosophers have invoked God as a crutch to guarantee that the phenomena of life (colours, sounds, movement etc) is more than just sensory data within our own minds, but represents exactly something which is “out there”. It is the holy grail of all knowledge, that something is absolutely certain, and yet no 2nd step has ever been added to Descartes cogito (indeed many even doubt that). Even if Descartes is entirely correct, his knowledge gives us absolutely nothing of value (beyond entertainment). We may be thinking things but in vats manipulated by chemicals, we may even be thinking things in human form in a world identical to our perception of it, and yet we still hunger, thirst, lust, and sweat identically even with this knowledge. This is not to renounce the project of knowledge itself, but whether Descartes cogito ergo sum is certain knowledge or just knowledge makes no practical difference.

The far more malicious side of the quest for certainty is the way it shapes the worth we apply to knowledge we already have. Science in modern times has been deeply affected by this, for both its practitioners and in its image in the public mind. While science is not like religion, it shares a faith like belief in its own ability to deliver certainty, not through revealed truth, but through a method. The results may change, but the method is what proves the wisdom of the course. When attacked in our modern and increasingly partisan public sphere, science and its boosters have tended to retreat towards this comfort of certainty, allowing public knowledge to be subverted by those opposed. Nothing illustrates this better than the question of Global Warming. In many ways the evidence is simply overwhelming that the planet is heating, that its causes can be reasonably identified, and that man has had some significant effect on this situation. Yet in the last decade the scientific community has been left almost dumbstruck that so many politicians and people resisted accepting their viewpoint in the first place, and once it was largely accepted that a rising chorus of voices has been able to reverse the tide and in some cases (like Australia) reverse government legislation addressing it.

Like Plato, or religious fundamentalists, Scientists when attacked or hurt by society tended to retreat to their more pure and certain quest for knowledge as a way of insulating and protecting themselves. When critics of Global warming attack, the response inevitably is that the attackers themselves have no credibility because they don’t have peer-reviewed papers, they haven’t degrees in the field, they don’t know and havn’t used the scientific method in determining their views of global warming, and so therefore are automatically invalid. But the truth of the claims of global warming skeptics has no relation whatso ever to how often or little they have been published, what their degree is, or their motives. Science only has a way of assessing the likely truth of each claim through its method, not ownership of the entire field of what is true. This is an important distinction oftern forgotten by scientists and especially their boosters. This may be career threatening when involving a dispute within the field (ie the shift in various paradigms in physics or astronomy), however it is threatening to the authority of the entire discipline and perhaps even the well being of the species, an area it has formerly dominated (Capitalism may make us wealthier, but it is scientific advancement which has allowed us to live longer/better).

This treatment of scientific knowledge as quantitatively different from other forms of knowledge has also severely impeded the ability of the scientific community to communicate with the general public. It sets them up for nit-picking where it is assumed by the public that they ought to be infallible (such as the back down over the melting Himalayan glaciers, and perhaps some claims about ice levels), and discourages many scientists from seeking out either professional communicators to push their views, or entering the arena directly themselves. Like Plato 2400 years before them, to publicly advocate what is the latest scientific knowledge is all too often seen as a dirty, compromising, and pointless endeavour. And to do so arguing against people without even scientific degrees or who have never been published in the field… well!

Yet for the good of the scientific community, many many more scientists need to get over this absurd concern for purity and decend into the political arena. Politics and communication are not a dirty words, and it is only through an understanding if not mastery of the political sphere (and here i mean social, cultural relations as well as partisan debates) that the scientific community will be able to ensure the best reception and understanding of their work. People like Richard Dawkins and Tim Flannery are doing good work, but both suffer from an absolute arrogance of tone and only reasonable communication skills. Dawkins in particular could learn a lot from his friend Christopher Hitchens. Who is usually polite, and yet strident, willing to debate almost anyone at any time or location. It’s a rather thankless job, but it is needed. It is a job that takes knowledge as an abstract thing (number of particles in an atom, colours of a mexican flying beetle, function of white cells in the body) and makes it practical by educating, and inserting that knowledge into the culture and social environment.

We are firmly ensconsed in a hyper-partisan world. It may have always been thus, but many still have not caught up. Science can’t expect to be able to dictate claims about truth to the world without shedding its claimed authority as the nearest thing to certainty (which makes it more vunerable, not less publicly), and unless it is willing to engage the public sphere on its own terms and according to its own rules. Descartes for all his glory, is not the model the scientist currently operating needs to look up to. Instead, scientists should see themselves as more like explorers, venturing forth to obtain and then bring back pieces to the public. The dissemination and education of reality needs to be seen as just as important as the discovery, yet this is an aspect that has been scorned for far too long, due to pretensions to certainty and disdain for the impurity of public life and political participation. But that needs to change, not only for the well-being of the scientific discipline itself, but perhaps humanity as well. Global warming might make things uncomfortable, doubting whether a asteroid really is headed for earth might just kill us.

Crikey has the scoop today that the Rudd government is considering allowing/pushing Australia post to expand its financial services into a full blown bank as a way of breaking up the stranglehold of the big four banks.

Crikey can reveal that the Rudd Government commissioned a scoping study into the establishment of a publicly-owned banking capability by Australia Post, with positive results. As Crikey detailed in August last year, Oz Post has been trying to address the long-term decline in postal volumes by encouraging mail marketing and exploiting its branch network to offer a wider range of the sort of services that still require interaction.

This already includes financial services under licence from several banks and up to 70 financial institutions in all, including business banking services from NAB and the Commonwealth. Last year, Australia Post itself began offering insurance services. About 3,300 Australia Post outlets offer external banking services now, just under three times the number of branches of the largest bank network, Westpac/St George.

While the economics have pros & cons, politically this strikes me as a very risky if not downright awful decision if followed through. Rudd already has a reputation as anti-market in the media (being a Labor MP, Stimulus spending, End of Neo-liberalism essay, keeping book tariffs etc). For a party trying to present itself as representing the future over its regressive opponents, going against the 30 year trend to privatization makes little sense. Endorsing the creation of a publicly owned bank would just about drive the economic liberals who dominate the editors/opinion leaders of the press insane and with them a chance to enshrine Labor as the default governing party for the next 20-30 years.

As I’ve argued before, many economic liberals have lost their suction to the Coalition after Howard’s departure. Rudd’s description of himself as an “economic conservative” and talk of efficiency and productivity through his investment in education lured many away. And now with Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce ruling the roost, the coalition isn’t the safe haven of support & re-enforcement it once was, indeed it’s looking decidedly shaky and populist.

Yet Rudd seems to have only made a half-hearted effort at recruiting them. He may talk of productivity as part of his Australia day (week) speeches, but his actions speak loudly to this skeptical and (somewhat paranoid) group. Rudds decision to not support a change in parallel imports of books despite the Productivity Commissions report is a perfect example of a policy with a relatively light cost (from a social democrat/arts supporter viewpoint) and much to gain. Indeed you could almost see the press gallery shift away from Rudd at the end of last year soon after this decision was announced (and even worse is that Rudd ‘excused’ himself in a split cabinet because one of his kids is writing a book). As an aside Bob Carr today makes the obvious point that the impending arrival of Apples badly named but oh so cool ipad makes the ALP’s decision laughable.

Establishing an aussie bank under Australia Post may appeal to many in the public superficially, but its positive political impact is likely to be small and slowly occurring, whilst re-enforcing a big government, big spending, big bureaucracy image that Abbott and the editors of the Australian are trying to pin on Rudd. This is not about the forthcoming election which is already in the bag, but a generational re-alignment of those of a liberal ideology both socially and economically who are giving Labor a fresh look they wouldn’t have considered during the 90s and most of the 2000’s. Creating a government owned Australia bank would probably scare them off, and with it a chance for Labor to establish political dominance for the next 20+ years. (Along with hopefully leading Labor to become more liberal in attitude which is why i want to see this occur along with its political benefits).

When Abbott took over, I argued that he would surprise many for the moderateness of his views. The public, I thought would get a chance to re-examine him, but it seems a combination of clumsy language on Abbott’s behalf, and a bored media are going to ensure he will be back to the caricatured mad monk before the month is out. Take this piece from The Australian:

Tony Abbott warns women against sex before marriage
TONY Abbott urges women to save their virginity for marriage and reveals mixed feelings about contraception in a new interview.

After conducting a charm offensive over the summer break and rejecting suggestions his conservative social views were a turnoff to women, the Liberal leader has been subjected to a grilling in the next edition of the Australian Women’s Weekly about his views on sex, marriage and his own daughters’ virginity.

The new Liberal leader is understood to have suggested men and women should try and adhere to “the rules” when it comes to sex before marriage and when they can’t he has conceded they should use contraception.

Which isn’t that far from what he said in 2005 “they[his daughters] should be very careful about doing things that they might regret and doing things that might in the long run cause them to have less self respect and less respect for others than might be the case”, which is also in line with what he says in his book.

It’s also not far from what every father has said to their kids since time immortal (and a lot more accepting than most would have been).Yet the instant reaction from the ALP, Greens, womens groups and even the conservative press is to tag anyone who even addresses the issue of contraception, or abortion as an invasive reactionary.
I’m in two minds about this, given my own liberal views on the importance of individual freedom, and arbitrariness of what conservatives claim are the “rules”, on the other hand, Abbott like all public figures ought to speak on important issues, and we ought to be able to have an open discussion about it. (Some might call this the burden of political correctness at work, but its a feather weight if that). Radically, he answered a question when asked, and advocated views that few would disagree with, and yet he has suffered two days plus of grief for it. The fault is partly his for clumsy language, but also because people are seeing the stereotype at work instead of what was actually said.

On Immigration, a similar story was visible over the weekend. A poor choice of words and political strategy by Abbott and the nature of the news beast:

Obey the law at least, Abbott tells migrants

Speaking at a dinner hosted by the Australia Day Council in Melbourne, Mr Abbott said Australians were worried about the rise in the number of boat people, the ability of migrants to obey the law and the strain new arrivals put on the nation’s resources….Migrants would be more popular if minority leaders encouraged them to adopt more mainstream values and abide by the law, he said. ”The inescapable minimum that we insist upon is obedience to the law,” Mr Abbott said. ”It would help to bolster public support for immigration and acceptance of social diversity if more minority leaders were as ready to show to mainstream Australian values the respect they demand of their own.”

Abbott’s claims here are no more than any Prime Minister from Post-WW2 has said. Indeed was anyone at any doubt that following the law was a requirement of citizenship? Perhaps the migrants of whom 96% passed the citizenship test were unaware of this basic fact. Abbott’s point is therefore both true but also banal. From the mouth of Rudd such words would have gone entirely un-noticed, but when Abbott stumbles in with such pointless claims, he makes himself out to being a intolerant fool. This is not some devils curl of the tongue to entice the former one-nation voters, Abbott is simply being in artful & bland, whilst re-enforcing a stereotype that is certainly wrong on immigration (none in the Coalition did more to bring down One-Nation than he) and damaging. Amazingly in the same speech Abbott even claims “The last thing that any Australian should want is to make recent immigrants feel unwelcome in their new country,”, yet his speeches and more importantly the media reports of these will if anything add to that impression. It’s an own goal rhetorically.

Abbott is rather progressive for a conservative Christian on issues of contraception, abortion and immigration. Yet though his first month in the job has been solid, he has done little to counter the image once built up on him, which is allowing a bored press and an only half-observant public to see his new actions through the old cut out image they held for him. The picture might not yet fully fit within the lines (esp his speeches on Aboriginal affairs and the Environment), but it still seems close enough. Like “headkicker” Latham who surprised many with his talk of reading to preschool kids, or “nerdbot” Rudd with his emotive talk about growing up poor & in the country, Abbott needs a way to break the stereotype that was in place as a minister, briefly lifted when he took over but is now slowly dropping back down into place over him.

While I take a more liberal line than him on such issues (I’m not sure that ones virginity is that important, and a focus on it not only slightly creepy but a hold over from negotiations for arranged marriages), Tony Abbott should be applauded for his willingness to speak up on such important social issues and being willing to directly answer the question. Yet it’s not just spur of the moment choices that are getting him in trouble, the same lack of political strategy is evident in his prepared speeches such as on immigration. Abbott & coalition strategists need to work quickly on shaking up how the press and public see him, otherwise this election will be an embarrassing rout, with the liberal leader unheard and ignored for the rest of the year (The same fate his mentor Howard suffered during 2007).

I supported Obama during 2007, 2008 for the skills he represented, far more than the position he held. I was always prepared to be disappointed, he is not my national leader, he was the most conservative of candidates, and yet his strategy of clinging close to the congressional leadership had led him closer to Health Care Reform than any man before him, Republican & Democrat. While believing every man deserves his due support, over the last few months, my enthusiasm has wained, along with his seeming political skill. Yet here, post-Massachusetts, in the depths of despair I find this, the very statement I have been wishing for him to make for the last few months:

Obama in Ohio 22 January 2010

“So here’s the good news: We’ve gotten pretty far down the road. But I’ve got to admit, we had a little bit of a buzz saw this week. (Laughter.)
Now, I also know that part of the reason is, is that this process was so long and so drawn out — this is just what happens in Congress. I mean, it’s just an ugly process. You’re running headlong into special interests, and armies of lobbyists, and partisan politics that’s aimed at exploiting fears instead of getting things done. And then you’ve got ads that are scaring the bejesus out of everybody. (Laughter.) And the longer it take, the uglier it looks.

So I understand why people would say, boy, this is — I’m not so sure about this — even though they know that what they got isn’t working. And I understand why, after the Massachusetts election, people in Washington were all in a tizzy, trying to figure out what this means for health reform, Republicans and Democrats; what does it mean for Obama? Is he weakened? Is he — oh, how’s he going to survive this? (Laughter.) That’s what they do. (Laughter.)

But I want you — I want you to understand, this is not about me. (Applause.) This is not about me. This is about you. This is not about me; this is about you. I didn’t take this up to boost my poll numbers. You know the way to boost your poll numbers is not do anything. (Laughter.) That’s how you do it. You don’t offend anybody. I’d have real high poll numbers. All of Washington would be saying, “What a genius!” (Laughter.)

I didn’t take this on to score political points. I know there are some folks who think if Obama loses, we win. But you know what? I think that I win when you win. (Applause.) That’s how I think about it.

So if I was trying to take the path of least resistance, I would have done something a lot easier. But I’m trying to solve the problems that folks here in Ohio and across this country face every day. And I’m not going to walk away just because it’s hard. We are going to keep on working to get this done — with Democrats, I hope with Republicans — anybody who’s willing to step up. Because I’m not going to watch more people get crushed by costs or denied care they need by insurance company bureaucrats. I’m not going to have insurance companies click their heels and watch their stocks skyrocket because once again there’s no control on what they do.
So long as I have some breath in me, so long as I have the privilege of serving as your President, I will not stop fighting for you.”

On Friday last week I couldn’t even pick up David Plouffe’s book ‘The Audacity to Win’, such was my disappointment at Obama. If he can however make this speech his widely known creed over the next few weeks & months, then he may indeed be the one we have been waiting for.

Now Pass.The.Damn.Bill

By now I’m sure everyone has heard the row over biblical passages being enscribed on gun sights for US Troops. Why or how anyone whose read the New Testament could see warrant for putting them on military hardware is beyond me. Anyway, turns out the same manafacturer has been selling them to the Australian Defence Department. Locally, this is an easy mistake to fix, but the excuse given by the Defence Department is truely odd:

Defence Minister John Faulkner has ordered the Defence Department to remove references to biblical passages marked on gunsights being used by Australian troops in Afghanistan. References to New Testament verses were etched onto the gunsights by the American manufacturer, Trijicon, and the department says it was unaware of their meaning at the time of purchase.

Among the coded inscriptions on Trijicon gunsights are JN8:12, an apparent reference to John 8:12: “Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” Another made reference to Psalms 27:1: “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?”.

They didn’t know what “The Lord is my light and salvation” meant? Or twig to why coded references were on their equipment and have someone with some cultural literacy? Obviously we want to keep religious education well away from our soldiers manuals, but surely at school the future generals and officers learnt from the bible. I may not be a christian, but I’ve certainly read the bible and have been meaning to pick up a copy again soon as a refresher. So much of our culture from great literature to daily conversation is peppered with metaphors, similies and analogies from the bible. You almost can’t be considered a literate or educated if you’ve never learnt anything of it.
Yet the Defence Department is really going with a lack of understanding as their justification?

Bob McMullan chatting to students 2006. Authors photo

Ever since I can remember, Canberra has been represented by two labor members in the House of Representatives, Annette Ellis for Canberra (south of the lake) and Bob McMullan for Fraser(City Centre & Northside). On Tuesday McMullan announced his retirement at the coming election (he was going to quit in 2013), and by the time you are reading this, Annette Ellis will have announced she too is leaving (/being pushed out).

While I’ve only once bumped into Ellis, I’ve met McMullan a number of times. He was very generous with his time as Shadow Treasurer to me for 2 different TAFE journalism assignments, and when I was running a political society at Uni he twice came and gave off the cuff speeches, glass of wine in hand. His big glasses and quiet manners make him look a shy type, but he works a room very ably. While I’d lived within Ellis’s electorate most of my life, I had been looking forward to casting a vote for McMullan in Fraser this year, but not to be.

Though one of the few members of the ALP with ministerial experience, (as former minister for Trade, Admin & Arts, and ALP National Secretary), he unfortunately was sidelined by both Latham and Rudd. Latham’s diary contains some particularly harsh claims, and Rudd, despite claiming to have picked his own cabinet, could find no room for this hard working ‘Centrist’ faction member. Not quite a faction to speak of, McMullan along with the now deceased Peter Cook and a few others somehow managed to buck the power of the unions, though neither was quite given the influence their talents deserved. Though McMullan seemed quite dissapointed not to have recieved a ministery under Rudd, he has taken to his role as Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance with aplomb and is now set to take an NGO job in the field and carry on the work. One of the rare cases where a quick cross over from Government to Industry is to be endorsed.

Unsurprisingly for two of the safest seats in the country (With a 23% buffer for Canberra and 30% for Fraser), the fight for the seats is fierce. Early names being thrown around include Nick Martin the Federal Labor assistant party secretary, Constitutional Lawyer/Public Intellectual George Williams, Peter Conway a former ALP senate Candidate, Michael Cooney (local Minister Andrew Barr’s Chief of Staff), Rudd’s wunderkid & chief of staff Alistar Jordan, and ANU’s wunderkid economics Professor Andrew Leigh. Surprisingly, local MP’s such as Jon Stanhope & Andrew Barr have not got in the running, esp as Barr seems to have a bright future ahead of him, but he seems to be may be angling for ACT Chief Minister). Martin seems to be firming, but its pretty fluid. If you’re interested, Twitter has been the best place to find out the breaking nature of the story (admittedly by local journalists on the medium).

Given I know none of the candidates closely, and all have strong backgrounds, the ALP would be best served by choosing as young and up coming a star as possible. Ellis whilst a fine enough local candidate, had little to offer the federal party, putting the seat somewhat to waste. The party needs to find someone who can make a home in the seat for two decades or more and contribute consistently both to the community and to the federal policy/media profile. While Rudd is an exception, almost every Prime Minister has spent about 20 years in parliament before ascending to the top job. The public needs time to get to know them, as do their colleagues, and as I’ve been arguing for a while, politics is a profession that takes a long time to learn, something the Malcolm Turnbull’s of the world forget to their own misfortune.

The ACT is rare in having a the cleanest Rank & File pre-selection options in the country, but with Rudd at the helm, two members going & the ACT labor party a bit of a shambles administratively, the temptation for federal intervention will be strong. Hopefully the rank and file will reject that and choose someone who they want to see around canberra for the next 20 years. The ACT offers enticingly safe seats for ALP members, but Canberran’s can be pretty parochial. We get abused by the rest of the country for “our” politicians despite being the least represented place in the country; so when we do get a choice, we demand a local background and commitment to the city. I’d really like to see Andrew Leigh get up (his blog is here), but Williams or Martin sound good choices.

Vale McMullan, & Ellis and let the games commence.

In Obama’s inauguration speech there was a line that stood out:

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

If one of the defining characteristics of adult hood is the ability to accept defeat and setback and carry on (such as in If by Kipling) then it seems clear that neither US political party has taken that step. Both the Republicans over the past year, and the Democrats over the past 24 hours are showing what bad losers they are.

I’ve never been one to decry hardball politics, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find in the post war period a group as mendacious and arrogant as the Republican party has been since the election loss in 2008. Abusing a rare senate rule, they have declared that Obama has no mandate for any legislation whatsoever, and not even entitled to most of his administration team. While still yet to account for any of the errors of their own period in power, they make demand after demand without the slightest idea of policy proposals to achieve these ends (& vetoing opponents policy that would help).

But just as you can be a bad loser by denying the loss ever happened, you can also be a bad loser by breaking down, and jumping into self-pity as the Democratic party seem to be doing. Democrats lost by just 100′000 votes in a special election, with a god awful candidate in a country of 300 million, and Obama & the democrats still poll above republicans nationally. The option to pass the health care bill is still there (but only by passing the senates bill), along with many measures to make life better for Americans (and show that Republicans are unwilling to aid doing so)
Yet they seem to be giving up, crawling into a ball and telling the people they “heard the message” that they should never do anything ever again, or stand for anything ever again.

Its remarkable really, even in the depths of the ALP’s crisis under Howard or the Liberals under Rudd we saw nothing like that level of arrogant or cowardly behaviour. Only Fraser’s scheming to dismiss Whitlam in 1975 somewhat fits for bad sportsmanship.

Since the 19th century, US political parties have depicted themselves as Elephants and Donkeys. Right now, the brainless Scarcrow and a cowardly Lion seem a better fit. Let’s hope these two listen to Obama’s message and grow up. (Speaking of which, the President himself strikes me as somewhat similar to The Wicked Witch as seen in Gregory Maguire’s Wicked (novel behind the hit musical) I.e. possessed of a noticeably different skin colour & slightly grating demand for public morality, who eventually moves from a lack of understanding into being hated by the public without either side quite knowing why.

Seems there may be something afoot:

Samantha Maiden, Online Political Editor The Australian January 21, 2010
MALCOLM TURNBULL is being urged by supporters and business leaders to make a run for New South Wales premier in 2011.

“Everyone is telling Malcolm to quit federal politics and he think that’s the right thing to do. Everyone is telling him to have a go in state politics,” a Liberal supporter told The Australian Online..
…
“People are disenchanted with (New South Wales Opposition Leader) Barry (O’Farrell), they have reservations about whether he’s got the ticker. But there’s also a lot of rank and file anger about Turnbull’s behaviour. He would have to do a big mea culpa and apologise for his behaviour.”

Probably just summer speculations at this point, no figures openly promoting Turnbull, and Abbott & the federal leadership may figure Turnbull is too openly dangerous as a premier, even though they will still be in opposition come 2011. Still I liked the idea back when I proposed it on December 7th, and still like it now. If you want to see the arguments for & against, the post is here.

Would be a waste to see a capable guy like Turnbull leave public life so quickly.

When the history of the Rudd government is written, one of the most noteworthy facts will be the shift in the ALP away from the Union movement. This is perhaps the least union-friendly ALP Government in history. It’s not anthetical to the unions as say Howard was, it just doesn’t have the personal ties to it that Kim Beazley or Bob Hawke did, and when in a fight it is wiling to ditch them to win public support.

Take yesterdays news about the Teachers Union’s planned boycott over nation wide testing & potential league tables:

PUBLIC school teachers face sanctions and penalties, including docked pay, with a planned boycott of national literacy and numeracy tests likely to be deemed illegal under federal workplace laws.
Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has refused to rule out supporting action against teachers if they go through with their threat to boycott the tests, saying industrial action taken outside the enterprise bargaining period is not lawful.

Teachers covered by federal laws in Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory could have their pay docked by a minimum of four hours if Fair Work Australia deemed the boycott unlawful. Teachers in other state jurisdictions also face penalties, although these would probably apply to the union rather than individuals.

“Action that’s taken not within the context of bargaining is unprotected and there are sanctions and penalties under the workplace relations law to deal with unprotected industrial action,” Ms Gillard, who is also Education and Workplace Relations Minister, told ABC radio.

The teachers unions have never been that significant in ALP history, (despite their members making up a higher than average % of parliamentary members), but similar examples of indifference to unions can be found in the work place relations laws that came into effect on January 1:

Fair Work retains Work Choices’ provisions for third parties to intervene to end strikes that are highly disruptive to the economy. Work Choices gave the minister for workplace relations (as opposed to the independent Industrial Relations Commission) unprecedented power to intervene in the affairs of unions and employers – so much for supposed deregulation – and this has been retained.

The Howard government’s first reshaping of industrial relations, the Workplace Relations Act of 1996, included many measures to reduce union power, some of which were strengthened in Work Choices. It outlawed compulsory unionism and the “closed shop” (workers can’t be hired unless they are members of the union) and reduced and regulated unions’ right of entry to the workplace.

Most of these provisions have been retained in Fair Work, although much publicity has been given to the decision to permit union representatives to enter work sites where they have no members but there are workers eligible to be members.

Finally, though union memberships are in steady decline (Surprisingly in 2009 they grew ), there has been no attempt by the Rudd Government to change community perceptions about unions. Around 1.75 million australians are members of a union, (with only 14% of private sector workers joining), a decline caused by both the changing nature of the australian workforce, along with the success of the ALP in legislating traditional union protections, almost doing unions out of a job. Despite the fact unions are so critical to funding the ALP, and that the ALP began life in Queensland in the 1890’s when union members decided parliamentary representation was the best way to gain workplace rights, the Rudd ALP Government almost never seeks to publicly defend the rights and role of unions.

At the 2007 election, Howard ran add’s that could have been run in the 1950’s, showing fat tough union bullies smashing up a small business who refused to pay. It wasn’t that clever an add, it was pretty unfamiliar to public experience (except to the fevered imaginations of right wing hysterics), and probably changed no more than a handful of votes in the election. If Abbott is serious about modernising the Liberal Party, it will be interesting to see if he too trots out similar advertisements, because as the public is learning, (despite media claims to the reverse) this is not a union-friendly government. That’s not in itself a bad thing, but it is a big change from the past, and perhaps signals the coming end of the ALP as a union based party.