December 2004 Archives

Like all of us, I've been trying to fathom the events in Asia. I can't; the news is so appalling it defies comprehension.

If you think the government should be spending more, then get your hand in your pocket and make the buggers pay by providing a tax deductable donation to one of the relief agencies.

As usual, arguments have broken out across the philosophical divide about the effects of economic development on the disaster. One side says human economic development exacerbated the earthquake, the other says more economic development would have mitigated it.

The first argument is plainly stupid. Earthquakes happen.

The Currency Lad and Darp take different arguments about the second, which IMO is only partly true.

Developed countries may be able to afford a tsunami early warning systems and coastal defences, but their effectiveness is doubtful. With the waves traveling at between 700 and 800 kmh on the open sea, a warning system would have given India and Sri Lanka about four hours notice, perhaps enough time to take some evasive measures.

The coasts of Thailand and Indonesia, close to the epicentre, never had a chance. It's hard to think of any practical measures that would have prevented the disaster.

To those living on the Australian East Coast, it's a sobering thought that there's evidence of two tsunamis in the past 1000 years. The cause may have been space debris hitting the ocean, or a colapse in the continental shelf. Either way, the waves generated were huge.

Being a developed nation will not spare us from catastrophic consequences if the event is repeated.

Update: According to this morning's (1/1/05) SMH, the wave hit India and Sri Lanka in only two hours. Even less time to react.

A shocking natural disaster brings home how fortunate we are to live on a geographically stable land mass.

Dig deep.

There hasn't been much from the sty about Aus politics since the Federal Election. Although on the record stating that Labor couldn't win, the magnitude of the loss came as a shock. I needed some time for reflection on what occurred.

No need for reflection for bloggers on the right. Winners are grinners, and didn't they let us know it.

One academic blogger stated that the result was a rebuttal of 'Postmoderism.' Many seemed to agree.

This came as a surprise to your tech head correspondant and others who don't hold an arts degree; those who'd never heard of 'postmoderism.' The view from outside the ivory tower was that the government won the election due to the economic concerns of over-indebted voters.

Sadly, all this talk on 'postmoderism', 'nihilism' and 'deconstructionism' didn't spur me to any research on the subject. These things are best left to people with too much time on their hands.

Moving on to Christmas Eve, the editorial writer for the Sydney Morning Herald brought up the subject of Postmodernism with regards to the Christmas message. At least s/he used the first few column inches to give a brief description of the philosophy. It seems a Frenchman name Derrida argued that facts mean different things to different people, and are open to interpretation. There are no firm truths, only peoples' interpretations of them, (perhaps) up to a point ....

Derrida might not have agreed with the lengths to which his ideas have been taken. There is no contradiction, for instance, between what he wrote and the need for moral principles such as equality, justice and generosity. And while Derrida did argue that objective truth is beyond our grasp, that is not to say that it does not exist, only that it can never be entirely understood or communicated with precision.

I may well be off the mark with the above interpretation. I'm not sure I completely understood the theory from the brief description given. Apologies to those in the know.

Anyway, I now see why conservatives don't like Postmodernism. Conservatives want immutable facts, not ideas open to interpretation. They certainly don't want their preconceptions 'deconstructed.' They're not comfortable with the thought that others interpret their facts and events differently.

Conservatives want the world to be predictable. Right and wrong as black and white. Rulers to rule, and the rest to know their place.

The way of the conservative world is the way of constant conflict. Agree or be swept aside.

The conservative ascendancy won't last forever. It's up to the more broadminded among us to start to espouse the more balanced world view.

The Pig's political arm is reopening for business.

A revamped blog for the the coming new year. Let me know if something's not working properly.

I hope my three readers had a good Christmas.

Those with kids will know why the posts have been sparse over the last week or so. The situation's not likely to improve for a while. Will write when time permits.

Enjoy the rest of the holiday break.

In an encouraging development, the Federal government has distanced itself, albeit slightly, from the US government's stance on greenhouse gas emission control.

Senator Campbell said Australia did not agree with the US stance against future greenhouse gas targets nor its claim that economic growth and technology innovations will be the only answer to reducing heat-trapping emissions.

"The difference between the US and Australia is that we are prepared to engage in a new agreement [post Kyoto] as long as it is comprehensive," Senator Campbell said from London, on his way home from the UN conference in Buenos Aires.

The evidence of the reality of climate change must be overwhelming for the government to go against the US. The announcement has to be welcomed after Australia's 'head in the sand' approach on the issue.

Or maybe it's John W Howard again thinking about his legacy as he contemplates retirement?

Whatever the reason, the effects of climate change are becoming evident. Receding ice at the poles, bleaching of coral, and more frequent violent weather events are a few of the more obvious symptoms.

I'm not optimistic that much will be done, despite some international good intentions, before the problem becomes critical. Economics goes against using alternative energy sources which are more expensive than simply burning fossil fuels.

The price difference will increase if the use of alternaive energy sources starts a decline in the consumption of conventional fuels.

In the current conservative ascendancy, it's hard to see present governments telling the population that the end is nigh for their gas guzzling 4WDs, or the price of electricity is going up by 50% to encourage more efficient use.

I doubt if much will be done about green house emissions before the effect of climate change is blatantly obvious and starts to effect the life of the average punter. Perhaps it will be higher insurance premiums, or some natural catastrophic event that can only be attributed to climate change.

Only then will governments act. We can only hope it happens before the effects are irreversible.

The Australian Soccer Federation is to become the Football Federation of Australia. It seems the soccer powers want to abolish the name 'soccer' on the way to becoming a viable organisation.

As Richard Hinds put it in Saturday's Herald ....

Soccer. For a long time the term has been necessary to distinguish the rest-of-the-world's game from our dominant football codes.

Apparently, soccer purists don't like the name 'soccer' because it's not what the code is called in other countries. They ignore that in most other soccer, sorry, 'football' countries, there are no other brands of footy to compete with. They feel that giving it back its 'propper' name will help establish its dominance.

... the assumption [is] that soccer will take over here merely because it is the supreme footballing being in other parts of the planet is both defensive and underestimates the strength and quality of the other codes.

I wish them luck.

As an AFL tragic living in Sydney, I know first hand how difficult it is to change a sporting culture. No matter how superior you think your code is over all the others (and, of course, Aus footy is the best code of all!), the people who follow the other inferior codes just won't get it. The Sydney Swans have been in Sydney for over 20 years, and although they have a reasonable following, the game is still a curiosity to most native Sydney-siders.

I think the new soccer competion will do better than previously. Having one team in the major capitals should draw reasonable crowds. Larger crowds will draw media interest and exposure.

Needless to say, soccer won't go anywhere close to becoming the dominant code, for one major reason over which the local administration has no control.

Any player who has talent soon gets scouted, often at junior level, by the rich European clubs. The local competition can't match the money and just doesn't get a look in, causing the local competition to be substandard. It's hard to see a way round this impediment.

Soccer will always have a place in the Australian sporting scene, but not as the dominant football code.

After weeks of rumour, Richard Alston is confirmed to be Australia's next High Commissioner in London. Alston was the former Federal Minister for Communications, and, in my opinion, the worst minister in the Howard government.

Alston presided over a portfolio of which he seemed to have little understanding. In 1999 he introduced an act to regulate content on the Internet, despite advice that it would not have the desired effect. Cynics would argue that the act was to placate Senator Brian Harradine, who held the Senate balance of power at the time, in a bid to get him to support the full sale of Telstra. Both moves failed.

Telstra, despite being majority owned by the government, was allowed to use its monopoly over the telecommunications network to thwart competion. Several times the ACCC ruled against Telsta's anti competitive practices but was never chastised by the Minister.

Alston botched the introduction of digital television (DTV). Instead of backing the implementation of multichannel Standard Definition DTV, he fell into line with media owners by backing single channel High Definition DTV. He then introduced regulations that prevented new players from using the DTV medium.

The ABC was a favourite target of Alston's. Under his watch, Jonathan Shier was appointed Managing Director. Shier's caustic management style saw internal upheaval and an exodus of talent from the corporation.

Alston was a constant critic of the ABC's news and current affairs coverage, particularly claims of bias when reporting the Iraq war. Alston's official complaints were investigated several times, and apart from some minor issues, were found to be groundless.

Now, as a reward for his exemplary service, he's been appointed to the diplomatic cocktail circuit in London at $200k per annum.

Nice work if you can get it.

Any change to the dirge that is Australia's National Anthem would be an improvement, in my opinion. Not so according to the Prime Minister, various right wing shock jocks, and Sydney's 'The Daily Telegraph.'

The fuss is about a one minute 'techno' version of Advance Australia fair, to be tacked onto the end of a 17 minute musical score to be played during the Sydney New Year's Eve fireworks display.

Joining the chorus of anthem purists yesterday was the Prime Minister, who declared the short, remixed version planned for New Year's Eve "terrible".

"The national anthem should be sung and played in a way that facilitates maximum audience participation in its singing," John Howard told a Perth radio station. "It is, after all, our national anthem, and I don't think it should be played around with."

Unless, of course, it is the Federal Government, rather than the City of Sydney, doing the playing around.

The former federal Department of Administrative Services sponsored a double CD of 17 different versions of Advance Australia Fair in 1997, including one memorable rendition by the Wiggles. John Farnham, the Seekers and Australian Crawl's James Reyne all had their takes on the CD, which was launched on Australia Day by the then deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer.

And that's the point! It's not about the National Anthem at all. It's about Sydney's Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, and the fact she was elected to the Town Hall instead of preferred candidates the major parties put forward.

To these right wingers, Clover Moore is anathema. She's a person who's more concerned with the people who live and work within the city rather than big business. Someone who got elected to State Parliament and as Sydney's Lord Mayor through grass roots support rather than the party machines. Someone who can't be allowed to succeed because she's not in the mainstream.

The last thing the right wing establishment wants is a bunch of independently minded popular representatives emulating her success.

Clover Moore is under the spotlight, and her every move is being dissected by elements of the media and brought to light in a most negative way.

Hopefully, Clover will study the history of and emulate that other great local government radical, "Red" Ken Livingstone of the London Council. Even Margaret Thatcher couldn't get rid of him.

I'm a bit time poor at the moment, and the blogging has suffered. Lots going on at the start of the Silly Season. Problems with my server haven't helped.

It's a shame really, because there's been lots of things worth commenting on. Telstra's plans to sell mobile phones to eight year olds, and Alexander Downer being slated as a UN diplomat are two that come to mind.

Rest assured that regular transmission will recommence sooner or later.

The sexes are different, and in few areas is this more apparent than attitudes to shopping. Take my partner. To her, shopping is a pleasure to be leasurely savored. When something is needed, it just can't be bought straight away. It has to searched out, discussed, sampled and tried on at many different establishments over a significant period of time. Only when all the alternatives are exhausted can the decision be made to buy, often at the shop in which the item was first found.

Contrast her shopping approach to mine. Shopping is a chore; clothes shopping particularly so. My method is to find something suitable as fast a possible, and buy it. Needless to say our different approaches cause friction. Shopping is no fun when I'm around, and over the years we have agreed that it's better if I don't accompany her. We part ways soon after we arrive at the retail fun palace, and meet up again at an agreed time.

Discussions with other couples over the years confirm that our case is not isolated. Seems that a lot of other blokes don't like shopping either. Now, the UK retailer Marks and Spencer have recognised the problem of unwilling males reducing their partners' shopping time, and instigated a remedy. They've set up the 'male creche' in their stores.

The retail chain Marks & Spencer has set up creches at six of its stores, where harassed females can leave their bored boyfriends and husbands to play with videos, toys and games. The creches also offer free drinks and crisps.

Can you believe some women weren't enamoured by the idea?

[some] men did not get off so lightly, the offer of "a drink and a seat, sir" sometimes being met with frosty looks from their female companions.

You'd think they'd be glad to be rid of them.

An airline frequent flyers' lounge in a retail store! A great idea; no longer will we need to make excuses to avoid the retail excursion.

Is it any wonder why a good deal of the population has no interest in politics? Just look at the behaviour of the pollies in Federal Parliament this afternoon.

Parliament descended into uproar on Tuesday as the opposition moved its second dissent motion in a fortnight against Speaker David Hawker in the House of Representatives.

The ruckus started with a question to Veterans Affairs' Minister De-Anne Kelly about approving a $220k grant from another department some weeks after she changed her portfolio. The speaker ruled the question out of order. Kelly then answered the question anyway.

The dissent motion claimed the Speaker, David Hawker was running the parliament at the Government's bidding rather than being even handed.

[Mr Lathem] said Mr Hawker was being left to dangle in the breeze by the government after government business leader Tony Abbott first urged him to rule the question out of order but later said Mrs Kelly was prepared to answer it.

Imagine that!

Of course, there's never been a Speaker elected to the position that wasn't in the business of running the show to the Government's advantage. It's one aspect the founding father's got wrong when they drafted up the constitution over 100 years ago. (It also means you'd need a constitutional referendum to change it. A small impediment!)

The ruckus would have reinforced the animosity towards politicians felt by many of the people who saw it all on the news this evening. Lots of meaningless parliamentary point scoring under the guise of a debate that the opposition couldn't win.

The only way that parliament will ever run 'fairly' is to have an truly independent Speaker. The UK parliament goes some way to giving the speaker Independence:

It has become a generally accepted principle that, once the Speaker has been elected in one Parliament, he or she is re-elected in subsequent Parliaments and thus remains in office until he or she chooses to retire. On some occasions the Speaker is returned to Parliament unopposed, but this is no longer always the case. When seeking re-election at a general election, the Speaker remains aloof from party issues and stands as 'the Speaker seeking re-election'.

The problem with the UK system is that the Speaker's still a politician. Hard to image s/he ever being totally unbiased.

The only solution is for the Speaker to be appointed from outside parliament. Finding someone acceptable to both sides of the house could be problematic. Using the method proposed in the failed Republic referendum for choosing a President would work, ie, electing the speaker by a two thirds majority of House of Representatives. It should assure a neutral nominee, and a much more democratic parliament; and maybe a less cynical electorate.

The issue of the Tara School court case still reverberates. Most media articles express dismay at the methods used by the school's barrister while questioning the student in court. All I've read accept that the girl (codenamed 'N') was raped as claimed. (Here is a previous post on the subject)

Some of the students who were on the excursion were upset by the way the court case unfolded, and how events were depicted in the media. They went public in today's Sun Herald.

[One] student said she too felt compelled to speak out after reading how her teachers and principal had been portrayed as cold and uncaring.

"They were all awesome," she said. "They did everything short of chaining us all to the beds.

"If I have any sympathy for anyone, it's them, not her."

Unfortunately, their depictions confirm that the adults supervising the girls failed in their duty of care by not taking all steps to prevent the rape from happening. Noble as the students' intentions were by going public, they make the same mistake as the school's management; they blame the victim.

According to the girls' accounts, there was a group of year 10 girls on the trip, 'N' included, who didn't comply with the rules, and repeatedly put themselves in harms way. Another student who attended attended the trip stated:

"The year 10 girls and particularly N had become a law unto themselves . . . on three separate occasions. Year 11 students, including myself, were forced to sit them down and explain how they were on the verge of having us all sent home.

"We said: 'You're ruining the tour for us, you're disobeying teachers, you're breaking curfew every night, why are you doing this?'

"We also warned that anything could happen if they kept on picking up these boys who were complete strangers. We said, 'Never mind what the teachers might do, you could get yourself into some real trouble'."

And as it happened, one did.

The danger in reading the above is to think that the girl got what she deserved. Obviously, her behaviour contributed to her being assaulted, but it seems that this was not the first time she'd misbehaved on the trip. Yes, she was stupid and disobedient, but she was also only 15, and clearly not appreciative of the danger that her actions put her in.

It wasn't as if the adults on the trip were unaware of the problem.

Another student told how the only male teacher on the trip broke down on a bus as he made one final desperate plea for calm and order.

The student said: "He stood there and in front of the whole bus, gave this speech which, looking back, came straight from the heart. He explained that while everyone [the girls] might not realise it, he had been handed the responsibility of being a father to them all.

"That's when he started crying . . . because he said he felt as though he was failing. He warned the girls that while their late-night drinking and frolics might seem like fun, the boys they were meeting could be quite literally anyone. He warned they might be dangerous."

The fact is the teachers didn't do everything to stop the trouble makers misbehaving. They knew what was going on, but their actions didn't go far enough. The adults on the trip were negligent because they didn't stamp out the rule breaking from the onset. After a couple of warnings, 'N' and the other miscreants should have been sent home.

The adults supervising the trip were in a difficult position. They would have weighed up what was happening, and balanced the risk of harm coming to the girls verses the flack they would have received by sending them home early. They got it wrong.

The school was negligent if, as I suspect, they didn't have a mechanism to easily expatriate troublesome students if the need arose.

It's going to be a lot stricter for students going on everseas excursions from now on.

When John Howard met this afternoon with retired indigenous AFL footballer, Michael Long, and Long subsequently leaves the meeting describing .....

... the talks as open and honest and [they] shared a lot of common ground.

.... I start to think that the PM may be considering retirement during this parliamentary term.

Long walked two thirds of the distance from Melbourne to Canberra in his bid to get a meeting with Howard to discuss the deteriorating conditions in local Aboriginal communities.

Long also said ..

"We're not divided at all (about) the change that needs to work at the local level, we recognise that."

"Obviously the prime minister is prepared to have further talks, so the journey is still beginning."

Lets face it, the PM hasn't exactly been a mover or shaker regarding Aboriginal reconciliation. He's constantly refused to acknowledge the wrong of the stolen generations, and his government has consistently attacked ATSIC. The government's position on Aboriginal affairs is one of paternalism rather than self determination.

When I first heard about Long's walk to gain a meeting with the Howard, I thought his wait to see Howard once he arrived in Canberra would be greater than the time it took to walk from Melbourne.

Is Howard starting to think of the way history will see him after he bows out, or is the exercise a cynical move to short circuit any adverse publicity that Long's walk would generate? On form, you'd have to go with the latter.

If Howard starts hinting that an Australian Head of State is not that far away, that the US were perhaps a bit unprepared when they invaded Iraq, and acknowledges that something needs to be done to limit green house emissions, expect Kirribilli House to be vacant by Chrismas 2005.

Update: Richard Ackland in Sydney Morning Herald (3 Dec) writes here about the same subject.

Private schools do a lot to project their image. Impeccable sandstone buildings, immaculately kept grounds, and strict control of their public image is the norm. A private school's image is what it sells, and administrations do a lot to avoid public scandal.

Having experienced private school reputation paranoia first hand, I was surprised to see the Tara Anglican School for Girls (Sydney) allowing itself to be dragged into court by a pupil's family, who were suing for breach of care that allegedly resulted in the rape of their daughter while on an excursion in Italy.

They were on a hiding to nothing. It's hard to think what the school had to gain by letting it go to court.

To make matters worse, their legal team played the 'Blame the Victim' defence.

.... the defence counsel, Ian Harrison, SC, .... put to the teenager that "in order to avoid being criticised or getting into trouble you concocted the story that you had been raped".

He said she was seen by friends "happy and pleased with herself", riding on the back of a moped - she claimed she was grabbed by men on motorbikes and taken to an alley in the village of Sorrento, where she was attacked.

She also denied his suggestion that she had put a backpack on her front the following day and "made a joke, saying 'I'm pregnant"'.

He said that she had told a parent, Joseph Grassi, also a solicitor, that she had "led the boys on, flirted and encouraged them".

She denied this.

I find it incredible that in this day and age that the 'blame the victim' defence still happens. I thought that the court procedures had changed to prevent this sort of thing.

Was the school's defence team suggesting it was the victim's fault she was raped because she looked happy before the event?

If that wasn't low enough, they unknowingly photographed her while she was out.

Cross-examining the teenager, Ian Harrison, QC, showed her a series of photographs, including one that he said showed her apparently "relaxed" while "in a public place". Questioning her claim that the rape had left her with low self-esteem, he said that "to sit on a bar stool ... with a skirt as short as that takes a lot of confidence".

"You weren't embarrassed by the attention it might attract?"

So, because the girl was raped some time before (she was 15 when it happened) she can never again go out? Dress like her peers? Have a drink in a bar? In other words, never try to restart her life?

Then there was the treatment she received from the teachers who were escorting the students in Italy, and from the school when she got home.

She told the court yesterday that when her teachers took her to the airport to be sent home to Sydney early as punishment for breaking curfew, they billed her for the morning-after pill and taxi fares.

Once back in Sydney, her school principal, Carol Bowern - who sat in the back row of the court yesterday taking notes - refused to acknowledge that she had been raped, she said.

"I started to tell her the truth, of what had happened, and when I got up to the point where I said I had been pinned down on the bonnet, she stopped me ... from then on she continued to talk about how I must apologise to the teachers for what I had done on the trip," she said.

"She asked me to write out a statement saying that I wasn't going to return to the school any more and that I was still welcome to be a Tara old girl."

She said Mrs Bowern arranged for her to sit her final exams in a room alone. She never returned to the school.

I'm sure the offer that she could remain a 'Tara old girl' made up for the shoddy way she was treated.

The court case was abruptly halted when the parties settled out of court. I'd like to think the school caved in to prevent any more damage to the victim, but I suspect that the motive was to prevent more damage to the school's reputation.

I hope the payout was a big one.

I'm glad I'm not sending my kids to such a caring school. I imagine a lot of other parents who may have been considering it would be having second thoughts.