Recently in Social Comment Category

I caught this interview on Radio National a couple of weeks ago while driving to work. Normally, I would have missed most of it due to arriving at my workplace well before it concluded, but I was so taken with what this guy was saying, I stayed in the car to listen to the whole thing. I found it fascinating.

The transcripts and audio mp3 can be obtained from here.

The Doctor puts the finger squarely on the food industry as one reason why so many more people are fat today than was the case 20 years ago.

A few extracts follow, with my emphasis, but I recommend you read, or preferably, listen to, the whole thing.

I'm no legal expert, but common sense would indicate that Dr Haneef's charge of "recklessly lending a SIM card to terrorists" has little chance of resulting in a conviction. If the item was, for example, a rare, hard to obtain bomb fuse component, then there'd be some justifyable grounds. But there's none for supplying an item as common and easily obtained as phone sim card.

Obviously, the magistrate who granted Haneef bail thought the same. Enough's enough.

The subsequent removal of Haneef's residency visa as a means to keep him locked up is the most outrageous example of government interference in the legal system that I can remember. The presumption of 'innocent until proven guilty' has been thrown out by Kevin Andrews.

Andrews' action reinforces concerns I have about the erosion of protections in our legal system. Putting aside Haneef's guilt or innocence for the moment, these arch conservatives are allowing terrorist actions to undermine the very thing which sets us apart from the perpetrators. By eroding the basic legal protections, they are bridging the gap that differentiates our society from the one the terrorists would like to impose.

We suspected from the David Hicks saga that this conservative government places little value on the process of the law and human rights. Haneef's treatment confirms it.

Hopefully, this action will misfire for the government. To the conservative mind, retention of power is solely about the delivery of rosy economic outcomes to their natural constituency. The polls are showing that the electorate is looking beyond the financial numbers. Andrews' action will only reinforce the notion that the incumbents are mean, soulless and out of touch.

It's a pity that Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott and Miranda Divine don't know the difference.

Labor leader Mr Rudd said the way individual NSW MPs reacted to the cardinal was a matter for them but the Sydney Catholic leader had every right to speak out on behalf of the church.

Mr Abbott said he had enormous affection and respect for the cardinal. "He was forcefully restating the standard church teaching and saying, 'This is what we expect Catholics to think about this. If this is not their view they need to think about what that implies,' " he said. "I didn't think it was an unreasonable thing for him to say."

In this brave new world of biotechnology, church leaders have a special obligation to unequivocally state church teachings on confusing moral issues. Pell is one of the admirable few who stand up for moral absolutes.

Bollocks to all of them!

The church, or any other interest group, has the right to comment on issues, and attempt to persuade or lobby parliamentarians to vote a particular way. However, in this case, Pell issued a threat. It was totally out of order.

It was also stupid and counter productive. His comment overshadowed the subject he was trying to influence.

The upside of this tawdry attempt to influence parliament was that it failed. The correct outcome in a secular society.

I stayed up late on Thursday night to watch Paul Keating interviewed on Lateline. I wasn't disappointed.

Keating's discourse was somewhat rambling and egotistical, but he hasn't lost the art of producing the 'quotable quote.' Here's some lifted from the transcripts.

On the effect of Work Choices on productivity ...

If you go to 200 or 300 people in a factory or 200 or 300 people in a workplace and come to a three or four year bargain to the improve productivity and share it between wages and profits you've got a good chance of getting productivity from the whole enterprise. But if you just take one person at a time, bring them into the boss' office and cut their wages there's no chance of getting any productivity. That's why trend productivity is now rapidly on the way down. It was 3 per cent under me. It's now under 1 per cent.

And this in the same vein ...

The great lie of the Howard Government in respect of workplace changes, they are simply a set of arrangements to keep unions out of workplaces. They've got nothing to do with productivity and the quicker we move away from that kind of discriminatory structure to a truly trust based co operative sharing of work and workloads, then we get back to reasonable levels of productivity and again, reasonable rates of growth in real wages. It's no accident as you saw in today's front page of The Sydney Morning Herald and other places that the wage share in the economy has gone down, and the profit share in the last four years has gone up because wages are now in real terms, are declining.

On using the Corporations Powers to regulate IR ...

Let me make this clear, the Liberals decided that they wouldn't use the conciliation and arbitration power.

Under that power of the constitution you always needed a commission who tested capacity to pay and comparative wage justice. They've now used the corporations power and the High Court for the first time as validated its use. That means a Federal Government can now legislate the wage and the conditions.

On the real reason why the economy has boomed without the traditional wage blowout ...

Everything in those national accounts yesterday, everything, that is the growth in the economy and the low unemployment, the reason the system is not blowing, the tinder box has not taken off is because of the float, because of the tariff changes and because of [the previous Labor government's] IR changes, structural changes. That's why they're there. Not because of any superior management by Mr Costello. You know this pat line tonight about you wouldn't put an L plater. God, he's the greatest L plater of all time.

And finally, best til last. This on poll based policy. Could be true for any political organisation these days ...

The Labor Party is not going to profit from having these proven unsuccessful people around who are frightened of their own shadow and won't get out of bed in the morning unless they've had a focus group report to tell them which side of bed to get out.

Keating makes the current pollies we're lumbered with these days look very bland. I look forward to his next media forray.

What was Steve Irwin doing to get his chest so close to the barbs on a stingray's tail? We'll have to wait for the inevitable enquiry and subsequent examination of the film to find out, but it's likely he was doing what he did best. Getting close and personal with dangerous creatures.

Whatever the circumstances of this tragic incident, Australia has lost an overseas icon and a tireless advocate for environmental issues.

It would surprise many of Irwin's overseas fans that he was a household name in the US long before he was generally noticed here. I first heard of Irwin on a radio program when it was explained how he was a runaway success on US TV.

Steve who?

Those same fans would also be surprised to find that a section of the Australian community has always been uncomfortable with his 'over the top' Australian-ness, ie, his 'ockerism.' Irwin himself acknowledged this.

When I see what's happened all over the world, they're looking at me at as this very popular wildlife warrior Australian bloke and yet back here in my own country, some people find me a little bit embarrassing. You know there's this ... they kind of whoah! cringe, you know, because I'm coming out with "crikey!" and "have a look at this little beauty!"

You know is it a cultural cringe? Is it, you know, they actually see a little bit of themselves when they see me and that they find that a little embarrassing?

Although I've heard his on and off screen persona's were similar, I suspect the local media did not initially take to him because of it. It was only when his overseas fame became so large it couldn't be ignored, that the local Australian media started to give him exposure.

I have to admit I'm one of those who found his boyish ocker enthusiasm a little disconcerting. It worries me that the ocker images of Irwin and others, like Paul Hogan, are ones so associated by many foreigners to be quintessentially Australian. Let me assure any foreign readers who stumble over this corner of the net that Australians are a lot more complex than portrayed by our more famous media exports.

That been said, nothing should be taken away from Irwin's genuine enthusiasm for the environment, conservation and promoting Australia.

He was a great Australian; one who died far too young, at a time when the environment needs all the advocates it can muster.

“...digital information lasts forever or five years, whichever comes first.” Jeff Rothenberg, Scientific American, Jan 1995.

Do you leave photos on your digital camera's memory or on your PC's hard drive, and never get round to printing them?

Have you data created using programs and / or file formats that are no longer in current use?

Do you have data on your PC's hard drive that isn't backed up? Or stored on 3.5" floppy disks? Or worse, 5.5" floppies?

If so, you may be unwittingly contributing to the loss of your family's history. It's a consequence of the digital age, where technology changes quickly and today's data formats and hardware are obsolete within a few years.

This doesn't only apply to pictures of your kids' birthday parties. It effects government and company records, and the recordings of historic events.

The issue of obsolete media was addressed by a speaker during a recent conference on Open Source technologies. Working with the National Archives of Australia, he explained in some detail the problems of digitally storing important documents, photographs and recordings created on closed source formats and / or obsolete media. In may cases, data is reformatted into "Open Document Format" files (the format that Microsoft is reluctantly implementing in it's Office software suite), and permanently stored on hard drive arrays.

The government is acting on the problem, but many industries are not. Recently, when asking an overseas manufacturer for information on some faulty equipment, I was informed that the drawings were stored on microfiche and they didn't have a working reader. In the end, they found a reader, but it highlights the problem of not updating data formats so that the information remains accessible.

Future retrieval of information stored on obsolete media will be expensive and may well be impossible if organisations don't implement a program of transferring data to modern, and preferably 'open,' media formats.

As for your family snaps, print them out and store them in a box in a cupboard. Your grand-kids will appreciate seeing their family history in years to come.

Miranda Divine's columns of late have been more irritating than is usual. Today's is no exception. Titled "Green Tape Can Endanger People's Lives," she starts off by bagging Peter Garret's views on uranium mining.

HERE we go. Peter Garrett, the ALP's great white hope for winning the greenie vote, is defying Kim Beazley's attempt to gently change Labor policy against uranium mining. Despite a global re-examination of nuclear energy as a possible cleaner energy alternative, Garrett refuses to budge.

No surprises there. Garret's been against mining uranium for his entire career. It's unlikely he'll ever change*. She goes on ...

It is hard to dislike Garrett. But he, along with the soft, utopian environmentalism that has so successfully infiltrated and warped 21st-century thinking and every level of our government and bureaucracy, are nonetheless dangerous.

She then attempts, and fails, to prove just how dangerous Garrett and his ilk are by referring to the coroner's enquiry into the Canberra bush fires of 2003, in which four people died.

On Friday [the coroner] adjourned the enquiry for the last time to consider her recommendations.

But no matter how much legalese and bureaucratic nonsense is employed to obscure the truth, two unpalatable facts remain. First, years of government kowtowing to green demands has meant NSW's burgeoning collection of national parks were mismanaged to the point where they became fire hazards and local bushfire brigades were hamstrung by green tape. Secondly, a preoccupation by the ACT Government and its agencies with media management and political spin led to the deaths of at least two people.

Divine produces little evidence to back up her first claim. She suggests the ACT's Emergency Services Bureau is influenced by 'green' groups, based on a reference to an endangered frog in a meeting prior to the fires arriving in Canberra. Nothing about how the national parks are mismanaged or how local bushfire brigades were hampered by 'green tape.'

The bulk of her article is mostly about the second claim, where she details the failings of the government agencies in informing the population of the dangers of the approaching fires. It has nothing to do with any 'green' issue.

This seems to be typical of her recent writing. She starts the article with comments and claims that are not relevant to, or proven by, the remainder.

*Footnote: Miranda has traditionally been a 'greenhouse' sceptic. It's interesting that she now acknowledges carbon dioxide is a 'greenhouse' gas.

[The fires] spewed 18 months worth of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere ...

Like many conservative writers, Miranda acknowledges climate change now that there's a conservative push for the adoption of nuclear power generation.

You can't beat conservative commentators regarding greenhouse gas climate change. They're either debunking the whole thing as a myth, or pushing nuclear power as a solution to the non-existent problem.

There's no denying that the left has vigorously opposed nuclear power, at the same time drawing attention to climate change. It must be satisfying for conservatives to promote the left's nemesis as a solution to the left's climatic concerns.

So is nuclear power the solution to climate change? Not according to some.

AUSTRALIA could not develop a domestic nuclear power industry in time to stave off the effects of climate change and such a program would be prohibitively expensive, energy experts say.

The cost of building the large number of nuclear power stations needed to even partly replace coal as a source of electricity would be so heavy no private investor would take on the risk without huge government subsidies, they said.

Scientists have warned the world needs to make large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions now to avoid further big changes to weather patterns.

But coal-fired power plants could not be replaced fast enough with nuclear plants to make any real difference, said the research principal at the Institute for Sustainable Futures, Chris Riedy.

A 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant would generate between 2 and 3 per cent of Australia's current electricity consumption, said Dr Iain McGill, research co-ordinator for the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets at the University of NSW.

"Coal generation is about 85 to 90 per cent of national electricity market generation, so it might require around 30 to 40 such plants to replace coal-fired generation," he said. "Such a program would almost certainly take numerous decades."

Dr Mark Diesendorf, a senior lecturer at the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of NSW, said a 1000-megawatt nuclear plant would cost at least $3 billion to build - 2½ times that of a coal-fired power plant - and much more to operate than fossil fuel plants. To build a lot of nuclear plants, say, over 20 years, would emit so much greenhouse gas it would take 40 years to break even in terms of CO 2, he said.

Nuclear power is appealing to conservative elements because they see it as a way of constantly expanding the power supply without the climate change downside, while conveniently ignoring the cost and the problems of waste disposal and nuclear weapons proliferation. No need for wishy washy lefty sentiments like promoting alternative energy sources and increasing efficiency to make do with less.

Unfortunately for our conservative friends, there isn't a convenient 'drop in' solution to replace coal fired power stations. The transition to non polluting power will require a multi-stranded approach that utilises new technologies. Weaning ourselves off coal derived electricity will be expensive, but the money would be better spent on research, development and implementation of alternatives that can be on-sold in the future, rather than paying someone else to (perhaps) solve the problem for us.

Australia has an appalling record of backing wrong technologies and allowing promising research to be exploited by others. Climate change is an economic opportunity. Hopefully, we'll have the courage to exploit it.

The Prime Minister says it will take a few months for the [industrial] laws to settle in and he believes there will be good news stories in the future. (From the ABC.)

This is after a spate of incidents where workers have been sacked and offered their jobs back under inferior conditions.

The PM has never had a job in the real world, and it's starting to show. Is this the line that the employers' organisations pushed to get change and does he really believe it? Or are the polls not looking too good? Methinks probably both.

And then this ...

The head of Australia's Chamber of Commerce and Industry insists the new WorkChoices laws are good for workers as well as employers.

ACCI chief executive Peter Hendy has told Channel Nine that thousands of people were sacked each week before the new laws were implemented.

He says the new system provides workers and their employers with more opportunities.

"They're opportunities for enterprise based bargaining, which we think will actually help sustain the real wage rise, that we've seen one of the best periods for decades and also one of the lowest unemployment rates for 30 years," he said.

The booming economy and low umemployment rates happened before the IR changes were implemented. Maybe Hendy just thinks we're stupid.

There's noises emanating from elements of the Federal Liberal party back bench about blocking unsavoury content from the Internet.

This is not new, of course, they've already tried it before. Memory serves me that a regulatory framework was devised as an attempt to buy Brian Harradine's vote on some issue or other. This temporarily certailed a lot of local adult content, but the site owners simply moved to servers off shore and out of reach of the Australian authorities.

So now the censorship proponents want to block the content before it reaches us.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. As a parent, I don't want my kids accessing this sort of material and we have a strict regime of control over the home PCs to prevent this. As an adult, I don't want to be told what I can and can't watch. As an engineer, I don't want regulatory measures effecting the performance of the Internet, especially measures that I suspect will not be effective.

The details of how the proponents of censorship propose to block the content are sketchy. I assume it will use some sort of blacklist at the ISP level. How they expect to keep track of the shifting sands of the millions of questionable sites is beyond me. They could use keywords, I suppose, but that would eliminate half the Blogosphere let alone your average porn site.

The may propose the Chinese method and funnel all external traffic through a handful of gateways. Expect 'broadband' to be not so 'broad' if they take that path.

In my experience, blocking sites comes with unintended consequences. An innocent site with a link to a blocked one may make the innocent site unreachable.

Another danger is that once a regulatory framework is in place, it doesn't take much to control other information. Just look at the way the Chinese authorities filter content to their population.

Control will never stop the nasties, it will just push them underground. Suspect sites will not be on DNS, and encryption will make the traffic difficult for the authorities to monitor.

Hopefully, Helen Coonan will resist the zealots and not introduce measures that are ineffective and will cripple the net.

Freedom of information has advantages that far outweigh the disadvantages. It's up to individuals to control what they and their dependents access.