Things to Come

Subject - Crab Nebula Transmission Decryption

Alonzo,

Fed that data stream you picked up on the 4.2 cm band into Panjandrum as you asked. It's taken the best part of 72 hours for Panjandrum to crack the protocol but we're pretty confident that we've got it. We're still working through the data but here's what we've got so far:

Greetings from Krzmal

Greetings! We know that this message may impact you with startlement as we not known or met to you but we have belief that you will oblige us with your assistance. We are Krzmal from Zangara Hegemony of Planetary Bodies. Due to recent political upheavals in Zangara Hegemony of Planetary Bodies must take up exile in more favourable part of galaxy. We humbly seek your assistance in relocating our most valuable possession.

We have [untranslatable] in [untranslatable]. We are willing to offer [untranslatable] of this [untranslatable] for your assistance in shifting our [untranslatable] into more secure [untranslatable]. Please we need your assistance to protect what is rightfully ours from seizure by the illegitimate regime that is plundering our once great hegemony. For more information contact us at [untranslatable].

---

She takes it in the [untranslatable]

See it all at [untranslatable]

---

You may want to rethink Monday's press conference; I don't think the world is quite ready for this.

Alan.

Subject - Re: Crab Nebula Transmission Decryption

Alan,

Were there any graphics with that "She takes it in the [untranslatable]" section of the message? If we hack those, they might make a good visual for the press conference.

Alonzo.

(A tug of the forelock to to Nabakov, who lent me the book from which I purloined this idea.)

Some Boy ...

Kevin Andrews isn't impressed by today's protests against the government's proposed reintroduction of the Masters and Servants Act (NSW - 18 something or other):

Kevin Andrews said 95 per cent of workers had stayed on the job. "It's always predictable that people are out on the streets," he said.

Mr Andrews dismissed the union movement's campaign against the legislation as 'hysterical.

Further on, Andrews remarks:

It is totally over the top, equating IR changes with terrorism, saying that this is going to lead eventually to riots in the streets of Australia like we have seen in Paris, to be saying women and children will be killed.

That really set the tenor of the entire approach, the entire campaign that the unions have been running.

Andrews also objects to comparisons between the proposed changes and fascism, as made by NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca at the Senate enquiry into the IR Bill. But I have no idea where Andrews is getting this stuff about terrorism and riots in the streets from.

Frankly, I'm disappointed to learn that someone out there has likened the Government's IR reforms to terrorism. That won't do at all; it's obviously incumbent on whoever's been spreading these hysterical rumours to come clean and admit their error. It's the sort of thing that brings discredit on the whole Left. And while we're at it, maybe the nameless person who made off with my copy of The Communist Manifesto in 1976 might care to lob it back to me in the post. I don't really care who you are; as long as I get it back by the end of the week, there'll be no need to take the matter any further.

World Wide Aneurism

There's an article in the Next supplement of today's Age, syndicated from Wired, where Kevin Kelly gets into a bit of gee-whiz technobabble forecasting:

The web continues to evolve from an entity ruled by mass media and mass audiences to one ruled by messy media and messy participation. How far can this frenzy of creativity go? Encouraged by web-enabled sales, 175,000 books were published and more than 30,000 music albums were released in the US last year. At the same time 14 million blogs were launched worldwide.

All these numbers are escalating. A simple extrapolation suggests that in the near future everyone alive will (on average) [sic] write a song, author a book, make a video, craft a weblog, and code a program. [And now for the money quote] This idea is less outrageous than the notion 150 years ago that some day everyone would write a letter or take a photograph...

Apparently, by 2015, the Internet as we know it will be gone, replaced by a world-spanning super intelligent networked Machine. I can hardly wait. I'm really looking forward to the day that I try to start my dial-up connection and the PPP-client returns an error message saying "Failed to conect to internet with error 181: Piss off I'm busy."

(According to UNESCO, there were 862 million illiterate people in the world population in 2000 CE. While it's quite possible that some, if not all, of these people have at least taken a photograph, most likely at the behest of a group of First World tourists, none of them would have written any letters.)

How the Irish Tried to Buy Law from Edward I

(and not William the Bastard)

Months ago, I found this story in The Making of Europe; Conquest, Colonisation and Cultural Change 950 - 1350 by Robert Bartlett, a book I found in my local library. I made a mental note of it, in case privatised justice systems ever became a hot topic of debate in the blogosphere. But time passes and libertarianism, and the various absurd proposals that it sometimes produces fell off the agenda and I was left with a really great topic for a post and no excuse to publish it. Sod that. I'm going to tell the story anyway.

Before we get into the nitty-gritty of the story, it's probably worth looking at how the rule of law was disseminated during the Middle Ages. Basically it worked like this. A young nobleman would borrow enough money from some Jew (who was probably prohibited by law from making a living any other way) to equip himself with armour, sword and a warhorse. Then he would "take the cross" and set out for the Holy Land, looking to win honour, renown, land and loot, perhaps slaughtering a few Jews (to whom he wasn't indebted) and other sundry infidels along the way to practice his swing. When he got to the Holy Land, and got into his first proper battle, the Saracens would shoot his destrier out from under him, well before he had a chance to get in on the pillaging, leaving him up to his ears in debt.

On his return home, our nobleman would be faced with the problem of discharging his debt. One solution, first employed en masse in England in 1290 - also under Edward I as it happens - was to kill the Jew creditor and burn down his house along with all record of the debt. Another was to sell something of value - other than land - to get some ready money. Such as a charter of law, which could be bestowed on a city, town or individual within your fief.

After their subjugation by the English in 1170, the Irish found themselves subject to English rule but not English law. The Irish weren't above English law; they were beneath it. The situation is described in the Remonstrance of 1317 or 1318, a long whiny letter the Irish princes sent to the Pope to explain why they had sided with Robert the Bruce and his rellies against Edward II. Among their complaints was that while an Englishman could sue any Irishman, only Irish prelates were able to sue back and that the law allowed the English to kill the Irish with impunity. Well, more or less: although no criminal penalty applied to killing an Irishman, his lord was entitled to sue the killer for compensation. The going rate of compensation for a dead Irishman eventually settled at 70 shillings. That doesn't sound like a lot, until you consider that it was enough to buy 140 pounds of iron - almost enough to kit out 3 men at arms, once the armourers have finished with it. So killing someone else's Irish was actually a rather expensive proposition.

The situation was obviously unsatisfactory from an Irish point of view; by the fourteenth century even the English (or perhaps we should say some of them) had come to share their view. As Bartlett notes (p 219):

Attempts were also made to extend English Law to the Irish. The initiative sometimes came from the Irish themselves who sought to negotiate the purchase of English rights, either individually or collectively, as in the late 1270s [1277-80], when 'all the Irish' offered the king 10,000 marks 'in order to have the common law which the English have and use in Ireland and to be treated as such Englishmen are treated. Nothing came of these general attempts to enfranchise the Irish ... Until Tudor times Irishmen could only enjoy the rights and protections of English law by individual grant.

Isn't history wonderful? It seems there's no political proposal so daft that it hasn't been tried and found wanting somewhere or other in times past.

Nature Note

I've just been out in the back yard, looking for flies. Not blowies, you understand; they're an ordinary pest that you kill on sight as soon as you see them in the house. Actually, you try to chase them into a confined space - like the laundry or the aluminium frame of the kitchen window - before you hit them with a good dose of Mortein (when you're on a good thing, stick to it), Pea-Beu (when you find a better thing, switch to it, particularly if the endorsement money's better) or Black and Gold Insect Spray (when you find a cheaper thing, to hell with celebrity endorsements).

The flies I've been looking for are about blowie size, but remakably bee like - they've evolved protective mimicry. I've notied them around the place at this time of year in the past but it's only today that it occurred to me that they might actually be interesting (in an ugly, disgusting way). It all hinges on whether the brutes evolved to mimic native bees, or European honey bees.

The latter possibility is quite exciting because the European honey bee didn't arrive on this continent until after white settlement. Which means that maybe, just maybe, here in the inner northern suburbs of Melbourne (and maybe elsewhere), there's a new species of fly that's evolved in the past 200 years. Either that or the intelligent designer (or one of the intelligent designers), looked in some time and saw the opportunity to tweak the fly design a little.

That's all highly speculative of course; it's much more likely that these uglies have been around for a long time and it's only recently that I've started to notice them. Incidentally, if you want to see them in your own back yard, plant lots of dandelions. They go for those in a big way.

Frequently Asked Questions

(From www.ctu.gov, the official website of the Counter Terrorism Unit)

I am planning a major terrorist attack on the US. What are my chances of success?

Your plan should take no more than 22 hours to execute. You should make it as complex as possible, and include a lot of diversions, such as smaller terrorist attacks on the US population. In the long run, you will be captured or shot, but you can have an exciting and entertaining time giving our not quite competent agents the run around on your last day of life(or freedom).

I have been asked to participate in a major terrorist attack on the US. I am worried that if captured I may be tortured by CTU agents. How likely is this?

If you are a committed terrrorist or a paid professional mercenary, you have little to worry about; our agents are aware that using torture on you, particularly during an emergency where every second counts, is probably futile. You are more likely to be offered complete immunity from prosecution for all past misdeeds in return for your co-operation. CTU agents mainly use torture on relatives of government officials, other CTU agents, and their girlfriends' ex-husbands.

Remember: CTU will do everything to make your visit to the US an exciting and entertaining experience.

The Nations that Eat Most

Among modern nations the greatest eaters are the English, Germans, French, and the Americans - the ruling people of our civilisation. The diet of the Spaniards and the Italians is notably less substantial than that of the English and Germans, just as their brains are less active and original.

The Americans are, on the average, the greatest eaters in the world. Said Carlyle to Emerson: "The best thing I know of that country is, that in it a man can have meat for his labour."

From Everybody's Pocket Cyclopædia OF THINGS WORTH KNOWING; THINGS DIFFICULT TO REMEMBER; and TABLES OF REFERENCE BY DON LEMON (Madgwick, Houlston & Co, London).

Offensive to Buddhists

After reading Paul Gray in The Oz yesterday, I've decided to have a crack at writing a piece that is guaranteed to be inoffensive to the faith of John Howard's mainstream Australians and equally inoffensive to the non-mainstream minority religions that have everybody in a lather over national security - like those baby-killing Seventh Day Adventists. Just to see if it can be done. Here we go:

Wan-to went to his master one day and asked "Master, how can I achieve enlightenment."

The master stroked his beard while he thought. "You must go up to the mountain and meditate upon this question: how many monks does it take to change a light bulb? When you have the answer come back and tell me, and I will tell you if you have achieved enlightnement."

Wan-to went up to the mountain to meditate on the question. He sat for a long time in the lotus position thinking deeply on how many monks it takes to change a light bulb. So great was his concentration that a pair of swallows built their nest of mud in his left armpit.

Time passed; the swallows raised their chicks and flew away. Wan-to returned to the monastery to see his master.

"Have you the answer to my question?" asked the master.

"Two thousand and one." replied Wan-to. "One to hold the bulb and two thousand to turn the monastery around."

"Foolish monk." said the master and struck Wan-to on the forehead with a bamboo stave. "Return to the mountain and meditate on the question again."

Wan-to returned to the mountain; the swallows returned and build a new nest under his left armpit. Wan-to felt sorrow that the work they had put into building the old nest had been wasted.

Time passed; the swallows raised another brood of chicks and flew away. Once again Wan-to returned to the monastery.

"And what is your answer this time, Wan-to?" asked the master.

"One." replied Wan-to "One to change the bulb, one not to think of the white horse and one to make the sound of one hand clapping."

"Foolish monk." said the master, "That is three monks."

Before the master could take up his bamboo stave, Wanto seized it and struck the master on the forehead.

"Foolish master." said Wan-to. "Go up to the mountain and meditate on this question: why is the Buddha like a bicycle clip?"

Through the many years of his life, Wan-to was known as a monk of great wisdom and enlightenment.

Then/Now

There has always been hostility from some on the left of politics towards America. These are people who believe capitalism is evil and that the US is the place where the evil of capitalism and exploitation is most at home. During the Cold War, Marxists and socialists of various types were ideologically or emotionally drawn to the communist side. Their side lost. This gave them even stronger reason to dislike America.

... if the world is to have a hegemon, the modern US is the kind of hegemon we would like to have: democratic, respectful of human rights, with strong and genuine belief in individual liberty.

Federal Treasurer Peter Costello, 22 August 2005.

Treasurer Peter Costello has warned the public service - and the government's backbench - against focusing on their own patch at the expense of the national interest.

Using an address to the Australian Public Service, Mr Costello said he feared for what he termed the Balkanisation of both government departments and politicians.

He said there was evidence in some areas of politicians not considering the wider ramifications of their decisions.

"(They decide) I'm going to do what my region wants me to do, or my state wants me to do," he said.

"I'll just do whatever is in their interest, notwithstanding that it may not be in the interests of the nation as a whole.

"I think policy works best when we have a conception of national interest."

Mr Costello said the budget problems of the United States was in part due to the decision by American lawmakers to attach particular regional projects to major pieces of legislation.

"I would want to resist that, at all costs here in Australia," he said.

Sydney Morning Herald, 2 November 2005.

Only 2 Damn Episodes To Go

It's funny - this morning Jack and Audrey were planning their future together. Since then he's been responsible for the death of her husband and now he'll have to torture her brother.

Tony, musing on life's ironies to Michelle.

Through a Bulb, Dimly

... During a Senate estimates committee examination of ABC funding, [Senator] Santoro slammed the public broadcaster not only for bias in its news and current affairs coverage but also for persistent hostility towards Australians who practise the traditional faith of the West, Christianity.

"Broadcasters continually make derogatory comments about Jesus, the Pope and Christianity in general in a way [that] I believe breaches the ABC's own editorial policies and shows demonstrable bias," he said.

...

Egregious examples of the anti-Christian bias of the ABC derive not only from the broadcaster's news and current affairs department but with greater impact from lifestyle programs such as comedy show The Glass House. The Glass House has given repeated offence to Christians with humour directed at the Pope and Mother Teresa.

It is today an open question as to which is more harmful to Australian intellectual culture: bias in the ABC's news and current affairs coverage or bias in its lifestyle programming. My view is that the latter matters more. As far as imbalance in current affairs is concerned, as exemplified by last week's Lateline coverage, it at least can be argued that few Australians will bother watching. Lateline is essentially of interest to those engaged full time in the business of politics: a small, if strategically important, segment of the population.

By contrast, non-news and current affairs programs, such as comedy and television drama, have the potential to reach and influence a far greater number of adult Australians. If bias exists here - in the form of agendas openly hostile to the values of significant sections of the population - then Australia has a real problem with its national broadcaster. This, I believe, is the existing situation.

Paul Gray, a Hun columnist, taking a shot at the big-time in The Oz (soon to be declared a great Australian cultural icon).

Dummy Spit of the Week

Senator SANTORO—I would appreciate it if you could, from this point onwards, just give actual answers to the questions. I put you and the ABC on notice: I am not going to desist from the way that I go about questioning the ABC. All you are doing is aggravating me and other senators. We will just keep on coming. If I have to go to the government and ask for a special inquiry into bias at the ABC, I will do that. I am not at all impressed by Mr Balding’s absence. I understand his attendance had been previously notified to the committee, and it was withdrawn late last Friday afternoon. You can all sit there and look as sanctimonious, as serious or—like a couple of the officers behind you—as lacking in seriousness as you want to, but I am telling you that I am not at all impressed by the absence of Mr Balding. I have 2½ thousand pages of transcripts, because every time I ask a question he says that he has to check the record, and when he does check the record I get nonsense for an answer in the vast majority of cases.

Some of us actually take our jobs very seriously. There are about 28 people in Australia monitoring what the ABC does. I receive between 15 and 20 tapes a week, and out of that we get transcripts. We are absolutely, deadly serious, some senators—I would suggest most senators—in that we want to go about making the ABC accountable. A simple statement of ‘The ABC is the most accountable media organisation,’ does not wash with me, because we as a parliament have given you about $1.2 billion of public funds. The lack of accountability as a result of Mr Balding’s absence from here today is certainly not appreciated by me.

Santo the Magnificent in the Senate Estimates Committee Hearing into the ABC, 31 October 2005.

The Enchanted Toasting Fork

(Episode 3)
The story so far: Episode 1, Episode 2

Petro half woke to a pleasant drowsiness, scented with jasmine and sandalwood with an undertone of candlewax. Someone had been burning aromatherapy candles last night. So last night had been real; he hadn't gone home alone. He hadn't even gone home; if he had he would be waking to the entirely different aromas of a bachelor's bedroom. Should he open his eyes, or was it better to feign sleep a little longer so that he could gloat over his good fortune?

There was time enough for both, he felt, so he put off opening his eyes while he relived some of last night's most vibrant and exciting moments. He noticed another scent, for a moment overwhelming the jasmine, sandlewood and candlewax. He must remember to give his moustache a good wash before he went out today. He twitched, to ease the feeling of skin stretched a little too tight; it didn't help. At last, he opened his eyes and turned his head to the side.

"About time." Petro thrilled inwardly to the sound of that vibrant voice. "I was beginning to think I should redo the garden with thorn bushes." Ruby, that was her name, Petro remembered. She was still wearing some of her jewellery from yesterday; a small ruby stud on the right side of her nose and another above her left eye. For the first time, Petro noticed that neither of the stones appeared to have a mount; they were cunningly wrought pieces of jewellery indeed.

"Mornin'," he muttered, sliding towards her; they kissed. He stroked her face - a finger brushed across the stone above her eye. "Ow!" she protested, "don't touch that."

"Sorry," he said. "Didn't mean to. It looks pretty; a ruby is it?"

"Garnet." she answered tersely. "The other one's a carnelian. Look, can we get on with this? I've got a wedding to do this afternoon."

"Well ... yeah, right." Petro was a little taken aback by her sudden loss of vibrancy, but he recovered quickly and got on with it. Later, they took a shower together, or rather Petro washed Ruby's hair and back while she stood under the spray of hot water. Occasionally he nudged her to remind her that he was still potent if she was at all interested. He noticed that she also has a few garnet - or carnelian - studs on her buttocks. So many piercings. Weird. Had he given her his phone number yet? If he had, could he afford to have it changed?

At last Ruby yielded her place under the shower head to him; there was just enough time, before the cold water set in in earnest, for him to at least give his face a scrub. When he got out of the shower she had already dried herself and was on her way out the door. "Coffee?" she asked, throwing the question back over her shoulder at him.

"Please." he answered. He dried himself as well as he could with the vibrantly pink but damp towel, then locked the bathroom door. After a minute or so, he was able to use the toilet. He flushed it and left the bathroom.

In the bedroom, as he was dressing, his thoughts turned to the toasting fork. Given the way things had turned out, it struck him that he really ought to get it back, before it caused too much trouble for Claudio and Cossima. But how to do it? The first step, he decided, would be to see if he could find any web-pages on Housebreaking.

Version 0.w.2.718281828459040 - The Flame War

...

I've about had it with this whole universe project. Look at where we're at guys - version 0.w.2.718281828459040 and we're still nowhere near a stable release. It MIGHT HELP if some of you PUTZES would actually follow some of the AGREED SPECS. Like:

Way back at release 0.w.2.71828182800042 we AGREED that hair was more efficient than feathers. But some of you guys wanted creatures that could fly - you insisted we needed feathers so you could have your birds. Hell, we already had the flight thing licked with the insects, but no, that wasn't good enough for you. At release 0.w.2.71828182800151 we cracked flying hairy things with bats. That should have been it for the friggin' birds, IMHO, but no, birds were cute, they had to stay in. What do you guys really want - a universe that's full of cute stuff or one that friggin' WORKS????

Posted by Tetragrammaton

Here we go again. POT/KETTLE/BLACK, Tet! When are you vertebrate guys going to get around to implementing the new eye design we prototyped in the cephalopods? And whose brilliant idea was it to combine intelligence with an opposable thumb? If you're so sick of this project why don't you just F**K OFF!!!! Go screw someone else's pooch.

Posted by Shiva

Please, can we discuss this without getting into that whole "intelligence is fine for cetaceans but bad for apes" debate again? That topic is SOOOO last eternity.

Posted by Yahweh

Hey Tet, is this Yahweh real, or is another one of your sock puppets? Or is it the other way round? Either way, you guys are pathetic. You want intelligent apes - fine, create an experimental branch and work on them there until you iron the bugs out or maybe finally get the idea that the damn things just don't work. Like in release 0.w.2.71828182700013 when you were expecting the little buggers to worship you andinstead they came up with that crazy "Evolution" theory. Still ROFLMAO over that one. And what about that idea of intelligent females who were naturally submissive to the males? Looked really good until they came up with that "feminism" thing.

Your biggest problem is that you think you're the only one on this project with any good ideas. If maybe you'd had the humility to recognise some of the rest of us are capable of good work, this project wouldn't be so F**KED UP. Like maybe if you'd built those praying mantis behaviours I sent you into your beloved Hom sap you'd be able to get the thing to work, mister F**CKING PERFECT.

Posted by Asmodeus

Female androphagy RAWKS!

Posted by Beelzebub

...

21st Century Schizoid Man

On the front page of today's Age, Tom Allard reminds us that Phil Ruddock's "competent authorities" are anything but:

... As family members cowered and complained, an ASIO "technical team" began to film the premises and take photographs.

According to an account of the incident by the then Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Bill Blick, the senior ASIO officer then realised he had made a "serious" error.

He had the wrong address on the search-and-seizure warrant. That should have been patently obvious because ASIO and police had earlier gone to the actual address on the warrant — Mr Daye's father's grocery shop — about 100 metres down the road.

On the opinion pages, Tony Parkinson is having a bit of trouble working out where he stands:

Whatever the challenges of fighting terrorism, the Howard Government would have done better to let the sedition laws lie fallow in Australia, as they have done since the 1940s. For it seems a very old-fashioned, ill-suited legal remedy with which to address security threats to a 21st century democracy.

...

Dangerously, for the Federal Government, the debate over sedition laws is becoming a distraction from the need for practical, effective measures aimed at preventing a terrorist attack on home soil. Frankly, there is more than enough medievalism going around at the moment without an Australian Government introducing its own blast from the past.

...

Some [Muslim militants] happen to live in Western societies. In their determination to protect Islamic doctrine from criticism (or scrutiny) they do not defer to courts or parliaments. They don't seek the acquiescence of Jon Stanhope. They take up a gun, a knife, or a cudgel, and kill those they see as infidels. Simple as that.
...

Open societies are resilient. They accommodate divergent voices — even strident voices. But a line must be drawn when voices advocate killing or maiming other Australians to advance a religious or political cause. For this reason, the bill to be introduced into Federal Parliament next week — or something like it — is a necessary safeguard ...

Actually, there is one point Tony's pretty clear on - he doesn't like John Pilger:

To prosecute and jail Pilger for sedition, whatever his opinions, would be a travesty: a cruel and unwarranted punishment. If nothing else, spare a thought for the other inmates.

Laugh, Damn It - or You're Next

Each year since 2003, I've intended to put up a celebratory, commemoratory or commiseratory post on the general theme of what's changed in the blogosphere since I started. I think, of the three alternatives listed, a commiseratory post would probably be the most appropriate, in view of our complementary misfortunes; I'm stuck with the pernicious, and ultimately narcissistic, habit of blogging, you're stuck with the equally pernicious habit of reading this guff.

There's been a lot of bloggage over the past few days on the derision bloggers have been getting from a couple of op-ed dunces; among other things this has led to some debate over at John Quiggin's blog on the nature of humour. I've so far resisted the temptation to get too involved in it. Although I'm sometimes accused of being a droll writer, I have little confidence that I could tell anyone how to be funny or defend a claim that I'm much funnier than anyone else. Humourists (especially the self-styled ones) don't seem too good at defining what they do. For example, here's an incomplete James Thurber quote on the difference between the humourist, the wit and the satirist:

The wit makes fun of other persons; the satirist makes fun of the world; the humorist makes fun of himself ...

That statement is somewhere between half-right and completely wrong. It certainly doesn't apply very well to Thurber's own writing; he's often very witty and not necessarily through poking fun at other people. When you complete the quotation, it starts to sound more plausible, but it might still be a little inflated:

... but in so doing, he identifies himself with people--that is, people everywhere, not for the purpose of taking them apart, but simply revealing their true nature.

Why present the incomplete quotation? Because that's the form in which I first found it on one of those quotes from famous people sites. Which shows a second problem that occurs when humourists get into defining their craft; they get misunderstood and misquoted.

When I started this blog, it was with two motivations. One was the belief that my daft ideas were just as worthy of space on the Internet as all of the other daft ideas I was reading at other people's blogs. The other was to demonstrate that there was at least one lefty in the world with a sense of humour and, what's more, on a good day I could be a damn sight funnier than either Tim Blair or Professor Bunyip. Over time, the writing changed; the humour became a means, rather than an end. Mixed in with the pointed topical humour, I started doing other stuff. Some of that other stuff was to do with exorcising personal demons, like thoughts of brain devouring scrambled eggs and the grey plasticine assassin who stalked my dreams one memorable night or, as in this case, a nasty memory that just keeps coming back, no matter how hard you try to shut it out.

Remember Biafra? I do, for two reasons. It was the first African famine to rate on prime-time TV for one. And the other is that it somehow spawned the worst joke I've ever heard in my life. Some of you may wish to skip the next few italicised paragraphs: there's some pretty offensive stuff in there.

Lunchtime at Greenfields High, in the asphalt section of the schoolyard where the third formers hung out. Slim, the accredited class clown, came up to me and said, "Hey Gummo, you heard the one about the Australian, the Biafran and the Jew?"

"No." I answered; he took that as an invitation to tell the joke.

"Well there's this Australian, this Biafran and this Jew, see, and they're travelling on a train together. This blow-fly comes in through the window and buzzes around the Australian and he waves it away." Here he matched gesture to speech, miming the action of waving away a fly. "It buzzes the Jew, and he waves it away too. Then it flies over to the Biafran and he does this:"

Slim grabbed an imaginary fly out the air, put his hands to his mouth and made gobbling noises.

"Well, the Australian was put off and he looked out the window; so did the Jew. A bit later a moth fies in the window. The Australian waves it away andit flies over to the Jew. The Jew grabs it," Slim grabbed the imaginary moth out of the air, "turns to the Biafran and says 'Oy maate? You vant to buy a moth?"

There was a pause, while I remembered that when the accredited class clown tells you a joke, you're supposed to laugh. But I wasn't quick enough, or hearty enough. He looked at me with a scornful expression and said "What's the matter, Trotsky? Aincha gotta sensayuma?"

It would be pleasing to editorialise this incident as an expression of precocious good taste or political correctness. Any claim I might make to the former would be somewhat compromised by my compendious knowledge of franger jokes and my dubious reputation, among my peers, for having the dirtiest mind in the school. The simple fact is that I didn't laugh because I didn't find Slim's joke particularly funny. Jew jokes didn't bother me that much at that time of my life. Possibly it was tossing in the Biafran that took it out of the realm of genuine humour and into the realm of things you'd damn well better laugh at if you know what's good for you.

Scoop, Exclusive & All That Jazz

This week's Sunday Age reported that:

Police and ASIO could move before Christmas to impose restrictions on terrorist suspects, with the Howard Government urging authorities to take "the first available opportunity" to use the new anti-terror powers.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock [who, let us not forget, owns an Amnesty International Badge] last night told The Sunday Age it was "quite possible" the new control orders would be used as soon as the legislation was passed in December.

Like Michelle Grattan and a few others, I've been wondering what all the rush is for. I spoke to a mate about it, and he got onto someone who knew someone and so on, right up to the someone who had access to the back of a photocopier in Parliament House. I'd say more, but us citizen journalists have to protect our sources, just like the professionals do.

The upshot of it is that I've actually seen a copy of the revised anti-Terrorism Bill which will actually be going to parliament. There are some interesting revisions beyond the removal of the "shoot to kill" power which got all the State Premiers in a flap. For example:

seditious intention means an intention to effect any of the following purposes:
(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
(b) to urge disaffection against the following:
(i) the Constitution;
(ii) the Government of the Commonwealth;
(iii) either House of the Parliament;
(c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth;
(d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
(e) to bring a great Australian cultural icon into hatred or contempt.

There's some other sections specifying what a great Australian cultural icon is: basically it's any person or thing that has been declared a great Australian cultural icon by the government of the day. The Bill, if passsed, will give the government the power to declare anyone or anything a great Australian cultural icon by regulation, signed by the Governor in Council and published in the Commonwealth Gazette. There's also a schedule giving an extensive list of the great Australian cultural icons that will be regulated for immediately the bill is passed. They include Aeroplane Jelly, Anzac Biscuits, Arnott's Tim Tams, Sir Donald Bradman, Burkean Conservatism, Ita Buttrose, the Easter Bunny, Four 'n' Twenty Pies, Delta Goodrem, a Hard-Earned Thirst, The Hills Hoist, the Liberal Tradition of John Stuart Mill, Sir R G Menzies, Ramsay Street, Santa Claus, Simpson, Simpson's Donkey, Summer Bay, the Tooth Fairy, Vegemite and, of course, the Victa Motor Mower.

So there it is: if the Government gets the bill through in its revised form, that will put paid to politically correct, Santa-deficient Christmases once and for all.

Insignificant Blackbird

I picked up a new bit of jargon at the pub trivia quiz last night: Base Rate Fallacy. I was wittering on about statistical significance testing and Rob, one of my team-mates remarked "You know it's all based on a fallacy don't you?" Actually, I didn't. I took a bit of convincing too; it wasn't until about 4 o'clock this morning, when I was thinking it through (as a distraction from the raucous "I suppose a root would be out of the question" noises coming from the blackbird that's adopted the gable above my bedroom window as its favourite perch) that I decided there really was something in Rob's remark and the cryptic notes he made on a piece of scrap paper to illustrate the fallacy.

As I understand it, the argument goes something like this. When scientists (psychometricians, for example) employ null hypothesis testing, or significance testing (or whatever they choose to call it), they're employing the following pattern of logical inference:

If H₁ (the experimental hypothesis) is true then the test statistic will have an improbable value.
The test statistic does not have an improbable value.
Therefore H₁ is improbable. [And we write off the experimental results as random variation]

Apparently, this is called Bayesian Modus Tollens, and there's a bit of controversy within statistical circles over whether or not it's valid. It certainly looks dodgy to me but that may be because of the way I've expressed it, translating Rob's formal notation into something a little short of plain English. What got me convinced that there is a fallacy here (while I was trying to ignore that randy blackbird), was working out the pattern of logical inference that's involved in accepting experimental results as significant (as in worth publishing and maybe throwing your hat into the ring for a Nobel prize while you're at it):

If H₁ (the experimental hypothesis) is true then the test statistic will have an improbable value.
The test statistic does have an improbable value.
Therefore H₁ is probable.

Straight up, this is a fallacy; it's not any sort of logical inference at all. A fact that's easily demonstrated with the help of the classic Socrates example:

If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore Socrates is a man.

There's more on the subject here (extensive bibliography), here and here (PDF - a philosopher sinks the slipper into Michael Behe). Here's a juicy bit from the last, to whet your appetite:

In addition to rejecting evolutionary explanations, Behe advances the positive thesis that the biochemical systems he describes in loving detail were designed by an intelligent agent (p. 204). However, for these details to favor intelligent design over mindless evolution, we must know how probable those details are under each hypothesis. This is the point of the Law of Likelihood. Behe asserts that these details are very improbable according to evolutionary theory, but how probable are they according to the hypothesis of intelligent design? It is here that we encounter a great silence. Behe and other ID theorists spend a great deal of time criticizing evolutionary theory, but they don t take even the first steps towards formulating an alternative theory of their own that confers probabilities on what we observe. If an intelligent designer built the vertebrate eye ,or the bacterial flagellum, or the biochemical cascade that causes blood to clot, what is the probability that these devices would have the features we observe? The answer is simple - we do not know. We lack knowledge of what this putative designer's intentions would be if he set his mind to constructing structures that perform these functions.

The sad fact about ID theory is that there is no such theory. Behe argues that evolutionary theory entails that adaptive complexity is very improbable, Johnson rails against the dogmatism of scientists who rule out a priori the possibility of supernatural explanation, and Dembski tries to construct an epistemology in which it is possible to gain evidence for the hypothesis of design without ever having to know what, if anything, that hypothesis predicts. A lot goes wrong in each of these efforts, but notice what is not even on the list.

As Advertised

Episode Two of The Enchanted Toasting Fork is now available at CattyRox. Episode Three will appear here next week.

Slightly Overdue

Somewhere in the fug of depression that's hung over the recent past, the third bloggiversary of Tug Boat Potemkin slipped by unremarked. Three years of doing this stuff and what do I have to show for it? Apart from a few new friends and acquaintances to alienate, nothing really. Apart from the frustration that goes with picking up a truly inspiring idea and discovering there's actually sod all you can do with it:

The Kembliad

ARGUMENT: Somewhat orotundly, the poet invokes the muse to sing the praises of a famous Australian city. She ignores him.

Sing, O Muse, the splendours of Port Kembla,
Grimy jewel of the Illawarra!

Send in the Florists

The best line from last night's 24:

"When I shot that guy, I thought I was going to go all foetal position but I didn't feel anything. I hope I'm not some kind of psychopath."

[Chloe, sharing a moment of self revelation with Edgar]

With all the bizarre twists each episode serves up, it's impossible to predict where the plot goes from here. However, now that Audrey has declared undying hatred for Jack, I wouldn't be surprised if next week we see Jack trying desperately to get to Marwan before the nukular weapon goes off, with Audrey in hot pursuit, hell bent on revenging her dead ex-husband and a crack Interflora special delivery team in hot pursuit of Audrey, hell bent on giving her the two dozen long-stemmed red roses that Jack has ordered as a peace offering. At gunpoint if necessary.

Local News

Under the screamer "Streets of shame", This Monday's Moreland Leader reports:

Muslim women are being made the target of religious and racial abuse on Moreland Streets.

Graffiti including "Kill Muslims" has been painted across a Coburg building and women wearing headscarfs have been subjected to threats and verbal abuse.

Local Muslims have told the Moreland Leader that over the past month:

• A man in his 30s yelled "F**k off terrorist" and swerved his car at a Muslim woman as she crossed the road with her baby;
• A Muslim woman and her three children had a milkshake thrown at them as they walked along Sydney Rd;
• There were various instances of Muslim girls being spat at or having obscenities screamed at them from passing cars.
  

Inside, on page 4, the paper reports:

Ms Fartun Farah [of the United Somali Women's Organisation] said women were being targeted because they are easily identified as Muslims by their hijab garb, while Muslim men integrated with western dress.

There you go then; problem solved. If these women stopped parading around the streets in archaic garments that mark them out as the oppressed victims of a patriarchal religion, they'd spare themselves a lot of aggravation. If the blokes can learn to fit in, why can't the women? When you look at the broader context, that 30 year old bloke in the car was doing the woman a favour.

Then and Then and Then Some

The Liberal Party is a broad church. You sometimes have to get the builders in to put in the extra pew on both sides of the aisle to make sure that everybody is accommodated. But it is a broad church and we should never as members of the Liberal Party of Australia lose sight of the fact that we are the trustees of two great political traditions. We are, of course, the custodian of the classical liberal tradition within our society, Australian Liberals should revere the contribution of John Stuart Mill to political thought. We are also the custodians of the conservative tradition in our community. And if you look at the history of the Liberal Party it is at its best when it balances and blends those two traditions. Mill and Burke are interwoven into the history and the practice and the experience of our political party.

John Howard, "Address at the Launch of the Publication 'The Conservative'", Parliament House Canberra, 8 September 2005.

No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear. This aspect of the question, besides, has been so often and so triumphantly enforced by preceding writers, that it needs not be specially insisted on in this place. Though the law of England, on the subject of the press, is as servile to this day as it was in the time of the Tudors, there is little danger of its being actually put in force against political discussion, except during some temporary panic, when fear of insurrection drives ministers and judges from their propriety; and, speaking generally, it is not, in constitutional countries, to be apprehended, that the government, whether completely responsible to the people or not, will often attempt to control the expression of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty , 1869.

The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts.

Edmund Burke, no idea where, no idea when.

The Obligatory Tuesday 24 Post

Last night's comedy highlights:

The American President agonising (after the event) over whether Jack Bauer should be given the go ahead to torture an American citizen. Torturing a foreign national is one thing but an American citizen...

All that agonising over whether the Prez is up to the job, leading to his realisation, halfway through the episode that he isn't up to the job of Fuhrer of the Free World. But he's stuck with it, because three presidents in as many hours would be too much for public confidence to take.

Chloe, CTU's most brilliant analyst (the one with all the tact and charm of a roadkill porcupine) blows away a terrorist with an assault rifle.

Did I miss any?

Meanwhile, in the real world, the US Senate recently voted 99-9 "to force the Pentagon to set strict standards for the interrogation of prisoners and to prohibit their 'cruel, inhumane or degrading' treatment". They'll be sorry one day when a terrorist mastermind hacks into every nuclear reactor in the US, causing at least one major meltdown and follows that up by stealing a "nukular" weapon to blow up Iowa. Iowa?

The Enchanted Toasting Fork

Once upon a time, in a land far enough from our own, rather ordinary, land to satisfy the demands of narrative convention, two people fell in love. Whether they were of royal descent I do not know; all I can be sure of is that neither was a practising royal which was just as well for them because they were both divorcees. Remarriage is a complicated enough business for commoners, what with the blending of families and child custody visits. Imagine what it would be like if, on top of that, you ended up with two unfortunate enchanted princesses in your family, each needing a kiss from her very own handsome prince to lift the enchantment. It often happened, in such families, that one day, while one of the princesses was off on a visit with the non-custodial parent, a handsome prince would happen along, set on the usual business of finding a princess with whom he could fall in love and marry. And, since handsome princes aren't too particular when it comes to falling in love with enchanted princesses, so long as they can get the whole absurd business of lifting the enchantment over with as quickly as possible, the absent princess would often return to discover that her step-sister was already married off. Naturally she would then turn to wickedness and start looking for ways to get back at her step-sister and, most likely, settle on the traditional resort of placing an enchantment on her first step-niece at her christening.

As commoners, Claudio the Counting House Clerk and his bride-to-be, Cossima, were spared these complications; all they had to contend with in arranging their new marriage was the ordinary problems of commoners who remarry, such as somehow finding room in their humble cottage for all the children, maintaining friendly relations with Claudio's bride-that-was and Cossima's groom-that-was, and so on. While not as rich as royalty, they did well enough; Claudio's job, stacking the coins in the king's counting house into neat piles of tens, hundreds and thousands so that the king could count his money without straining his limited mathematical knowledge., paid well enough to support them both. They had every reason to expect that their future together would be a happy one and very few, most of which they understandably overlooked, for believing things might turn out otherwise. So, after a decorous interval of being in love (sometimes, alas, a little indecorously), they set a date to be married and sent out invitations to the wedding.

When royalty send out invitations to important social events – especially christenings of princes – they're very careful to invite everyone who might feel slighted at not receiving an invitation and so royal weddings and christenings are often very dreary, stilted affairs with a large crowd of wicked witches and step-sisters, ill-tempered fairies and the like, looking for an excuse to get offended and lay a curse on the hapless infanta. Generally, commoners have a much easier time of it; they invite as many of their friends as they can afford to and hope that no-one gets too drunk at the reception. This is how Claudio and Cossima went about arranging their own wedding.

Among their friends they had two named Petro, one of whom who considered himself a wizard. He wasn't really much of a wizard; although he had been trained in wizardry in his youth and granted a license to practice wizardry he had never held down a wizarding job. He had never got the least trace of toad bile or salamander phlegm or any of the other arcane materials that wizards use to effect their enchantments under his fingernails. Not once. For a year or so after he graduated from the wizard's academy, he had tried to get a wizard's job, sending off numerous letters of application to various royal courts where he thought there might be a wicked step-sister or step-mother somewhere in the family tree. Most royal families keep a wizard or two around the palace. Officially they're there to protect the family from various forms of vile enchantment, of course, but in practice the world of wizardry is a little murkier and the practice of it isn't quite even up to peccable standards they teach in Wizarding Ethics 101 or the much more peccable standards taught in Wizarding Ethics 103, the short course for students who don't intend to major in ethics.

When Petro the wizard manque discovered that, although invited to the wedding, he was not getting one of those invitations for “So-and-so and a friend”, he became a little peeved. He was himself divorced, like Claudio and Cossima, and after a fashion in love. Or at least he thought himself in love, which often amounts to much the same thing for a lot of people. One day, while reading Wizarding Today or The New Wizard he had found an article reporting on recent research at the cutting edge of modern wizardry which showed that a wedding reception was possibly the best occasion for an amorous swain to press his suit. He had been looking forward, with some eagerness, to the opportunity to put in a couple of hours of emotional ironing. He was very cross when he learnt that this wasn't going to happen.

So, for the first time since he had left the wizard's academy all those years ago he turned his hands to a little practical wizardry. It wasn't strictly in accord with the standards he had learn in Wizarding Ethics 103; the only thing he chose to remember from this part of his education in wizardry was the tenet that wizards must practice their craft without fear or favour, and so he put out of his mind petty quibbles about the obligations of friendship. This is the way people think when their minds turn to wickedness.

With the help of his old text books, like Badman and Fisher's The Material Basis of Malediction (Third Edition), Podgorbley's Handbook of Wizardry Practice and so on, he selected a range of appropriately vile materials. His next step was to obtain a toasting fork – a traditional wedding gift in that part of the world, although one generally considered more appropriate for newly-weds. Divorcees remarrying could generally be relied upon to have a goodly stock of toasting forks from their first weddings. That he should overlook this shows how little he knew of life and other people; although he believed that he knew the ways of the world pretty well the main thing that set Petro apart from other people was that he was differently delusional.

Once he had his toasting fork, he set about collecting the unpleasant body fluids of various amphibians, reptiles and rodents he would require for the spell and a few herbs and roots, such as wormwood and asafoetida, brimstone. A few nights before the wedding he was ready to cast the spell. He mixed the asafoetida, wormwood and brimstone with ground charcoal and placed them in a brazier. Once the brazier was lit he hung the toasting fork over the brazier and drop by drop, dribble by dribble, poured the mix of vile essences over the toasting fork as he recited his spell:


In sunny day or darkest night,
Await the touch of firelight,
Draw the warmth from heart to hand,
Down thy shaft and then do send
It into whatever on thy prongs be spiked ...

He wasn't much of a poet either but the general intention of the spell was fairly clear; each time the toasting fork was used, it would draw a little of the loving warmth of whoever held it and put it somewhere else: in whatever happened to be stuck on the fork at the time. Over time, the hearts of Claudio and Cossima and their mixed families would grow cold towards each other. Or so he expected.

Once the spell was cast, he opened the windows of his work room and went outside into the fresh air, coughing and sneezing. It was then that he remembered his Wizardry Practice instructor's advice to always have a decoction of horehound handy when casting any vile enchantment. Once he was recovered, he returned to the work room and put the toasting fork in a cardboard box, covered with in paper printed with a pattern of rosebuds and wrapped it in brass paper. To finish, he wrapped a chrome ribbon around the middle of the package and, under that, he tucked a card on which he had written “To Claudio and Cossima on their wedding day, with fond wishes for their future together, Petro.” And so, it was done.

[This story will continue at CattyRox next week. Then back here. And so on.]

More Bad Characters

What do David Djalic, Gavin George and Stefan Nystrom all have in common? Each of them has failed the character test specified in Section 501 of the Migration Act, that's what. Officially, they're none of them the sort of people we want in Australia. So what if they arrived here as minors? They went to the bad as adults and, according to DIMIA, Phil Ruddock (in the cases of Djalic and George) and Amanda Vanstone (in the Nystrom case) that ought to be good enough reason to want shot of them. Naturally, Djalic, George and Nystrom disagreed, hence the various Federal Court judgements linked to above.

Alright, so I haven't exactly researched this topic in depth yet; all I've done is crank up a quick Austlii search for cases involving s501 of the Migration Act and gone through the judgements looking for commonalities with the Nystrom case. All I can say at this stage is that the cases of Djalic and George were a little too easy to find.

To finish, here's a curious case involving the question of whether the Minister for Deportation of Undesirables has the power to revoke a visa cancellation under s501:

2 The only question argued on appeal was whether or not the appellant (the "Minister") had power to revoke the decision to cancel the respondent’s visa pursuant to s 501(2) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the "Act"). There is no express power so to do. Therefore the only source of such power can be s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) (the "AIA"). The pervasive effect of that provision upon the legislative grant of administrative powers should not be underestimated ...

7 ... The existence of an unlimited power to revisit a decision to cancel a visa would not sit comfortably with the stringent provisions regulating the grant of visas imposed by Division 3 of Part II. After all, the effect of such a decision may be, in effect, to grant a new visa. Similarly, if a decision to refrain from cancelling a visa could be revisited, the visa-holder would, notwithstanding such favourable determination, remain at risk of future cancellation upon the same factual basis as grounded the original decision. That would be an unsatisfactory basis for continued residence in this country. Neither outcome is consistent with the strict regulatory regime established by the Act. If it were possible to limit the time within which, or the circumstances in which, a decision might be revisited, the position might be otherwise. However, as far as I can see, there is no way of doing so.
[Dowsett J]

By far the larger number of persons of German descent living in Australia were loyal to the flag under which they lived, and where this was clearly the case, the disposition of the military authorities and their useful police allies was not to molest them. Immediately after the outbreak of war there was a rush of applications for naturalisation, which was granted generally without any searching inquiry into the bona fides and loyalty of the applicant and without the military authorities being consulted. Later in the war careful enquiries were made as to all persons likely to be disaffected, and all persons born in enemy countries were required to report themselves and be registered. It may confidently be said that no persons of this class who acted and spoke with discretion suffered annoyance by official direction, however much they may have been vexed by their neighbours or eyed askance by former friends. But some Germans were boastful and aggressive. They loudly proclaimed that victory for the Central Powers was inevitable, and made no secret of their disposition. In Sydney, for instance, it was reported that many members of German firms, wool-buyers, island traders, and shippers. showed that they could not be trusted. The military authorities were not inclined to take any risks with such persons. Again, in Melbourne, after the German Club in Alfred Place, Collins-street, was closed, some of its former members who had been in the habit of meeting there nightly to gossip over beer and tobacco, continued their convivial fraternising at a cafe kept by one of their compatriots. They were to be seen emerging therefrom in the early hours of the morning. Perhaps they had not been plotting treason, or even discussing politics ; they were capable of wrangling about the categorical imperative of Kant, or the construction of a Beethoven symphony. Some of them were well known to the Melbourne public; one was a musician of some distinction, whose friends warned him that he was running grave risks. But the advice was unheeded. The police became suspicious about this knot of enemy subjects who were to be seen emerging by a side door on dark nights. The result was that the entire group was suddenly consigned to a concentration camp [sic] to meditate upon its folly.

From The Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918, Chapter IV "The Enemy Within the Gates" (Ernest Scott, 1941).

True Blue Cultural Revolution

I've just downloaded my very own copy of the draft Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 from the website of Jon Stanhope, the ACT's Chief Minister. I gather from Nine MSN that Phil Ruddock is pissed off mightily that Stanhope has leaked the bill. Here's a particularly choice section of the Bill, dealing with control orders:

104.4 Terms of control order

(1) If the issuing Court makes the control order, the order must:

(a) state that the Court is satisfied of the matters mentioned in paragraphs 104.3(b) and (c); and
(b) specify the name of the person to whom the order relates; and
(c) specify all of the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions mentioned in subsection (3) that are to be imposed on the 22 person by the order; and
(d) specify the period during which the order is to be in force, which must not end more than 12 months after the day on which the order is made; and
(e) state that the order does not begin to be in force until it is served personally on the person; and
(f) state that the person s lawyer may attend a specified place in order to obtain a copy of the order.

Note: An order in relation to a 16- to 18-year-old must not end more than 3 months after the day on which the order is made: see section ^104.14. 32

(2) Paragraph (1)(d) does not prevent the making of successive orders in relation to the same person. [my emphasis]

(3) The obligations, prohibitions and restrictions that the Court may impose on the person by the control order are the following:

(a) a prohibition or restriction on the person being at specified areas or places;
(b) a prohibition or restriction on the person leaving Australia;
(c) a requirement that the person remain at specified premises between specified times each day, or on specified days;
(d) a requirement that the person wear a tracking device;
(e) a prohibition or restriction on the person communicating or associating with specified individuals;
(f) a prohibition or restriction on the person accessing or using specified forms of telecommunication or other technology (including the Internet);
(g) a prohibition or restriction on the person possessing or using specified articles or substances;
(h) a prohibition or restriction on the person carrying out specified activities (including in respect of his or her work or occupation);
(i) a requirement that the person report to specified persons at specified times and places;
(j) a requirement that the person allow himself or herself to be photographed;
(k) a requirement that the person allow his or her fingerprints to be taken;
(l) if the person consents a requirement that the person participate in specified counselling or education. [my emphasis]

According to reasonable, mainstream opinion - that is the editorial and opinion pages of the Murdoch dailies - it's entirely inappropriate and a little odious to compare this legislation to the apartheid regime in South Africa worse yet to invoke the historical spectre of Nazi Germany. Comparisons with Stalinist Russia are likewise right out. Which leaves me a little stumped when it comes to describing a piece of proposed legislation which allows the courts to impose rolling periods of more or less complete house arrest. I suppose, in the current climate, civil libertarians should just be grateful that at least the re-education will be voluntary.

Wrong Again (So What Else Is New?)

I checked out Channel 10's new drama series The Surgeon last night. What a disappointment. Thanks to the Channel 10 promo department, I was expecting a quality Australian drama along the lines of The Young Doctors or The Flying Doctors (which, I am reliably informed, once featured a scene where brain surgery was performed with dental instruments). Nothing like it.

The Surgeon turned out to be a tightly scripted and well acted. I didn't get a single laugh out of it. Bugger.

Cue Applause: The Sound of One Hand Clapping

James McConvill, whose blog often calls to mind Sylvester Stallone striding around in blue lycra tights over a large swimmer's cup bellowing "I am the law", has decided to take it up to the "latte lefts" on the subject of legally sanctioned torture. It seems that, as far as the leading lights of the Deakin University Law School are concerned, this is an argument we more or less have to have, preferably on terms which they find personally congenial, even favourable to their side of the argument. Today's Lawyers Weekly carries an opinion piece by Mirko Bagaric on the conduct of the debate over the place of torture in the defence of democracy:

Mirko Bagaric has not bothered responding to community outrage following the publication of his views on torture – it is to be expected that lay people may come out strongly against them. However, he says, he expected more from lawyers

It is fair to say that my article in The Age on torture on the 17 May, 2005 has caused a storm. It is to be expected that lay people may come out strongly against my views, given the manner in which they were portrayed. More, however, could have been expected of lawyers. From lawyers, the minimum that could be expected is a rational assessment of how the proposal would affect the existing operation of the law and an awareness of the social importance of robust and open debate on matters of potential social relevance.

It's easy to understand why Bagaric is so upset at the rough handling he received; after all, he was paddling around in the centre of the teacup when the storm broke. I suppose, as a member of the hoi-polloi, I should applaud Bagaric's generosity of spirit when it comes to his "lay" detractors; we got it wrong because we was misled about what he was really saying in passages such as this:

The belief that torture is always wrong is, however, misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators. It is this type of absolutist and short-sighted rhetoric that lies at the core of many distorted moral judgements that we as a community continue to make, resulting in an enormous amount of injustice and suffering in our society and far beyond our borders.

Sorry, and I know that this criticism can hardly be considered informed, with me not being a lawyer and all, but this excerpt from Bagaric's Age article strikes me as a bit woolly and muddled. Generally, it comes across as saying that torture is sometimes OK, and we'd all be a lot better off if we recognised this. A point reaffirmed in answer to possible arguments against Bagaric's modest proposal:

The second main argument is that torture will dehumanise society. This is no more true in relation to torture than it is with self-defence, and in fact the contrary is true. A society that elects to favour the interests of wrongdoers over those of the innocent, when a choice must be made between the two, is in need of serious ethical rewiring.

This alleged need for an "ethical rewiring" of society is reaffirmed in Lawyers Weekly:

The moral code propounded by my critics belongs in the domain of fairy tales, where important rights never clash. Sorry to break into the tranquility of their day, but sometimes rights do clash. When they do, the least horrible thing to do is that which causes the least amount of harm. And that is exactly what we do. Now, what we actually do, does not justify what ought to be done. Still, the above account is telling because the force of the anti torture objection lies in the fact that it supposedly so troubles our moral consciousness that there must be a mistake somewhere in the theory which accepts limited torture. But this claim loses its force when it is shown that torturing in extreme circumstances is in fact no worse than other activities that we condone.

Maybe my resistance to Bagaric's ideas is the result of "the manner in which they were portrayed" but a lot of that portrayal has been provided by Bagaric himself. In both the original Age article and his Lawyers Weekly article he argues that torture is sometimes justified yet, somewhat preciously, he doesn't like being seen as an advocate of the use of torture. Well, you don't need to be an all froth and no bubble "latte left" to know that you can't have your apple tea-cake and eat it.

Another Crap TV Post

24 was a bit of a disappointment last night; it was nowhere near as funny as last week's episode but it had its moments.

Right now, I'm tempted to check out the program's web-site to see how the rest is going to turn out. It would be a pleasing twist if, by the last episode, the terrorist mastermind Marwan has an epiphany and realises that he was being used as a cat's paw by a shadowy cabal of US Military Industrial Complex types who are staging the entire terrorist incident to give themselves the pretext they need to usher in a totalitarian police state. This would lead to an interesting showdown; on one side, Marwan who has rediscovered his essential humanity, determined to redeem himself by preventing the nuclear attack that, up till now, he has worked so hard to bring about and on the other, Jack Bauer, willing to sacrifice his life to further the noble cause of torture in defence of democracy.

I don't see it turning out that way for some reason.

Then/Now

... I as you know in other contexts, I'm a Burkean conservative and I don't believe in abandoning something that continues to work unless I'm convinced that it's no longer of value.

John Howard, National Press Club Address September 11, 2002

I think you just should allow a thousand arrangements to bloom, if I can vary a famous remark, in order to get the best outcomes for the economy.

John Howard on Industrial Relations Reform, quoted in The Age

Young and Free? Maybe Not

Here's a letter I noticed in Saturday's Age:

Overdone
I work for the Immigration Department, and I must admit that I felt pretty embarrassed after reading your front page ( The Age, 7/10). No, not because of my employment — it was the thought that I had paid good money to read this hysterical trash that made me feel a bit ashamed.

What topic prompted not just the use of almost the entire front page, but even red ink in the headlines (something I have never before seen)? Surely it was something more serious than the recent mass murder in Bali or the many immensely important issues that face us. Well, actually, it was about the handling of a single case by a large government department.

Certainly the case was wrongly handled. However, the result was not that anybody died or was even injured, but an unfortunate woman in need of help ended up in a place where she received compassion and care in peaceful surrounds.

Having gone almost off the scale in its treatment of such a story, what will The Age do when something really big needs to be reported?
Michael Saville, Ashburton

That third paragraph neatly encapsulates most of the argument that's been advanced in defence of DIMIA's bungling of the Rau and Solon cases; it's a big department so mistakes sometimes happen but, crikey, it could have been a lot worse and (the part I really like) the end result was that Vivian Solon ended up in a fairly good place so what's all the damn fuss about?

Right now I'm tempted by the idea of going out one night and cruising some of Melbourne's darker laneways until I happen upon some hapless stranger whose living daylights I shall extract by the usual means; a damn good kicking. I know it sounds reprehensible, but you have to consider the bigger picture here. I'm not actually proposing to kill anyone and, if things go as they should, the victim can expect to receive care and compassion in peaceful surroundings. My one concern is that I'm no longer as spry and fleet of foot as I was in my youth, so the getaway could be a little touch and go. But that's all; there don't seem to be any serious ethical concerns in the way.

I think I'd better make it quite clear that I'm not reccommending this approach to anger management to anyone else, particularly Melburnians. The last thing I want is to cop a kicking some evening when I'm out on the town looking for a kickee of my own. It's also a bad idea to go about inflicting a bit of GBH on complete strangers if you were born in foreign parts and aren't yet fully de-wogged. You might find yourself facing deportation under section 501 of the Migration Act. Like Stefan Nystrom.

Nystrom's parents migrated to Australia from Sweden in 1966. In 1973, his mother went back to Sweden for a holiday; Stefan Nystrom was born there on December 31, 1973. She returned to Australia, with young Stefan in tow, on January 27, 1974. Stefan hasn't been out of the country since.

On 12 August, 2004 the Minister for Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (Amanda Vanstone), cancelled (or purported to cancel, in the words of Justices Moore and Gyles of the Federal Court) Nystrom's visa, using the discretionary powers conferred on her by section 501 of the Migration Act:

The Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and
(b) the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.

Stefan Nystrom had buckley's of passing the character test; as this report from The Age of October 6, 2004 mentions, he's served time for aggravated rape and armed burglary. Definitely not the sort of person we want in Australia. Nonetheless, Nystrom wants to stay here and on July 1, 2005 the Federal Court heard his appeal against the Minister's decision to give him the boot. He won by a 2-1 majority decision.

On the subject of Nystrom's criminal record, Justices Moore and Gyles say this in their majority decision:

29 ... The appellant has indeed behaved badly, but no worse than many of his age who have also lived as members of the Australian community all their lives but who happen to be citizens. The difference is the barest of technicalities. It is the chance result of an accident of birth, the inaction of the appellant’s parents and some contestable High Court decisions. Apart from the dire punishment of the individual involved, it presumes that Australia can export its problems elsewhere.

They go on to give Amanda a bit of a serve (but a dignified, judicial one, of course):

30 The third issue requiring reconsideration is the increasing tendency to utilise direct ministerial decision making. There will, no doubt, always be cases of particular political sensitivity which may require ministerial consideration. That cannot be true of the ordinary case of criminal conduct such as this.

Justice Emmett dissenting, upheld the Minister's decision, but wasn't exactly overjoyed about it:

49 I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Moore and Gyles JJ for concluding that the appeal should be upheld. While I do not agree with that conclusion, I share the disquiet expressed by their Honours concerning the circumstances in which a man who has spent all of his life in Australia and who has no knowledge of the Swedish language will be removed to Sweden and banished from Australia because of what must be characterised as an accident of history and an oversight on the part of his parents. The material before the Court indicates that the appellant is a thoroughly unpleasant man having been convicted of serious and odious crimes. However, that is irrelevant to the question that has been raised concerning the validity of the Minister’s decision. [my emphasis]

Nystrom isn't the first person to face deportation under section 501 of the Migration Act. On October 11, 2004, The Age reported on the case of George Andary:

a 41-year-old former prison inmate who failed to take out Australian citizenship after his family migrated from Lebanon when he was four.

Chapter 11 of DIMIA's report Managing the Border: Immigration Compliance (June 2005) states:

In 2003-04, decisions under sections 200 and 201 of the Migration Act resulted in two criminals being deported. There were 60 removals of non-citizen criminals whose visas were cancelled under section 501.

Section 200 is merely the introduction to Division 9 of the Act; all it has to say is:

The Minister may order the deportation of a non-citizen to whom this Division applies.

Section 201 allows for the deportation of criminals who are not Australian citizens and who have lived here for less than ten years. But on the 2003-04 figures, a lot more people were removed from the country under the "character test" provisions of Section 501. When the decision is taken by the minister personally, Section 501 has this to say:

Decision of Minister—natural justice does not apply

As for Stefan Nystrom, his Federal Court win doesn't necessarily end the matter. The Age notes:

Senator Vanstone has lodged an application seeking leave to appeal against the decision in the High Court. She refused to comment while the case was before the court.

Upside the Head

... The "errors" that Bolt supposedly discovers in my work, extracted in The Age, are in fact howlers on his part. Indeed, so egregious are some that it's hard to believe that Bolt has not set out to mislead his readers. Let's look at five of the biggest whoppers.

1 Bolt says that I claim that climate has been stable for the past 10,000 years. This is not so. In my book I reprint the graph that documents northern hemisphere climate variability over the past 1000 years, and enter into an extended discussion of well-known variations such as the Medieval Warm Period. Either Bolt has not read the book he is critiquing, or he is lying through his teeth. The point I do make, however, is that variability in average global temperature over the past 10,000 years has been small when compared with earlier periods. This is indisputable

2 Bolt accuses me of saying that Katrina was the most powerful hurricane on record. Katrina is not mentioned in my book, which went to press before Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast ...

Tim Flannery on Andrew Bolt in today's Age

TV Matters - Or Does It?

I've just looked over the Age Green Guide to get an idea of what kind of crap I'll be watching on television over the next week. There's a longish preview of next Monday's episode of 24 which gives the show a pretty thorough slagging off. I'm not sure that's entirely justified but I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it for myself.

Here at the Pascoe Vale Dacha, we've taken to recording 24 while we watch something marginally more intelligent and then replaying the video with a lot of fast-forwarding through all the soap opera stuff, like Jack Bauer's intense D & Ms with his girlfriend Audrey. This helps to bring out the underlying hilarity of the show, and the sly tongue-in-cheek in-jokes that the script writers seem to be slipping in. I could be wrong about the in-jokes; my belief that some of the scriptwriters on 24 must be taking the piss might just be an instance of the lefty preference for conspiracy theories over much simpler cock-up theories.

In last Monday's episode, Air Force was shot down by a rogue fighter pilot in a stolen stealth fighter. The good folk at CTU took a little time out from fretting over their completely bollixed personal lives to start fretting over the location of the "nuclear football"; a nickname for a briefcase holding everything you need to launch the US' nuclear arsenal. Jack was sent off to recover it from the wreck of Air Force One. What followed was some of the best inadvertent comedy I've seen on television this year. For starters, there was that scene of Jack walking through the wreckage of Air Force One, calling CTU to announce: "This is Jack Bauer. I'm at the crash site. I do not have possession of the football, I repeat, I do not have possession of the football."

This was followed by a sequence which showed us where the football was; a couple of newly woods who had gone out in the wilderness to camp and "make a baby" discovered the football in some wreckage from Air Force One near their camp site. You have to admire the ordinary American s they show on 24: when these people discovered the wreckage, they immediately focussed on the big issue, the threat to national security. There was none of that self-indulgent oh my God, big plane fell out of the sky and nearly killed us I am so freaked out by this crap. There's a marked contrast with the staff at the CTU, who seem to put a lot more effort into ensuring that the demands of protecting national security don't get in the way of talking out their personal crises. It's fortunate for America that some of the characters in the show have got their priorities straight.

Naturally the terrorists are also after possession of the football; so we got a sequence showing the terrorists coming to get it in their four-wheel drives while the husband frantically tried to find the radio transponder the terrorists were tracking with a compass, before disabling it with either "a knife or a sharp rock". This bit nearly had Zeppo Bakunin and me in stitches as the husband bravely held back his natural impulse to just get the hell out of there and did his bit for his country, like any good average American would. And there was plenty more "football" dialogue, of course.

It all culminated with the terrorists gaining possession of the football, I repeat, the terrorists gained possession of the football. The show ended, more or less, with Jack finally in possession of the football and telling CTU that the football had been compromised. Next Monday, the terrorists are off to steal a nuclear weapon, which they intend to arm, using the activation codes they took from the compromised nuclear football. According to the GG this takes us into some pretty vile territory so it may prove a lot less comic.

One new show to watch out for, assuming that it does appear, is Channel 10's new Aussie drama The Surgeon. I caught a promo for it last night: it featured this dramatic piece of dialogue: "You're trying to save his leg. I'm trying to save his life." Promising. Very promising.