We all learned to despise Keating in the eighties and early nineties. But the conservatives, including Howard, seemed intent not just on destroying the person, or the access to power, but also to grind his memory into the dust. It always seemed excessive to me, but I didn’t understand why.
But Keating has recently reappeared a little on the scene. He spoke ardently and combatively the other day about IR changes. And today I came across a quote from 2003 which reminded me just how powerful was his rhetoric. Listen to this and gasp. No wonder the right needs to annihilate this man.
“Former Prime Minister Paul Keating suggests that, in the future, all that will remain of the conservative, mean-spirited haters of our present will be ‘a smudge in history’:
‘They absolutely insist of their view and the lessons they see in our history. Yet in their insistence, their proprietorialness, their derivativeness and their rancour, they reduce the flame and energy within the nation to a smouldering incandescence. What they do is crimp and cripple our destiny. It’s like suffering from some sort of anaemia; robbing the political blood of its energy.’
Keating believes, however, that ‘the undertaking is simply too big for them’. Despite their insistence, ‘[n]o great transformation can come from their tiny view of (Australians) and their limited faith in us’.”
Whew!
Paul Keating’s quotes are from his speech at the launch of Stuart Macintyre and Anna Clark’s The History Wars, 3 Sept 2003). This whole quote is from "Making the future: Activism memory and hope" by Sean Scalmer & Sarah Maddison. In Overland 173, Summer 2003, pp. 34-35.
Another quote from earlier in this article also hit me. It's about this government's method of silencing dissent. If you follow the news, you will know of other such instances (HR&EOC, government contracts with religious groups and youth representation come immediately to mind)
“Mick Dodson has sniffed defeat in the battle for Indigenous rights. The Howard Government has been vicious:
‘If you dissent you get punished. That’s what they do, they just take your money away if you’re dependent on it. They are very vindictive people who are full of hate, and anyone who wants to try to stand up to their ideology or their philosophy is silenced’.”
Ibid, p. 31
31 July 2005
27 July 2005
About Ruddock and his UN mashing
Crikey has an article on "Ruddock's peculiar view of human rights" in its recent email newsletter (although I can't seem to find it on their website, or is the RSS feed). Charles Richardson writes about Ruddock's claims "that the UN Convention on Human Rights requires the government to suppress civil liberties in order to fight terrorism" and argues that Ruddock "fundamentally misunderstands what human rights treaties ... are all about".
"We don't need a human rights treaty or a bill of rights to tell us that governments should be protecting the citizens' lives – that's their job. The point of a bill of rights is to constrain the way governments go about doing their job ...
Ruddock's view sets up a moral equivalence between government actions and government failures to act, but a moment's thought shows that this is absurd. If the police fail to prevent a murder, it's unfortunate, but it happens all the time – it's not a human rights issue. But if the police kill innocent people, it's a much more serious matter, because it puts us at risk from the very agency we have established to protect us.
If one thought that Ruddock really believed his own argument, it would be disturbing that we have an attorney-general who could muddle up such basic issues. It is much more likely, however, that he's cynically making whatever argument he thinks will serve the immediate purpose, and trusting that the media will be too incompetent to expose him.
Sadly enough, he's probably right".
Excuse the lengthy quote, but it's just what I wish I'd written in my last post. Congratulations to Charles Richardson for his clear thinking.
"Ruddock's peculiar view of human rights" by Charles Richardson. In Crikey Daily, 27 July 2005, item 14.
You can subscribe to Crikey daily (free) or the full service (charged) at http://www.crikey.com.au/
"We don't need a human rights treaty or a bill of rights to tell us that governments should be protecting the citizens' lives – that's their job. The point of a bill of rights is to constrain the way governments go about doing their job ...
Ruddock's view sets up a moral equivalence between government actions and government failures to act, but a moment's thought shows that this is absurd. If the police fail to prevent a murder, it's unfortunate, but it happens all the time – it's not a human rights issue. But if the police kill innocent people, it's a much more serious matter, because it puts us at risk from the very agency we have established to protect us.
If one thought that Ruddock really believed his own argument, it would be disturbing that we have an attorney-general who could muddle up such basic issues. It is much more likely, however, that he's cynically making whatever argument he thinks will serve the immediate purpose, and trusting that the media will be too incompetent to expose him.
Sadly enough, he's probably right".
Excuse the lengthy quote, but it's just what I wish I'd written in my last post. Congratulations to Charles Richardson for his clear thinking.
"Ruddock's peculiar view of human rights" by Charles Richardson. In Crikey Daily, 27 July 2005, item 14.
You can subscribe to Crikey daily (free) or the full service (charged) at http://www.crikey.com.au/
26 July 2005
My privacy or your death
This is the tenor of the choice outlined by Bob Carr the other day. He was arguing for rights for Police to randomly check bags and for more video cameras in public places. Of course, I expect we’d all agree that, if the choice really was one inspection of one bag vs one death by terrorism, that the bag checking would be the preferred option. But that’s not really what’s meant here. We are really talking of vastly increased rights to invade privacy on one side, and a possibility that we prevent (or perhaps only more easily investigate and prosecute) terrorism or other crimes.
I’m not clear where I stand on this. We are talking of setting up an infrastructure which will limit privacy. We can protect against it, to some degree, by legislation. But legislation can change, or can be evaded or even ignored. I’m wary, even fearful, given the battled-hardened approach of modern politics. I don’t put it past modern machine politics to sacrifice individuals for success in political battles. You just need to recall children-overboard or Siev-X or David Hicks to show how hard politics is now played.
Here’s my personal story to add to this debate. I recently spoke to someone from the Police IT Office (PITO) in the UK. He told me of the use of speed cameras to record, OCR and store records of passing number plates. Apparently they are now doing this routinely in the UK, and it has helped in the solving of various crimes. I thought back to a recent visit to the UK when I had been amazed by the numbers of speed cameras. I had driven around Coventry regularly for a few weeks, and there must have been cameras (or at least the boxes containing them) located every few hundred metres along some major roads. So our movements were being automatically recorded and stored, and presumably could have been searched. It’s a scary concept.
On the other hand, I have often joked that we have no privacy, at least on the Internet, so we may as well get used to it. And I’m not alone in saying that.
Plenty of people argue that you needn’t worry if you have nothing to hide. But that’s putting a lot of faith in a state apparatus. I prefer mechanisms that don’t lend themselves to abuse, rather than infrastructures which can support abuse, but require trust. A set of Yankee check & balances; and eternal vigilance.
On top of it all, I see that Ruddock is arguing that the UN Convention on Human Rights supports greater security measures. “Federal Attorney-General says there are provisions within the United Nations' Human Rights Convention, which justify tougher security measures against terrorism” (ABC News Online, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1422621.htm 26 July 2005). Apparently “Mr Ruddock says Article 3 of the UN Human Rights Convention specifies that governments have an obligation to protect human life, and that may come at the expense of civil liberties” (ibid).
Well, I checked this reference, and this is what Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually says: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm 26 July 2005). I read this to mean a country must protect all of the above – right to life, liberty and security of person. It is a balancing act, but the Declaration does not specify how to achieve this balance. I dare say he’s reading into the Convention.
I’m not clear where I stand on this. We are talking of setting up an infrastructure which will limit privacy. We can protect against it, to some degree, by legislation. But legislation can change, or can be evaded or even ignored. I’m wary, even fearful, given the battled-hardened approach of modern politics. I don’t put it past modern machine politics to sacrifice individuals for success in political battles. You just need to recall children-overboard or Siev-X or David Hicks to show how hard politics is now played.
Here’s my personal story to add to this debate. I recently spoke to someone from the Police IT Office (PITO) in the UK. He told me of the use of speed cameras to record, OCR and store records of passing number plates. Apparently they are now doing this routinely in the UK, and it has helped in the solving of various crimes. I thought back to a recent visit to the UK when I had been amazed by the numbers of speed cameras. I had driven around Coventry regularly for a few weeks, and there must have been cameras (or at least the boxes containing them) located every few hundred metres along some major roads. So our movements were being automatically recorded and stored, and presumably could have been searched. It’s a scary concept.
On the other hand, I have often joked that we have no privacy, at least on the Internet, so we may as well get used to it. And I’m not alone in saying that.
Plenty of people argue that you needn’t worry if you have nothing to hide. But that’s putting a lot of faith in a state apparatus. I prefer mechanisms that don’t lend themselves to abuse, rather than infrastructures which can support abuse, but require trust. A set of Yankee check & balances; and eternal vigilance.
On top of it all, I see that Ruddock is arguing that the UN Convention on Human Rights supports greater security measures. “Federal Attorney-General says there are provisions within the United Nations' Human Rights Convention, which justify tougher security measures against terrorism” (ABC News Online, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1422621.htm 26 July 2005). Apparently “Mr Ruddock says Article 3 of the UN Human Rights Convention specifies that governments have an obligation to protect human life, and that may come at the expense of civil liberties” (ibid).
Well, I checked this reference, and this is what Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually says: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm 26 July 2005). I read this to mean a country must protect all of the above – right to life, liberty and security of person. It is a balancing act, but the Declaration does not specify how to achieve this balance. I dare say he’s reading into the Convention.
20 July 2005
Another revelation
It’s only so often I have a revelatory experience.
The last big one was some time after the Stolen Generations report when I realised the horror of a government’s self-defence in the face of the report. I had recently become a parent so I knew the intensity of parenthood. No longer could I accept so easily that parents were so careless of their children. I could perhaps accept a few, but not whole generations of parents. I remain dubious of bureaucracy interposing itself in the place of parents who reportedly don’t care for their kids. I just feel the bonds of parenthood are likely to be far stronger than those of social workers or bureaucrats or especially politicians. To argue that generations of aboriginal parents cared so little for their kids is unbelievable. Similarly, to argue that parents throw kids overboard in the middle of the ocean is dubious. And we saw how that story turned out to be a furphy in the end.
Today I had another revelatory experience when I heard on the news that two kids were incorrectly taken into immigration custody 4 months ago. The scene was out of fascist textbooks. Government agents come to a school unexpectedly, and remove 2 kids, aged about 10 or 11, from the classroom, and take them to a detention camp. The mother is also taken into custody at the airport, as I remember. It was a ghastly and difficult story to take at the time, and even then I was uncomfortable. Now, after 4 months of detention, and today’s release, the revelation of inhumanity of all this immigration control business hits me square in the forehead. A strange coincidence it is, too, that it follows a report into immigration botch-ups (which is damning despite its limited terms of reference). And I understand there are still 199 cases to be investigated. Would this release have happened without this report, or the threat of more investigations? I may be slow, but the coin has flipped now. Rationalise all you like. I’m a lost soul on this one, as I am on so many other emotive stories of this government.
The last big one was some time after the Stolen Generations report when I realised the horror of a government’s self-defence in the face of the report. I had recently become a parent so I knew the intensity of parenthood. No longer could I accept so easily that parents were so careless of their children. I could perhaps accept a few, but not whole generations of parents. I remain dubious of bureaucracy interposing itself in the place of parents who reportedly don’t care for their kids. I just feel the bonds of parenthood are likely to be far stronger than those of social workers or bureaucrats or especially politicians. To argue that generations of aboriginal parents cared so little for their kids is unbelievable. Similarly, to argue that parents throw kids overboard in the middle of the ocean is dubious. And we saw how that story turned out to be a furphy in the end.
Today I had another revelatory experience when I heard on the news that two kids were incorrectly taken into immigration custody 4 months ago. The scene was out of fascist textbooks. Government agents come to a school unexpectedly, and remove 2 kids, aged about 10 or 11, from the classroom, and take them to a detention camp. The mother is also taken into custody at the airport, as I remember. It was a ghastly and difficult story to take at the time, and even then I was uncomfortable. Now, after 4 months of detention, and today’s release, the revelation of inhumanity of all this immigration control business hits me square in the forehead. A strange coincidence it is, too, that it follows a report into immigration botch-ups (which is damning despite its limited terms of reference). And I understand there are still 199 cases to be investigated. Would this release have happened without this report, or the threat of more investigations? I may be slow, but the coin has flipped now. Rationalise all you like. I’m a lost soul on this one, as I am on so many other emotive stories of this government.
19 July 2005
Another Howard distraction
You've got to give it to him - he's good. Where did the ID card come from? We haven't heard of it for years, then suddenly it's all over the news. In fact, it's distracted us from the other big news - IR legislation. Just when Howard had suffered a drubbing as people come to question just who his IR legislation will really serve, along comes the London bombing. And with it, Blair's proposed legislation with possible identity cards in the UK, which would have done nothing to interfere with the bombings, anyway. (These were not people who had snuck into the country, or were otherwise unknown: they were actually considered and ignored by the intelligence agencies). Then Beattie comes along to give Howard his ammunition by raising the issue of identity cards once again. Presumably to avoid some blame related to Vivian Solon and/or Cornelia Rau, who were each caught up in bungles by DIMIA and perhaps by Qld govt agencies. But Howard's the master, and he lets it run. Questions on both sides. Divisions in his own party. Note that Labor's off the agenda, as the Liberal Party debates its soul, for what is more an issue of a liberal's (although perhaps not a Liberal's) soul than privacy. And where is IR? Lost. Forgotten. Except for the Govt marketing campaign there in the background bubbling away, and the dollars dropping.
18 July 2005
New Scientist - always fascinating
Just a quick post on the latest issue of New Scientist that I've got to read. This one is New Scientist, no. 2507, 9 July 2005.
You can start to worry about the nuclear industry when it's revealed that "83 cubic metres of escaped liquor contain[ing] 20 tonnes of plutonium and uranium dissolved in nitric acid" was not noticed to have been lost for 8 months. The proportion of plutonium to uranium is not given here, but from what I understand about plutonium, this is potentially a species-threatening amount. (p. 6)
This month's editorial concerns itself with the latest ruse by creationists to challenge evolution. The latest approach is "Intelligent Design" which argues that "various biological structures are too complex to have been created by natural selection and so must have been designed". Associated with this is "irreduciable complexity" which "proposes that some molecular systems ... cannot be broken down into smaller functioning units, and so could not have been created by natural selection". As NS argues, "only with scientific understanding does it become clear that they are fundamentally flawed", and "crucially, they cannot be tested in any meaningful way, so they cannot qualify as science". The problem is not so much that some scientifically-ignorant people believe this stuff, but that they are promoting it in various schools, museums, and similar, in both developed and other countries. Some frightening examples follow. Kansas School Board had all mention of evolution deleted from state school standards in 2002. Thankfully, they were reinstated soon after, but the battle for control of these institutions continues. In Britain, private donors can gain some control over what is taught in a school by investing in its refubishment! NS recounts a case involving a millionaire car dealer and Christian fundamentalist. In Turkey, only creationism is presented in school texts! In Pakistan, evolution is not even taught in universities! Well, any country that goes down this path will eventually fail, given that their policies will not match testable reality, but what damage is done in the meantime? Are we entering, or are we in, the era of the new irrationality? (Editorial p.5, and p. 8-12)
How about these for a few factoids to challenge your relaxation and comfort? "13 computers that route all internet traffic are to remain under US supervision, the government said on 30 June". And "Supercomputer enigma: almost half of the 500 most powerful supercomputers in the world have an unspecified use". I'm not sure what this means; defence, perhaps? (p. 23)
Just a few snippets from another issue of this wonderful news magazine of science.
You can start to worry about the nuclear industry when it's revealed that "83 cubic metres of escaped liquor contain[ing] 20 tonnes of plutonium and uranium dissolved in nitric acid" was not noticed to have been lost for 8 months. The proportion of plutonium to uranium is not given here, but from what I understand about plutonium, this is potentially a species-threatening amount. (p. 6)
This month's editorial concerns itself with the latest ruse by creationists to challenge evolution. The latest approach is "Intelligent Design" which argues that "various biological structures are too complex to have been created by natural selection and so must have been designed". Associated with this is "irreduciable complexity" which "proposes that some molecular systems ... cannot be broken down into smaller functioning units, and so could not have been created by natural selection". As NS argues, "only with scientific understanding does it become clear that they are fundamentally flawed", and "crucially, they cannot be tested in any meaningful way, so they cannot qualify as science". The problem is not so much that some scientifically-ignorant people believe this stuff, but that they are promoting it in various schools, museums, and similar, in both developed and other countries. Some frightening examples follow. Kansas School Board had all mention of evolution deleted from state school standards in 2002. Thankfully, they were reinstated soon after, but the battle for control of these institutions continues. In Britain, private donors can gain some control over what is taught in a school by investing in its refubishment! NS recounts a case involving a millionaire car dealer and Christian fundamentalist. In Turkey, only creationism is presented in school texts! In Pakistan, evolution is not even taught in universities! Well, any country that goes down this path will eventually fail, given that their policies will not match testable reality, but what damage is done in the meantime? Are we entering, or are we in, the era of the new irrationality? (Editorial p.5, and p. 8-12)
How about these for a few factoids to challenge your relaxation and comfort? "13 computers that route all internet traffic are to remain under US supervision, the government said on 30 June". And "Supercomputer enigma: almost half of the 500 most powerful supercomputers in the world have an unspecified use". I'm not sure what this means; defence, perhaps? (p. 23)
Just a few snippets from another issue of this wonderful news magazine of science.
17 July 2005
Logical discontinuities
"…free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction." (Quoted in Duckspeak crusader, by Martin Hirst & Robert Schutze. In Overland, 176, Spring 2004, p. 24)
These are the words of George W Bush, at the May 2003 speech declaring the war in Iraq was over. I can only look at these comments and despair. Let’s just think about this. What is the one country which has dropped atomic bombs on another? How many nuclear warheads are now held in readiness by the US? Did they finally find WMD in Iraq? For that matter, who invaded whom?
I have no truck for Saddam Hussein. Despite the threat of misinformation, I still think he was most likely a very bad guy. But, we (the USA, with the willing compliance of the UK and Australia) invaded this country, and it’s clear that many thousands of innocent people have been killed. Are Bush’s words in disjunction with the evidence? I’ll leave you to think further on this.
These are the words of George W Bush, at the May 2003 speech declaring the war in Iraq was over. I can only look at these comments and despair. Let’s just think about this. What is the one country which has dropped atomic bombs on another? How many nuclear warheads are now held in readiness by the US? Did they finally find WMD in Iraq? For that matter, who invaded whom?
I have no truck for Saddam Hussein. Despite the threat of misinformation, I still think he was most likely a very bad guy. But, we (the USA, with the willing compliance of the UK and Australia) invaded this country, and it’s clear that many thousands of innocent people have been killed. Are Bush’s words in disjunction with the evidence? I’ll leave you to think further on this.
16 July 2005
Everybody loves a quiz
Here are two quizzes I discovered on the Net. Thanks to Richard Chappel for his post on Philosophy, et cetera.
The Political Compass. Where do you sit on the two scales of Authoritarian (Fascist) / Libertarian (Anarchist) and Left (Collectivism) / Right (Libertarianism). BTW, I ended up somewhere in the Libertarian/Left sector, near Ghandhi and the Dalai Lama. Nice comfy spot.
The IPIP-NEO personality test. This will take a little more time, so I don't have a personality to offer to the blogosphere just yet.
The Political Compass. Where do you sit on the two scales of Authoritarian (Fascist) / Libertarian (Anarchist) and Left (Collectivism) / Right (Libertarianism). BTW, I ended up somewhere in the Libertarian/Left sector, near Ghandhi and the Dalai Lama. Nice comfy spot.
The IPIP-NEO personality test. This will take a little more time, so I don't have a personality to offer to the blogosphere just yet.
12 July 2005
Message to the local Anglican bishop
Here's another letter from the past. It's a missive to our local Anglican bishop of the time, in response to a despairing letter on actions of our Australian government. I remember receiving a polite but formal reply, and realising that, no, the Anglican bishop still remained unconvinced by secular humanism. I should be so surprised? Now, of course, our Anglican hierarchy in Australia is honoured by the very Govt that Brishop Browning despaired of. Thankfully, there are still undercurrents in this and other churches working for social justice.
Dear Bishop Browning
I read with interest and general agreement the Canberra Times report on your letter to Anglican news (Ashamed to be Australian, says bishop, in CT, 8 May 97, p. 1-2). I, too, have recently come to feel revulsion at many things happening in our country, and I realise that shame may be an appropriate word for my feelings.
This reminded me of an article I have recently read concerning the common interests of religion and enlightenment rationalism, especially in our current sociopolitical environment. It was a revealing observation for me, although I have been coming to this realisation while listening to religious radio on ABC Radio National in recent months. The article (Has reason a future, by Brian Ellis, in Australian rationalist, No. 42, Summer 1996-97, p. 14-19) is a review of three books on religion. However, its conclusion makes the observation that enlightenment rationalism requires an ethical structure which, in the Western world, is traditionally provided by Christianity. Thus he questions whether science and religion should be seen as being in mortal conflict. He also argues that religion and science are now threatened by several common threats: social constructivism, consumerism in education, and economic rationalism.
Shame is bad enough, but I worry also that I am starting to feel fear. Here I am reminded of a book which I read over a year ago which has altered my way of perceiving modern history (The age of extremes : the short twentieth century, 1914-1991, by Eric Hobsbaum. London : Michael Joseph, 1994). Hobsbaum identifies this "short century' as witnessing great extremes of ideologies in great swings over very short periods. Thus, 1914 (or thereabouts) saw the end of Victorianism and European empires, the Russian revolution and relativity. Over the ensuing 77 years (only one lifetime!) we have seen roaring twenties and great depression, communist growth outpacing the West then crashing, fascism and Nazism and communism and capitalism clashing in various wars, a truly world war, social revolution in the Sixties, the greatest period of growth of wealth the world has ever seen (the West after WW2) followed by the decline of Western wealth and the growth of the East, and more. From Hobsbawm I learnt that things can change very rapidly in the modern world. So, I observe populist right-wing political movements arising from a politics of reaction and ideology and technocracy and fear the worst for myself and especially my children.
Bishop Browning, thank you for your expressing your concerns. I value you and other religious institutions expressing these social positions, and see the mainstream churches as one of the most powerful avenues for reminding us of the importance of society in an increasingly isolating, harsh and individualistic world.
Dear Bishop Browning
I read with interest and general agreement the Canberra Times report on your letter to Anglican news (Ashamed to be Australian, says bishop, in CT, 8 May 97, p. 1-2). I, too, have recently come to feel revulsion at many things happening in our country, and I realise that shame may be an appropriate word for my feelings.
This reminded me of an article I have recently read concerning the common interests of religion and enlightenment rationalism, especially in our current sociopolitical environment. It was a revealing observation for me, although I have been coming to this realisation while listening to religious radio on ABC Radio National in recent months. The article (Has reason a future, by Brian Ellis, in Australian rationalist, No. 42, Summer 1996-97, p. 14-19) is a review of three books on religion. However, its conclusion makes the observation that enlightenment rationalism requires an ethical structure which, in the Western world, is traditionally provided by Christianity. Thus he questions whether science and religion should be seen as being in mortal conflict. He also argues that religion and science are now threatened by several common threats: social constructivism, consumerism in education, and economic rationalism.
Shame is bad enough, but I worry also that I am starting to feel fear. Here I am reminded of a book which I read over a year ago which has altered my way of perceiving modern history (The age of extremes : the short twentieth century, 1914-1991, by Eric Hobsbaum. London : Michael Joseph, 1994). Hobsbaum identifies this "short century' as witnessing great extremes of ideologies in great swings over very short periods. Thus, 1914 (or thereabouts) saw the end of Victorianism and European empires, the Russian revolution and relativity. Over the ensuing 77 years (only one lifetime!) we have seen roaring twenties and great depression, communist growth outpacing the West then crashing, fascism and Nazism and communism and capitalism clashing in various wars, a truly world war, social revolution in the Sixties, the greatest period of growth of wealth the world has ever seen (the West after WW2) followed by the decline of Western wealth and the growth of the East, and more. From Hobsbawm I learnt that things can change very rapidly in the modern world. So, I observe populist right-wing political movements arising from a politics of reaction and ideology and technocracy and fear the worst for myself and especially my children.
Bishop Browning, thank you for your expressing your concerns. I value you and other religious institutions expressing these social positions, and see the mainstream churches as one of the most powerful avenues for reminding us of the importance of society in an increasingly isolating, harsh and individualistic world.
11 July 2005
When a theory is not just a theory
I was just reading an opinion piece in New Scientist, and it clarified for me a problem which is common today, when science is questioned by holders of irrational, unsubstantiated and usually religious beliefs.
"A second problem of dealing with climate change solely in scientifc terms is that it gives sceptics and contrarians an enormous advantage. 'The science is still uncertain,' they cry - and they are right. If it wasn't uncertain, it wouldn't be science. As Karl Popper put it, a theory that is not falsifiable cannot be definition be scientific."
Get off the fence, by Mark Lynas. In New Scientist, Vol. 186, no. 2505, 25 June 2005, p. 25.
In the same New Scientist, there's a quote from a scientist who's probably taken the right approach.
"'We are never going to solve it by throwing science at it.' Eugenie Scott, director of the US National Center for Science Education, explains why scientist boycotted the Kansas State Board's hearings on teaching evolution. She branded the hearings a 'political show trial' (The New York Times, 21 June)"
Soundbites. In New Scientist, Vol. 186, no. 2505, 25 June 2005, p. 16.
This is a continuing problem, as various religious beliefs are promoted in the context of so-called uncertainty in science. The question, though, is really what level of testing will the religious literalists allow of their own positions. I'm increasingly aware, and I hope committed, to the importance of testing my own statements, not just those of others. Let's see everyone do this.
This is so important, as Intelligent Design (ID) is promoted as an alternative to Evolution. And one of the arguments is the bland statement that Evolution is just a theory, so alternatives should be taught. And similarly, as we hear of attacks on fears of global warming.
If you honestly want to test your beliefs, have a look at the complexity and rationality of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and compare it with some rant from an anti-greenie.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm
"A second problem of dealing with climate change solely in scientifc terms is that it gives sceptics and contrarians an enormous advantage. 'The science is still uncertain,' they cry - and they are right. If it wasn't uncertain, it wouldn't be science. As Karl Popper put it, a theory that is not falsifiable cannot be definition be scientific."
Get off the fence, by Mark Lynas. In New Scientist, Vol. 186, no. 2505, 25 June 2005, p. 25.
In the same New Scientist, there's a quote from a scientist who's probably taken the right approach.
"'We are never going to solve it by throwing science at it.' Eugenie Scott, director of the US National Center for Science Education, explains why scientist boycotted the Kansas State Board's hearings on teaching evolution. She branded the hearings a 'political show trial' (The New York Times, 21 June)"
Soundbites. In New Scientist, Vol. 186, no. 2505, 25 June 2005, p. 16.
This is a continuing problem, as various religious beliefs are promoted in the context of so-called uncertainty in science. The question, though, is really what level of testing will the religious literalists allow of their own positions. I'm increasingly aware, and I hope committed, to the importance of testing my own statements, not just those of others. Let's see everyone do this.
This is so important, as Intelligent Design (ID) is promoted as an alternative to Evolution. And one of the arguments is the bland statement that Evolution is just a theory, so alternatives should be taught. And similarly, as we hear of attacks on fears of global warming.
If you honestly want to test your beliefs, have a look at the complexity and rationality of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and compare it with some rant from an anti-greenie.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm
10 July 2005
Seeing into our future
We’re sitting around powerless as we enter a period of democratic despotism. I’ve ranted many times about the various mechanisms of influence and untruth through which we are controlled in the modern world, and particularly under this Howard government. None of this is new. In fact, it’s increasingly as predicted by George Orwell in 1984, although he saw the dangers in Stalinist communism, rather than a manipulative form of democratic capitalist despotism. How prescient he was!
No doubt, many will see this as ranting based on misconceptions. After all, we voted; we chose this; this is a democracy; we’re a fair and sensible people; we’re not given to ideologies; we are the people of the fair go and common sense. But Hitler was elected, and the German people agreed with, or at least acquiesced to, what followed. Much has been written on the complicity of the German people with Nazism. I haven’t read it, but Karl Jaspers argued soon after WW2 (The question of German guilt / Karl Jaspers. Greenwood Press, 1978) that there are “four categories of guilt: criminal guilt (the commitment of overt acts), political guilt (the degree of political acquiescence in the Nazi regime), moral guilt (a matter of private judgement among one's friends), and metaphysical guilt (a universally shared responsibility of those who chose to remain alive rather than die in protest against Nazi atrocities)” (quoted from the editorial review on Amazon). I fear we are now guided by our bad side in much the same way as the German people in the 1930s, although not yet to such extreme actions.
So what are the images of the future that I’ve seen in recent days? They are both throw backs to a forgotten and despised past, which I fear we are returning to.
Dogville
I could see why Nicole Kidman’s film was not taken to heart by her adoring public. View the cast list (John Hurt, Lauren Bacall, James Caan) and start wondering why it was not better received. Start with a stage set representing the backwoods US town of Dogville. Notice this is a European production. This is a complex view of the dark side of America – back woods town life meets gangster power. I was confounded by the emotions from both sides. The shallow, self-serving justice of the people of Dogsville v. the power of the gangsters and their own twisted ethics. The untested philosophy of Tom and the (temporary) acceptance by Grace. It left me a bit confused with the complex themes, but enlivened by the complexity. At first, I thought Bowie’s Young Americans was inappropriate to finish this morality play, but against the backdrop of (presumably true-to-life) depression-era pics, it served to illuminate the horror that Howard’s radical marketplace and conservative social policy is taking us to. The upcoming IR legislation is just one component in his creation of our little America on Australian shores.
Dogville / written and directed by Lars von Trier. Zentropa Entertainments, 2003.
God under Howard
What is our bad side? Marion Maddox’s book on Howard’s use of religion in Australian politics speaks of the “Us and Them” approach to divide and rule the nation. How Howard sounds reasonable and secular, but subliminally speaks to our emotive side. Howard talks up our good feelings of ourselves, while promoting our worst actions, but…
“we lack the churchgoers and atheists who might resist a peculiar type of racist politics. Firm in our belief in our own reasonableness, benevolence and common sense, most of us may have few resources to resist frightening stereotypes. That is just the sentiment that Howard has so skilfully cultivated. We pay a price for our religious naivety.” (p. 142-3)
God under Howard : the rise of the religious right in Australian politics / Marion Maddox. Crows Nest, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2005
No doubt, many will see this as ranting based on misconceptions. After all, we voted; we chose this; this is a democracy; we’re a fair and sensible people; we’re not given to ideologies; we are the people of the fair go and common sense. But Hitler was elected, and the German people agreed with, or at least acquiesced to, what followed. Much has been written on the complicity of the German people with Nazism. I haven’t read it, but Karl Jaspers argued soon after WW2 (The question of German guilt / Karl Jaspers. Greenwood Press, 1978) that there are “four categories of guilt: criminal guilt (the commitment of overt acts), political guilt (the degree of political acquiescence in the Nazi regime), moral guilt (a matter of private judgement among one's friends), and metaphysical guilt (a universally shared responsibility of those who chose to remain alive rather than die in protest against Nazi atrocities)” (quoted from the editorial review on Amazon). I fear we are now guided by our bad side in much the same way as the German people in the 1930s, although not yet to such extreme actions.
So what are the images of the future that I’ve seen in recent days? They are both throw backs to a forgotten and despised past, which I fear we are returning to.
Dogville
I could see why Nicole Kidman’s film was not taken to heart by her adoring public. View the cast list (John Hurt, Lauren Bacall, James Caan) and start wondering why it was not better received. Start with a stage set representing the backwoods US town of Dogville. Notice this is a European production. This is a complex view of the dark side of America – back woods town life meets gangster power. I was confounded by the emotions from both sides. The shallow, self-serving justice of the people of Dogsville v. the power of the gangsters and their own twisted ethics. The untested philosophy of Tom and the (temporary) acceptance by Grace. It left me a bit confused with the complex themes, but enlivened by the complexity. At first, I thought Bowie’s Young Americans was inappropriate to finish this morality play, but against the backdrop of (presumably true-to-life) depression-era pics, it served to illuminate the horror that Howard’s radical marketplace and conservative social policy is taking us to. The upcoming IR legislation is just one component in his creation of our little America on Australian shores.
Dogville / written and directed by Lars von Trier. Zentropa Entertainments, 2003.
God under Howard
What is our bad side? Marion Maddox’s book on Howard’s use of religion in Australian politics speaks of the “Us and Them” approach to divide and rule the nation. How Howard sounds reasonable and secular, but subliminally speaks to our emotive side. Howard talks up our good feelings of ourselves, while promoting our worst actions, but…
“we lack the churchgoers and atheists who might resist a peculiar type of racist politics. Firm in our belief in our own reasonableness, benevolence and common sense, most of us may have few resources to resist frightening stereotypes. That is just the sentiment that Howard has so skilfully cultivated. We pay a price for our religious naivety.” (p. 142-3)
God under Howard : the rise of the religious right in Australian politics / Marion Maddox. Crows Nest, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2005
09 July 2005
Feeling good but remaining ignorant
I was reading this today, and I was struck by the similarity of comments of the historian, and the academic on the interface of politics and religion. Here’s the first quote -
“Although Howard acknowledged that ‘there is certainly a need for Australians to understand their history better’, the effect of his rhetoric is not to inspire historical curiosity but to reinforce historical prejudice. He suggest that the ‘real’ history of Australia is to be found by dismissing ugly versions of the past as ideological and embracing more positive ones because they rest on ‘the facts of history’. But these ‘facts of history’ are never specified – it is a history lesson for people who know no history, bvut who want to be assured that Australia’s past was not as bad as it is said to be.”
The use and abuse of Australian history / Graeme Davison. St Leonards, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2000, p. 6.
So, Howard attacks his opponents on the grounds of their understandings of history, but offers no specifics on his understandings. It’s a history for those ignorant of history. As such, it’s a confirmation of their uninformed prejudices, and an invitation to be relaxed and comfortable (and uniformed and prejudiced).
Now, this parallels what is said in the following quote, concerning the conservative Howardian approach to discussion of values. He doesn’t state what values there are, just confirms the existence of values in his listeners. All this, as he confirms the essential commonsense, good will, and belief in the mythical Australian Fair Go by his listeners. There’s a lot of discussion on this topic in Marion Maddox’s book, but this quote gives the idea. The quote specifically relates to utterances of Peter Costello, but it seems a common conservative rightist approach.
"Between these two conversations, there was growing talk about ‘values’. Everyone worried about who’s got them, who needs them and how to impart them; but no one said what they were. All the talk assumed that everyone knows what ‘values’ are. No one questioned them: apparently everyone does know what everyone else means when they talk about ‘values’. Except me."
God under Howard: the rise of the religious right in Australian politics / Marion Maddox. Crows Nest, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2005, p. 184.
“Although Howard acknowledged that ‘there is certainly a need for Australians to understand their history better’, the effect of his rhetoric is not to inspire historical curiosity but to reinforce historical prejudice. He suggest that the ‘real’ history of Australia is to be found by dismissing ugly versions of the past as ideological and embracing more positive ones because they rest on ‘the facts of history’. But these ‘facts of history’ are never specified – it is a history lesson for people who know no history, bvut who want to be assured that Australia’s past was not as bad as it is said to be.”
The use and abuse of Australian history / Graeme Davison. St Leonards, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2000, p. 6.
So, Howard attacks his opponents on the grounds of their understandings of history, but offers no specifics on his understandings. It’s a history for those ignorant of history. As such, it’s a confirmation of their uninformed prejudices, and an invitation to be relaxed and comfortable (and uniformed and prejudiced).
Now, this parallels what is said in the following quote, concerning the conservative Howardian approach to discussion of values. He doesn’t state what values there are, just confirms the existence of values in his listeners. All this, as he confirms the essential commonsense, good will, and belief in the mythical Australian Fair Go by his listeners. There’s a lot of discussion on this topic in Marion Maddox’s book, but this quote gives the idea. The quote specifically relates to utterances of Peter Costello, but it seems a common conservative rightist approach.
"Between these two conversations, there was growing talk about ‘values’. Everyone worried about who’s got them, who needs them and how to impart them; but no one said what they were. All the talk assumed that everyone knows what ‘values’ are. No one questioned them: apparently everyone does know what everyone else means when they talk about ‘values’. Except me."
God under Howard: the rise of the religious right in Australian politics / Marion Maddox. Crows Nest, NSW : Allen & Unwin, 2005, p. 184.
01 July 2005
Water and dishwashers - an occasional interest of AginSpin
Here's a reply sent recently to ABC Radio National following my annoyance at hearing something from Michael Duffy on Counterpoint. You may know that Michael Duffy is the conservative answer to Phillip Adams. He's not bad, but the temptation for everyone on the right these days seems to be to assume, rather than argue, the superiority of their arguments, and denigrate the opposition. Too easy. Too many weak arguments and too much name calling. (MD even hosted a session on fox hunting in Australia which showed just how much the right is in reaction mode. What possible reason to do a segment on fox hunting, other than in response to moves to ban it). As if they have a right to be! After all, they run the English-speaking Western world, and a good chunk of the rest. They should be thinking more of their policies being successful, than to imagine they are the underdogs. In this vein, I heard another radio show the other day where the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) presenter was painting the CIS as this little, poorly funded group of independent thinkers up against the might of the a university system which was totally controlled by the post-Marxist radicals. This was clearly his line. He was attacking the person. The arguments of his counterpart, from one of those despised departments of sociology, was reasoned and thoughtful, and, I thought, justified. To me, it seemed that one was engaged in a thinking process, and the other was involved in propaganda. Is this a sign of the coming end of conservative domination? Hope so...
Date - 21/06/2005 9:52
Subject - Dish washers & water use
Remark - I heard your query about dishwashers and your denigration of north shore environmentalists. (This was a pretty poor dig, and I think unworthy of you and your show). My understanding is that dishwashers are as efficient in water use as dish washing by hand, providing dish washers are fully loaded when used. I have dish washed by hand for many a year, and only fairly recently took to using a dish washer. I must say, it's not a bad invention As for effective use of water in Australia, there seems to be a move to identify cities (showers, toilets, dish washers, car washing, etc) as the culprit. I had confirmed recently by a local in the water industry that we would have few problems with water in Australia if it were sensibly used, e.g. no rice on the Hay Plains, and similar. And this is further confirmed by a CSIRO report to a Parliamentary Committee which I remember reading (sadly, I've lost the reference). Also a recent article in the SMH stated that 21,000 litres of water are used to produce 1kg of rice. I find this figure a bit hard to come to grips with, but if true, I think there's little argument for this industry, at least in the dry areas of Aust.
BTW, keep up your show. I am an not of your political persuasion, but I value discussion on both sides, and I remain committed to testing my beliefs, understandings and assumptions. But please avoid the cheap quips. It seems to me that, despite tirades against PC, the Right is so comfortable these days they don't even see their own cockiness and name calling of others. We must all remain honest to testing our own beliefs and understandings, and I trust you are committed as am I. Eric
Postscript. Sure enough, it's been admitted there was a mistake by the CSIRO in its report regarding the amount of water used in producing 1kg of rice in Australia. The CSIRO and industry has agreed that the figure should be 1,500-2,000 litres of water used to produce 1kg of rice. I reckon that must be a phyrric victory. We now have industry agreeing with researchers on a level of water use which is lower, but still crippling. Now, remind me, what does a kg of rice sell for?
Media release for the correction -
http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=WaterUsageFigures&style=mediaRelease
The original report -
http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/balancingact/
Date - 21/06/2005 9:52
Subject - Dish washers & water use
Remark - I heard your query about dishwashers and your denigration of north shore environmentalists. (This was a pretty poor dig, and I think unworthy of you and your show). My understanding is that dishwashers are as efficient in water use as dish washing by hand, providing dish washers are fully loaded when used. I have dish washed by hand for many a year, and only fairly recently took to using a dish washer. I must say, it's not a bad invention As for effective use of water in Australia, there seems to be a move to identify cities (showers, toilets, dish washers, car washing, etc) as the culprit. I had confirmed recently by a local in the water industry that we would have few problems with water in Australia if it were sensibly used, e.g. no rice on the Hay Plains, and similar. And this is further confirmed by a CSIRO report to a Parliamentary Committee which I remember reading (sadly, I've lost the reference). Also a recent article in the SMH stated that 21,000 litres of water are used to produce 1kg of rice. I find this figure a bit hard to come to grips with, but if true, I think there's little argument for this industry, at least in the dry areas of Aust.
BTW, keep up your show. I am an not of your political persuasion, but I value discussion on both sides, and I remain committed to testing my beliefs, understandings and assumptions. But please avoid the cheap quips. It seems to me that, despite tirades against PC, the Right is so comfortable these days they don't even see their own cockiness and name calling of others. We must all remain honest to testing our own beliefs and understandings, and I trust you are committed as am I. Eric
Postscript. Sure enough, it's been admitted there was a mistake by the CSIRO in its report regarding the amount of water used in producing 1kg of rice in Australia. The CSIRO and industry has agreed that the figure should be 1,500-2,000 litres of water used to produce 1kg of rice. I reckon that must be a phyrric victory. We now have industry agreeing with researchers on a level of water use which is lower, but still crippling. Now, remind me, what does a kg of rice sell for?
Media release for the correction -
http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=WaterUsageFigures&style=mediaRelease
The original report -
http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/balancingact/
Disencumbering the improductive burdens - Quadrant caught out
Here's a letter I wrote some time ago to Quadrant magazine. It's written in the particularly arcane language of Quadrant at the time. I'm one of those bleeding heart types who left with Robert Manne. I'm sure I'd be despised by the continuing readership. But you can see here how I learnt to despair of conservative argument. This is an early incarnation of my concerns over conservative political correctness and Orwellian language.
Sir: I must reply to Simon Ley's Open letter to the Governor-General (Quadrant, September 1995, p. 19), where he comments on Hayden's speech to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians of 21 June 1995.
Hayden was widely reported as supporting the redefinition of the family to include homosexual couples and voluntary euthanasia. On the issue of euthanasia, Leys quotes the G-G as arguing "Succeeding generations deserve to be disencumbered of some improductive [sic] burdens", and later repeats the quote as "disencumbering of improductive burdens". On reading this, I was both stunned at such a statement by the GG, and stuck by the use of "improductive", which seemed such an obscure word. On investigation, the word did not appear in the Macquarie or unabridged Webster's dictionaries, and the definition in the Shorter Oxford seemed particularly inappropriate.
When I checked a copy of the speech which I had requested earlier from Government House, I found that the paragraph containing the quote is highly qualified by the last sentence of the preceding paragraph: "I speak only for myself in saying the following" and further that the actual quote in context reads somewhat differently from the meaning suggested by Ley, and sounds personal: "This loss of personal control, of autonomy, of human personality for me would destroy my sense of human dignity. Moreover, having had a full and satisfying lifetime there is a point when the succeeding generations deserve to be disencumbered - to coin a clumsy word - of some unproductive [sic] burdens. That is why I support voluntary, medically assisted euthanasia and the provision of a living will."
Leys seems to have seriously misrepresented the intention of Hayden, and I feel mischievously suggests Hayden's position is simply a short step from "providing every household with special garbage bins in which elderly relatives could be hygienically discard and collected for recycling into pet food". In fact, several times in the speech, Hayden questions less extreme utilitarian approaches to our aged populations!
I remain unconvinced by several of Hayden's arguments elsewhere in the speech, especially those on the redefinition of the family. These seem to simply argue that given that we have decriminalised homosexuality, we should accept that the family should be redefined to include homosexual couples. However, Ley's apparent misrepresentation serves himself and his argument poorly.
Sir: I must reply to Simon Ley's Open letter to the Governor-General (Quadrant, September 1995, p. 19), where he comments on Hayden's speech to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians of 21 June 1995.
Hayden was widely reported as supporting the redefinition of the family to include homosexual couples and voluntary euthanasia. On the issue of euthanasia, Leys quotes the G-G as arguing "Succeeding generations deserve to be disencumbered of some improductive [sic] burdens", and later repeats the quote as "disencumbering of improductive burdens". On reading this, I was both stunned at such a statement by the GG, and stuck by the use of "improductive", which seemed such an obscure word. On investigation, the word did not appear in the Macquarie or unabridged Webster's dictionaries, and the definition in the Shorter Oxford seemed particularly inappropriate.
When I checked a copy of the speech which I had requested earlier from Government House, I found that the paragraph containing the quote is highly qualified by the last sentence of the preceding paragraph: "I speak only for myself in saying the following" and further that the actual quote in context reads somewhat differently from the meaning suggested by Ley, and sounds personal: "This loss of personal control, of autonomy, of human personality for me would destroy my sense of human dignity. Moreover, having had a full and satisfying lifetime there is a point when the succeeding generations deserve to be disencumbered - to coin a clumsy word - of some unproductive [sic] burdens. That is why I support voluntary, medically assisted euthanasia and the provision of a living will."
Leys seems to have seriously misrepresented the intention of Hayden, and I feel mischievously suggests Hayden's position is simply a short step from "providing every household with special garbage bins in which elderly relatives could be hygienically discard and collected for recycling into pet food". In fact, several times in the speech, Hayden questions less extreme utilitarian approaches to our aged populations!
I remain unconvinced by several of Hayden's arguments elsewhere in the speech, especially those on the redefinition of the family. These seem to simply argue that given that we have decriminalised homosexuality, we should accept that the family should be redefined to include homosexual couples. However, Ley's apparent misrepresentation serves himself and his argument poorly.
Just what planet do economists live on?
I admit I am uneducated in economics. I can be horrified by some economists, but impressed by economists with a broader view of serving society than just optimising the marketplace. I perused an introductory undergrad text book the other day, and I was comforted by the breadth and reasonableness of the approach. However, I remain worried about a number of things: underlying assumptions; a readiness to proclaim on all aspects of society; perhaps the limitations or ideological bent of the professionals who have so much say in our lives.
Then last Sunday I read a headline proclaiming "Petrol won't hit $1.20, says expert" (Canberra Times, Sunday 26 June 2005, p. 3). This was in the context of recent price rises in petrol, given the highest ever price recorded for oil (~$US60 per barrel). The "expert" was Chris Richardson, of Access Economics. Access Economics is the economics consultancy that's amusingly referred to as the "Treasury in exile", and has done work for both Liberal and Labor Parties in the past. I read on, and this stunned me: "He said he believed the crude oil price of $US60 per barrel was unsustainable, with $US40 a more likely long-term figure". I have no doubt this statement will be shown to be wrong.
Why? The arrival of peak oil (maximum world oil production) was predicted for 2010. We're hearing now that it may have already arrived, due to unexpectedly strong growth in China and India. What will happen to prices when demand is up, and oil production is down? I expect it will lead to higher prices. And, virtually inevitably but a bit further on, it will also lead to restriction of supply for essential purposes, including government, military and air travel. We've only used oil this way for a century or so, and we're so close to peak oil, it doesn't matter. We ramped up slowly, and we're already at peak oil after just a century? That suggests to me that scarcity is only a matter of decades away, possibly sooner. So how does CR think that prices won't go up in the "long term".
It makes you wonder about his, and his profession's, definition of "long term". Stock markets measure time by milliseconds, and I guess their long term is a 3-month profit reporting period. But I hope that professional economists will have a much more human view of time than that.
I apologise if he's been wrongly reported, but if not, CR needs to think a little more closely about that beloved market principle of supply and demand, and about what long-term really means.
Then last Sunday I read a headline proclaiming "Petrol won't hit $1.20, says expert" (Canberra Times, Sunday 26 June 2005, p. 3). This was in the context of recent price rises in petrol, given the highest ever price recorded for oil (~$US60 per barrel). The "expert" was Chris Richardson, of Access Economics. Access Economics is the economics consultancy that's amusingly referred to as the "Treasury in exile", and has done work for both Liberal and Labor Parties in the past. I read on, and this stunned me: "He said he believed the crude oil price of $US60 per barrel was unsustainable, with $US40 a more likely long-term figure". I have no doubt this statement will be shown to be wrong.
Why? The arrival of peak oil (maximum world oil production) was predicted for 2010. We're hearing now that it may have already arrived, due to unexpectedly strong growth in China and India. What will happen to prices when demand is up, and oil production is down? I expect it will lead to higher prices. And, virtually inevitably but a bit further on, it will also lead to restriction of supply for essential purposes, including government, military and air travel. We've only used oil this way for a century or so, and we're so close to peak oil, it doesn't matter. We ramped up slowly, and we're already at peak oil after just a century? That suggests to me that scarcity is only a matter of decades away, possibly sooner. So how does CR think that prices won't go up in the "long term".
It makes you wonder about his, and his profession's, definition of "long term". Stock markets measure time by milliseconds, and I guess their long term is a 3-month profit reporting period. But I hope that professional economists will have a much more human view of time than that.
I apologise if he's been wrongly reported, but if not, CR needs to think a little more closely about that beloved market principle of supply and demand, and about what long-term really means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
