2005/10/31

Age of Unreason


JP Sartre 100 Years' Anniversary
I didn't realise this but it is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Jean-Paul Sartre, he of the existenntialism fame.

In one of the most memorable sections in his novel 'Age of Reason', the main character 'Mathieu' is approached by a friend who has decided to cross the border from France to Spain and go fight fascism. The friend says words to the effect that the time is now to stop the onslaught of fascism. The main character, clearly representing the authorial voice says he won't join. His sense of reason leads him to not choose an ideology. So even though he can see the arguments for going to support a righteous cause in a neighbouring country fighting the Fascists of the world, his existentialist stance does not allow him to take onboard what he cannot conscienably support. Or maybe it was selfishness. It's hard to decipher from the book, but it is a key moment in the first third of the book.

At the end of the book that recounts 2 days of a very selfish philosopher, you get the feeling that maybe he was right not to go to Spain; and of course the main character declares he has reached the Age of Reason.
Anyway, in real life the Germans inevitably came marching in and the real life Sartre then went and fought in the French army, got captured, kind of talked his way out of Stalag 12D and then joined the French Resistance. So you could say that the lesson learnt by Sartre is that it really isn't your war until it hits your doorstep.

For some reason, I have been thinking about his book a lot today; in the sense that maybe, the war has hit my doorstep finally, and I have been prevaricating like Matheiu. That perhaps, it is time to join the resistance or whatever there is out there trying to fight this 'stupidwar'.
Yet what I'm thinking about all of this stuff to do with 'Anti-terror' laws, and 'Age of Reason' and fighting fascism, is also refracted through the awareness of what George Orwell (who actually went to fight the fascists) noted in Spain: that the Anarchists, the Socialists and the Communists were all gathered from around the world in High principle, but would quibble amongst themselves with arguments on the fine interpretations of what would be the right thing to do. Meanwhile the fascists knew exactly what they wanted to do, which was to lock up dissenting people in detention centres and wipe'em out. Ironically, the Federal Government of Australia is firmly behaving like a fascist nation (and has been for some time).

George Orwell went to Spain and learnt the tough lesson that the liberals of the world cannot stick together as well as the rightwing nutbars. Intelligence, education, good will, considered opinion, none of these things amount to a hill of beans in the face of fascism. Maybe we need the mindless jackboot to kick us over completely before we wake up and fight.
The funny thing is, not many people around me are boiling with the outrage. Maybe the war isn't here yet? It's so hard to tell, and that's what's been bothering me greatly in the last little while.

Yes there's a war going on; in fact several. One in Afghanistan, allegedly against the Taliban who allegedly backed Al Qaeda.
There's another going on in Iraq, though the powers that be are sort of in denial about the scope and range of this one.
There's also an alleged war against terror, by which we are being railroaded into giving up civil liberties.
And all the while folks in Sydney are worried about their mortgages on suburban houses and investment properties and interest rates and inflation. It's kind of sick, no?
So where is the war? On the television? On the internet? In the ideas that are being sidelined by official liars who have spun their names into 'Spin Doctors'?
Where exactly is the war? Is the war on our doorstep? Or is it still in a far away country? As citizens and thinkers, we must each weigh this up as Mathieu does in 'Age of Reason'. Maybe I'm going to just sit this one out and see where the shit all lands. After all, if I learnt nothing from the experiences of Sartre and Orwell, I'd be a moron of historic proportions.

Chimps Short On Altruism


What's In It For The Chimp?
It's interesting that chimps are seen as 'lackng in altrusim'. Here' the article


In the experiments, the chimps were given a chance to give themselves a food treat, and to also give the same treat to the other chimp sitting nearby in a clearly-visible cage. Or not.

In fact, the researchers report in the current issue of the journal Nature that the chimps pulled the lever to give a treat to their counterpart only about as often as they pulled that same lever when the cage opposite them was empty. In other words, they could care less about their pals.

Emory University researchers earlier this year reported that chimps do possess a sense of "fairness", rejecting a lousy-tasting cucumber when they see another chimp getting a tasty grape, when both had performed the same task. But chimp fairness only goes so far, says Silk's team. Chimps don't seem to mind when they benefit and somebody else gets stiffed.

The finding suggests that humankind's history of cooperation may be unique to our species, says the team, or at least is part of human behavior that has only developed since people and chimp ancestors diverged more than 5 million years ago.

The corollary of that could be a selfish human is less 'evolved'. :)
Or the experiment is totally culturally observer-biased and not worth spit.

Leadership Failure - Or, Getting Fooled, Again

The Partying On The Left Are Now Partying On The Right

Kim Beazley says he wants to be even tougher on terror than John Howard.
Is this man Kim Beazley congenitally stupid or what?
IN a dramatic reversal in the debate over anti-terror laws, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley (pictured) will move to amend the measures in Parliament – to make them even tougher.

In a bid to make Prime Minister John Howard appear weak and incompetent on protecting Australians from terrorist attack, Mr Beazley intends to strengthen provisions against incitement to violence.

But Mr Beazley is likely to face a fight inside his own party, where it is estimated a third of the caucus has serious concerns about the draft laws.

Following a week of intense debate between Mr Howard and state leaders, the PM has sent revised legislation to the premiers and chief ministers, whose consent is needed to pass the laws.

ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, who created a furore by posting the Government's secret proposals on his website, yesterday revealed there had been changes, notably in relation to so-called "control orders" governing terrorist suspects.

Under the changes, a control order granted to security forces would have to be subsequently confirmed by a court.

Mr Howard has already agreed to amend controversial "shoot to kill" powers in the Bill but Mr Stanhope said there was still not enough judicial oversight.

The issue will be debated by the Labor caucus on Tuesday but Mr Beazley has already decided the legislation is too lenient on those inciting terrorist violence.

Under the proposed laws, people urging violence will be targeted only if the subsequent violence "threatens the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth".

Mr Beazley argues that under this provision it would be difficult, if not impossible, to convict anybody for incitement.

I guess he's saying, "Fair crack of the whip, mate," with undue emphasis on the word 'whip'. Somebody ought to whip the daylights out of him, right out of Parliament. It's pathetic.

UPDATE:
This came in from Walk-Off HBP:
The Prime Minister has defended proposed shoot-to-kill laws, saying that in the heightened security environment the shoot-to-kill policy would only be used in situations where police freak out. “The world changed on September 11,” Howard said. “Before then I would have needed a good reason to pass draconian legislation like this.”
Mr Howard said that the laws are essential for making Australia safer. “The power to kill civilians is vital in the fight against those who threaten civilian safety,” he said. “We simply can’t afford to be soft on things that have an outside chance of being Terror.”

However, the laws have proven unpopular with the public – registering low approval amongst women, the young, and an incredible 0% approval from Brazilians who enjoy walking along the street in parkas, minding their own business and not being shot in the head.

State Premiers have also cast doubts upon the laws’ effectiveness, pointing to the continued presence of terror in Victoria, despite the Victorian Police’s use of unofficial shoot-to-kill laws for years.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley initially opposed the new laws, instead advocating for a “shoot-yourself-in-the-foot-to-kill” policy. But when internal polling revealed that voters perceive him as soft on terror, Mr Beazley immediately caved in to the government’s wishes, and is now advocating for police to be given the power to shoot-to-kill terror suspects twice.
As spoofs go, it's pretty funny.

I read today's entry by David Brin in his blog who argues, why we must liberals label themselves 'anti-war' in order to combat the war in Iraq? Why can't they simply say they are 'anti-stupidwar'?
In he same spirit, I'd like to ask, why Kim Beazley fears being labelled 'soft on terror' when clearly it's just as stupid a piece of rhetoric as the 'anti-war' label? Why can't he simply say, "No, I'm anti-knee-jerk response"?

Instead he says he's more doubleplusgood on anti-terror than John Howard.

Also, as my friend PJ pointed out today, "What happened to this stuff about not letting terror change our lives? In reality we're turning our lives into little cages of fear which is exactly what the terrorists wanted."
Damn straight.
So yes, John Howard and Kim Beazley are gormless little prats undeserving of their labels as 'leaders', who are giving into the terrorists by knee-jerking all the way to fascism. Nauseating.

The ALP? It's Hopeless, Really


The ALP left faction is allgedly bringing the heat on to Kim Beazley over his response to the anti-terror legislation. The thing is, it's sounding really un-convincing. After all, the ALP haven't exactly been very vocal about this issue in the last 10 days when most of what counts for the Australian intelligentzia has been howling to deaf ears.

KIM Beazley faces an internal Labor Party revolt on two fronts today over failing to argue against "draconian" anti-terrorism legislation and unveiling his own proposal to ban books that promote hate and violence.

A meeting of the ALP's national Left faction passed a motion yesterday warning state premiers and Mr Beazley that proposed anti-terrorism laws could breach the ALP's platform.
The meeting, attended by numerous state and federal MPs, including Julia Gillard, Kim Carr and deputy leader Jenny Macklin, demanded that "all ALP state premiers, chief ministers and members of the federal parliamentary Labor Party act consistently with the ALP's platform and Australia's international law obligations".

Senior ALP figures were also exasperated by Mr Beazley's decision to announce his own vilification laws yesterday, saying he was "mangling the message".

The proposal to link the terrorism laws with his separate reforms to ban racial and religious vilification also angered colleagues because the confusing laws had not been discussed with the front bench.

"Getting up and suggesting the Jewish community of Australia should be wiped off the face of the earth would be illegal, absolutely," Mr Beazley said in Canberra yesterday. "There would be appropriate fines and, if severe enough, appropriate incarceration."
So somehow Kim Beazley is trying to have anti-terror laws tied up with racial vilification laws. To think this man is the alternative to John Howard sort of makes one cringe. The Leadership of our nation has sunk to a low level not seen in the last 30 years. Maybe, it's worse than that. Maybe , the worst ever.
Prominent Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett also raised concerns that the "dog's breakfast" of laws could be used to target writers and artists.

"Our bedrock rights to free speech, to due process under law, to confidence that the separation of the judiciary from the executive will stand against the arbitrary exercise of power are all in danger of being swept away by this Government," he said.

However, Victorian Labor MP Michael Danby said support for tougher terror laws was widespread in the community, including in his own inner-city electorate. "Melbourne Ports has lost three people to suicide bombers," he said.

"Even in small-l liberal, inner-city Melbourne, people want to be secure from terrorism. But the federal opposition and the Labor premiers will only agree if there are appropriate safeguards on police use of lethal force and control orders."

Opposition homeland security spokesman Arch Bevis said that the ALP had already agreed to a statement of principles that would include strong legal safeguards.

"There has to be a genuine judicial review, not rubber stamping by courts," he said.

"It's the prospect that Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi could be found guilty of sedition under these laws."

Tasmanian Labor MP Duncan Kerr said he had sent a submission to all state attorneys-general and senior Labor frontbenchers over his concerns.

Mr Howard said he wasn't wedded to introducing the bill on Melbourne Cup day, but he did want to get the bill through parliament before the end of year and certainly effective by the March Games in Melbourne.

He was backed by NSW Attorney-General Bob Debus, who said the laws should be in place for the Games, but not so quickly as to get it wrong.
If that didn't give you a profound sense of confusion in the ALP ranks, I don't know what would.

Moneyball Update



While we're on the issue of leadership, here's an interesting one today.

One of the characters featured strongly in 'Moneybaall was Paul DePodesta who was assistant GM under Billy Beane in the Oakland Athletics' ball club, who then went on to be the GM of the LA Dodgers 2 years ago. After 2 extreme seasons, one in which the LA Dodgers made the play-offs and one in which they fell out of contention due to injuries, he has been sacked.
“Our high expectations were not met,” McCourt said at an afternoon news conference at Dodger Stadium. “I like Paul. He has many positive attributes. It was difficult, but at the end of the day, that’s my job, to make difficult decisions.”

Saying the team needs a strong foundation, McCourt listed among his criteria for a new G.M. the ability to evaluate player talent, communication skills, and experience.

---
McCourt hired DePodesta after buying the team in January 2004 from News Corp. The Dodgers won the NL West title in his first season, but DePodesta riled fans by trading popular catcher Lo Duca and two other players at midseason.

“I met with Paul DePodesta this morning and let him know that the Los Angeles Dodgers were moving on,” McCourt said. “I thanked him for his contributions.”

DePodesta shook up the team last winter following the division championship season, and their 71-91 record this year was the Dodgers’ worst since 1992 and second-poorest since moving to Los Angeles in 1958.

“I truly believe that this franchise is poised to begin the next great era of Dodger baseball,” DePodesta said in a statement released by the Dodgers. “I have a tremendous amount of affection for the players, staff and front office, and I wish everyone the best of luck.”
The general consensus over at the Baseball Think Factory is that he did a middling job but 2 years really isn't long enough to assess the long term impact of his stewardship. It does however seem very apparent that he was hounded out of town by a hostile press and that perhaps he was not a very good people-skills manager.
Rich Lederer has this article questioning the Dodger move to dump Paul DePodesta
Here are 32 questions -- 32 seems like a good number when discussing the Dodgers -- that are on my mind:

1. Why did McCourt hire DePodesta in the first place?

2. Why did he give him a five-year deal and then fire him in less than two years?

3. Did he hire him because Moneyball was in?

4. With the White Sox the new World Series champs, is Moneyball now out and Smartball--or whatever the hell you call the newest, latest, and greatest way to win--in? Did that influence the McCourts?

5. Why wasn't leadership, now a "very important characteristic" in the search for the new GM, not valued 20 months ago when DePo was hired?

6. Ditto for being a "good communicator" and finding "someone with the experience to do the job?"

7. Why do executives go a complete 180 when they hire a replacement for the guy who failed previously?

8. If experience is so important, why do the McCourts think they know how to run a baseball team?

9. Why don't the standards they hold to others apply to themselves?

10. Just why is Jamie McCourt Vice Chairman and President?

11. Other than being married to Frank, what are her qualifications?

12. Who else interviewed for that job?

13. Was Drew McCourt really 23 years old when he was appointed Director of Marketing last April?

14. When did the Dodgers become Sly and the Family Stone?

15. If leadership, being a good communicator, someone with experience, and having a "keen eye for baseball talent" are so important, why didn't McCourt hire Pat Gillick rather than DePodesta?

16. What would Gillick bring to the table today that he didn't back when he interviewed for the same position in 2004?

17. If McCourt "wants Dodgers here," then how does Gillick fit into that goal?

18. What makes Bobby Valentine such a great choice?

19. Would Gillick or whoever becomes the new GM truly pick the next manager or will there be an understanding that Valentine is the manager in waiting?

20. Has anyone pointed out that it took Valentine more games (1,704) to reach the playoffs (in 1999 with the Mets) than any other manager since divisional play began in 1969?

21. If Tommy Lasorda is so fond of Valentine, why didn't he hire him as one of his coaches after Bobby retired in 1979 and before he became the manager of the Texas Rangers in 1985?

22. If Lasorda's comment that Orel Hershiser's "not qualified" for the GM position is correct "because he has never done it," then would any of us have ever gotten a promotion to a new position? Based on that logic, wouldn't we all still be cavemen?

23. Why would a "special advisor" be so widely quoted in the press? Aren't such confidantes supposed to be more behind the scenes types?

24. Has Lasorda ever done anything behind the scenes, other than snipe about guys like DePodesta, Fred Claire, and Bill Russell?

25. How did the Dodgers perform the year Lasorda was named special advisor?

26. Is he not to blame for the Dodgers' problems this year or is that Al Campanis' fault, too?

27. Has there ever been anyone who clamored the spotlight more than Tommy?

28. As long as Lasorda is in a position of power, why would anyone other than one of his cronies or a McCourt family member want to become the next GM or manager?

29. If McCourt is so fond of staying the course, why did he let DePodesta go?

30. When did that course begin? In 1955 when the Dodgers won their first championship? In 1958 when they moved to Los Angeles? In 1977 when Lasorda became manager? In 2004 when McCourt bought the team? Or a few weeks later when DePodesta was hired?

31. Is baseball the only business in the world in which a degree from Harvard is a negative?

32. Wasn't the late and great Branch Rickey the forefather of the use of baseball statistics in player evaluation?

Please help. I need to know the answers to all of the above questions.
So much for that experiment. We'll never know the results now.

2005/10/29

Today's Mixed Bag

Please Explain
Here's an interesting one in the Weekend Australian today:
THE Federal Opposition has accused the Government of failing to properly investigate a legal agreement which saw Australia's wheat exporter channel $290 million of its money to Saddam Hussein's regime.

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said between 1997 and 2003 the Australian Wheat Board paid a Jordanian trucking company to transport its wheat through Iraq.

However, an independent investigation has now found the former AWB, now AWB Ltd, unwittingly provided kickbacks to the former Iraqi dictator via the trucking company, under the United Nations' corruption ridden oil-for-food program.

Mr Rudd said he did not want to point fingers at the AWB and suggest its members were to blame.

However, he said he believed the Australian public should be concerned about how this happened in the first place.

Mr Rudd said the AWB had informed the federal foreign affairs department in 2000 of its intention to enter into an agreement with the Jordanian trucking company and was told there was no international legal reason impeding this decision.

He was concerned Foreign Affairs minister Alexander Downer had not properly investigated the company or the agreement at the time.

"My challenge to Mr Downer is ... what was the detail of your response to the AWB request or letter to you at that time concerning the commercial arrangement with this Jordanian trucking company," he said.

"The stakes are very high here - $US221 million which went from the AWB into the pockets of Saddam Hussein personally.

"That's 14 per cent of the total amount of corrupt payments received by Saddam Hussein under this oil-for-food program."

The AWA insisted it had no idea the money it paid to a Jordanian transport group, Alia, was funnelled to Saddam's murderous regime.

What I want to know is why the ALP is beatinng about the bush with this stuff when there are bigger problems afoot.

The Off-Season Moves
So now that Joe Torre and Brian Cashman will stay with the yankees, it seems like the order of the day is to re-sign Hideki Matsui and go after BJ Ryan and a center fielder at the right price. My guess is that they will angle for a trade with the Twins for Torii Hunter, rather than sign Johnny Damon to a hefty contract.

However, the bigger news of the day is that Daisuke Matsuzaka is having problems with the Seibu Lions getting them to 'post' his contract for the MLB to bid. They figure that although the price on Matsuzaka would be high, they'd rather keep their last star player in a time when they are having trouble drawing a crowd.
The real shame is that Matsuzaka feels he's ready now:



秋季練習後に黒岩彰球団代表と話し合った松坂は「何年もかけ、準備してきたものが整ったという気持ちが強い。もっと深く話し合い、自分にとっていい方向に行けばいい」と話し、今後も粘り強く交渉する意向を示した。
 黒岩代表は「個人的には世界を目指す気持ちは理解できるが、西武グループのシンボルとして、球団を経営していく上で必要な選手だと伝えた」と語った。
Well, he figured to be the only starting pitcher the Yankees were likely to go after this off-season. In all honesty, I think this guy's headed for Pinstripes at some point. Rumours had it the Yanks were cashed up to go posting after him.

Catcher Kenji Johjima of the Fukuoka Softbank Hawks, is now a Free Agent and is saying he wants to test the waters in the majors.


I think at 29, there won't be that many takers. Maybe the Mets who will look to replace Mike Piazza, but I think even they were put off by the non-performing contract of Kaz Matsui. He's a great player, but it's hard to say if his "skills will translate across the Pacific" as they like to say.

2005/10/28

Stove League Kicks off


More Info On Cashman

Here's the MLB.com article.
Cashman said most of his negotiation time with Steinbrenner, general partner Steve Swindal, president Randy Levine and COO Lonn Trost discussed not financials, but processes of streamlining and simplification. Cashman spoke Thursday of "splintering," in which members of one faction would voice displeasure with certain philosophies and opinions.

"Obviously, that can create a lot of different potholes along the way as we all travel in the same direction," Cashman said.

Unsatisfied by the final results of the last five seasons, Cashman said he found the ranks of executives open to change and to the removal of ongoing drama from the club's two operating arms.

He drew an analogy to highway guardrails, protecting the straight path through a hands-on ownership group to a 27th World Series championship. Cashman said Steinbrenner was receptive to the plan in a lengthy telephone call last week.

"I want to be that filter," Cashman said. "Everything goes through me. With the chain of command, I think everyone involved wants it that way. We've all suffered this year in different ways because of the splintering. I think everyone involved wants it to be streamlined."

Under what the Yankees hope to be a revitalized plan of structure, Cashman said he is eyeing several changes, most notably a reduction in payroll.

As the Yankees showed by testing young players like Robinson Cano and Chien-Ming Wang this season, a high-end player may not be necessary at every position. Cashman said he plans to target a simple blueprint that places a re-emphasis on the club's Minor League player development -- which already hosts potential impact players at lower levels -- and international scouting.

In Cashman's description of the model, free agency and trades would be used to "finish off" a club, not serve as the bedrock of the organization.

"It's going to work closer to how the other 29 clubs work," Cashman said.
I can't imagine the Yankees ever working like the other 29 clubs. It's just not that easy when expectations of performance are constantly sky-high. However, it does sound like they're headed towards streamlining the crazy payroll.
A good load of money has come off that 2005 payroll so there is scope to trim it back. Now, how do they get rid of Womack...?
In the mean time, the bullpen situation needs fixing; the center field situation needs fixing; Matsui needs to be re-signed; there's a lot of stuff to look after.

2005/10/27

More Mailbag Stuff


This picture came in from Walk-Off HBP, celebrating the joys of a broken bat at the ballpark. Or it could be the population recoiling at the realities of an Anti-Terror law.

More From Ben Saul

This link came in from 'Gra-Gra'. It's another article by Ben Saul, this time for The Age.
The new offences largely implement the Gibbs Review of federal criminal law in 1991, including increasing the penalty from three to seven years in prison. The bill is positive in that it narrows the existing and vague sedition offences, which allow a person to be prosecuted for bringing the sovereign into "contempt", exciting "disaffection" against the government or promoting "ill-will" between different "classes".

Anyone who supports a republic could be prosecuted under existing law.

Old-fashioned security offences are little used because they are widely regarded as discredited in a modern democracy that values free speech. Paradoxically, the danger in modernising these offences is that prosecutors may seek to use them more frequently, since they are considered more legitimate. A better approach is to abandon archaic security offences altogether in favour of using the ordinary criminal law of incitement to crime, particularly since security offences counterproductively legitimise ordinary criminals as "political" offenders. It is already possible to prosecute incitement to the many federal terrorism crimes.

The danger of criminalising political opponents is reduced by the bill's "good faith" defences. These protect speech that points out the mistakes of political leaders, errors in governments, laws or courts, or issues causing hostility between groups. The defences also protect encouraging lawful attempts to change the law or statements about industrial matters.

While these defences seem wide, they protect only political expression, at the expense of other speech. In contrast, wider defences in anti-vilification law protect statements made in good faith for academic, artistic, scientific, religious, journalistic or public interest purposes. Such statements may not aim to criticise political mistakes or errors, group hostility or industrial issues. The range of human expression worthy of legal protection is much wider than these narrow exceptions.

The third new sedition offence is welcome because it criminalises, for the first time in federal law, incitement to violence against racial, religious, national or political groups. Such protection is required by Australia's human rights treaty obligations.

Presenting this offence as a counter-terrorism law falsely stigmatises group violence as terroristic, reinforcing the stereotyping of certain ethnicities or religions as terrorist. It is also an error to classify this offence as sedition, which is more about rebellion against political authority than group violence.

The Attorney-General has claimed that the changes aim to criminalise indirect incitement of terrorism. Examples might include distasteful comments such as "Osama is a great man", "9/11 was a hoax" or "America had it coming", or even Cherie Blair's genuine view that some Palestinians believed they had "ho hope" but to blow themselves up.

Criminalising speech that encourages violence plainly restricts free expression. Free speech is not absolute and may be limited to prevent serious social harms, including statements with a direct, close and imminent connection to a specific crime. By contrast, criminalising indirect or vague expressions of support for terrorism, which do not encourage a particular crime, unjustifiably interferes in legitimate free speech.

In the absence of a human rights act, Australian constitutional law protects only political expression, and not other speech (although religious speech may enjoy protection). Our courts are thus less able to challenge sedition laws for excessively infringing free speech. There is also no sunset clause for sedition.

So under the anti-terror law regime, if I were politically motivated, I'd be allowed to call John Howard a bald rodent for the bald rodent that he is? Or do I have to run for Parliament first?

Margo Kingston's Web Diary
Previous to this Anti-terror bill, I've been reluctant to read 'MK's Web diary' not because of her position but the pain of having to read through the generally low level of discourse that takes place. As luck would have it, Pleiades sent in this link where Chris Rau has a go at what she sees as lack of democratic instincts in Australia:
I'm standing here today with deep disillusionment. I had the misapprehension that I was among idealists; among people who cared for the interests of people who don't have a voice, legally or otherwise. I thought you were all slaving away, with rings under your eyes, doing pro-bono work in your spare time and caring for the little guy (or girl).

This illusion was shattered last week when a column by Janet Albrechtson in The Australian (Beware the virtue of activist lawyers pretending to do good) set me straight. I'm onto you. Now we're told that public interest lawyers like you really use "civil liberties" as a "smokescreen", according to Albrechtson. She writes that while you dupe a gullible media, you hijack the term civil liberties: "as a feel-good phrase ... intended to hide political and personal agendas cunningly camouflaged as community welfare." I believe her. She's a lawyer. What's more, she's on the ABC board!

Apparently you all stand for same sex marriage, bills of rights, the UN.... all the while spitting on mainstream Australia. She says you reckon sniffer dogs are bad, mandatory detention's bad, the Howard Government's bad, and what's more, you show a "dangerous disregard" for the most basic rights to live in freedom and safe from personal harm.

I mean, what do you want? The rule of law? You'll all be saying the police can't have freedom and safety to lock someone up under the merest and unsubstantiated suspicion next!

She says you're all lefties, and what are worse, greenies, lurking with hidden intent under the 'civil libertarian' banner. Her terms are: "Whitlamites, Democrats and Greens", these of course being epithets. She and commentators like her don't specify quite what your motives are in this cunning manipulation of the term civil liberties, but by implication they must be malign.

Is this what passes for intelligent debate these days?

When rational disagreement with Government policy translates into "Howard-hating"?

When going against the mob is regarded as elitist posturing?

When a regard for human rights attracts the perjorative phrase "do-gooder"?

I've always found the last one interesting, coming as it often does from self-styled Christians, whose basic religious tenet is surely the need to "do good unto others". Who yet seem all too willing to advocate legal punishments against anyone they regard as "different".
The rest of it is just as blunt. We live in a country of self-styled Christians hitting back at the world for laughing at their medieval beliefs. Yes folks, and while we're at it, whatever happened to 'compassion'?

I spent some time yesterday calling up some friends who all agreed with me telling me saying it was terrible that the Coalition government had a majority in the Senate so could pass whatever law they could pull out of their rear ends.
"But nobody cares enough", they said. "And the media is stifling discussion on it."
Well, I guess it does take two to tango, but there needs to be tango music played by some tango-playing-orchestra as well.
The two glaring things missing are:
1) The fire and brimstone opposition by the ALP. Please, where are you hiding, folks?
2) A population that's taking to the streets to oppose the anti-terror bills even if they have to throw some rocks at the police. Because in all seriousness, in the future after they pass these laws, it won't be an option to do so. This is the last port of call, the last chance to be doing this.

John Howard intends to ram this bill through Parilament on Melbourne Cup Day. How disgusting is that? Perhaps we deserve the idiotic leadership we get, because that's certainly what we've voted for. *Ugh*

And One More Thing
Here's John North from The Law Council of Australia having his say:
THE LAW COUNCIL of Australia continued its slamming of “draconian” anti-terror laws last week, claiming that the international legal profession believes there should be more faith in our traditional protections.

Speaking last week at a national legal conference in Canberra, Law Council president John North asked whether the proposed legislation “actually makes us safe or just makes us feel safer”. He said any change that affects Australians’ right to live in peace and “to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention” must be subject to scrutiny.

“They are arming our police and intelligence services with powers that history shows will likely lead to abuse and misuse,” he said.

In a series of international conferences on governmental responses to terrorism, the erosion of human rights had become a primary concern. “At recent conferences of the American Bar Association, the International Bar Association, the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association and at last weekend’s LawAsia conference, the prevailing theme has been the need for lawyers to act now to halt the march of executive power,” North said.

While terrorism is a significant issue, we should be careful not to rush into terror laws that infringe on our rights, he said. “We understand that the people are scared, we understand that terrorism is the major, major issue, but we must not take away fundamental rights without asking our government to assure us that we are going to be safer,” he told the Ten Network’s Meet the Press.

“We’re most concerned about the control orders and the preventative detention orders,” he told the ABC on the weekend. “They will allow the Government to seek and obtain these orders without the people even having any right to know about it, or to inform themselves or properly inform lawyers,”

A major concern, he said, was the arbitrary detainment of people in times of fear. “In this legislation, it looks as if the Government is going to be able to lock people up in times of fear … and if they think that there’s going to be trouble, they can pull people off the street and hold them under these orders,” he told ABC radio.
So much for fighting this in the streets once it's in. They can just lock you up for sedition, without charging you with anything. It sounds insane, but that's what we have.

Baseball Wraps Up for 2005

88 Years Since Shoeless Joe


The Chicago White Sox beat their 88 year hoodoo and won the World Series in a 4 game sweep of the Houston Astros. It's been a longtime between drinks, going back to a team that had such notable 'Black Sox as Shoeless Joe Jackson, Eddie Ciccote, and Buck Weaver.
HOUSTON, Oct. 26 - The baseball gods were merciless once, inflicting decades of sorrow on a franchise for one fateful mistake. They would sit in that mystical corner of sports heaven, firing thunderbolts at teams like the Chicago White Sox, who threw the World Series in 1919 and have defined mediocrity ever since.

All these years later, it turns out the gods have a heart, after all. How else to explain what happened at Minute Maid Park on Wednesday night, when the White Sox beat the Houston Astros, 1-0, in Game 4 of the World Series to clinch their first championship since 1917?

"I felt all 88 of those years," said the White Sox' owner, Jerry Reinsdorf. "I think I even felt the years that the Cubs haven't won on my shoulders."

The crosstown Cubs are more lovable and more popular than the White Sox have ever been, and they have gone 97 years and counting since their last championship. Maybe now their time will come.

Last October, the Boston Red Sox exorcised their demons in strikingly similar fashion to the White Sox. With no titles since 1918 - two years before they sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees - the Red Sox finally captured the World Series by winning their last eight postseason games.

Likewise, the White Sox followed four consecutive victories in the American League Championship Series with a four-game sweep of the Astros, whose anemic offense could hardly touch the White Sox' pitching.
You can't fault that. The way these things go, it'll be the Cubs who are 97 years and counting, moaning about he curse of the goat and poor Steven Bartman.

Bobby Valentine And The Chiba Lotte Marine Sweep Tigers


Okay, so 31 is much smaller than 88 or 86, but it's long enough to be a hoodoo of sorts.
Bobby V, former manager of the NY Mets who saw the Mets to the 2000 World Series (and lost to the Yanks) has been helming the Chiba Lotte Marines this year and has led them to their first Japan Series win in 31years. The Marines swept the Hanshin Tigers of Osaka.
ボビーが甲子園で舞った—。プロ野球の日本一を決める日本シリーズは26日、甲子園球場で第4戦を行い、ロッテが1974年以来、31年ぶりの日本一に輝いた。4戦4勝での日本一は02年の巨人以来、史上5度目。米国人として初めて日本一の栄冠を手にしたボビー・バレンタイン監督(55)は目に涙をためて「素晴らしいですね。このチームは一番です!」と力強く叫んだ。最高殊勲選手には8打席連続安打のシリーズ記録をマークした今江敏晃内野手が選ばれた。日本シリーズを制したロッテは、11月10日から東京ドームで開催される「アジアシリーズ2005」でアジアの王者を目指す。

 「あの感触は一生、忘れない」と話した歓喜の胴上げからわずか9日。一度経験を積んで心の準備ができていたボビー・バレンタイン監督(55)は気持ちよさそうに3回、宙に舞った。プロ野球71年の歴史で初めての米国人監督による日本一。静まりかえった甲子園に“チバ、ロッテ、マリーンズ”の大合唱が響いた。

 「スバラシイ、コノチームハ、イチバンデス」。たどたどしい日本語で、精いっぱいのメッセージを伝える。黄色一色で埋め尽くされた甲子園に「ここは世界の野球の聖地。阪神ファンが日本で一番多いことを実感させられた。でも、ロッテのファンが最高です」

 4試合での最多得点33をはじめ、攻撃面で6個の新記録を樹立したシリーズ。毎日打線を組み替えた“ボビー・マジック”がさく裂した。その姿勢は日本一を目前にした第4戦でも変わらなかった。第3戦で5番に座らせたベニーを外して、李承ヨプ(イ・スンヨプ)を起用したことが当たった。
Indeed , the Marines simply thumped the Tigers in the first 3 games, scoring more than 10 runs in each (10-0; 10-1; 10-0) and then edged out a 3-2 win to close out the series.
They love the man over there, and as the MLB clubs looking for managers eye Bobby V once more, Lotte are trying to keep Bobby for the long term.

Cashman Stays
So after all that deliberation, Brian Cashman has decided he'll go another 3 years in the Yankee circus to a tune of 5.5million dollars. I'd do it too.
Cashman's current contract expires Monday, and the Yankees cannot announce the new deal until after the World Series, a high-ranking baseball official said yesterday in Houston, site of Game 4 of the World Series last night.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because baseball commissioner Bud Selig prohibits teams from making major announcements during the Series. The deal with Cashman still has not been finalized, the official added.
With the decisions of Cashman and manager Joe Torre to stay with the Yankees, New York can start on its offseason moves next week. It appears the Yankees' first priority will be to re-sign outfielder Hideki Matui, who is eligible for free agency.
New York also has a deal that is all-but-finalized with former San Diego and Philadelphia manager Larry Bowa, who would become third-base coach.
A lot has been said about Brian Cashman but one thing is clear, Yankee fans actually wanted him back and that says a great deal about the support he enjoys in the Big Apple.

The Northern Summer is well and truly done in deep October. I think it's time to seriously watch some Cricket now. :)

2005/10/26

Mailbag Stuff

Optical Illusion.
Very interesting.

Human version 2.0 from the SMH. It's tantamount to a sort of "Cyber Manifesto"


Between 2000 and 2014 we'll make 20 years of progress at 2000 rates, equivalent to the entire 20th century. And then we'll do the same again in only seven years. To express this another way, we won't experience 100 years of technological advance in the 21st century; we will witness in the order of 20,000 years of progress when measured by the rate of progress in 2000, or about 1000 times that in the 20th century.

Ultimately, we will merge with our technology. As we get to the 2030s, the non-biological portion of our intelligence will predominate. By the 2040s it will be billions of times more capable than the biological part.

Above all, information technologies will grow at an explosive rate. And information technology is the technology that we need to consider. Ultimately, everything of value will become an information technology: our biology, our thoughts and thinking processes, manufacturing and many other fields. As one example, nanotechnology-based manufacturing will enable us to apply computerised techniques to automatically assemble complex products at the molecular level.

This will mean that by the mid 2020s we will be able to meet our energy needs using very inexpensive nanotechnology-based solar panels that will capture the energy in 0.03 per cent of the sunlight that falls on the Earth, which is all we need to meet our projected energy needs in 2030.

A common objection is that there must be limits to exponential growth, as in the example of rabbits in Australia. The answer is that there are, but they're not very limiting. By 2020, $1000 will purchase 1016 calculations per second (cps) of computing (compared with about 109 cps today), which is the level I estimate is required to functionally simulate the human brain. Another few decades on, and we will be able to build more optimal computing systems. For example, one cubic inch of nanotube circuitry would be about 100 million times more powerful than the human brain. The ultimate 1-kilogram computer - about the weight of a laptop today - which I envision late in this century, could provide 1042 cps, about 10 quadrillion (1016) times more powerful than all human brains put together today.

And that's if we restrict the computer to functioning at a cold temperature. If we find a way to let it get hot, we could improve that by a factor of another 100 million. And we'll devote more than 1 kilogram of matter to computing. We'll use a significant portion of the matter and energy in our vicinity as a computing substrate.

Our growing mastery of information processes means the 21st century will be characterised by three great technology revolutions. We are now in the early stages of the "G" revolution (genetics, or biotechnology). Biotechnology is providing the means to change your genes: not just designer babies but designer baby boomers. But perfecting our biology will only get us so far.

Biology will never be able to match what we will be capable of engineering, now that we are gaining a deep understanding of biology's principles of operation. That will bring us to the "N" or nanotechnology revolution, which will achieve maturity in the 2020s. There are already early impressive experiments. A biped nanorobot created by Nadrian Seeman and William Sherman, of New York University, can walk on legs only 10 nanometres long, demonstrating the ability of nanoscale machines to execute precise manoeuvres.

Interesting stuff if you like Futue Shocking yourself. :)

Empress of Japan



Mr. Hiroyuki Yoshikawa was the meeting chairman.

Turning Over Macarthur
There was a time when people were calling for the head of the late Emperor Showa (Hirohito) of Japan. Of course, that was straight after World War II finished and they were having a war crimes Tribunal in Japan. General Douglas Macarthur had other ideas about ruling Japan, so he let the Japanese keep the Imperial Family because he wanted the peace to be workable.

Many people have discussed the merits of that decision at great length but the fact remains, the occupation of Japan went very peacefully in contrast to what is going on Iraq today, and much of that was due to the fact that the Emperor stayed. Certainly, an Iraq-like outcome would have been disastrous for the allies, considering the outbreak of the Korean War only 5 years after WWII. Instead, Macarthur's GHQ figured that at some point the Imperial Family ought to be consigned to history and so, worked a clause into the New Constitution, a clause that said only a male could become Emperor of Japan.

Sure enough, the current Crown Prince and Princess have a girl and are not looking likely to issue more off-spring, so the Prime Minister has invited legal and history adivisers to review the clause, and surprise surprise, they have unanimously declared that there can indeed be an Empress of Japan.
小泉純一郎首相の私的諮問機関「皇室典範に関する有識者会議」(座長・吉川弘之元東大学長)は25日、首相官邸で開いた会合で、最大の焦点だった皇位継承資格をめぐり、現行では男系男子に限っている資格を拡大し、女性・女系天皇を容認することを全会一致で決めた。11月末までにまとめる最終報告に明記する。

 小泉首相は25日夜、来年の通常国会に皇室典範改正案を提出する準備を進めていることを記者団に明らかにした。改正が実現すれば、皇室の在り方に大きな影響を与えることになる。

 有識者会議は、現行制度のまま安定的な皇位継承が実現できるかどうかを検証。男系男子の後継者が非常に少なくなりつつあることから「将来必ず後継者不足が生じる」との見方で一致し、皇位継承資格を女性や女系皇族にまで広げることにした。

 吉川座長は会合後の記者会見で「女性天皇は国民に受け入れられると思う」と述べた。

 有識者会議は(1)皇位継承順位は直系の長子(第一子)優先とするのか、男子優先とするのか(2)女性皇族が皇族以外の男性と結婚して皇籍を持ち続けるとした場合、増えすぎる皇族の数をどう調整するか−の点も協議し、最終報告に盛り込むことにしている。

  女性・女系天皇  女性天皇は文字通り女性皇族が天皇に即位すること。一方、母方からのみ天皇の血統を引き継ぐ皇族が皇位に就くケースが女系天皇で、いずれも皇位継承者を「男系男子」に限る現行の皇室典範では認められていない。

 女性天皇は歴史上十代8人の例があるが、いずれも男系女子で、皇后を経て即位したか生涯独身を通しており、女系天皇は皇室史上例がない。政府の「皇室典範に関する有識者会議」は、皇位継承の安定を図るため、女性・女系天皇を容認することで一致。政府は皇室典範改正案を次期通常国会に提出する方針だ。
Prime Minister Koizumi will be putting forward a bill to amend the Constitution on that clause. So much for GHQ's great plan.

Waiting On Brian Cashman Update
I know it's kind of weird sticking this in here, but I just saw it.
HOUSTON - If you believe the scuttlebutt from the GMs at the World Series, Brian Cashman's prolonged negotiation with Yankees general partner Steve Swindal is directly related to Theo Epstein's holdout in Boston.
"They're pals," said one GM, "and I'm sure they're both holding out as long as they can, if nothing else, to give Theo additional leverage so he gets what he wants from the Red Sox. In any case, Brian's going to get his money."

That's been pretty much a given. Money is not the issue with Cashman and the Yankees; mutual cooperation and understanding with the Tampa faction of the Yankee front office is. It's been generally assumed Cashman will command a raise from his present $1.15 million to a three-year deal somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.7 mil per year, which would put him slightly above the Braves' John Schuerholz as the highest-paid GM in the game. (The Tigers' Dave Dombrowski makes $2 million but he is also the team president.)

Schuerholz's contract is up after '06, at which time he undoubtedly will get a bump to $2million or more. Epstein, meanwhile, is looking for what Cashman is getting, or maybe a tad more. Last week, he rejected a Red Sox offer of three years, $3 million and has vowed to walk if a deal isn't reached by Monday, when his contract (at $400,000 per year) expires.

Red Sox CEO Larry Lucchino is trying desperately to hold the line with his third-year GM - and there have been reports that commissioner Bud Selig has been monitoring the process behind the scenes out of concern for an escalation of the GM salary scale. But stuck in Epstein's craw is the five-year, $12.5 million deal Lucchino offered Oakland's Billy Beane three years ago. Lucchino has shrugged that off as "a mistake" - which, indeed, it has come to be if only because of the predicament it has caused the Red Sox. If Epstein walks, the Red Sox will come out looking like cheapskates, unless they up their offer to $1.2 million or so - which they can then justify as "Cashman money."

Meanwhile, it seems clear that Cashman intends to stay, although he is undoubtedly waiting to see what accommodations are made to Gene Michael down in Tampa. Michael, who had all of his scouting duties and player personnel input diminished this year, is seeking to either have them restored or be given the okay to talk to other teams.

The Tampa Bay Devil Rays, in particular, are interested in talking to him about being a VP of Player Personnel and mentor to 28-year old Andrew Friedman, a baseball neophyte who is expected to assume the GM duties for new owner Stuart Sternberg. In addition, Phillies CEO Dave Montgomery is holding off on interviewing anyone for his GM job until Cashman makes his decision to stay with the Yankees official.
Well that would explain the lo-o-o-ong delay.

Living In A Nightmare


Lately, I've had this feeling that I've been living in a nightmare.
Think about it:
G.W. Bush in in the White House for a scheduled 8 years; including that horrible little election-jobbing he pulled with hiss family in Florida. John Howard in power for 9 years and counting and it's enough to make one vomit everyday.
A 'War on Terror' that knows no bounds of civil decency back home. The anti-terror laws that are going to shut me up.
The rise of nut-bar religious types around the world who are violently uncompromising in their fairy-tale vision, blurring the lines between Church and state, participating in elections.
No World Series win for the Yankees since before September 11; also that ugly collapse job in the 2004 ALCS. Not to mention The Red Sox finally winning the World Series and now The White Sox seem headed that way, on the back of Jose Contreras!.
So, you know, the only conclusion to be drawn is that we must be living in a nightmare, right?

On that note I want to present a couple of links today.

Where Are You Now Paul Keating, A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes...


I guess I was a Keating-Labor man. I was never a party member nor an apparatchik; more like somebody who took a lot of delight in having a wit in the Lodge. Paul Keating was a pretty amazing dude to have as Prime Minister. I think I wrote a couple of days ago that I really missed the 1990s. More specifically, I miss Australia having a vision, and this was a Prime Minister who was providing oodles of it. He was everything John Howard is not; and to some, I'm sure that's a bad thing but really, how much more down a blind alley can Australia go?
So I dug up this little article in the Bulletin of all places.
Only now are historians trying to assess the Keating legacy. The most enduring will be economic reforms. After the Hawke-Keating reforms, Australia experienced one of the most prolonged periods of economic growth in its history.

But for all that, Keating could never break through his arrogance. The government’s and the Reserve Bank’s mismanagement of monetary policy caused the 1991 recession, says Paul Kelly. “Hawke has apologised for the recession, but Keating has not,” he says. “They were both responsible and it is the stain on their economic record.”

Like many of his cabinet colleagues, John Button was horrified by the “recession we had to have” comment: it damaged the government more than it should have because, while a business elite may have understood what he was saying, the mass of the Australian people did not. “[It] confirmed my view that at that time he was totally out of touch and a political fuckwit.”

Head of the Sydney Institute think-tank, Gerard Henderson, argues it was not Keating’s policy agenda that cost him the election: the Coalition supported most of the reforms and 80% of voters supported his general direction. It’s more simple, argues Henderson, “He was a smart arse and Australians don’t like a smart arse.”

As treasurer, says Henderson, it didn’t matter that Keating was flamboyant. Howard by contrast, he says, has carefully crafted his image, listening courteously to anyone who speaks to him. Hawke, likewise, moderated his language, personality and drinking. “Keating had a fan club patting him on the back but not many people telling him he should do this or shouldn’t do that. The successful PMs have all been cautious types.”

In the end, history is likely to view his judgment as flawed. He had come from a tough part of the country, and claimed to know what working-class Australians wanted. But he was seduced by the international world. Working-class voters – traditional Labor voters who switched to Howard – were waiting for him with baseball bats, as former Queensland leader Wayne Goss put it.
So, yesterday afternoon, I noticed that the SMH was reporting that the Australian populace is happy to forgo their rights in order to get Howard's terror laws in writ. The same idiots who voted for Pauline Hanson and voted out Paul Keating are going to get the Police State they always wanted. Who cares about their rights, their freedom of speech? "Screw it, get the elitist bastard, get the illegal immigrants, get the muslims! Get them all! Lock'em up and throw away they key; let them buttfuck each other for the rest of eternity..."
Edifying.
I say, bring back the elitist bastard and take us back to the future we once glimpsed in the 1990s.

Dave Brin's 'Holodeck Hypothesis'



There's a link to the right to David Brin's blog. I find it amazing that David Brin, a professional writer of some clout would bother to write a blog, but there you go. He must have a kind of graphomania or logorrhoea. The most recent entries covered an interesting thought; that we are merely figments of Dubbya's holodeck fantasy:
"The real exit strategy for the US in Iraq has already begun. Not because the war is won. But because W has begun to get bored with his latest Fantasy Job."

And what that implies may be the scariest possibility of all.

Come on! A youth spent in unbelievable frat boy party-stupor mode, with plenty of geeks to write your term papers while you get to torment em unmercifully.

Then... jet pilot! Wearing a snappy uniform and silk scarf while screeching over the Gulf, taking free flying lessons as you bravely defend your land from... Fidel! And each evening sipping margaritas by the beach, while a million other sons go off to battle Charlie in Nam...

...till that got boring. So then there came a series of other fantasy jobs: political operative, cowboy, oil man... oh!... and then baseball team owner! (The fantasy can't be baseball player, since that's real work.)

...then governor of the great Lone Star State of Texas. Yee haw! (Especially the way it starts, by putting down that Ann Richards bitty, who said all those mean things about people who are born with a silver foot-in-the-mouth. Here's my silver foot, Annie. Yeah!)

All right, so each of these jobs palled after a while. So each time you move on to something else, it means that you leave a train wreck behind you? A trail of steaming failures for others to clean up? Isn't that what nerds are for?

Oh, this kind of thing inevitably taxes the Holodeck. A long series of extreme improbabilities simply has to be hard on the machinery. Especially when a crucial parameter/rule is to keep everything consistent with some kind of "reality". How do you fill a world with smartypants types to defeat, while keeping those nerds from seeing the overall pattern? In other words, how to explain a string of impossible luck?

Well, within the simulation, smarty-pants pundits can be diverted, pointing to all sorts of “real world” explanations. Such as cronyism (so?) and Daddy's Friends (and your point is?) and even "genius Carl Rove (take THAT all you Nobel Prize pansies!) as the agents for this amazing string of events. (And that dipwad David Brin can yatter all he wants to, about the "return of boring old aristocratism" and the ultimate crony-subornation-influence of a certain foreign R-oil House. Let him!)

Even crank conspiracy theories only help distract from the real explanation for this incredible run for a fellow who frequently cannot even pronounce the name of his latest fantasy job?

Then there is religion. Isn't being the favorite of God an even better explanation?

Or maybe something a whole lot like God, in the present context? (In that case, haven't you been honest with us all along? Since you are the one who speaks to the Computer?)

If we need a QED for this hypothesis, just look at our situation today. The Presidency is the ultimate fantasy job. Especially if there's no duty, no hard work, no responsibility for outcomes, and none of the worry or care that has prematurely aged so many other occupants of the office.

What did I tell you? I'm not the only one thinking, "this can't be right! What the fuck is going on?"

Rosa Parkes Passes away.



The woman who ignited the Civil Rights movement in te USA by refusing to stand up on the bus, passed away. I kind of missed this in the shuffle of 'things anti-terror'

Michael Jackson Moves To Bahrain


this caught my eye for a certain kind of cultural dissonance angle, so to speak
After a lengthy trial, it is now apparent that Michael Jackson is going to move to Bahrain. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that it is okay to kiddy-fiddle in Bahrain... Only kidding. Who knows what's going there? Just look at that photo, will you? "Me and my buddies in Pederasty!"

Ichiro Is Unhappy



Ichiro Suzuki says he was very dissatisfied with the Mariners' performance this year. Well, I'd be too if I were him.
I've had this photo on my desktop for a few days now, so it seems this is a good a time as any to post it up.

Dead Shark



This Great White Shark corpse was washed up in a Japanese canal according to Yahoo. The thing was 4.8m long. That's one big beastie.

2005/10/25

Space Elevator


Update
Here's the latest on the Space Elevator concept.
I've linked it, but here's the text in its entirety.


One day in the future, not too far from today, a hazy weekend in Mountain View could be written into the history of space exploration.

A three-day competition at the NASA Ames Research Center, which wrapped up Sunday, brought together callow college students and grizzled engineering hobbyists to design a ``space elevator'' -- a platform rising beyond the Earth's atmosphere along a super-strong ribbon of carbon ``nanotubes'' that could, one day, carry cargo into space much more cheaply than rockets.

Just as the first airplane flight at Kitty Hawk lasted only 12 seconds, the seven ``robot climbers'' entered in the competition didn't ascend more than a few dozen feet up a tether attached to a giant crane. And none performed well enough to win the $50,000 grand prize.

But they broke a barrier on Sunday nonetheless -- proving that the idea is not some science-fiction fantasy.

``If we get financing, it'll be one or two years'' before a space elevator becomes a reality, said Brad Edwards, a former staff scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory who has written a book on the subject.

Edwards was a judge at the competition, sponsored by the Spaceward Foundation of Mountain View. Just as railroads opened up the western United States and the Internet opened up cyberspace, Edwards believes that a space elevator will lead humanity across yet another frontier.

While rockets are prohibitively expensive because of their fuel, a space elevator could cover the same distance for a tiny fraction of the cost, Edwards said. It could be used to cheaply launch satellites or missions to Mars.

It could even solve the energy crisis by lifting massive banks of solar cells into orbit around Earth, proving unlimited clean, efficient and safe power. ``You can't do that with rockets,'' Edwards said.

Contestants were asked to develop either a super-strong elevator tether or a robotic platform that would climb up the tether into space.

Four teams entered the tether contest, according to Marc Schwager of the Spaceward Foundation. That contest also had a $50,000 prize, offered by the NASA Centennial Challenges Program -- but to win it, a team had to demonstrate that their tether was not only stronger than others entered in the competition, but also 50 percent stronger than NASA's ``house tether.''

Schwager said a tether developed by a three-man team from Logan, Utah, beat the other teams but broke just before reaching the 50-percent prize threshold. Since nobody won either prize this year, Schwager said the money for both the climber and the tether will be rolled into next year's pot.

The idea of offering prizes to spur scientific breakthroughs dates back to at least 1714, when the British government offered the ``Longitude Prize'' for the first method to precisely determine a ship's longitude.

But contestants in the Spaceward Foundation challenge said they weren't motivated by money as much as by the idea of creating something that crossed a scientific frontier.

Michael Fischer, a 50-year-old software engineer from Auburn, put about $5,000 into a climber powered by a Stirling engine using external combustion and helium.

At the last minute, Fischer's climber developed a leak, so he ended up cannibalizing it for parts to help other teams, including one from the University of British Columbia.

That team of students, led by Steve Jones, came in second, with a climber that converted the light from powerful spotlights into energy. It rose about 30 feet, while the winning team, from the University of Saskatchewan, used light to climb 60 feet.

``It was amazing to watch these silent machines gliding on light,'' Schwager said. ``Two college teams came in and showed industry how to build a space elevator.''



It has to be said, it's hard to visualise whhat exactly the elevator shaft/stem is going to look like, but there you go.
I actually think there's an idea for a start up company in it right now.

Curtailing Democracy


I found this pic here.

They Used To Deter It Elsewhere
We're told this implementation of anti-terror laws as a kind of necessary sacrifice of our civil liberties in order to exercise prejudice legitimately. i.e. Grab a Muslim without charge and interrogate him until they get something on him, then charge him for having a contrary opinion. If that's not state fascism in action, I don't know what is.

Here's a link sent in from Pleiades. It's an OpEd piece about Terror Laws as enacted in the United Kingdom:
Contrary to popular myth, the democratic process, the universal franchise, habeas corpus, the ‘inalienable rights’ and so on and so forth that the pundits spout on about, far from being an ‘inalienable right’ extending back to the Magna Carta some eight hundred years ago, our extremely limited democracy is barely one hundred years old and is something that is by no means ‘taken for granted’ as events in Northern Ireland revealed nor the raft of laws such as the infamous ‘D’ notice which is no more than an ‘agreement’ between the owners and managers of the media not to print or broadcast stories that might be embarrassing to the state, under the guise of ‘state security’.

With literally hundreds of laws that collectively the state paradoxically likes to call our ‘unwritten constitution’ and without recourse to a clearly defined set of rules that sets limits on what powers the state possesses over its citizens, until the UK — reluctantly and with all kinds of provisos — signed the European Union’s Human Rights Act, the state could pretty well do whatever it pleases. And now, under the guise of fighting the ‘war on terror’, it wants to opt out of key sections of the Act.

In fact, the UK is probably the most regulated, controlled and surveilled of any of the so-called democracies. With an estimated 6 million video cameras installed across the country over which there is no oversight, indeed, no controls whatsoever as to what happens to the footage, who sees it or who ends up possessing it, the state’s control over its citizens is almost complete.

And if anyone has any doubts about the perilous state of our ‘democracy’, the vote on ID cards on 18/10/05 had only 20 Labour MPs voting against it, and most of those on the grounds of cost of the project. Public debate on the issue is virtually non-existent. The government has consistently misled the public on the real nature of the ID card, hiding entirely the real reason, namely the creation of a national database on its citizens, an allegation it of course, strenuously denies. The vast cost of creating a national database on 60 million people, a database that will contain information of all kinds, not merely the kind that will allegedly stop ‘identity theft’ or allegedly identify ‘terrorists’, ‘benefit cheats’ and those participating in ‘organised crime’ but to add insult to injury, one that we will be forced to pay for.
So the Poms are getting along without a Constitution that vets the rights of UK citizenry. I guess I knew that, but I failed to realise the ramification of that AND these Terror Laws they've put into play. I'd be more than uncomfortable with that arrangement.
The article gets 'Bolshier' when it crashes into the bounds of Democracy as practiced in the UK:
What is revealed here is something a lot more fundamental and a lot more insidious, for these self-same people who now talk of a “drift toward a police state” have seen the writing on the wall for at least past eight years, yet said nothing and indeed were quite content to accept the ‘drift’ so long as it didn’t affect them.

Moreover, it reveals the incestuous relationship between our so-called intelligentsia and the state, why else do they continue to peddle the line that what is happening is some kind of encroachment on these mythical ‘rights’ that we are supposed to have had for centuries?

The uncomfortable truth is that democracy, even the limited form we currently have, exists for only as long as it’s convenient to keep it. And it’s a ‘democracy’ that is extremely narrowly defined, namely a two-party system that exists within a structure defined by an inherited and entrenched state bureaucracy that is, we are told, neutral and independent of the political process.

Yet the ‘Establishment’ as it is referred to, is a recognised institution composed of people who control the organs of the state; the judicial system, the civil service, the police and security services, education, the armed forces, and through their connections, the media and big business. These are people who are connected via the schools and universities they attended; the clubs they belong to and via family and business relationships.

However, the ‘Establishment’ is rarely, if ever referred to as being central to the maintenance of the State’s power. Instead, it is presented to us as an amorphous and inherited set of relationships that are intrinsically ‘English’. The illusion is complete and reinforced by the assumptions made about its ‘inevitable’ nature, hence the statement “freedoms citizens have taken for granted for centuries” flows logically from such assumptions.

The role therefore of the intelligentisa is to maintain the illusion of a society ruled by people who have some kind of ‘natural right’ to rule, benignly you understand, to suggest otherwise is to be ‘un-English’ and it goes by the name of a ‘meritocracy’, those who rule through ability alone, at least that’s what we are told. The Establishment is so powerful that it easily absorbs even those who ‘rise through the ranks’ and end up belonging to it, such as those who head up the current ‘Labour’ government, regardless that they come from working class backgrounds.
I don't know if I count as the Intelligentzia. I do feel that somehow I'm not doing my entire part, as I am not currently organising a grassroots movement against the Forces of Stupidity unleashed by those blurring the lines between Church and State, and running off to the 5th Crusade. In the near future, wanting to fight this dystopia will inevitably make you the terrorist. Get ready for the stoush. These assholes know not what horrors they unleash.
It can be seen therefore, that there is a direct and organic relationship between repression abroad and repression at home; they are two sides of the same coin and result from the same process, the crisis of capital. Without once more entering into and engaging with the political process, I think it’s safe to assume that failing an organised and coherent opposition to the current Labour government-led regime, and one that’s not led by a posse of self-serving ‘liberals’, whose position of privilege is only now recognised as being threatened, the omens are seriously bad. And, if you’ll forgive me for repeating myself, it’s up to you to break free from the illusion, so cleverly constructed, that the attacks on our rights only apply to ‘extremists’, as they’ll come knocking on your door in the morning, of that you can be sure, history has taught us that, over and over again.
So this is where we're left. It is time to organise, get motivated and let the power fall.

Mal Fraser's Speech
Here's the entire text, sent in by Pleiades.
The courts have ruled that people in Guantanamo Bay must have their day in court. Unfortunately it has not yet taken the step of confirming that the Tribunals are unconstitutional.

Australia has supported the military tribunals. The Government has said that Hicks will get justice, but the majority of opinion is against the Government which unlike the British Government has abandoned its own citizen. We have, by implication, supported the Rendition Programme and therefore have not opposed torture.

The ASIO legislation of 2002 underlines Australia's official indifference to "due process" and to what until recently would have been regarded as universally accepted Rule of Law.

We are the only democratic country, I am advised, to legislate for the detention of people whom the authorities do not suspect of any wrong doing or even of any wrong thought.

In Australia, any of us can be detained merely because authorities believe we might know something that we don't even know we know. The authorities do not have to believe we are guilty of any crime, or are planning any crime, or have consorted with any suspicious persons. How could such a law be drafted by the Government and supported by the Labor opposition? You can be detained for one week but then on a new warrant, another and another and another week. Unless it is approved in the original warrant, and why would ASIO do that? - you are not allowed to contact your wife, your husband, your child, your mother, your father and of course not a lawyer.

If you don't answer ASIO's questions satisfactorily, you can be charged and subject to 5 years in jail. But the law is reasonable, it goes on to say that if you don't know anything, then it's not an offence not to tell ASIO anything!!! But you have to prove you didn't know anything and so the "onus of proof" is reversed.

You can be asked to produce a paper and if you don't, you also go to jail on prosecution for 5 years but the law goes on to say, being fair-minded again, if you don't have such a paper, it's not an offence not to produce it but you have to prove that you didn't have it. How do you prove that you do not have something that you do not even know exists!!! Again, the "onus of proof" is reversed.

If a journalist heard that you had been detained and sought to report it, he would go to jail for 5 years. If a detained person were released and talked to anyone about his or her experiences, he could go to jail for five years.

This seems to be a law for secret behaviour by authorities, for making somebody disappear. It is a law that one would expect in tyrannical countries and not in Australia. Do we do nothing about it because we believe it will not apply to ourselves? Do we believe it is only going to apply to people of a different religion who look a bit different?
There's a lot more from the mouth of Old-Time Conservative Patriarch himself; the manner in which he expresses himself is a bit *yuck*, but content-wise he's saying what's right. So props to you Mr. Fraser for speaking out.

And by the way, where're Gough and Bob and Paul in all of this mess? You'd think there would be a wide-spread public volatility, and an army of public figures weighing into this topic.

2005/10/24

Mailbox Notes

Some links came in from fellow Spacefreak James.
He also sent in this quote:
"They threw rocks at us a lot, and so we took to carrying rocks with us to throw back at them, there were some serious cave man fights going on in the early days...":


Link 1 Meet Clifton Hicks, US Army Tank crew soldier:
I joined the Army when I was 17. I took the tests and the recruiter said I could do most any of the jobs they had, but of course I foolishly decided to be a tanker. Ever since I was a little kid I'd wanted to be a tank crewman and go off to fight in Iraq, it was my life's dream. I'm the only person I've ever heard of who achieved their greatest goal in life before their 19th birthday.
Well, it's easy to do if you set your aim low.

Link 2
the second one in particular is interesting with the video footage.

The war in Iraq is turning into one big steaming shit-pile of political mismanagement. The main problem is that it seems the Bush Administration want it that way so that the MIC have an excuse to keep spending money on companies like Halliburtons.
Man, I really, really, really miss the 1990s. This is a really crappy decade we're living in right now.

Waiting For Brian Cashman


The World' Best Job? ...With The World's Worst-Behaved Boss, Of Course
Brian Cashman's contract runs out at the end of October. George Steinbrenner wants him back. The speculation is still rife but the smart money is on Brian Cashman to resume his tenure as the GM of the New York Yankees. He's keeping awfully quiet about it in the process, though.
Steinbrenner's willingness to express his feelings directly to Cashman is viewed within the organization as a positive move toward convincing Cashman to re-up. Cashman has told friends he wants greater autonomy in decision-making. Hearing the pledge from Steinbrenner, not from an underling, carries more meaning.

Nevertheless, another executive close to Cashman recently said he would not be surprised if Cashman asked to have any promises about the scope of his authority or how the Yankees' chain of command works put into official contract language. The friend said Cashman may request that if his authority or the chain of command is violated, he automatically can opt out of his contract and/or receive a large penalty payment.

Interestingly, Cashman is, to some degree, trying to resolve similar issues with Steinbrenner that Torre was. The Yankees' manager said he needed to be assured The Boss still wanted him as manager after a tumultuous season. Torre asked for and received a sit-down meeting in Tampa with Steinbrenner last Monday that Torre described positively as "more than cordial."

Torre met with the media the next day and said he wanted to stay as Yankees manager, citing the meeting with Steinbrenner as integral to that choice.

Similarly, Cashman "wants to know his opinion counts and that his input is important," an ally of the GM said. Cashman has grown intolerant of having to defend organizational moves (the signings of Jaret Wright and Tony Womack, for example) that he had little or nothing to do with. He has some leverage now to ask for a larger say in such matters with his contract expiring Oct. 31 and the potential to go someplace else, such as Philadelphia to be the GM.

There are a lot of Yankee fans who want him back, if nothing but as the voice of judicious sanity within a crazy organisation we love so much.

There's Excellent And Then There's God-like
White Sock 3B man Joe Crede made some snazzy plays in a World Series and suddenly people are talking about Graig Nettles.
The man himself was very cocky when he got interviewed Mr. Nettles, that is, not Mr. Crede:


"He made some nice plays," he said of Crede. "They were nice plays, but they weren't anything spectacular."

Nettles was implying that the plays he had made were spectacular and, of course, they were. He made four superb ones in Game 3 against the Dodgers. Tommy Lasorda, the Los Angeles manager, has said those plays were paramount in helping transform a series that his team was dominating.

Nettles, 61, has always been confident about his defensive abilities and has usually been candid with his opinions, and this case was no different. He was adamant about separating what Crede did and what he had done.

If Nettles's plays were a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, maybe Crede scored an 8.

"He made all the plays he needed to make," Nettles said in a telephone interview Sunday. "It was nothing extraordinary. He went one step for them. He went down to a knee. I appreciate the announcers mentioning me, but my plays were different."

Indeed, I saw those plays and have never forgotten them. As I pointed out only a few weeks ago when I put up that old photo I found of him flying sideways through the air like Superman.


Twenty-seven years ago, the Yankees were trailing the Dodgers, two games to none, when Nettles was in the right spot. With two outs and one on in the third, Nettles made a terrific diving play on a Reggie Smith laser down the line to begin an unforgettable sequence.

Then, with men on first and second and two outs in the fifth, Nettles smothered another blast by Smith and limited him to a single. Steve Garvey followed by scorching a ball to third; Nettles corralled it and flipped to second for a forceout, stranding three Dodgers.

The Dodgers loaded the bases again in the sixth, but Nettles vacuumed up Davey Lopes's smash and the Yankees exhaled. The Yankees won, 5-1, and won the next three games to win their second consecutive title. Nettles said fans still reminded him of the acrobatic plays and how they ignited the Yankees.
Those plays are an important part of my life experiences. That is how I will always remember those 1970s Yankees, tough in the clutch. Still, well done Joe Crede, and go go White Sox! The entire city of Chicago needs you.

We Come In Piecemeal, Shoot-To-Kill


When I was at high school, we had to write essays saying how living in 1984 was totally unlike living in ''1984'.
The joke is that 2005 is more like '1984' than 1984 ever was. Talk about 'Back to the Future'

...And The Shotgun Sings The Song
The so-called 'shoot-to-kill' part of the proposed 'anti-terror' bill is proving to be a sticking point for the Premiers.
Here's another entry from the Margo Kingston Web Diary .
It's written by somebody who is more used to writing academic essays on law practices but it does bear investigating. It kicks off with this little bit here:
Judicial oversight in relation to anti-terrorism laws largely means the supervision by judges of the exercise of powers by police and security organisations. Such supervision is aimed at two purposes. First, it ensures that police and security organisations act within the limits set by the law. In doing so, judicial oversight ensures the rule of law. More than this, given that statutory law is the expression of democratically elected parliaments, judicial oversight also advances representative democracy. Secondly, judicial oversight may help to prevent police and security organisations from resorting too easily to their anti-terrorism powers. Many of these powers, like the proposed control and preventive detention orders, are unprecedented and hence, should be exercised only in the most extreme of circumstances. The prospect of having to justify the use of these powers to independent authority may mean that police and security organisations use their powers more sparingly.

While the role of judicial oversight is significant, it is crucial to note that it is also limited. Such oversight is largely directed at ensuring that the law is upheld. For instance, if the laws are drafted so as to allow detention without trial, judicial oversight, however effective, will not prevent such detention (subject to constitutional limitations). Effective judicial oversight, however, can ensure that such detention is carried out within statutory and constitutional limitations and used as a last resort.

It is also important to note that mere involvement of a judicial officer in the exercise of powers by police and security organisations does not give rise to effective judicial oversight. Other conditions must be present for such oversight. First, the judicial officer must be sufficiently senior, for instance, a member of the Federal Court or a State Supreme Court. S/he should not be a member of the Federal, State or Territory Magistracy. This ensures an appropriate degree of expertise and independence.

Further, effective judicial oversight requires that the judicial officers be involved prior to the grant of the powers. This is especially the case with the proposed preventive detention and control orders.[4] This is practically possible even in urgent situations. Courts can be convened by telephone and using electronic communications in emergency sittings, if required, provided that appropriate systems are put into place by working with Court Registries.
In other words, shoot-to-kill powers is a real problem for the law courts because it would presumably mean a judge is going to have to wear bad decisions that he/she wasn't party to when the police officer fires 5 rounds into the back of an innocent Brazilian's head, apropos to the fact. That would worry me too.



Merry Christmas Mr. Orwell
Meanwhile, Prime Minister John Howard is sayinig he expects the Anti-terror laws to go through by Christmas. Great.
But he has refused to speculate on whether the laws, which would allow people suspected of knowing someone involved in terrorism to be detained for 14 days without charge, would lead to the immediate arrest of 80 Australians known to have trained with terrorist organisations overseas.

"There's been an extraordinary amount of speculation about numbers of people, the identities of them, it is all speculation," Mr Howard told reporters.

"The law is yet to be passed by parliament - I hope it will be passed by parliament before Christmas. It would be in the national interest if it were.

"I have every reason to believe that (the powers) will be used appropriately, but it is not for me to speculate on numbers or timings or anything of that kind, it depends entirely on how the laws operate."
We're writing laws so we can put away about 80 people on a kind of assumption that they're possibly going to turn terrorist. Well, to paraphrase a Czech I once knew, "There are not such thing as 'terrorists', only 'potential-troublemakers'".
It also gets better:
Senator Brandis denied using the term.
But Mr Trad said it could land him in jail under the proposed laws.

"It's not just this house arrest issue," Mr Trad told the Seven Network.
"I mean, they're talking about provisions for disaffection, for criticising the prime minister, for criticising the government.

"I recall last year that Senator Brandis described the prime minister as a lying rodent. Under this legislation, he could be placed in prison for seven years."
Well, it seems we can call John Howard anything we like right up until Christmas. After that we're all terrorists up for questioning. Welcome to the dystopia born of despondency.
Just why aren't we fighting in the streets yet?

Blog Archive