I find this really funny. I don't know why...http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/05/opinion/oe-kenney5
Monday, 24 March 2008
Paris in the the Spring
I find this really funny. I don't know why...http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/05/opinion/oe-kenney5
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Thursday, 10 January 2008
It's My Party
I know this is an example of sh*t she would not have to put up with if she was a man and I hesitate to buy in to the media pile on. However in the wake of New Hampshire it's still worth asking the question: was this a brilliant piece of campaigning?
I tend to think it was. Maybe that's just sour grapes. I'm for Obama.
Monday, 10 December 2007
TTH Would
Grant Asylum to Victims of Global Warming, Force Mothers Under the Age of 16 to Give Up Their Children for Adoption, Impose a General Restraining Order on Paparazzi, Apply Diplomatic Sanctions to Russia, Ban Homosexual Re-Education Camps, Impose Compensatory Duties on Non-Signatories to the Kyoto Protocols......and my favourite...
Support Bounty Hunters
Monday, 8 October 2007
Transforming Action Films
One thing I have been thinking a lot with more recent action films is that many have lost the 'battle narrative' - that story within the story that makes a big end battle interesting. An example of an excellent battle narrative can be seen in Braveheart - here we know what the heroes are up against (superior numbers, horsemen) and we have an idea of what they have going for them (bravery and wits). Finally, we have a hint of the chink in the enemy's armour (the arrogance of the commander). The enjoyment in watching the battle comes from watching the characters deploy a plan that takes advantage of their assets and exploits the weakness of the English. Wits --> Infuriating the English so they charge, using long pikes to impale the cavalry. Bravery --> Standing at the front of the line to face down the charging horses.
'Transformers' shows how recent films are bumbling around and messing up their battle narratives. It was unclear just what the characters had going for them other than that one was a 'soldier' and one wanted to make a 'sacrifice' at some point. It was unclear just what weaknesses the Decepticons (bad guys) had, except that they were vulnerable to certain "Sabre Rounds". Instead of using their assets to create coherent plans that exploited this weakness, the characters ran around almost as if they were in a cartoon, cooking up increasingly ridiculous things to do - like sliding a motorbike under a Decepticon and shooting away with a shotgun (after we've already heard that normal rounds don't work.)
This is not about plausible and implausible. Starwars had an interplanetary farmboy flying at a 'deathstar' but we knew what he had going for him (mad pilot skilz, rudimentary jedi training) and we knew the weakness (a small thermal exhaust port only 2m wide). Our enjoyment was not only about the visual effects, it also came from watching a plan unfold that referenced what we knew about the characters already.
Friday, 5 October 2007
Bye the Book
For the stranger danger, check out the 'Privacy' page - set up who can see your profile, photos, video etc. It is crazy that this is not a step by step process when you create a profile, but the controls are pretty good.
The unwanted friends are a more difficult problem. Facebook seems to require that you draw a line through the swirling grey motes of social interaction and definitively state who is a friend and who is not. One option is to say no to people who are borderline to preserve the integrity of your list but that can have repercussions in the real world. Another way is to be generally permissive, but screen out the social detritus so they don't pop up in your news feed.
To find this hidden feature, click 'help' in the lower right corner, then 'How does the news feed choose stories' then 'News Feed Preferences'. Then enter the names of people you don't care about in the lower right box.
This is not the slap in the face of rejection or limited profile status, but does remove them from your radar. They will still be able to post on walls, see photos etc, so it's only recommended for people you don't care about, not toxic weirdos.
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
5x16 The Body
Ezzy and I are working through Buffy courtesy of Lynne.The first season is scary and cool. By the second we're involved in the characters ("Grr, I need a hug") and the third season gets all dark with Faith and the Mayor.
Season Four really gets into the pop culture laughs and brings together literary device, horror and fun in the award-winning Hush. Some great quotes from that episode.
I'm in Season Five (although Ezzy has pushed on ahead) and the one that brings it home for me is Anya's blunt innocence:
"But I don't understand! I don't understand how this all happens. How we go through this. I mean, I knew her, and then she's, there's just a body, and I don't understand why she just can't get back in it and not be dead anymore! It's stupid! It's mortal and stupid! And, and Xander's crying and not talking, and, and I was having fruit punch, and I thought, well Joyce will never have any more fruit punch, ever, and she'll never have eggs, or yawn or brush her hair, not ever, and no one will explain to me why."
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
Torture
On Sunday, James and I went to see an event entitled ‘On Torture’ as part of the Sydney Writers’ Festival. The panel was comprised of two speakers, American Michael Otterman, the author of the book ‘American Torture,’ and Raimond Gaita (acclaimed philosopher and author of the memoir “Romulus My Father” which has just been released on film.)
The first speaker was Michael Otterman – a journalist.
He argues that we should not legalise torture for three main reasons:
a. The ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario is a hypothetical – there has never been a historical situation (or so he believes) where this has been the case, so to legalise torture on that basis seems ludicrous.
b. Torture is actually the worst way to get information from suspects. The FBI (as opposed to the CIA) have used non-violent methods in investigating various different domestic terror suspects in cases like the 1993 WTC bombing and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing. He believes their intelligence to be of greater value when they use tactics like ‘we’ll get your sick son medical treatment’ etc. instead of physical torture.
c. Once torture is legalised, it quickly spreads. He cites the example of Israel in the 1980s where the Shin Bet were authorised to utilise a ‘moderate use’ of coercive methods, and it was found that over 85% of Palestinians were subjected to torture in detention.
All of this is perhaps unsurprising and nothing new. These are very similar “we should not legalise torture” arguments from debates we’ve been doing for years. However, Raimond Gaita - an ethics professor at Kings College – presented some really sophisticated arguments which I think are much more interesting than the usual run-of-the-mill ones.
In light of this, I thought I’d pose some questions with some of Gaita’s answers mingled with my own thoughts.
1. Would you torture one person to save a thousand?
People who condone the use of torture – even in extreme times – cannot choose to answer for the thousands they seek to represent, as the thousands of others are not an indivisible mass. That is, you cannot presume to answer on behalf of the other thousand people, for who are you to do so?
Gaita argues that each one of us should be prepared to die so that the practice of torture should not be inflicted upon anyone. “Do not assume to torture on my behalf – I may be prepared to die in the fight of not negotiating with terror.”
He also argues that people who accept torture must also accept all of the implications. For example, they must accept that there is a brute underclass created to perform such acts etc
I think this is a fascinating twist on the ticking time bomb hypothetical. For a long time, I think my answer would have been, yes, torture one (or even kill one, in more morbid hypothetical) so that a thousand could live. But I think he point isa really valid one. It also reminds me of the Ali G sketch, where, interviewing an animal rights activist, he asks, “Would you kill one chicken so that two others could live?” and “Are you ok with animal testing when the product is for animals?” Two philosophical nail biters if ever there were.
2. Is everything negotiable when one’s life is at stake?
Some people argue that torture is a ‘necessary evil’ because of the common good and/or the national interest.
Gaita’s response is that terrorists only threaten our lives: it is us who control how we will change our own morality/democracy/ethics in how we respond to terrorists.
Further, he cautions against the use of ‘necessary evil’ as a frame itself. How can anything, he asks, framed as ‘obligatory’ be seen as evil? If this is the case, we blur our boundaries of good and evil when we accept the necessary nature of anything
3. But aren’t things fundamentally different since 9/11? Aren’t we in a new era of warfare?
Some people argue that after the event of 9/11, everything has changed and therefore we now need to turn to torture.
Gaita argues that this would be true if the last century was particularly innocent, but that this same “blood-soaked” century, the time of Paschendaele, Gallipoli, Auschwitz, Rwanda etc, was also the century of the U.N. and hundreds of conventions governing how we should be humane to each other. So to think that 9/11 has changed the world, he believes, is succumbing to the tyranny of the present and a politicking tool to justify a whole lot of breaches of H.R.
I find Gaita’s argument really compelling, but wonder about the new type of warfare which 9/11 has prompted, that of the move from wars fought within or between nation states and the shift to non-state actors like terrorists on the world stage. Perhaps, where there is no longer a red phone to the Kremlin in the Oval Office, it is unsurprising that tactics must change. I don’t say this as an apology for torture – I am against the use of it entirely – but I wonder whether the event hasn’t prompted some changes to modern warfare, the effects of which we can’t understand yet. Or perhaps I too am succumbing to the politics of the “things are bad, so let us do what we want” White House.
4. What do you think of the role of doctors and psychologists in the practices of torture on American soldiers in SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) Schools?
Otterman talks of these schools where American soldiers are tortured under the watch of psychologists and doctors in order to become ‘stress inoculated’ in case they are captured by the enemy. Someone in the audience raised the question that could these people could be aligned with the Nazi doctors who also took the Hippcratic Oath. Isn’t the purpose of a doctor to protect the patient at all costs? (Hypocritic, perhaps?)
Interestingly also, the American Association of Psychologists is one of the major medical organizations who has not spoken out about this practise, because some of the senior psychologist on the board were in Iraq supervising torture methods…
5. Are there some things that should be essentially undiscussable?
Just as you can note the character of a person by what they will not discuss, you can note the character of a nation by what is ‘undiscussable’. Gaita doesn’t believe there is even a place to ‘speak’ about torture within the community, because there are some things that can’t morally be argued. For example, you would never see a debating topic like “That Genocide is an effective way of XYZ” but you are very likely to see the topic “that torture is a legitimate means of intelligence gathering.”
This is the question that most stumps me, as my inner liberal leftie wants to talk about everything and debate everything because I think that part of beating your enemy is to know them through knowing their ‘side’ if you like. I have debated that torture topic a few times, and been on both sides of it. I suppose I had no moral objection at the time because I think of debating as an intellectual exercise in framing, contextualisation and argument. But I also think that if something like torture is in the public discourse, it should be talked about a lot. But again, perhaps there is no argument to be had: perhaps a line deserves to be drawn against the most reprehensible things, like the detention of immigrants in Australia because there is no argument.
I’d be really interested to hear what the others think on this topic.
The first speaker was Michael Otterman – a journalist.
He argues that we should not legalise torture for three main reasons:
a. The ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario is a hypothetical – there has never been a historical situation (or so he believes) where this has been the case, so to legalise torture on that basis seems ludicrous.
b. Torture is actually the worst way to get information from suspects. The FBI (as opposed to the CIA) have used non-violent methods in investigating various different domestic terror suspects in cases like the 1993 WTC bombing and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing. He believes their intelligence to be of greater value when they use tactics like ‘we’ll get your sick son medical treatment’ etc. instead of physical torture.
c. Once torture is legalised, it quickly spreads. He cites the example of Israel in the 1980s where the Shin Bet were authorised to utilise a ‘moderate use’ of coercive methods, and it was found that over 85% of Palestinians were subjected to torture in detention.
All of this is perhaps unsurprising and nothing new. These are very similar “we should not legalise torture” arguments from debates we’ve been doing for years. However, Raimond Gaita - an ethics professor at Kings College – presented some really sophisticated arguments which I think are much more interesting than the usual run-of-the-mill ones.
In light of this, I thought I’d pose some questions with some of Gaita’s answers mingled with my own thoughts.
1. Would you torture one person to save a thousand?
People who condone the use of torture – even in extreme times – cannot choose to answer for the thousands they seek to represent, as the thousands of others are not an indivisible mass. That is, you cannot presume to answer on behalf of the other thousand people, for who are you to do so?
Gaita argues that each one of us should be prepared to die so that the practice of torture should not be inflicted upon anyone. “Do not assume to torture on my behalf – I may be prepared to die in the fight of not negotiating with terror.”
He also argues that people who accept torture must also accept all of the implications. For example, they must accept that there is a brute underclass created to perform such acts etc
I think this is a fascinating twist on the ticking time bomb hypothetical. For a long time, I think my answer would have been, yes, torture one (or even kill one, in more morbid hypothetical) so that a thousand could live. But I think he point isa really valid one. It also reminds me of the Ali G sketch, where, interviewing an animal rights activist, he asks, “Would you kill one chicken so that two others could live?” and “Are you ok with animal testing when the product is for animals?” Two philosophical nail biters if ever there were.
2. Is everything negotiable when one’s life is at stake?
Some people argue that torture is a ‘necessary evil’ because of the common good and/or the national interest.
Gaita’s response is that terrorists only threaten our lives: it is us who control how we will change our own morality/democracy/ethics in how we respond to terrorists.
Further, he cautions against the use of ‘necessary evil’ as a frame itself. How can anything, he asks, framed as ‘obligatory’ be seen as evil? If this is the case, we blur our boundaries of good and evil when we accept the necessary nature of anything
3. But aren’t things fundamentally different since 9/11? Aren’t we in a new era of warfare?
Some people argue that after the event of 9/11, everything has changed and therefore we now need to turn to torture.
Gaita argues that this would be true if the last century was particularly innocent, but that this same “blood-soaked” century, the time of Paschendaele, Gallipoli, Auschwitz, Rwanda etc, was also the century of the U.N. and hundreds of conventions governing how we should be humane to each other. So to think that 9/11 has changed the world, he believes, is succumbing to the tyranny of the present and a politicking tool to justify a whole lot of breaches of H.R.
I find Gaita’s argument really compelling, but wonder about the new type of warfare which 9/11 has prompted, that of the move from wars fought within or between nation states and the shift to non-state actors like terrorists on the world stage. Perhaps, where there is no longer a red phone to the Kremlin in the Oval Office, it is unsurprising that tactics must change. I don’t say this as an apology for torture – I am against the use of it entirely – but I wonder whether the event hasn’t prompted some changes to modern warfare, the effects of which we can’t understand yet. Or perhaps I too am succumbing to the politics of the “things are bad, so let us do what we want” White House.
4. What do you think of the role of doctors and psychologists in the practices of torture on American soldiers in SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) Schools?
Otterman talks of these schools where American soldiers are tortured under the watch of psychologists and doctors in order to become ‘stress inoculated’ in case they are captured by the enemy. Someone in the audience raised the question that could these people could be aligned with the Nazi doctors who also took the Hippcratic Oath. Isn’t the purpose of a doctor to protect the patient at all costs? (Hypocritic, perhaps?)
Interestingly also, the American Association of Psychologists is one of the major medical organizations who has not spoken out about this practise, because some of the senior psychologist on the board were in Iraq supervising torture methods…
5. Are there some things that should be essentially undiscussable?
Just as you can note the character of a person by what they will not discuss, you can note the character of a nation by what is ‘undiscussable’. Gaita doesn’t believe there is even a place to ‘speak’ about torture within the community, because there are some things that can’t morally be argued. For example, you would never see a debating topic like “That Genocide is an effective way of XYZ” but you are very likely to see the topic “that torture is a legitimate means of intelligence gathering.”
This is the question that most stumps me, as my inner liberal leftie wants to talk about everything and debate everything because I think that part of beating your enemy is to know them through knowing their ‘side’ if you like. I have debated that torture topic a few times, and been on both sides of it. I suppose I had no moral objection at the time because I think of debating as an intellectual exercise in framing, contextualisation and argument. But I also think that if something like torture is in the public discourse, it should be talked about a lot. But again, perhaps there is no argument to be had: perhaps a line deserves to be drawn against the most reprehensible things, like the detention of immigrants in Australia because there is no argument.
I’d be really interested to hear what the others think on this topic.
Thursday, 24 May 2007
A Charter of Human Rights for Australia?
Tonight, Kato and I are going to drop in on a panel discussion about the possibility of a Charter of Human Rights at the federal level. I wanted to set out some thoughts here before hand and see how/if they change...
Why?
To me the answer is because the majority are generally happy to trade the human dignity of the minority for promises of security - especially when things start blowing up. A CHR should encourage people/government to think in terms of proportionality - what are we giving up and what are we gaining?
What Rights?
The UK and NZ have stuck to civil and political rights. Economic, social and cultural rights are more problematic because they can place courts in the position of deciding how the executive should spend money. Seems like the South African Constitutional Court has been doing a great job of negotiating this tricky territory - with a much stronger Bill than Australia would ever pass, so I say bring on the ESC rights.
Sovereignty
Parliament should retain the last say. A CHR should not be constitutionally entrenched (like in the US and Canada). The ability of the courts to strike down legislation makes people crazy. Jurisprudence surrounding the 14th Amendment in the US is an example of how it can go bad.
Mechanics
The focus on the CHR should be on law making. It should demand that the Minister responsible or the AG sign off on the compatibility of proposed laws (or say why the law is necessary despite incompatibility). It should also to enforce the mechanics of analysis --> Human Rights Impact Statements?
Why Not?
Because judges will take over.
Overwhelming numbers of spurious law suits.
Because current laws are good enough.
Because it will be too token.
I'd appreciate any comments from the smart and government-savvy disco. That way I can steal them and make snooty comments over canapes.
Why?
To me the answer is because the majority are generally happy to trade the human dignity of the minority for promises of security - especially when things start blowing up. A CHR should encourage people/government to think in terms of proportionality - what are we giving up and what are we gaining?
What Rights?
The UK and NZ have stuck to civil and political rights. Economic, social and cultural rights are more problematic because they can place courts in the position of deciding how the executive should spend money. Seems like the South African Constitutional Court has been doing a great job of negotiating this tricky territory - with a much stronger Bill than Australia would ever pass, so I say bring on the ESC rights.
Sovereignty
Parliament should retain the last say. A CHR should not be constitutionally entrenched (like in the US and Canada). The ability of the courts to strike down legislation makes people crazy. Jurisprudence surrounding the 14th Amendment in the US is an example of how it can go bad.
Mechanics
The focus on the CHR should be on law making. It should demand that the Minister responsible or the AG sign off on the compatibility of proposed laws (or say why the law is necessary despite incompatibility). It should also to enforce the mechanics of analysis --> Human Rights Impact Statements?
Why Not?
Because judges will take over.
Overwhelming numbers of spurious law suits.
Because current laws are good enough.
Because it will be too token.
I'd appreciate any comments from the smart and government-savvy disco. That way I can steal them and make snooty comments over canapes.
Saturday, 19 May 2007
Tuscany, Barcelona and London
What a fantastic two weeks away (but for lack of ezzy)!Europe has such a rich and diverse history. It's not China but they do value their 300-500 year old stuff.
Holidaying with friends at a villa is mucho fun. There's no worrying about designated drivers (except for the bits where we drove to and from Siena).
Then there's the buzz of evenings along La Rambla, and the giddy heights of the big gaudy churchy thing.
And finally London. The biggest intermediater of money, language, cuisine, and cultures in the world. Pity about the weather.
Further Info:
http://www.kileyandsam.com/
Friday, 20 April 2007
Normative Answers
Apparently one of the things to do with freshman philosophy students is to get them to think about the Trolley problem. There is a truly marvellous proof of the answer to this problem, but there is insufficient storage capacity on Blogger for it.
Further Info:
"The Expert Mind" by Philip E Ross, Scientific American, 24 July 2006
"Folk Science" by Michael Shermer, Scientific American, 24 July 2006
"An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong" by Nicholas Wade, The New York Times, 31 October 2006 (registration required)
"Gen Ys in short supply to fill gap left by boomers" by Bernalt Salt, The Australian, 8 March 2007
"A new crop of kids: Generation We" by Stefanie Olsen, CNET News.com, 22 January 2007
Monday, 26 March 2007
Why Intelligent People Tend To Be Unhappy
Found this on 'Scribd' which is gaining traction as the YouTube for documents. Which I don't really understand since that's what I thought the internet was circa 1998. Nonetheless, I thought the Disco people might have some opinions.
Why Intelligent People Tend To Be Unhappy
Why Intelligent People Tend To Be Unhappy
Thursday, 22 March 2007
Friday, 2 March 2007
Fractal PowerPoint
I'm delivering a PowerPoint presentation on how to deliver PowerPoint presentations on Saturday for Free Debate. I spent a bit of time on it over Christmas, and did a couple of run-throughs with the crew.Language
It's been interesting seeing people's reactions to the preso. I took the opportunity to get on my communications soap-box and construct an argument about dot points. I worry that my rant is too self indulgent. It's a good rant though.
Interface
PowerPoint is the most maligned, misused and overused of the Office Suite. It has the fiddliest parts of Word (text boxes, hanging indents and margins) and Excel (charts), unfamiliar and unhelpful features (auto line-spacing, unfriendly template management) and the worst presets ever (puke green backgrounds). How did the ppt extension become so ubiquitous?
First mover advantage (Harvard Graphics anyone)? Bundling with the suite and OS (PDF vs Read Only)? Network effects? Probably a bit of each.
But is it a good product? Is its crappy output and fiddly interface actually a blessing? People now don't tolerate bad presos, and they really appreciate stand-outs. Maybe that's a good thing.
Monday, 15 January 2007
Futurama 3x15
At some stage it would seem inevitable that humans will start wanting to have relations with robots.... and just for laughs (from The Daily Gut): "Lines a robot will use to break up with a human:
- It is not you. It is my AI 23000 central processing unit.
- There is someone else. Actually, It is a self-guided RL-1000 Series Robomower with Docking Station. Does it matter which year? Okay fine, the 2006.
- You are just using me for a series of mundane tasks.
- Sometimes I think it is you who is repeating pre-recorded sounds.
- I would like my Kraftwerk CDs back. Here is your sweater.
- Sometimes I think it is you who has been performing tasks repeatedly in exactly the same fashion.
- How was my day? Well, I painted, welded and assembled a car for you. Thanks for asking.
- I don't ask for much. Just a little feedback to control the precise process you wish me to perform.
- I have been asked to defuse roadside bombs in Iraq. Don't wait for me.
- You are becoming less aesthetically pleasing over time. I will show myself out.
- I predict that you did not know that I have entered an art contest and took first place. That is proof of how little you know about me."
Friday, 15 December 2006
Trends in Fashion
Orlando asked me to do a post on male business fashion in accordance with the stated aims of Disco. We have also agreed to debate together in 2007, and so I am trying to think up a team name combining the themes, knowing that Orlando has a penchant for inappropriateness.Anyway, here are my high level thoughts on male business fashion:
Find the centre of an equilateral triangle the sides of which are labelled: "Your Personality", "Current Trends" and "Classic Style."
Appropriate length of tie is the single most important detail to get right.
Shoes are next. But women who judge men by their shoes may have "issues" ("OMG 'is shoes!"... get it?).
Dark colours are easy to match - but not with each other.
No colour is out. But the older you get, the more you should use primaries. Also, brown is not a colour.
Use classical mechanics when choosing patterns. People need to know both how fast the pattern is moving and where it is. The world is not ready for quantum check.
Cattle wear brands. But only because they can't afford Armani.
Finally - no matter what you wear, how much you spend, what company you keep and how good your clothes look, remember that beauty is only skin deep, so you have to moisturise regularly.
Wednesday, 6 December 2006
Pod People
I'm not sure how podcast-savvy Disco is - so please excuse any overly simple or redundant explanations.
I have a 45 minute commute which takes place on public transport. There is not enough music in the world to make this ok. As a result I turn to facts and people who tell me about them.
'Podcast' is really just another name for 'audio file' - you don't need to have an iPod, you can play the file on your computer. The big deal is that you can subscribe to a Podcast and the latest episodes are downloaded automatically so it becomes more like a TiVo/Foxtel iQ situation.
The rise of Cable TV in the US opened the playing field for independents by lowering the barriers to entry of producing and distributing a TV show. Suddenly there were hundreds more channels with not much on them. The internet combined with increasingly sophisticated consumer broadcast technology has meant that it has never been easier to have your own online 'channel' (see RK's YouTube post). So there is a lot more mediocrity on its way (again, see YouTube).
The important difference here is that the Internet is a la carte. Timeshifting and aggregation are native to the online environment. So where cable lies groaning* under the weight of mediocre shows, the internet makes it possible to see only the diamonds in the rough by filtering out all the amateur detritus.
In that spirit, here are my recommendations:
Any Disco members who share my commuting pain and podcast love, let me know what you're listening to...
I have a 45 minute commute which takes place on public transport. There is not enough music in the world to make this ok. As a result I turn to facts and people who tell me about them.
'Podcast' is really just another name for 'audio file' - you don't need to have an iPod, you can play the file on your computer. The big deal is that you can subscribe to a Podcast and the latest episodes are downloaded automatically so it becomes more like a TiVo/Foxtel iQ situation.
The rise of Cable TV in the US opened the playing field for independents by lowering the barriers to entry of producing and distributing a TV show. Suddenly there were hundreds more channels with not much on them. The internet combined with increasingly sophisticated consumer broadcast technology has meant that it has never been easier to have your own online 'channel' (see RK's YouTube post). So there is a lot more mediocrity on its way (again, see YouTube).
The important difference here is that the Internet is a la carte. Timeshifting and aggregation are native to the online environment. So where cable lies groaning* under the weight of mediocre shows, the internet makes it possible to see only the diamonds in the rough by filtering out all the amateur detritus.
In that spirit, here are my recommendations:
- triplej's Hack Daily (no need for smh.com)
- Andrew Denton - Enough Rope (it's great to be able to pick the interviews you want when you want)
- Stanford School of Engineering - Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders (some really interesting people talk about their careers)
- Adam Kempenar, Sam Van Halgren - Filmspotting (The best + least pretentious podcast about film)
- The Economist (some sound quality + programming issues but getting better)
- The Ricky Gervais Podcast (only if you're a fan)
- TVO Canada - Big Ideas (requires further filtering to find the good lectures but listen to Jessica Stern on Terrorism)
- Lars Brownworth - 12 Byzantine Rulers: The History of the Byzantine Empire (History's 'other' empire)
Any Disco members who share my commuting pain and podcast love, let me know what you're listening to...
Saturday, 25 November 2006
I See Red
Your old pals – James and Kato – caught up for a lovely evening of discussion about war crimes. The panel of 6 had been put together by the Australian Red Cross and featured luminaries such as:
- Graham Blewitt AM - Director of the Australian Nazi War Crimes Unit and Deputy Prosecutor for the ICTY.
- Justice David Anthony Hunt AO – NSW Supreme Court Judge, Judge on the ICTY, and the ICTR.
Some thoughts from the panel – and some from me.
Location
Where do you put a Tribunal? Outside the country eg.The ICTY was able to successfully interview rape victims as witnesses primarily because they were taken outside of their communities where their lives would have been made hell. Cf.
Domestic courts can be desirable. Proximity to victims makes their verdicts more “meaningful”. However sometimes they are just the cheaper option. In East Timor a shortage of jurists, lack of funds and inability to extradite criminals from
Cost
Trials are expensive. The ICTY cost $275 million per year. The ICC is more expensive again.
The “International Community” should pay because they provide a deterrent, which is good for everyone. In
It’s a bargain compared to waging a military campaign or to allowing the cycle of violence to continue.
The
A case against the
Rumsfield has been indicted by a court in
Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs)
- Can process more people.
- They limit the scope of “permissible lies” – it becomes impossible to say atrocities did not happen.
- Often what is wanted by victims is that their pain is recognised rather than that the perpetrators are gaoled – example was
- Make it easier to live together again as a society (?)
- Do not provide a deterrent for soldiers in other conflicts.
- The “amnesty” granted is a murky area of international law because the Geneva Conventions require states to prosecute war criminals.
Trials and TRCs
A study by Oxfam in
The South African example is often used to show how giving amnesty works instead of trials. However of the 7000 people who applied for amnesty, 5000 were knocked back. So there was still lots of prosecution.
My Thoughts
Unfortunately the event was poorly moderated and as you can see the panelists did not really get stuck into any particular issue. I would have loved to see more discussion on whether TRCs can work with Trials, what makes up this “International Community” and what are the machinations required to get your conflict taken seriously enough to warrant the enormous bill that this type of action requires.
However the most fascinating question was simmering under the surface of the panel. There were those who were fixated on “listening to the victims” and working out what they wanted. In contrast to that approach there were those who seemed more enthusiastic about building a formidable international criminal deterrent. To me, this raised the moral quandary of a “greater good” and of ends justifying means.
It would be simple if the law was only concerned with victims. However (as one panelist argued) dealing with the past is a big part of creating a future for a country that has been torn by war. So doesn’t this mean that there a responsibility to the rest of the country and to those who would be caught up in fresh violence? What about victims in other conflicts who would stand a better chance if the rampaging military knew that impunity was not available?
What does Disco think about these questions?
Monday, 6 November 2006
Saddam to Hang
I am interested in comments made by Greens Senator Kerry Nettle who argues that the Australian government's failure to object to Saddam Hussein's death sentence will make it harder for it to object when Australians face a similar punishment overseas.
What are the real issues at stake here?
What are the real issues at stake here?
- Are people who are against the death penalty for Saddam those who are against it in general? If you are pro-DP for Saddam, are you against it otherwise? Is there such a thing as a special case?
- Is SH the same as Australian drug traffickers who are executed in parts of Asia? Is this a matter of degrees or is there no such thing?
- Is the DP a good enough punishment? Should we instead, as Josh Lyman from the West Wing says, sit them in a room watching hours upon hours of home video footage of their victims, of their families forever?
Mufti Day
What do we think about the recent comments regarding women's clothing and its relation to rape from Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly?
This cartoon by Leunig (not always a fan, but occasionally he comes up with some interesting ones) is interesting viz notions of entrapment in clothing in general.
A few thoughts...some from some friends who have also had this discussion.
This cartoon by Leunig (not always a fan, but occasionally he comes up with some interesting ones) is interesting viz notions of entrapment in clothing in general.
A few thoughts...some from some friends who have also had this discussion.
- That women's dress influences men's behaviour is not a new thing - Catholic school uniforms, nuns' habits, brethren scarves have all made statements about modesty and religion. But to make claims like Sheik's which assume that anything less than head to toe covering will lure men and trigger their hormones/lust seems seriously not only anachronistic but just silly. As my friend Alex pointed out, it also takes all control over the female aesthetic out of the hands of women, as it conflates beauty with sexiness, which is disempowering.
- "Irene Khan made some interesting comments about this issue to the effect that it was a red herring precisely because the experience of women in countries such as Afghanistan under the Taliban made it clear that sexual violence occurs whether or not women are completely covered. They are still women. Men who wish to attack them still can. That wish does not seem to be strongly empirically linked to what those women are wearing."
See: wikipedia entry - Or really, is the issue more broadly nothing to do with the fact that a contorvsersial Mufti has outrageous views, but that these same outrageous views* when expressed by others aren't given the same degree of public outrage and mortification? (e.g. the rape case in Italy (requires access) which claimed a women wearing jeans must have consented, as jeans are hard to take off )
- Am I a wolf in sheik's clothing?
- Is this the pot calling the mufti crap?
- My! You look sheik.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)