A digest of the best of the blogosphere published each weekday and compiled by Ken Parish, James Farrell, Gilmae, Darlene Taylor and Saint.
Politics
Australian
 |
Gam and Currency Lad both posted fitting tributes on the finding of the wreck of HMAS Sydney after 67 years. CL, however, along with fellow Right Wing Death Beast Andrew Bolt, couldn’t resist taking a shot at PM Rudd for daring to announce the find. Bolt opined that “an announcement this minor is a job for the Defence Minister“. Does anyone recall him ever voicing so much as a single word of criticism of John Howard’s usurpation of the Governor-General’s traditional role of farewelling the troops in order to wrap himself in patriotic robes? Inexplicably, neither Bolt nor CL mentioned the fact that Liberal leader Brendan Nelson leapt into the headlines equally quickly to demand a public memorial service. Others mostly eschewed tawdry political games and quietly whispered “Rest in Peace”.
Grodscorp Brigit’s reaction to Rudd’s expressions of ‘sadness’ is the only reasonable one:
A historic day, sure, but a sad day? Wouldnt it only be sad if there was a possibility that the Sydney hadnt sunk and that its crew members werent dead? Where might they have been hiding these past 66 years Gilligans Island?
International
‘China, who the hell do you think you’re kidding?’ asks Jeremy.
Barack Obama blogs at Huffington Post to explain his 20 year attendance at a church with an anti-American Black Power preacher. He attracts 5,000 comments. Heloise reviews this and other developments in the US presidential campaign and the American blogosphere. Jeff Weintraub analyses the manoeuvrings and legality of moves to seat Democrat delegates from Florida and Michigan (Hillary’s last desperate hope).
Juan Cole discusses the situation in Pakistan on the day Parliament reconvenes with anti-Musharraf forces holding a 2/3 majority and talking about reinstating the Supreme Court judges he sacked some months ago. ((It’s hard to know what to make of a blogger who simultaneously headlines his post after a missile attack in an Al Qaeda stronghold in northern Pakistan alleged to have killed 20 people. He seems to be suggesting that this is an appalling act by the US, but doesn’t explain why apart from the obvious tragedy of any violent death. Cole is keeping the focus on a region the MSM seems to have tacitly agreed to gloss over at present, but his extreme anti-Bush political bias makes his reporting deeply suspect ~ KP))
Economics
The demand for private education is rising steeply with incomes, and — given that infrastructure takes time to install — driving up fees. Peter Martin explains this ‘paradox’, but doesn’t explain why it’s a paradox.
Harry Clarke has a very useful compliation of facts, figures and opinions for anyone who wants to get up to speed on the Murray-Darling water buyback plan.
John Quiggin predicts that the failure of Bear Stearns is the last nail in the coffin for Standard and Poors, but takes comfort that the bank’s top executives won’t be punished too harshly.
Joshua Gans joins Troppo’s Nicholas Gruen in slagging Ross Gittins’ silly column on electricity privatisation. ((Who could ever trust a columnist who promotes air-headed happiness research? ~ KP))
Law
Dr Faustus takes an inside look at the security of private information held by hospitals and health departments. Whether any corrective action will happen is another question. It’s a bit like the entrenched scandalous situation at Sydney’s Royal North Shore Hospital, where I (KP) understand nursing staff were asked to report bullying by the very senior staff who were most guilty of it! Not surprisingly, no reports were made.
Legal Eagle ponders the human rights of monkeys.
Eric E. Johnson heretically wonders whether the high intelligence of law students mightn’t be better employed elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Issues analysis
 |
Lauredhel links to a blogger who has unearthed a particularly sexist Batman episode, even by the standards of 1959 superhero comics. (To obtain full value from this post, you may need to look up ‘slashifically’.)
Criminologist Dr Faustus has more than a couple of problems with a proposal by British police to take DNA samples of children whose “profiles” indicate they’re at risk of becoming criminals. But surely no-one could object if they’ve got nothing to hide, could they? Faustus also reassures us that we have nothing to worry about from the fact that Wikileaks (revived in the wake of a dismissed injunction) has just posted the plans for building an atom bomb !!!
In a move that’s bound to anger Mark Richardson, Andrew Leigh questions the wisdom of continuing to pay the Dependent Spouse Rebate.
Norman Geras has almost as low an opinion of fellow philosopher John Gray as I (KP) do.
Arts
 |
Andrew “Art Life” Frost finally gets around to reviewing the Archibald Prize:
The dismissive description of Bartons painting as decorative is more of a puzzler. For most people in the art world the decorative is regarded as a less serious visual vocabulary than the canonical gestures of, for example, abstraction or, the big trend in Archibald finalists this year, the school of impasto paint application. This is to profoundly misunderstand what being decorative actually means. To engage with it is as much a considered and active choice for an artist as any other approach to making paintings. All of Bartons choices are conscious and aware of the social agency of those gestures. You dont have to like em, but you do have to respect them.
Alison Croggon reviews Nightshift , a series of edgy short works by Phil Motherwell with music by Joe “Shutupa Your Face” Dolce.
Richard Watts continues his reviews of the Melbourne Queer Film Festival, whose program seems remarkably similar to the Sydney equivalent reviewed by Marcellous only last week. Still, how many gay movies can there be?
Snark, strangeness and charm
 |
Lee Malatesta discusses philosopher kings who may or may not be getting a lot more sex, come the revolution.
Academic contempt doesn’t come much stronger than this piece by Daniel Davies about poor Satoshi Kanazawa.
Clem Bastow gives New Idea a well deserved serve for paying Wayne Carey big bucks to “apologise” for glassing his girlfriend and assaulting cops on two continents:
In case you thought Wayne Carey couldn’t get any shitter, and if you figured New Idea wouldn’t stoop any lower than, you know, opening the third-in-line for the throne up for a grenade to the head, think again!
Last but not least is Tim Blair’s unmasking of failed Crikey/Webdiary lefty journalist Wayne Sanderson as frequent Catallaxy commenter “MichaelF”. The subsequent Catallaxy comment thread on the whole affair is worth reading for its sustained snarkery.
‘Who could ever trust a columnist who promotes air-headed happiness research?’
Who would ever trust an economics colmunist who didn’t promote a long overdue investigation into the fundamental purpose of economic activity, and the implications for policy? Thank goodness we have one who won’t put off by uninformed criticism and shallow jibes.
Sorry, couldn’t help myself James. That comment was indeed for you. Have you looked at any of the posts I’ve been linking in ML lately by Will Wilkinson which seem to cast a rather more optimistic light on wealth and happiness than Layard, Hamilton, Gittins et al? I haven’t actually read the research Wilkinson refers to, but I was rather hoping I could pique your interest sufficiently to check it out and do a post.
I’ll have a look at Wilkinson’s posts, Ken.
Thanks for the Satoshi Kanazawa item Ken. It led me to Kanazawa’s own blog. This post, where Kanazawa provides anatomical evidence that all women are basically sluts, is a cracker.
Actually my comment was a bit loose. It’s not so much the research that’s air-headed but the spin that political advocates like Hamilton and Gittins put on it that I find most objectionable. I don’t mind them reminding me that money doesn’t buy happiness or that man does not live by bread alone; what I object to is their advocating for adoption of government policies that would mandate their own preferences over those of other people. In many ways the touting of happiness research is just the new frontier for socialist nanny statists whose previous justifications for coercive intervention are long discredited.
Nevertheless, without possessing the academic tools (or the time) necessary to analyse the research methods emoployed in the numerous happiness studies, I suspect that the criticism with which the Wikipedia entry on happiness research ends is likely to be fairly accurate:
Hence the seemingly inconsistent results referred to by Wilkinson compared with those Gittins, Hamilton et al prefer to highlight. All this might of course be shallow and uninformed, though I don’t think so.
I’m happy to look at Wilkinson’s references on the academic research. In the meantime, I contend that Gittins is not a nannny statist, does not want mandate his own preferences, and doesn’t advocate ‘coercion’. He’s one of very economic journalists, if not the only one, who thinks about and investigates broader issues of human well-being, and we are lucky to have someone like that.
James
In general terms I quite agree on Gittins. he is Australia’s consistently best economic journalist. But on happiness research he doesn’t just “investigate broader issues”, he takes a partisan propaganda line, just like Clive Hamilton. They aren’t investigating they’re advocating.
[…] Ken Parish claims the bloggers right to express his opinion that: Its hard to know what to make of a blogger who simultaneously
Didn’t know you’d Missing Linked the Sanderson expose, Ken – thanks. All very strange. He’s a pretty experienced journalist, older guy, used to work for the ABC. Even assuming he’s uniquely obsessed with both me and Tim Blair, it’s still hard to see why he did it.
A pedantic historical point. The ship illustrated is HMAS Australia (I), an Indefatigable class battle cruiser (~18,000 tons, 8 x 12″ guns), and the image was taken before her 1915 refit. HMAS Sydney (II) was a modified Leander class light cruiser (~7500 tons, 8 x 6″ guns), constructed in the mid 1930s.
Cheers: MB
Thanks MB. I wouldn’t have a clue. I just picked an image from Google Images search that said it was a photo of HMAS Sydney. I’ve just picked another one, hopefully the right one this time!
Ah, it’s always all about you, ain’t it, ‘skeptic’lawyer, @#9.
*chortles fondly*
Helen, on that Sanderson thread you give the vague impression that you are some kind of relative authority on the internal machinations of Webdiary, especially the motivations and business acumen of those of us, I presume including me, who were Margo’s ‘acolytes’ (I think that was the term you used; personally, I prefer Blairelzebub’s ‘functionaries’…a more ideologically robotronic feel!):
Maybe they didnt know, Steve. The bit that I had to do with the Webdiary crew suggested a lot of them were babes in the woods business-wise. Harry Heidelberg had his head screwed on, but most of the others didnt.
For clarity’s sake, Helen, would you mind expanding on this? What was ‘the bit [you] had to do with Webdiary’, exactly, and when, and how did it suggest to you that a lot of [us] were ‘babes in the woods business-wise’? Perhaps you could detail exactly what your association with Webdiary was? How many articles you wrote for us, for example, and when (I can only Google up a couple of comments). Or how many of us you actually met, say, or how privy you were to the circumstances, especially financial, surrounding MK’s departure from Fairfax and the establishment of the new site, and so on? Or on what basis you make the judgement about ‘Harry Heidelberg’s’ business acumen in comparison to, say, David Roffey’s (self-made man and UK-European telco privatisation expert)?
Not trolling for a stoush, HD. My own Webdiary involvement was on and off over the five years, so it’s likely that I simply missed your input. I also largely ended my involvement before the shift so I’m not entirely privy to the business – or l’affaire Sanderson – aspects of the new site myself.
All the same, I’ve a gnawing ol’ hunch that the impression you create on that Catallaxy thread, whether deliberately or unintentionally doesn’t matter, might be a little bit
naughtymisleading, what-ho? A minor thing, of course. I query it only because you cite your ‘involvement’ as the basis – qualified, I do note – for some fairly patronising and distinctly unqualified blanket judgements about Webdiary and those of us associated with it. Pray tell us more, fine scriv!Thanks in advance, HD. Hope Oxford’s loads’a fun.
[…] I stumbled upon a frankly non-plussing Catallaxy thread via Troppo’s
Jack, I think you all got shafted, to be quite honest. That’s all I was saying, and Margo worst of all.
I didn’t have anything to do with it after it left the SMH (too much abuse, and quite a bit of weirdness), but I was around a fair bit in the early days and – shock horror – still have a signed copy of Not Happy John lurking around the place. There’s a piece I wrote on Shane Warne that I quite like – it should still be on the SMH site. A few others, too, but that’s the one I remember.
I could see what was happening – it was obvious it was going to go down the gurgler. At the time I thought that process would be slow, rather than rapid, but once Sanderson turned up, the decline came about far more rapidly. And one of the things I remember from that lunch with him in West End was his remarks about Webdiariasts’ lack of business acumen. He had no reason to lie, which is why I find this latest episode, well, weird.
Whoops, tipped over the italics jar.
[untipped in defiance of the 2nd law of thermodynamics –Jacques]
“Jack, I think you all got shafted, to be quite honest. Thats all I was saying, and Margo worst of all.”
No it wasn’t, Helen. You wrote this:
“The bit that I had to do with the Webdiary crew suggested a lot of them were babes in the woods business-wise. Harry Heidelberg had his head screwed on, but most of the others didnt.”
Fine, you’ve clarified the basis on which you rest statements like those. The ‘bit you had to do with the Webdiary crew’ was, essentially, meeting Hamish, getting MK to sign a book, having a few articles published, and doing lunch with a smarmy guy who you now say was ripping us off and is an ID fraud. Doubt it’d hold much weight in court, M’Lud. *grins*
Me being a sceptical type, HD – *grins again, definitely laying it on thick this time * – I think I’ll simply presume until corrected that you’ve never actualy, erm, met Harry Heidelberg or David Roffey. Or any of the rest of ‘the Webdiary crew’, either. Much less have a clue about our individual or collective financial smarts. Webdiary’s still going, by the way. And it’s solvent. More than you can say for a lot of free marketeers these days, huh.
As for your own pieces, they’ve presumably gone into the Fairfax memory hole with fair swathes of the rest of our archives. It’s a pity, but we all lost a bit. Pretty sure I remember the Warne piece, and remember it as being pretty good, too. Might still be in Pandora.
Shafted, HD? Well, it depends a bit on what any of us were there for in the first place, I suppose. The only time I ever really feel pissed off wrt my own Webdiary ‘involvement’ is when bloggers whose current concerns for and kind words about Margo we sure could have used a few years ago start rolling out authoritative statements about her and us with very little basis for doing so. Usually when there’s nothing else more blog-worthy about, I’ve noticed. I suppose none of it really matters, does it. Presumably you have some understanding of the fustrations of being misrepresented by others.
Any fule riter kno that only self is allowed to misrepresent self.
BTW…while I’m touched by all the belated tenderness towards MK nicing it up (if a tad…mmm, smarmily, let us say),I do see that your Cat thread is now up to…what…400 juvey poo-bum comments? And you feel sorry for Margo and Webdiary?!
Methinks ALS is right to be anxious, ‘sceptic’: your jackboot lib brood really could use some more chick time, huh.
*Grins, but in a tender avuncular way…*
Ta for the reply, Helen. I hope things are going well O/S. It sounds fun and interesting. I’m envious. Good luck if you decide to do a DPhil, too. Hope any other writing is ticking along too, if you’ve the time, at all.
Oh – and do read Orwell for some tips on precision in language, there’s the ticket. Precision, ‘sceptic’! Get those crisp laser-guided verbs to work…
*Runs away, fair powered by grins*
Jack, that’s one comment. Here’s the rest of them:
Jack, you can believe what you like, but apart from your outtake, the above represents the guts of the comments everyone made about the Webdiary crowd. Allowing for the usual Cat snark (yes, we know we’re legends of snark), I don’t think any of it amounted to making claims that we couldn’t substantiate.
Tim Blair probably knows the most, because he spent so much time taking the piss out of Webdiary. That’s Tim. That’s what he does. But even here, he was sympathetic. I’ll stand by my assessment, Jack – lots of people at Webdiary lacked business acumen; my meeting with Sanderson provided concrete evidence of it.
Dear SL,
There were several periods of managerial effect with regards Webdiary, to which one are you applying your ‘knowledge’?
If that means little or nothing to you, please may you consider to let it be. Please also take a moment to understand that someone who takes the piss out of something is not necessarily well placed to “know the most” about it. (In this particular regard also, please note TB didn’t make an assumption on it).
By all means, frolic and play, explore and express, and enjoy in whatever way you wish – including as to share with your online or otherwise compatriots – of course, yet you may also want to consider the ‘doing to others’ as has been, by your own lengthy account, wrongfully done to you.
That said, the Webdiary story is one which can get people going. For all its obvious flaws, that would indicate a positive reason for its being.
Jesus, HD, I’m sure everyone can link just fine.
Let’s not argue the subjective matter of what constitutes a sound basis for assessments. Everyone’s entitled to think what they like and why. But those exchanges, if you actually examine them, are one long exercise in people who know zero about Webdiary, have never met any of us, making tyre-kicking statements out of thin air: ‘My take on Margo…” ‘She’s a good kid but stark raving mad…’ ‘little crazy but her heart’s in the right place’ ‘She’s mad but that’s OK…’…and…all based on what, exactly? It’s gossip, HD. The kind of bored chit-chat you get on celebrity websites.
By all means stand by your assessment. Me, I’m a bit surprised to hear a Judge’s associate describe the word over lunch of someone you’re now sticking in the frame for bullshittery (or whatever) as ‘concrete evidence’. Likewise your odd conclusion that Blairelzebub’s an authority on the basis of his sustained contempt.
Those criteria would make Bob Manne the go-to dude on your credibility and that bloke I once had lunch who thought you were a self-delusional wanker ‘concrete evidence’ to that end.
I prefer to be a little more…mmmm….sceptical, personally.