ontheriverbank

Iraq Hokey Pokey - Howard puts right foot in, Beazley puts left foot out

2006-11-02T13:19:00.000-08:00

Withdrawal from Iraq remains unclear after more than 100 US soldiers were killed in October. Prime Minister John Howard has said “Iraq would need to be as stable as possible for the maintenance of democracy, before Australian forces are withdrawn.”

But what does “as stable as possible” mean? And what kind of “democracy” would be maintained? Attacks on coalition forces in Iraq have increased every year since the war began. The situation has been getting worse and is predicted to continue to get worse in 2007, according to inside intelligence information obtained by American journalist Bob Woodward.

We need to know the details of a phased withdrawal. There is no requirement to know the highly sensitive strategy designed to get us to that stage, but it's in the public interest to know what is meant by “stable”. By knowing this we can judge if we’re closer or further away from the conditions suitable for withdrawal.

The Australian public is completely in the dark regarding the details and we can't get a handle on when our troops can come home?

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has sensed some cracks in the Bush Administration over their Iraq policy. He's seizing the opportunity to lay down a policy of withdrawal. Or pseudo-withdrawal as most Australian troops will stay.

Howard is holding his nerve though in the face of a flaky Bush Administration who are itching to let their spin-doctors out of the pods to grease the American public up for a policy shift. The Prime Minister remains as an undaunted bespectacled rock, solidifying his commitment to staying the course. At least until Washington no longer believes the war is in its interests.

The Man of Steal will look like a metallic dag clinging to the rear end of the Iraq war if he fails to anticipate America’s next move. Which is reckoned to be early next year. If the American public don’t have the gumption to stick out a war that has created a vortex for terrorist practitioners, entrepreneurs and impresarios, then the Bush Administration may need to cut and run. Iraq is crippling them at the polls and many Republicans may be included in the body count if things don’t drastically change.

It’s a grizzly dilemma. By staying we could be putting ourselves in the stocks to be flayed mercilessly. The trend and outlook is that things will get worse so unless your sculling down the same hyper-optimistic powerdrink as a White House spokesman, long term strategic thinking will have you hunched over composing decidedly ugly possibilities.

There is little doubt that sustaining a war in Iraq will produce crack battle jihadist nuts. In a moment of candour former Australian Defence Force chief, General Peter Cosgrove said it was “pretty obvious” that the war had energised the jihadist movement. These war-mongers are likely to become high end terrorist exports, sent out to all corners of the globe to set up training camps and blow themselves up in crowded streets.

But if we don’t want to get pulverized any further in Iraq and decide to withdraw, the implications may be equally ominous. Iraq would probably descend into a Sunni Shia civil war and hard-boiled anarchy. The government would likely struggle to hang on amid the sectarian violence, and if it did it may only have influence over very small portions of the country, like Hamid Kazai’s Afghanistan. Even worse it could slip into the hands of another extremist dictator and become a fundamentalist stronghold.

In any case there doesn’t seem to be many good reasons for either staying or going. It’s more a matter of justifying arguments which provide for the least catastrophic outcome.

Since the war began in March 2003 as of October 30 2006, there have been 2814 American soldiers killed, a further 1000 evacuated for mental problems, 21077 wounded and an estimated Iraqi civilian death toll at 655000. A terrible waste of life and as you read this and politicians posture and squabble over the morality of staying or going, the meat-hook reality of this hellish nightmare is that we still have no tangible plan for either victory or withdrawal.

A galaxy of possibilities

2006-11-02T13:16:00.000-08:00

The discovery of the 211th planet only 10.5 light years away from Earth begs the question, are we alone in this universe? If you suspend disbelief long enough to digest the figures it seems inherently plausible. Indeed there should be a whole galaxy of life beyond our own planet.

There are 10 billion galaxies in the observable universe. A typical galaxy, like our Milky Way, contains 10 million to one trillion stars. It makes your head wobble to think of our Sun multiplied by 10 billion trillion. The late Dr Carl Sagan, a giant in astronomy, said “the total number of stars in the universe is greater than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the planet Earth.”

Our star, the Sun, has eight planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) and three dwarf planets (Ceres, Pluto and Eris) orbiting it. Prior to the 2006 adoption of an official definition by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), there was no formal definition of what constituted a "planet". Hence the scramble to re-write astronomy books.

According to The Planetary Society, with the exceptions of Mercury and Venus which have no known moons, the planets in our solar system have a combined total of 165 known moons. Jupiter having 63 moons by itself, as of July 2006.

Thus our grain of sand has 12 planets and 165 moons orbiting it. So how many planets, or moons, are in the universe? So far we’ve found just over 200 extrasolar planets, that is planets outside our solar system.

The reason why we haven’t found billions of planets orbiting the billions of stars is because planets are so small. Our puny telescopes have trouble finding them.

So could planets outnumber stars? Perhaps. Could moons outnumber planets? Seems reasonable. In our solar system they do. Of course our solar system may be the exception to the rule. Hence we cannot infer there are planets orbiting all stars or even every star like our Sun.

For now we can assume that we are unique and special in this universe. At least until technology provides evidence that suggests otherwise. But what then?

Several projects have been proposed to do just this. The NASA Terrestrial Planet Finder was one such project. But the June 2006 NASA budget has put this on indefinite hold.

Nevertheless others have stepped in to take on the role of space exploration. On the 10th of September 2006 astronomers made some remarkable findings. A study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder and Pennsylvania State University has claimed “More than one-third of the giant planet systems recently detected outside Earth's solar system may harbor Earth-like planets, many covered in deep oceans with potential for life.” This study focused on planets orbiting other giant planets which orbited stars.

Closer to home the search for life in our own solar system continues. NASA has provided funding for the long-sought mission to Europa, a moon of Jupiter with potential covered in a thick sheath of ice with suspected water underneath. So what if life was found on Europa or another planet? Would it change anything?

The Ashes – Aussies accused of being baggy and green

2006-11-02T13:15:00.000-08:00

Geoff Lawson, Dennis Lillee and Greg Chappell are gnawing their fingers off worrying about the impending arrival of the England test team.

They have delivered a volley of neurotic outbursts in recent weeks. Glenn McGrath has come in for some royal treatment during October by Geoff Lawson. "We don't doubt his intensity and his discipline, just whether his ageing body can still perform at the top level," Lawson said. The mind is willing, the body is flaccid.

A balding top order haven't escaped criticism either. Lillee reckons the England pace attack is at a ripe age to pulverize the dull reflexes of the aging Aussie batsman. "Over a period of time, as a fast bowler, you get to learn that a batsman's reflexes definitely get slower as he gets older," Lillee wrote. "Mark my word, the England pace attack, mentally buoyed and on faster Australian wickets, will this summer be at their absolute peak age-wise."

Lillee suggested that "Father Time" is tapping some players on the shoulder. "I'm not having a go at individuals, it's just that this is what happens," he said. "Australia have some great players but even the greatest players get tapped on the shoulder by Father Time at some stage. We've got to wonder if that time has arrived for some of them."

Lillee says that the only thing that has changed since the last Ashes series is the Australians are "decidedly older". "It's worrying how Australia, after being outplayed in England, are going to turn things around with a decidedly older team," he wrote.

Australia's young players are inexperienced invalids who have a lot to prove, according to Chappell. "Shane Watson has got a long way to go with his bowling before he is in the all-rounder class for Test cricket," Chappell said. "Every time Watson claims a victim, Australian players converge and the congratulatory ceremony leads you to assume he's performed a minor miracle and dismissed Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara with the same delivery." Watson has played just three test matches averaging a pedestrian 20.25 with the bat.

2006-07 Ashes series
Nov 23-27: First Test: Australia v England, Brisbane: Play from 10am (local time); 11am (AEDT)
Dec 1-5: Second Test: Australia v England, Adelaide: Play from 11am (local time); 11:30am (AEDT)
Dec 14-18: Third Test: Australia v England, Perth: Play from 10:30am (local time); 1:30pm (AEDT)
Dec 26-30: Fourth Test: Australia v England, Melbourne: Play from 10:30am (local time); 10:30am (AEDT)
Jan 2-6: Fifth Test: Australia v England, Sydney: Play from 10:30am (local time); 10:30am (AEDT)

Electric cars, why not?

2006-11-02T13:11:00.000-08:00

The recent release of the film ‘Who killed the electric car?’ has drawn attention to the fact that there is no good reason why electric car technology cannot replace fossil fuel burning cars. General Motors (GM) received a $1.25 billion research grant from the Clinton Administration to develop an electric car. GM then spent just over a $1 billion developing and marketing what was to be the EV1.

GM ended up only manufacturing 1117 EV1 cars to satisfy California's Zero-emissions vehicle mandate initiated in 1990. A zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) will produce no emissions or pollution from the vehicle when stationary or operating.

Though never sold and only leased it was estimated to retail for between US$33 000 and $43 000. This high cost however could be attributed to its limited production. While capable of a top speed of 295km/ph it was computer limited to around 130km/ph. It could accelerate from 0-100km/ph in 8 seconds and had a range of between 120-240km. Hence it was not designed for long distance trips but rather city commuting.

Those lucky few who had the opportunity to drive an EV1 before GM collected them all to crush and dump them in March 2005 said ‘… the only audible noise was often the steady thrum of the tires, with nothing from wind or motors. At lower speeds, and at stoplights, there was no noise at all, save for a slight whine from the single-speed gear reduction unit.’

‘Who killed the electric car?’ is now showing at the Electric Shadows cinemas in Civic.

“Walk of Hope” raises over $600 for breast cancer

2006-10-24T18:19:00.000-07:00

A crisp spring Canberra morning on the shores of Lake Tuggeranong saw more than 70 fund-raisers take part in the annual breast cancer “Walk of Hope”. The walk, organised by Healthy Inspirations and timed to coincide with Breast Cancer awareness month, raised over $600 dollars which will be donated to Breast Cancer Research in an effort to find a cure for the disease.

Walkers were encouraged to decorate their bras and wear them as an outer garment to attract attention and raise awareness of breast cancer. Scores of woman proudly wore pink ribbons and ornate floral bras drawing attention to their cause as they strode around the Lake. In good humour several men also enthusiastically donned elaborate bright pink bras to show their support for research into breast cancer.

One in 11 Australian women will be diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 75, and more than 2,500 women die as a result each year. Less than 1% of breast cancer is found in men, usually over the age of 50.

“There is growing evidence that excess body weight and lack of regular physical activity increase the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer,” said “Walk for Hope” organiser and Healthy Inspirations Manager, Debra Hestbeck.

“It is estimated that 11% of postmenopausal breast cancer is due to physical inactivity,” according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The effects of breast cancer aren’t just physical, many afflicted with it suffer from loss of self-esteem and confidence. The psychological aspects can be very distressing and draining for those with the disease. Nevertheless it can be overcome. Debra Hestbeck said, “A lot of our members have been touched in some way by Breast Cancer with a small percentage having battled the disease themselves and won!”

Several high profile cases of breast cancer have generated great public interest and drawn attention to the disease. Kylie Minogue was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and is continuing the physical and psychological struggle against it.

Sarah O’Hare is the celebrity face of the National Breast Cancer Foundation (NBCF) in Australia and is helping raise money and awareness for the fight against breast cancer. NBCF has raised over $26 million for research into the disease since its establishment and this money has been used to sponsor 152 projects in an attempt to find a cure.

The Cancer Council encourages women to be familiar with the normal look and feel of their breasts and see a doctor if they notice any unusual breast changes. All women aged 40 and over have free access to the BreastScreen Australia program for mammographic screening. Women aged 50 to 69 are encouraged to have a free mammogram every two years.

Nuclear Fallout

2006-10-22T20:02:00.000-07:00

On the 9th of October 2006, North Korea tested their first nuclear bomb. The North Korean’s, also known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), will be heading into a nuclear winter this year as the fallout from the nuclear test leads to a dramatic frosting of relations between the isolated state and the world community.

The United Nations (UN) has responded swiftly by imposing heavy sanctions on North Korea. The normally reserved China, North Korea’s closest ally and protector on the UN Security Council, was furious with the actions of their communist neighbour. “(North Korea) has ignored universal opposition of the international community and flagrantly conducted the nuclear test… . The Chinese Government is resolutely opposed to it,” the Ministry of Foreign affairs said.

Korea Central News Agency (KCNA) claimed “The nuclear test was conducted with indigenous wisdom and technology 100 per cent… . It marks a historic event as it greatly encouraged and pleased the Korean people’s Army and people that have wished to have powerful self-reliant defence capability.”

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer unimpressed by Pyongyang’s rhetoric hauled North Korean ambassador Chon Jae-hong in for a grilling. Downer slid a night time satellite map taken of the Korean peninsular in front of the ambassador pointing to the brightly lit cities of the South and the darkness of the North.

“I pointed to this photo and I said the policies of his Government had led to this shameful situation where the people of South Korea lived in relative prosperity and the people of North Korea lived in poverty,” the Foreign Minister said.

The Korean peninsular was liberated from the Japanese after World War II on August 15, 1945. In 1948 the Soviet Union and the United States carved up Korea to form the Soviet backed communist North and the American backed South. On September 9, the same year Korea was sliced up for the geo-strategic interests of the superpowers, the North became a republic.

Kim Il-Sung led the North from 1948, through the 1950-53 Korean War and until his death on July 8, 1994. An extraordinary 46 years at the top. Control of the totalitarian regime was passed on to his son Kim Jong-Il, who remains leader. Kim Jong-Il presides over a population of around 23 million and one of the most destitute societies on the planet. Although it has recently improved, a 2006 estimate had the Per Capita income for each citizen at around $1 800.

In August North Korea declared the armistice that ended the 1950-53 Korean War with South Korea “null and void”. This aggression symbolised a new confidence by Pyongyang in its own invincibility. In retrospect it could be perceived as an ominous sign of the impending nuclear test.

Several commentators have flagged the possibility of a nuclear arms race and significant changes to the strategic environment within Asia and the Pacific.

If North Korea “is allowed to hang on to its nuclear weapons, it could be the final blow to a global non-proliferation regime,” it was claimed in an Australian editorial. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating posited that Japan may now seek to acquire nuclear weapons for itself.

“My great concern is that Japan may use the impasse of North Korea and this testing of its nuclear weapons to move into nuclear weapons itself, eschewing the nuclear protection provided to it by the United States under its umbrella,” Mr Keating said. He then breathed a dark and ominous warning in the event of such a strategic development, “if China adopts an altogether different posture in respect to Japan, the world we know today changes.”

Patience with Kim Jong-Il’s tyrannical inhumane regime has dried up as some analysts advocate sharply escalating the stakes in order to send a strong message to Pyongyang. Professor Robyn Lim at Nanzan University in Japan says “it’s about time we start to think realistically about what happens when disarmament diplomacy fails. After all, no arms control regime lasts forever, and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is no exception.”

Former Bush speechwriter, neoconservative and co-author of controversial book, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror David Frum suggests a two-fisted approach.

What is needed is to “step up the development and deployment of existing missile defence systems; end humanitarian aid to North Korea and pressure South Korea to do the same; encourage Japan to renounce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and create its own nuclear deterrent; and invite Japan, South Korea, Australia, new Zealand and Singapore to join NATO,” according to Mr Frum.

Whether the infamous “axis of evil” speech by President George W Bush was a wise move remains controversial. Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of the Australian believes North Korea’s nuclear test has vindicated the “axis of evil’ speech.

In contrast Tony Walker, Washington correspondent for the Australian Financial Review claims that “What is unarguable is that a US doctrine of regime change has not ameliorated nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran, Rather, it could be said this stance has stimulated forces in both countries pushing for a nuclear capability on the basis this provides insurance against US meddling.” Suggesting that imperious rhetoric from the US has played its part in creating the North Korean nuclear crisis.

Likely successor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, South Korean Ban Ki-Moon offered a cool measured response to the nuclear test. Known in South Korea as the ‘Slippery Eel’, he regards the test as a tactical ploy by the North. “I think I will be able to handle this with North Korean authorities and South Korean authorities to facilitate inter-Korean cooperation and the six-party process,” Ban Ki-Moon said.

As sanctions begin to take effect and the screws are put to Kim Jong-Il, it will be a nervous time for those countries out of favour and within range of the unpredictable North Korean state.

Senate predicted Telstra mess 10 years ago

2006-10-10T19:54:00.000-07:00

The Government has initiated a 20 million dollar advertising campaign to convince people to buy into a T3 share fire sale. This follows the colossal ‘Work Choices’ advertising campaign which has cost the tax payer around 45 million dollars according to Associate Professor Graeme Orr.

In 1996 a Senate inquiry into the sale of Telstra recommended that it remain in public hands. It recommended that ‘there is no substantial empirical evidence to back up the Coalition Government's claim that the Australian economy and Australian consumers will benefit from the partial sale of Telstra.’ Moreover, the Senate Committee said ‘the Coalition Government's decision to sell Telstra is driven by ideology’.

According to the Citizens Against Selling Telstra or CAST the sale will lead to the removal of 5 000 pay phones and the elimination of 12 000 jobs from Telstra’s already threadbare workforce. James Sinnamon convenor of CAST said that “Any money that shareholders can hope to gain after Sol Trujillo, the merchant bankers and the stockbrokers have taken their cut, will be paid for with the lost livelihoods of fellow Australians, by monopolistic profiteering and by the elimination of services that had been provided to the Australian public as a matter of course."

Finance Minister Nick Minchin has defended Telstra boss Sol Trujillo’s 9 million dollar salary despite his planned lay-off of thousands of Telstra employees, his defiance of the ACCC’s planned fibre optic network needed in the bush and Telstra's plan to remove 5,000 pay phones from across the country by the end of the year, saying that “He has brought… a real customer focus to the company”.

Practical Communication

2006-10-10T02:41:00.000-07:00

This article is written as a continuation of the interesting issues raised by Alex Douglas in his piece on ‘Practical Values’ published in the May 2006 issue of Woroni. The thrust of his article was that practical values are impractical for the kinds of deep problems that arise from the way we choose to exist in the world. Moreover, in order to engage in these problems we must not be distracted by patterns of thinking that prevent us from reflecting on more primal issues. One of these patterns is an unthinking adoration and instantiation of practical values.

In recent times these values have been celebrated as part of the Australian identity and are invoked by politicians for various reasons. Whether practicality or other forms of the Australian identity are deliberately or unconsciously championed by our politicians is a moot point. What is important is to ask how maintaining an atavistic image of what it means to be an Australian helps in understanding more serious problems which may in fact be created from that very identity. A deep sense of insecurity for instance may be a cause of fierce nationalism and parochial identity politics.

It may be true that in an attempt to become Australian, whatever that means, we are not fulfilling who we are as individuals, but rather conforming to some abstract set of values which may or may not have any genuine intrinsic value.

Even though practicality has a purpose as a means of dealing with issues, there remains fundamental problems that confront the way humanity conceives of itself and these problems cannot be solved by practical means. By aspiring toward a set of values that are in lock step with a conservative government we will naturally come to instantiate conservative values. If conservative values are defined as Australian, then to represent a position that is not conservative is to be un-Australian. To be charged with impracticality is an implicit charge of non-conformism. It seems even within our university to be a non-conformist is to be impractical and, consequently, un-Australian.

This is a political aspect of not thinking for ourselves, but there is a deeper philosophical aspect alluded to by Alex when he said that the issue is "topological and not sociological". Societies change and while the ways of thinking are reshaped and adapted to changing circumstances there seems to be no increase in the gross tonnage of deep reflective thought being done. The implication is that this kind of thinking cannot be done while a practical mind set beguiles our time and constrains our consciousness.

But are practical values really the kind of thing that must be slain before we can make a plea for more thinking? It is recognised that practicality, like efficiency or productivity are means to ends and have no intrinsic value. Adolf Eichmann was practical, efficient and productive in achieving the ends of the Third Reich. And so was the system he supported. Perhaps if he took time to reflect, along with vast swathes of the German people, what horrors were actually being committed they may have been prevented.

However, these values can only be insidious or altruistic in terms of the end they are servicing. Hence, to be practical should not imply that you are incapable of reflection or deep thought. Practicality does not prevent reflection it is simply a means to an end after you have identified the problem. Far from practicality preventing reflection it is actually a means of facilitating it.

An analogy may be useful to differentiate deep complex practical thinking and a more robust reflective kind of thinking.

Imagine a Sodoku puzzle that you have been trying to find a solution to. You have analysed every possible strategy available and conjured all possible permutations with no success. You have gone about this task methodically and practically, but cannot seem to find a solution. It is not until you stop and step back that it occurs to you that the puzzle itself has been fundamentally ill-conceived, and that no matter how much analysis is poured into finding a solution there isn’t one available. The point is that certain patterns of thought, like thinking practically, may be completely ineffective in dealing with the most fundamental problems in the world.

However, while deep thinking is certainly required to identify fundamental problems, once identified, practicality is required to move from the status quo toward a position that can overcome such problems. Practical steps must be taken from where we are now toward the ideals for which we strive for. Provided of course that we can agree on what those ideals are. The past has aptly demonstrated the tyranny that impractical idealism can give rise to. Thus, how we can go from our current situation toward a situation that can possibly treat the fundamental problems existing in the way we live and think, or do not think, are just as pressing.

It may be necessary, as John Forster Dullas has said, “to make an agonising reappraisal” of the way we go about our business on this planet. But who has the time to think about these deep problems apart from students and academics? While self-reflection is important and is undoubtedly what is required in the long run, how do we begin to shift as a population toward such lofty goals. Ghandi said that we must be the change we wish to see in the world. So, if I become an enlightened pacifist, then hopefully people will follow my lead.

But, how long will refugees and people starving around the world have to wait until Ghandi’s example catches on? Is a plea for more thinking enough? People already do plenty of thinking about the problems of the world. But, most people will not have the time to interrogate the arguments put about by the press and politicians. As students and academics who have time to analyse and cogitate on these problems we have a responsibility to communicate and present these thoughts in the public domain.

Leaving it up to the mums and dads to take time out of their days to reflect upon the assumptions and arguments used to justify violent exclusions of refugees is too much to ask. The arguments against the hate-mongers must be clear so that the community can think about the issues in the debate. The talk-back radio types peddling their vicious opinions need to be put under pressure on their own turf. Students and academics have the intellectual armoury to provide informed discussion on public issues. Please use it by PRACTICALLY engaging in public debate and not by retreating back into the lakes of jargon which so many intellectual elites seem to when confronted with someone who does not hold to their ideals.

Its A Real Snow Job

2006-10-10T02:11:00.000-07:00

This winter may record the lowest peak snow depth reading on record. The lowest previous record was a measly 91cm in 1982. Presently we are at 84cm which is the highest reading this season.

New Zealand on the other hand is experiencing a fairly robust snow season with record falls early in the season being followed up by consistent dumps. Anyone who has any experience skiing or snowboarding overseas must be scratching their heads as to how people can justify blowing their hard earned on a ski holiday in Australia.

I decided to compare the costs between New Zealand and Australia to see where you get the most bang for your buck.
First thing first, lift tickets. A 5 day lift ticket at Thredbo is $388AUD. A 5 day multi-mountain lift ticket in Queenstown is $298AUD.

Now for travel. To drive from Sydney to the snow and back is around 1000km. Moreover, each day that you travel up to the snow from Jindabyne you must pay a $22 park entry fee. Based on a car that does 7 litres per 100km at $1.40 a litre your going to pay around $100 in fuel plus the $110 in park fees. Thus, a conservative estimate is around $210. Cheap flights from Sydney to Queenstown return can be obtained for $350 per/person with New Zealand Airways and car hire is around $30 dollars a day for a decent car.

In Jindabyne it is almost impossible to get accommodation for under $150 dollars a night unless you want to stay in a caravan park. On the other hand, in Queenstown it is possible to get 4 star accommodation at less than $100NZD a night. The exchange rate will mean that this is even cheaper.

So lift tickets, travel and accommodation in Australia for five days five nights costs around $1348. The same thing in New Zealand costs $1298. The one major variable is the travel which can be a lot cheaper in Australia if the cost was spread between 4 people. Nevertheless, even if you wipe the travel cost entirely on the Australian trip, New Zealand is only marginally more expensive. But then you are getting significantly better quality for that little extra cash.

Where you really get burned in Australia is from the lift tickets and accommodation. While getting to the Aussie slopes may be cheaper, all that money you saved is recouped with rapacity by the resorts. The savagery with which Australian ski resorts attack your hip pocket is the real nut.

You can hardly blame them though. After all, it’s just straight economics, supply and demand. We’ve got bugger all snow and a bevy of people willing to pay a kings ransom to see it.

Nevertheless, for the thinking snow enthusiast given the economics, aesthetics and powder, skiing in New Zealand is a no brainer.

Final Draft - The Hard Cell On Cloning

2006-09-11T22:48:00.000-07:00

Final Draft

The Hard Cell On Cloning
By Mark Sawa

Prime Minister John Howard has flagged the possibility of a conscience vote on stem cell research having dismissed the findings of the Lockhart Review. Momentum is building for an intense debate on stem cell research as Senators Natasha Stott Despoja (Democrats) and Kay Patterson (Liberal) prepare private members Bills to induce bipartisan and open parliamentary discussion on the matter.

The Lockhart Committee was set to review the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 and report its recommendations to government. Surprisingly, its recommendations were swept aside by the Prime Minister, keen to stem such research. This has infuriated politicians from all sides, who advocate the tremendous benefits of expanding this field and may demand a conscience vote on the issue. Battle lines are drawn for a fertile frenzy of argument that parallels the intensity of the long-running abortion debate.

Controversial Health Minister Tony Abbott came out swinging, accusing scientists of “peddling false hope to have research expanded”. Equally inflammatory, former NSW Premier Bob Carr took a rhetorical sledgehammer to Abbott supporters saying that, "I think it's enormously important that we don't allow a handful of people hanging onto tortured theological constructs to prevent the scientific breakthroughs that can beat these diseases." These include spinal cord injury, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, burns, some cancers and Parkinson's disease.

A stem cell is a cell in the body whose job is yet to be determined, that is yet to form into any of the 220 types of cell in the human body. There are two streams of stem cell research, a key to this debate. Firstly, adult stem cell research has been proposed as an alternative to embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cells are present in and taken from bone marrow, brain and gut, and other tissues. Some of these stem cells are shown to be multipotent, which means they have a capacity, albeit limited, to transform into other cell-types.

This avoids ethical issues surrounding the destruction of embryonic stem cells, which are considered the seeds of human life. Unfortunately, their limited capacity to transform means a limited potential for regenerative medicine and gene therapy.
Stem cells harvested from the inner-mass of around 30 cells in a 4-5 day old embryos however, are pluripotent, able to transform into any cell-type. According to Australian of the Year Professor Ian Frazer, embryonic stem cells have “the capacity to solve very many of the major diseases of mankind: brain disease, heart disease, diabetes for example”. The potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research are colossal, advocated perhaps most vehemently by Christopher Reeves, who campaigned for this research from shortly after his horse riding accident in 1995 until his death in 2004 at 52.

However, embryonic stem cells are not a ready made panacea waiting for government approval to save us all. There are many challenges in this science, including directing stem cells to grow into specific pathways (eg muscle or nerve) by concocting growth factors; customising lines; making an organ by combining different cell types in three dimensional arrangements; maintaining, expanding and manipulating stem/progenitor cells in vitro and many more.

Perhaps the most significant for embryonic cells being immunological compatibility, that is matching the recipient’s immune system. Adult stem cells do not suffer this problem. Here researchers have two options: firstly, to set up a ‘tissue bank’ whereby all cell lines are matched with recipients, likely requiring huge numbers of embryonic stem cells, a lot of money and a very sympathetic public. The second option is ‘therapeutic cloning’, otherwise known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT). This entails removing the nucleus of a human egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a cell taken from the intended recipient. The egg is then induced to become an embryo from which compatible cells are harvested.

This path is fraught tensions, largely between the ethics of preventing or alleviating suffering and conversely, respecting human life. In this way the central ethical issue of the embryonic stem cell debate parallels the abortion debate - an abortion may stem from a choice to alleviate potential suffering, while a pro-life activist will see that as a violation of human life.
The two most salient arguments against embryonic stem cell are: a) therapeutic cloning will desensitise us and ultimately lead to reproductive cloning, a favourite for Tony Abbott; and b) the status of the embryo.

The difference between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning is the treatment of the embryo once somatic nuclear transfer has occurred. In therapeutic cloning the embryo is destroyed when stem cells are derived from it. In reproductive cloning the embryo is implanted into a womb for eventual gestation into a baby. This is the fear argument, one readily countered by legislation against such a scenario, as was done in the United Kingdom, which allows therapeutic but not reproductive cloning. In stark contrast, the US has apparently bowed to ‘free-market’ powers, placing few restrictions on privately funded stem cell research.

The concept of the embryo as a ‘potential person’ and therefore deserving the status of a person, positions this research as murderous. Of course advocates of embryonic stem cell research argue that the embryos are at a very early stage, before the significant differentiation that characterises human quality. While the ‘potential person’ argument resides near the core of the debate it is complex and controversial.. As philosophers and theologians argue over the status of the embryo, the crude upshot of this line of reasoning is that therapeutic cloning is equivalent to destroying a human life and, twisting this further, using an embryo to find a cure for brain disease is murder.

Peter Williamson suffers from Parkinson’s disease. Before he was struck down with this debilitating condition he was a research scientist and lecturer in reproductive endocrinology. Following his submission to the Lockhart Review, Peter was invited to appear before their committee, where he claimed that, ‘my experience in biological research leaves me with no illusions of miracle cures, but there is no doubt in my mind that embryonic stem cells hold the greatest potential for treatments of Parkinson's disease, diabetes, MS, MND and several other hitherto “incurable diseases”. Moreover, he comments ‘the hope I draw is that sometime soon others will not have to suffer the pain and frustration that taunts me…I am absolutely opposed to reproductive cloning.”

It is tempting to empathise with those who would reap the most from this research, but are we ready to commodify human life? What are the implications for a race that ‘evolves’ via genetic cash-crops, where the wealthiest can afford the best organs, physically superior offspring, life-extending transplants? Are the world’s poorest the most likely targets for cell harvesting?

Another mostly overlooked aspect to this debate is the risk to women’s health and dignity. According to bio-ethicist Emily Galpern “the short-term health risks associated with the egg extraction process, a lack of information about long-term effects, the potential for exploitation of economically vulnerable women, and the possibility of increased commodification of women’s bodies” are all significant issues to this debate. Nonetheless she adds that “women’s health advocates can voice support for advancing stem cell research while simultaneously calling for adequate safeguards for women who participate in the research." At present the Greens are looking into such problems associated with commodification.

The debate is primed. Whether or not you believe that a microscopic ball of cells is ‘human’, with the potential to cure so many and man’s innate thirst for knowledge, stem cell research is here to stay. A recent breakthrough in the US which avoids destruction of the embryo could radically change the ethical landscape, but that is tomorrow’s front page story. There is much to consider in this debate and hopefully empathy is not lost in the detail. The Word encourages your input.

I will leave you with an extract from a piece of correspondence Peter Williamson sent to Tony Abbott regarding his comments on ‘false hopes’.

Thank you once again for your insensitivity and uninformed opinion. What right have you to talk about hope! As a person suffering from Parkinson's disease who has little left to cling to but hope, even if a slim hope, your public statements do little to buoy me against a bleak future. Hope is an important factor in survival when suffering from an incurable, progressively degenerate disease.

For the record I was a scientist working in fields close to stem cell research and my informed judgment is that there is a real hope, however slim, that this work may well lead to help for many people suffering hitherto incurable diseases.

1st Draft - The Hard Cell On Cloning

2006-09-11T22:45:00.000-07:00

First Draft

Therapeutic Cloning of Embryonic Stem Cells
By Mark Sawa

In the highly charged debate involving embryonic stem cell research it is easy to crank yourself up into a frenzy without knowing what the real risks and costs to action or inaction are.

Controversial Health Minister Tony Abbott came out swinging on the issue, accusing scientists of “peddling false hope to have research expanded”.

Equally inflammatory, former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr took a rhetorical sledgehammer to Abbott supporters saying that, "I think it's enormously important that we don't allow a handful of people hanging onto tortured theological constructs to prevent the scientific breakthroughs."

Since Prime Minister John Howard has flagged the possibility of a conscious vote and momentum builds for a two-fisted debate, it will be helpful to get an idea of lay of the land.

A good place to start is to look at the avenues available for stem cell research. Firstly, adult stem cell research has been proposed as an alternative to embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cells are present in and taken from bone marrow, brain and gut, and other tissues. Some of these stem cells are shown to be multipotent, which means they have a capacity, albeit limited, to transform into other cell-types.

This avoids ethical issues surrounding the destruction of embryonic stem cells, which are considered the seeds of human life. Unfortunately, their limited capacity to transform means a limited potential for regenerative medicine and gene therapy.
Embryonic stem cells, however, are pluripotent with the capacity to transform into any cell-type. According to Australian of the Year Professor Ian Frazer embryonic stem cells have “the capacity to solve very many of the major diseases of mankind: brain disease, heart disease, diabetes for example”. The potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research are colossal.
However, embryonic stem cells are not a ready made panacea just waiting for the government to give their approval before they can solve all of our problems. There are problems for embryonic stem cells since they may not be immunocompatible with the person for whom they are intended.

Adult stem cells do not suffer this problem of immunological incompatibility. In order to overcome this problem embryonic stem cells researches have two options. One is to set up a ‘tissue bank’, whereby all embryonic stem cell lines are matched with recipients. However, this may require huge numbers of embryonic stem cells. As a result, setting up a bank may not just test public support it is likely to be technically difficult and expensive.

The second option is ‘therapeutic cloning’, otherwise known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT). This entails removing the nucleus of a human egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a cell taken from the intended recipient. The egg is then induced to become an embryo from which compatible cells are harvested.

But by going down the road of embryonic stem cell research ethical tensions arise. The main tension is between the moral principle that we must act in order to prevent or alleviate suffering, and the other, which states that we must respect human life.

In this way the central ethical issue of the embryonic stem cell debate parallels the abortion debate in that an abortion may result from a choice to alleviate potential suffering, while an anti-abortionist will see that as a violation of the inviolability of a human life.

Out of the gamut of arguments presented by those opposed to embryonic stem cell research two stand out. One is that therapeutic cloning will lead to reproductive cloning. This is the slippery slope argument which Abbott is ferociously peddling by suggesting that, if we accept therapeutic cloning, then we will be desensitised into the eventual acceptance of reproductive cloning.

The difference between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning is the treatment of the embryo once somatic nuclear transfer has occurred.

In therapeutic cloning the embryo is destroyed when stem cells are derived from it. In reproductive cloning the embryo is implanted into a womb for eventual gestation into a baby.

The slippery slope argument represents the fear argument. Respondents may point out that such a scenario is easily legislated against and, furthermore, it would be more sensible to manage the scientific research in this area rather than simply ban it.

The other argument that gains currency regards the status of the embryo. This claims that the embryo is a ‘potential person’ and, consequently, should have the status of a person. Advocates of embryonic stem cell research argue that the embryos used in research are at a very early stage, before the differentiation that characterises human development have begun. This ‘potential person’ argument is complex and controversial, yet it is perhaps one of the stronger arguments available to opponents of embryonic stem cell research. This line of argument is also popular among anti-abortionists.

While philosophers and theologians argue over the status of the embryo the upshot of this line of reasoning, put crudely, is that therapeutic cloning is equivalent to destroying a human life. In other words, using an embryo to find a cure for brain disease is murder.

For those who do not share a fairly specific set of beliefs this suggestion may not be very convincing?
Peter Williamson suffers from Parkinson’s disease. Before he was struck down with this debilitating condition he was a research scientist and lecturer in reproductive endocrinology. After a submission to the Lockhart Review he was invited to appear before their committee.

He claims that, ‘My experience in biological research leaves me with no illusions of miracle cures, but there is no doubt in my mind that embryonic stem cells hold the greatest potential for treatments of Parkinson's disease, diabetes, MS, MND and several other hitherto “incurable diseases”.’ Moreover, he says that ‘the hope I draw is that sometime soon others will not have to suffer the pain and frustration that taunts me’. He also states in his submission that ‘I am absolute in my opposition to reproductive cloning’.

By empathising with those who could reap the greatest benefits from this research, while balancing the values of those opposed to it, where the ethics collide.

However, there is another aspect to this debate which has not been given much attention thus far. It is the problems posed for women’s health and dignity. According to Emily Galpern, a bioethicist who focuses on stem cell research, there are a host of problems with stem cell research. These include ‘the short-term health risks associated with the egg extraction process, a lack of information about long-term effects, the potential for exploitation of economically vulnerable women, and the possibility of increased commodification of women’s bodies.’

But she also states that ‘women’s health advocates can voice support for advancing stem cell research while simultaneously calling for adequate safeguards for women who participate in the research.’ At present the Greens are looking into problems associated with commodification.

There is much to think about in this debate and hopefully empathy is not lost in the detail. I will leave you with an extract from a piece of correspondence Peter Williamson sent to Tony Abbott regarding his comments on ‘false hopes’.

Thank you once again for your insensitivity and uninformed opinion. What right have you to talk about hope!
As a person suffering from Parkinson's disease who has little left to cling to but hope, even if a slim hope, your public statements do little to buoy me against a bleak future. Hope is an important factor in survival when suffering from an incurable, progressively degenerate disease.

For the record I was a scientist working in fields close to stem cell research and my informed judgment is that there is a real hope, however slim, that this work may well lead to help for many people suffering hitherto incurable diseases.

Is Football Here to Stay?

2006-08-20T20:48:00.000-07:00

Australia’s participation in the Football World Cup has brought about remarkable scenes of jubilation in the streets of our capital cities. During the Cup footballs sleeping giant status appeared to have been confirmed.

But is football or soccer really in for the long haul? Or are the sceptics right with their suggestion that this love affair with the game is just a fleeting one night stand?

In the past football has been held back from realising its potential by three major impediments: administration, image and quality.

With the guidance of John O’Neill and the financial backing of Frank Lowy, football in Australia is in the hands of arguably the best sports administrator in the country and one of it’s leading businessmen.

This new administration has sought to open the sport up to the mainstream by moving away from the ethnic exclusion and tensions that had plagued the sport in the past.

By tapping into the mainstream the new administration has not just created new fans, but has begun to unearth the latent football following which has always existed in this country.

The A-League’s move from ethnically based clubs to city based clubs has arguably changed the perception of football in this country from a ‘wogs game’ to a broadly multicultural Australian game.

The image of the game has become more acceptable to the general public and by the other football codes. The Rugby League, Rugby Union and AFL’s combined footy show in support of the Socceroos was a symbolic change in attitude toward the once much maligned sport.

It is no longer a ‘sheilas’ game played by ‘poofters’. Those who maintain this view are likely to be the same parochial swill that deride AFL as “ariel ping pong played by fairies”. In any case, soccer for many former knockers of the game is now an acceptable football code to play in this country.

Yet while the administration and image of the sport has never been better, there remains one final hurdle that must be overcome. It is the question of quality. AFL, Rugby League and Rugby Union reflect the highest quality of their respective sports at the club level.

Football does not. The past has not produced a high quality club competition that fans can really sink their teeth into. Australians demand quality and up until recently soccer has not been able to deliver. But, with the inaugural season of the A-League producing a sumptuous highlight real, a higher standard and the rise of local stars, it is at least now possible to watch the domestic game without cringing. Although the quality is not yet there, it is getting there. Moreover, it is beginning to attract new fans along with the latent football element.

As the main impediments to growth are removed, and given the colossal participation rate, there are good empirical reasons for thinking that football will not fade back into the obscurity from which it has emerged. However, only time will tell.

Match Reports for Weeks 14 & 17

2006-08-20T20:24:00.000-07:00

Game report: Week 14 – July 29, 2006

A 1-0 loss to Crossroads ended a seven game winning streak for the Blackfriars in what turned out to be a black weekend for the team. An ugly incident left James Meservey concussed and missing two teeth after a reckless challenge from, you guessed it, Mr Webb. With most not realising James was unconscious a goal mouth scramble ensued leading to the only goal of the game.

For those of you who were not there and know the history of Mr Webb and are wondering how in the hell the goal was not disallowed take a deep breath and I’ll try and explain.

Firstly, almost no one, except Shaun Barker saw what happened in the mêlée. Secondly, attention was drawn immediately away from Meservey to the ball which he had parried away from goal. Third the extent and seriousness of the injury was not realised until a few minutes after the goal was conceded at which point disputing whether it was a goal or not was far from our minds. Finally, I only established later that it was Mr Webb who was the culprit having approached their team to explain that James was concussed (at this point I did not know that he had also lost teeth). In explaining to them what was going on Mr Webb apologised profusely for what had happened.

Although Mr Webb was quite contrite after the incident the wheels are in motion to bring him to account for his reckless challenge. I have been informed by Steve B that he will be following up on the incident. Steve went to the hospital with Meservey and the last thing I’ve heard was that he was going in for a CT scan after which they would keep him under observation.

Personally, I just want to thank all of the guys for the way they handled the situation. Also thanks to Steve B who accompanied James and his wife to the hospital.

As for the game, it was played in a fairly flat and disinterested manner by the Friars where the only stand out performance was the versatile Dicky Shanahan.

At the pub: No mug was awarded, although Dicky probably should have got it.

Game report: Week 17 – August 19, 2006

The Blackfriars 3-2 win over their semi-final nemesis St James may have secured them a place in the finals. Having doggedly outplayed a gritty St James outfit in the first half, the Friars went into the break with a 2-0 advantage.

Predictably the two goals came from the Human Headline. The first from a dot shot that he won and the second was a real corka, involving Rob “Hoops” Hooper, Stu “Blue Moon” Black and The Headline. The Blackfriars backs had absorbed a sustained period of pressure that had lured much of the St James halves deep into attack.

As a clearance finally came out Hoops latched onto it and went for an angled run up the left. At this moment I was screaming at him to just kick it out to give the backs a rest. Good thing that he either wasn’t listening or ignored me because he played the ball back across field to Blue Moon Black who held it up nicely for Madson to run through and ice the cake.

The second half was again fought out hard with few chances being created on either side. Nevertheless, the festering tenacity of St James managed to them back into the match and they scored an equaliser around ten minutes from full-time. With their tails up there was talk of knocking the Friars out of the finals. With this thought reverberating around the skulls of the boys in blue it looked as if St James might come over the top of them.

But, the Blackfriars are tough nuts to crack and the mood of the team was austere and focussed. There was no way that these guys would bend over Steve Larkhem style in the final minutes. Fuck no! The Friars were bruised, they were bleeding and they were involved in ball busting, shin splitting, joint cracking game and they were loving it. Toby was flinging himself around in goals having a whale of game. So too were Steve “Sledgehammer” Malem and hardman Platty at the back.

With two minutes to go Sandy sat poised for an angled run in behind their defensive line and as the ball was played through the trap was sprung. Sandy putting the game away with real heart breaker in the final minutes. St James crest fallen, resigned themselves to defeat.

From the sketchy accounts that were wafting about after the game this win appears to have galvanised the Blackfriars finals aspirations.

At the pub: I was lucky enough to get the mug, though Toby in goals if he were there would have got it.

Surf Dream to Become Reality - Published in The Word

2006-07-26T03:16:00.000-07:00

Canberra is the only capital city in Australia that is not on the coast. But, it may one day compete for bragging rights to which city has the best surf. What kind of gibberish am I talking here? Surf in Canberra? Have all these frosty mornings had a detrimental effect on the functioning of my brain? Perhaps, yet heaving 8 foot waves may not be a mid-winter delusion.

Perfect man-made waves are about to become a reality. In Orlando, USA, Ron Jon Surfparks have embarked on creating the first wave-pool, or Surfpark, that can generate waves that mimic natures best.

This is not the piddling little meek two foot crumblers that have been the signature of wave pools in the past. No way, we’re talking 5-8 foot pipeline-style barrelling lefts and rights.

It is not utter madness, construction is already underway on three pools, the largest being the professional pool which is the size of a football field. Surfers will be able to indulge in relatively lengthy rides of 60-100 yards.

Wave pools have been little more than novelty value for surfers up until now. The problem was that the technology simply could not generate serious waves to match the kind of surf that nature so generously provides.

More recently, flow-riders have been introduced as a potential substitute for real waves. Dreamworld is currently advertising one of these kinds of wave machines. Unfortunately, as a stationary wave it is not considered by surfers as a realistic or genuine replication of actual surf.

But, now with the help of new research and revolutionary technology, the power and shape of the worlds most famous waves will be artificially simulated.

Scientists have studied the ocean floors of the worlds best waves to determine how they get their shape. From these studies engineers have developed an adjustable pool bottom that can create a variety of wave shapes.

From peeling 3 footers for beginners to 8 foot overhead for professionals. Surf enthusiasts are in a state of apoplectic anticipation at the potential. After all for many surfers, especially the young groms, this is the stuff dreams are made of.

The Orlando surfpark will also cater for crowds who want to watch. Thousands will be provided stadium seating to watch free-surfing and competitions.

With the grand opening set for later this year, there is not much time to wait for the mouth watering chance to ride replicas of the worlds most perfect waves.

Game reports: 8-11

2006-07-11T16:53:00.000-07:00

Game report: Week 8 – June 17, 2006

Three wins on the trot for the Blackfriars signalled a settling down of the team and a serious tilt toward the top of the table. A well drilled and prepared Friars outfit sought vengeance on their semi-final nemesis St James. Despite an early setback during the week with the loss of The Desert Fox at the back, Andrew Platt stepped up to marshal the troops as sweeper. Cuddles Barker was given the task of tagging the competitions leading goal scorer.

Some further tactical changes placed James Irwin back into central midfield and Nathan Madson from striker to right half in the hope of finding a bit of space. Both players revelled in their positions with the first goal coming from the head of Nathan Madson. Irwin whipped a corner onto the edge of the six yard box and Madson nodded home for a 1-0 lead.

The second goal came from Stu Black with an overhead strike leaving the St James defence in a state of agitation, aggravation, frustration and discombobulation. It was a dominant performance throughout the game despite conceding a late goal in the second half. While the Friars were defensively superb, they have yet to reach their attacking potential.

At the pub: Andrew Platt won the mug convincing by filling the big boots of The Desert Fox with aplomb.

Game report: Week 9 – June 24, 2006

Another win for the Blackfriars against Holy Cross has propelled their prospects of a finals campaign into the minds of their fans. The 4-1 score-line reflected another dominant performance by a team brimming with confidence. Chris D’Souza opened the scoring with a 25 yard thumper that stunned all and sundry.

For consecutive weeks the backs and midfield took control of the game and laid the platform for a convincing display in the first half, albeit not at the full blooded intensity usually displayed by the Friars. It was 1-0 at half-time, but with potential for vast improvement.

In the second half things began to open up and the Friars were given a penalty that was converted without fuss by Nathan Madson. The irrepressible Madson also scored a third goal after a stuttering and jinking run that eventually led to a shot on goal which curled into the bottom corner. After conceding a goal the Friars pressed their advantage with a fourth goal by D’Souza. Steve Byrne kept the egg off James Meservey’s face with a courageous goal saving effort to prevent any sniff of a comeback.

Andrew James and Andrew Platt performed solidly again at the back and will be looked to later on in the season to carry the defensive duties in the absence of many key players. The brief but welcome return of our Chairman, Hao, was also a contributing factor in a solid defensive display.

Late in the game D’Souza appeared to suffer a sprained ankle and could be out for a few weeks. The mysterious disappearance of Stu Black on Saturday has also rattled the confidence of management given a growing injury list and planned vacations of other players. Mark Sawa had a particularly poor game, murdering a one on one with the keeper in the dying stages. He claims that breaking in a new pair of underpants contributed to his performance issues. Which may or may not have something to do with his sub-par display on the football field.

At the pub: Steve Byrne took the mug, I think Meservey would agree, after a stellar performance brimming with all the things that comprise a Blackfriar’s attitude toward their team mates. Especially, his willingness to sacrifice any potential to spawn life with high-risk goal saving measures that could mean exploding the giggle berries on the wood work. Nevertheless, for demonstrating that he would give his right nut for the team Steve got the mug.

Game report: Week 10 – July 1, 2006

An 8-3 demolition of St Vinnies kicked off the second round of games for the Friars. Wasting no time in the first half the Blackfriars piled on 6 goals to 1, securing the game before the interval. Rob Hooper dazzled the fans with two sparkling goals in the first half. One, a dipping shot from around 20 yards, catching the keeper off his line. Not to be outdone, the headline hogging Nathan Madson carved his way through a bevy of St Vinnies players to casually slot home a tremendous solo effort.

Despite having their keeper sent off, the St Vinnies outfit stepped up after the break, keeping the Friars honest with a 2-2 score line in the second half. James Meservey, who was unleashed in the second half on an unsuspecting Vinnies, strolled forward to convert the penalty kick which resulted from the controversial send off incident.

At the pub: Steve Malem got the mug.

Game report: Week 11 – July 8, 2006

A top of the table clash on the weekend saw the inform Blackfriars overcome Woden Spirit with an unusually classy 2-1 win. Woden have been the competition tear-aways this season going through the entire first round undefeated.

However, having lost the first game of the second round the Friars were determined to hand them another defeat to send their title hopes into disarray.

The first goal came in the 31st minute as James Irwin delivered a sumptuous ball for Nathan Madson to head home. Despite sustained pressure, and passages of slick passing throughout the half, Woden managed to stay in touch. The Blackfriars only 1-0 up at the interim.

The second half continued at a ferocious pace with Woden levelling in the 65h minute. This was against the run of play as the Friars defensive line was almost unbreachable all game.

Andrew Platt was screaming at his backs, in his mind, to maintain alertness and structure. For the most part this psychic mind-meld seemed to work, however, Dicky Shanahan advised after the game that a less obscure form of communication may be even more effective. With Tony “Danza” Miceski buoyant from his overseas trip he had no trouble containing the Woden danger men up front as a tagger.

With the game deadlocked and few chances being created, the human headline Nathan Madson seized on an unthinkable game breaking chance. Perching himself, like a stately bird of yore about 30-35 yards from goal, he received a pass from Danza. As he turned to face the attack he saw that Sandy Abel was making a luscious run into the eighteen yard box and only needed to be played through to slot home the Friars second.

Madson decided instead to go it alone as visions of golden boots danced in his head. Arrogantly rolling the ball forward, he mused “Well why not have a pop? After all, I’m that fuckin’ good.” Taking advantage of this positive blue-sky thinking, the Headline stepped in to unfurl his rage with a belting strike which fizzed past the keeper and sent the net rippling.

Crest fallen, Woden never recovered and the score line remained unchanged for the rest of the game. Chairman Hao, alongside Steve “Mr Burns” “Mr B” ”Monty” Byrnes and Andrew James all brought the hurt to the Woden forwards.

A late third goal was almost scored by Owen “Owes” “The Big O” Larkin as the ball spilled fortuitously onto his potentially lethal right foot. Unfortunately, he lashed his shot into the side of the net.

At the pub: The Headline got the mug after his double. On behalf of the Blackfriars I would like to congratulate Tony Miceski for his recent engagement, which I hear took place in the city of love gay Paris.

What is the causal theory of perception, and what are the objections to it?

2006-06-15T22:00:00.000-07:00

This essay will first give a brief delineation of the causal theory of perception (CTP) otherwise known as the conjunctivist theory of perception or Indirect Realism, then discuss possible objections and counterarguments for and against the theory.

The CTP is that: X sees O iff
(i) X has a sense datum S as of O before him; and
(ii) S is caused by O.

One positive is that it accounts for hallucinations because it puts a causal constraint on perception. For instance the sense data (S) produced by hallucinating a chair (O) does not count as perception because the S is not caused by O. Thus matching sense data with no causation does not count for perception in the CTP.

But a deviant causal chain may show that the CTP is not sufficient to catch all hallucination. For instance what if O causes an hallucination of O, such that X is having a S of O yet is not the actual O, but is still causally responsible it (although similar to the hologram vase case this demonstrates that the CTP may not catch all hallucinations).

CTP believes that there is a ‘real’ world of external objects and that sense data are caused by these objects.

The first problem with the CTP is that it requires sense data. This is a problem because it is not at all clear what sense data consist in. Are they mental or physical? Are they objects in themselves? Consequently, if it is not clear what they are, then it is not clear how they are caused. In addition, if it is not clear how they are caused, then assumptions about what causes sense data become uncertain, for instance presupposing an external world.

Grice has attempted to avoid conceiving of sense data as objects by not committing himself to making claims about what sense data actually are. He wants to claim only that “So-and-so looks blue to me” rather than “I am having a blue sense-datum”(Grice, p68). Thus Grice is only assuming that we have sense datum and not what those sense datum consist of.

But can Grice get away with this without just making implicit assumptions about what sense data are? The CTP places sense data as the effect caused by external objects. Therefore they must be representative of objects or events that have ontological standing.

However it is not at all obvious that an indirect representation of an object entails an actual object. If sense data are to be taken as non-physical then hallucinating a blue vase is phenomenologically no different from seeing a blue vase because you only have immediate awareness of a sense datum.

But there is a causal difference, while you may be experiencing similar or even identical phenomena the cause of the sense datum in each case is very different. The vase in blue light seems to have an ontological standing in external objects while in contrast the hallucination of a blue vase cannot be, conclusively, causally linked to external O’s. So perception on the CTP is only counted if sense data are caused by external O’s.

However an actual world of O’s needs to be shown to exist not just presupposed for causal convenience. This can be difficult in light of sceptical arguments that demonstrate that we cannot have any absolute certainty of a world outside ourselves. But if there is no external world then where do sense data come from? Common sense would lead you to believe that the senses raison d’etre is to apprehend and appreciate a world outside ourselves. Yet the notion of sense data on the CTP is elusive.

Secondly while ‘X sees O’ implies (ii), there may be problems in the opposite direction. That is, that O is not the only thing responsible for causing S. For example, that I see a tree is also caused by the sun and my eyes. But these objects don’t appear to count.

Price has attempted to account for this by distinguishing between standing and differential conditions (Grice p70: Brick 72). Standing conditions affect the totality of one’s visual impressions if altered, whereas differential conditions affect only part of one’s visual field if altered. Consequently, O is seen by X iff; O is a differential condition of X’s S. Thus the sun or my eyes are not seen because they are not differential conditions.

But Grice posits a counterexample to this imposition: objects on a dark night illuminated by different torches. If one torch, which is supposed to be a standing condition, is tampered with there will only be a partial restriction upon the sense-impressions of X not a general restriction. Yet, Grice continues, ‘…the objects illuminated by the other torches…look the same’(Grice, p70: Brick, p72). But this means standing conditions are now perceived which is the wrong result. So Price’s attempted revision of the CTP does not appear to hold.

Deviant causal chains show that (i) and (ii) in the CTP may not be sufficient for seeing. The scientist case and the hologram vase case would both count as perception even though they are not really perceiving the actual objects being perceived. However Grice seems to suggest that (ii) may be replaced by:

(ii*) S is caused by O in the normal kind of way, whatever that kind of way may be.

The normal kind of way being ‘the kind of way in which, when I look at my hand in a good light, my hand is causally responsible for its looking at me as if there were a hand before me’(Grice, p71:Brick, p72). Grice sees nothing absurd in leaving ‘a blank space’ to be filled in by the specialist in explaining, whatever this kind of way may be. Thus by leaving the details of the causal chain to the specialist he is only committed to an analogy. So if the specialist found that the hologram vase case was deviant or not suitably analogous to the normal kind of way, then it is not perceived which would be the right result for the CTP.

Additionally, to have recourse to a specialist provides some substantiality to that kind of way because the specialist discriminates between whatever that kind of way is, and not just whatever way makes for perceiving.

But does Grice’s analogy about the hand exclude too much from the CTP? If X sees a reflection of their hand in a mirror does that count as perception? X is certainly perceiving his hand but it is not the kind of way Grice suggests, so presumably it would not count as perceiving. Also looking through binoculars, telescopes, spectacles, windows, et cetera, may not count either.

Another problem may be the ‘unobservability’ of material objects on the CTP. For indirect perception external objects are not directly perceived, their existence is only inferred. But if the object is only inferred and not really being seen, then should this count as seeing? Exponents of direct realism (DR) would say that it shouldn’t because you are not directly perceiving what you claim to be perceiving. By the same logic this approach would catch the hologram vase case because you are not directly perceiving the object. It would also catch the deviant causal chain whereby an object causes an hallucination of itself which is perceived by X.

DR considers ‘X sees O’ to be unanalysable, that is no inference is necessary for perceptual claims. However if ‘X sees O’ cannot be analysed, then DR does not explain why we are conscious of certain perceptions.

But models of causation may be used to further explain and interpret CTP, such as the smoke-fire model. This through inductive reasoning makes a logical inference from smoke to fire. In contrast, though, sense-impressions rely on causal inference not logical inference. Thus the sceptic may object that if there is no logical inference there can be no rational justification for assuming material objects.

However according to Grice the use of smoke-fire by the sceptic to object to the CTP can be criticised. It appears that the sceptic is making a category mistake by assuming that a contingent model is non-contingent and that the CTP is bound by necessity to the smoke-fire model. For example, it is a ‘…non-contingent matter that corrosive substances tend to destroy surfaces to which they are applied; but it is quite legitimate to account for a particular case of surface-damage by saying that it might have come about in some other way’(Grice, p78: Brick, p76). In other words the sceptic is mis-applying the concept of necessity onto the smoke-fire model in order to explain the CTP, when clearly it is only meant to be a guide to explaining how CTP is possible.

A corollary of CTP is that material objects are known by inference from effect to cause. But it seems psychologically implausible to know something solely from its effect, rather you can only claim to know the effect. In addition it implies sceptical worries because we can only be certain that our sense data exist.

However Grice retorts that the sceptic has no right to question a justification for the belief that the world is as it appears to be. The perceiver is perfectly entitled to this belief, unless there are identifiable reasons to doubt it.

But this common sense response argues that perceptual beliefs (for example, that there is now a table in front of me) need not be justified (Grice, p77: Brick, p75). Consequently this appears to dismiss the possibility of deception. For we could never be deceived if there were identifiable reasons to doubt what we were looking at. So this argument for common sense does not seem convincing enough to deny the sceptic the possibility of doubt.

Moreover by relying on common sense and not justifying perceptions through inference, which is what makes the CTP possible in the first place, there appears to be no epistemological grounds for the CTP. Perceptions are just vacuously asserted without explanation or justification.

Also the separation of sense datum statements and material object statements demonstrate that assumptions are made about how the body assimilates sense data, for example, the functions of the eyes and the brain. But these propositions need to be understood more substantially in order to understand the interaction between sense-datum and material objects, if indeed there is such an interaction. It seems that even if a monist point of view is taken to avoid the problem of interaction, there is still a lot left to explain regarding how sense data are possible.

To sum up the CTP provides a plausible theory but also has some difficult problems, notably, when dealing with the causal interaction between sense-datum and material objects.

What did Gettier show & what is the best response to his famous article?

2006-06-15T21:53:00.000-07:00

Gettier showed that Plato’s classic definition of knowledge, also known as the Justified True Belief (JTB) theory, is inadequate. That is:

S knows that P iff (i) p is true
(ii) S believes that p, and
(iii) S is justified in believing that p.

According to Gettier Plato makes two assumptions; First, there can be justified false beliefs, and second, justification transmits across known entailment. The first assumption is quite reasonable in assuming that it is possible to have a justified false belief. But the second assumption that justification can be transmitted through entailment is a little more dubious.

Gettier poses two examples of similar structure. The first example is: I’m justified in believing (Fa & Ga); (Fa & Ga) entails Ga; Ga entails Someone is G; so I’m justified in believing Someone is G; Ga is false; but Someone is G is true. So the proposition ‘Someone is G’ is true, believed and justified; yet surely it is not knowledge.

The second example is as follows: I’m justified in believing A; A entails “A or B”, and, knowing this, I’m justified in believing A or B; as it turns out, A is false and B true. So the proposition ‘A or B’ is true, believed and justified/evident; yet surely it is not knowledge.

Meinong and Russell before Gettier had similar examples involving hallucinating a sound at the same time the sound occurred, and looking at a stopped clock which coincides with the correct time.

Plato is refuted if we assume these examples are justified. But perhaps a fourth condition can be added to the JTB theory to exclude these fluky forms of knowledge. A feature of Gettier cases is that what makes the proposition true is not what justifies it. That is, the justifier and the truth-maker come apart. Thus a fourth condition may be:

1. (iv) what justifies belief in p = what makes p true

But this proposal has problems because it preempts knowledge: For example, claims about the future may be justified, like ‘it will rain tomorrow’ because the evidence justifies my belief, but that does not make my proposition true. So it catches the Gettier examples because what justifies belief is not what makes them true, but the future and laws of nature would often be excluded because their justification does not equal their truth.

Moreover, the Barn example is a problem: this is where Smith is driving through barn facade county with one real barn among millions. He points to a barn which happens to be the actual barn and declares ‘That’s a barn’. But this is luck, and even though the barn example satisfies all conditions it cannot be counted as knowledge.

Another way knowledge is defended from Gettier is through the causal theory. This replaces the third condition with:

2. (iii) the fact that p is the cause of my belief that p.

Again this responds to Gettier, however, it also has the problems of the previous theory, such as dealing with deviant causality (the Meinong example; where hallucination of sound occurs at the same time as the actual sound), plus other problems associated with abstract forms of knowledge. For example, it is simple to see how direct perception can cause the belief that a chair is in the room, but what causes abstract forms of knowledge? Only reason can cause the fact, but what is the relation between fact, reason and belief?

A different observation asks what would happen in Gettier if Brown had not been in Barcelona and instead was in Canberra? The answer is nothing, the proposition would still have been believed, thus, the belief is counterfactually insensitive. Thus the fourth condition of Nozick’s which is counterfactually sensitive may be added, and the third condition modified, that is:

3. (iii) if p were false, S wouldn’t believe it
(iv) if p were (still) true, S would (still) believe it

This catches the Gettier examples nicely because they violate Nozick’s third condition. Also Nozick may explain why the barn example does not equate to knowledge. In the barn example Nozick’s third condition is violated because if p was false, that is, the real barn turned out to be a barn facade, Smith would believe ‘That’s a barn’, which is the wrong result.

But Nozick’s theory has other problems. The hologram vase case is a case where there is a hologram of a vase which cannot be seen being projected on top of the table. The p ‘That’s a vase’ is made and satisfies all of Nozick’s conditions, but is not knowledge. However this is similar to the brain in vat (BIV) case where your direct perception is mislead into believing that something is real when it is not.

Another observation in the Gettier example demonstrates that Smith is reasoning under a false premise. So to stop this a different 4th condition could be:

4. (iv) The derivation of P does not rest on any false premise.

This is the ‘no false lemmas’ condition. This argument suggests that the incorrect connection lies in a false step. But it has been argued that direct perception removes the possibility of a false step, so no false lemma. For example, a dog that looks like a sheep. There is no chain of reasoning because it is a direct perception. Some have countered this argument by saying that the chain of reasoning is implicit. Thus a false step occurs within an internal chain of reasoning. This may be true, but then this means direct perception cannot be relied upon and would deny virtually all knowledge because you could not know if your implicit reasoning was making false steps which your propositions were based on. This would limit knowledge to appearances, more generally, internalistic claims about the world.

Furthermore, false beliefs affect other things. For example the Greeks believed that the function of the brain was to cool the blood. Did they then know nothing about biology? Perhaps, but if we say they did know something about biology presumably their justification for knowing whatever that is meets what we consider now to be a justified proposition. Therefore while we do not consider now that the proposition ‘the brain is to cool the blood’ is justified, we might consider some of their other claims about biology as justified.

Nevertheless the barns example causes problems for ‘no false lemmas’, because the proposition does not contain any yet yields knowledge, which is the wrong result.

Chisholm’s responds to Gettier with his own theory. This rests on the observation that in the second Gettier case, the evidence that supports/justifies the true proposition is also evidence for the false proposition. Chisholm suggests a theory with four conditions:

5. S knows that p iff (i) S accepts p; (ii) p is true; (iii) p is evident for S; (iv) the evidence is non-defective.

We understand the fourth condition as: the evidence for p is not also evidence for a false proposition. Thus the fourth condition is violated in Gettier’s examples so they don’t count as knowledge, which is right. This also takes care of the Meinong, clock and sheep examples, however, the barn’s example slips through yet again.

However it is argued that Chisholm does handle the barn example because the evidence for ‘That’s a barn’ falsely assumes that it is not likely a barn facade. But the consequence of this is that all perceptual knowledge is then in doubt. For example, if I am looking at a chair and say ‘That’s a chair’ I am not uncertain of this fact, however if Chisholm catches the barn example I would be.

Dancy presents two more responses to Gettier. The first follows from Chisholm and says that:

6. (vi) one has no relevant false beliefs

But this means you need to know what beliefs are relevant and what are not, thus it depends on what you know. In fact the more beliefs you have the more chance you have of a relevant false belief. Dancy’s example of the lift home demonstrates this. Say I am getting a lift home with a friend but unknown to them or me the car battery is flat. I am justified in believing that I will get a lift until I believe ‘her car battery is not flat’ which will give me a relevant false belief. So if I am ignorant about cars then I could not have the belief ‘her car battery is not flat’ and would have knowledge. Consequently the more I believe the less I know.

Dancy offers another option which adds a fourth condition suggesting that:

7. (vii) justification be indefeasible.

This response is not concerned with what beliefs you have, but with what beliefs you do not have. For there may be beliefs that you do not have which could overturn your justification.

This raises a problem of justification because there may be truths which, if believed, overturn my justification, yet other truths which, if believed, would restore it.

Similarly this can relate to the lift home example where I justifiably and truly believe that I’m getting a lift home but I do not know that the following are true which have the potential to overturn and restore my justification:

(a) the car has a flat battery
(b) my friend has jumper leads in the boot
(c) the jumper leads are stuffed
(d) she can call NRMA on his mobile
(e) her mobile phone has a flat battery

If I believed (a), my justification is overturned; but if I believed (b), it would be restored. And so on with (c)-(e). Therefore unless your omniscient its hard to know whether you have indefeasible justification.

Another response to Gettier could be to add as a fourth condition:

8. (iv) that (i) is not coincidental

This would then take care of the Gettier examples, Meinong, sheep/clocks and barns because in each case knowledge is shear coincidence.

Gettier would be caught because that Brown is in Barcelona is only coincidental to Smith’s knowledge. The mistaken identity between a sheep and dog with another sheep behind a tree or that the time is correct on the broken clock are also just coincidental to the claim of knowledge. For in all cases if these things did not occur then the claims to knowledge would be false, which is the right result.

It is also only a coincidence, a mere chance, that Smith is driving through barn facade country and picks the correct barn. So barns does not qualify as knowledge either, which is the correct result.

However this still has problems with the BIV and, also, shares Nozick’s problem relating to the hologram vase case and the Jesse James example. Although the Jesse James example may not be coincidence but rather good fortune, thus is debatable. For it is not coincidence that your direct perception discerns who it is once the mask slips down.

All responses catch the Gettier cases so they are all adequate in this regard but they all have problems beyond Gettier.

Game report: Week 7 – June 3, 2006

2006-06-05T19:15:00.000-07:00

The Blackfriars kept their winning streak going with a 5-3 victory on a sun-ripened Saturday afternoon in Kambah. They gorged themselves stupid with a smorgasbord of goals, no one more so than Sandy Abel. Delighting in his role up front, he continued his rich creamery run of form with a hatrick of goals.

Rob “Chicken McNugget” Hooper got the ball rolling in the first half with a true strikers goal after pouncing like a demented feline on a mistake by the Salvation Army keeper. Having gobbled up this opportunity the Friars' were hungry for more. Chris D’Souza positioned himself nicely to slot the second, with real meat pie of effort. It didn’t look pretty, but it hit the spot.

A well crafted passage of play led to a delicious ball from Chris D’Souza to Sandy Abel, who nodded it home. The D’Souza/Abel all you can eat combo was at it again minutes later as D’Souza delivered another mouth watering treat onto the insatiable volleying boot of Abel to extend the lead to four.

At the end of the first half an unfashionably late Salvos decided to turn up to the party with a goal. And it was 4-1 at half time.

Salvos didn’t make the same mistake in the second half feverishly trying to even up the scores with two goals. The first of these coming from a rather dubious free kick and the second from an overzealous defence. This caused James “The Incredible Hulk” Meservey, don’t make him angry, to lose his nut and give the Friars a vicious spray.

Disorientation from this violent outburst didn’t last long as that slippery hotdog Abel was at it again snuffing out any chance of a Salvos comeback with a decisive fifth goal, his third for the match.

At the pub: Abel won the mug and an interesting conversation about the naming of chocolate bars ensued.

Game report: Week 6 – May 27, 2006

2006-05-30T21:29:00.000-07:00

The Blackfriars were back on the winners list after a grizzly 3-2 victory over Celtics. Going a goal behind early in the first half the Friars began to wind up and were soon back on level terms with a penalty. Stu Black brushed off the hecklers to slide his shot past the keeper. Soon after Sandy Abel, who is currently experiencing a rich vein of form, managed to bust through the Celtics back line to latch onto an exquisite pass by Stu Black. The clinical finish got the Friars snouts in front with the score 2-1 going into half time.

An already physical encounter in the first half became a battle royale in the second half with the atmosphere foul with painful groans coming from both sides. But, the busted limbs and lack off skin is just what the Blackfriars live for. Pain seems to be just the medicine the Friars need to overcome their lack of fitness. A bit of agony does nicely to angry up the blood. Perhaps during warm-ups heavy sack beatings could be administered to crank the Blackfriars into serious battle mode before kick-off. Churches league is after all 95% mental, 4% physical and 1% skill, hence getting into the right head space as early as possible is crucial. Heavy sack beatings may not be the answer, but maybe they are. What would Khrushchev do in this situation?

Anyway, where the hell was I… ah yes, the Friars were 2-1 up and bruising like grapes in the second half. Their defence was digging in at the back and on the 68th minute James Irwin, who had hardened to about an 8 on Moh’s scale (quartz is a 7 for those unfamiliar with this scale of hardness used in geology) swung a corner onto the penalty spot where it rebounded of my noggin and into the net. Cruising at 3-1 the Friars looked in control until late in the game where a blistering strike from one of the Celtics reprobates managed to beat a sprawling James Meservey.

The Blackfriars managed to hold on for victory, welcoming in a belated return to form. It was a game replete with highlights including Owen Larkin narrowly missing a chance in the first half with a sumptuous left foot strike, Dicky Shanahan murdering an opportunity in the second half that would have buried Celtics at 4-1 and James Meservey spectacularly tipping over a long range effort. Rob, Andreas, James I, Shaun and Antony all had very strong games.

At the pub: Owen pipped Jimmy and Stu for the mug.

match report - week 5

2006-05-23T01:47:00.000-07:00

Game report: Week 5 – May 20, 2006 (Week 4 was a bye)

It’s time again to give birth to another violent screed about the Blackfriars. I’m getting toward the grizzly end of my thesis, so this match report may have portions of psychotic, stress induced overtones.

A 2-2 draw for the Blackfriars against whoever the hell they we’re playing, some Croatian outfit I think. The first half was a dominant performance by the Blackfriars even though they trailed at the break 1-0. It is hard to sum up how the first half went in any kind of meaningful way. There are a bunch of bare facts that can be reported, but that does not interest anyone, we need enlightening analysis. But, can anything meaningful be gauged out of a bevy of missed opportunities and a leaky defence. Probably not, yet perhaps the finger should be pointed squarely at the mid-field, who seem to be simultaneously responsible for nothing and everything.

Indeed, when the midfield is strong the Friars win and when it is not they lose. The engine room where the guys are meant to be shovelling coal into the kiln have instead been blowing smoke up each others asses. However, I don’t want to single anyone out, except James Irwin, who’s prancing runs up and down the lush pastures on the wings seemed to have softened his previously marshmallow like penalty-pulling game even further. I know what everyone is thinking, how is this possible? Surely, it can’t be true, James Irwin even softer than before, can any laboratory confirm this? Well I say it is true, and of course I only report the facts. After all these match reports are not just deluded half-baked opinions.

Moreover, the truth may be ugly, and it is usually grotesque, but I will not be afraid to TELL IT HOW IT IS even if that means I need to brace for a volley of choice epithets coming from somewhere around the ANU physics department.

In any case, the second half began to reflect the more brutish characteristics of the Friars style of play. After conceding a second goal this style intensified with Tony “Bones” Malone up ending the Crossroads main antagonist and effectively taking him out of the game. While Shaun “Cuddles” Barker was barrelling his way up the left wing like a turbo-charged egg beater, Rob “The Southern Dandy” Hooper was marauding back into the midfield with purpose as if possessed by ancient Viking spirits. This unnerving outburst caused considerable consternation on the weathered, and unattractive, faces of the Crossroads players.

The Friars caught a snort of fear emanating from their bruised opposition and Sandy Abel was the first to pounce. He delivered a breathtaking right footed pile driver from an acute angle which left the Crossroads keeper flailing at a ball that had already passed him and was threatening to tear the net from the goal posts and crossbar. This was just the medicine the Blackfriars needed and soon after, a stagnant and staid Crossroads defence was unfurled again when Stu “Disco Stu” Black strolled through to caress the ball lovingly into the net for the equalizer.

A third Blackfriars goal seemed immanent, but the referee had other ideas, apparently blowing full-time five minutes early. An elbow to the jugular of Richard James was another controversial incident, which may be taken further at the tribunal. At the pub Barker got the mug, though it was a split decision with Sandy.

Game report: Week 3 – May 6, 2006

2006-05-08T01:47:00.000-07:00

The Blackfriars suffered their second successive loss on Saturday going down 3-2 to BBB. The Friars were insipid and disorganised in the first half, conceding three goals, while lacking the kind of primal blood thirsty conviction which usually accompanies their style of football.

Indeed, there was definitely something wrong in the first half, and it wasn’t just a lack of conviction. It was something more. The Friars lacked guts, pride, heart and pure frenzied maniac passion. These were the kinds of things that the Blackfriars have depended on season after season. This was their bread and butter, and yet somehow, somewhere they had forgotten this crude reality.

In past seasons merely lacing up the boots was enough to curdle the blood and cause the brain to violently bubble with pre-match anticipation. But, now there seemed to be grotesque undercurrents of composure and sensibility creeping into the Friars psyche. Don’t get me wrong, the Friars have always sought to dedicate a modicum of composure and sensibility to their matches, which was just as well, since it prevented them from butchering their enemies like sex crazed Vikings. But it was never to dampen their enthusiasm for rampaging around the field like a pack wild mandrils on speed. In the past this kind of insanity would always insure at least a two goal advantage before the start of every game by creating a deep sense of fear and dread in the opposition.

It was time the Friars got back to their basic instincts. At half-time a change in formation and an inspirational talk from Richard “Dicky” Shanahan jolted the Friars collective conscious back to those primitive roots. Naturally, Tony Malone led the charge in the second half with all the agility and single-mindedness of a highly charged Dalek. As BBB recoiled from this madness, space began to open up and the sweet stench of impending doom felt by the opposition began to invade the nasal cavities of the Blackfriars team.

At the back Richard James took charge like Erwin Rommel, “The Desert Fox”. He was organised and efficient, with all the poise and brutal tendentiousness required of a battle hardened general. This inspired James “Tim” Irwin to whip a pass through to Sawa, who managed to slide through an orifice in the BBB defence like a filthy nugget of greased dog shit and get one back for the good guys. The atmosphere was ripening for comeback as Tony “Danza” Miceski tormented the BBB defence in the same fashion as a vicious Balinese monkey harasses an Australian tourist. Unfortunately, despite Chris D’Souza slotting a second goal against a decomposing BBB, the Friars could not claw their way back onto level terms.

Defeat for the Blackfriars, however, should not be seen as a sign of failure. Rather it is a sign of rediscovery. A rediscovery of that Blackfriars spirit that was temporarily lost. Misplaced somewhere, perhaps in those higher order sensibilities which are known to be utterly foreign to Blackfriars football.

questacon report

2006-05-02T04:56:00.000-07:00

Report on Questacon – Science Centre in Canberra

Kill the body and the head will die.
– Joe Frazier

My initial impressions of the science centre were pessimistic. I really could not see science being communicated in a meaningful way. Kids were running around like escaped mental patients. This did not seem like the kind of environment that was conducive for the communication of science. The children didn’t seem to learning anything. All they wanted to do was ride the roller-coaster simulator or stick their head in the guillotine exhibit.

The parents, when not berating their kids for trying to purloin tennis balls from the exhibit that measures how fast you can throw, seemed to be having a great time even if only by stealth. I watched them indulging in childish quasi-scientific games absolutely absorbed in the exhibit. Then when the spell was broken they would walk away sheepishly, hoping that no one was watching them. Instead of this there was another reaction that took place. Some of the fathers would have a commodious air about them. Puffing their chests up and adjusting their belts, satisfied that they had managed to display a measured amount of intellectual panache or adroitness in conquering an exhibit.

This was not a matter of learning for these people, it was a matter of winning. They wanted to beat science into submission. The grandiose ideal of learning something was apparently left at the glass doors at the entrance of the building. The only thing these people had time to do was whip as many of these exhibits as possible.

I watched a grown man trying to spin a large sphere full of liquid (which was actually, I believe, designed to give you an idea of the Coriolis Effect) so fast, that he appeared to be conducting his own experiment. Perhaps, how many kids who tried to stop this thing would have their arms torn off? He then proceeded to observe the swirling effects of the liquid, which seemed to me, to be almost totally negated by the extreme speed of rotation. The sphere went from resembling a swirling cloudy atmosphere of Jupiter to an indistinguishable blur like picture of the atmosphere of Neptune.

One of the most enjoyable exhibits to watch fathers participate in was the ‘How fast can you throw’ exhibit. They would watch there kids feeble efforts with arms crossed and an almost perceptible smirk on their face. Then after giving in to their testosterone would swagger over to the tennis ball pit. A curious change would then come over them as soon as they grasped a ball. Their eyes glazed over, concentrating intensely as they walked stiffly back to where you had to toss the ball at the speed camera. After hurling the tennis ball at the target and not getting a speed reading, they would not know where to look. They seemed to be very embarrassed about participating tin the exhibit. Why though? Was it because they didn‘t anticipate not getting a speed reading? Surely the reason they chose to take part in the exhibit wad to learn. Maybe not.

Perhaps they had delusions that somewhere loitering about this exhibit was talent scout from the Yankees, just waiting to hand over a million dollar contract to the Dad who could peg a tennis ball at Mark-5. But what am I talking about What was I meant to be doing this report on? Yes, now I remember, ‘… how the components of the exhibit generally provide for interaction and assess how the public are interacting with the exhibits’. And I wondered while I observed the public interacting with this exhibit, what the hell could these people be learning? What science is being communicated?

Has the message become so obscured by cheap thrills that it no longer has any meaning? I have written in my notes, ‘… although the public is fascinated by the exhibits very few are making the grim connection between interaction and education. This does not seem to be a conscious effort to avoid learning, rather unless people are going out of their way to learn, then they are not aware of what the exhibit is trying to communicate’. It almost appears to be a collective unconscious, but not in the political sense, it is more of a vacuous hedonistic kind of unconscious unable to conceive of the real purpose of their visit. It is the case that, if having fun is Questacon’s mantra, then kids will agree, Questacon is a ‘kick ass’ place to hang out. Maybe there is a subconscious word association going on. Think Questacon, think fun, think fun, think science, think science… umm, think Questacon? Is Questacon what we want kids to think about when they think science? It could be a good thing. But enough of this idle speculation.

The public is learning about science, albeit in varying quantities, and they are becoming aware of the science out there. Some of the public are even taking the time to understand the science. I observed this with the more experiences members of the public. My spirits were lifted when I took time out to read about Einstein’s exploits. Although being impressed by Einstein, I was equally impressed by the learning that took place by other people while I was reading about him. The thing is, I was too absorbed reading about Einstein to notice the crowd that had gathered around me to read the same thing. The people reading were all adults. But the curiosity of one person seemed to trigger the curiosity of another and so a chain reaction of curiosity occurred. I remember thinking as I walked away from the small crowd.

Perhaps Questacon should hire people to go and stand in front of the exhibits pretending to read what they are about. I realised that so afraid are some people of missing something interesting or important, that they will take time to read a whole pile of shit. Just is case, hidden within this piece of obscure information is the secret to the universe. Or perhaps they could put above every exhibit’s plaque a sign saying ‘secret to the universe’ with an arrow pointing down. It would be interesting to watch members of the public try and make sense of it. The ruse may only serve to confuse public servants, however, especially management types who may have copped a whiff of post-modernism somewhere and are now hopelessly trying to apply it to this cryptic message. I can see them now feverishly peeling back what they think are layers of meaning, pondering to themselves, ‘secret to the universe… Ahhhhh! Now I get it, its all about sound waves’.

This was an interesting observation and it led me to a couple of ideas about the functioning of Questacon. Based on careful observations, exhibits that display components that cause you to read while interacting, such as touch-screens, are the most effective communicators of science. Anything which gets the public to try and discover what the exhibit is about by pushing buttons gets them reading. Even if it was not their initial intention. These exhibits are akin to the brain of Questacon. They communicate serious raw science information. No popping of ping pong balls into clowns mouths around here. They convey the science relatively unfettered. To get people to interact with the ‘brain’ exhibits. It is important to attract people because these exhibits are not very exciting. The brain exhibits rely primarily upon the ‘body’ of Questacon to get the hard science through to people. The body of Questacon are the exhibits which are a little less cerebral. They get you to try and out sprint a velociraptor over about thirty metres. They get the serotonin pumping to prepare you for the savage downer of the brain exhibits.

I think that was plan anyway. These body exhibits also include the simulated roller-coaster and the simulated freefall. They serve there purpose well, which is to pull in the crowds. These exhibits while barely teaching you anything (unless you really make an effort to learn) do more to penetrate the psyche of the average punter on the street. Go for fun and accidentally learn something could be the reasoning behind them. If fact these monstrously ostentatious exhibits that have flagrantly tenuous links to science, are the precise reason why people are going to Questacon. The body exhibits are totally supporting the brain exhibits of the operation. Without these body exhibits pulling people through the turnstiles to the “Science behind the Fun”, then there would not be a Questacon.

Blackfriars match reports

2006-05-01T04:29:00.000-07:00

Game report: Week 1 – April 22, 2006

A 4-1 victory to the Blackfriars over St Vinnies kicked off their 2006 campaign. Having gone into the match with two convincing preseason victories under their belt the Blackfriars made a slow start conceding an own goal that took a mean deflection off the melon of Andrew Platt, leaving James Meservey stranded in goal.

However, it did not take long for a composed and confident Friars outfit to hit back. The mounting pressure finally cracked the nuts of the St Vinnies defence with Stu Black chiming in for an opportunistic double to round out the first half.
During half-time an unusually philosophical James Meservey lamented the unfortunate own goal without a modicum of frustration, saying that “These things happen” and “there was nothing anyone could do”.

St Vinnies decided to replace their agile nuggety goal keeper at the interval with a lumbering ogre of man at half time. The reasoning for this was unclear and later ill founded as it would prove to have no significant effect in the second half.
After the break an inch perfect corner from Sandy Abel rebounded fortuitously of my dim-witted skull into the back of the St Vinnies net to extend the Friars lead to 3-1.

A spiteful incident erupted after John Vasallo didn’t make way for the bad guy, David Solano-Fuentes, who savaged his achillis heals, perhaps trying to expose a weakness. David looked around with wide eyes vaguely inquiring “What did I do?”, then answering his own question with, “I didn’t do anything”. With David defending his actions with all the innocence of a Catholic schoolgirl he managed to turn a free kick into a drop ball. This led to a blown gasket from Vasallo and the mental disintergration of the Vinnies squad who’s focus shifted toward placating John and away from football.

A consummate performance was capped off by a nonchalant fourth goal by Chris De’Souza easing the ball past the keeper with un-churches-league-like aplomb.

This appears to be an auspicious start for the Blackfriars 2006 season given that St Vinnies were undefeated in their preseason games. Moreover, 15 goals in the last three games against reasonably strong opposition flags a prolific scoring pattern which looks likely to continue throughout the Friars season.

At the Burns club Andrew Platt was awarded The Mug for his tremendous work containing the dangerous St Vinnies’ striker. An honourable mention went to Andrew James for his defensive contribution.

Game report: Week 2 – April 29, 2006

A 1-0 defeat to the Blackfriars against Woden Spirit was a sharp jolt to the collective psyche on a foul Saturday afternoon of the 29th of April. Despite missing a bevy of key players, David Solano-Fuentes, Richard “Dicky” Shanahan and Stuart “Disco Stu” Black, just to name a few, the Friars dominated the first half. Indeed, not a single corner was conceded to Woden. The Friars mounted successive waves of attack, swinging in corner after corner, yet unable to find a way through a gritty Woden defence who’s Spirit could not be broken.

An uncultivated pass in the build to another Blackfriars offensive gifted the ball to Woden and they took no prisoners in a swift counter-attack that left an overcommitted Friars desperately exposed at the back. The goal that was subsequently conceded turned out to be a cruel blow given that this was only one of the two attacks that Woden had managed to craft in the entire first half.

The half-time interval saw a change in keeper from Woden Spirit, bringing Andy out into the fray, one of their chief architects in midfield. Their bolstered midfield presence, combined with an out of sorts Friars midfield and at times non-existent structure, led to a scrappy second half with few chances for either side. Although the Friars sustained the lions share of the pressure in the latter half they did have at least three clear cut opportunities on goal. Lacking composure, however, these chances were viciously butchered by a couple of unidentified Friars.

All in all it was a pedestrian performance from a Blackfriars outfit that has shown it has a lot of promise. Perhaps, a brutal analysis is required in order to find what went wrong, something to point to the critical lacunas in the Friars strategic plan. Having mulled over the possibility of such an Owenesque task, however, I found my mind recoiling in horror. Such vast deficiencies in the Friars flaccid performance could not be treated within the parochial scope of this match report.

But, there is no need for despair, at least not yet, the Friars have a semi-final replay looming against St James and, if the stern murmurings are anything to go by, then many players will be “up for it”. I dare say that this implies a much stiffer and more vigorous performance next week.