b r a v e c r e a t u r e s

Earlier this year our fearless Prime Minister, J'Ho, set up a panel of scientists, engineers and nuclear policy advisor's to look into the prospects of nuclear energy in Australia. Led by former nuclear physicist, and one time Government Employee/CEO of Telstra Dr Ziggy Switkowski the "Nuclear Task force" was charged with examining nuclear energy as a viable, safe and relatively clean alternative source of energy to the country’s heavily polluting, carbon-emitting coal industry.

The Switkowski report, a draft of which was released last week, found that it would be feasible to build 25 nuclear power stations around the country by 2050 with an estimated one third of Australia’s electricity derived from nuclear energy by this time.

The proviso was that this would only be economically viable if the government imposed a carbon "tax" through policies such as emissions trading schemes or green taxes. The report seemed to think that this was appropriate because

1. new industries, such as power generation, have been heavily subsidised by government in their early years to get them up and running and make them viable.
2. the underlying "cost" of carbon emissions, meaning climate change, was not being factored in to the cost of energy

Interesting.

Here is my problem with this - while pointing out that the long term costs of Carbon Energy, the report is not factored in the long term costs of Nuclear Energy. Those costs are difficult to calculate but include waste that can take thousands of years to stop being inimical to human life. Much more hostile than carbon emissions can ever be, and thats just the dangers that we KNOW about.

Who would have guessed how dangerous carbon emissions could be when, in 1663, Edward Somerset, 2nd Marquess of Worcester published designs for, and may have installed, a steam-powered engine for pumping water at Vauxhall House.

Jump ahead 323 years to  April 26 1986, when the central reactor at the nuclear plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine exploded and caught fire, killing dozens and inciting panic as plumes of radioactive smoke spread outward; the toxic fallout eventually killed thousands. A massive exodus saw 150,000 people abandoning their homes and workplaces; everything for a 30-km radius from the reactor was left behind in the evacuation, creating an instant ghost town.

20 years later the area is still contaminated, the areas is largely abandoned, people still suffering the effects of radiation poisoning and the long term effects on health are still unclear.

I am a huge fag, with little to no chance or interest in procreating - but I am really concerned. Is this the future we want for the next generations, one where the dangers of climate change have been exchanged to one of radiation poisoning?

It feels to me that this nuclear debate is moving the control of energy from one industrial complex to another, that the focus of the policy makers is the success of industry. While the economy is important, its the means, not the end in itself.

Renewable energy sources are cheap and have no consumables, so why would the oil barons be interested in them? And since there are no consumables, there is nothing for governments to gain tax revenues from, so why would they be interested in them?

Answer - they're not. What they appear to be interested in is the fact that Australia has an estimated 40% of the global reserve of uranium and so any nuclear boom is going to benefit this country enormously.

That self interest is more than a little embarrassing, even to watch. Even for a "faggot" who is too "selfish" to have kids.

My new thing is an afternoon bowl of two minute noodles to get me on my way to the gym. A little carb hit for some energy.

I havent brought my own bowl into my new job yet so I scrounged one from the cupboards.

So what do you think I went with? The nasty plasticy, bad faux chinese pattern picnic bowl, or intesting square service?

The might be two minute noodles, and it really doesnt matter WHAT they are served in, they still taste the same, but a girl does like a bit of flash if its available.

I have come to the conclusion that I am going to re-enter my self imposed romantic exile. For a while at least, this time however I am keeping the drama to a minimum. This time I might avoid the whole "never going to have sex again" rigmarole - I am just taking a break.

There are two reasons for this, and the biggest one is that I only have so much energy and right now I think I would be best served focusing on career, money and some of my immediate life goals. Boys are just going to have to take a back seat for a while.

The other reason is that Melbourne is a bit of a romantic desert, for me at least. This is a place full of quiet, physically small, demure, establishment types. And that's just not me. Neither is right, I am not like any of that. I am 260lbs of loud.

So why the hell am I planning to stay here?

Money.

I want to get back on my feet financially and this is a good place to do it. On top of which, I suspect that an absence of boy shaped distractions is probably a good idea for the next little while. I am just about ready to start getting my mental house back in order and I want to deal with just a couple of rooms at a time.

So here I am, making an active decision to stay here in Melbourne. Surprisingly, I feel good about it.

And I am dancing around my living room to pop tracks (hello Nellie Furtado, Maneater) - that's GOT to be a good sign.

So whats going on in the scientific community over in Ireland?

The news today is lightly abuzz with reports that an Irish Company, Steorn, is claiming to have found a way to create free, clean and constant energy with no impact on the environment around it - there by breaking the law of physics that states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.

Here is a quote from the Steorn website. 

In 2003 Steorn undertook a project to develop more efficient micro generators. Early into this project the company developed certain generator configurations that appeared to be over 100% efficient. Further investigation and development has led to the company's current technology, a technology that produces free energy. 

 Interestingly they have issued a challenge in Economist for scientists to come forward and test their discovery in three specific ways:

1. Confirm that the Steorn technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%
2. Confirm that the operation of the Steorn technology does not affect the component parts of the technology
3. Carry out a full thermodynamic analysis of the technology

 On top of the challenge Steorn has offered to cover all direct costs relating to the validation process.

This discovery would completely change the dynamics of the planet and I suspect end the majority of conflict in the Middle East because a/ the region would suddenly become incredibly cash poor and b/ no one would care to get involved so they would be left to sort out their mess largely on their own. 

Very interesting if its true, but at this point I am skeptical. And the thing that has my skepticism most active is that I cant believe that the oil companies wouldn't have found out about this before now and crushed it.

I am managing to control my shock over John Howard's announcement that he will remain party leader of the Liberals past the next election.

Seriously folks, anyone who thinks he will let go power is deeply deluded. The Prime Ministerial Regalia will be prised from his cold dead fingers I suspect, and even then it will be a struggle. I get the impression that John Howard is vowed and determined to surpass Robert Menzies as the longest ruling Prime Minister.

The party is largely absolutely GIDDY that J'Ho has announced that he is staying on - apart from Peter Costello's supporters and to be honest I am not entirely sure who they are. Since I am actually resident in Higgins, Mr Costello's famously safe conservative seat, I am penning a letter to Peter to commiserate on his failure to win the parties support for a leadership challenge. Really I am. Labor needs all the help they can get and a good leadership challenge may have been helpful.

Or it could have just cemented J'Hos power even further. Who knows. On an up note, maybe Labor will put some more energy into policy formation rather than trying to fuel leadership speculation.

The support for "Honest John" from the Liberals has been clear and public, and in some cases somewhat overwhelming. I suspect that even the Liberals, in my opinion a party containing more than its fair share of self-congratulatory, self promoting, back stabbing sycophants†, may have taken a collective step backwards yesterday to avoid too much association with Jackie Kelley, one time Minister for Sport and Tourism and previously Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games,  - now apparently Minister for Ice Dancing.

Ms Kelley gushed out her enthusiasm on national radio and even my mother, queen of the effusive outburst was a little off put. I feel duty bound to share the clip with you. A full hearing can be found on the ABC's website along with the transcript.

I guess that clutching onto that marginal seat is starting to get to her, that and getting her head banged against the ice by the dishy Pavel Aubrech.

So it looks like we are in for a few more years of Howard in power. Is that a good thing for the country? I am not sure. Certainly we are in a period of apparent economic prosperity, but it all just feels short sighted to me. Like the countries current addiction to credit (Hi there, my name is Australia. And I am a credit addict) current policy doesnt seem focused on the long term, it seems focused on getting through the next election cycle, on supporting the electorates desire to ignore growing problems in favor of personal fullfillment through money and things.

Dont get me wrong, I am all for rampant hedonism, but you have to lay off the tasty/fatty food sometime if you expect to survive. And while I might be a big-ol mo, I really would like future generations to have something to work with.

So what is a slightly left leaning, fiscally conservative, socially liberal and personally responsable boy to do when facing the prospect of 4 more years under J'Ho's paternal oversite. Well Jackie Kelley gave me a good idea, maybe I should just lay back and spend the time tuning into the likes of Ice Dancing and enjoying the lanky charms of Jake and co.

† Just an opinion mind you

After a dip into the personal, its probably about time to focus back on the rest of the world for a bit.Australia’s North and Central Queensland has just been hit by a cyclone, a hurricane in northern parlance that has devastated the cost and a surprising distance inland. Cyclone Larry was a cat 5 storm, which puts it on a similar scale to hurricane Katrina, the storm that left New Orleans devastated late last year.

Now its important to note that the Innisvale region of central Queensland where Larry made landfall is nowhere near as populated as coastal Louisiana, nor is it as low lying and exposes as New Orleans, but none the less there has been no loss of life, the emergency services swung into action before the storm and within two days the Little J’Ho was announcing comprehensive support packages for the farmers whose entire crops were whipped out.

I am not blowing Australia’s trumpet overmuch on this, I think that the response to Larry is appropriate, well sized and timed. I think the US reaction to Katrina was and continues to be appallingly slow. It seems like the majority of the money being spent on Katrina was by the media outlets covering it. If the money it cost to get those reporter all over the gulf states, if the transport had been used for food and medical supplies, if the energy had been used helping rather than to feed the voyeuristic desires of the American people, perhaps things would not have gone so amazingly badly.

Warnock’s Dilemma, named for its progenitor Bryan Warnock, points out that a lack of response to a posting on a mailing list, Usenet newsgroup, or Web forum does not necessarily imply that no one is interested in the topic. Quoting Mr. Warnock:

The problem with no response is that there are five possible
interpretations:

1) The post is correct, well-written information that needs no
follow-up commentary. There’s nothing more to say except “Yeah, what
he said.”

2) The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste
the energy or bandwidth to even point this out.

3) No one read the post, for whatever reason.

4) No one understood the post, but won’t ask for clarification, for
whatever reason.

5) No one cares about the post, for whatever reason.Mr. Warnock originally described the dilemma on a Perl 6 mailing list. The expression is now regularly used in the Perl world, and it has also been used by webloggers to describe the feeling one gets when no one comments on something they’ve posted.

There are other reasons one might not comment besides the ones Mr. Warnock enumerated. For example, perhaps writing a good reply would require doing research that the reader lacks the time to undertake. Perhaps one has a mild interest in the topic raised but doesn’t feel qualified to comment. Or perhaps an overly insightful reply would commit one to additional work (common on software development lists, where the people who display the most knowledge about a feature often find themselves volunteered to implement it) but the reader doesn’t want to get involved. In popular use, “Warnock’s Dilemma” has come to refer to all the reasons one might not respond to a posting, not just the five originally proposed.

Traditionally, a dilemma by definition has exactly two choices, both unfavorable, which would mean that Warnock’s Dilemma as originally phrased is not a true dilemma. However, many modern dictionaries consider this restriction needless and allow the word to be used colloquially to refer to a difficult situation with any number of choices. Alternatively, one can consider the Dilemma to be whether people aren’t replying to messages because they aren’t interested, or for some other reason.

It can probably be safely assumed in most situations that not everyone who does not reply to a posting refrains for the same reason, as a literal reading of Warnock’s original formulation might imply.

Usages:

“He got Warnocked.” He posted a question but nobody replied.
“Warnock applies.” Warns one not to draw conclusions based on the lack of response.

Recently in Australia, the Intelligent Design debate has been quietly sneaking into the public policy arena. Wikipedia does a much better job of explaining the details of the argument, but basically Intelligent Design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are so complex that they appear to result from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection.

Basically its back to William Paley’s old watchmaker argument, or as that reductionist windbag Richard Dawkins aptly put it, the argument of incredulity - if one can’t conceive it, it couldn’t possibly happen.

The new approach, is dressing up creationism in science drag and accusing the scientific community of being too narrow minded and rigid to appreciate that there might be an alternate to evolution, something other than the strict, mechanistic, naturalist world that science today presents us with. You have to admire the mind of conservatives and fundamentalists, they have an amazing ability to grab at the high ground whether its theirs or not.

Suffice to say that the US is all a tizzy over ID, particularly since George W Bush came out in favour of teaching it in school science class. With the power of the Christian Right in the States, its not surprising that they are actually making headway with all of this. But here in Australia, I thought our natural cynicism would be a sufficiently high barrier.

Apparently not.

In August this year (2005) the Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson told the Press Club that intelligent design could have a place alongside evolution in our schools if parents wished. As you would imagine, the scientific community wigged out and as a result a coalition of more than 70,000 Australian scientists rejected the theory as scientifically untested.

Firstly, I wouldn’t have thought we HAD 70,000 scientists in Australia, so that must be pretty much all of them, and secondly, have you ever tried to get two scientists to agree? On ANYTHING!?

It appears that the creationists are wiggling a foot in the door and this debate is going to go on, for a while at least.

So here is the thing that I don’t get. As much as I am very comfortable with the theory of evolution, I don’t see any particular conflict between it and the existence of a creating deity. As far as I can see, if a creator can go “poof” and there is a universe, they could just as easily go “poof” and an evolutionary system could be established.

Now this does preclude the whole seven days, bible as literal word of god thing so I guess I am not throwing that much of a bone to the strict creationists. But you would have to wonder, given all the evidence stacking up about the age of the earth (4.8 billion-ish years) and the extent of the fossil record, isn’t it time to contemplate the possibility that mankind may have written some of the details down wrong, or copied something incorrectly SOMEWHERE along the way?

In truth, as science unlocks more of our (theoretical) past, it seems to me that more not less of the Christian bibles story of creation is supported - provided you allow some poetic licence. Take the current thinking of the origin of the universe, loosely referred to as the big bang theory.

In truth, as science unlocks more of our (theoretical) past, it seems to me that more not less of the is supported - provided you allow some poetic licence. Take the current thinking of the origin of the universe, loosely referred to as the .

Basically start with everything crunched up into an infinitely small point with nothing around it and then suddenly BOOM, and enormous explosion of energy and its all flying out becoming the universe we know today. Sounds a whole lot like the bibles version to me.

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Now the Old Testament was written approximately 6,000 years ago during the end of the Stone Age. At the time most people lived in mud huts, a large community was a couple of hundred people, the world view was that the planet was flat, people lived to about 30 years old and the hight of technology was the donkey and a stone axe.

If you were a loving, caring god how would YOU explain relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology to those people - and their donkey? Start with something simple I’d say. I mean there is all that fossil evidence, the finches on the Galapagos Islands and the like. You created mankind as a pretty bright bunch, so they’ll figure out that you wrote things in many places (like the rocks) and in many ways (like interstellar radio waves).

But it seems that one way or another, the donkey has gotten in the way.

Fundamental religion, which ever one you choose, seems stuck with this aggressive, literal approach to the bible. Apparently we can’t be expected to differentiate good from evil without having our hand held the entire way, without strict and unswerving guidelines that we are not supposed to interpret for ourselves. It seems that no matter how many times a prophet comes along to tell us we need to have a more personal relationship with god, that damn donkey still digs its hooves in.

I will admit that as an agnostic, I am not going to have the most sympathetic view of religious agendas. I figure I can’t actually know what the great answers of life are and I don’t imagine that I am smart enough to figure them all out. I also don’t assume that whatever I do figure out is universally right. I just try and live my life with dignity, and to treat people with respect and as individuals. Not the most complex or all encompassing of philosophies, but it done me alright and it seems to largely keep me out of trouble.

Even I as an agnostic, I can completely agree with the basic tenants of the Christian faith; the sanctity of life, be nice to people, don’t cast the first stone, we are all personally responsible for our lives and each of is should have a personal relationship with god. But that relationship is personal and based on our faith.

Now here is the thing that really surprises me about all of this, it seems to me that I have more faith than the creationists. If there is a creator, I have no problem seeing them creating something as beautiful and complex as evolution. I also don’t have a problem conceiving that while the system appears to be “random”, it may actually be driving towards some goal that is outside my comprehension. Basically I figure that if there is a god, s/he is significantly smarter than I am, and is likely to have plans that span time periods that I can’t even start to get my head around.

This attempt by the proponents of ID to science-ise religion seems like a desperate bid to prove that god exists, to prove the ineffable. To me it implies that faith isn’t enough and coming from the religious, that’s a little disturbing. If the folks in the faith business don’t think it’s enough to simply believe, how do they expect to convince the rest of us?

Science has been working for centuries to explain the “hows” of the universe. This feeds our minds, placates our monkey curiosity and allows us to make our way in the world. But its only part of the picture.

Religion and faith have another job, explaining the “Whys”. Science simply cant do that, and it doesn’t try.

It would seem to me that the religious crusaders are getting mixed up and are no longer playing to their strengths. Instead of trying to fight science on its own ground, they should accept that they don’t have a good handle on the “hows” and really don’t need to have one.

When we are alone and scared, abandoned by the ones we loved, and pursued by a world that feels hostile and unloving, its not the hows that save us from extinction. Its not the hows that help us face our fears, and the dark. Its the whys.