5 thoughts on “Weekend reflections”

  1. The reality of Global Warming may be gaining acceptance but doing anything about it that might cause finacial disadvantage (in Australia at least) to the fossil fuel industry is going to be strongly fought. They have lots of money, their businesses generate lots of gov’t revenue, they have developed long standing relationships with gov’t departments as well as politicians and Partys . They know that most people are not so financially secure as to willingly pay more for electricity, especially when the “dire economic consequences” of providing a clean energy future are well marketed by an extremely capable and morally void advertising industry. Even though technological solutions are possible and achievable, there doesn’t appear to be great willingness to invest on the scales necessary to develop alternatives to the point of actually becoming cost competitive with coal, natural gas and oil. Quite the opposite it seems, with money going to natural gas conversion to hydrogen as some kind of bizarre “providing storage for renewables” scheme. Meanwhile real working technology that can do just that, (developed in Australia), like Vanadium Redox batteries have gone offshore – and looking a lot more likely to succeed as a result.

  2. John, I wonder if you would like to give an update on your views on the philosophy of science, with reference to the state of play in the argument beween Popper and Lakatos over the status of Popper’s ideas on falsifification?

    Have you taken on board the fact that the philosophers of science have been very slack in allowing Lakatos to get away with the equivalent of murder (patricide if you think of Popper as a kind of father figure to Lakatos)?

    Is this point generally accepted or is it necessary to provide more evidence and arguments to support the case for Popper’s ideas, at least in that particular debate?

  3. The Howard govt’s approach works very well.

    Martin Niemoller said ” The Nazis came for the Communists and I didnt speak up because I wasn’t a Communist, then they came for the Jews and I didnt speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for eh trade unionists and and I didnt speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I was a Protestant so I didn’t speak up. Then they came for me…By that time there was noone to speak up for anyone”.

    We have in Australia an Industrial Relations system which takes away important aspects of fairness. The Howardistas came for the Leftists since there are no communists left, I guess that the Jews of Today are the Moslems and now it appears that the trade unionists are next. The Catholics are probably safe with the numbers in cabinet so it may be the Anglicans instead.

    When ordinary people are threatened with fines of $28,000 for matters which in any other jurisdiction would be treated as minor, there are very real reasons to worry. The Government makes it very difficult for workers to bargain collectively. The inevitable impact is to drive wages down and increase vulnerability in the workplace. Workers understand that fairness is likely to disappear in their workplaces.

    The Industrial Relations system treats Trade Unionists similarly to terrorists in some ways. Laws which compel people to testify in Industrial matters or are likely or bankrupt a family if they are ignored are oppressive.

    Another situation – there are the ruthless people in a foreign land with a lack of roads,tranport and police. When captured by one Afghani group David Hicks was sold to the Americans who took him to Guantanamo.

    Despite the Geneva convention which recognises basic humanity, this young Australian man is kept in conditions which are torturous. Philip Ruddock suggested that if he wasn’t charged he would be home by Christmas but forgot to say what year – this appears to be a hollow joke. Cornelia Rau is another Australian locked up by the government and treated badly.

    We currently have a corruption scandal so big that it will impact for years. The AWB did a great deal of damage at a time of severe drought. The Howard Govt looked in the other direction and allowed the damage to be done – figuring that the profits were the most important thing.

    The 600,000 dead in Iraq makes it imperative that we “Don’t mention the war”.

    The question is how will the voters react?

    Yesterday Peter Costello slammed the attendance at the Your rights at work campaign. I wonder why any politician would anger such a large number of people by deriding them. Many workers know that losing pay or angering the boss in an unpredictable environment are self defeating. Many thousands came , left and were replaced by others.It was taken as leave.

    Let’s have less of the kind of attitudes which created Australia with brutality and whips and more of those that aim for a fair society. That way there will be less concern about how to rewrite history to hide the oppressive deeds.

  4. The leadership challenge to Beazely by Rudd and Gilliard has one interesting aspect to it.

    “On substance, however, he offered only one big new agenda item – a reworking of the balance of responsibility between the federal and state levels of government to create a more effective delivery of services like health and education.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-releases-his-inner-bastard/2006/12/01/1164777794934.html

    It seems like someone may be reading this blog. I can’t find the link now, but before the last Federal Election Pr Q proposed that delineation of responsibilities be made for health and secondary education with the Federal goverment getting the former and states the latter.

    If Labour really does follow through with this then I think they may be onto a winning strategy for several reasons.

    1) Howard has been a surprisingly strong centraliser of power, mainly it seems because he is unwilling to give the states (run by Labour) control over things he cares about. If he refuses to give up that centralist position it will give Federal Labour alot of room to propose policies based on moving control and power down the line that Howard will be unwilling to counter with anything other than increased centrism.
    2) It could make health delivery a federal issue, as it should be. If labour can convince voters the solution for health is centralisation in Canberra, it will be a real problem for Howard. His side of politics fundamentally does not believe in government delivery of health and have been able to hide from the poor record of their alternative of marketisation of health by passing the buck to the states.
    3) The current balance of Federalism, unlike Iraq, or immigration etc is really a non-ideological issue. It has the potential to appeal to voters regardless of their position on the left right divide, allowing Labour to attract voters outside of their natural base, and straight from Howard’s base.

Leave a comment