Daily Archives: December 2, 2008

Check the photoblog…

This is one of two new categories there:


These are all new!

And remember, the photoblog doesn’t mean Ninglun’s Specials is dead! It isn’t quite as “wordless”, however, and the posts are not just for displaying the pics. In the photoblog the emphasis is more firmly on the photos.

Comments Off on Check the photoblog…

Posted by on December 2, 2008 in site news


A couple of serious quick responses to TV…

1. It would be such a good idea if people – especially but not only religious people – knew what science is and how it works

That one came to me after watching the first part of this on SBS:


It’s excellent.

NARRATOR: Lawyers for the parents may have impressed the judge and reporters. But many in Dover wondered, "Why is evolution taught as fact if it’s ‘just a theory?’"

ALAN BONSELL: Maybe Darwinism is the prevalent theory out there today, but it is a theory. It isn’t a law of science. It isn’t, you know, a fact. It is a theory.

BILL BUCKINGHAM: We just wanted alternative views talked about, too. We weren’t, we weren’t saying, "Don’t talk about Darwin." Talk about Darwin, it’s a theory. But that’s what it is, it’s not Darwin’s law, it’s not Darwin’s fact, it’s Darwin’s theory.

ROBERT ESHBACH: To say it’s just a theory is really a bit insulting to science because in science, a theory holds more weight than just a fact does.

KEVIN PADIAN (Dramatization): And here I think the term "theory" needs to be looked at the way scientists consider it. A theory is not just something that we think of in the middle of the night after too much coffee and not enough sleep. That’s an idea. A theory, in science, means a large body of information that’s withstood a lot of testing. It probably consists of a number of different hypotheses and many different lines of evidence. Gravitation is a theory that’s unlikely to be falsified, even if we saw something fall up. It might make us wonder, but we’d try to figure out what was happening rather than immediately just dismiss gravitation.

KEVIN PADIAN: Facts are just the minutiae of science. By themselves, they can be right or wrong. But a theory is something that has been tested and tested over and over again, built on, revised. It continues to be reworked and revised.

ROBERT MUISE (Dramatization): Dr. Miller, would you agree that Darwin’s theory of evolution is not an absolute truth?

KENNETH R. MILLER (Dramatization): Well, I certainly would, for the very simple reason that no theory in science, no theory, is ever regarded as absolute truth. We don’t regard atomic theory as truth. We don’t regard the germ theory of disease as truth. We don’t regard the theory of friction as truth. We regard all of these theories as well-supported, testable explanations that provide natural explanations for natural phenomena.

I don’t mind theological speculation, but I would never call it “science”.

The other thing I took from this program is how glad I am that we do not so far have the US-style tradition of local school boards here in NSW. With all the possible disadvantages we may experience in a centralised system, relying on boards and teams of experts to devise curriculum (even if implementation depends much on the local school), we gain far more, if this series is any indication. There are some things democracy is just not good at, and devising curriculum, in my opinion, is often one of them. By the way, one problem I always felt working in private schools was the sense that the “clients” owned me. That could have a plus side, but was also sometimes an unpleasant constraint. I am sure Aluminium knows exactly what I mean.

Here’s a good blog I have found, or that found me through “possibly related” yesterday: Professor Olsen @ Large. It’s biological. And American.

2. You didn’t really expect Howard, Bush and Blair to say anything new on Iraq, did you?

I refer of course to last night’s episode of The Howard Years: transcript.

FRAN KELLY: John Howard’s enemies were about to be handed more ammunition.

Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.

The primary justification for the war did not exist.

(Excerpt, Lateline, 22 July 2004)

ABC JOURNALIST: Today the inquiry by former intelligence chief Philip Flood confirmed Australia’s spy agencies got it wrong.

(End of excerpt)

PHILIP FLOOD, INTELLIGENCE INQUIRY HEAD 2004: The intelligence was thin, ambiguous and inaccurate. And Australia shared in a general intelligence failure.

ALEXANDER DOWNER, FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER 1996-2007: Everyone assumed from the Secretary-General of the United Nations downwards, everybody assumed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That really wasn’t a subject of conjecture. I was very surprised that they weren’t found.

TONY BLAIR, UK PRIME MINISTER 1997-2007: I often think the simplest thing for us should have been in retrospect is just to have published the intelligence assessments, rather than actually the Government compile a report about them, what we should actually have done was just publish them.

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER 1996-2007: The intelligence assessments may, in the final analysis, have turned out to be defective because stockpiles of WMD were not found although programs and the capacity to generate stockpiles were certainly found. But we didn’t take the country to war based on a lie. We didn’t invent the intelligence.

FRAN KELLY: John Howard had survived the war in Iraq. His future seemed secure.

Even if we are kind and take all that at face value, it still strikes me as very odd. Why wasn’t anyone taking any notice of what I thought was very persuasive argument at the time? Phyllis Bennis at the Institute for Policy Studies had a primer freely online at the time which was much closer to the truth than the “everybody assumed” of Downer’s selective memory. Then there was Scott Ritter, of course.

His views at that time are well summarized in War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know a 2002 publication which consists largely of an interview between Ritter and anti-war activist William Rivers Pitt. In the interview, Ritter responds to the question of whether he believes Iraq has weapons of mass destruction:

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page 46)

I read that 2002 publication and found it quite convincing, and it did after all turn out to be pretty much on the mark, didn’t it? No, Bush just wanted to invade Iraq. Trouble is none of them really had any idea once they actually got there. Now, many gigabucks and heaps of bodies later, it may be that things are a touch better, but what actually has been achieved in relation to terrorism?

I’ll leave that there, but nothing last night came as a revelation – put it that way. Except that Downer is incredibly smug… A perfect yes-man.

Comments Off on A couple of serious quick responses to TV…

Posted by on December 2, 2008 in America, Australia, Australia and Australian, Christianity, faith, faith and philosophy, History, Iraq, John Howard, memory, terrorism, TV


Not posting with much seriousness, or let’s lighten up a little…

Three things that have piqued me…

1. The perils of computer translation as seen in spam comments

I will relay this wonderful example of the dangers of word-for-word “machine” translation before consigning it to Akismet oblivion. I do wonder, however, what Babelfishing this blog in another language must yield.

Secrecy is ly the A- help you can get from peace fulnessing or buying remedy medication via the Internet. With the hundreds of legal online pharmacies recognized on the Internet today, you no longer lack to sweat blood yon having to come the pharmaceutical chemist in your restricted dose store when you paucity to buy remedy medications like *** Online…

The said dose remedy is fundamentally entranced in preference to having procreative dealings. Upstanding like other lifestyle dose benumbs, *** Online may also be entranced up with an inane stomach. It is not non-poisonous, regardless, to suppose *** along with medications that carry nitrate ingredient, for it may prime mover unanticipated let go in blood affliction, as follows, prime to fondle or lessness attack…

*** Online is a benumb medication. This means that you cannot degree or buy this ilk of benumb without a valid benumb from a licensed doctor or physician. at times a remedy is watch overed, you can either get the remedy at a particular dosestore or buy *** at online pharmacies.

To certain that you’ll get je sais quoi from *** Online medications, insinuate steadfast that the online dispensary you pick out is a licensed or a fair one. Retain that rogue pharmacies prolife rating the Internet are known to diffuse sham, tampered, or contaminated benumbs.

We are warned of side effects.

Roughly, the side forces caacclimatized by the *** dose are lenient and not final for a duo of hours. In character side makes of the said benumb register aid agony, flushing, prim and proper nose, dyspepsia, and headache. Oddball materialization is also developing into the commsolitary reported non-immutable side outcomes knowledgeable by men who are fetching *** Online.

Though, if any of the side force enumerated farther down persist, it is much recommended to leave off the inset down of the *** dose and consult your doctor nearly it:

* Dizziness * Erection that aftermosts for more than four hours * Blurred or unanticipated modest disappointment of envisaging * discourteous disappointment or curtailment of hearing * impulsive * Ringing in ears * Hives

I haven’t used *** myself, but I think I have experienced * Blurred or unanticipated modest disappointment of envisaging  and * discourteous disappointment at times….

2. The many looks of Julie Bishop

While recognising that Annabel Crabb hasn’t contributed greatly to our understanding of policy issues in her piece today, I did so like it…

NOBODY gives "looks" quite like Julie Bishop can.

The Liberal deputy leader is carefully co-ordinated in everything she wears, from the heels on her feet right up to the expression on her face.

But the expressions are easily the best. When the shadow treasurer "looks" at you, you know you’ve been "looked" at.

The Bishop repertoire ranges from shocked innocence through pouting reproach to pure hate. Each has a specific use. Each is unforgettable.

The shadow treasurer entered question time yesterday wearing "Hillary Clinton".

"Hillary Clinton" is a dazzling, defiant, diamond-hard smile, whose wattage tends to be in inverse proportion to the direness of the circumstances at hand. It is an expression employed when everything around the wearer is falling apart, and she’d really like everyone to change the subject; Bishop donned the very same expression this year for a press conference after her colleagues voted to abandon Australian Workplace Agreements, against her express advice…

I am sure Julie’s original profession of the law would have given scope, but perhaps a post-politics career in film or TV? Imagine Julie in Kerry O’Brien’s role…

3. Aussies not tops in all departments

No, that’s the Poms, it appears: Britain on top in casual sex league. But we have thrust our way into the top five, ahead of the Yanks at least…

In an international index measuring one-night stands, total numbers of partners and attitudes to casual sex, Britain comes out ahead of Australia, the US, France, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany…


1 United Kingdom

2 Germany

3 Netherlands

4 Czech Republic

5 Australia


7 France

8 Turkey

9 Mexico

10 Canada

11 Italy

12 Poland

13 Spain

14 Greece

15 Portugal

*OECD countries with populations over 10m Source: David Schmitt, Bradley University

Well, what do you make of that?

Comments Off on Not posting with much seriousness, or let’s lighten up a little…

Posted by on December 2, 2008 in Australia, Australia and Australian, computers, diversions, English studies, weirdness