Kete Were

UN Troops to occupy Grammar Zone

2006-08-30T13:42:00.000+12:00

As fighting continues in the disputed Grammar Zone of Aukland, the UN Security Council last night passed a motion to install a peace-keeping force in the troubled region.

The long-running conflict began when Auckland Grammar School annexed the Zone, a measure it claims was necessary to prevent further incursions by parents who live outside the region. Fighting intensified last week as various groups of parents launched legal actions against the School. Auckland Grammar responded by conducting house-to-house searches in Epsom and Remuera, an action it claims was necessary to identify properties used as safe houses by parents to infiltrate boys into the the School.

Forces loyal to Auckland Grammar have also mounted road-blocks, stopping and searching SUVs entering the Zone. A spokesman for the School claims these tactics have been successful, revealing several boys who were being smuggled into the area. The School is now beginning work on a three-metre high fence to be built along the perimeter of the Zone, an action which local real estate firms claim violates previous peace agreements.

The main news agency in the region, The Bays and Remuera Times, has received statements from parents claiming that daily incursions into the zone are continuing successfully, despite the School's actions. Parents are also seeking support from the powerful Ministry of Education, which is known to have fully-equipped Inspectors and large stocks of policy guidelines.

The United Nations peace-keeping force is likely to comprise troops from Israel, Serbia and Sierra Leone.

Hasta la vista

2006-08-22T00:29:00.000+12:00

This is just a little note to say that I'm departing Kete Were... I'm living in the Northern Hemisphere now, and have set up a site that combines political blog & travel blog. Anyone who's missing my political rants can check them out here.
See ya round.

Write The Rest Here

Leaked memo reveals truth about Herald on Sunday

2006-08-13T19:25:00.000+12:00

The Herald on Sunday has been rocked by scandal following the leaking of an internal memo which reveals that many of the people in its celebrity photographs section are nobodies.

The paper has gained widespread acceptance for its insightful photographs of people standing around at parties, some of whom are known celebrities but many who are only vaguely recognisable, if at all. With the release of the memo comes the shocking truth that they are not remotely famous.

The memo was written to Herald senior management by sub-editor Justine de Vlaminck, whom sources say was known as Debbie Smith when working in her first job on the Porirua Gazette. It details the strategies behind the making of the celebrity photos section: "really there are not that many real celebrities in Auckland and there are not that many places where they congregate. It can be a hard job filling three pages with photographs. "

"We have a bad time finding places to go to photograph people who are even mildly well-known. Theatre openings and art gallery viewings would seem the obvious choices but real A-list celebs are mostly pretty stupid and try to avoid people who talk in complete sentences. The folk who do hang out at these events are generally old, ugly and badly-dressed, even if they are the intellectual capital of the knowledge economy. Besides, our readers wouldn't have a clue who they are. Our readers are morons.

"So, once we have taken the week's snaps of Charlotte Dawson and Marc Ellis, we look around for people who are tolerably recognisable. Usually, there is not much in choices of location: the opening of yet another Parnell restaurant, some party at a posh car dealership, the unveiling of the first collection by this week's breathtaking new fashion talent. It is all pretty humdrum. There are few pickings when it comes to star quality either: what genuine paparazzi-bait would bother going out on a wet Tuesday night to a piss-up at a hairdressing salon?"

"What we do is find anyone who looks hot and could pass for a bit-part player in Shortland Street. It's not that difficult for the photographers: most of them only picked up a camera in the first place so they could ogle girls' boobies without being arrested. At this kind of bash there will usually be a bunch of Dio girls who would do pretty much anything for a Strawberry Vodkatini. As for men, we can always find a few foppish boys who look as if they might be heirs to vast manufacturing fortunes, even if they came on the bus from Avondale.

"We then top off the evening by taking a picture of any bald guy with no neck who happens to be passing. The mid-life crisis blokes all try to look like former All-Blacks when they are dangling their BMW keyrings in front of nail-technicians at Sponge Bar; if it fools those floozies, it will fool our readership. Actually, those floozies are our readership: ask the marketing department."

"When we crawl back to the office the next morning, we are usually too hung-over to remember who we photographed or where, so we just make stuff up. That's why everyone in the photographs has such silly names, like Clint Rutgers or Pollyanna Carboose. Most of the events are just as fictitious. A lot of them are just staff parties; sometimes we don't even have to leave the building to get a photo shoot."

"It might all seem just a tad ethically challenged, but what does it matter? Nobody's going to win a Qantas doing this sort of work and Robert Fisk isn't going to come looking for a story about us. It doesn't matter to the readers anyway. Down the line in Waiwhatever, they think anybody in the big city who dies her hair blonde and cultivates an eating disorder must be famous."

No spokesman for the Herald on Sunday was available for comment.

Sensible Sentencing Trust Calls for Arming of Shop Workers

2006-08-04T15:44:00.000+12:00

Following the shooting of an assailant by a gun store owner, the Sensible Sentencing Trust has called for the arming of shop workers.

Commenting on the incident at SAI Guns and Ammo in Penrose, Trust Spokesman Garth McVicar observed, "this time a tragedy was averted. Mr Carvell, the store owner, had a ready supply of high-quality precision firearms, as you would expect in a gun store. The next time a machete-wielding thug goes on a crime spree, the shop he enters could be Baker's Delight or Paper Plus. The staff would not be able to defend themselves with baguettes or A4 lever-arch files."

"Retail staff are in the front-line of the war against violent crime, yet they are ill-equipped to protect themselves and their stock. Providing them with handguns is the only way to prevent disaster," he continued. "The Government should be required to provide shop owners with weapons and training programmes for their staff."

Predicting further incidents of this kind, Mr McVicar said "we have commissioned independent research which shows that 89% of teenage males take drugs, play ultra-violent computer games and get 'pumped-up' on what they call 'gangsta rap' and 'death metal.' This is a dangerous cocktail of anti-social influences which, sooner rather than later, will erupt into a tsunami of violent crime. It is just a time-bomb waiting to explode."

"Guns are not cheap, but neither is the cost of crime. Providing staff with handguns, pump-action shotguns and maybe semiautomatic weapons is the answer. Of course, we would not advocate giving every shop assistant a 9mm Heckler and Koch P2000 with ambidextrous slide locks and magazine release. This sort of arsenal should only be made available to staff who have shown themselves to be mature, responsible members of the community. We would not want to see firearms being issued to those slovenly, ill-kempt youths who work part-time in many stores just to buy mag wheels for their souped-up cars."

Concluding his prepared statement, Mr McVicar told reporters, "the Warehouse is where everyone gets a bargain but, in future, it will be where P-crazed hoodlums who break the law get filled with lead."

Better than Welly?

2006-06-09T15:54:00.000+12:00

You may not realise it but part of my work is involved in developing solutions to solve the current skills shortages in Auckland. Its great work that is very rewarding and I work closely with the business community which I don't do much in other parts of my life.
I have been reading the 'jobs letter' and it says that there is good news for civil servants who want to go across the ditch - Camberra are doing a massive recruitment drive in Wellington. Although Camberra can generally offer higher salaries, there is a downside to the deal - you have to live in Camberra.

Its probably a bit mean for me to judge but even the people of Camberra admit that their city is a bit on the boring side.

It also reports of a Dutch study that shows that pregant women in high stress jobs should not work more than 24 hours a week from teh very beginning of their pregnancy.
It shows that these women were more likely to have babies that were born at lower than average weight.
These babies are, in turn, more likely to be obese, be more at risk of heart attacks, stroke and diabetes. Also these women are more likely to have problems with their pregancies. This is a pretty important point as many women want to continur working as normal for several months into their pregnancy. I guess it can sometimes be easy to forget how stressed you are until its too late.

my postcode is?

2006-06-07T10:07:00.000+12:00

NZ Post - relaunched the postcode system recently. I still have no idea what mine is, nor has anyone let me know. Waste of time?

Write The Rest Here

He just wanted my account number

2006-06-01T12:30:00.000+12:00

I had the strangest experience a couple of days ago.
I have been receiving Nigerian scam emails just like everyone else for years but I have been receiving this South African email for a while and I have been deleting it.

Two mornings ago, at about 7am my mobile phone rang. It came up restricted number which I usually wouldn’t answer. The only reason I have started answering restricted numbers is that the Auckland city council and also many journalists have their number restricted and you cant tell who it is – so I have had to start answering it.
Anyway Its this guy with a thick African accent and my initial thought is that it is someone from the International Union of Socialist Youth calling to talk to me about Spain but he says he is from South Africa and that he has sent me an email and that he needs my account number and I am like “what? Huh?” because his accent is so thick so I say goodbye and think nothing of it really. Until I turn on my computer and there is a scammers email from this guy in South Africa!
I have to have my cell number online because I am an elected representative but that is so funny – and strange, does it happen often that they call people? Can I do anything about it?

Tamaki Blog

2006-05-31T15:10:00.000+12:00

I have set up a information blog for the Tamaki Community Board. I have been writing for it for about a week and we have had quite a few people visit.
It is a sort of experiment in communication in the sense that it is not a personal political blog but a board information blog.
www.tamakiblog.blogspot.com
Please check it out - no rude comments please if you want to comment about me do so on Ketewere

Write The Rest Here

I am a professional broadcaster

2006-05-20T17:52:00.000+12:00

After convincing the Radio Live crew that I was a much better leftie than Jacqui Brown (and smarter too) I have been given a paid spot (hence the professional part) on the radio every friday at 4.45pm. Ben (former blogger) and NBR business journalist is the right wing part of the 15 minute "left v right point of view sharing extravaganza with James Coleman - its called "the week that was." I have been doing it for a couple of weeks and forgot to tell the blogosphere.
You should all listen - its a hell of a lot of fun - 702am or 100.6 Auckland, 98.7FM in Welly or check out here for other frequencies across the country!

A chance to Act

2006-05-18T17:44:00.000+12:00

Immigration is the ultimate ball for politicians to pick up and sprint with. On the whole immigrants are a very vulnerable bunch, at the mercy of our immigration system: to be accepted, or not to be accepted. Refugees even more so.
New Zealand’s immigration legislation has been reviewed by the government, and their discussion paper is available for public comment. No Right Turn has given the whole document a fairly good going over, Tze Ming Mok has her points here, and my recent article on Scoop canvasses the opinions of some people in the know.

The most dramatic proposition in the discussion paper is the idea to introduce classified information into the immigration decision making process. A person could be declined entry on the basis of secret evidence – and that’s an incredibly difficult situation to defend oneself against.
In my research for the Scoop article, Paul Buchanan gave a good example as to why we should be concerned about political manipulation in the security intelligence sector. Remember those Iraqis, allegedly members of Saddam Hussien’s former government, who Winston Peters railed about in parliament last year? They’re now facing deportation. Buchanan has a point when he says that we should be worried about the two possible explanations for this: either the security services had no idea who these guys were when they first entered the country, or they’re facing deportation for political motivations – pandering to Peters. Neither possibility looks good.

Public submissions are due on the proposal on 30 June. Put in your two cents about the future of New Zealand. Do it!

What it means to be lonely

2006-05-17T18:59:00.000+12:00

I stumbled across this story today and It got me thinking about the Ministry of Social Developments yearly Social report.
The Social report - reports on various indicators and I often use them in my work. As I work in South Auckland with a high proportion of Maori, Pasifika and migrants the social report shows key indicators for these communities.
Although I doubt that google trends and the social report have much in common I thought that I would draw your attention to the reports outcomes for 'Lonliness' and 'trust in others'

"Trust in others"
The social report reports on the population over 15 years. It found that 69% of New Zealanders said that they believed people could be trusted. It found that people in the 'other' ethnic group reported the highest overall level of trust in others at 73% Maori (57 percent) and Pacific peoples (56 percent) had the lowest proportions who felt that people could be trusted.

Trust in others tends to increase as personal income levels increase. New Zealanders with personal incomes over $100,001 reported the highest overall levels of trust (82 percent). Those with incomes of $30,000 or less reported lower levels of trust overall, with only 66 percent indicating that they thought people could be trusted 'almost always' or 'usually'

Those living in Manukau reported the lowest level of trust in others, with 61 percent reporting people could 'almost always' or 'usually' be trusted.

Which I found pretty unsurprising but interesting all the same - NZ ranked 26th in the OCED for 'Trust in others'

The Lonliness stats go like this

NZ/ Europeans reported the lowest rate of loneliness with 15 percent - Twenty-two percent of Maori and 25 percent of Pacific peoples reported they are 'sometimes' 'most of the time', or 'always' lonely. Asian/Indian peoples (36 percent) and people in 'Otherî ethnic groups (36 percent) reported the highest rates of loneliness.

Incomes of $20,000 or less reported higher rates of loneliness than people with higher incomes. This compares with a loneliness rate of only 5 percent for those with a personal income over $100,001.

People living in Manukau City had the highest reported incidence of loneliness. Those living in the Rodney District had the lowest reported incidence of experiencing loneliness (14 percent).

They measure lonliness and trust in others because they are measures of wellbeing. There is probably something in the 'stuff' story about Aucklanders and their levels of misery. Unless we are all obsessed with a little cartoon goth girl.

Well, didn't expect THAT one...

2006-05-07T23:45:00.000+12:00

Who would have thought?

UFO study finds no sign of aliens

So many falsehoods, so little time. I'll move onto something else soon

2006-05-07T22:24:00.000+12:00

Rick decided to take issue with my analysis of his recent 'fisking' (could we please come up with another name? Naming an argumentative tactic after the most unreadable modern liberal becomes incredibly grating). He had promised a refutation of my analysis, and while I can see some holes in my original argument, he fails to raise any of them.

Let's have a look at what Rick says, and why he fails, again, to miss his target...

"Yah,As I said, it's not ad hominum[sic] if I'm arguing the issue. The success of Kate is the issue- she put it on the table herself."

Let's analyse the claims Rick made about Kate, the claims that Kate made about herself and whether or not Rick's original "fisking" is indeed ad hominem taken from the comments box of my original post.

The logical fallacy behind argumentum ad hominem is this:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about Person A.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

Rick argues the following

1. Kate claims she is successful
2. Kate is a local body politician, and a "paracite"
3. Thefore Kate's claim she is successful is false.

At its most simple level then, this is a logically fallacious ad hominem argument. However, it goes even further than that, because the first two propositions of Rick's themselves are either untrue or do not logically follow.

As to point 1, during her speech, Kate stated:

"I was invited to speak because I am a successful woman. I must say that this is very flattering, as I do not yet feel successful."

Ergo, Kate is implying that she does not perceive herself to be successful. As a result, Kate did not "put it on the table" that she was successful. In fact, Kate makes no claim either way as to whether or not she is successful.

As to point 2, Rick states that:

"There is a name for what she is, and logical arguments to justify my calling her by that name. Politicians and beurocrats[sic] opperating[sic] outside their briefs are paracites[sic]. No apoligies[sic] for saying so."

Of course, Rick doesn't elucidate these 'logical' arguments as to why (a) politicians and bureaucrats operating outside their briefs are parasites, and (b) why Kate is acting outside her brief to appear in the AUSA Quad to speak about womens issues, and is therefore a parasite. It is just assumed and asserted and, therefore, rhetorically useless. As such, even the construction of Rick's ad hominem argument is shaky, let alone the fact that, were the points correct, it would still be a logical fallacy.

"As for Kate's lesson about unnamed abstract women who are supposed to put us on a guilt trip...useless. Maybe you, X, and you, Kate, had something in mind but the speech says nothing of it. There is no substance, just the assumption that someone somewhere is hurting and it's our fault. All X has done is to try to enter new issues that might have helped Kate's case had she thought to include them herself. Which she didn't."

This is a strawman argument on the part of Rick. If one were to read Kate's speech, one would understand from the statement that the intent of the speech is not to make the listener feel guilty. The intent of the point about the situation of women overseas was to inform the listener that women's issues are not unique to this country. Further, because Kate did not bring up any specific named examples of these instances overseas does not ipso facto prove that they are incorrect. Indeed, given that I subsequently gave numerous examples of said discrimination and abuses, proving that they are not an abstraction, Rick's point is moot. The examples that I raised were not new issues, they were simply an instance of having to state the obvious, to make it blindingly clear. Kate's biggest mistake here was assuming most people had some grip on, or knowledge of what is going on in the world. It's quite clear that they don't.

"Now another fact is that men and woman fit themselves, and are fit by nature, for differnet[sic] tasks. In a free society each individual will find their way within the limits of their will, but consciousness of gender choice will colour that. Right? Thus the lives of men and woman will be as distinct as their respective observation of sexual dimorphism. Taking to this natural state of affairs a socialist meat-cleaver and carving up a 50/50 split will please no one- except perhaps she who seeks to weild such a knife over us all".

As a student of biology and anthropology, I strongly refute much of this paragraph. In my original reply to Rick I made it clear that his and others' discussions of the 'natural' gender and societal roles of men and women within society were made on two fatally flawed assumptions: that biological sex = gender identity = gender role; and that this meta-variable was biological determined. Rick provides no evidence to support these assumptions, and attempts to support his 'point' by simply restating it. Let us make it clear: gender roles and scripts are not, let me repeat NOT entirely biologically determined. It is a simple 'just so story' to say, to assert, that it is the natural order of things that men earn more, that men have a higher proportion of leadership roles in the public and private sectors, because nature made it that way. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that these are the results of our evolutionary histories. As a result, such lines of reasoning HAVE NO PLACE in a gender equality discourse.

I am glad that Rick has recognised the value of 'the consciousness of gender choice', but I still do not accept, and he has failed to show, why those disparate gender roles are justified. Sexual dimorphism, that is the physical differences in primary and secondary sexual characteristics between biological males and females is not sufficient to cause, explain or justify the imposition of an imbalance in societal gender roles between gendered males and females. It is not a 'natural' state of affairs, as I have shown, there is very little evidence to suggest that socio-cultural imbalance of power between genders has any basis in evolutionary mechanisms.

"And why not equalise male/female ratio in all industries? Why just the high-paying flashy desirable ones and not freezing worker and criminal ones? X says that would be silly, and it is. But it's as silly for these latter things as well as the former."

Rick failed to see my original point. It is silly to call for equality in criminal statistics, by trying to increase female participation in the criminal sector (I can't believe I just wrote that, but that's essentially what Rick called for). We should be trying to decrease all participation, irrespective of gender, in that particular 'sector'.

As for the comment regarding freezing workers, well, yes, women should be able to be freezing workers without being hindered on the basis of their gender identity. I would like to see women being able to enter any field of their choice without facing barriers because society sees them as having breasts and therefore 'naturally unsuited' to such tasks. It just so happens, however, that it is the higher paying 'flashy' jobs that women generally find the greatest barriers to participating in. Men also find themselves facing discrimination in certain sectors: childcare, teaching are two well known examples, along with, until quite recently, nursing. These are also societal impositions, assumptions about the 'roles' of gender and equating them to the 'natural inability' of men to perform such roles. They are just as flawed, and just as unfair.

"Men and woman must have equal rights, but they are not equal. X wants men and woman to be equal sexually? Let that be his personal bedroom fantasy. Men and woman are different creatures and most of the rest of us rather enjoy that fact."

Rick fails to see my point. As a predominantly androphilic queer person, I can assure Rick that I hold no sexual fantasies about biological women, whether biological men are involved or not. On a gender level, I choose not to operate from a 'male'/'female' dichotomy, and I do not identify as either a gendered male or female, so comments about my sexual behaviour from such a space are irrelevant. But I digress! Rights are about power: who holds it, who exercises it, who bows to it. Men and women should be sexually equal; Women should have the right to have intercourse with someone without being labelled a slut, where, in the same situation, a man is hailed as a "stud". When such double standards exist, women and men are not sexually equal. When women are expected to act as the sexual gate keeper to men, women and men are not sexually equal. When men impose restrictions and barriers to a woman's control of her reproductive life, men and women are not sexually equal. Sexual power goes beyond the actual act of sex, which Rick seems to be preoccupied with in his response. Men and women are biologically sexually different, as Rick correctly points out. That doesn't, however, justify a disparate power dynamic that revolves around male and female sexuality.

"Gender is a determinent[sic] of what one can do and of what can be done to one. If not then it would be a non-concept, lacking all identity- it wouldn't even be a word but just a sound. But in our age, and in our society, we choose genders- we like it, benifit[sic] from it. We have it. Deal with it."

Actually, no, gender is not a determinant of what one can do and of what can be done to one, just as ethnicity, cultural identity, religious affiliation or sexual orientatation aren't either: these are aspects of identity that range from the purely chosen to the blindly determined. And none of them are acceptable as determinants of 'what can be done to one'. Identity reflects whakapapa, as well as turangawaewae, where one acknowledges one has come from, as well as how one chooses to live ones own life. They are not tools for, or justifiers of, societal impositions, predetermined roles or restraints on individuals or identity groups. This brings us to the argument previously presented by Rick, but which fails to stand up to scrutiny. If women chose, as part of their identity as women, to avoid leadership roles in the public and private sector, then there would be very little to worry about. However, there is no evidence to support that the lack of women participation in the public and private sector is the result of an 'identity choice', and more evidence to suggest that such statistics are a manifestation of a culture that actively discourages the advancement of women in these areas: women who do find themselves in leadership roles overwhelmingly describe experiences of having to surrender aspects of their female identity, in order to 'make it', not because those aspects of their identity make them 'unsuited' to perform the tasks at hand, but because the culture they find themselves in is hostile to the expression of that identity.

We often don't choose many aspects of our gender, despite our ability to do so. In part the identity of being of the 'male' or 'female' gender is innately correlated with being biologically male or female. Further yet, the identity of 'male' or 'female' is reinforced (or rejected, in the case of transgendered individuals) by how society reacts to our genitalia, and later, secondary sexual characteristics. Further still, our gender roles (relatively distinct from gender identity) how men and women are supposed to act, the roles they are supposed to fulfill within society are most definitely not chosen. It is these predetermined assumptions about the 'roles' of 'men' and 'women' in society that form the basis of gender inequality and gender power imbalance.

"You say we're not quite there yet, when it comes to fighting for womens rights? Well to the extent to which you're right about this libertarians have your back. It is our main occupation- defending rights. But that ain't what Kate's talking about."

Kate is talking about the fact that gender identity should have no bearing on the level that society allows an individual to participate. I would assume that this was totally compatible with libertarianism, or any ideology that placed a premium on individual liberty.

Can anyone say "normalised?"

2006-05-05T08:44:00.000+12:00

I was watching breakfast TV this morning and they had a story about a jockey and his horse. The story was very simple and spoke about the jockey and his horse being reunited for some reason. The real killer was when they asked the jockey how he felt about the horse in a partnership and the jockey said "Its better than having a girlfriend because it doesn't talk back" and then it cut to the newsroom where the news reader said jokingly "yes, he did really say that. Good on him". I was just stunned and it reminded me of the comments about what is normal or not.

I was sent this link http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3656482a1823,00.html to this story yesterday also which is so unbelievable I cant even comprehend it.
This story is saying
1. Liz Williams be alienated from the team and nobody seems to concerned about that
2. Liz Williams should not have bought up the issue as "boys will be boys"
3.That kind of behaviour in the NZ cycling team is the norm and accepted
4. If a cyclist feels unsafe it is not okay to complain about it
5. The females in this team have been lead to believe that this behaviour is okay and normal
6. If someone makes a complaint and others have not before them, then that complaint is not legitimate.
7. If other female team members are okay with certain behaviour and someone else is not then it is not the problem of the team but of the person to rectify,

I think this story is a clear example of how certain behaviour is legitimised in our society and that women have accepted certain behaviours as the norm without realising hat we have some say or control over the situation. Here is it women too who have taken the power away from their fellow sisters and have lead them to be powerless. It seems its not just University, its cycling too.

Is that all they could come up with, or: Fisking a so-called Fisking

2006-04-30T20:49:00.000+12:00

Kate Sutton's speech during AUSA's Womensfest caused quite a stir over at Red Confectionery, attracting a substantial amount of comments from those who took issue with the modernist feminist undertones. Unsurprisingly, there wasn't a great deal of effort that went into truly analysing what was in the speech, but rather attacking the messenger herself...

I don't understand this. I honestly don't see how grown men can feel so viscerally threatened by this speech, or more tellingly, the person who delivered it. It is unfortunate that Mr Graham Watson, who so often rails like Moses to the Israelites from the moral high ground about the folly of ad hominem attacks (remember, it's two words), is so quick to use them, as the comment below illustrates:

"What an idiot to have to use hyperbole to attemt[sic] to create sensation out of nothing. The same woman who [sic] I am told there now exists documentary[sic] testimony of her making false rape claims against people. I am also told court papers are being prepared by her victim, to call her to account for her vivid imagination, so well expressed here again in her speech.

Honestly, Graham. Ian Wishart himself couldn't have pulled off these kinds of faux conspiratorial undertones. Rather than calling to account the actual problems that Mr Watson has with Kate's points, he spends bandwidth attempting to mar Kate's character with hints and innuendo about hypothetical future legal action against her. If there truly are such allegations, they should be argued in court, not brought into a discussion about feminist issues by a man who is obviously having difficulty elucidating the problems he has with Kate's speech. The arguments just come across as hysterical and irrelevant.

As usual, questioning gender inequality leads some to conclude that it's just a fact, a biological fact of life, that men do the work and women stay at home looking after the kids. Rick attempted to explain this with the term 'sexual dimorphism', a common biological term used to describe biological differences between sexes. Of course, this contains two implicit and flawed assumptions about the relationship between sex (which goolies you have), gender identity (whether you identify as male or female, both or neither, both and neither) and gender roles (what males and females are supposed to do within their respective societies). Those assumptions are that Sex = Gender Identity = Gender Roles, that is that the constructs are somehow interchangeable, and that Sex/Gender Identity/Gender Roles are somehow blindly biologically determined - that those who are born with vaginas must identify as females and further that the traits they exhibit, their 'femininity' and all that that entails, is somehow an immutable biological artefact.

Gender Theory is a complex one, and there isn't space to go into a great deal here, but suffice to say that, while there is substantial evidence that gender identity has a strong biological correlation with sex, it is not an absolute relationship. Otherwise, we wouldn't have transgendered individuals. Even more dubious, and central to the discussion of gender equality, is the supposed relationship between sex and gender roles, or even gender identity and gender roles. While the tragic experiments of John Money/David Reimer have shown us that biology is a powerful force in these processes, we need to remember that societal norms, cultural mores and the need of those in power (whomever they may be) to justify, perpetuate and protect the status quo, has played and continues to play a significant role in defining what people will do and how people will act.

Unsurprisingly, those wishing to justify the poor participation rates of women leading in the private and indeed public sector, trot out the pseudo-scientific arguments of 'hormones', or as one commenter amusingly put it 'hormonal flux'. Of course! Elevated levels of progesterone and oestrogen means that women are incapable of interpreting statutes (judges), undertaking peer review (professors) or co-ordinating aquisitions (Chief Executives), while testosterone means that men can't use dictaphones (secretaries), or change nappies (child care).

This is a laughable fallacy. There is simply no empirical evidence to suggest that the subtle behavioural effects of sex-hormones is the reason that men are 'better' in leadership roles, while women are 'better' in support and administrative roles. Some evolutionary psychologists have attempted to explain (justify?) these disparitiess through reference to our evolutionary history and the division of labour among males and females in early hominid groups. However, like much of what evolutionary psychologists propose, there are very few data to support it. It's almost as if the proponents see a correlation that (a) women are in lower paid jobs (b) women have eostrogen and therefore that (a) and (b) somehow have some causative link. Utter. Bollocks.

As well as being a logical and empirical fallacy, these arguments are incredibly dishonest. By claiming 'hormones', proponents of this point of view have no responsibility to justify what is essentially their own prejudice:

"Hey! Don't look at me; it's not my fault that women are stuck in hormonal flux. I'm all for equality, but you know, biology means that women just can't cut it in the corporate world. They don't have the constitution. It's not their fault, it's just the hormones. We shouldn't set them up to fail."

But I digress! What I really wanted to do was have a look at a so-called fisking produced by Rick Giles. I like a good fisking, almost as much as I like a good frisking, and much more than I like a good fisting. Needless to say, I was a little underwhelmed by what transpired on Rick's blog. Rather than a good fisking, Rick's piece was short on substance, and devoid of any good refutation. It was, in fact, a nasty piece of work. Since I'm feeling cheated of a good fisking, I thought I would have a look at what Rick said; hey it's a veritable menage a trois a la fisk (Kate in Blue, Rick in Red, My own thoughts in black):

"I shall now quickly fisk Kate Sutton's Womensfest speech to The Quad at AU a few days ago.

Of course it would have been better to be there, because it was a speech and not a piece of literature. These are just speech notes released on Red Confectionery. The hook, the catch, and the swearing make more sense as a speech. However, the non-facts can be shot down here on equal terms weather[sic] they be spoken or penned. So,-"

"I was invited to speak because I am a successful woman. I must say that this is very flattering, as I do not yet feel successful."

"You're not a successful woman. Success is reward for dealing in values but political power is a reward for penalising, for dealing in fear. You are a successful paracite,[sic] if successful at all, but not a successful woman."

What kind of argument is that? Barely into the first paragraph, and already Rick starts the name calling complete with novel approach to spelling. How could Rick possibly judge whether Kate is a successful woman or not? I would consider a 24 year old, first time election to a community board, highest majority in the ward for those elections, now chair of that board to be at least to some extent successful. Call me crazy, but hey, just maybe. "Political power is a reward for penalising, for dealing in fear". What on earth is that supposed to mean, and how is it relevant to the discussion at hand? Would Rick then claim that Abraham Lincoln and Gandhi gained political power as a reward for penalising, dealing in fear? Very Odd.

Ad hominem, inconsistent and irrelevant.

"When told this I started to think about what success is – Sure I do many things. I am a former president of this student union, a current University of Auckland councillor, I am the chairperson of the Tamaki community board and I am a project manager for a charitable trust in South Auckland as well as sitting on about 4/5 other boards and committees."

"I rest my case."

Again: ad hominem, and irrelevant.

"I wanted to speak about women overseas and their plight – the feminisation of poverty and how vital it is for us to understand what is happening overseas,"

"Note the abstract reference to women outside New Zealand and some kind of plight. What women? Where? What's their boggle? If it's vital for us to understand why is it left to the imagination? Are you talking about Australian woman? Who? What? Where?"

I was disappointed that Kate didn't talk further on this, as we've had many personal discussions about it, and it something that I am keenly interested in. However, for Rick's benefit, let us look at the very real plight of women overseas. In Kenya, male legislators vote against rape laws, because in their culture, when a woman means no, she actually means yes. In the Dafur region, pro-government militias systematically use rape to control and intimidate non-Arab Sudanese communities. In India, 10 million female foetuses and babies have been killed over the last 20 years, because boys are better. Not to mention Pakistan (and India), where women are routinely murdered by family members for bringing dishonour to their families by being raped.

"the HIV/AIDS epidemic which affects mainly heterosexual females and their children."

"So do hickups! So does getting hair in your soup and forgetting where you put your shoes! Some vast patriarchal conspiracy, Kate? No. It's just that most members of every population are hetrosexual[sic] females and their children. Think about it, you're talking crap."

What Rick fails to understand from Kate's point is that heterosexual women are mainly affected by HIV/AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, because they do not have the ability or the power to prevent it. In these areas, women do not control any aspect of the sexuality: it's easy for us to say that women should just say no, but many, indeed most, simply can't, despite the fact that their communities demand that they remain virgins until marriage. Not only are most women in these African communities forced to surrender control of their sexuality to males, but they are traditionally blamed as the root of sexual evil, promiscuity and 'looseness', despite the fact that, particularly in South Africa, the spread of HIV is predominatly the result of a highly mobile, sexually careless mobile labour (male) workforce; it is these men who then return to their villages, and infect their wives. It is women who co-ordinate the care for HIV positive AIDS Orphans. It is HIV positive women that are shunned from their villages and communities, and HIV positive women who experience barriers to receiving retroviral drugs, even to condoms. And it is these women who are taking the power back. It is these sisterhoods that will help stem the spread of HIV among Africa's poorest and most disempowered.

"it is not an equal or fair world for women overseas in our poorer countries who are raped, mutilated, tortured and without homes – they are victims not perpetrators."

"Ohhhh, they're victims not perpetrators? Thanks for the correction, as if we needed to be corrected for thinking your poor abstract mutilated mystery women you haven't identified were guilty for being homeless and tortured. Shame on us. You really got us good with that one, Kate."

I don't understand what Rick is trying to prove with this point. Yes, they are the victims. The majority of discrimination, rape and mutilation is directed towards women by men. That is something that we should be concerned about; we're supposed to believe in equality, which means in an equality in the right not to live in fear. The mutilated Woman is not an abstraction, Rick: she's very real.

"ask most women if they are discriminated against and most pakeha women will say no. The problem is that the statistics tell a different story 24.2% of judges, 19.2% of newspaper editors, 17.2% of legal partnerships, 18.9% of mayors are women."

"What is this fascination with making men and woman homogenous in all industries?

People find their own place in the world without some Stalin conforming every pocket of society into a microcosmic duplicate of the national statistics. If 50% of New Zealanders are woman does it really follow that 50% of magazine editors need to be men? Does the number of percentage points by which we fall short of this really measure sexist discrimination as Kate suggests?"

If women are being barred from entry into those industries on the basis of their gender, then yes. It's quite simple. And here we witness the massive inconsistency in Rick's argument. Rick comes from a libertarian background that says we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of gender: every individual is equal, and should be judged on their merits. If that were so, then that null hypothesis should lead us to a prediction: The probability of finding a person of a certain gender in specific job, given that the null hypothesis of gender equality is correct, should be close 50%. However, we see that this prediction simply doesn't play out. Ergo Individuals are not equal for some reason on the basis of gender. Rick attempts to justify this by saying that there are innate gender role differences between men and women which are manifested in these differences: that across the board, men are found in leadership roles because they prefer them and women don't AND that men are innately better suited (hormonally, of course), to leadership roles while women are innatelybetter suited to support roles. He illustrates this with his response to Kate below:

"Why is it that 17% of professors and associate professors are women? But it that over 50% of general staff are women – its because there is still a hierarchy of jobs and there is a still a system where women have choices to move ahead - the boys network still exists in this university."

"Sexual dimorphism exists, celebrate it Sutton! Maybe "most pakeha women" don't wish they were judges, newspaper editors, and politicians? Men and woman have different abilities and tastes that don't happen to conform to what your numerical model demands they should be.

You just want to change the world into one giant game of Sutton Says."

So, the hypothesis proposed by Rick is that women would innately prefer to be lawyers, not judges; that women innately prefer to be teachers, not prinicipals; that women innately prefer to be general staff and not academics. This hypothesis presents a prediction: If we were to go out and survey University of Auckland students, female law students would probably on average indicate more than male ones that they would want to be a low-level lawyer than a Partner, or a Judge, or similar predictions in Medicine, or similar predictions in Education. It hasn't been done, but I doubt that in a controlled study these predictions would hold up. Anecdotally at least, evidence suggests that women are just as keen, on average, about taking up senior or leadership roles as men. Given that we've had to reject that hypothesis, what are we left with as an explanatory model for these gender disparities that we observe? There is only one alternative, as unpalatable as it may sound: systemic discrimination against women in leadership roles (incorporating also the possible propensity of many women to accept the social norms and gender roles that have been prescribed to and imposed on them)

"I am passionate about good governance and directorship and I am trying to break the mold of these statistics and bring my sisters with me, but it’s a long slow battle."

"I always ask people who produce this bullshit if they would also like to apply their golden median to the crime statistics. Is it also a problem for you, Kate, that insufficient violent offenders are females? Not enough drink drivers? Not enough white collar crime comming[sic] from skirts? Should we try to equalise those statistics too for the same reason you have for equalising it in the legal workforce? A television campaign or schools programme to get more little girls to go crooked? Well why not? Or could it be that there are other considerations to the desirability of this kind of equality you have neglected to include in your stupid inferences? Hmmm."

That's just silly. Who would in their right mind, propose attempting to increase the number of female inmates? Kate's point referred to the lack of women in senior or leadership roles in the public and private sectors. That doesn't ipso facto imply that males are never discriminated against: it is perfectly reasonable to suspect that our current education system is not providing the educational quality to groups of boys that it does to some girls, or to consider that our health system is not geared towards the prevention of sex-specific cancers in men (prostate, testicular) as it is in women (breast, cervical, uterine, etc). Or that our Family Court may be biased towards mothers. Or that men are overrepresented in crime statistics. But that doesn't mean that there isn't discrimination towards women that needs addressing.

"Date rape, gang rape, sexual violence are all a norm here – it’s a joke because men make it so and they are the blokes, the boys club and they are putting us down and taking our jobs."

"Well you've got us there. But for a man to get to the bins where Craccum is kept you have to sometimes push girls out of the way, and down a flight of stairs. And as for gang rape, what else is there to do while waiting in those huge queues at the cafe? It's the norm, what can I say?

But, hey. I say again- they're not *your* jobs, Stalinette.

So the stats look bad, the story is still bad - what do we do?

Cut cafe queue times and hand out Craccum magazine to those who are kept waiting. Then I wont have any excuse for all this normalised raping I've been doing all the time and you wont have to think twice before going to luch."[sic]

Why is it that the vast majority of rapes, sexual assaults, batteries and violations directed by men towards women? Of course men get raped by women, and such cases are deserving of equally punitive measures. But if we were all equal, if there was no discrimination, if the power dynamic was balanced, then you would expect that there were equal numbers of people being raped of either gender. This is not the case; women are predominantly, though not exclusively, the victims of rape. We must all ask the question: WHY? Kate is not saying that all men are rapists. What Kate is showing is that the culture of rape goes deeper than just the actual act; it goes to the paradigm of unequal power relationships; rape is not about sexual desire, rape is about power, and the use of sex and physical force, predominantly by men, to exercise that power. Women need to take the power back, and men must be willing to share it. The question is whether or not either gender is playing their part in doing that. When you hear this joke:

Q: What's Black and Blue and doesn't like sex?
A: A rape victim

Spoken by men, and not challenged by either men or women, you have to think that we've both got a long way to go.

I am not a rapist, but as a man I do benefit from rape, as much as I don't wish to: I can walk down the street at night and feel completely safe, without the fear that I will be raped by a woman. A woman doesn't have that ability, but she has that right. It goes further than just saying that rape is unacceptable, which we all do, or even that joking about rape is not acceptable, which I suspect that the majority of us also do. It means looking at the power structures that exist that result in the majority of sexual assaults and rapes being directed at women. Looking at the power structures that allow the majority of rape victims to be women.

"We must encourage a culture of diversity and this starts with accepting women as equal in our society by providing them with equitable opportunity"

"Well they're not equal, unless you mean politically equal but you do not. "Equitable oppertunity"[sic] means whatever you want it to mean, which is clearly that girl% is supposed to go up and boy% down so we're all nice and symmetrical like."

Well, yes, women should be equal, in every sense of the word: sexually, socially, politically, educationally. How could one justify otherwise? Because an individual has lactiferous mammaries, or a uterus, they are somehow not equals? By equals we don't mean identical, we don't mean homogenous, as feminists we mean equal to mean not having any rights, opportunities or potential hindered because of either genitalia or gender identity.

"You all have an obligation to wake the fuck up and realise how every thing that you have now, all the rights to be free to earn money to marry when you want, to gain an education, to control your sexuality and bear children when you want – all of these rights have been fought for by women and they can be taken away"

"Well that's it right there, isn't it Kate? You think you're Kate Sheppard and it's the 1800s, or that you're Betty Friedan and it's the 1960s. These were times for a'changin', for pushing the system the way you're still pushing now. But guess what Kate? It worked.

You are living in the past, still pushing. You still think the right to work, to learn, to invidivual sexuality, to mating and marriage choice are in immanent danger of being snuffed out. But they are not in any such danger, because we fought and won that battle together before you and I were even born.

And why did we fight for those thing? Wasn't it so we could enjoy them? Take your place in the world, woman. Stop squarking. Nobody is trying to make you have babies and steal your jobs, okay? Relax babe. You live in New Zealand in 2006. There are people who love you and could use your help and offer you theirs and share a community with you but if you can tell such people by the shape of their gender you're a better person than I am."

Well, that's a nice ending isn't it? All warm and fuzzy. A compassionate ending, it would seem. We aren't quite there yet, Rick. People assumed that the right to vote, the right to go to work and the right to marry as one pleases meant the end of gender discrimination. The power structures that exist, and their manifestations in earning statistics, statistics relating to sexual violence, to domestic violence, mean that women and men are not equal partners: the opportunities and rights, despite the ideals and the theory, are not equally available. The fact of the matter is, in many communities, people are trying to change that, and we should all embrace it, men and women. Kate's speech called on men to play an active role in trying to deconstruct and reform those power structures so that gender is not a determinant of what you are able to do, or what people are able to do to you. What on earth have we got to be afraid of?

Who's that socially liberal party again?

2006-04-29T00:20:00.000+12:00

This is so exciting!!!
At the Auckland/Northland regional conference of the labour party tonight these motions were passed:

That a system of voluntary euthanasia for the termanilly ill be legalised

That labour in government decriminalise the personal use of marijuana so that it is deal with as a health and social issue rather than a law and order one.

Both of these motions were put forward by Princes St and supported by others in the conference to get it through - with over 100 people present it was an awesome feeling.
Now the remits go to a policy committee and then to national conference in October. At this stage it is unliekly to pass at a national level but its traction and its super progressive.

The politics of nothing

2006-04-27T11:25:00.000+12:00

Often I get emails from friends who are thinking about the world we live in. I recieved this email yesterday and thought it sufficently interesting enough for it to be shared with the blogosphere.
A debate would be interesting and useful to pull this apart and see what we can find together.

More is better

Now that I am in my final year of an economics degree I am beginning to ask some serious questions about the underlying ideas of the dismal science of economics. If you have ever completed any first year economics papers, you will be well aware that every assumption that an economic model makes is utterly flawed in one respect or another rendering each model somewhat useless.
The particular model that is known most well to everyone is the one based on consumption. How does an economist know where to locate the output of his economy? At the point where consumption is maximised of course (A big thanks to Solow for this model)! That is because one of the four axioms of economics is the idea that more is better. If you consume x units of something, and if all else held constant, you then consume x + 1 units, then your satisfaction will be better greater with the secon bundle. This is a fundamental cornerstone of every economic model.

Capitalistic Tendencies

The most important requirement of capitalism is that a person can never be satisfied. Because of this, there simply is no limit to what growth can be achieved. We can keep producing more, earning more and more money, living a higher and higher lifestyle and still never really be satisfied. This is a requirement of growth under capitalism
The one great outcome from capitalism, as we are told, is choice! We have more choice now than we have ever had. More choice in food, in luxury items, and even in necessity items. Choice is one thing that we should never have to complain about in our modern societies. But for all the choice that capitalism has given us, it has failed to give us the choice of less, or further still, of nothing. For if x + 1 is better than x, how can x ever be demanded. To place demand for x in an economic system would prove very difficult because there is no incentive for an organisation to market ‘x’ (when x+1 is on the market). You don’t see too many advertisements for video players anymore. And what if instead of ‘x’, we were to suggest that we should go further, and actually market ‘nothing.’
Even if we were able to prove that ‘nothing’ did infact have some inherent value, how could we entice the great capitalistic machine to provide an incentive for firms to offer it as an option. It’s a difficult proposition for anyone to find a solution for, probably especially difficult for the modern economist, who is taught the economic cornerstones from his/her first lecture.

Option Nothing

Imagine this. You own a 1986 ford escort. Its beaten up, its green, and it aint gonna attract any girls! You watch the TV and you see advertised brand new Subaru’s with at least 10 girls in bikinis hanging off an ugly looking guy. Your lonely feeling self peers down the TV screen thinking how things could be so different, if only you had that car. What does the escort have going for it that the Subaru doesn’t? Nothing right? . . .
Don’t be so quick to fall for advertising… As chuck Blore from American advertising giant Blore incorporated admitted to, “advertising is the art of arresting the human intelligence just long enough to get money from it.” So lets start here; can you lend your brand new Subaru to your friend? Probably not . . . you’d be too scared that he would smash it up. Would you lend the Escort? Hell yes! It’s already got dents galore, what would another one harm it? This simple analogy makes the point of disconnection. Disconnection from your friends, disconnection from your neighbours, disconnection from social contact. The more possessions you have the more security you need from the very people you live beside. Car alarms, house alarms, gates, guard dogs, the list is simply endless. Whether it is self inflicted security, or external security, the result is a disconnection from the people around you!
Have we lost what really fulfils the life of a human being? Human contact is paramount to our existence and central to our happiness. How can we possibly be happy in a system that continually brings out products that will make you happier? Of course as I have mentioned, there is no incentive for the markets to make us aware of this because no growth can come from it.
(sidenote: Why is it if someone thinks they are overweight, but is of normal weight and wants to lose weight we call it anorexia, a psychological disorder; But for someone who has lots of possessions, but doesn’t feel they have much, and then buys more, we call it rational consumer behaviour? Is consumerism then a psychological disorder)

An economic model based on, well, . . . nothing

So as an economist, how can we incorporate this theory into an economic model? Firstly we would have to find a way to measure ‘nothing.’ On an individual level this could be done using a level of utility (associating utility with levels of fulfilment). However while these are helpful in MicroEconomics 101, they are somewhat simplistic and limited in that you cannot compare utilities between people (Utility levels are cardinal not ordinal). This is the very reason that growth is measured in dollar values. Its not perfect, but its all we’ve got. So how would we measure ‘nothing’ in dollar values. It seems counter-intuitive to give ‘nothing’ a dollar value. Infact it would seem to undermine the entire notion of money as a measure. But that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t work! Rather measuring things in dollars, we could use a proxy measure, and call it something crazy like ‘cruns’ (suggestions on names will obviously be accepted). Cruns will obviously closely simulate dollars with the exception that they are slightly more abstract and therefore can give ‘nothing’ a value.

Creating Incentive

This leads me to the final problem of creating incentive for business to market ‘nothing’ as a viable choice for consumers. Surely if capitalism is “all that”, it wouldn’t struggle to incorporate ‘option nothing’ as part of its subset. The closest I have heard to an idea that incorporated ‘option nothing’ was in America (where else). Walt Disney actually charged people extraordinary amounts of money to live in a suburb that had strictly controlled advertising. In fact there was no advertising allowed. Because of this there was actually no pressure to continually upgrade your possessions. People had the option to choose nothing . . . and Walt Disney cashed in with relative success. Of course then we are back to our problem of growth, which ‘option nothing’ is not so good at accommodating. If we only thought of measuring growth differently! But that’s probably another essay.

NZ Listener now to be available as soothing Gel

2006-04-19T10:58:00.000+12:00

Following top-level discussions at APN Media, it was today announced that the New Zealand Listener would now be produced in three formats: print, web and gel. Editor Pamela Stirling commented: "our market research shows that readers can find it quite stressful to read about the dangers of botox poisoning, the imminent decline in house values or the worrying trends in garden design. So what better way to relax than with Listener Gel? It rejuvenates the skin, removes unsightly blemishes and calms aching muscles. Best of all, it removes middle-class anxiety in an instant."

Responding to criticism that this new format represents a dumbing down or smoothing out of the long-established literary and political magazine, Stirling commented, "New Zealand Listener readers are not the same demographic as they used to be and our paradigm must achieve synergy with their lifestyle priorities. We like to call our product range New Listener, because we have responded to focus groups just like that nice Mr Blair has done with his New Labour, which of course is not the same as that grumpy old New Labour we once had here."

Warming to her theme, Stirling continued: "our readers enjoy the finer things in life. They are achievers and trend-setters, who want to spend their high disposable incomes on products that make them look good and feel good. They deserve it. They have worked hard and played hard. Now it is time to unwind."

"Since I became Editor," she continued, "we have managed to remove almost all traces of the difficult stuff which used to fill up the old Listener's pages. It really used to be quite hard work reading all that political commentary and those cranky reviews of difficult books that nobody I knew ever bought. I don't think our readers want all those boring, intellectual things cluttering up their aspirational lives. I know our advertisers don't!"

"Still, the Listener is not all about holiday destinations and tasty treats for summer barbecues. Many of our lead articles are very challenging. Some are really quite icky. This could be a problem. The consumers who fit our readership profile like to chill-out after an invigorating pilates session by enjoying a glass of unoaked gewurztraminer and the company of some business friends. We would not like their sparkling conversation to be impaired by the thought that some hair products might cause cancer or that the costs of vein replacement therapy are spiralling out of control. We try to make all our stories about boomers positive and uplifting, but the reality is they still fear their lives are effectively past them and they will die embittered and lonely."

"That's where Listener Gel comes in. Its special compounds, suffused with aloe vera and hand-pressed extra virgin olive oil, simply take away all sense of existential crisis. It removes the worry and makes you feel like a consumer again."

"Best of all, add it to pan-fried snapper on a bed of wilted spinach and it makes a delicious meal for friends and family alike. Listener Gel: it beats thinking every time."

The Insidious Creep of Idiocy

2006-04-11T14:57:00.000+12:00

Well, it's official. At least 25% of New Zealand are certified brain dead...

Twenty Five Percent of New Zealanders believe that the earth was created in six days. That's right. 1 in 4 New Zealanders have officially disengaged their neocortex, and are simply running on bible/qu'ran fuelled autopilot. I just want to pull my hair out. The creep of stupidity, commonly known as "Christianity", "Spirituality" or "Religion" is in full force. Ian Wishart and his deluded ilk will no doubt be pleased.

We have assumed too long that the religious idiocy (there's a two word tautology, if I've ever seen one) of the States would never make it here. "Oh! That couldn't happen here", we've smugly asserted. "We're far too liberal and progressive! We have the Civil Union Act and secular education!" But we've seen the warning signs. We've already seen a war started against progress, reason and science. We are not immune to mass stupidity. What makes it even worse is that modern liberals themselves have been part of the problem; we've created the perfect culture for a new Dark Age by developing a world dependent on pluralism, relativism and equal validity of truths.

I went to a seminar a while back by Associate Professor Allan Rodgrigo on the Intelligent Design movement. Afterwards we had a chat about the movement in New Zealand and he expressed a belief that it is something that we should be worried about here. Firstly because we have this culture of equal truth, which intelligent design hacks and charlatans cynically exploit to push their 'teach the controversy' mantra. It is the grossest of ironies that this very group who rally against the relativism of secular liberalism are using that very paradigm in an attempt to destroy it.

Secondly, we should be worried because scientists have spent far too long hiding in the bunkers of academia, and specifically academic language; not through arrogance, but simply through tradition. It is time for scientists to reclaim the language of design. Life is designed - not through any supernatural intelligent force, but through the synergy of chemistry, physics and biology to be the exquisitly adapted world we see around us. It is time that scientists started engaging in a public sphere to show what they do, why they do it and why science is the best thing we have to describe, explain and explore our world. Science is not only for scientists: it is for everyone. It is not difficult, you don't have to be smart to do it. Most scientists are normal people of normal abilities doing what they do.

There is no controversy. We would only need to look to other "explanations" (or should I say, look towards a frontal lobotomy) such as creationism, if evolutionary science was losing its explanatory, predictive and innovative powers. It is not. It has never been a more exciting time for evolutionary science, or any scientific field for that matter, than now. We continue to push the boundaries of our understanding, of our innovation, of our technological abilities; it has never been a better time to be a scientist.

I am angry, incredibly angry. It is time for people with some neurons firing to actually get out and stop it. We've rested on our laurels for too long, smug in a knowledge that the secular world is secure. During that complacency, we've indulged ourselves with the intellectually lazy half-baked idea of the relativity of truth, that two ideas can be equally valid at the same time for their explanations of the world. In the end, it is this that will be our achilles heel. It is this idea that is being exploited by Islamic groups to try and implement Sharia law in otherwise secular democracies such as Canada. It is this idea that has resulted in increasingly vocal calls from hardline religious idiots, both Christian and Muslim, to try and justify homophobia, misogyny, self-righteous hypocrisy about abortion and euthanasia, and of course biblical creationism. It is this idea that is exploited by mysticist Maori to try and justify attitudes towards women, used by some religious Pacific Island leaders to justify beating their children. All the while, the generally tolerant public are lulled into a sense of compliance: those views are ok. They are valid, because all ideas are valid. How fucking postmodern. How fucking wrong. Here's an idea: religion and supernaturalism got it wrong. Not only about how the world works. Not only about how we're supposed to live our lives. Religion got it wrong on everything. You'd think at the height of our 'advancement' as a species, we'd stop acting so primitively. It appears not. No matter how many things we are able to do, know and create because of Science, people still need their witchdoctors and sky fairies.

It would be funny if it wasn't so damn worrying. We've only got ourselves to blame. I don't know how we're supposed to stop it, but we need to start doing it now.

Homosexuality Part III: Pink Sperm and Designer Babies

2006-04-11T14:36:00.000+12:00

Final Part of a three part series. Part I and Part II can be read here and here

To what extent does our biological understanding of sexual orientiation now inform our ability to critically assess the issue of gay sperm donation What about the wider issues of queer rights, or whether or not parents could or should choose the sexuality of their children?

From the outset we need to dispel this fallacy inherent in the queer rights movement that the ‘natural’ status of homosexuality, or for that matter transsexuality which I do not deal with here, somehow lends weight to quest for legal and civil rights for queer people. This is inconsistent for three reasons. (1) as we’ve seen, no behaviour is truly ‘natural’ in the deterministic sense of the word; (2) asserting that homosexuality is innate sets up the possibility of falsification, which isn’t helpful for the queer rights movement; and most importantly (3) legal and civil rights are not granted or based on the basis of being natural or unnatural. Our basis for rights in a secular democracy is that of the right of the individual to live his or life has he or she pleases. Religious freedom is not granted on the basis of religion being natural, but rather on the basis that a person has the right to express faith without interference or discrimination. The same argument must apply to sexual orientation, rather than some half baked idea about ‘natural rights’, for our system of rights to be consistent. Sure, use the arguments about the biological basis of homosexuality to broaden the public’s understanding of the issue, but keep it away from the rights argument; it has no justifiable basis there.

News that gay men can be sperm donors must be welcome to couples requiring assisted reproductive technology. However, evidence is accumulating that sexual orientation is the result of gene-environment interaction; sexual orientation has a heritable component.

Thus, using sperm from gay donors may have the potential of passing the gay gene(s) to the next generation. Patients requiring such service should be informed of such potential.

--Assoc. Prof. Frank Sin, The Press, 13 March 2006.

We can conclude that the Associate Professor Sin’s argument that the sperm of gay donors may somehow result in gay children is, to put it bluntly, crap. Of course, such a mechanism may be technically possible, but there is no reason to assume it is probable or even likely, since thousands of studies have failed to show a paternally based inheritance pattern of sexual orientation.

Given this lack of direct inheritance via sperm, we must question what the purpose or utility is of requiring disclosure of homosexuality on the behalf of sperm donors. If there is no evidence to support that homosexual men produce homosexual children, such a disclosure would be logically unnecessary.

Our knowledge of homosexuality’s biological underpinnings is ridiculously limited, to extent that our ability to predict when it will occur in individuals is close enough to zero to be discarded. The probabilities that we have are either relative to base population rates, (and therefore have no real predictive power), or based on correlations for which we have no real causal mechanisms. As a result, actions taken by parents to avoid conceiving or raising homosexual children are, based on current knowledge, logically fallacious and, on average, likely to fail. They are scientifically flawed.

Are they, however, ethically flawed? Disclosure may be both logically unneccessary and scientifically irrelevant, but that doesn’t ipso facto make it wrong. While I understand and sympathise with While I understand and sympathise with Allan-John Marsh’s (Spokesperson for the Wellington-based Gay Association of Professionals) comments that the implications could be perceived to be insulting, that in itself does also not restrict the parents’ right to know such information. And here we get into the realm of parental rights.

Let’s assume a world in which we could predict, with 99.99% certainty, whether or not a fertilisation will result in a homosexual child. Do parents then have the right to prevent that fertilisation? Do they have the right to prevent the existence of that individual based solely on the fact that the individual will be a homosexual? Do parents have the right to abort a foetus based on the fact that it is going to be a homosexual?

I am personally not very sure. My initial and visceral reaction was no. However is that response rational or consistent with my own personal view of abortion in general, or is it unduly and irrationaly influenced by my views on homosexuality? Much of my unsureness stems from the arguments presented by Aaron Greenberg and J Michael Bailey in their paper Parental Selection of Children’s Sexual Orientation*. In the article, the authors examine and question many of the assumptions and propositions surrounding the arguments put forward by those who oppose such selection. While not necessarily agreeing with all of the conclusions of the paper, it nonetheless presents some compelling arguments about the potentially irrational basis of opposing such rights. It also presents quite compelling rational arguments that, yes, parents do have such rights, irrespective of their motives.

I am a budding biologist. I am not an ethicist, I am not a philosopher, and I am not a logician. With all the arguments surrounding the rights of parents to select the sexual orientation of the children, I am rationally out of my depth, as I suspect the majority of mankind probably is. I am human, though - a queer one at that. This means I don’t have to be rational all the time. I can be logically inconsistent, because my life is informed by more than rationality.

As a queer person, I am happy to be the result of probabilities, genetics, my social experience and my development. I know my parents wouldn’t choose for me or my lesbian sister to be anything other than what we are, and my blood boils at the idea that some parents would. Ideally our parents would let 4 billion years of evolution and the universal dice have their way, rather than choose which box we’re going to fit neatly into before we’re even conceived. Because in the end it shouldn’t matter. It doesn’t matter.

So sure, parents have the right to do choose - absolutely, rationally, logically, empirically. But what I would want to know is this: what would happen to a child who was specifically selected to be a heterosexual, but turned out, by some fluke of nature, to be gay? What would knowing you were, through no fault of your own, exactly what your parents did not want, in fact actively tried to avoid, do to you? What effect would it have on your intrinsic feelings of self-worth, your validity as a human being? Who would love that child? It’s hard enough for many to be gay in a world where parents can’t decide. A world where nature blindly defied that decision on your behalf is one I don’t want to envisage, and one I certainly don’t want to live in.

*Greenberg A and JM Bailey. 2001. Parental Selection of Children's Sexual Orientation. Archives of Sexual Behaviour 30(4):423-437

Disclaimer: This last paper was very controversial, as has been some of the subsequent work of J. Michael Bailey. In 2003, Bailey was investigated for potentially unethical research and reporting practices for his book The Man Who Would Be Queen, about the transgendered community. The complaint was upheld and Dr Bailey resigned his position as Chair of Psychology at Northwestern University. I have considered these factors before referencing his work. I am still of the opinion that the arguments raised by Bailey and Greenberg are valid and worthy of addressing. I have a copy of the journal article and a response to it if readers would like to examine in it for themselves.

A Vision of Britain

2006-04-07T16:58:00.000+12:00

London: new Government legislation passed last night by Parliament has sparked controversy among constitutional experts. In a sparsely-attended House of Commons, The Governance of Britain (Emergent Provisions) Bill was given its first, second and third readings, passing through all the legislative hoops in a record twelve-and-a-half minutes. Opposition MPs were said to be 'down the pub' at the time.

The Bill, which was included on the Commons order papers in very small print that appears to be written in Sanskrit, has raised eyebrows among some of the elder statesmen of British political life. At issue in particular is the introductory paragraph, which states:

WHEREAS, Parliament is the Sovereign law-making body of Her Majesty's Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Government (that's us) holds the following truths to be self-evident:

1. We are in charge.
2. We can do what we like.
3. Blair is bigger than Beckham
4. Democracy is like SO Twentieth-Century
5. We will, we will, rock you.

The Bill proceeds to give sweeping powers to the Executive of a kind that has not been seen in Britain since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Government has abrogated to itself the power to do whatever it wishes, so long as those decisions are "cool" and "geisty." Parliament will no longer have the right to review or amend Government legislation. Instead, Members will be required to listen to focus groups and attend PowerPoint demonstrations given by creative entrepreneurs.

Other measures included in the legislation include a complete interior design package for Parliament, to a concept devised by Anouska Hempel, with installations by Damien Hirst and an ambient sound-loop by Brian Eno. The Prime Minister's wife, Cherie Blair, has created a "cleansing ceremony" based on Tibetan prayer chants that will replace Prime Minister's Question Time. The official colour of Parliament will be Taupe.

Instrumental in devising the legislation is Sir Mark Ellen, the newly-appointed Cabinet Secretary who was formerly Editor of Q Magazine and once a member of the college band Ugly Rumours with Tony Blair. Speaking in a podcast delivered from his fur-lined office in a penthouse high above Whitehall, Sir Mark said, "government just got hip. We have had Brit Art and Brit Pop; now we have Brit Pol. What we are conceptualising here is a new vision for the government of NewBrit. Parliamentary Democracy is fusty, stuffy and dusty. It is OldThink. We have replaced it with NewGov, which is syncretic, synaesthetic and synergetic. And, hey, nobody has to bother voting anymore."

One novel feature of the new Bill is that Prime Minister Tony Blair chose not to use the services of the Parliamentary Counsel, which usually drafts all Government legislation. Instead the task was given to indy-pop icon Miss Sophie Ellis-Bextor, in a move that has been described by media pundits as "post-ironic." She not only wrote the Bill, but made an accompanying collage and an interactive DVD. Her influence can be seen particularly in section 54(i) of the Bill, which states " DJ, gonna burn this goddamn House right down."

No member of the Government was available for comment today, as all Ministers are attending a spiritual encounter workshop hosted by Cherie Blair at an undisclosed location in Cornwall that is noted for its congruence of ley-lines. However, Mr and Mrs Blair's son Euan spoke with waiting reporters, telling them "all your base are belong to us."

Homosexuality Part II: What is it with gay men and their mothers?

2006-04-04T12:26:00.000+12:00

Part II in a three part series on the biological basis of homosexuality. (Part I can be read here or here)

One pattern has emerged that suggests that male and female homosexuality may have very different causes, a pattern that has been replicated and observed across numerous studies: the fraternal birth order effect. If you are a gay male, there is a greater probability that you have older brothers. In fact, each prior born male increases the probability of subsequent males being homosexual by 33%*, according to the most statistically robust studies. The same effect is not observed in boys with older sisters, or in girls at all. One proposed mechanism suggests that each male pregnancy promotes and reinforces a maternal immune response to certain proteins produced by the Y chomosome (the H-Y complex), meaning that later male pregnancies are subjected to stronger immune responses from the maternal system. This potentially disrupts typical foetal development and prenatal hormone action, or upsets the symmetry of body development, which is significantly correlated with the occurence of homosexuality in both males and females...

Again, there are problems here: there have been no studies in humans illustrating the actual mechanism of maternal immune response or its effect on the foetus. Further, there are youngest brothers that are not gay, and older brothers that are. As a result, this is at best one factor that may influence sexuality in only a subset of genetic males. The studies also don't take into account the possible behavioural effects of older brothers on the development of sexual identity in their younger brothers, although recent research has discounted this possible factor. The pattern is nonetheless informative: the fact that no such effect is found in females again underlies that male and female sexual orientation are probably not mirror images of each other, but rather the result of different developmental and social processes.

All in the family?

Recently, genetic studies on sexual orientation have gained some momentum and favour among researchers. This is in part due to the ability of some types of genetic studies to expose patterns of the heritability of sexual orientation, but also due to the rapid advances in genetic and molecular techniques that have produced such comprehensive studies as the Human Genome Project.

The application of genetic study to sexual orientation has proved more contentious than the application of developmental studies, given the shackling of the discipline to the ghosts of eugenics, genetic engineering, cloning and designer babies. Genetic factors are also assumed to be more deterministic, more rigid, than pre- and post-natal environmental influences, a common but frustrating misconception. Indeed, the study of sexual orientation using genetic techniques - family studies, twin studies and molecular studies - has revealed just as much variation, just as many general trends and probabilities, as our developmental approaches.

Studies across and within generations of have shown a moderate but still significant pattern of the behaviour in some families. That is, patterns of homosexuality do tend to run in certain families (contrary to the assertion of Allan-John Marsh), higher than you would expect by chance alone; if you are homosexual, the probability of one of your siblings also being homosexual is higher than if you are heterosexual. There is evidence to suggest that this statistical relationship is stronger between pairs of gay brothers and pairs of gay sisters than between the gay brother/lesbian sister relationship (which this author incidentally falls into), although that particular relationship is still significantly stronger than a straight brother/lesbian sister or gay brother/straight sister relationship. Again, these are just observable trends, not rules.

Twin studies have proved useful because they allow researchers to tease apart the effect of shared environments from genetic effects within families. Fraternal twins, which share identical environments but are only genetically related to each other to the extent of normal siblings, on average exhibit less shared homosexuality than identical twins, which share identical environments and identical genetic makeup. The difference between the rate of shared sexual orientation allows us to estimate how much of the variation in sexual orientation has a heritable component - estimates which from 14% to 76% depending on which study you look at.

Of course, we need to remember that not all identical twin sets share the same sexual orientation; some members of identical twin sets are gay while their twins are not. This means that even when we control for social and genetic factors, some further factor is influencing sexual orientation. We are again, at best, left with a trend, an estimate, a correlation.

All in the genes?

As previously mentioned, there are no ‘gay genes’, just as there are no ‘schizophrenia’ genes, no ‘alcholic genes’, no ‘violence’ genes. However, modern molecular studies combined with family and pedigree analysis allows us to try and narrow down which particular chomosomal locations, termed loci (singular locus), are associated with the occurrence, though not the cause, of homosexuality.

The most interesting discovery in this field was made in 1993 when a group of genetic researchers based at the National Cancer Institute in Maryland** reported on a familial and molecular study of 40 families of gay men. A certain point on the X chromosome, labelled Xq28 was found to be common to 33 pairs of gay brothers within these 40 families. It was the first definitive study which identified a possible genetic marker of homosexuality in males. No such marker was or has since been found in the familial studies of lesbians. Naturally the press had a field day, and the term ‘gay gene’ was born.

The identification of Xq28 in gay familial studies has been subsequently replicated with varying degrees of statistical significance. What needs to be considered is that, in these studies, not all gay men had Xq28 and not all males who possessed Xq28 were gay. More interestingly, there was a significant pattern of maternal male inheritance. That is, the study suggested that if you were gay, it was more probable that your mother’s brother was gay, rather than your father.

In fact, no paternally inherited chromosomal marker has been identified that is associated with homosexuality. Gay fathers do not statistically produce more gay children of either gender than heterosexual fathers. Similarly, lesbian mothers do not statistically produce more gay children of either gender than heterosexual mothers.

So where do we find ourselves at the end of all this, biologically? What do we think we know, what do we know we don’t?

1. Human sexual orientation is correlated with non-social biological factors. These include pre-natal developmental processes and genetic influences.

2. There is evidence that pre-natal testosterone levels play a role in the development of adult sexual orientation, but this differs both between gay males and lesbian females, and within gay male and lesbian female groups themselves.

3. There is evidence that the causative mechanisms of male and female homosexuality, and sexual orientation in general, are fundamentally disparate.

4. There is evidence that fraternal birth order is correlated with occurrence of homosexuality in males, but not in females.

5. There is a higher sharing of homosexuality between siblings than would be predicted by chance alone. Evidence therefore suggests that there is a familial component associated with homosexuality in both gay males and gay females.

6. Identical twins have a higher sharing of homosexuality than fraternal twins. Evidence therefore suggests that there is heritable component of human sexual orientation.

7. One maternally inherited chromosomal marker has been identified that is statisically but not causatively associated with the occurrence of male homosexuality in some individuals in some families.

8. There is no evidence to suggest that parent sexual orientation has any role in determining, or influencing their childen’s sexual orientation.

Finally, and most importantly: There are exceptions to every trend, link, association and relationship that has been identified. As a result, no line of evidence, alone or in conjunction with any other, or in conjunction with environmental factors, is sufficient as a causative model for human homosexuality in either males or females.

That, in a nutshell, is our understanding of the ‘biological’ basis of human sexual orientation. In essence we have nothing more than theories and hypotheses about some of the developmental mechanisms and genetic patterns that may be involved. We have no hard and fast rules, we have no easy answers. We just have a good idea.

We now face the question: Can we approach the social and ethical issues of homosexuality from a position informed by biology, by nature? If we can, how do we make sense of this sensational mess?

Next Week - Part III: Pink Sperm and Designer Babies

*Ellis L and R Blanchard. 2001. Birth order, sibling sex ratio, and maternal miscarriages in homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Personality and Individual Differences 30(4):543-552

**Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N and AML Pattatucci. 1993. A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation. Science 261(5119):321-227

The Biological Basis of Boys loving Boys: Part I

2006-03-28T14:21:00.000+12:00

Part I of a three part article I've written for GayNZ on homosexuality and biology...

News that gay men can be sperm donors must be welcome to couples requiring assisted reproductive technology. However, evidence is accumulating that sexual orientation is the result of gene-environment interaction; sexual orientation has a heritable component.

Thus, using sperm from gay donors may have the potential of passing the gay gene(s) to the next generation. Patients requiring such service should be informed of such potential.

--Assoc. Prof. Frank Sin, The Press, 13 March 2006.

66 words, two paragraphs. It's hard to imagine that Sin's almost non-existent letter to the editor would have prompted the response that it did. Albeit brief, the ensuing attention in the news media, on talkback radio and its internet equivalent the blogs, seemed surreally disproportionate to what essentially was an innocuous letter...

Of course, the topic itself served merely as a catalyst to open up the ubiquitous can of worms (or indeed several cans) around not only the 'genetic' basis of homosexuality, but also the broader issues of personal liberties, rights to privacy, and the ominous spectre of 'designer babies' and neo-eugenics.

The issue is, naturally, an incredibly complex one. Like all issues that meet at the common vertex of science, ethics and the individual, it paradoxically becomes more complex, more troublesome, as our so-called 'knowledge' increases. As we gradually accumulate what we think we know, the boundaries become fuzzier, the grey areas become greyer, and our ability to make scientifically and ethically sound decisions becomes harder. It's not unique to the homosexuality debate; we see it in the euthanasia and abortion clashes that pop up like clockwork.

It is unfortunate that the public domain is not always well suited to complex debate. Instead of granting space for real discourse, a robust korero, everything is a soundbite, a simplistically absurd reduction of arguments, ideas and narratives to their most basic precepts. Suddenly everyone has an opinion, some more reasonable than others.

Sin didn't do himself any favours. Given he's an expert in genetics, I was surprised that he wrote the letter in the first place. Until of course one considers that Sin's field of expertise is human male infertility. Perhaps he could be forgiven for wanting to flag a warning about something that he perceived could undo the work to which he has devoted much of his research career. The response from Allan-John Marsh of the Wellington based Gay Association of Professionals (GAP) wasn't particularly helpful, or even correct either, implying that homosexuality was innate but neither inherited or heritable.

As could be expected, the mainstream media had a field day, frantically calling whoever they could to milk whatever controversy they could. Much huffing and puffing ensued, redneck opinions were aired, agendas were either pushed or defended, whichever 'side' of the debate you happened to be on. Somewhere in the middle of all this, the potential for the greater public to gain some understanding was lost.

So how then do we approach this topic? It appears that this issue has two distinct components: the biological basis of sexual orientation, and the ethical implications of 'choosing' a child's sexual orientation. Obviously the two are interrelated, but it is a good idea to work out what we think we know, and what we know we don't know about the first part, before trying to understand the basis for the second.

We need to be careful about this term ‘biological’. All too often it is confused with related but distinct terms like ‘genetic’, ‘innate’, or ‘inherited’, but the word biological also encompasses that which is ‘environmental’, ‘learned’ or ‘aquired’. Most, though not all, characteristics that make us human are a combination of many of these factors. When we enter the realm of behaviour, be it social or sexual, these interactions become even more complex and subtle. There are very few behaviours that are either genetic or environmental, innate or learned. Of those that are, it doesn't mean that one is more 'biological' than the other; at its very fundamental level, all behaviour is in some way biological, given that it involves the neurochemical processes of the brain - an essentially biological phenomenon.

A useful analogy is blinking and winking. Blinking is an entirely genetically, neurologically, innately controlled behaviour. It is universal across all human populations; we can all do it from birth without learning how to. Contrast this with winking, which is an entirely learned behaviour; there have been no studies which suggest that certain people have a predisposition to winking. We can often recall the period of our lives when we learned to do it. Winking isn't a human universal: not all cultures wink, and in the ones that do, it has different meanings, different contexts and different social responses. Both blinking and winking, however, are fundamentally biological. Although not innate, winking relies on our ability to learn, our behavioural flexibility, and our responses to environmental (social and cultural) stimuli, factors that do have strong biological, genetic and developmental bases.

Admittedly this is a simplistic analogy, and most behaviours are far more complex than blinking or winking. But it serves its purpose in our understanding of the fallacy of the false 'nature versus nurture' dichotomy which has seriously handicapped our ability to understand what it means to be human. As the author Matt Ridley points out, a more valid phrase would be 'nature via nurture', or possibly even 'nurture = nature'. Remember that in all of these discussions we do not assume any of these biological factors to be in some way immutable or deterministic (except perhaps blinking!). We can only talk, at most, about predispositions, about relative potentials to be inherited, about probabilities and trends. The very fact that there are individuals that break these trends, the fact that we can only work with statistical probabilities, means that these factors, social and non-social, are by their very nature not deterministic.

We must similarly exercise caution about what we mean by the terms 'sexual orientation', 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality' and 'sexual identity'. The terms are very deeply embedded in our socialised classical Judaeo-Christian ideas and Victorian Protestant moral constructs, with a healthy dollop of modern pyschological, feminist and queer theories, not to mention theories of gender, thrown in for good measure. Everything that we 'learn' about sexual behaviour is constrained by the labels that we come up with, our classification system du jour. Our concepts of 'sexual orientation' are a product of current and historical cultural norms, which means that any 'answers' we gain are contingent on those norms. Our answers may not be very accurate, or even valid, but in this point in time it's the best we've got.

Given the variation we observe in sexual orientation, the hodge podge of behaviours, attractions and identities that we call human sexuality, we ask the question: are there any non-social biological factors that can be identified as playing a role in sexual orientation? The simple answer is yes: there are no 'gay genes', but there are factors, unrelated to social experience, that correlate with sexual orientation. Broadly these factors can be grouped into two categories: pre-natal developmental processes and genetic factors.

Raging hormones

There is substantial evidence that homosexuality is associated with 'atypical' pre-natal hormone levels, resulting in sex-atypical brain formation. We can hypothesise that foetal action of hormones (specifically testosterone) in laying down the brain structures which will play a role in sexual orientation is atypical in homosexuals. Specifically, lesbians are thought to be subjected to higher than average testosterone levels than straight women, while gay men experience lower levels than straight men.

Part of the evidence for this comes from the study of biological females, who through genetic mutation, express either massive or very little amounts of testosterone as foetuses (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Adrenal Insensitivity Syndrome/CAH and AIS respectively). As adult women, CAH individuals show a greater level of attraction towards other women than the population average, despite having received 'corrective' hormonal treatment, being raised as gendered females, and identifying as gendered females. By contrast, AIS individuals show a much lower level of attraction towards other women average. This suggests that the action of sex hormones in the womb is related to adult sexual orientation.

The problems with this are of course numerous. The vast majority of lesbians and gay men of course do not have these specific or identifiable genetic conditions resulting in increased/decreased testosterone levels; a mechanism by which they would be subjected to atypically high or low hormone levels is then unclear. Further, the specific markers which we know are the result of higher or lower testosterone levels, such as brain differentiation patterns, differences in the size of certain brain structures etc, are not consistently correlated with homosexuality in males or females. Some do show trends that we would expect, others do not.

The patterns of sexual orientation differ between males and females: males show a bimodal distribution, with the vast majority identifying as either entirely gay or entirely straight. In women it's the opposite: most identify somewhere in between, although not necessarily in the middle. There are also differences within homosexual groups. Gay men who identify as having 'feminine' childhoods exhibit some different markers than those with more 'masculine' childhoods. But then, is childhood gender non-conformity even a valid characteristic of sexual orientation? Similarly, there are differences between 'butch' and 'femme' lesbians in some of the neurological, hormonal and body markers that indicate differences in pre-natal testosterone levels.

So are we dealing here not only with different mechanistic 'causes' of homosexuality between men and women, but also between different types of homosexual men and women – types we've conveniently thrown together for labelling purposes? And where the hell do bisexual men and women fit into the picture?

Next Week: Part II - What is it with gay men and their mothers?

Use your noggin, Sonic

2006-03-27T22:20:00.000+12:00

What is it with developmental biologists?

Most biologists like to name the proteins that they identify in metabolic pathways by their function. For this reason, we have the sensibly named Epidermal Growth Factor, or the Glyceraldehyde-3-Phosphate dehydrogenase, or Phosphofructokinase. Sure, they look complicated, but if you know what the words mean, you can generally figure out what the protein does

Then you have the developmental biologists. These smart arses decided their goal in life wasn't the pursuit of higher knowledge, but rather the thwarting of confused university undergraduates.

There are actually proteins called Hedgehog, Noggin, Goosecoid, Nodal, Dickkopf (german for 'fathead' = stubborn) Sonic Hedgehog, Frazzled, Siamois, Cerberus, Bicoid, Hunchback, Smaug, Swallow, Engrailed and Fushi Taruzu.

Sure. The names are cute. But when you're hunched over a text book trying to remember what protein does what, they are totallly utterly useless.

Take this email 'clarification' from my lecturer to the class:

In lectures, I mentioned that the Siamois protein was expressed in the Niewkoop centre and from there it activates goosecoid in the organiser, which activates organiser-specific genes (Gilbert). Of course, it would be difficult for Siamois (a transcription factor) to directly activate goosecoid if it were not expressed in same cells. In fact, Moon and Kimelman, (1998) describe Siamois expression not only in vegetal cells on the dorsal side, but also in equatorial cells of the dorsal side - presumably the cells that are fated become the organiser.

You are as confused as I am. And I've been doing this for four years.

Winning the war on terror

2006-03-26T16:41:00.000+12:00

Two largely unexpected, but very very positive events have brightened the generally bleak political/foreign affairs scene this week. Closest to home is of course the release of Mr Sooden in Iraq, which has an interesting relation to the cartoon controversy. The other, with much wider implications is the ceasefire declared by Spanish terrorist group ETA.

Euskadi ta-Aksatasuna ("Basque Homeland and Freedom", ETA) have been carrying out acts of terrorism on Spanish soil since the early 1960s. It's always been low intensity - generally killing a few people in carefully calculated attacks spread months, if not years, apart. But it has worked to terrorise the population, who never know when or where the next attack may be.

("Our main weapons are surprise, and fear"... Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition skit is strangely apt).

No question about it, ETA is (or, perhaps, was) a terrorist organisation. Yet, 90% of the media coverage regarding the ceasefire refers to ETA as a "separatist" group, carrying out "armed struggle". Not terrorists targeting innocent civilians, limiting the liberty of Spaniards, etc, but "separatists".

How curious, don't you think?

Now maybe I'm talkin craaazeh talk here, but my hypothesis is that this has something to do with the fact that Spain withdrew all its troops from the so called "war on terror" in Iraq. The permanent renunciation of violence by ETA is a fantastic development, and we can only hope that they keep their word and that peace lasts. In the so-called struggle against terrorism, this really is a massive step forward. But it's not being hailed as such, because in resigning from the Coalition of the Killing, Spain has also unbound itself from the propaganda machine which would shout about a victory for the free world.

So what’s brought about the sudden change of tack by ETA? The answer to that we may never entirely know. It is probable that secret negotiations have been underway for some time though between ETA and the Spanish government (sorry, can’t find this one in English), with advice even being given by the Brits and the Irish .

The opposition party, the PP, who are similar to New Zealand’s National Party in many ways, must be spitting tacks that the governing PSOE has managed to accomplish this. No matter what, the ceasefire is a surprise, but it seems entirely unfeasible that such a thing would ever have occurred with the PP in power. In 2002, the PP outlawed the Basque political party Batasuna, accusing it of being aligned with ETA. And since the PSOE has come to power, the PP has been accusing the government of negotiating with terrorists… This probably wasn’t the proof of their accusations that they were hoping for.

No haka for 4th place (or medals either)

2006-03-22T09:44:00.000+12:00

The New Zealand Herald front page banner headline this morning paints a grim picture of our commonwealth games effort.
22 Fourth places, 5 days to go and only 16 medals so far – Sport and Recreation NEW Zealand (SPARC or SARNZ for us purists) predicted 46 medals. The odds don’t look good.
Is this a big deal? Something we should have a government inquiry into? (which is all the rage these days) Shall we fire the CEO of SARNZ? (I am all about firing underperforming CEOs) or should we fire all the athletes and start afresh?

It seems that nobody has a clear idea of how to treat sportspeople and how to manage our spending on sportspeople in New Zealand. Hopefully this will be the topic of conversation when our athletes get back.
As far as I can see it, if you are professional you are judged as such. The team can hire and fire you at will. But what if you are not a professional, if you don’t have a sponsor and if the New Zealand government pays for your development, what then?
What right do we, if any, have to expect anything from our athletes – as a collective?

Sport is about performance, and as we have not performed as a team to expectations and many New Zealanders will feel let down by this. Many will forgive and say “better luck next time” many will attack and talk about the "waste of time and money", some will feel sorry for the athletes and there will be some who blame the government.

What I would like to see is analysis of the collective benefit of sport; I would like it to be treated like art. Not something that everyone likes but it has value, not something that is always seen as successful but beneficial for cultural none the less.
I think we shy away from assessing the ‘soft’ worth of sport – we assume that it is there and it is often seen as blasphemous to attack it. But we should so that we can understand how to assess a performance like the one by our commonwealth games team so far.
We need to understand this better and that means asking tough questions and getting answers that may attack the core of what many see as being ‘kiwi’ – an unconditional love of sport.

Reduction to the Absurd

2006-03-15T17:22:00.000+13:00

This week will see the first reading of a Bill that promises major change. Barbara Stewart's Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill seeks to do what it says on the label: reduce the number of MPs in Parliament from 120 to 100 by amending the Electoral Act 1993

.

This Bill will come as much-needed relief to the millions of ordinary hard-working New Zealanders, Kiwi battlers, mums and dads, who lives are blighted by the burden of supporting twenty MPs. It will also help reduce the colossal impact these MPs have on the infrastructure of Wellington, where the roads are frequently blocked by MP jams, cafes and bars are filled to overflowing with MPs, and power and water supplies are under constant threat from MP overloads.

Or something like that. It is very difficult to find out what this Bill will achieve. Ms Stewart does not seem to know, as this illuminating interview with Scoop shows. One hundred is a nice round number, which will no doubt be of comfort to members of the anal-retentive community. Passing the Bill will also respond to the People's Voice, which spoke in the referendum of 1999 and demanded a reduction in the number of Parliamentarians. Political scientists will remember 1999 as the annus idioticus, in which two stupid referenda were put before the electorate: this one and the other one, which demanded that the problem of crime be stamped out by combining retribution, restitution and restoration, or something along those lines. I was one of the tiny handful of people who voted against these measures, as well as casting Labour's vote in Remuera; I felt very alone that day.

Still, they were passed and by Albanian-sized majorities. Perhaps Parliament should respond and send some of its members home at the next election; or perhaps not. Ms Stewart thinks that twenty fewer MPs will be more representative. One can see what we rhetoricians call a reductio ad absurdum looming on the horizon here: if 100 is more representative than 120, then Fifty will be more representative still and One would be the perfect state of representation.

What Ms Stewart does not seem to understand is our MMP system. She wants to reduce the number of List MPs rather than redrawing the electoral boundaries and removing constituency seats. We have the List MPs so that Parliament will be representative: any party which passes the threshold of five percent of the votes cast will be proportionately represented in Parliament: for example a party that gets twenty percent of the votes has twenty percent of the seats, made up of the constituency seats it wins in its own right and List seats added to make the proportions representative. It's not that difficult to grasp. Contrast this with bad old Britain, where the charming and cuddly Liberal Democrats never get the representation they deserve, because all that counts is winning constituency seats. Labour and the Tories get most of these and all the Lib Dem votes in those constituencies are wasted.

Consider also that New Zealand, unlike most democracies, has only one chamber, the House of Representatives. Most have two and many have federal systems with state assemblies, like Australia and the USA. We are hardly over-represented.

If Ms Stewart's explanations of her Bill are not unconvincing enough, consider as well that she intends to retain the Maori seats, thus gaining the support of the Maori-Tory Party. Leaving aside all concerns of fairness, history and avoiding blood on the streets, the Maori seats surely are the ones that should go first in any reduction. They are effectively a duplication of mainstream seats, since voters can choose to be on either the General or Maori electoral rolls. You don't have to be Maori, but it helps. If a management consultant were in charge of a parliamentary restructuring exercise, the Maori seats would be gone by lunchtime.

It is List seats that will suffer. Which is all very rum. As the aptly-named Kevin List points out in the Scoop interview, Ms Stewart's party, New Zealand First, is a beneficiary of the List system. Her party doesn't have enough support concentrated in any one area to get a regular seat, not since Tauranga was lost. However, the elderly and bigoted still have a voice in Parliament, thanks to new and improved MMP.

So, if the Bill's proposer cannot justify it with any reasoned arguments and if it goes against the apparent interest of her own party, what can be the reasoning behind this measure? Ms Stewart gave the game away when talking to Scoop: it has had a good response from talkback callers. This is Talkback Politics at its finest. Under the thin surface of Ms Stewart's great idea lie the murky depths of muttered discontent, the domain of the Angry White Male. All those seething resentments mouthed by the sad gits who waste time calling some of the country's worst radio shows are encapsulated in this Bill. It probably won't get passed but that only goes to show how corrupt that lot in the Beehive are, doesn't it? They are only concerned about their perks and their pensions; and they would take the shirts of the backs of ordinary hard-working Kiwi battlers to feather their own nests.

Perhaps they have a point. If Parliament really can find the time to hear this sort of nonsense, then maybe it is over-staffed. On the other hand, maybe it will just hold up more important and better thought-out legislation which might just do some good.

Perhaps someone should table a Parliament (Wasting Everyone's Time) Amendment Act.

But you’d hardly know it

2006-03-13T08:13:00.000+13:00

A massive group of people - their numbers close to the entire population of New Zealand - is facing death through starvation as drought in their area continues to threaten famine. But you’d hardly know it.

It last rained in Northeast Kenya in December. But that was only for a couple of hours – a cruel tease in a region which had not seen rain for five months prior to that. It is the worst natural disaster to hit the country since 1971.

The UN food agency knows what’s going on, but has sod all power to do anything about it. Despite appeals, they’ve received just a tenth of the funding needed to provide adequate food aid.

Why aren’t we hearing about this in the media? Why isn’t anything being done? Why do we have to wait until people are actually dying in their thousands until some dumb journalist flies in and talks about the “tragedy” which is preventable now?

It’s appalling that rich countries dither about at a time when the UN desperately needs funding to act. But that’s what happens in these terribly un-sexy humanitarian crises, which lack western faces or geo-strategic importance. The UN needs to be properly equipped with the resources to be able to act without hesitation in situations like this.

The world wide web of fallacies, or: It doesn't logically follow, Ian.

2006-03-12T22:41:00.000+13:00

Moxie has written a number of posts so far about the issue of abortion law, both within New Zealand and overseas. As a modern feminist, it is easy to see why she is becoming increasingly frazzled with the current state of the law: the 'pro-choice' side is steadily losing. We're not just talking about the march of the unnatural neo-conservative/neo-liberal hybrids, insidiously encroaching throughout the United States like some bizarre bible-wielding zombies; in our own country the heretofore-assumed-moderate-liberal George Hawkins has been calling for changes to our abortion laws, much to the chagrin of those within his own party (including Moxie)...

Over at Sir Humphrey's the usual debate has started on a number of posts, with stock-standard visceral name-calling and stock-standard stretched analogies of Bush and Iraq, Al Qaeda, Hitler and The Jews et cetera (they should make a song called "Hitler and The Jews" to the tune of "Pinky and The Brain", and just pull it out as a stock standard argument whenever tired and intractable moral flame-wars arise; it might just save a little more bandwidth.). It's not very helpful in the abortion debate, and even less relevant or logically justified.

I'm not particularly qualified to talk about abortion. I'm not biologically female, and I don't have sex with females (even if I did, I still don't think it would be a good qualifier). I will never to have to consider having an embryo or foetus removed from my uterus, I will never have to make the decision. I don't believe that any man has the right to tell a woman, either by personal force or through legislation, what they can do with their bodies. In fact, another woman justifiably has no right to tell a woman what to do with their own body. I am not 'pro-choice'. I am 'pro-butt-the-hell-out-of-my-business'.

As an interesting aside, it is profoundly ironic that those creatures who normally occupy the 'less government meddling' part of the socio-political landscape are just so keen to make an exception in the instance of abortion law. These are the people who, in many states, have 'reformed' welfare systems to ensure that people exhibit personal responsibility to lift themselves out of the situation that are, of course, entirely of the person's own making. These are the people who advocate personal responsibility when it comes to raising a number of children on a single income, who advocate choice when it comes to whether state funds are poured into religious education programs, who advocate choice when it comes to employers' rights to discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. There is a great espousal of an individual owning his or her life, and choices about that life, without 'big government meddling'

Should, however, an individual choose to exercise personal responsibility, or choice, when it comes to owning her own reproductive life, it is entirely consistent and justified for these moralisers to advocate full and invasive state regulation into that person's life. We're not just talking abortion law here either, but also access to contraception, or even just good sexual education that would, in many cases, make the issue of abortion almost irrelevant. The hypocrisy is breathtaking, but seems to slip out of these people's mouths without them appearing to even take one. The great neo-con/neo-lib chimera, a walking ideological contradiction, positively oozes hypocrisy. It would be funny if it didn't ruin lives.

Anyway, back to the web based fallacies, rather than the living breathing life-ruining ones. One of the debates over at SH, specifically this one entitled "When do you BELIEVE a fetus/child gains full rights to life?", appeared to be going relatively well, in that it was on-topic and marginally cogent, until Ian Wishart turned up with with some real doozies:

I argue Conception for the following reason.

Science, despite billions of dollars in effort, has been unable to grow life from inanimate matter.

It therefore follows that until such time as it can be proven otherwise, it should be assumed that life begins at conception, it doesn't magically grow at some point of fetal development.

It may not bear physical resemblance that early to the human form, but in sharp contrast to a slab of meat those cells are alive, not dead. The life force in a fertilised egg is the same life force that will drive that person for the rest of their lives.

What Ian is essentially arguing is that because we haven't yet replicated, in the laboratory, how life first arose on earth some 3.5-4 billion years ago, a woman does not have the right to an abortion.

Oh Dear. Oh Dear, indeed.

Lets lay this out logically.

1. According to Ian, a human being gains full rights to life at conception. This is because, at conception, that is fertilisation, the particular cellular phenomenon occuring in utero becomes "alive".

2. Ipso facto, Ian is arguing that before fertilisation occurs, both sperm and egg are unequivocally not alive.

3. Ipso facto, it follows that Ian is arguing that the process of fertilisation is equivalent to either or both of abiogenesis, the process of primeval earth in which 'non-living' organic molecules developed into 'living' ancestral cells or spontaneous generation, the archaic belief that held that rotting meat produces maggots.

What basis does Ian have for arguing that sperm and eggs are not 'life'?

Is it because they are haploid, that is, only contain one set of genetic material? In that case, almost all life on earth, that is, Bacteria and Archaea, are in fact not life, because they too are haploid. Or indeed some worker castes of some species of ants or wasps, which are also haploid.

Is it because, by themselves, sperm or eggs are not enough to produce a living, breathing, organism, because they require another equal partner to produce life? If we were to apply that standard to its absurdly logical conclusion, then any adult human being is not alive either, because by ourselves we are not capable of producing 'life', without another equal partner, only haploid gametes. Conversely, those organisms that can produce life from gametes without a sexual partner via parthenogenesis are more alive than we are. That's right, ladies and gentlemen: the aphid has more of a right to live than you do.

There are three blatantly obvious logical and scientific absurdities here.

Firstly, fertilisation is not equivalent to either abiogenesis or spontaneous generation. This is because sperm and egg cells are living. Sure, they do not represent individual organisms, but they are living, respiring cells, just as much as (admittedly diploid) liver, muscle or nerve cells are living.

Secondly a lack of understanding about the development of living systems on earth 3.5-4 billion years ago does not provide any moral imperative to prevent the abortion of a foetus. Nor does it convey on a zygote the rights of an individual. This last one just boggles the mind, it simply does not follow.

Thirdly, Ian argues that fertilisation itself somehow 'creates' a life force that then drives the organism throughout it's life. This is argued without any real evidence for such a force (in earlier years called the 'protoplasm') or understanding of development or reproductive biology. Actually, it's argued without any real understanding of basic biological principles at all.

If Ian did know some basic things about developmental biology, he would know that the first stages of development of the embryo are not guided by the zygote's own genes at all, but rather by maternal mRNA left in the egg during its genesis in the womb. This mRNA, once translated into protein, directs the first few cleavages of the cell, as well as setting up spatial polarity within the embryo, upon which only later (4-8 cell stage) does the embryonic genome begin to lay down the body plan.

Next, Ian stumbles further down the development-of-life-on-primordial-earth-somehow-relating-to-abortion-law tangent even further, this time exposing hints of a great conspiracy to 'create life' by mad modern scientists:

The Miller-Urey experiments were a failure: the mere creation of amino acids (bricks) does not lead to the Empire State building without intervention and there's been enormous work to try and get the so-called building blocks of life to do something. Nothing happens no matter how you shake the mixture or put sparks through it.

As one of the former doyens of chemical evolution, Professor Dean Kenyon puts it: the field of chemical evolution is effectively dead.

You are being disingenuous Danyl, if you expect people to believe that science has no interest in creating life. If you can't see the "point" of experiments in that vein, then you may be lacking the genuine inquiring mind necessary for scientific advancement.

The first scientist to figure out how to create life has a commercial mortgage on the future of the planet. But it is precisely because creating the real thing is impossible that work has opened up on genetic modification instead...

Ian is right, of course, in that the formation of amino acids does not lead to the formation of life without some kind of intermediate processes. Those processes are, of course, the formation of precursor replicating molecules, most likely ancestral versions of RNA, and the process of natural selection whereby molecules which are statistically 'better' at more faithful self-replication and oligopeptide synthesis are more likely to continue propagating. Those processes are not a divine hand, but rather an artefact of physical, chemical and statistical laws acting over an early, angry tumultuous earth.

The field of abiogenesis is a young and developing one, hindered by the fact that it is very difficult to 'know' what the early earth looked like. What I can safely say is that the scientists in the field no longer run electricity through little flasks (the Miller-Urey experiments); it has progressed somewhat. We may not know a huge amount, but we have some pretty sound ideas about it.

What does all of this have to do with abortion, or the right's of the foetus?

Very little. But then, that's Ian's rhetorical style. Rather than logical substance, it focuses more on wild red herrings that beg the question, irrelevant tangents that throw the reader off and conspiratorial undertones that call on the reader to suspend their incredulity. Although this suits the hysterical tabloid media to a T, it contributes very little to reasoned, humane debate.

The United Nations must set a standard for the treatment of women

2006-03-08T13:46:00.000+13:00

Stephen Lewis made a speech to the “conference on UN reform and Human Rights” at Harvard Law School at the end of last month.
You can read the full speech here – it will only take about 10 minutes and it is well worth a read.
Stephen is a leader of the UN special envoy for HIV/AIDS but his speech is predominantly about the role of Women at the UN.
The UN has appointed a High level panel on UN system wide coherence. Basically it’s a panel to restructure the UN and only three of the members are women.
Stephen argues that this systematic discrimination of women it rife within the UN and that the significance of UNIFEM (United National Development Fund for Women) compared to UNICEF (United Nationals fund for children) shows the stark difference in how the UN deals with women’s issues. UNIFEM is a small organisation underneath the UN development Fund where UNICEF is large fully funded organisation in its own right.
He relates this to HIV/AIDS is that women’s vulnerability is disproportionate and needs specific interest. Not to undermine the HIV/AIDS issue in New Zealand and the large proportion of men contracting, Women in heterosexual relationships are still the predominant carrier internationally.

This speech is a breath of fresh air for me and I feel that what Stephan has said is absolutely true. UNIFEM is under supported in NZ and internationally even though it does excellent work in predominantly the Pacific Islands for women.
New Zealand’s connection with the UN is vital I believe in the organisation. What I am concerned about is the discrimination that the UN rages against outside is also apparent inside and we must push for change. Luckily for Women we have the support of Stephen.

GOD hates me

2006-03-08T11:38:00.000+13:00

I had to stop the car on the side of the road this morning to take a minute to compose myself. An “Operation Rescue” organiser was interviewed this morning on National radio and he made me so ill I had to take a moment, in an attempt not to vomit.

Operation Rescue is an anti abortion lobby group in support of the governor of South Dakota who signed law which severely restricted abortion. You can visit their website here Also see some pictures of abortions here.
Abortion is only legal under this law if in attempts to save the mothers life, this results in accidental death of the foetus.

You can read about it here.

33 years after Roe vs Wade it feels like a step back in time that this legislation has been signed on. There is a group who are determined to take this decision to the Supreme Court and this is seen as a challenge to Row vs Wade. The ramifications of the outcome of the Supreme Court challenge are huge.
We must be careful in a country like New Zealand to ward off the influence of the right wing conservatives. This type of precedent – although it has been set in America – is dangerous. We cannot let out bodies and sexuality be discriminated against in this way.
I have commented before on this blog that New Zealand abortion laws are outdated and need to be reviewed but I am concerned about raising this issue when there are people in the world that could take abortion law backwards not forwards.
It’s a question of choice, rights, health, sexuality and It is often men who are the spokespeople of Anti Abortion groups claiming that it is about the right of the child – a child that is created when the sperm meets the egg.

We are lucky to live geographically far away from this madness but there are many New Zealanders who are conservative around the abortion issue. It is a difficult debate to have and it is not one that is usually had until one is pregnant and the prospect of abortion becomes real.
On International Women’s Day I think it’s a good time to reflect on what has happened in South Dakota and realise that Women’s Rights are Human Rights – and we still have a very long way to go.

Squishy things, or a new post not about education

2006-03-05T18:26:00.000+13:00

My first semester of University involved taking BIOSCI 103: Comparative Animal Biology. It was a great course, and really piqued my interest in pursuing an animal-based biology degree, rather than a biochemistry one, which had been my initial intention. Hell, my initial intial intention had been to do law (until I worked for lawyers), so it's not like changing my mind as often as I change my underwear isn't particularly out of the ordinary...

Nonetheless, I digress. The course itself contained laboratories which essentially involved hacking all manner of animals up and looking at their innards. My initial uneasiness wore off in about 3 minutes into the first lab, as I realised how cool chopping animals up can be. Ok, sure, it's probably not very ethical to assign one rat per person, rats that had been specifically bred to be slaughtered, congealed blood staining their nostrils from the poison-induced respiratory haemorrhaging that ultimately led to their demise. But hey. I had just bought my new leather bound dissection kit, and like I wasn't going to let that go to waste, right?

Oh dear. Another digression.

ANYway. One of our labs involved observation of Amphioxus, or the lancelet 'worm', under the microscope. These critters are only very small, about 2-3cm maximum in length, and look a lot like anchovies. Amphioxus, otherwise called Branchiostoma has long been lauded as a key model species for understanding the development of the vertebrates from from an invertebrate world sometime during the Ordovician period of the Paleozoic era, some 470 million years ago.

Our little corner of the tree of life is called the Deuterostomia (which means "second mouth"), as opposed to Protostomia (which means "first mouth"). These names refer to the period of development where the gut forms: in protostomes, the first opening eventually forms the mouth, whereas in deuterostomes (us), the first opening forms the anus, and the second opening forms the mouth - hence 'second mouth'. Comprising this set are the echinoderms (star fish, kina et cetera), the hemichordates (a random and obscure group of worms) and the 'chordates'. The chordates themselves split into the urochordates - things like sea squirts and other tunicates, the cephalochordates, where our little lancelet friend fits in, and the vertebrates - us.

The textbook view of these groups holds that echinoderms are the most 'primitive', or basal member of the deuterostomes. This is mainly due to the fact that they are unlike any other deuterostome - they are the odd ones out in terms of their symmetry, their locomotion, internal organisation et cetera. The next group up are the hemichordates, so called because they do have some of the characteristics which are normally associated with the chordates, in particular the presence of first signs of gill (pharyngeal) slits. The classical view argues that the urochordates (tunicates) are the most basal member of the chordate clade - they possess a hollow 'notochord' and dorsal nerve cord, but don't exhibit the body complexity, particularly body segmentation, seen in the remaining cephalochordates (lancelets) and vertebrates, which together comprise the Euchordata or 'true chordates'. This classical view is shown in the image below.

[Click to enlarge]

All of this is based on an apparent increase in complexity throughout the lineages - almost as if the principles behind that iconic 'ape to man' idea had been transplanted to explain the development from 'squishy' to 'us'. Those more like us are more advanced, those more squishy are, well, primitive. Of course, we're only dealing here with complexity in a morphological sense - the appearance of new and improved features on organisms over time. If we were to look at biochemical or intracellular physiological complexity, the earliest forms of life (bacteria) would kick our proverbial arse. This idea of a supposed correlation between being 'complex' and being 'advanced' isn't completely arrogant or conceited. The earliest forms of animal life at least were simple and squishy, and there is, overall, a general trend towards "complexity". But many squishy lineages developed incredible complexity - you only need to look at the cephalopods (octopuses, squid and cuttlefish) who are most closely related to snails and slugs, as well as the more 'complex' forms that have rediscovered the joys of a simple squishy lifestyle.

This view on the deuterostome phylogeny has been challenged before, with some success. However, the most significant recent change to the phylogeny really only focussed on the origins of the hemichordates (shown below), shifting them from being basal to the chordates, to being a more closely related sister taxon of the echinoderms. As you can see, that still maintains that nice, convenient transition from the more primitive and squishy sea squirts, through Amphioxus, up to us and the other vertebrates.

[Click to enlarge]

Not anymore.

A paper published in this last week's Nature throws some quite serious spanners into the classical works of deuterostome phylogeny. The researchers, Delsuc et al. (Delsuc interestingly held a post-doctoral position in Massey Univerity's Allan wilson Centre for Ecology and Evolution) used 146 common genes from 14 different deuterostomes to really hammer out the relationships between the groups. The results below are quite profound (ignore the black bits, just focus on the bottom coloured bits).

[Click to enlarge]

Essentially this provides two fundamental shifts:

Firstly, the urochordates are placed as the sister group to the Vertebrates, supporting a previously hypothesised clade called Olfactores. What this phylogeny implies is that we are more closely related to the sea squirt we are desperately trying to get rid of in Auckland Harbour than we are to Amphioxus. Now, this may not sound very important to some of you, but for anyone who has done even some basic evolutionary study, it means everything that we assume about the evolution and appearance of the vertebtrates, this gradual appearance of more 'vertebrate' features via the cephalochordates could quite possibly be absolute shite. Ipso facto, our (perhaps conceited) grouping "Euchordata" or "True chordates" could also be absolute shite.

Secondly, The cephalochordates are not only not directly basal to the vertebrates, they are actually placed as the sister group to the echinoderms in their own clade. Although the authors point out that this particular grouping doesn't have the statistical robustness as the urochordate-vertebrate grouping, it is nonetheless a rational interpretation of their data. This completely disrupts the "Chordata" group. From a systematics point of view, a lineage name applies to a common ancestor and all it's living and non-living descendants. Given that the chordates are now distributed all over the show (that is, they are polyphyletic) the term "chordate" may not, evolutionarily speaking, mean a hell of a lot. Unless of course we lowered the bar, if you will, and classified echinoderms (and by default hemichordates) as chordates. This naturally, is not likely to happen, because then basically we would be renaming all of the living deuterostomes as chordates. And that just won't do. No it won't. These two shifts can be seen in the simplified cladogram below.

[Click to enlarge]

This is the beauty of the tension that often arises between traditional morphological cladistics, or grouping organism relatedness based on overall similarity of body form and the sharing of structures, and that of molecular systematics - using genes to work out the same thing. Often they do come out with the same answer, but many times they don't. It's incredibly exciting when a study like this comes out, and challenges our assumptions about our 'knowledge' of morphological systems.

Perhaps more exciting than the actual repositioning of taxa within the deuterostome phylogeny is the implication for what this repositioning means for the evolutionary history of the deuterostomes themselves. The classical view suggests a steady aquisition and appearance of more 'vertebrate' like features through the lineages, with the cephalochordates representing the penultimate innovation before the appearance of the first vertebrate fish about 470 million years ago. Conversely, the echinoderms are seen (along with their sister group the hemichordates) as some bygone era of deuterstome evolution, a weird and wacky cousin that doesn't quite fit. Similarly, the urochordates, with their sessile habit and (apparently) simple body plan are seen as the primitive precursors to the euchordates.

According to the new study, however, both of these taxa can be viewed as highly advanced and derived lineages, which extensively modified the ancestral deuterostome body plan to become the forms that we see today. In the echinoderms an internal calcitic skeleton developed, along with radial symmetry and a particularly unique mode of locomotion, in the urochordates, the complete loss of the notochord in at least one sublineage, unique genetic simplicity and a lazy, squishy way of life.

And what of that ancestral body plan? The researchers suggest that the last common ancestor of the living deuterostomes may be far closer to Amphioxus than previously imagined - free living, bilateral symmetry, well developed metamerism (segmentation), distinct gill slits, and a pretty well organised brain and dorsal central nervous system. Essentially, all of these features that we assumed appeared just before we did may actually be the most ancestral, the most basic condition, Further those forms we assumed to be 'primitive' and distantly related are in fact extreme modifications of that basic body plan, bizarre yet equisite examples of evolution and adaptation, and in the case of the urochordates, closer to us in evolutionary time than we had ever imagined.

You want to what?

2006-02-27T20:17:00.000+13:00

New Zealand First MP Brian Donnelley has drafted a Private members Bill the “Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill.

The Bill proposes to establish “Universities of Technology” that will fill the perceived gap between traditional universities and polytechnics.
The problem with the bill as I see it is that it establishes Universities of Technology that are not considered Universities.
So where would AUT (now called AUT University, which is so funny – Auckland University of Technology University) fit into this?
We don’t know and would have to see what the explanation about that is, we can presume this has something to do with Unitec and its annoying, yappy claims that it should be a University.
Brian Donnelly claims that this is normal practise overseas to establish these universities of technology, I challenge him to show the public examples of this practise where it is the norm.
New Zealand does not need new types of university or polytechnic we are in oversupply as it is.

The most annoying thing about the bill, besides being a retarded idea, is that Labour has promised to bring it into the house if it does not get drawn soon as part of an election deal with NZ First. Painful Painful. I will attach a copy of the bill when I can get access to it.

Speaking of painful – what is the story with UCOL and how is this happening? Its not often that I agree with the National Party but this is a rare occasion when Bill English has it right on the button. UCOL is basically getting bailed out by the government – which I agree with in certain circumstances, as regional polytechs are very important- what I don’t agree with is two CEO’s are they stupid? Do they need two people to do one persons job? Couldn’t they just appoint another manager for a smaller cost? I know that this release has a National Party spin on it but whatever way you spin it – its painful. The UCOL council have something to answer for. Duncan Milne a wool research company director and investor – silly, woolly man, chairs the Council. How are they going to get themselves out of the s**t if they spend money on Two CEOs eh? How?

SSDD

2006-02-22T12:28:00.000+13:00

Yawn, Booooring.
A bird tells me that Ken Rapson, Mount Roskill Grammar Principal is moving on to the University of Auckland. He will be the director of the schools partnership office which is in charge of school liaison and partnerships.
Ken is a former Auckland (Boys) Grammar School Deputy Principal and I believe he had something to do with the development of the University of Auckland schools leadership centre.

The centre runs professional development workshops and leadership seminars that cost hundreds of dollars to attend. One does not approve, I presume they also do research but I am yet to see anything come out of the centre, the current director is one Ms Dawn Jones. Dawn is a former Diocesan school for girls Principal – 15 years and also co-founded Senior College with University of Auckland former Vice Chancellor and Maxim institute supported John Graham.
I wonder what lofty heights of glory Mr Rapson will take the schools partnership office to? His background is certainly droll and I doubt he will add much more than a smattering of grey to the beige world that is the University of Auckland.

Lies

2006-02-20T14:03:00.000+13:00

The US government has pulled out some whoppers in the past, but the Guantánamo Bay line must top them all.

The US has gone on the offensive following the release of a rather sobering UN report calling for the prison’s closure. There is no abuse at Guantánamo, there is no torture at Guantánamo says Donald Rumsfeld. Those tree-huggin' hippies at the UN don’t know nothing, of course. Really, what were they thinking calling for humane treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay “Several hundred terrorists, bad people” are held there says Rumsfeld. But that doesn’t explain why US authorities won’t charge detainees or give them a fair trial, or why UN investigators aren’t allowed to speak to them. The US doesn’t have a particularly good track record when it comes to these things. We've all see the appalling abuse at Abu Ghraib, and there’s no reason to believe similar things are not going on at Guantánamo Bay. Who knows what goes on at the so-called “black sites”, where apparently ‘bad people’ are taken following their ‘extraordinary rendition’ – but it can’t be good. The US government’s quiet redefinition of “torture” allows spokespeople to say straight-faced that such methods are not being used by the US. The US government defines torture as pain similar to that of organ failure or death – if it doesn’t hurt that much then it ain’t torture. This is a much narrower concept of torture than held by most other governments and by the United Nations.

So we are supposed to accept the word of the United States government that Guantánamo detainees are in fact “bad people”, and not just bearded foreigners who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, simply because the US tells us they are. And on top of that, we’re expected to believe that detainees are not being mistreated, despite the authorities there refusing the UN full access.

It would almost be laughable, if it weren’t so sickeningly awful.

The Fundy Post 20: Whatever Happened To....?

2006-02-17T15:23:00.000+13:00

The Fundy Post, for those who know not of it, is the "review of the strange world of the Religious Right," which I produce for the NZ Association of Rationalists and Humanists. Under the banner of "we read this crap, so you don't have to," the Fundy Post comments on the activities of the Maxim Institute, the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards and others. It is copied here, for your amusement and edification.

Appeal

Dear Fundy Post reader,

we have never before asked you for help, but a matter of serious concern has arisen and we need your assistance. The problem is simple: the Maxim Institute is in trouble. They are too proud to admit it, but a small note at the bottom of last week's Real Issues indicates that a crisis is looming. This is what it says:

Help support Maxim: We currently need visionary people to partner with us as monthly donors. Will you consider becoming a Maxim Partner? Please call us: 09 627 3261, or email us: maxim@maxim.org.nz and we will send you an AP form. Thank you in anticipation of your valuable support.

I don't think I need to say much more. As a Fundy Post reader, you will realise the seriousness of this problem. If Maxim goes under because of financial difficulties, what will there be to write about? After all, Bishop Tamaki has vanished (reports that The Rapture has already happened, but he was the only man good enough to go straight to Heaven, are exaggerated); the Exclusive Brethren are keeping to themselves; the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards have nothing to say but how beastly the Chief Censor is being towards them; even the spankers at Family Integrity can only wail about being mocked on National Radio. We need Maxim, more than they need us. They have given us so much in the past; now is the time to give something back.

Whilst you are at it, if you have any latent prejudices, seething resentments or uninformed opinions, don't keep them to yourself; send them to Maxim as well. Maxim has always had enough of these but a Peak Bile crisis may be just around the corner. For several years now, production has far exceeded supply. Having scapegoated gays, unmarried people, post modernists, neo-marxists, immigrants and many others, Maxim has few targets left. Indeed, in the previous Real Issues, they were reduced to complaining about news readers. The situation is truly dire.

Remember, without Maxim, the prospects for mockery look dismal. A publication like the Fundy Post can only keep going if there are bigots at which we can point and laugh. So dig deep. Please, please, give whatever you can. You don't need to be visionary; you just need cash. Don't do it for the children. Do it for satire.

Thank you in anticipation of your valuable support.

Where are they now?

If you think I am joking, take a look at The People of Maxim page on Maxim's website. Some familiar names are missing. John McNeil has gone and his blog, Canary in the Mine has not been updated since 22nd December. Scott McMurray, Communications Director, has gone, as have several minor parts in the Maxim drama; all trace of Mr Logan has been removed, of course. Others have come in their place. Has Restructuring taken place? Where are these people? What is going on?

Lack of Evidence

It is a lame title I know, but I told you things were bad. This is not the first time Maxim has asked for money. They have been doing it all the while. In fact, if you go to their website, you will find a personal message from Greg Fleming, inviting you to join him and his pals in building a better New Zealand. In return for becoming a Maxim Partner, you will receive a complementary copy of Maxim's Evidence journal each quarter.

Not any more. According to a cursory note tucked away on the publications page, Evidence is no more. The Spring 2005 edition was the last.

I for one will miss it. I never bought a copy, but I always read it. I shall miss the stock photographs of worried middle-class people, whose imaginary marriages were always under threat from homosexualists and the Neo-Marxist State. I shall miss the Philosophy For Dummies articles, which condemned all those heathen Greeks and lauded the godly thinkers ("Augustine is not just a philosopher, he's a Saint!" or something similar). I shall miss the various whinings of Maxim's Teenage FBI, the interns and staffers who always had a heartfelt personal story about how the world is so unfair to the sort of student who wears a suit to lectures.

In particular, I was hoping to to hear more from Tiffany Scrimshaw (yes, really), the intern who was looking forward to a "buffet of body treatment" with her two best girlfriends, but was disappointed when they "were lured away by the promise of better entertainment elsewhere," The fact that the alternative entertainment involved sex and booze, while Ms Scrimshaw would probably dish out lashings of Edmund Burke with the body rubs, was probably the tipping point for both friends. The Spring Issue of Evidence is available at all good bookstores but you can save your money and read Tiffany's gripe on the Maxim site.

Ruth is stranger than Fiction

The good news for Maxim is that they have had something published. Since that little matter with Mr Logan, we have not read much from Maxim in the papers. However, Ruth Porter managed to get an article published a few months ago, in the Education Weekly of 25th October 2005. Here is an excerpt from "What the next three years may hold:"

Despite attempts to avoid haemorrhaging schools to alternative examinations systems, including the PPTA's opposition to the Cambridge International Examinations, the latest stats show that, as long as the NCEA remains in its current form, the haemorrhaging is inevitable.

Parse this sentence at your peril. Our crack team of Semioticians has been working day and night in a futile attempt to understand what Ms Porter means. It is a bit rum that a body which claims to be so concerned about education standards has such a loose grip on grammar, syntax and all that jazz.

Never mind. Perhaps the winner of this year's Maxim Essay Contest, David Griffiths, will be able to translate. His winning entry can be downloaded as a PDF. Mr Griffiths is bothered that it is alright to make fun of religion. He is particularly vexed that "the Auckland Public Library displays a poster of cricketer Daniel Vettori reading a copy of The Da Vinci Code," and not because the book is a load of rubbish. No, it is an attack on Faith. Perhaps somebody at Maxim's Centre for Education needs to explain the difference between fact and fiction; maybe Paul Henderson whose "special interest is in hermeneutics"

Familiar Oddities

The title comes from an article in Real Issues 190, but it will do for my purposes. In said article, a Maxim staffer writes "have you ever stopped to consider why Don Brash's speeches delivered at Orewa, merit the attendance of major news outlets? A strange and implicit understanding now seems to exist that these speeches are more significant than the dozens of others given by Dr Brash throughout the year."

Perhaps that is because they are more significant than the others. Dr Brash said so. He gives a speech at Orewa Rotary Club every January in which he makes major policy statements and offends his colleagues. Doesn't everyone know that? Obviously not.

Perhaps what the staffer is trying to do is downplay the significance of Dr Brash's most recent speech, in which he stressed the values of a "liberal tolerant secular society" Maxim must feel a little hurt about that. Having done all that work to get the Christian vote to turn out for National, with its NZ Votes website and its political forums, Maxim finds that Dr Brash has not changed at all. He is still a godless heathen.

In another article in the same edition of Real Issues, Maxim gets very ornery about Dr Brash going on to say that New Zealand is a "society that embraces the Western Enlightenment ideals of personal liberty, private property and rationality as the basis of decision-making." He really has not been listening, has he? For Maxim, the Enlightenment (you know, that thing which gave us electricity and ended slavery) is anathema. What's more, Dr Brash failed to mention tradition and heritage, of the Judaeo-Christian kind. Maxim takes up the task of educating the Good Doctor about the state of things. We are living in a Postmodern age "where truth is relative rather than universal and reality is little more than one's perspective. As a consequence, the world is stripped of its meaning, making it difficult for people to meaningfully dialogue together about the world." Difficult especially for Maxim, which struggles both to meaningfully dialogue and to form a grammatically correct sentence.
A Critique of Politically Correct Reason

It can't be easy for them. Years of trying to get people to realise that the real enemy is post-modernism, political correctness and Neo-Marxism, and yet even the leader of the Tories will not pay attention. At least Maxim can take some comfort that Dr Brash's sidekick, the Eradicator Wayne Mapp, has been listening. In his speech to the Rotary Club of Eastern Hutt (are these speeches in some way franchised to Rotary clubs?) Dr Mapp expounded on "Why the Debate on Political Correctness Matters" and promised to develop a "substantial paper" on this theme in the next few months.

The Eradicator says "Much of the writing on political correctness refers to its Marxist origins. It was a term used by Leninists in the Soviet Union of the 1920s to denote the correct way to think about politics." I suspect the writing to which he refers is Maxim's own publication "Political Correctness and the Theoretical Struggle" by Dr Frank Ellis, a man so politically incorrect that he is prepared to share a platform with the people in the pointy hoods with the fiery crosses. Not content to be just the PC Finder General, Dr Mapp aims to add to the scholarly corpus on this topic. He revealed to the Eastern Hutt Rotarians that he has discerned the Categories of Political Correctness; we might in future think of him as the Kant of PC.

However, he tells us, we do not need theory to recognise PC, because "like pornography, we know it when we see it."

One wonders what other publications Dr Mapp has been reading.

The Fundy Post is written by Paul Litterick, NZARH Spokesman and is a publication of the NZARH. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of all members of the NZARH.

The Fundy Post is available by email subscription. Write to paul@nzarh.org.nz
If you want to join the NZARH (go on, you know you want to), write to heathen@nzarh.org.nz

Cash moves everything around me - $$ bills ya'll

2006-02-17T12:52:00.000+13:00

Wellington High School awards $50 to students who turn up to class everyday for the year. This has been met with criticism and fan fare – you can read about it here.

I am personally overwhelmed by education sector news at the moment – it has been a very interesting year so far, and this is another very interesting story.
Personally I believe that this kind of incentive system is flawed. Those students who can come to school everyday being rewarded is placing incentives in the wrong place.
It is highly likely that those students who do turn up everyday would have had the capacity to already- Therefore this would not tackle any truancy issues.

I can see that if you give money to those who turn up there may be some incentive for those ‘once a year waggers’ to not take that day off but I think that the focus on giving money to these students (only 13 last year at the school) is missing the point completely.

Truancy is a problem that must be tackled from four directions; The school, the student, the parents/ whänau and the community. The payment to students only focuses on the student and avoids the root of truancy problem. We should be less concerned about the ‘once a year’ waggers – who I think we have all been at some stage, and more concerned about those who are constantly truanting for those students $50 is not enough of an incentive to keep them at school.

I also have a problem with money being an incentive – it is perverse. I feel that certificates and references are a more appropriate reward for this type of achievement. Firstly because schools have little money and secondly because of the message that this is sending to young adults – that money is the only worthwhile incentive, we should make sure that we teach our young people about responsibility, duties and rights and this is removed from the world of money – otherwise the underlying message that is being sent is that it is not worth doing anything unless there is money attached to it.

I feel that this is another example of a school simplifying a complex issue – like truancy – which must be tackled through a sustained and multi layed set of actions. Offering money to these students avoids the real issue and that is what is going on with those students who do not turn up to school

If you are a born with a learning disability you must pay more, stupid!

2006-02-17T12:23:00.000+13:00

Auckland’s Cockle bay school has been charging for specific learning disabilities classes that students attend during school time.
ERO found out that the school were making parents pay for this tuition during a routine review. You can read about it here.

What astonishes me is how the school could interpret the Education Act in a way that condoned the school charging a tuition fee to parents.
Although the school should be commended for providing these classes for students with learning disabilities they must realise that compulsory education is currently still ‘free’ under the law.

It seems to me that it is reasonable to charge parents the standard school fee but an added fee for these classes is clearly against the act.
Children with learning disabilities are entitled to be taught like all other students – there has been no choice made by them to have a learning disability therefore any education they receive must be under the requirements of the education act for all students to receive an education.
The self determination for schools that came in during the Tomorrows schools reforms was certainly exciting but you do get morons like Cockle Bay school chairman David Crawford interpreting he education act and charging students for a basic education. Go figure.

Tangled Bank 47: This is your final boarding call...

2006-02-15T16:17:00.000+13:00

Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome aboard this flight TB47. The Air Kete Were crew would like to wish you an enjoyable flight. Before we depart, the crew would like to bring to your attention today's inflight entertainment...

Parasite loving passengers will find a discussion by Coturnix on the modus operandus of Ampulex compressa, the Emerald Cockroach Wasp in the seat pocket in front of them, together with an interview by Complex Medium with the parasitologist Robert Desowitz.

Bird lovers among us are in for a special treat during the flight: an account of the recently rediscovered Lost Birds of Paradise of West Papua, prepared by Scientist, Interrupted, as well as an article on the Eurasian Collared Dove from Mike at 10000 Birds

Archaelogist Martin Rundkvist provides three articles for your reading pleasure: a description of An Old Church located over the site of an old Swedish pagan feasting house, determined using ground radar; a discussion on the real function of ancient barrows, and an account of human life on the bottom of the North Sea - 9000 years ago.

The more medically minded will have noticed a number of enticing options on our inflight menu:

A Concerned Scientist presents an appetiser on Stem Cell research, followed up by a discussion on dropping cancer rates. Alternatively, we will be offering Circadiana's Seasonal Affective Disorder with mineral water. Before choosing your option, however, we would advise you to be aware of Centrerion's link between obesity and portion sizes.

Regular passengers will be aware of the link between flying and deep vein thrombosis, and the need for preventative exercises. We would also like refer you to The Other Bloke's post discussing the link between bilingualism and lower rates of Alzheimer's Disease. Accordingly you will find German, Spanish and Chinese dictionaries under your seats, next to the life jackets.

Lazy Journalists will appreciate this post from Political Calculations, allowing them to calculate any statistics for a given time period, in order to prevent any embarassing, published screw ups.

The Lancelet posts Part Three in a three-part series on the concept of "Species" and its manipulation by creationists. Parts One and Two can be found here and here.

Galactic Interactions muses on the concept of Cosmological Fine Tuning, while Anthonares explains why we shouldn't be running the Terrestrial Planet Finder through NASA in its current form.

Frequent fliers with Kete Were Air will be familiar with the impressive work of Pharyngula, and today's piece on the evolution of a polyphenism continues that tradition.

The more philosophical of our passengers may not be entirely satisfied by any of the entertainment options mentioned. As a result, we offer a wide range of philosophical pieces for you: Reb Chaim offers the provocatively-titled "Sin or Die", Ruminating Dude questions How Ethical are Scientists?, while B and B ponders the conundrum of politically active scientists. If you're a youngest child, you'll enjoy Cognitive Daily's post suggesting what you always suspected: you may actually be the smartest of your siblings.

Evolgen takes issue with those who take issue with 'retarded geneticists', Shallow Thoughts discusses the joy of Radioactive Radon in the home, which, along with The Biotech Weblog's report on Phase 3 of clinical trials of an anti-HIV gel among Africal Women is bound to tickle the interest of those interested in the fascinatingly obscure.

Our own crew member, Xavier, would like to share with you his ramblings on Global Warming. Humour him. Go on, you know you want to...

If you're after just a little harmless fun, the Kete Were crew can suggest The Scientific Activist's humourous and scientific take on Valentines Day. This is a far cry from The SA's previous work, exposing the mouthy 24 year old would be censor of NASA George Deutsch as not actually being a journalist at all. The Skwib takes the mickey out of Thomas Malthus, economist, influencer of Darwin and prude extraordinaire, it would seem.

Lovers of the simple things in life will appreciate A Darwinian Cryptic Crossword brought to you by Richard Carter. Due to inflight safety regulations on pointy things, pencils are available only from your friendly Kete Were crew.

We hope you enjoy your flight today, and look forward to seeing you on Flight TB48 in two week's time, departing from Aetiology International Airport on 1 March. Bookings can be made by emailing host@tangledbank.net

Perception Vs Fact - School zones, competition and choice

2006-02-14T12:03:00.000+13:00

Researchers at the London School of Economics, Centre for Economics of Education have conducted some reserach into choice and competition in London primary schools. You can find the research here. There is a brief article about this in the latest education review.

The initial findings did show that pupils did better in schools where competitive markets operated. But - in look further they saw that it was due to the sorting of students and the socio economic area around the school that led to this achievement - not the competition. Many people would argue that the sorting of students is exactly why competition works, but the difficulty with this, is that the students are already 'smarter' than others - it is not the competition that raises the standards. The sorting and choosing of students is just a streaming or class based system.
The research showed that "attainment for pupils... - are unrelated to the choices avalible to the pupils or to the competitive pressures the school faces."
This research is part of the arguement against competition and choice in schooling - I refer back to my previous argument. The demand for choice in schools is not rational and based on achievement, it is grounded in parental hysteria.
Until we build confidence and breakdown stereotypes around schools we will continue to have debate framed by fear of the current system.

Happy Darwin Day!

2006-02-12T21:31:00.000+13:00

On this day, February 12, in 1809 a little boy was born in Shrewsbury, England, who would one day write a book (or several, as it turned out) explaining the theory that underpins all of modern biology...

Charles Darwin - the shy, reclusive, persistent, possibly hypochondriac, conflict-avoiding son of doctor, would be clergyman, and amateur geologist, who also discovered that barnacles are actually crustaceans.

Happy 197th Birthday!

UPDATE: YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!AJ Chesswas, a.k.a. Allan, a.k.a. Agri-Christian is departing the cyber-narcissitico-blogo-sphere. I swear, I SWEAR! WE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Adieu, Allan, It was fun while it lasted, even though I personally disagree with almost every syllable you write. I had a read of Allan's post recounting The Great AJ Chesswas Conceptual Art Project, and couldn't help but get a smile on my dial. Aaahh...those were the days. Some people enjoyed it, others didn't, some even mystically attribute the winding down of About Town to The Project, an inference that is entirely incorrect, but nonetheless speaks volumes to its infamy. Allan, you are a legend, even if wrong most of the time. Good night, and Good Luck.

Wheres the rangatiratanga eh?

2006-02-12T18:23:00.000+13:00

About 2 months ago the Principal of Edgewater College was telling me about a proposed website where parents could check on their children’s school grades and attendance records. I was appalled and proceeded to explain how this removed the rights of the students and did not take a youth development approach to improving information for students. About 20 minutes ago TV One News announced the launch of this kind of website at Avondale college.

The way the website works is that parents are given a unique login and they can view the grades and attendance record (per period) of their child(ren). Avondale College’s Principal says that this is about adding value for parents and to encourage parent interest in their child's education.

Although this may mean that parents have more information I would argue that it's not necessarily the right information and also that all student rights are removed by putting this information online, and that parent interest in their child’s education should be encouraged but not through such a perverse method as ‘spying’ on their child.

In an ideal world children would discuss their progress at school with parents including days off and grades. This is not always the case and parents are often moved to spy on their children or find information that their children won't give them in other ways.

This really defeats the purpose, though, because in the end the education of the child is paramount and the child’s ‘buy in’ to their education is vital.

A youth development approach to information would empower the students to come up with a way to communicate with their parents about grades etc.

The information that parents can access through the Avondale site is information they can access from teachers already, but there has always been the understanding that students will tell their parents.

This website is removing them from the picture and encourages parents to take any self-determination that the children had over their education away.

In person I can articulate this argument better but I am opposed to the website for these reasons:

1. Grades and days off are not the only measures of educational success – this information may give parents an skewed idea of where their child is at.

2. Parents may see this as an alternative to talking to their child or their child’s teacher about their progress.

3. Parents may see this as an alternative to attending parents teacher interviews

4. This removed the child’s right to an privacy around this information.

5. This system takes any responsibility and rights away from the student.

6. This system could become more Big Brother-like, as it is developed.

I am very upset that this is in place and the students are viewed without rights in this situation. It is difficult for students to organise and articulate against this system. This system is avoiding the problem that leads to parents needing to get this information from somewhere other than the child. Parent and child communication in an open, honest and mature way can be achieved; this web based system is taking the easy way out to scare and alienate the students from self-determination over their education.

Aussies want to abort at home too!

2006-02-10T13:24:00.000+13:00

Helen Clark met with John Howard yesterday but most of the questions from the media at the press conference were for Howard - asking him about where he stood on RU-486.

UPDATE: Voted today 16/02/06 - the upper house passed the bill to remove right of veto over RU-486 from Minister of Health- well done aussies!

Currently the Australian Health Minister has the right of veto over whether Australians will have access to the abortion pill RU-486. The difficulty is is the Health Minister is fundamentally anti-abortion. A cross-party private members bill was put together that removed the Health Minister's right of veto and it has successfully made it through the senate last night. Read about it here!

John Howard is trying to move the debate away from abortion - claiming that it is vital that the Health Minister keep his right to veto. But it's a conscience vote and his party members voted against him in the first round of voting. With some luck the bill will be passed through the House of Representatives - Proud and open anti-abortionists do not good Health Ministers make.

PS- I desperately wanted to call this post something about dingos stealing babies but couldn’t work it in without offending myself.

I'm in the Zone!

2006-02-09T22:29:00.000+13:00

Today (Thursday) John Morris (Principal of ABGS or AGS for you puritans) had a whole column to himself to put forward his views on zoning. You can find it here – or by searching John Morris in the Herald search function.

In tomorrows National Business Review there will also be a piece on school choice by a friend of mine – Page 13. We have utterly different views on this but it still will be a good read.
I want to respond to some of Johns comments and then move the debate a bit to talk about Selwyn college – which I believe the NBR article will touch on.

In his article John Morris is really saying that his school stands above the rest and that the parents who have aspirations for their children will send them there. He is marketing a form of elitism and suggesting that his school out performs all others.
There is not question that ABGS is a good school and that if you are a good rugby player you should go there. The traditional style of teaching works for some but not all. Morris also says that because of ABGS inner Auckland locale they are unfairly discriminated against because of the zoning laws.

So, what to do? Zoning ‘works’ for 99% of schools without complaint and ABGS will not be having legislation just for this school. So we need to
a) Build another school in the ABGS zone
b) Fund ABGS to build more classrooms
c) Crack down on system cheaters
d) Build confidence in those schools who are performing well
e) Identify those schools that are not performing and raise those standards.
f) Stop harping on about property prices – if zoning were removed all those people who paid a premium to live in the Grammar zone property prices would drop overnight. Surely its in those peoples best financial interest to support zoning,

John Morris is advocating for a removal of zoning full stop for reasons that we have visited and it didn’t work. So now we have to look to the future, National is not currently advocating the removal of zoning. They are advocating more ‘choice’ though – whatever that means. I am still yet to see the pragmatic solution that John Morris says that he has – I am willing to suspend my left POV to see something more centrist.

Grammar was given a one-year exemption by the government to begin classes a week early. This exemption was given so that they could adjust for the year after; Morris says that it is impossible to have a week less (actually 4 days due to Auckland Anniversary and Waitangi Day) as they would not reach the gazetted teaching hours for the Cambridge Exams. Unfortunately for Morris his argument is not strong as students are legally entitled to enrol in his school up to the date that school starts – this week – not last week when ABGS started, even with the exemption.

This while issue is more complex, it’s not all based on fact. It’s about attitudes, stereotypes, group think and values. ABGS appeals to some parents solely because of a uniform – or an all boy’s school (that is affordable) or having ‘Grammar Values’ or being a strict place of discipline. These values can be so strong that they defy all else; especially when parents are just trying to do what they think is best for their child.

Which brings be to Selwyn College – unfairly labelled a bad school by white, upper middle class In zone parents of Kohimarama. Why? Because its seen as an arts school, or because they have an immigrant programme, or because it does not have a uniform. Its basic human prejudice. Never mind the fact that your child could attend Selywn and study Maths, English, Science and say History and Geography – go through the system like a kid at Grammar without being called my their last name. Never mind the fact that the academic outcomes are excellent and the NCEA levels are absolutely fine.
What the prejudice is – is against the other course – the focus and fostering of the arts, culture and drama.
And because they are in mufti they must be hoons or wagers.
Although I personally like uniforms because they remove all class boundaries I cannot see how mufti can affect the quality of learning but it sure effects the perception of quality.

What this highlights is that we need to do some serious confidence building in our schools and breaking down of prejudice. Private schools do add value – they can cause you pay for it. ABGS adds value because of the history and its cultural capital but schools like Selwyn certainly add value and those students are just as successful.
It depends just how you define success - but that’s another post for another day.

Update: - 2 letters in the NZHerald today. One that suggests privatising Grammar. Rich also suggests in my columns field - an Auckland Zone drawn by the 'hat method' or turing top decile schools into 6th form colleges. Will examine these options soon. (must work - and so should you - get back to it!)

Truth, Beauty

2006-02-08T23:10:00.000+13:00

I read in The Herald and heard on National Radio about a "lost world" (in fact, previously unfound) of animals and plants that had been discovered in New Guinea.

What the scientists found was extraordinary and beautiful. How they went about finding what they found was also extraordinary and beautiful, as was their ability to distinguish what they had found from what was already known. After all, the beauty of Science is its ability to make distinction, as well as to classify and to decide on the basis of those classifications. In doing so, it describes the beauty of Nature.

And then I speculated, Rationalist that I am and ever so mindful of how Science has been disdained by those who claim to have a better judgement, whether the scientists who found this 'garden of Eden' were in a race with the Creation Scientists (Old Earth and Young Earth) or the Intelligent Design 'theorists' to find and classify these previously unknown species.

Of course they were not: real Science gets on with the work of doing Science; bogus 'science' takes a back seat and criticises. There have been no discoveries made by Creation Scientists, Young or Old, or by Intelligent Designists. Not once, not ever. These bogus scientists have nothing to add, although they will do their best to insinuate that their opinions have some bearing on what has been found. Of course, they are lying.

As a medical student (who died at a ridiculously young age from Consumption) once said:

Beauty is truth, truth beauty, - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Where is the la la la la love

2006-02-08T08:52:00.000+13:00

St Valentines Day is just around the corner and I have been wondering what this actually means. As one gets older the significance of this day becomes less and less relevant as you get a partner (who hopefully shows you their love everyday) or grow up enough to not rest the success of yourself as a person on your success on this one day. For me I have a long standing love of the day of love. Firstly because I like presents and secondly because I don't want those people who call it a commmercialised holiday to get off scott free - they must show love, and they must do it on Feb 14th. UPDATE : - I got a dozen roses and a t-shirt that says "this is what a socialist looks like." I am so happy.

Over the last 20 something years of my life I have had several painful valentines day experiences - from relationships breaking up (several times on this one day!) to complete denial that the day exisits with stupid excuses like "I show you love all year baby!" and I am thinking "then where the f**k are my flowers?"
So as next Tuesday approaches I feel nervous - will my relationship end? Will I get flowers? Will I be told "its a commercialised holiday - get over it." The pressure is building up and I can't for the life of me think of what to get my partner.
Will they even want a gift if they don't believe in Valentines day? but I can't not get a gift because then how can I assert my right to one."

Can you see, dear reader, my problem.
And how can you not 'believe' in Valentines day anyway - It exisits - the newspaper tells me so (well the advertising sections of glossy magazines at least).

How do you manage this day? Is it pressure, stress? Or am I over analysing this whole thing? but without this day you may never get gifts of love. My best friends boyfriend does not 'buy into' Valentines day and she has been hinting about diamond earrings for years - but does she have them... no she doesn't. Damn you St Valentine - look at what you have done!

The zoning debate rages on - in my mind at least

2006-02-07T18:57:00.000+13:00

The media has continued to publish articles about zoning and enrolment since my last post about John Morris - principal of ABGS. What strikes me is the lack of analysis and suggestion as to how to solve this situation from within the education sector

Todays Herald highlights the enrolment cheat issue, while the editorial misses the point completely by attacking the egalitarian zoning system by arguing that it raises real estate prices in the area - curiously the National party does this too - Bill English released this inspired press relesase which says absolutely nothing and adds sweet FA to the arguement - its a shame that National seem to be missing this very good oppotunity to attack zoning policy, which they should as a matter of course. National just seem to be happy to have their lackies (ie John Morris) push it like a cracked record for them.

What is worrying me is the lack of leadership here - okay lets suspend reality and say that I accept that zoning does not work (where I think it does) Where is the alternative - vouchers that Maxim institute are supporting? The NZEI have argued here that this is old news.

Choice does not exisit with or without zoning - without zoning choice only really is a consideration for those who have the cultural capital to make it so, for example without zoning good students from South Auckland are still not going to get into ABGS because they don't have a 'hotline' to the principals office.

Those who are complaining about a lack of choice now would be the ones complaining the loudest when they can't drive to take their child from Kohimarama to ABGS because the traffic is gridlocked with other parents in SUVs going to the same place.
If we accept there is a problem we need to talk about viable solutions - and the reality is is that in a publicly funded sector like education there will never be true choice for parents. I don't buy the arguement that we should simulate a market - we want choice without really appreciating what choice actually means.

We have an obligation to make sure that all schools are of high quality and that schools are not made false idols by sheep like parents that dont know any better. This probably won't be the last post about this - as you can see, my arguement is not fully developed and I haven't got down to the nuts and bolts of the issue - But what concerns me is that I can't find anyone doing that and as a democratic society we have an obligation not just to complain but also to suggest solutions.
.

Snakes and Lizards: Venom

2006-02-06T06:06:00.000+13:00

I was blown away by an article I found in Nature this week - an article that has generally escaped the attention of bloggers, or so I thought. It turns out that I am a bit behind the mark - despite only being published in the print version of Nature this week, the article, it seems, is so last year, having appeared at Carl Zimmer's blog The Loom and at Afarensis also, with some discussion.

Nevertheless, whenever the article was published, it seriously impressed me - not so much because of its implications for the evolution of venom systems in snakes and lizards (although there is plenty of that), but more so because of the staggering amount of work that went into drawing some very strong, very detailed conclusions; More so because the research, analysis and communication represents good, nay excellent science.

So many of the articles published in journals (particularly the brevia) discuss the results of a single experiment with a bioactive compound, or a field study of an animal; perhaps a play back experiment in bird song, or a test of olfactory identification by petrels, as two examples I have seen. While these experiments are surely elegant, subtle and well designed, they are inherently limited by their restricted scopes. Too often their validity rests upon their compatibility with the results from other disciplines, and the effect of other variables that may not have been tested concurrently. Their results are statistically significant, for sure, and their conclusions undoubtedly sound, but they are in many cases hamstrung in their subsequent applicability to other phenomena, because the original methodology and execution lacked the robustness of a cross disciplinary approach.

The Nature article is produced by 14 authors, chief among them a chap named Dr Bryan Fry from the Australian Venom Research Unit in Melbourne, and is a sterling example of the power of an holistic, cross-disciplinary approach to resolving scientific questions.

Essentially what the article details is an investigation into the evolution of venom production and delivery in the Squamata, the subgroup of diapsid 'reptiles' containing lizards and snakes. More than that, though, the research challenges a number of major assumptions that we hold about these animals; assumptions about evolutionary relationships, assumptions about which lineages actually produce venom and, perhaps most interestingly, assumptions about how at least one lineage was originally thought to have hunted prey. All of these challenges, these conclusions, gain their power from the combination of extensive research across the disciplines of molecular phylogenetics, histology, molecular modelling, molecular evolution and cDNA library construction, toxicology and pharmacology, all against the backdrop of paleaontological reconstructions of the animals.

The most recent consensus of relationships (phylogeny) between the lineages of the Squamata clade is shown below on the left (from the very excellent Tree Of Life Website). The phylogenetic tree printed in Fry's article is on the right.

[Click to Enlarge]

As you can see, there is a major reshuffling of many of the lineages. Most interestingly, the relationship of the snakes appears to have been confidently resolved, with the phylogram placing them in a single clade with the Iguania and the [Helodermatidae + Anguidae + Varandidae] clade, (collectively the three are known as the Anguimorpha). The new phylogeny also changes the place of the Iguania clade (which includes the Iguana lizards), from being the most ancestral or basal lineage of the squamates to one of the most derived. It also means that Iguanas and anguimorph lizards are more closely related to snakes than they are to other lizards. Lets be clear: this is quite a fundamental shift.

Our understanding of venom systems in the squamates (until this research) basically held that only the Serpentes (snakes) and Helodermatidae (Gila Monster) had venom delivery systems, and that the evolution of venom delivery systems in the Serpentes essentially underscored their massive diversification - it was what made them so successfula as a group of reptiles. If this conclusion were true, then according to either of the phylogenies above, the evolution of these systems happened independently - that is, by convergent evolutionary processes. Analysising the systems would make this a pretty reasonable conclusion: snakes deliver their venom via specialised glands in the upper jaw (maxilla), whereas Gila Monsters produce theirs via a gland on their lower jaw (mandible) which then delivers the venom along grooves in the teeth.

Now comes the beauty of the research: The researchers showed that other squamates possessed gland that produced proteins in a similar fashion; the Iguanas (both upper and lower glands) and the Varanids (lower). 'Libraries' were constructed of the DNA coding for all the active compounds coming from all the glands, upper and lower. All members of the 'Venom' group - the Snakes, the Komodos and Monitors and the Iguanas - were analysed, and the nature of the proteins, and the relationships between them, were investigated.

The article shows that the 'ancestral' state appears to have been a delivery system that incorporated both the upper and lower jaw bones. 9 of the original toxin proteins are today found in both the snakes and lizards, 2 of which are only found in the upper jaw glands of Snakes and Iguanas. It appears that, after the development of these 9 proteins, the early snakes split off and underwent a massive evolution - essentially ceasing production of toxins in the lower jaw (except for a few species), but inventing at least 16 other toxins that they delivered through the upper jaw. The next split was the Iguanians, retaining the ancestral condition both upper and lower jaw venom delivery systems. The remaining Anguimorph lizards went the other way - losing the ability to produce toxin in the upper jaw, but inventing at least 3 new toxins to be delivered through the lower jaw.

These three toxins were originally only thought to have been produced by the Gila monster's group, the Helodermatidae, but the article shows that one of the toxins, PLA2 Type III, is also found in the Varanidae - a group that includes the Komodo Dragon, and the Goanna of Australia.

I'm skimming over a great deal here - work that would have gone into deciphering the relationships between toxin molecules is MASSIVE, work that analysed tissue samples, molecule structure, bioactivity and physical properties, not to mention trying to put all of the molecules together in an evolutionary sense. It is a breathtaking amount of research to do, but the picture it produces is worth it.

We can now see that the evolution of venom systems in snakes and lizards was not an entirely independent process - that many of the conditions which preceded modern the modern systems developed before the first snakes even appeared. We can see that, in each of the lineages, subsequent evolution took its course in a way that led us to believe they were independent, that each lineage 'co-opted' only a part of the ancestral state, producing what appear to be unique systems.

The new picture also has major implications for the predatory behaviour one of the lineages which we thought we understood, and about which we could have been horribly wrong: the lineage of the Komodo Dragon, the Goanna and the extinct Megalania prisca

Conventional wisdom has it that the Varanidae hunt by infection, that is, that the lizards deliver a bite to their prey, injecting it with massive amounts of bacteria (over 50 strains!) that fester in its gums. They wait until the animal is overcome by blood loss, infection and shock and then go in for the kill. It turns out that Fry and his team don't think this is a very good explanation at all - a 'red herring' if you will. Previous work on varanid bites, and the speed at which prey items (or humans!) react to the bite has indicated the presence of an active biological compound (such as venom) rather than a slow, passive bacterial infection.

The article shows that the toxins identified in varanid bites are consistent with the effects seen in human victims, including respiratory problems, intense pain, muscle weakness and increased and irregular heart rates. It appears that there is more to this story, and it definitely needs to be investigated further.

Interestingly enough, this little discovery also influences, or at least affects our ability to accept, a possible model of predatory behaviour in a related but very dead animal: Tyrannosaurus rex. Some paleontologists have attempted to show that Tyrannosaurus jaw, teeth and gum structure was very similar to that of the Komodo Dragon, and that it was possible T. rex may also have hunted by causing infectious bites. If it turns out that the Komodo Dragon doesn't even do that, and instead delivers a venomous bite, we may have to throw that particular explanation out the window.

While I respect Dr Fry's expertise on this matter, I would certainly caution against throwing out the "Infectious Bite" explanation altogether. While it may be that the Varanidae do deliver a bioactive venom in their bites, it is also clear that they do have exceptionally filthy mouths. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive, and I would argue that any bite that ensures death, be it immediately or in a week's time, is likely to be a very useful adaptation.

The article seems small and unassuming, but it's conclusions, and the work behind them, are phenomenal. By combining a whole range of seemingly distinct disciplines, the researchers have been able to produce a robust, profound and clear explanation about some of the most interesting animals and the way that they operate in their own worlds. It's this kind of work that makes me itch to do research. It's this kind of thing that makes me love science and the most profound way, and shows me why there is nothing else I want to do with my life.

And just because it's put me in such a good mood, here is a copy of the Wedge Strategy produced by the Discovery Institute, on how to get Intelligent Design in public schools, Reproduced from the Seattle Weekly, via Pharyngula, the best science blog I've read...Just click to enlarge

Have a Happy Waitangi Day

Terrorism: in the eye of the beholder?

2006-02-05T11:54:00.000+13:00

The language of politics – and politicians – is fascinating.

George Bush appears to have tuned down his rhetoric regarding the Palestinian elections. Just over a week ago, he was aggressively repeating that the United States would not negotiate with terrorists, etc, in reference to the election of Hamas. But in his State of the Union speech, Bush barely touched the topic, skimming across with a broad call for the party’s leaders to “recognise Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace”.
He of course knows that Hamas is highly dependent on foreign funds. Diplomacy on both sides seems likely – although it is disturbing to see that Israel has greeted the new government by refusing to pass on the millions of dollars in customs revenue which it owes to the Palestinian Authority.
Despite this apparent change of tack, Bush’s SOTU speech seemed largely familiar. In particular, his cowboy western discourse is still going strong: a large part of the speech was carefully constructed around positive “us” and “ours” and negative, vague “them” and “they”.
“They” are treated as a single entity, a melange of al Qaeda members and Saddam Husseins, bent on destroying the freedoms the US is fighting for. Or variations on that theme.
The most clankingly obvious irony is that he includes Chechens in his list of “terrorists” who “hope [their] horrors will break our will, allowing violent to inherit the earth”. Chechen violence – the Beslan school siege included – is directed against Russian oppression of the people in that region, not destruction of "our freedoms". They are fighting for their own liberty, to put it in language the President can understand.
But of course, it all comes down to whose side you are on when distinguishing between terrorists and freedom fighters.
To return to that war-torn strip between Jordan and the Mediterranean, following Bush’s recent discourse, SOTU aside, one could be forgiven for believing that the Palestinian-Israeli “Road Map to Peace” is looking shaky right now: conciliator and peace-maker Ariel Sharon has left Israeli politics, and terrorists and all-round evil-doers Hamas have come to power in Palestine.
Never mind that Sharon is far from a man of peace – an Israeli commission of inquiry found him “personally responsible” for the massacre of around 1,700 Palestinian civilians in Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in 1982, although this may have faded from the memory of most. Never mind that there are numerous reasons for arguing that Hamas should no more be considered terrorists than the US-backed Israeli Defence Force.
I’m not at all attempting to downplay the violence committed in the past by militants within Hamas. Rather, I’m trying to bring attention to the astounding influence that the world’s most powerful hold over public perception. The way in which violence is presented to the world determines the way in which it is perceived – in particular, whether or not it is seen as necessary, legitimate force or as an illegitimate act of terrorism.
Consider the following acts of violence.
A military coup d’etat which overthrows a democratic government and replaces it with a regime in which the people are afraid to speak their opinions for fear of becoming one of the hundreds of thousands taken to be tortured and often never seen again. Surely this could be classified as terrorism? In 1973 Henry Kissinger and the CIA supported the military coup in Chile which I have just described, and supported and cooperated with the ensuing military regime. And no, there was no threat of withdrawing economic assistance.
Consider then, the arming, training and supporting of a group committed to bringing down a democratically elected government, continuing the support to this insurgent group for a full ten years, watching as the country in question is absolutely destroyed by the civil war created. This was Nicaragua in the 1980s: the US covertly poured huge amounts of resources into the “Contra” insurgent group, destroying the country, and a generation of its inhabitants. Is that not terrorism by another name? (One can only hope that this case of large-scale covert support for an insurgent group won’t inspire US strategy in Palestine).
And finally, consider killing innocent civilians by bombing a building from the air. When Israel assassinated a Hamas leader on this occasion, 17 innocent people who happened to be in the building at the time, were killed.

It makes no sense that horrific acts of violence such as these are not branded as terrorism. Is there a difference between the terrorism of Hamas’ militant wing, and many of the acts supported, indeed, provoked by the United States and its allies?

Terrorism by “our” people is downplayed and couched in euphemisms. Committed by “them”, and it’s reiterated until we know it by heart. And vice versa. And that, I guess, is how the man responsible for the murder of 1700 innocent civilians can now be portrayed as a peacemaker. Looks to me like Hamas need to invest a bit more in their PR strategy.

John Morris: Victim of Injustice?

2006-02-05T11:29:00.000+13:00

Auckland Boys Grammar School Principal John Morris has been in the news recently for opening the school a week early and also for denying 80 in zone students the right to enrol at ABGS.

Although legally schools are due to open on the 7th some schools have chosen to open earlier citing the Cambridge exams workload as too large to fit into less time. You can see the article about this here

It always makes me chuckle when I read about Cambridge exams and how some schools insist on offering them even though they are not related to Cambridge University in anyway and the checks and balances on the quality of the exams are dubious at best. The Government and the Ministry of Education must take some of the blame for these exams being offered as they had the opportunity to restrict the use of these exams earlier but probably have missed that boat now.

In reality ABGS and the other schools do not need to go back a week earlier - its really a move to assert authority over the schools a sort of 'my dick is bigger than yours' competition - those are tiresome and the only people that really lose out are the students and there families. More time at school is not a sign of a quality education.

What has me more concerned and upset is the report that AGGS has turned away 80 in zone students who wished to enroll - the story is here.

John Morris is really only playing political football with the education of those 80 students by denying them their rightful place at his school. I bet that he has accepted more than 80 out of zone students to the school this year meaning that those who are in zone do not have a place.

It is not my intention to outline why I believe in school zoning at this stage - it is however my intention to draw attention to the otherside of this story. Not the poor ABGS principal who is a victim of his own success but a story of poor management and a lack of planning.

School principals have an obligation to be smart managers and to plan for school roll increases and decreases. There are several ways that a school can do this with data from years past, family records (to plan for younger brothers) census and stats NZ data. As well as data from MOE. John Morris could have predicted this but he didn't and now he is trying to highlight some kind of injustice that he has come under where really it's those in zone students who have been victims of injustice.

Cartoons, Butt Plugs and Tolerance

2006-02-05T04:17:00.000+13:00

It's been somewhat of a posting hiatus at kete were for a wee while now; things seem to go quiet when I go away, it would seem. Not to worry! There's nothing like a Graveyard shift in a very quiet call centre to allow for a nice long catch up post...

I've been quite bemused by the Danish Islamic cartoon furore that has erupted over the last week or so. Perhaps the most surreal aspect of the incident is the fact that it's the Danish that have incurred the wrath of Islam. If I had to predict the flash point of a global cultural conflict between fundamentalist jihadist Islamists and the Western Hegemon it probably wouldn't have involved a small country, essentially as offensive as vanilla icecream and puppy dogs. Even Danish Salami is boring.

Of course, Denmark represents something that is perhaps even more offensive to the hardened jihadist than The Great Satan: secularism. As evil GwB and the invasion of the Yanqui imperialists into The Holy Lands may be perceived to be, at least America believes in something, right? The stable, western, liberal, secular democracies of Continental Europe, and to some extent the United Kingdom, with their stubborn refusal to unite the power of faith with the power of the State surely represent more of an anathema to Islamism than the largest Christian Theocracy of all time.

The whole situation is incredibly worrying because it has illustrated two disturbing trends. Firstly, the absolutely vile, violent and visceral reaction of islamists to any commentary that questions, satirises, mocks and...shock horror...offends their religion. Even more worrying is the handwringing of supposed liberals and the spineless concessions to a paradigm that is alien to all things liberalism holds dear: pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

Below are four images. They depict a Baby Jesus Butt Plug, one of the offending Danish cartoons, a picture of Charles Darwin's head on a Monkey's body and the world with the baubles of the United States and Israel falling and shattering through an hourglass, produced by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

They are all, I'm sure, offensive to some people. As a student of evolutionary biology, I find the Darwin picture mildly offensive. But they are all acceptable images to produce and view in a secular democracy such as ours, or Denmark's or, at a stretch, the United States'. It is a right of a free individual to produce images or say what he or she pleases, as long as whatever is produced or spoken remains within the bounds of libel and/or defamation law. It is the right of a newspaper to publish them. It is the right of individuals to get angry and rant and froth when they see them, and it is the right of the rest of us to tell them to belt up and stop being so precious.

It all seems rather callous and uncaring, doesn't it? A bit of a free for all of ideas and offence being caused, left, right and centre. Well, what do you expect in a society where people exist with almost complete freedom to do and say as they please? Bunny rabbits and fluffy cuddles? Of course, with those rights come the responsibilities to use them wisely. It may not have been a very good idea of the Danish Newspaper to publish them. Similarly, the Dom Post today may not have exercised a great deal of wisdom in their decision to publish the Danish cartoons, but it was their right to do so, regardless of their motivation. I personally think it was just silly sensationalism, but it's their call, just as it is the call of a Muslim Dairy Owner not to sell the Dominion Post on that day. Kofi Annan has said that freedom of the press should not be an excuse for the press to offend religions. This in itself is true; the press should exercise discretion on whether or not what they're publishing, broadcasting or printing really is worth it - that's a responsibility that comes with the freedom to publish that material in the first place. But we also have a responsibility to accept that in a free democracy, where we have the right to say and do essentially what we please, somewhere along the line, someone is going to say something that offends us. It really is a small price to pay.

Chris Carter's response to the Dominion Post's decision was typical from such a feel good portfolio as Ethnic Affairs, labelling the move as "undermining the nation's reputation of tolerance". I personally don't think that that's a very logical interpretation. Tolerance is not censorship motivated solely by maintaining the illusion of a happy united nation Tolerance is more the measure of how we, and the Islamic community in New Zealand specifically, react to the publishing of these cartoons. Tolerance does not mean either forced acceptance of ideas as being equally valid as your own, nor does it mean banning things which might be offensive to some people. Tolerance means that, while you may not like what other people think or say, and you may rant and rave about it as much as you like, you have no right to stop them thinking or saying it. I personally can't stand what Brian Tamaki says or thinks, and I rail against his ignorant homophobia. But it's his right to say it, and I have to accept that as much as it pains me. Tolerance shouldn't be a pleasant experience, but it's a vital artefact of, and safeguard for individual freedoms.

The response of many Islamist groups around the world really does underscore how divorced these people (and by these people I mean fundamentalist islamists, not muslims in general) are from the ideas of democracy. Attacking embassies, chanting 'death to Denmark', threatening violence against western states - the hallmarks of those blinded by raw, unadulterated, self-righteous faith. They have all the respect for democracy as an abortion clinic bomber. This behaviour is not justified, it can not be tolerated, and it is important for secular democracies to make clear in no uncertain terms that they won't have a bar of it.

The response of hand-wringing apologists around the world also shows how perilous our grip on freedom could become. For too long, many secular states around the world have either pandered to foreign religious groups in order to appease and prevent unrest in their own countries - introducing (or at least trying to) hate speech laws that seriously undermine individual freedoms in the interests of 'racial harmony', or imposing dogmatic secular laws that do nothing more than foster resentment and militant fundamentalism among religious and ethnic communities. France, by a stroke of luck available only to the French, has the uncomfortable combination of both a law prohibiting inciting racial hatred and a law that prohibits the wearing of head-dresses in schools - both are anachronistic, dogmatic and don't do a great deal in securing what they intended to - a free, safe and tolerant France.

In our own country, the breath taking hypocritical nature of many Christian groups shows that it's not only hardline islamists that have yet to learn the nuances of a secular democracy.

So many Christian groups railed against the investigations of the 2002 Labour Administration into hate speech law in NZ, labelling it both 'PC Madness' (the phrase du jour) and an assault of free speech, religious freedoms and Christian values. In some ways, at least some of these arguments hold water - individuals have a right to associate and speak freely, even if they're saying that homosexuals shouldn't marry.

What doesn't hold water, though, was that at the very same time, many of these exact same groups were calling for the banning of films (that is, curtailing others' individual freedoms) such as Baise Moi and Irreversible, or more recently, calling for the banning of an exhibition featuring human bodies. According to these people, individual freedoms are only worth protecting if they protect your personal opinion. Other's opinions, it seems, (especially those you explicitly disagree with) are worth banning in the name of public good. The parallels are worrying.

We live in interesting times indeed.

General Menace

2006-01-27T13:39:00.000+13:00

Can plans for greater Catalan autonomy show a way forward for the Basques?

The firing of Spanish army commander Lieutenant-General José Mena Aguada – in charge of 50,000 ground troops – has brought the cobbled path towards greater Catalan autonomy into our headlines.

Mena was put under house arrest and subsequently fired by the Spanish government after he announced that the army may have to intervene should the proposed Catalan Statute of Autonomy be brought into play. While at first glance it may seem a tad heavy handed to be arresting someone because you don’t like what they’re saying, I guess we should bear in mind that the NZ defence force couldn’t take over our government even if they tried. In Spain the Franco era still hangs over politics – of course, even if it didn’t, the threat of a coup by such a highly ranked military officer is fairly good grounds for their being sacked.

The region of Cataluña encompasses Barcelona and a large surrounding area. Ever since it was taken over by the Spanish crown in 1714, Catalans have pushed for just a bit more freedom. Similarly to the Basque country in the North and Galicia in the North-West, Cataluña has a distinct language and culture. And they’re hugely proud of it. In my time in the region I was frequently told I should be learning Catalan, not Spanish, and friends grumbled good naturedly about having to put more effort into speaking the latter to me – although to confuse matters even more, Catalan is generally referred to as Spanish in the region, and what we know as “Spanish” is more accurately termed Castilian. (This is probably a better explanation.)

Under Franco, Spanish nationalism was forced upon the country, to the extent that speaking languages other than Castilian was prohibited. With the return of democracy Cataluña was granted a fair degree of self-rule in the 1979 Statute of Autonomy. While the push for fewer ties to Madrid may seem to be constant, most Catalans are happy being part of Spain: most desire greater autonomy rather than complete independence.

It’s often stated that Cataluña (and the highly industrial Basque region) largely wants independence in order to take greater advantage of an economy which, proportionally, far surpasses the rest of the country. So often in fact, that I’d taken it for a given - until I saw the final sentence of this Melbourne Age story, which reckons that the region has 16 percent of the Spanish population and accounts for 18 percent of it’s economy – doesn’t sound to me like the Catalans are entirely leaving the rest of the country in the dust.

The current debate centres around the wording of a revised statute which would give greater powers to the Catalan Government, for example allowing it to keep 50 percent of tax revenue rather than the current 33 percent. Most contentious is the use of the term “nation” in the document. Locals view Cataluña as a distinct nation within the Spanish state, and would like to see recognition of this in the new Statute. It all seems a tad radical for the conservative opposition Partido Popular though, and, of course, to the military. This was the point that Mena seemed most concerned about when he shared his desire to take matters into the military’s hands: he spoke of the military’s fundamental duty to uphold and protect the Spanish nation, and argued that the use of “nation” in the proposed Statute would jeopardise the state’s integrity.

The nitty gritty is still being thrashed out amongst Spanish politicos, but the process is being observed closely, especially by those in the Basque region.

Basque terrorist organisation ETA originated during the repressive Franco regime, and since 1968 the group has been attributed responsibility for a campaign of terrorism with the ostensible aim of independence. Any Spaniard will readily tell you of their hatred for ETA, most will cite one attack in particular which affected them personally. Many are dubious that increased Basque autonomy from Madrid would reduce ETA activities, especially given that the culprits are generally teenagers.

Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero has stated that he is prepared to enter negotiations with ETA if they call a permanent ceasefire and turn in their weapons. Neither of these conditions has been fulfilled, although the group has not attacked since 2003.

Perhaps it is naïve to think so, but I can’t help but hope that the Catalan statute, once the bickering has ended and the document comes into force, might show a path forward for the Basque conflict. Maybe – and it’s a big maybe – ETA would end their killing if their region were granted a higher level of autonomy.

Chinese Walls

2006-01-26T17:56:00.000+13:00

[if you read this before and cound not quite see the point, that was because the first link was damaged; it has been fixed; apologies to all who were confused]

Google has decided to filter its China service, in order to censor results and avoid being barred from a lucrative market by the Chinese Government.

Here is the result of a search for Tiananmen Square on Google.com images

and

Here is the result of the same search on Google China

Can you spot the difference?

Thanks to Peter Raitt

Cabbage: Nature's Medicine

2006-01-25T17:03:00.000+13:00

This letter from Raymond Richards of Waikato University was published in yesterday's Herald:

As an educator , I am appalled at the news that the Government wastes more than a million dollars a year on mumbo-jumbo in the form of Maori supposed therapies . This Government claims to support a knowledge economy, yet it promotes superstition at the expense of Science .

   Taxpayers fund fanciful ideas such as chanting to treat spirits , rubbing the chest with cabbages to remove curses , and waving sticks to cleanse impurities- while cancer patients languish on hospital waiting lists . Some may have died while they waited .

   This tax-payer funding of so-called alternative therapies is supported by the NZ Charter of Health Practitioners , who can`t wait to get their hands on our money for their own forms of quackery such as homeopathy and magnet therapy .

   When I teach about evidence and critical thinking at Waikato University , this Government`s ignorance and hypocrisy will no doubt enter the discussion.

He has a point. The Tohunga Suppression Act of 1907 was introduced at the instigation of Maui Pomare (who was then Maori Health Officer) with the support of Peter Buck and Apirana Ngata, all of whom were to become leaders of Maori development. Its purpose was to stop "charlatans" who practiced traditional healing methods that did not work and often led to death, while denying Maori access to proper healthcare. The law was repealed in 1962.

Ever have the feeling we are going backwards?

This post is an abortion

2006-01-25T13:24:00.000+13:00

or the “I want RU-486” post

Since yesterday was the 33rd anniversary of the Roe Vs Wade decision I thought it timely to write about abortion.

It’s a female issue, a political issue, a social issue and a class issue. Some brief research has told me that over 40 million women per year have abortions, it is estimated that nearly half of those are in countries where abortion is severely restricted by law.
George Bush said yesterday to a anti abortion demonstration that the anti abortion movement ‘will prevail’.
The status that a country has on abortion will often mirror the status that women carry in that society – this is what fundamentally concerns me about an ‘anti choice’ president in a supposedly free and democratic country. Conservative forces such as the church and the right will often reduce women to their biological roles, without letting women take control of their sexuality.
Contraception is not 100% foolproof, it should always be used, but it is fallible and most importantly rape is a reality in New Zealand and across the world. Until unplanned pregnancy can be protected against there will be a need for abortion.

In many countries where abortion is illegal women who are wealthy can still access black-market but relatively safe abortions. But abortion related death is a reality for poor women from developing countries such as Latin America and Africa, those of the lower classes cannot defy the law.
Women are having abortions without help or without going to hospital when complications occur. No matter what the anti abortionists say – its happening and abortion laws need to be liberalised and abortion decriminalised and legalised the world over.
Countries like New Zealand should be demanding this for developing countries not just entertaining our own internal argument about abortion.

Abortion highlights the inequality between men and women and until abortions are free, safe and available for all we are not truly equal.
Over the next year New Zealand will have a discussion about the availability of RU-486 in this country. This is a safe and uncomplicated way to have an abortion.
It is vital that this pill is made available only with counselling and support as is required with the current abortion system.
Sexual education, commitment to a partner, free contraception, safe and accessible family planning, contraceptives for men and the protection of abortion clinics are all vital to lowering the rate of abortion and protecting women from unsafe sexual practices and abortions.
It is with pride that I see how far we have come in New Zealand. We will have the RU-486 debate but it concerns me how far we have to go for women to be equal and for women to have control over their bodies.

We still can't see the wood through the trees.

2006-01-24T11:32:00.000+13:00

Maungakiekie community board are holding a restorative justice conference to consider the loss of a tree that, the unfortunately named, George Bernard Shaw hacked down last year.
You too are invited to attend the conference to hear the public talk about their feelings with regards to the tree.

The tree, an 11 m high, 100 year old Pohutakawa was a scheduled and therefore protected tree.

The conference will be held here:
Venue: Onehunga Community Centre, 83 Church Street, Onehunga Time: 6pm Date: Wednesday, 25 January 2006

George Bernard Shaw, who is awaiting sentencing for the crime, will be entitled to speak at the conference and so will affected members of the public
If you have been affected or feel that you need to talk about any other tree crimes in the city - please attend.
Stop the tree madness! Now!

We can't see the wood through the trees

2006-01-19T12:06:00.000+13:00

Is ‘Save Auckland Trees’ spokesperson Lesley Max setting herself up to take on Mayor Dick Hubbard at the next local government election in 2007?

Ms Max (MBE) has several strings to her bow as a lobbyist and activist and is also chief executive and co-founder of Pacific Foundation and a committee member of the Brainwave Trust.

To me she has come across as a mad woman but for many Aucklanders the issue of the tree removal from Aucklands Queen Street was one of unification bringing together a united voice against the current council (or possibly just the love of trees). For the Auckland City Council this is another PR nightmare in a long string of council mistakes this term (as well as Khartoum place and Vulcan lane pavers etc etc).

Although it does please me that Ms Max will forever be known as the ‘save the trees lady’ or the ‘crazy queen street tree woman’, I am concerned that she has made a mockery of our cities governance processes and has not acknowledged the processes of consultation that existed before her. I am also worried that she is creating a platform for herself where, if successful, she will only fall flat on her face through ignorance of process and an obsessive interest in outcome (for her benefit).

I am quite astonished as to how the whole tree debacle has been handled. I am taken aback by the rallying that has taken place to save the diseased trees of Queen Street to the extent where activists wished to stop a renovation of Queen Street (that is long overdue). Although I am first to approve of protesting against injustice I feel that this was more a stunt than a campaign against any wrong doing.

I am more astonished that Mayor Dick Hubbard has been such an appeaser and undermined his council, community representatives and his staff by taking the decision back to the council table under pressure from a few groups to save 3 trees.

Auckland city needs leadership and for that controversial decisions, if you can call the Queen Street upgrade controversial, need to be made. This city is stagnant in its inability to be visionary we are desperate to develop our floundering city with no heart. We must demand strong leadership from this council not one that revisits decisions that were made with community consultation and ones that were made over a matter of years not months.

What seems to be clear is that we are unsure as to what consultation means. If you are consulted with you are heard but you ideas and suggestions are not necessarily implemented. This could be for many reasons. The Hobson Community Board (Cits and Rats dominated) was consulted over the Queen Street plan so I don’t buy the argument that this is a left wing bulldozer. What happened were rounds of consultation and information and Ms Max and friends didn’t know about it until it was too late and then made an issue of it – it’s as simple as that.

For a city council, a governance body, this is not good process to change decisions on an emotive whim when they have been through a rigorous process. I have no problem with governors revisiting decisions when new information comes to light but for this decision to be revisited due to a small public pressure only kept alive through the New Zealand Herald, I disagree.

Ms Max has helped to exemplify bad governance. Some would say that she has demonstrated the power of the people to change what is wrong but by ‘saving’ three trees it seems pretty obvious that this was, in reality, a hyped up over the top attempt at getting media attention and to try and by dog whistling a lack of consultation by the council.

The Auckland city council could improve its consultation, it could make it 100 times better but this would mean a rates rise, it would mean staff and publicity which they currently do not have. I would personally pay higher rates to increase democracy, to reach more people, to explain the ramifications of decisions but most would not.

A lot of the consultation is down tihe representative bodies from business associations and community groups which are democratically elected – often consultation is made with people that come forward and are put on task forces and working groups, it is not a perfect model but it’s a model that involves those who really care.

I doubt that this will be the last we will see of Ms Max and I doubt that this will be the last time that Mayor Dick Hubbard undermines the institution of council, his colleagues and his staff. My masochistic side looks forward to the next time, I am interested in how we as a society interpret what is good governance procedure and what is not. I am interested in how we justify to ourselves neglecting process and how we define a good outcome.

In some instances good governance is just as much about backbone as it is about knowledge of process and procedure – Dick Hubbard needs to get one.

We're doomed, I tell you, doomed

2006-01-17T13:05:00.000+13:00

According to Radio New Zealand the NZ Institute of Economic Research, in its quarterly survey of business opinion has found that 71% of firms are despondent about the next six months, after allowing for seasonal variations.

I like the idea that there are seasonal variations in despondency. It reminds me of something I heard about Finland: when news reaches Helsinki that the leaves are turning brown up north, gloom spreads around the saunas as the message is passed on that Winter is coming.

But that is by and by. What I want to know (and The Economist Formerly Known as Jock may be able to help here) is whether there is any historic correlation between forecasts of business confidence and actual economic performance. It seems to me that business is always gloomy about prospects. Farmers, in particular, are always pessimistic; the agricultural economy appears to be permanently on the brink of collapse yet, strangely, you will never see a farmer on a bike.

But why all this despair? For the last few months, the retail market has been so buoyant that just about every shop in Auckland has posted advertisments for staff in their windows, something I had not seen for a long time. Is it all going to go to custard or is this just business despondency as usual?

What is worrying is the possibility that this may be a self-fulfilling prophecy: that business people will become more cautious, investing less and hiring fewer, because they think bad times are around the corner, thereby slowing the economy.

Perhaps it is time for us all to go out and cheer up a business person. Exude relentless optimism while you shop, comment on how good things are and how you will be spending like there is no tomorrow. Go on, make a shopkeeper happy. Do it for New Zealand.

Latin 'lections

2006-01-16T21:41:00.000+13:00

What do a divorced mother from Chile and a so-called “narco-terrorist” and neo-Che from Bolivia have in common? They’ve both been elected leaders of their respective countries, in keeping with an apparent left-ward trend in South American politics. The United States is watching closely.

As I write this, the results from the Chilean Presidential elections are being announced: the country has elected its first female President.

Michelle Bachelet won against Sebastian Piñera in the run off election on Sunday after neither gained an outright majority in the first round of elections in December.

Bachelet is a mother and a doctor, and has been Minster of Health and Defence under outgoing President Richard Lagos.

Piñera is a businessman, and clearly in the top stratum of the elite in a country which has a much greater gap between rich and poor than our own. He owns a Chilean TV station and the national airline, LAN Chile. He has a PhD in Economics from Harvard, and left the country in 1973 to do this degree – neatly avoiding the huge upheaval the country went through that year when the CIA-backed coup toppled the elected government and replaced it with a cruel military regime led by General Augusto Pinochet. Piñera’s not all bad though – after his return in 1976, he worked on the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA), a UN project which was the first examination of the region’s underdevelopment from a local perspective.

Yet, while Piñera showed his heart was in the right place taking part in ECLA, Bachelet herself was physically in the same place as the majority of Chileans during the military regime. As a member of the socialist party, she was detained and tortured by the military, a commonplace occurrence in the country at the time. She later managed to escape into exile overseas; her father died in the hands of the military.

It’s often been repeated that had Piñera won, he would have been the first democratically elected right-wing leader in the country since 1958 – although the two presidents prior to Socialist Ricardo Lagos were definitely centrist, some might say even centre-right.

Make no mistake; the election of a socialist, woman candidate to the Presidency is a big deal, although it’s not as much of a shock to the northern neighbours as the election of Bolivian President Evo Morales in December.

As with Chile, the Bolivian electoral procedures require that if a candidate does not win an absolute majority in the first round of voting, a second vote will be held to decide between the two leading candidates. While it was understood that Evo Morales was a leading contender in Bolivia, it came as a surprise to many that he won the election outright with 53% of the vote.

Morales is the first indigenous leader of the country, an outspoken left-winger, and not a politician the CIA is keen on. He works hard to portray himself as a regular Bolivian, unlike the elite who have previously ruled the country: he has already announced that he will take only half of the current presidential salary.

Many commentators have spoken of a left-turn in Latin American politics. Broadly speaking, the 1970s and 80s were a period of imposed market orientation: in this period, a large number of the region’s countries experienced coups and right-wing dictatorships. Emerging from the horrific repression that these dictatorships brought with them, many Latin American states – Argentina and Chile to name a couple – opted for centrist leaders during the 1990s. One explanation could be that the recent memory of brutal dictatorship deterred the election of leaders with policies similar to those who were violently removed from power, and that only now are the people confident enough to look leftward again. Left leaning leaders have been elected to power recently in Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay.

While Morales is a naturally ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the region is hardly being overrun by communists, and definitely not all Latin American leaders are so excited to see Morales elected.

Mexican President Vicente Fox likes to look northward, indeed has little choice given that the country is now economically entwined by way of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). So no surprises to hear that Fox was not impressed when Morales invited representatives of the Zapatistas to his inauguration – the Zapatista movement kicked off when NAFTA came into effect, in protest at the treatment of Mexico’s poor and indigenous.

Global Warming

2006-01-15T23:01:00.000+13:00

This week has been a fairly spectacular one in the scientific realm of Climate Change. Two quite impressive articles in Nature are likely to have a significant impact in both our understanding of the climate change phenomenon, as well as its effects on biodiversity. I'll address these articles soon, but first!

I've always been incredibly wary of commenting on this issue, for a number of reasons. Firstly, I don't know a huge amount about it. I mean, I understand the most basic principles, but I'm certainly no climatologist. As opinionated as some people consider me to be, I do try to avoid expressing said opinions until I know what I'm talking about. I guess I've always been a bit old fashioned in that regard; a firm believer in the adage of "read up or shut up". I'm afraid, though, that not many pundits or commentators follow this line. From the debates and commentry I've browsed on the issue, I'd say there was statistically significant correlation between the loudness of one's voice and one's ignorance on the matter at hand. But what's new, huh?

Secondly, global warming is an irrationally emotive topic. I've seen and been involved in some pretty heavy debates, mainly around evolutionary biology, but nothing compares to the astounding level of name-calling, labelling, character assassination and hysteria around global warming. Simply offering up an opinion or a dissenting voice, or perhaps a piece of research, opens one up to the most disturbing amount of lazy ad hominems, from both sides of the alleged 'controversy'.

I need to get a bit of a bug bear off my chest: I hate the term 'global warming'. It can be an incredibly misleading term. While the climate change discourse is grounded in the concept of average global temperatures increasing, on the level of many local, regional, latitudinal and continental systems, temperatures could be predicted to drop as a result of an overall global increase. An oft-cited example of this regional cooling as a result of global warming is the predicted effect of increased global temperatures on Continental Europe due to the slowing of the North Atlantic Drift. Normally, Continental Europe and Britain are kept comparatively warm for their latitude due to the energy that this current brings from the tropical and subtropical areas of the Atlantic. When it meets the cooler waters of the Arctic, the current cools, energy is released from the ocean to the atmosphere in the from of heat, and the water sinks and travels back south again, setting up a kind of energy 'conveyor belt'. With an increase in global temperatures, particularly in the polar regions due to a process known as 'Polar Amplification', a substantial amount of colder fresh water is predicted to emerge into the North Atlantic. Normally, you would expect that because it's colder water it would sink, and thus not affect the warmer currents in the surface layers of the ocean. However, fresh water is lighter than salt water, so it stays on top. This would mean that the North Atlantic Drift is essentially swamped with cooler water much further south, energy is not released into the North Atlantic atmosphere, and the temperatures of Western Europe and Britain essentially drop to match those of Moscow, NewFoundland et cetera. The orange trail of water up the coast of North America in the picture below illustrates the warm temperatures of the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Drift system:

[Click to Enlarge]

So while "global warming" as a phenomenon is a valid term overall, the effects of such a process on smaller scale, essentially the effects that you and I would experience in our own reference frame, are more accurately defined as "climate change". As a superficial paradox, global warming often means locally the opposite.

I am a global warming skeptic. Now, before anyone fires up the flame thrower, let me explain that particular statement; it's time for true skeptics to reclaim that word.

Global warming/climate change is happening. There is too much data clearly showing an increase in global temperatures, both atmospheric and sea, to draw any other rational conclusion. To those who deny the very existence of a warming planet, I have two words: Wilful Ignorance.

There is a lot of data that indicates that, over the last 4.5 billion years, the earth has experienced many global warming and cooling cycles. Many variables have been implicated in these processes: changes in the Earth's planetary orbit, rotation and position of the poles; continental drift and its effects on global ocean currents, meteoric impacts and associated atmospheric distortion and of course the 'Greenhouse Effect', where certain gasses in the atmosphere act as insulators of radiant heat - namely carbon dioxide, methane, sulphur compounds and water vapour. The physico-chemical mechanisms by which these particular substances act has also been elucidated and test quite conclusively.

Further, there is a substantial amount of data which supports the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" hypothesis, namely that the current warming trend our planet is facing is the result, at least in part, of an increased emmission of 'greenhouse gasses' due to the processes of large scale agricultural production and industrialisation.

What the three statements above essentially amount to is this:

*Two statements of fact: (1) the Earth is getting warmer, and (2) greenhouse gasses do lead to increased global temperatures (just look at Venus).

*One reasonably strong correlation: Increases in the Earth's temperature correlated with increases in global greenhouse gasses over the last 160 years.

*One reasonably well supported hypothesis: That the increases in the greenhouse gas emissions and ergo global temperatures are the result of human activity, in particular industrialisation.

It is important to realise that, when you strip away the crap, these data are very compelling. They are presented, as they should be, as a scientific rather than political exercise in the very good book: Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis. I would highly recommend at least having a browse.

On the face it then, it seems reasonable and rational to at least tentatively conclude that this idea of anthropogenic global warming is something more substantial than just the rantings of "enviro whacker, Bush hating, anti globalisation, gorse munching, chardonay[sic] slurping (unoaked) Lefties". As you can see, the name calling does get quite absurd.

Of course, the situation just isn't this simple. Along with the two statements of fact, the correlation and the hypothesis come many many many confounding variables. It's these confounding variables that limit our ability to gain much confidence in drawing our conclusions about human involvement in global warming.

Firstly: How good is our data? We are discussing incredibly complex global systems - do our research methods do justice to these complexities? Are our data presenting an oversimplification of what is really happening? Are we properly controlling for other variables that affect our results?

Secondly: What do we know about the relationship, if any, between our current warming cycle and other periods of cooling and warming that have occured in the past? Is the global warming trend that we are observing associated with the Pleistocene/Pliocene Ice Age and glaciations? We know that global temperatures have oscillated wildly in the last 2 million years, especially in the last 200 000 years - could it just be that what we see happening is just the tail end of these processes?

Thirdly: How much do we actually understand about the processes of greenhouse gas production? This particular question has become especially pertinent recently, with an article in this week's Nature that shows that methane (PDF available on request as per usual), probably the most potent greenhouse gas, is possibly being produced by plants under aerobic conditions. Prevailing theory in methane geochemistry holds that the majority of methane in the atmosphere is the result of microbial ecology and leaking natural gas. The recent article, however, hypothesises that between 10 and 30% of the 500-600million tonnes of methane that enters the atmosphere annually is produced by plants - the very organisms that are expected to decrease atmospheric greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) .

This research underscores how much more we have to learn. We didn't even know that plants could produce any methane aerobically, let alone on such a scale. If it is supported by subsequent research, it will in the words of Christian Frankenburg "shake the methane community"*.

The myriad variables surrounding global warming, as well as our limited understanding of the processes involved mean that any inferences and conclusions that we draw are forever tentative. Our knowledge of the processes is burdened with caveats that always need to be considered. when we are aware of the variables, we are able to refine our methodologies and theories in an effort to increase the confidence we have in our results and conclusions.

So why, then, am I a skeptic? The term is a dirty one, in the world of global warming. It brings with it undertones of libertarians and neo-conservatives who are not so much skeptical about global warming, in the true sense of the word, but rather madly and rabidly opposed to it. The term has been hijacked, or in many cases abused, by those who seek to add legitimacy to a position that is rationally and reasonably untenable.

An essay on global warming skepticism at RealClimate shows that true skepticism is the most justifiable position to hold: an unwillingness to form a position or support a proposition until that position is supported by evidence. As we've seen, anthropogenic global warming does have at least some evidence in support of it. It is supported by a generally broad consensus of scientific opinion. There are flaws with the model, and they need to be considered and tested before we can increase our confidence in our position.

It seems that this middle ground, this skepticism, has been lost between an increasingly polarised slinging match. On one side we have the global warming deniers who have disguised themselves as reasonable skeptics, in order to either somehow justify and protect a global energy economy that is potentially causing significant environmental damage, or to fall in line with a political idealogy, or in most cases a mix of the two. On the other we have truly hysterical environmentalists that refuse to accept the plain truth that there are problems with the anthropogenic model, who claim that every climate related issue is the result of global warming, and that Bush is actually to blame. As a skeptic I reject that proposition that Hurricane Katrina is the direct result of global warming, or that the increased hurricane season witnessed in the North Atlantic this year is the result of global warming. I reject them not because they are necessarily wrong, but because they are not based on any real evidence.

It is an increasingly unfortunate situation: One half of the divide place their fingers in their ears and refuse to accept the evidence, the other half place their fingers in their ears and refuse to accept the problems with the evidence. Those that do try to be rational and reasonable about the evidence, the real skeptics, are labelled as the enemy by both.

As heartening as it is that the global community is, at least in part, beginning to listen to the more sane voices, our attempts to 'solve' the 'problem' will always be damned by the conditionality of our knowledge. If it does turn out (and it is still a big if, at this point) that plants are a large contributor of atmospheric methane, then the Kyoto Protocol in its current form is a lame duck. This, combined with the irrational polarisation of worldwide opinion on global warming, means that coming up with an alternative will become increasingly more difficult.

I mentioned there were two articles in Nature on global warming. The one about plants and methane understandably got the most press, largely due to the gloating from pseudo-skeptics about the its implications for our understanding of the process.

The other article, in my opinion, has far greater implications. Its about frogs. Or more accurately, its about the increasingly threatened status of a particular genus of frogs, Atelopus (of which one is shown below), and how the loss of many of its species potentially is the result of global warming. It's not that the temperatures themselves are killing the frogs, but rather the effects that changes in temperatures have implications for the pathogens that cause disease in these animals.

[Click to Enlarge]

In Central and Southern America, a single fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis has been identified as the main cause of decline for species within the Atelopus genus. What is particularly baffling is that the conditions that normally favour the spread of the fungus (cold, moist climates) are the opposite of current climate trends the so-called "Chytrid-Climate Paradox"

The authors were able to explain why the frogs were disappearing after the hottest years, and why that rate of decline was accelerating, as well propose a mechanism for that decline, thereby resolving the paradox. The paper was able to show to a statistically significant margin that climate change in the area has led to far warmer nights and considerably cooler days due to the insulation-effect of increasing cloud cover. This stabilisation of the climate, it seems, is preventing a thermal 'refuge' for the frogs, where hot and cold extremes suppress the disease causing abilities of the fungus.

Even more worrying is the data that shows these effects are the greatest at the altitudinal level where the biodiversity of the frogs is the highest, essentially forming an even greater threat to biodiversity.

The frog example is pertinent because it underscores the potential of global warming and climate change to have far-reaching effects on biodiversity, epidemiology and disease and regional eco-systems. It's not just the frogs that are potentially being 'diseased' out by global warming: the nematode parasite of arctic musk oxen is now, thanks to warmer temperatures, able to reproduce in 1 instead of 2 years, throwing the entire parasite-host system out of kilter. The Pine Beetle, which carries the pine blister rust between trees, is also growing and reproducing in half the time.

The global warming phenomenon has fundamental implications for global ecosystems, and not just through the direct effect of changing temperatures on organisms, but also on the relationships between organisms from all niches within those systems. Whether or not humans are the cause of the warming, and a reasonable interpretation of the evidence suggests we at least in part could be, we need to wake up quickly to these implications: the spread of diseases like malaria and cholera could be affected, as well as many bacterial, fungal and protozoan diseases that infect our livestock and crops.

Even more urgent, however, is the need for a resurgence in the true global warming skeptic: a body of people other than scientists who base their convictions on the evidence. The pundits who either ignore the evidence altogether, or positively leak hysteria into every climate related event are not helping. They are producing too much noise, masking the message that we all need to start hearing.*Science Vol 311 (13 January 2006):p159

Food For Thought

2006-01-13T23:13:00.000+13:00

News just in: the Philosophy Department at Massey University has teamed up with the Food Science Department to develop the world's first ontological margarine. It will be marketed under the name "I can't Believe it's Not!"

What's up, pussy cat? (Publications)

2006-01-10T23:41:00.000+13:00

One of the great things about being a University student in the 21st Century is remote access from home to any number of Journals via the University's licence. Normally subscriptions to magazines like Nature and Science cost between USD160 and USD200 a year, for your basic print edition, so it's just great to be able to log in from home, download any number of PDFs and read them at your own leisure.

It's unfortunate that both of these magazines, indeed, many scientific publications, are not made freely available over the internet. I understand the commercial reasons, of course, but there's just something about science that I think means it should be available to everyone, everywhere. As a regular kete were column, I'll talk about some of the absolutely marvellous articles that are printed in at least those two magazines, as well as others that take my fancy from time to time. If any of our readers are interested in having a look at the articles, just leave a comment, or send us an email, and I'll happily forward you the PDF.

Nature this week has a great piece on the Afar region in Ethiopia, which has been one of the key areas for early human (hominid) fossils. The famous "Lucy" was discovered in the Afar region, and this is reflected in the scientific name for her species Australopithecus afarensis, literally "Southern ape-man of the Afar".

Teams have been working in the Afar, which is part of the Great Rift Valley, for many decades now. The area represents a section of the continental crust where the Nubian (to the west) and Somalian (to the east) sections of the African tectonic plate are gradually pulling apart, leading to massive subsidence and geological depressions. The exposure of many strata provides an exceptional opportunity for the 'freeing' of many fossils through a number of sediments, especially during seasonal rains, causing the whole of the rift valley, right through as far south as Mozambique, to be the key to reconstructing early hominids and their ecology. Most of the oldest hominid fossils are found in the Great Rift Valley, including the earliest representative of our own species, Homo sapiens, in the Afar.

The best article of the week, though, is in Science, and it's about the evolution of modern cats. And by modern cats, they dont just mean your moggy, but all modern cats, belonging to the Felidae family.

The cat family are the most successful family belonging to the Carnivora family, occupying every continent in the world except Antarctica. In terms of the study of evolution, though, everyone seems to have this thing for dogs. This isn't entirely surprising, or even unjustified; the single subspecies of wolf Canis lupis familiaris, that we commonly refer to as the domestic dog, represents a massive amount of diversity within a single taxonomic group, produced solely by the process of artificial selection.

But the dog is just one species, and when you look at the whole Canidae family, it really is nothing compared to the cats.

Despite being so well known, the Felidae have remained somewhat of a mystery in terms of their origins, as well as the internal relationships between members of the family: who is more closely related to who? How did they get where they are?

Researchers from the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity at the National Cancer Institute in Maryland did a whole raft of genetic analysis using X chromosomes, Y chromosomes, Autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) and Mitochondrial DNA from 37 living species of cats, including some (marbled cat, serval, pallas cat, and rusty spotted cat) for whom no certain place had been found in the cat family tree. The results are quite remarkeable.

[Click to enlarge]

The figure shows the resultant phylogenetic tree for all 37 species of cats. There are some very interesting points to take away from it:

Firstly, after initial divergence from the last common felid ancestor of the Panthera lineage, which would eventually give rise to todays 'Great' or 'Roaring' Cats, some 10.8 million years ago, the Felidae underwent an extremely rapid radiation; within 4 million years, all eight modern cat lineages had successfully emerged and become established.

Secondly, all four of the previous enigmatic cat species are now, quite confidently, placed within the right group: the marbled cat with the Bay Cat lineage, which diverged from other cats very soon (just over a million years) after the Panthera group; the serval with the Caracal lineage of Africa; the pallas and rusty spotted cat with the Leopard Cat lineage.

Thirdly, the closest living relative of the Felidae is shown to be the Linsang, which were originally thought to resemble cats due to convergent evolution. However, it may actually be that some of the resemblances are in fact due to common descent

Fourthly, some very odd close relationships are found between some lineages which, on the face of it, should look to be much more distantly related. For example, for many years, it was thought that the Puma lineage and the Lynx lineage were sister taxa, that is, that the two lineages were more closely related to each other than either were to any of the six other cat lineages. Well, it now looks like this may not be true: the Puma looks to be more closely related to the lineage that led to our beloved moggy than it is to the Lynx.

Have a look more closely at the Puma lineage, and you may be surprised: the Cheetah is found in this group! This means that the Cheetah, found in the Serengeti plains of eastern Africa is more closely related to the Puma of the North American Rockies than it is to the other African cats, the Leopard and the Lion. Similarly, the Puma is more closely related to the Cheetah than it is to the Jaguar of South America.

This also means that the Cheetah is more closely related to your family cat than it is to any other big cat. Evolution sure does work in wonderful ways.

So this genetic discovery leads to a bit of problem: how did these species get to where they are now, given where they came from and who they are related to? How did the Cheetah and Puma get to where they are, given that they're not as closely related to other species within the same geographical area?

The researchers did some biogeographical modelling of possible migrations throughout the world, correlated with changes in sea-levels during periods of global warming and cooling, shown in Figure 2 below.

[Click to enlarge]

Quite fortuitously, it would seem, the putative migrations match, chronologically, the hypothesised time periods when the 8 lineages split from each other. It's quite complex and would take a lot of time to explain, but I'm sure you'll work it out from the graphic.

I love this kind of work. It's great to see genetic research being used with biogeographical modelling to show past movements of organisms as they arise in evolutionary time. Even more exciting is the implications the results have on our understanding of evolutionary processes themselves - how such a diverse range of animals as the cats can be related to each other in ways that seem both improbable, in the case of the pumas and the cats, and geographically impossible, in the case of pumas and cheetahs.

From so simple a beginning indeed.

[FIGURES FROM SCIENCE MAGAZINE 6 JAN 2006]

Why can't we be friends?

2006-01-08T22:21:00.000+13:00

I got into an argument at the supermarket today.

I’m lazily rolling down Baking Needs when a woman begins shouting to anyone who’ll listen about how rude those bloody Asians are. Excuse me, who’s being rude?

“Those bloody Asians”, she responds with a superior smirk, as if expecting me to roll my eyes and join her in the abuse.

I gape. If this were a cartoon my eyes would be floating a foot in front of my head, and my chin would be on the floor.

“What?” I’m stammering.

“Those bloody Asians, they’re disgusting, jus’ pushed my boy outta the way,” she waves toward a ten year old kid who doesn’t exactly look all that fragile.

“I’m sure it was just an accident. You can’t… don’t be so racist.”

“I’m not racist, how can I be racist when my husband’s Maori?”

“Dude, acting as if all Asian people are the same is racist. You’re being racist against Asians.”

“Fuckin’ immigrants, taking our land, takin’ our jobs”. We’re both trying to act relaxed, flinging retorts sideways while paying huge attention to the spice display and the flour range.

“We’re all immigrants in this country! Pakeha came, now other people are coming.” I’m so very far from eloquence, but it’s because I’m so absolutely astounded that someone can be speaking like this, in a supermarket on the North Shore - interacting with other cultures is a daily necessity here.

“I’m not an immigrant, I’m Maori,” she comes back, and continues yammering about how she doesn’t look it but she is.

I stutter again something about us all being visitors to this country at some point, and she continues muttering under her breath, and we both continue with our trolleys in opposite directions - probably both completely flabbergasted at what we struck at the supermarket on an otherwise uneventful Sunday afternoon.

How do people with these attitudes get by, especially in a city which has such a high percentage of immigrants and non Pakeha/Maori residents? People are people. People! No matter what shape their face, or which god they pray to.

Is this just the real world, something I need to get used to after being sheltered by the Faculty of Arts for the past three years?

Perhaps racism is just a way for human beings to express the “innate human aggression” that Robert Winston believes in; an in-grouping mechanism to hone resource and territory disputes. But what do we have to scrap over here, really – our welfare system does leave a bit to be desired, but at the end of the day, on the whole, we have our basic needs met. Food, shelter, clean water. That’s certainly more than can be said for Harbin.

Paying the rent

2006-01-08T16:28:00.000+13:00

So, twenty 06 begins. Time for some new projects, like this one...

According to the SST, the Real Estate Institute is helping landlords with a database to blacklist tenants. Rental contracts used by property managers apparently include a clause that allows information to be added to the database, so its all legal. Theoretically, potential tenants could just delete that clause by hand, but the landlord might then prefer to rent the property to someone less troublesome.

Any randomly selected bit of information in the database might be accurate but its hard to tell for sure. Tenants can check their entry for accuracy, though the checking process seems to either cost $15 or involve waiting 2 weeks. So basically, if your landlord gets vindictive, there’s a fair chance you’ll end up collecting negative press in the database, you probably won’t even know about it until after you start finding it tough to get another rental, and then it’ll cost you to get it put right. This kind of thing led the NSW government to regulate the databases, including through fines for malicious use by rental agents with a grudge.

Tenancy databases are an answer to an important question: how can an honest landlord tell whether her potential tenant is also honest? Suppose I’m prone to defaulting on my rent. If we’re discussing a rental agreement, why should I tell you that? And if I don’t tell, how will you know? There is a real asymmetry of information between us.

Of course, it goes both ways. A nightmare landlord is big trouble for any tenant that blunders into their clutches, and its just as hard to spot them coming. Tenants don’t have a landlord blacklist though, so its harder for them to spot bad deals when they turn up. In fact, tenants look to be pretty much on their own in such matters.

There is a Tenants’ Protection Association, but they came across in the SST as being pretty useless. They know of bad landlords apparently, but will not publish a list because that would create ‘bad faith’. More constructive methods are preferred and if a tenant queried a bad landlord they would ‘suggest the renter go elsewhere’.

Maybe they were misquoted or something. Its pretty hard to imagine what could be more constructive for the interests of tenants than getting good information to them. A landlord blacklist would be a preventative measure; it would help people avoid conflict in the first place.

The information problems in rental markets suggest that some kind of blacklist makes sense, for tenants and landlords. Properly designed, such a thing could help the market work better. It should be more subtle than a simple blacklist, closer to a full reputation system that allows both sides of the market record and view ratings from previous counter-parties to their deals. The systems used on auction sites are the obvious starting point.

Yeah right, but how could that happen? Well, the Real Estate Institute is the obvious funder of a proper system, but they seem at present to not recognise any role in helping the buying side of the rental markets. They’d probably see things differently if Tenants Protection was to find a way to publish the views of tenants about landlords and their properties.

Come in, Make yourselves at Home.

2006-01-02T16:25:00.000+13:00

According to Mäori creation mythology, Täne ascended the twelve heavens and came back to mankind with the three baskets of knowledge, or kete were. These baskets were kete-aronui, holding all knowledge to help mankind, kete-tuauri, the knowledge of the spiritual world and kete-tuatea or knowledge of evil.

When developing this blog, we wanted something different; something that wasn't a constant slinging match between personalities and political ideologies. The anonymity and the pseudonymity that comes with a virtual world has often times led to the eclipsing of the benefits that such a world establishes. Rather than free exchange of ideas, in many cases we descend to personal battles. Rather than instant and rapid dialogue tempered by respect, there is often character assassination. Rather than discussions about ideas, there is the default strategy to simply box those that don't share your position as a moonbat or imperialist or other such label du jour. Don't assume that the contributors here are somehow implying that we are above or immune to such behaviour. We just don't want it to be like that. If you find us doing it, please let us know.

So what can you expect from us and this blog?

Well, firstly, this will be a blog about ideas. We aren't particularly interested in talking in great depth about ourselves, about what we did today or what kind of cereal we had for breakfast. If you look on the sidebar to your left, you will find plenty of blogs that have that as their modus operandi. The contributors all have areas of interest: John in economics, Paul in religion, art and philosophy, Xavier in science, Moxie in education and governance issues and Katie in international and national politics. Over the course of the next while other contributors may be joining us to talk about the things they're interested in.

While we will at times be waxing political, this blog is not partisan. Some of us are, or have been, involved in one political party or t'other at some point, but we will not be discussing that here. Again, if you want a partisan blog, skim to left. There are plenty there.

We're not interested in blog wars, the evils of the MSM, Hayley Westenra's pornographic potential or even...conceptual art projects. Yes, some of us learned our lesson on that one. We are not here to label anyone moonbats, loonie lefties, rich capitalists, democruds, lazy students or selfish rightwingers, and we would appreciate the same. We are here, hopefully, to provide a forum about stuff that's happening, things that are going on, and our thoughts about them. Even more hopefully to provide a forum for your thoughts about them too.

If you find something that interests you, please feel free to leave your thoughts and opinions. We want to hear what you think, whether you agree or disagree with our position on the matters. Please remember, though, to treat us and other commenters with respect. We'll try our best to reciprocate and not be hypocrites. We're not going to ban you or block you or moderate comments if you act like a pillock. However, just keep in mind that you are here by the goodwill of the operators of the blog, as all blogs operate, and that your behaviour isn't welcome.

If you want us to link to you, we will be happy to do so if you can reciprocate.

Enjoy your stay,
The kete were team.