Xanana trial
Why has no television station shown footage from Dili during the trial of Xanana Gusmao?
At least one might have expected the ABC to show film of those involved in the trial entering or leaving the Dili court building.
I do not know what the answer is, but invite others to join me in writing to the ABC (GPO Box 9994, Sydney 2001) to ask for an explanation.
Stephen Langford
Paddington NSW
Free speech
I feel strongly that it is a great mistake to approve the Government's restriction on freedom of speech (Norman Taylor, Write on, GLW 24/2/93). What else is the 20th Century except a demonstration in lengthy and horrific detail of the correctness of the Bakunin-Luxemburg-Chomsky critique of State-socialism? Unless the philosophical anarchist position is fully comprehended and taken on board, any new formation of the left will not overcome the legacy of Leninism and win the support of the people.
Bernard Rooney
The Association for Good Government
Redfern NSW
Food for Bosnia
With heightened speculation of war breaking out over the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict, is it feasible to assume that President Clinton's air food drop is part and parcel of a planned invasion by US and UN military forces?
To even the simplest mind, it must occur that to drop food by parachute from a height of 30,000 feet or more just to avoid ground fire is to risk the food being dispersed over a wide area.
Now the US are not fools. Their economy is in a mess, their deficit enormous. So what better way to get things moving than another war? Wars mean huge spending power, job creation, and a million and one other things.
The rhetoric about avoiding another Vietnam is a lot of hogwash.
You may well ask: what has this got to do with food drops over eastern Bosnia? I don't know. I only sense that changing presidents doesn't necessarily mean changing the system. George Bush was a warmonger. Let us hope that President Clinton is not tempted into similar forays.
Marc Finnane
Potts Point NSW
Mathematical limits
David Kault (Write on, March 3) repeats a frequent accusation of the I = PAT proponents: those who don't share their enthusiasm for the formula "misunderstand" it (often, it is implied, deliberately).
It might advance the discussion if Kault and others would acknowledge that what we have here is disagreement, not position is not so "obvious" (another favourite word) that it commands acceptance the moment it is understood.
Ironically, there seems to be some misunderstanding among the proponents of I = PAT themselves, concerning how "scientific" the formula is and what it does or doesn't claim to demonstrate.
For example, Mark O'Connor (GLW January 20) gives it a universal application, from micro to macro levels, comparing it to "one of those fractal equations that can generate a model of a coastline equally on the broadest global scale or in almost microscopic detail".
David Kault is more circumspect. The formula, he wrote in an earlier letter (February 3), "is not comparable to a formula in physics. It is a 'model' that represents common sense." Indeed. But some of us don't believe that "common sense" can solve — or even adequately describe — the environmental/social crisis.
Kault constructs an equally common sense analogous formula, P = T-R, meaning consumption of the poorer 90% equals total consumption minus consumption by the rich 10%. He expects agreement because it is "ideologically correct".
In fact, this formula is just as meaningless as I = PAT. A racist can use it by defining R to be the consumption of the hated racial group and P the consumption of everyone else. People who think our problems are caused by flying saucers can define R as consumption by visiting Martians. Both versions are as mathematically correct as Kault's.
The conclusion to be drawn, it seems to me, is that it is rarely if ever possible to summarise complex social, economic, political, demographic and scientific/technological relationships in a mathematical formula as simple as I = PAT.
Allen Myers
Sydney
Brisbane IWD
In Karen Fredericks and Anne Casey's article in GLW #89 they referred to Susan Price as being the "International Women's Day Organiser" (for Brisbane). It is misleading because IWD in Brisbane does not have an organiser as such. The nature of the IWD organising meeting or collective is made up of a number of women who have participated in organising events around IWD. Although Susan Price was involved in initial organising meetings to discuss IWD, the meetings themselves have broadened to include at least 30 to 60 women.
In the International Year of Indigenous Peoples the IWD collective has been successful in involving a substantial number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women have been centrally involved in planning and organising this year's events. The theme this year is "Support International Women's Day in the year of the world's indigenous people. Indigenous voices, Women's Business."
It's disappointing that the facts were not checked regarding en Left Weekly plays a valuable role as Australia's best alternative news source. I feel sure it will continue to do so if these problems are sorted out.
Kerry Neubauer
Brisbane
[When I interviewed Susan Price, she advised that she was part of the collective that was organising IWD activities in Brisbane. Unfortunately, instead of writing "an organiser" I wrote simply "organiser". Evidently the omission of the word "an" was misleading. Apologies if any offence was caused. — Karen Fredericks]
Natural Law Party
The curiously named "Natural Law Party" has drawn attention to itself merely by the fact that it is running in "every electorate and Senate ballot in Australia", as its leaflet says.
I was given one of their leaflets and decided to check it/them out.
Its cover said "Natural Law Party — A party with proven solutions". Proven where? Its second page had a statement by Bevan Morris, leader of the NLP. "I promise you a perfect government and an ideal Australia." Well what can I say? Sounds great. (Just a little too great.)
What about their policies? Here is a rough sketch of some of them:
Unemployment — revitalise business with a 25% flat (!) tax rate so business can employ more people. (John Howard lost the job as shadow leader for trying that one out as a policy!)
Environment — By a "holistic" approach they will "make Australia the world's first pollution-free environment." (Even Shirley Maclaine wouldn't believe that one!)
Health — They believe they can reduce the annual health budget by $1.65 billion by teaching people to meditate.
Defence — They would maintain the $9 billion or so annual defence budget because "... this constant high outlay is considered by government and defence leaders to be necessary and for the most part, irreducible." (Which is bullshit.)
Education — "We promote educational programs that directly develop intelligence, creativity, learning ability, brighter consciousness, health, moral reasoning and improved behaviour." (This suggests they think they have superior moral reasoning and behaviour.)
Law and Order — They plan to "educate" people away from crime — to reduce it by 10% in one year!
Women's Issues — They plan to educate away "the problem of abortions"!
Far from having "proven solutions" to unemployment etc, the ery conservative "new agers", full of reactionry behavioural psychology and the same old economic (ir)rationalism. The only thing I can't work out is should I put them before or after the Liberals when I distribute my preferences.
Rohan Gaiswinkler
Hobart