Welcome to Catallaxy — one of Australia's least unpopular leftoid blogs

Tim Blair has produced a list of "Australia’s top ten lefty blogs" along with their Alexa rankings. Catallaxy comes in at number 4.

As regular readers would know, Catallaxy’s contributors all have their own views — all of them to the left of orthodox Right Wing Death Beastism. Rafe Champion is a closet Hoxhaist, Jason Soon votes Labor (sometimes), Andrew Norton is a member of the Liberal Party, Samuel McSkimming isn’t exactly politically neutral (whatever that means) and Eric Kodjo Ralph is an economist (enough said). Heath Gibson has written for the notoriously left wing Policy magazine.

A few of Tim’s readers questioned whether Catallaxy really was a ‘leftoid’ blog but he held his ground:

Well, you’ve got Latham supporter Jason running the show, and Don Arthur posting frequently … maybe Catallaxy ain’t leftoid, but it sure is leftish.

The controversy continues at Larvatus Prodeo (ranked at 3).

And before anyone gets too excited about the Alexa rankings you might want to read the fine print "Traffic Rankings of 100,000+ should be regarded as not reliable because the amount of data we receive is not statistically significant." Even the top ranked Tim Lambert couldn’t crack 100,000.

Rosemary Neill — (Culture) War Correspondent

In today’s Australian Rosemary Neil reports on the “American war on Christmas”. Just in case any of you have been hiding in a cave over the holiday season, the war on Christmas is a traditional part of America’s culture wars. This year the Fox News Channel’s John Gibson devoted an entire book to the fray — The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. Fox has been promoting the conflict particularly enthusiastically this year.

In her piece for the Australian O’Neill runs through a list of this year’s atrocity stories and denounces the enemy — political correctness and the ACLU. What she doesn’t do is balance her commentary by explaining where all this noise is coming from.

Hostilities in America’s war on Christmas began as far back as 1959 when the John Birch Society exposed anti-Christmas subversion as a communist plot. According to the Society’s Hubert Kregeloh

One of the techniques now being applied by the Reds to weaken the pillar of religion in our own country is the drive to take Christ out of Christmas—to denude the event of its religious meaning. And as in so many of their undertakings, the conspirators have been able to enlist the aid of many non-Communist allies and dupes.

Neill may have avoided being duped by the Reds at the ACLU, but a major source of her information seems to Fox News and conservative Christian activist groups. Let’s take a closer look at Neill’s Christmas atrocity stories.

Good Night, and Good Luck

George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck, about the conflict between journalist Ed Morrow and anti-Communist Senator Joe McCarthy, is getting some rave reviews. Locally, Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton both gave it five stars, their highest possible rating (“I’d give it more if we had a bigger scale”, added Margaret). Indeed, there are things that are good about it. Aided by black-and-white photography, it convincingly looks like the 1950s, with its feeling of authenticity enhanced by the use of archival footage of McCarthy, rather than getting an actor to play him. For the characters who are not playing themselves, all the acting is good. But for me it was a 3 or 3.5 star experience; I did not feel I had wasted my money, but nor would I see it again or recommend it to others.

The problem is that it lacks tension and character interest. Anyone with a little knowledge of post-war US history will know how it ends – with McCarthy being censured by the Senate. That McCarthy over-reacted and falsely accused many people of being communists is (rightly) the conventional wisdom, surviving in the term ‘McCarthyism’. The film is not advancing any unusual or controverisal proposition. None of the characters in the film experiences any serious doubt that they are right, the kind of internal tension that may have made up for the lack of historical tension in the narrative. The only dilemma they deal with is how far they can go in attacking McCarthy before CBS, which broadcast Murrow’s show, loses its nerve.

A much more interesting film would have tried to explain why McCarthy behaved the way he did. By coincidence, I had been reading Tony Judt’s Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 in the days prior to seeing Good Night, and Good Luck, a useful reminder of how frightening communism was in the 1940s and 1950s. The widespread communist use of front organisations and infiltration helped create suspicion around people who were left-of-centre, though not communists. As was subsequently discovered, a few of the people McCarthy accused of being communists were in fact Soviet agents (though McCarthy lacked evidence for this at the time). But Good Night, and Good Luck doesn’t even give us this context, let alone explore McCarthy’s psychology.

The film’s popularity among critics owes something to the historical parallels. Communism then, Islamism today. Witch hunts then, suspicion of Muslims today. As Pomeranz said, “and it’s so important, because it’s about things that are really vital today”. Certainly, when liberal socieities are faced with murderous, totalitarian political movements we must do our utmost to protect civil liberties while protecting ourselves from external and internal threats. But surely it would be odd, in fifty years time, to make a film about the Howard government’s terror legislation without mentioning September 11, Bali, Madrid or London?

Hangover cures?

If there’s a magic bullet for hangovers, researchers have yet to find it. After combing through the scholarly research on the subject Max Pittler, Joris Verster and Edzard Ernst report that:

No compelling evidence exists to suggest that any conventional or complementary intervention is effective for preventing or treating alcohol hangover. The most effective way to avoid the symptoms of alcohol induced hangover is to practise abstinence or moderation.

What about the claim that pale spirits like vodka and gin are less likely to cause hangovers than red wine, whisky or brandy? According to Ian Calder there is some evidence that substances called congeners make hangovers worse. Darker spirits like whisky have more of these than pale spirits like vodka. Calder cites a 1973 study by Pawan which found that "The severity of hangover symptoms declined in the order of brandy, red wine, rum, whisky, white wine, gin, vodka, and pure ethanol." Does this mean that you ought to switch to dry Martinis? Not according to Calder: "Even moderate amounts of ethanol can be damaging, so a penalty for consumption is in our interests."

The Adventures of Dutch Laroo

Did you hear the one about the Pennsylvanian politician who wanted to be a comedian?

"The Legislature’s public reputation is getting hammered for the pay raise vote, and one of their number is writing blue humor on the Web? Don’t they have PR classes for this sort of thing?" asks John Micek. Maybe not. Earlier this year Daylin Leach — Pennsylvania legislator and one time stand-up comic — got himself into a jam by making fun of local journalists on his blog — Leachvent.com.

The trouble started when Pennsylvania legislators voted themselves a 16 per cent pay raise. Columnists at the Philadelphia Inquirer condemned the vote as a ‘travesty’ and a grassroots movement formed to sweep the politicians responsible out of office. The Inquirer followed up this story with an expose of the 2005 National Conference of State Legislatures, held in Seattle:

… over the last week, Cohen, D., Phila., Curry, D., Montgomery, and three dozen other legislators from Pennsylvania have been treated like royalty here in this coastal city, even as they are under siege at home for voting themselves a huge pay raise. They’ve been wined, dined and entertained. They’ve ridden to the top of the Space Needle, gone to a Mariners game, and partied in penthouse-level restaurants, usually on the dime of big business and special-interest groups.

According to the Inquirer, there were a few tedious seminars for the legislators to attend but, "Almost all made plenty of time for fun."

One state legislator, Daylin Leach, thought the criticism was over the top. Leach had already complained that the media were more interested in reporting political salaries than they were in reporting poverty or problems with the criminal justice system. Now he turned to the web and threw the switch to comedy.

Around the blogs

The hyperactive Peter Boettke at The Austrian Economists has maintained his output despite my appeal for relief through the festive season. There are pieces on economics and ideology, the departure of yet another economics adviser in Russia, a link to a recent interview with Milton Friedamn (still sharp in his nineties) and much more.

Matt McIntosh has provided a feed to some really excellent pieces, one on setting priorities (good and bad procrastination) and another (linked from that), an inspiring address from Richard Hamming (who worked alongside some of the great names in modern science – Shannon, Feynman, Fermi, Teller, Oppenheimer, Bethe) on lifting your level of effectiveness in research.

The Club Gruen blog has moved to new lodgings courtesy of the tireless and mercurial Ken Parish (no offence Ken, I just like the phrase). Check this out for a great human interest story about a Christmas present, an old painting of Gruen senior. Take the next step to this site for some moving and inspirational tributes to one of the really fine Austrian/Australians of the last generation.

Whirlpool's Annual (dubious) Australian Broadband User Survey

Whirlpool’s annual Australian Broadband User survey is on again, and once more it looks like falling into the ‘dubious’ research category, The survey has high ideals, promoting the fact that “the survey is not about advertisers or company research — it’s designed to capture your opinions on important issues like download limits, pricing, contracts and reliability of service.” And “giving the consumer a strong voice to say how they feel about the general state of broadband in Australia, and specific experiences with their provider.” Unfortunately for Whirlpool, I can think of a few reasons why their survey won’t be the ‘strong voice’ they are hoping for.

Firstly, there are design issues with the survey. Within hours of the survey going up, a number of Whirlpool users were posting their concerns with the wording and responses offered to several questions. I’ll spare Catallaxy readers an extended analysis of the questionnaire flaws and instead simply suggests people take the survey themselves or read the discussion on Whirlpool.

Secondly, the respondents to the survey aren’t likely to be representative of the general broadband using population. In last years survey, 40% of respondents worked in IT or Telecommunications, and nearly 48% of respondents where under the age of 25. Tech savvy users can be an interesting group to study, especially for their opinion influencing ability. However I’d suggest that most ISPs and policy makers will be more interested in what the mass market has to say, as this is where the money (or votes) are.

What these factors boil down to is that this survey will probably have the most influence on the small ISPs in the market. Large ISPs (and presumably government departments) will continue to engage professional researchers to provide better quality answers to the important questions shaping the industry – leaving the smaller players to rely on the current fads and whims of Whirlpool users.

Iran, Israel and Middle-Eastern Diplomacy

This is a long post – sorry!

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a number of comments in recent weeks about Israel. In mid-November, the president said that Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’. On December 9, the President said that he doubted that the Holocaust had occurred, and that Israel should be moved from the Middle East to Europe or to Alaska. On December 14 the President again denied that the Holocaust had occurred.

This sort of inflammatory rhetoric is not new to the Middle East, nor to Iran. What is interesting is why it is being said now – what has spurred the Iranian government to reach for the loudspeaker and start speaking tough?

I can think of five possible explanations:

1. The ‘business as usual’ hypothesis: Having now settled in behind the Big Desk, the new government has begun speaking out on Iranian foreign policy, with its pronouncements both following the logic that no Muslim regime has ever been kicked out of office for trashing Israel, and being consistent with Iran’s strategy to be seen as the defender of Islam and its adherents, including the Palestinians.

2. The ‘I have a good idea’ hypothesis: Ahmadinejad and his presidential playmates really think getting rid of Israel is a good idea in itself, regardless of other considerations.

3. The ‘a house divided’ hypothesis: The presidential team is using statements on foreign policy to upset the foreign policy plans, and likely also to weaken the domestic position, of their rivals in the Iranian elite.

4. The ‘you scratch my back’ hypothesis: The president’s statements are aimed at boosting the position of Hamas in the approaching national elections in Palestine. Hamas is widely known to be on the Iranian payroll, and the Iranian leader’s comments may indicate that Hamas is intent on doing something about Israel’s actions, and will have Iran’s material and moral support in doing so. This identification with a staunch opponent of Israel will in turn boost Iran’s claim to lead the pan-Islamic cause.

5. The ‘You’re treading on my toes’ hypothesis: The Iranians are really upset about something that someone is doing to them, and they are signalling this by yelling loudly and clearly.

Some background

Before analysing each explanation, we should understand that Iran is approaching a moment of truth in its modern history. In the last fifteen years, it has seen change in the regimes of its three major regional rivals, resulting in a tremendous improvement in Iran’s own strategic position. First, the Soviet Union disintegrated, removing Russian power from its northern border. Secondly, the hostile Taliban regime was cleaned up by the US, to be replaced by a weak and relatively unthreatening regime. And thirdly, the US cleaned up the Iraqi Ba’athists, leaving open the opportunity for the Iran-friendly Iraqi Shia to gain control over the country.

At the same time, Iran has been pursuing nuclear technology, to the extent that it has been found out by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Israel has estimated that Iran may be able to begin enriching uranium by March 2006 and to produce a nuclear weapon within three years.

In short, through a combination of others’ missteps, guile, hard work, deception and good judgment, Iran now finds itself on the threshold of becoming a regional power.

Among the remaining obstacles to that outcome, there is one that the clerics cannot sidestep, and which is not likely to disappear any time soon: the United States. US troops are in both Afghanistan and Iraq, while the US navy is bobbing around in the Persian Gulf. The US does not want Iran to get nuclear weapons – nor does anyone else, for that matter.

But the wily Iranians have played their cards well, dispersing and burying their nuclear facilities to protect their technology from air strikes, and infiltrating Iraq’s Shia population to the extent that any US moves in Iraq that displease both Iran and the Iraqi Shia would likely be followed by an insurgency in the Shia areas. The result is that the ‘Great Satan’ US and the Iranian pariah state have begun conducting sotto voce negotiations to iron-out their differences and find common ground.

The Iranian political elite is currently divided into three groups: the reformists, the pragmatic conservatives and the ultraconservatives. Following the disappointments of the rule of former President Khatami, who was stymied is his attempts to change the system from within, the reformists didn’t do well in this year’s elections. This produced a contest between the pragmatic conservative former President Rafsanjani and the ultraconservative (and non-clerical) candidate Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad won handsomely.

Very briefly, the pragmatic conservatives are Islamists who also happen to be seasoned politicians, and who balance their ideological pursuits against political realities, being able to cut deals with the US and Israel where it is necessary or advantageous. The ultraconservatives are clerics who take their Islamism very seriously, and so are less likely to ‘cut cards with the devil’, and more likely to ‘call it how they see it’ and to act in line with their rhetoric.

The analysis

Hypothesis 1 – business as usual

This is in my view possible, but not probable. The Israelis are already dusting-off plans to blow-up Iran’s hard-won nuclear technology, and threatening to wipe Israel off the map would seem to heighten the likelihood of this occurring. Business as usual for the Iranians has involved, up till now, a patient ‘slowly slowly catchee monkey’ approach. There are many things that the regime could do to rattle its sabre without threatening to ‘go nuclear’, as is implied in Ahmadinejad’s statement.

Hypothesis 2 – the good idea

This is plausible. I don’t know enough about Ahmadinejad to take the man’s measure, but what I’ve read indicates that he is an ideologue and a revolutionary, who still kneels at the robe of ultraconservative clerics. Palestine is a totemic issue for Muslims around the world, and is likely seen in black and white by the radical Islamists. If you have never been exposed to the niceties of international diplomacy, if you’ve spent most of your time debating what to do about Israel with like-minded Islamists, and your gut instincts are supported by clerics, then you’re likely to speak up about the issue – and how!

Hypothesis 3 – a house divided

I think that this is both possible and probable.

The pragmatic conservatives are seeking to lift Iran’s pariah status through back-channel negotiations with the US, with developments in Iraq and Iran’s evolving nuclear programme being the bargaining chips. The removal of Iran’s pariah status would give the regime a more solid footing internationally, and would help the country access foreign technology and markets. The ultraconservatives fear that greater proximity to the US would weaken the appeal of their ideology, not to mention the threat it would pose to the continuity of the regime – other undemocratic governments that have come close to the US recently have faced ‘name your favourite colour’ revolutions.

Trash-talking Israel, at a time when negotiations are finely balanced and sensitive, threatens to destabilise those negotiations – having people going limbic and rattling sabres is no climate for settling matters as delicate as Iraq. But derailing the diplomacy might weaken the pragmatists, and the ultraconservatives may have calculated that unsettling the negotiations is a price they are willing to pay to secure control of the country.

Hypothesis 4 – you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours

I think that this explanation is highly plausible. As explained above, Iran and Hamas both stand to win from the president’s intervention. What this hypothesis doesn’t explain is the sort of intervention that Ahmadinejad has made – why such extreme statements, made repeatedly? After all, there are myriad things that he could have said to support his favoured candidates. So I would expect to couple this explanation with another outlining the president’s motives – such as hypotheses 2, 3 and 5.

Hypothesis 5 – you’re treading on my toes!

I think that this too is a highly plausible explanation. States often communicate with each other in code, trusting that their messages are clear enough to be read by attentive ministers of state, but subtle enough that the untutored public and the ADD-afflicted media won’t read between the lines.

With the constitutional plebiscite in October, and the Parliamentary elections in December, Iraq is starting to stabilise. Very simply, to get there, the US has had to cut a deal with the remaining Ba’athist elements, guaranteeing that they wouldn’t be left to the tender mercies of the Shia. This in turn meant that the Shia will influence, but will not control, Iraq – which in turn limits Iranian influence in the country. It also means that the Ba’athists, who caused them so much trauma in the eighties, are back at the table.

The Iranians are upset about this, but there is little that they can do about it directly, and – with the Iraqi Shia signed up to the plan, they didn’t have a means of being heard within Iran. So they upped the ante by playing the ‘terminate Israel’ card, knowing that: the Israelis would have to respond; the US would have to prevent Israel from responding, as air strikes would bugger up their wider plans, including for drawing down their troops; the only way for the US to do this would be to negotiate with Iran.

According to this explanation, Iran has taken a leaf out of Kim Jong-Il’s book – when things aren’t going your way, pretend to go crazy, wave your (real or possible) nuclear sabre, then shake-down your neighbours for all you can get.

So – what’s going on?

My conclusion, from what I’ve read and thought about, is that hypothesis five is the main reason for Ahmadinejad’s questioning Israel’s existence and threatening to remove its future: it plays Iran into Washington’s Iraq game, where Iran has vital national interests. It also helps put domestic rivals in their place (hypothesis 3), and gives a boost to friends in Palestine (hypothesis 4). What’s more, it’s likely something that the president has been thinking about for a long time, and which his mentors also endorse (hypothesis 2).

The thing is: what does he do next? The Israelis are now sharpening their bayonets, the Americans are miffed that he’s come in and knocked over their dominoes, and the rest of the world is wondering if letting Iran have enriched uranium is such a good idea. Think quickly, Mahmoud – Israel’s Air Marshals have drawn a big red circle around March 2006!

Jeremy Bray – an introduction

Catallaxy readers,

Since Jason has been kind enough to allow me to write on his already-established site, I should introduce myself to you. I am a friend of Jason’s, having met him in our Economics honours class at Sydney University many moons ago now. Jason introduced me to Andrew, who I am also happy to call my friend.

My aims in blogging are: to clarify my own thinking; to practice my writing; and to test my thinking on a well-informed and intelligent audience. And you guys fit the bill. I’ll write on things that interest me, with an eye to accomplishing those aims.

Reality Show Earns Saudi Fatwa

Saudi mobile phone provider ‘Mobily‘ has followed fellow mobile operator Saudi Telecommunications Co (STC) in banning customers from SMS voting in reality show ‘Star Academy- Lebanon ‘ – a program that seems to be a cross between Big Brother and Idol.

Both Mobily and STC are responding to a fatwa issued against the show for being “culturally inappropriate”.

According to a Mobily spokesperson:

“The decision was taken last night because of a fatwa (religious decree) issued last year, since the program is culturally inappropriate,” spokesman Humoud Alghodaini said. “It shows men and women living in one house, sometimes semi-naked and in inappropriate situations,” he added.

I guess this means we won’t be seeing an Arab version of “There’s Something About Miriam” on Saudi TV either.