Dominique Strauss-Khan

Dominique Strauss-Khan:

Michael R. James writes: Re. “France’s parties face a world without DSK” (yesterday, item 11). Charles Richardson said “Strauss-Kahn is, it must again be stressed, entitled to be treated as innocent until proven guilty.” Someone needs to tell New York City mayor Bloomberg who was cited by The Guardian in reference to the very public arrest:

Bloomberg told reporters: “I think it is humiliating, but if you don’t want to do the perp walk, don’t do the crime. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for that. Our judicial system works where the public can see the alleged perpetrators.”

I am pretty sure the scriptwriters of Law and Order would not have the mayor say that to the press!  (How long before we see them turn this story into an episode of this longest running police procedural?) Strauss-Khan’s lawyer has claimed that the s-x was consensual. The woman involved is an immigrant from Guinea. This means that she is a native French speaker so one can begin to see the glimmer of a possible line of defence.

Regardless, it seems likely DSK’s career is over at the IMF and as candidate for the 2012 French presidential elections. So, as Charles discussed, the Socialists are facing up to the vacuum this creates.

The party leader, Martine Aubry, seems less than enthusiastic and previous early challenger in 2007, François Hollande (ex-husband of the final Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal) seems no more likely to gain traction than last time.

There is another socialist who is very popular and, at least in the past, has expressed interest. Bertrand Delanoë has been the mayor of Paris since 2001 winning re-election in 2008. To be sure he would be an unusual candidate and President. The last Paris mayor who became president, Jacques Chirac (known as Le Bulldozer in his mayoral days), was decidedly old school but Delanoë cannot be accused of that.

He was born in Tunisia to a half-French father and is one of the few openly gay French politicians. But after early resistance, even derision, some of his ideas turned out to be wildly popular. One was the bicycle lane network and Velib free cycle system, on which similar systems in Brisbane and Melbourne are modeled (in fact the common factor is the Decaux outdoor advertising company) and which I can testify seems to have subtly altered, positively, Parisian temperaments in this famously cantankerous city. Another is the artificial Paris Beach on the banks of the Seine in summer.

Parisians have come around to his fresh approach in bringing in young people to propose and run such projects, instead of the usual career politicians or party hacks. The country is long overdue, and yearning, for a fresh approach at the top, which Sarkozy has failed to deliver.

DSK’s misfortune may yet not necessarily be a cause for Socialist or French gloom even if the idea of a gay French president seems more shocking than a female one.

The Brocial Network:

Katherine Stuart writes: Re. “The Brocial Network proves just why we need Sl-twalk” (yesterday, item 13). Great article Mel Campbell. Sl-twalk makes me feel that things have progressed at least somewhat since I radically altered my behaviour by leaving the country in the 1980s to go somewhere where I would not have to be so fearful of s-xual harassment, rape and discrimination — where I could experience a level of freedom and independence in a city that would have been impossible in Australia, and possibly still is. And not just as a woman.

I still remember the Swiss (male) tourist I met on a plane back to Australia on a visit who was more fearful of being r-ped on an Australian city street than of any of our dangerous Australian fauna. It seems obvious (but perhaps not PC to say) that attitudes to women are culturally biased, and it certainly appears that Australia has at least a subculture of deep and vicious misogyny, allowing women to be easily scapegoated when men such as those in the Brocial Network feel as profoundly powerless as they most apparently must do.

Sallyann Bennett writes: When non-News Ltd media outlets follow stories published first in the Herald Sun, are they too labelled “lame catch-up stories”?

Kara Irving did a fine job breaking the “brocial network” story, followed by most news outlets today including your own. Kara must be thrilled and good for her.

Could Crikey not have simply reported the fact the story was broken by The Age? To be so sneery is uncool.

Doctors:

David Adler, Director, Prime Health Management, writes: Re. “Australia needs more doctors — but does it need more medical schools?” (yesterday, item 8). The quantum of doctors, medical schools and intern positions for pre-registration practical training is discussed, but there is no mention of reforms to better use our existing resources. So here are two which could have a substantial positive impact in addressing the problem:

1. Currently nearly all intern training positions are in public hospitals. How about using our better private hospitals in the pre-registration training of doctors by rotating intern for a term into appropriate facilities in the private sector? Private hospitals already undertake nurse training and post-graduate medical training. When I undertook policy advocacy for the private hospital industry we met entrenched philosophical opposition from the health bureaucrats although some positive discussion has been held in the past year, progress is way too slow. I know of a number of willing private hospitals.
2. What proportion of routine medical work both within hospitals and outside could reasonably and safely be undertaken by non-medical health care professionals such as nurse practitioners, pharmacists and allied health professionals? Until this is addressed, we have doctors spending a proportion of their time doing tasks which do not require a medical degree. Such reform has been resisted by some entrenched interests in the organised medical profession.

A Keynesian trap of spending:

Alister Air writes: Re. “Keynesian trap of spending: what of construction post-BER?” (yesterday, item 17).Adam Schwab is probably wrong when he suggests that removing payroll tax would create jobs. It’s not all that likely to be able to be linked to a single job.

In Victoria, payroll tax is 4.9%, levied on companies with a payroll of over $550,000 each year.  This means a company with a payroll at the threshold pays $26,950. The minimum wage is currently $569.90/week, or $29,634.80 per year. On-costs (superannuation, WorkCover and other costs) add about 20% to this total (say $35,000).

The complete elimination of payroll tax could not create a single full-time job until it was removed on a company with a payroll of over $700,000.  But that’s only a possible job. Once you consider the impact on a unit cost of goods produced (or services rendered), it gets to the point that payroll tax is a tiny component of the total cost of a good or service anyway.

Using an example, if Ford have 1560 people employed in production of cars in Australia on an average $100,000 salary, and produce 80,000 cars, the payroll tax cost per car is less than $100 on a purchase price of $15,000 and up. Ford buyers’ individual savings of $100/car are unlikely to do much to create a job.

Adam Schwab might counter by saying that the money saved will go somewhere — even if Ford pocket the entire corporate tax cut, sooner or later some of it will reach people and start creating jobs.  But currently the majority of payroll tax creates jobs too — teachers, nurses, police, and other public servant positions. It creates infrastructure too, which creates private sector jobs. Pretty much all of them are necessary for the state to function.

The hit to Victorian revenue of $4.7 billion (10% of the state’s income) would need to be made up from somewhere, as reduction in government funds leads to a reduction in the workforce.

Adam Schwab does himself no favours by making silly arguments. The notion of employing people to break windows so that others can be employed to fix them is obviously daft. Schwab writes off the value of the BER projects, but I don’t think everyone else would be so quick to do so. The projects have lasting value, and the available information suggests Bernard Keane’s point is well made == the projects were needed, delivered efficiently, in a timely manner, and supported the sectors that needed support (and where the multiplier effect is highest == although I suspect Schwab believes the multiplier is 1, if not less than 1). And the jobs maintained were sustainable both in the medium and long term.

Finally, the notion that the costs of the various economic stimulus programmes are borne by those yet to be born is only true if you are also prepared to accept that the costs of doing nothing are also borne by those future taxpayers. A proportion of those who would be unemployed after a severe downturn will never find a comparable job again, and some will never find a job again and join the ranks of the long-term unemployed. And for those who do find work, unemployment rates decline slowly. The economic costs both in outlays by governments and in permanently lost national income should also be considered.

Michael Bailey writes: Many thanks to Crikey for running Adam Schwab’s tremendously amusing comic relief piece yesterday.

I was particularly tickled by Schwab suggesting that during the GFC our government ought to have responded to the downturn by pressuring the states to cut payroll tax, in lieu of the Keynesian/demand oriented spending it ultimately undertook with projects like the BER.

As someone who worked in small business during that period I immediately recognised Schwab’s cleverly disguised humour. I mean, it could only have been a joke to suggest that when confronted with collapsing consumer confidence and worsening revenue projections businesses would have gladly burdened themselves with increased payroll obligations when offered a pithy payroll tax cut.

I surely would’ve been tempted to add staff and all the associated ongoing expenditure in what was a salubrious consumer climate of tightening discretionary spending, increasing fears of job loss and personal wealth in many cases halved as stock/superannuation portfolios were hammered by the collapsing market. .

I do hope you retain Mr Schwab’s comedic talents. May I even be so bold as to request he tell us another of the supply-sides classics? The one about how deregulating the banking sector is good for the economy. That’s one of my favourites.

Gerard Henderson:

Adam Rope writes: Why was it not a surprise to see a response from Gerard Henderson (yesterday, comments) to Guy Rundle yesterday? And it was such a typically swift Hendersonian response, even despite the fact that Gerard “rarely read’s” Guy’s pieces in Crikey these days. Well, who knows. Maybe some close associate or friend tipped him off?

Anyway, just a quick pedantic point to match Gerard’s. Rundle wrote about Suharto’s alleged Australian backers from 1966 on. Gerard in response claims Suharto’s most influential backer was Paul Keating. Now, although I was young in 1966, and not even in Australia, I feel I’ve picked up a little bit of Australian history since I’ve been here. And I’m fairly sure that Paul Keating was not in the Federal Parliament, and therefore not really in a position of power, in 1966.

So how Keating was a major backer of Suharto way back then, I’m not too sure. Of course, I may wrong.

Don Dowell writes: In light of Gerard Henderson`s reply to Guy Rundle, it seems to me that many ex-apologists/supporters of the Soviet Union have often been rightly questioned on when they renounced or were finally sufficiently disgusted  by the crimes of that odious regime.

Their answers have also been forensically examined , as they should , in the light of how much they knew and at what period of time.

But what about Suharto’s regime and their many supporters in this country?  How would the many members of the so-called “Jakarta Lobby” fare under a similar examination? The massacres of the mid-sixties, East Timor from 1975, these were well known and at least as well documented as the crimes under Lenin/Stalin.

Uranium:

John Poppins writes: Joe Boswell (yesterday, comments) takes my concern regarding ‘Depleted Uranium’ (DU) (which is largely U238) and asks a logical question.

“The radioactive isotope U235 is removed leaving non-radioactive U238, and yet the U238 dust is radioactive. How does that work?”

Joe’s question makes an assumption – that the radioactivity was extracted with the ‘wanted’ U235 by the enrichment process. It is true that the DU is not useful as fuel in most reactors or as the explosive in bombs.   However it is still radioactive.  I recommend Joe and your readers go to Wikipedia and search for ‘U238’ for a full account.

In short.  U238 is radioactive, with a half life of 4.4 billion years. As it decays it emits an alpha particle which can’t travel far in air. However if the decay occurs in our lungs or guts the alpha particle, being large and heavy, is liable to knock up any DNA it hits beforebeing stopped in our cells.   The decay creates Thorium 234, of which half will decay in 24 days to Uranium 234.  This in turn has a half life of  about a minute.  Decay continues with the products including Radium, Radon, Polonium which decay very much more quickly.  At every stage radiation is ejected.   Thorium mimics calcium so accumulates in our bones.

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, radon is the second most frequent cause of lung cancer, after cigarette smoking, causing 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States

U238 is a very heavy metal. Like Lead, Arsenic and Cadmium, it is chemically toxic.

The fine U238 dust created by the pyrotechnic behaviour of a DU shell striking steel is readily taken in by breathing dust particles from the smoke plume, or later on a dry windy day, or as contamination in food.

So people and animals in areas where depleted uranium munitions were used face increased risks of genetic and chemical damage for a very long time.

Dr George Crisp writes: U235 has a different atomic weight (146 neutrons)  and as a result quite different properties to U238 (143 neutron). Both are in fact radioactive with quite different half lives (0.7 vs. 4.5 billion years respectively) and other properties.

U235 is “fissile”, meaning that it can initiate or maintain a nuclear chain reaction, whereas U238 cannot. The U238-rich material called “depleted uranium”  is used in munitions as it is both extremely dense (70% heavier than lead) and is “self sharpening”, the combination means it can penetrate even heavy armour.

However, it also vaporises on impact and becomes bio-available. This makes its use highly controversial because it is a toxic metal and is radioactive. I hope that covers it, Joe

Jesse Wyatt writes: U238 is not non-radioactive, it is weakly radioactive. Ergo U238 dust is still radioactive. Further, as the effect of radiation on an organism relative to distance from point source is affected by the inverse square law, it is considerably more dangerous to have weakly radioactive particles in your system (for example, by eating contaminated food or breathing in radioactive dust) than it is to stand a few metres from a comparatively more radioactive source.

This then breaks down further into the biochemical behaviour of each type of radioactive isotope (i.e., K-40 (found naturally in potassium) is water soluble so it is flushed from the system quickly, making it much less dangerous than, say, Strontium-90, which bonds to bones like calcium and stays in your system until it decays) so it’s a little more complicated than just “don’t eat it”, hence be wary of anyone who makes radioactivity comparisons using bananas etc but the simple thing to remember here is that U238 dust is definitely still potentially dangerous.

Climate change:

Tamas Calderwood writes: Re. Yesterday’s Editorial. Crikey was at its subversive best in yesterday’s editorial. The republican, left-leaning, egalitarian newsletter praising the centre-left-right UK government for its economic-suicide climate policy made me chuckle very darkly. And let’s face it — how could it not be dark humour?

The UAH temperature data shows the world has warmed by just 0.06C since 1998. The IPCC errors and Climategate emails have illuminated the shenanigans behind the settled “science”. Countless ludicrous green schemes (windmills, solar, sustainability) have demonstrated that any idiotic idea can skip cost-benefit analysis so long as it’s labeled Green, all while world-wide public opinion revolts against climate alarmism and the insane policy prescriptions it demands.

Yet here’s Crikey praising the UK government for enacting a policy that can never be achieved (halving CO2 emissions in 14 years?) and peddling bone-headed comments made by the EU climate chief (“public spending cuts” mean you can still “be ambitious on climate-change targets”) and the head of the UK Climate Change Committee (“this is going deliver higher economic growth”… and “lower electricity prices”).

Ha ha — so more expensive energy equals less expensive energy and huge public subsidies are consistent with public spending cuts. Good one.

Hey, I love having a dig at the Poms too — it infuriates them when they look down their noses and see a happier, better run and more prosperous country. And don’t get me started on sport. But even I didn’t have the dark, subversive yearning to see the UK completely ruin itself. You guys are bad-ass!