Rundle on war:

Justin Templer writes: Re. “Rundle: the strange twilight nature of the war in Afghanistan” (yesterday, item 5). Congratulations to Guy Rundle on his excellent piece on our involvement in Afghanistan.

As Rundle suggests, the singular nature of each death makes impossible any simultaneous questioning of the war’s rationale, because that would be to dishonor the recently dead.  But if we are to “export young men for live slaughter” we need to know exactly why — because, as you read this, there is a young man in transit for Afghanistan who will die.

One can only argue that this may be an acceptable price if one can also with fair certainty answer affirmatively to the question: “In ten years’ time will we look back on this war and the then existing situation in Afghanistan and say that it was worth it?”

I do not have that sort of certainty, sufficient to condemn a “cheeky” young Australian to death.

Niall Clugston writes: I don’t see how Guy Rundle can paint the ALP as historically an antiwar party. Yes, Whitlam withdrew from Vietnam when the war was lost, and the party long opposed conscription, but in Afghanistan the war isn’t lost and the troops aren’t conscripts. And his claim that Labor “now spruiks a conflict in order to avoid outflanking in that baddest of badlands — western Sydney” just seems bizarre, especially to me, an inhabitant of these supposed badlands.

The political significance of western Sydney is just that it is the most populous part of the most populous city in Australia. As it is generally safe Labor territory, however, Gillard could lose government without losing western Sydney. Moreover, why the part of Australia with the highest Muslim population is assumed to be backing the war in Afghanistan is hard to fathom.

In fact, there doesn’t seem to be strong support for the war anywhere. And if Gillard orchestrated a dignified withdrawal of Australia’s token troops, with the appropriate baton-passing rhetoric, very few would object.

Nancy Williams writes: Brilliant! Put exactly as I have thought about it but had not seen expressed in any public forum. I wish it could be put in big letters on every media outlet in the world.

Peter Phelps:

Michael R. James writes: Re. Yesterday’s Editorial. One positive thing can be said about Dr Peter Phelps, if perhaps the only positive thing, is that he is not hiding behind cowardly anonymity like so many toxic ranting bloggers. Having said that, I never knew that frequent Crikey ranter (“Peter Phelps”) was a NSW politician.

As an historian he will know the old saying that it is the victors who write the history books. So I commend him to read the economist Anatole Kaletsky’s article in The Times (reprinted in yesterday’s Oz) on Germany’s economic dominance and their decision to invest in renewable energy and prematurely close down their nuclear generators. It will be at considerable cost to the country in the short term but, as anyone who casts a cursory eye over German industry, say, for the past century or so, to their long term benefit.

As Kaletsky’s closing sentence says: “I would place my bet on the German approach”.

History shows that Germany has a robust world-beating industrial base and is one of the few Western countries in either Europe or America, to prosper in manufacturing despite the China juggernaut. Germany remains the world’s top exporter (certainly in export value per capita and until the current year, in absolute dollars as well).

Kaletsky is not the only economist or historian or politician or industrialist not to be so foolish to bet against their massive green-tinged investment strategy being successful in 10 or 20 years, a timetable beyond most corporates and it seems some historians, and certainly most Australian politicians (except of course the Greens, leader one Dr Bob Brown, medic).

As to the initial cost, obviously Germans, like Australians, are among the wealthiest people in the world. The difference with Australians is that the Germans know it and don’t constantly whinge about being disadvantaged battlers. The Germans know they can afford the transition costs, not only to a more sustainable life but to simultaneously develop a strong industrial base. The costs, just like our proposed Carbon Tax, are really an investment in their future (and ours too).

It is no accident that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is a physicist with a PhD in quantum chemistry. Likewise, the leadership of China is dominated by engineers and economists while most of our politicians are lawyers (notable exception, Dr Craig Emerson, economist, and Dr Brown as noted) or historians like Phelps, whose first instincts appear to be to trash the advice of Dr Ken Henry or Dr Ross Garnaut. Not to mention Dr Karoly et al. who dare to give their expert opinion on climate change based on a career of study in the relevant fields.

As a PhD biochemist/geneticist I would like to suggest he take some science classes but I suspect Peter Phelps might prefer not to challenge his ignorance on these important issues on which he likes to comment. Peter Phelps may have a PhD in history but maybe he needs to go back to school to at least brush up on some modern history.

John Thompson writes: It’s good to see some coverage of an alternative view, without the normally attendant howling down of that viewpoint. How long before the attack dogs of global warming tear his view apart? I am a sceptic, definitely not a denier, but I only rarely raise my head above the parapet on this issue because I’m sick of having it kicked.

It would be nice to see some reasoned in-depth debate on the issue in Crikey, but that might be asking for too much.

Border security:

Sandi Logan, Department of Immigration and Citizenship – National Communications Manager, writes: Re. “Border ‘security’: how inconvenient is the new deterrence” (yesterday, item 12). The suggestion in Charles Richardson’s article in Crikey, that the Australian Government intentionally delays processing of protection claims to deter irregular maritime arrivals (or air arrivals, for that matter) is untrue.

Immigration detention is not used to punish people or deter them. It is an administrative function whereby people who do not have a valid visa are detained while their claims to stay are considered or their removal is facilitated.

The government has acknowledged the pressures on immigration detention and the associated clearances provided by other agencies have resulted in longer processing times. However, there can be, and is no compromise on border security and the requirements to meet health, character, identity and security requirements.

The live export trade:

Jason Baker, Director of Campaigns, PETA Australia, writes Re. “Live exports ban a threat to delicate trade dispute” (Wednesday, item 3). The horrific cruelty that recently aired on ABC’s Four Corners — including cattle being beaten, having their throats hacked, and their eyes gouged out in Indonesian abattoirs — is, sadly, business as usual in the live-export industry.

Multiple investigations by PETA, Animals Australia, and other organisations have revealed rampant cruelty at every step of the live export process.

For example, sheep who are discarded by the wool industry and who have already suffered the misery of mulesing — in which huge chunks of flesh are carved off their backsides, usually without any pain relief — are forced to endure hellish, weeks-long voyages to slaughter on extremely crowded, disease-ridden ships. Many sheep succumb to illness, starve to death, or are trampled. Survivors are often dragged from the ships at their destination and thrown into the backs of trucks and cars. At slaughter, most will have their throats cut while they are still conscious.

Banning live exports to some slaughterhouses in Indonesia is a start, but animals will continue to suffer as long as any live export remains legal. It’s time for Australia to ban this cruel practice entirely.

Newspapers:

Jim Hart writes: Re. “Sectional readership breakdown has newspapers nervous” (yesterday, item 2). Roy Morgan may call it “Sectional readership breakdown”; I’d call it intuitively obvious.

Honestly it doesn’t take a “long-awaited” research paper to recognise that most people who buy a newspaper look at the news (well they would, wouldn’t they) while only a minority — typically a third of them as it happens — have time for the specialised pages like business or arts or gardening.

As for bits like employment and real estate sections, these are of no interest if you’re not looking for a job or a house and that’s OK because those advertisers aren’t interested in you either.

And finally, blow me down if Roy hasn’t got metrics to show that fashion and beauty are from Venus while cars and computers are from Mars. Who’d a thunk it?

Harry Jenkins and Rob Oakeshott:

Peter Waite writes: Re. “Oakeshott has wrecked Jenkins’ authority — and it shows” (yesterday, item 9). I believe Harry Jenkins has the ultimate weapon, he can simply walk out without saying anything.

This would then require Parliament to adjourn until one of the Deputy Speakers was prepared to take the Chair and try to restore order.

If none of the deputies were prepared to do this it could create a serious Constitutional problem.

John Goldbaum writes: Brett Krieger (yesterday, comments) wrote “that on the basis of [John Goldbaum’s] reasoning Rob Oakeshott was no more a fool or hypocrite than every Liberal member who initially voted against the naming but then supported the confidence motion shortly afterwards”.

I was restricting my comments to the actions of the cross benchers. The Opposition is expected to support its own MPs after naming. If they voted with the Government, they’d really look stupid.

On the other hand, Rob Oakeshott had a choice because he is an independent. According to Oakeshott’s speech in parliament yesterday (Hansard 09:44), “the matters of the last fortnight do weigh heavily … [and he wakes] up in the middle of the night worrying about the standing orders and trying to work through the issues of the last two weeks”.

Oakeshott admitted to “some confusion about the position taken on a naming motion … [and failed to see it as] any sort of challenge to the confidence or independence of the chair”.

Oakeshott said he “will be referring the matter to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure to clarify because, if we are serious about an independent Speaker, the question then is why the Speaker has to put a vote to seek order in the chamber…[He wants to give] the Speaker the authority to not only dismiss someone for an hour but also potentially for 24 hours”.

Oakeshott should familiarise himself with the rules of the game rather than trying to make them up as he goes. This parliament is too unstable for on the job training.

Books:

Jack Sim writes: Re. “REDGroup collapse: few lifelines as publishers slash orders” (Tuesday, item 4). I am a independent publisher in Brisbane — www.jacksim.com.au — and I am furious that the police and the ACCC seem to be quiet about the trading activities of the Redgroup conglomerate.

A&R and Borders head office raised my RRP for my book release last year, BLOODY BRISBANE Vol2, from $25 to $28. I protested at the time as I was running ads on the radio promoting my new book and that it was available through these chains. Clearly they were aware they were insolvent in December.

My new book sold very well — but I will never see a cent — $24,000 they have taken me for and left me in a terrible financial state.

If this happened in the mining industry — if ports closed, the equivalent to the demise of A&R and Dymocks — the federal government would have stepped in.

I publish books about local history — which sell very well — how will I sell the volumes I need to continue to support local writers if I cannot distribute them?

Climate change:

Tamas Calderwood writes: James Haughton (yesterday, comments) warns Crikey to cease publishing comments by climate heretics like Ken Lambert and me and says Crikey‘s Amber Jamieson should run our responses past the “ask a climate scientist service” first, presumably to prove us wrong.

Well James, Amber did just that back on November 22, 2010 and the scientists couldn’t answer my questions.

When the climate scientists were asked why the warming spurts from1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were all the same magnitude despite higher emissions in the latter periods, they responded that “the causes of that variability are currently a very active research topic and there are different competing ideas right now about the causes”.

Translation: they don’t know.

So I repeat, if you have no idea what is driving these natural decadal-scale warming/cooling trends, how can you say the warming spurt that stopped in 1998 was man-made?

I’d prefer an explanation to all this rather than being told to shut up James. Or is it only your side of the debate that is allowed to have their letters published in Crikey?