Quantum Forest

A current affair (ACA) is, together with its competing alternative Today Tonight, one of those lame ‘current affairs’ TV programs, which provide simplistic coverage and advice. A typical story will be around five minutes providing fairly useless information¹. As an example, a story of people troubled with heavy debts will suggest ‘use a budget’, or a story on obesity will tell you ‘eat less and exercise’.

Last night ACA had a story on the rich paying less taxes than ‘the battlers’ or common people. The program asked how come that rich people pay only 30% (company tax) or even 25% (after tax deductions) when people in a salary pay up to 48.5% (the highest marginal tax)? Then the program went on the existence of ‘loopholes’ and people creating companies to avoid paying taxes.

One of the assumptions behind ACA’s reasoning is that the government actually has a natural right to take a large proportion of people’s income, which sounds very dubious (P.S. 2005-09-12: Catallaxy has a post covering this issue). In addition, people using legal means of reducing taxation are somewhat acting unethically. The fact that many people with higher incomes actually own a company, from where they derive their income, did not seem to bother the writers of the story.

I would say that the argument should be put in a different way. The problem is not that rich people are paying too little, but that people with lower incomes are paying too much. It seems very reasonable to me that people try to minimise payments to the state, from which they perceive they do not get good value in return.

Ironically, the same night ACA had a story on how poor was the quality of current public education, which is producing students who are unable to spell words. It seems that, again, the writers of the program did not relate people’s unwillingness to be highly taxed with the way our money is spent. Incidentally, the comparison of school students’ ability to spell with the spelling ability of people who are thirty to fifty years older was completely meaningless. There are so many differences between the cohorts that attributing differences on spelling ability only to different teaching philosophies is preposterous (apart from the use of different sets of words).

Once again, ACA provides a populist and insubstantial approach to current affairs coverage.

¹ You may be wondering why was Luis watching the program anyway? Some times I watch TV just to have something to complain about (masochism?).

As expected, it took only a few days to receive a reply to my letter to the paper defending Che Guevara’s legacy. It had the typical arguments: Cuba is a democracy, Chávez is great, Cuban doctors are saving the world, etc. Ah, and I should know my history. I replied the following:

Duncan Meerdig (Letters, June 17) defends the legacy of Ernesto Guevara. He states that I should know my history. I think it is funny when armchair revolutionaries discuss life (particularly my life) in such abstract terms.

I was born in Latin America, and lived in three of its countries for twenty nine years. I had the ‘luck’ of living under right wing and left wing tyrannies: despite of claimed ideological differences they are two sides of the same coin. My family suffered exile, I have friends who were tortured and killed: all in the name of ‘the revolution’. Dissent and independent thinking was crushed, university lecturers dismissed, imprisoned and some times killed (and Che is used as a symbol of a university, what an irony).

The actions of this ‘Latin American hero’, followers and imitators have costed millions of displaced lives, thousands of deaths and the destruction of the economies of many countries. These countries include Cuba under Castro and Venezuela under Chávez. Venezuela is an interesting case, where the proportion of people under the line of poverty has increased despite rising oil (its main export) prices.

Mr Meerdig’s democracy has managed to have the same leader for 46 years. Little surprise when people have elections with a single party to choose from. Fidel Castro is head of state, head of government, first secretary of the communist party, commander in chief of the armed forces and member of the National Assembly of People’s Power; the ultimate approach to democracy.

Guevara started the ‘tradition’ of imprisoning dissidents and other ‘deviants’, including homosexuals, practitioners of minor religions and rebels. This practice would be later extended by the Cuban government to HIV AIDS victims and mental health patients. Guevara signed thousands of execution orders while being in a position of power.

Luckily, people in Latin America now know better and in many countries we have a resurgence of democracy, despite of Che Guevara’s heroic influence.

I was extremely surprised by the University of Tasmania’s ‘Revolutionise your life’ recruitment campaign. A new university advertisement in The Mercury (9^th of June, page 21) displays an image of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara wearing a graduation hat. Why would the University of Tasmania use the image of a murderer, involved in establishing the longest running and one of the most brutal Latin American dictatorships, to promote its image? Guevara helped to setup Cuba’s secret police, and as commander of La Cabaña prison he was involved in the torture and execution of political prisoners. How did a university choose such an enemy of dissent and free will as part of its branding strategy? Who is next in the advertisements: Pinochet, Castro or, closer to home, Pol Pot? This campaign certainly shows a lack of taste and respect for the suffering of millions of people in the hands of a so-called revolutionary.

Click on the picture for a larger version (65 KB) of the advertisement.

I am trying to understand what did the ‘creative consultants’ had in mind—if anything at all—when coming up with such a poor choice. Maybe it was ‘he looks cool in all those T-Shirts’ or some other idiocy like that. Since when being involved in mass murdering and condemning millions of people to exile or tyranny are ‘cool’ actions? Annoying, very annoying.

PS. 2005-06-14. The first paragraph of this post was published in the letters section of The Mercury (page 14) today. The paper could not manage the letter ñ, so it reads La Cabaa.

Click on the picture for a larger version (43 KB) of the advertisement.

PS. 2005-06-16. You can send your comments on the issue to Media.Office@utas.edu.au. Please keep comments firm but civil.

PS. 2005-06-17. The supporters of Che replied already in the newspaper.

PS. 2005-06-20. I received a letter from Federal Senator Eric Abetz sympathising with my letter and with a copy of a letter he sent to the university Vice Chancellor, rising the same issues I mentioned in my letter. I also wrote a letter to the university without reply.

PS. 2005-07-06. This post in the Telegraph Newspaper questions why left wing mass murderers are cool while right wing ones are not.

PS. 2006-03-06. I found an article for ‘The New Republic’ that goes on describing the differences between myth and reality for Che apologists.

A few months ago Senator Bob Brown was complaining that nothing would happen with the government’s electoral promise on forests. Last Friday—Friday 13^th, spooky—John Howard (Australia’s Prime Minister) and Paul Lennon (Tasmanian Premier) signed the ‘Supplementary Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement’ in a visit to the Styx Valley.

The extension to the RFA includes much more than just extra reserved land:

• Extra 193,400 ha protected (148,400 ha of State Forests and 45,000 ha of voluntarily protected forests). This covers two of the most contentious areas: the Tarkine and the Styx Valley, plus a number of small areas. Out of the 148,400 ha there are 120,000 of old growth forests. The new areas are reserves and not national parks; thus, they are not available for forestry but the mining industry still can claim mining rights.
• Clearing and conversion of native forests (both old growth and regeneration forests) to other land uses (plantations, farming, etc) on public land phased out by 2010. Same situation in private land by 2015.
• Old-growth clearfelling will be reduced to 20 percent of total production (400 ha a year) by 2010, favouring partial harvesting methods. There will be no acceleration of harvest rate in old growth forest.
• There will be an expansion of hardwood plantations of 16,000 ha (most likely in converted land) to allow meeting a legal commitment of 300,000 m³/year of sawlogs and reducing reliance on old-growth forests.
• End of use of 1080 in States Forests (although this is not new) and incentives for private land owners to do the same.
• There would be an extra 213 jobs in forestry (155 direct and 53 indirect).
• There are other bits and pieces including ‘feel good’ programs of AUD 1 million for water quality assessments and AUD 2 millions for studying Tasmanian devils’s facial cancer. Not that they are not important, but they have not much to do with the rest of the RFA.

It is now clear that the delay of the announcement (from December to May) was due to intense negotiations to provide a much more comprehensive package. This extra coverage comes at a cost though; where the initial budget was AUD50 millions from the Federal Government, it increased to AUD250 millions (160 millions from the federal budget plus 90 millions from state government). There will be AUD 115 millions for intensive forest management and AUD 42 millions for the hardwood industry. This is still a small number compared to Labor’s promised AUD800 millions.

If the sign of a fair deal is that everybody is a little unhappy, we are in the presence of a good deal. The Greens and other conservationists can not stand it—the Greens call it forest torture—but nobody expected that they would like any solution to the problem, which is key to their political position in Australia. Farmers do not like the deal because it imposes restrictions on land clearing. Part of the forest industry does not like it because it reduces—and in some cases eliminate—access to to specific forest resources.

It is clear that with a reduced available forest area, there will be an intensification of silviculture of the remaining land, particularly in plantations.

Some sources:

• Full document and maps for the Supplementary Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement 13 May 2005.
• Tasmania’s Premier press release.

I have been surprised by the large number of people justifying the use of torture when dealing with terrorism (in the framework of Mamdouh Habib’s case). The discussion reminded me of a short essay by Ariel Dorfman published on the 8^th of May 2004 in the Guardian (and in The Australian too) entitled: Are There Times When We Have to Accept Torture? The essay is not freely available for non-suscribers, but there are copies in many places like in this site (File Lost). The essay ends:

Are we that scared? Are we so scared that we are willing to knowingly let others perpetrate, in the dark and in our name, acts of terror that will eternally corrode and corrupt us?

I have met several people that were tortured under Pinochet’s regime and I would say: no, I am not that scared to justify what these people suffered. I wasn’t then and I am not now.

Does it mean that we need to accept terrorism? Not at all; but fighting terror with terror is more a sign of a desperate society than of a just cause.

Walking in town last weekend there was a member of Green Left selling ‘The Green Left Weekly’, a paper published by this group of Stalinist loonies. Please note: do not confuse this group with The Greens, which look like a bunch of right wingers compared to these guys. For an example of ideological blindness in this ‘newspaper’ have a look at Food, poverty and ecology: Cuba & Venezuela lead the way.

Although I consider totalitarian views like nazism, fascism and communism as expressions of the same underlying controlling philosophies, some people claim that they differ on their aims. Thus, communism is more acceptable, because it aims for an egalitarian society, while Nazism does not. Of course this implies that an egalitarian society is a desirable utopia—although I don’t think that is the case. Yes, there have been a few ‘glitches’ with the implementations (some of these countries, for example), but never let real life interfere with a beautiful theory.

If one looks at all attempts to achieve egalitarian societies, there has never been a successful example. A quote frequently attributed to Albert Einstein defines defines ‘Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’. One may question that if all implementations fail there may be something wrong with the idea. This thought does not cross the minds of the Green Left’s true believers. It may well be that John Dryden was right when writing in ‘The Spanish Friar’:

There is a pleasure sure
In being mad which none but madmen know.

By the way, I equally despise right wing totalitarian regimes.

It seems that during summer time not much is happening on environmental issues in Tasmania. Plenty of people are on holidays and the news cover mostly regrettable natural disasters around the planet. Anyway, just a few things that will be—or are likely to be—happening in Tasmania during 2005:

• 1080 will stop being used in State Forests in December 2005. Therefore, Forestry Tasmania will stop its use, in the same way it stopped using Atrazine in 1997.
• Parliament will continue the discussion about repealing section 32A (112 KB, PDF file) of the Freedom of Information Act. Although Forestry Tasmania is subject to Freedom of Information law, it may request exemption under specific circumstances. FoI law still protects information considered ‘commercial in confidence’, including pricing.
• The government should make available the results of public consultation on the projected pulp mill in Northern Tasmania.
• Forestry Tasmania should make public the updated version of Alternatives to Clearfell Silviculture. They were supposed to be released around the time of the past Federal Elections. On hindsight it was good that the results were not released on time. The issue will still be political, but not more than necessary.

I doubt that there will be any real news before March.

PS. 2005-05-16. Additional reservation and other changes were announced in May.

In an unsurprising appearance in the news a few days ago, Senator Bob Brown said that nothing is going to happen with the re-elected government’s promise on Tasmanian forests, so he will not hold his breath about their conservation.

But what would happen if parts of the Tarkine were to be reserved? What would be the impact on Tasmania’s environmental debate if part of the Styx Valley became protected? I think that is highly unlikely that the whole areas — which go way above the 170,000 ha promised by the government — will be reserved. For once, it would probably break the RFA (Regional Forestry Agreement). On another front, it would be seen as too much a concession to the Greens.

However, if the heart of the Tarkine or the section of the Styx Valley that contains the tall trees (yes, a good part of the valley does not contain giant/tall trees) what would be the reaction of environmentalist organisations? They would probably claim that ‘the end is near’ and that ‘it is not enough’, despite of extending partial reservation to two icons of the Tasmanian environmental debate.

I may be wrong — and Bob Brown in the right path — and nothing will happen with this electoral promise. In fact, I normally do not trust politicians; however, in this case I think that the ‘John W. Howard’ reserve (mock name, of course) will be a reality pretty soon indeed.

PS. 2005-05-16. Additional reservation and other changes were announced in May. Bob was wrong.

Gunns has started legal action against twenty environmentalist individuals and groups, including Bob Brown, Peg Putt, the Wilderness Society and Doctors for Forests. The company is trying to recover around AU$6.36 million that claims to have lost due to:

• Logging operations disruption campaigns and actions at Lucaston, Hampshire, Triabunna and the Styx;
• Corporate vilification campaigns relating to the Burnie Woodchip site and the Banksia Awards;
• Campaigns against overseas customers of the First Plaintiff (Gunns) including customers in Japan and Belgium;
• Corporate campaigns targeting shareholders, investors and Banks.

The writ claims that the environmentalists’ campaign is a conspiracy to injure Gunns and to interfere with Gunns trade and business by unlawful means. The writ is quite large, and you can obtain a copy from Bob Brown’s website (PDF 5.4MB).

Environmentalist organisations and forest companies have used before legal action, called to Royal Commissions, lodged formal complaints, etc. Thus, there is nothing new in the ‘legal approach’ to environmental ‘debate’. However, this time Gunns is certainly aiming high in a very risky bet.

Is legal action threatening freedom of speech? I think it is hard to be conclusive about it. On one side, it may deter people voicing their opinions and genuine concerns, which would be a major drawback. On the other, there would be pressure to be more responsible when expressing dissent, particularly pushing people to ‘check facts’ and to avoid bogus claims to disqualify their opponents, which would be a major plus. I would certainly prefer a parallel universe where people would speak their minds openly always telling the truth. However, I live in this universe where legal action may be the lesser evil.

Will Gunns be able to prove the accusations presented in the writ? I find it hard to believe, particularly when (i) trying to connect cause (environmentalists actions) with effects (loss of income) and (ii) valuing the size of the effect of the campaign. It may be that Gunns is trying to establish a ‘fear factor’ (that I do not think will be achieved) or that John Gay really believes the contents of the writ and is trying to recoup some of the money. Anyway, there are interesting days ahead of us.

In a not so unrelated note, the Independent Complaints Review Panel of the ABC, found that the ‘Lords of the Forests Programs’ (aired on 16 February 2004) showed some innacuracies, unsourced visions and emotive language, which affected its balance and fairness.

This morning I finished reading Ayn Rand’s ‘The Fountainhead’, a 1943 novel about the battle between individualism and collectivism. I bought the second edition (1947) of the book three weeks ago in a second-hand bookshop. A sticker showed that the book had been sitting on a shelve since July 2001.

The story is compelling, although the dialogues are sometimes a bit artificial, particularly when Rand is pushing the philosophical (and ideological) aspects of her thought. For example, Ellsworth Toohey’s final conversation with Peter Keating reminded me of a villain confessing his abject plans to Batman: a long and detailed explanation, although Keating is no Batman but a beaten man.

Nevertheless, I tend to agree with Rand’s diagnostic: second-handers have condemned creators, and their ideals for centuries. As Howard Roark (the protagonist) puts it in his trial:

No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.

…

Men have been taught that the ego is synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self.

…

A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule — alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.

I did enjoy the book and will go back to the second-hand bookshop to look for Atlas shrugged. By the way, the title of this post comes from a book of essays I am reading at the moment. As with any philosophy, I will treat Ayn Rand’s objectivism with a pinch of salt: it has valuable ideas, but it is not the ‘one size fits all’ solution for all the problems of the world.