Lie back and think of Britain, or at least Jeff Sparrow ...
Under the terms of the government’s nuclear submarine purchase, the first Australian-built Aukus class vessels come into service in the early 2040s. What else might be happening then?
According to the IPCC, at current rates, the planet will have warmed more than 1.5C above its pre-industrial state. In fact, many scientists believe temperatures could smash the 1.5C barrier as soon as 2030 or 2035 – that is, around about when Australia receives the first of its Virginia-class nuclear subs.
Warming on that scale means extreme weather becoming common. It means disasters like the 2019/20 bushfire season or the 2022 floods taking place not once in a century, but every year or so. It means drought and heatwaves disrupting food production, it means rising seas inundating the land, and it means millions of people fleeing regions suddenly rendered uninhabitable.
When you think about what the Australian people might require under such ghastly conditions, “nuclear submarines” do not top the list.
Back in 2019, Scott Morrison responded to a Greta Thunberg speech by saying that he didn’t want children to feel “needless anxiety” about global warming. That bizarre insouciance about climate science still pervades the national security establishment, even as the Age and Sydney Morning Herald’s “Red alert” panellists demand a “psychological shift” to ready Australians for a major war.
The submarine enthusiasts don’t care that the geostrategic environment for which their vessels are designed won’t exist as ecological collapse reshapes world politics. Rather, they consider the eye-popping sums associated with Aukus (“the biggest transfer of wealth from Australia to another country in its history”) as an immediate down payment on the US alliance, integrating Australia into the forces propping up declining American hegemony in the Asia Pacific...
Well yes, but then the pond won't be around to see the worst of climate change or whatever happens whenever the subs finally arrive (nor will most of the politicians currently ruining the planet).
Meanwhile, speaking of another planet ...
Well yes, and the pond only mentions
The Graudian, because it
provided a link to the IPCC ... (security check, d'oh) for those masochistic enough to do a Percy Grainger and flay themselves with the facts of an alternative reality ...
Meanwhile the pond is stuck reading the bromancer, still somewhere back in the era of the battleship or perhaps the Suez crisis ...
On climate change? Only in the bromancer's world, and back to thoughts from the Sparrow ...
...An arms race in the Asia Pacific and beyond will enrich the defence companies contributing to funding the Australian Strategic Policy Institute but it will derail the international cooperation necessary to cut emissions, as all the main powers throw resources into their own polluting fleets.
An actual conflict would be infinitely worse. A Sino-US war would mean a world-historic catastrophe, both because of its likely escalation to a nuclear exchange, but also because it would lock in an environmental future immeasurably bleaker than the already grim projections of the IPCC.
The fighting in Ukraine has already resulted in vast amounts of greenhouse gases. What do you suppose two clashing superpowers would do?
That’s why the Age/Sydney Morning Herald Red Alert series was so extraordinarily irresponsible. If war is really as imminent as these “experts” claim, we don’t need conscription or atomic weaponry or other blithely mentioned nostrums.
We need, rather, to redouble efforts for peace, simply because a conflict between nuclear powers would seal our environmental death warrant. No one should have illusions about Chinese dictators and their regime. But Iraq and Afghanistan provide an awful warning that military assaults on authoritarian regimes do not culminate in democracy and freedom, but instead intensify the misery inflicted upon ordinary people.
In 1953, Dwight Eisenhower spelled out what the first cold war race signified, saying, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.”
We know, with a level approaching certainty, that climate change is coming. So how else can we think about Australian’s unprecedented new arms expenditure other than as an awful crime against the future?
They always disappoint, just as Joe has resumed the search for fossil fuels and the Labor party is busy appeasing the gods of the military-industrial speech,
as Eisenhower called it, though as the pond recalls it, he really only got around to considering it in his farewell address to the nation on 17th January 1961...
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron
Well yes, but that was 1953, and here we are in 2023, still dangling from that cross of iron, and then the reptiles had the indecency to insert a snap of a certified war criminal ... triggering a memory of another pond reading, this time
George Monbiot, who concluded, in a matter going beyond hypocrisy ...
...There is another way of saying “crime of aggression”: an act of mass murder. The invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of people. We cannot be more precise than that, as the invading forces refused to measure the carnage. But it is almost certainly the greatest crime against humanity so far this century. Blair, Brown, Bush and Rice are as guilty of a “manifestly illegal war” as Putin and his close advisers.
But who gets prosecuted is a matter of victors’ justice. For example, until it issued a warrant last week on another charge for the arrest of Putin and one of his officials, there had been 31 cases brought before the international criminal court. Every one of the defendants in these cases is African. Is this because Africa is the only continent where crimes against humanity had occurred? No. It’s because Africans accused of such crimes do not enjoy the political protections afforded to the western leaders who perpetrate even greater atrocities.
Instead of facing justice, the killers walk among us, respected, revered, treated as the elder statesmen to whom media and governments turn for counsel. Brown can pose as an august humanitarian. Alastair Campbell, who oversaw the compilation of the “dodgy dossier”, which provided a false case for war, and is therefore as complicit as any of Putin’s “henchmen”, has been thoroughly screenwashed: in other words, rehabilitated, like other grim political figures, by television. He is now treated as a kind of national agony uncle.
There has been no reckoning and nor will there be. This greatest of crimes has been so thoroughly airbrushed that its perpetrators can anoint themselves the avenging angels of other people’s atrocities. To quote King Lear: “Plate sin with gold, and the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks: arm it in rags, a pigmy’s straw does pierce it.”
Oh come on George, we have our war criminals down under too ... here's a snap of a few of them, and aren't they still loved by the bromancer ...
At this point the pond felt no interest in linking to the bromancer at CIS ...
Bizarrely the reptiles decided to insert a snap of Gough, and because it was so large, the pond had to cut it down to size ...
If the reptiles are going to interrupt with an illustration, it's an invitation for the pond to interrupt with an
infallible Pope ...
Yes, the pond has already voted, and the upper house card was like unfurling Kerouac's typing of On the Road on an endless roll of toilet paper. It was choice taken to an absurd and meaningless American degree ...
But the pond digresses yet again ... and there's still more bromancer to unfurl, dedicated to rolling the voice ...
And that last outburst of bromancer logic reminds the pond of why it always thinks the bromancer is deeply fucked in the head, because at the end of the day - as a correspondent noted - the prime minister who broke the nation's heart in the end lost his own seat as well as government, a rare but spectacular result ... just as the notion that Boris "won Brexit" is truly weird, because nobody won much of anything with that spectacular folly ...
Deception, flattering, lying, deluding, talking behind the back, putting up a false front, living in borrowed splendor, wearing a mask, hiding behind convention, playing a role for others and for oneself -- in short, a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of vanity -- is so much the rule and the law among men that there is almost nothing which is less comprehensible than how an honest and pure drive for truth could have arisen among them. Nietzsche
Or doing down uppity, difficult blacks for that matter ...
Meanwhile, the bromancer was exhibiting a deep anxiety about vulgar youff and millennials and all that jazz...
By the end of it, the pond was reaching for another Wilcox ...
Meanwhile, even Media Watch, these days always caught between stools, did begin to wonder and grudgingly conceded that maybe there was a point to the fuss, with Quiggin MID ...
...amid all the outrage — or glee — Keating’s intervention did charge up the debate, with economist, Professor John Quiggin, questioning the huge price tag, a US defence procurement expert warning the subs will be ‘over budget, late and obsolete’, and another former PM Malcolm Turnbull forecasting a “very high risk of failure” and calling for more public debate.
Those critics may or may not be on the money.
But one thing is clear — this is a crucial decision for Australia.
And instead of all the cheering and flag waving, the media should have been asking from the start whether the government’s decision is the right one.
And so after that epic tease to the usual groaning, but the pond should first reassure stray readers that the groaning only appeared after a strict vetting of contenders ...
Ancient Troy on the voice, Joel worrying about Gen Z, Ben doing Japan, and a re-heated WSJ doing a McCarthy?
Yeah nah, he can just keep on helping out Marge, and let the legal chips fall where they may ...
The pond is more intrigued by the question of whether a Jew can be a fascist. Why surely he can ...
Sorry, sorry, it's almost as if the pond is avoiding Dame Groan, busy ruining the country's productivity by staying too long in her job, but all teases must end, and so to the groaning ...
The pond got lost at that talk of a thousand pages of cardigan-wearer scribbling. Suddenly the idea of a listicle or even a PowerPoint presentation you could fit on a page seemed like a good idea ... but if that report is perverse, then reading Dame Groan to get any insight into it is just as perverse ...
After all didn't she berate workers for staying too long in their jobs and so ruining productivity, and yet, here we are ... with snaps needed to break up the tedium ...
If you insist ...
...Paul and Finnerty left the car to examine the mystery, and saw that the center of attention was an Orange-O machine. Orange-O, Paul recalled, was something of a cause célèbre, for no one in the whole country, apparently, could stomach the stuff - no one save Doctor Francis Eldgrin Gelhorne, National Industrial, Commercial, Communications, Foodstuffs, and Resources Director. As a monument to him, Orange-O machines stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest, though the coin-box collectors never found anything in the machines but stale Orange-O.
But now the excretor of the blended wood pulp, dye, water, and orange-type flavoring was as popular as a nymphomaniac at an American Legion convention.
"O.K., now let's try anotha' nickel in her an' see how she does," said a familiar voice from behind the machine - the voice of Bud Calhoun.
"Clunkle" went the coin, and then a whir, and a gurgle.
The crowd was overjoyed.
"Filled the cup almost to the top that time; and she's nice and cold now, too," called the man by the machine's spout.
"But the light behind the Orange-O sign didn't light up," said a woman.
"Supposed to."
"We'll fix that, won't we, Bud?" said another voice from behind the machine.
"You people get me about three feet of that red wire hanging out of the shoeshine machine, and somebody let me borrow their penknife a second." The speaker stood up and stretched, and smiled contentedly, and Paul recognized him: the tall, middle-aged, ruddy-faced man who'd fixed Paul's car with the sweatband of his hat long ago.
The man had been desperately unhappy then. Now he was proud and smiling because his hands were busy doing what they liked to do best, Paul supposed - replacing men like himself with machines. He hooked up the lamp behind the Orange-O sign. "There we are."
Bud Calhoun bolted on the back. "Now try her."
The people applauded and lined up, eager for their Orange-O. The first man up emptied his cup, and went immediately to the end of the line for seconds.
"Now, let's have a look at this li'l ol' ticket seller," said Bud. "Oh, oh. Got it right through the microphone."
"I knew we'd be able to use the telephone out in the street for something," said the ruddy man. "I'll go get it."
The crowd, filled with Orange-O, was drifting over to encourage them in their new enterprise.
When Paul and Finnerty returned to the limousine, they found Lasher and von Neumann looking extremely glum, engaged in conversation with a bright-looking teenager.
"Have you, seen an eighth-horsepower electric motor lying around anywhere?" said the youngster. "One that isn't busted up too bad?"
Lasher shook his head.
"Well, I just have to keep looking, I guess," said the youngster, picking up a cardboard carton jammed with gears, tubes, switches, and other odd parts. "This place is a gold mine, all right, but it's tough finding exactly what you need."
"I imagine," said Lasher.
"Yep, if I had a decent little motor to go with what I got," said the youngster excitedly, "I'll betch anything I could make a gadget that'd play drums like nothing you ever heard before. See, you take a selsyn, and -"
Amidst Dame Groan, here is a cheery snippet. The venerable Meade at The G reported on 21 Feb the strange case of News Corp falling out of love with the Adelaide Fringe Festival.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/21/news-corp-tabloid-the-advertiser-appears-to-be-boycotting-adelaide-fringe-festival-after-ad-deal-breaks-down
The good news is that it appears that lack of Advertiser coverage is just what the Festival needed, as reported yesterday on the ABC.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-20/adelaide-fringe-festival-sells-1-million-tickets/102120226
There is no doubt that when it comes to picking winners, the rule is: where News Corp doth go, do the opposite.
The explanation comes from News Corp itself: “The Advertiser is covering the Fringe Festival on its merits, focusing on the aspects that resonate most with our audience”.
The good folk of Adelaide, now more certain that lizard lovers will not be attending, perhaps will not even be aware that the festival is happening, have predictably flocked to the event. I am sure there is a commercial opportunity here; event organisers could pay for an influencer to get News Corp to shun their event, and voila, record attendances. But how to influence the lizards; like trying to herd cats. AG.
Love it ...the pond wandered back in time to the days when Shirley the Destroyer was arts editor at the rag, throwing typewriters at doors when they wouldn't give her arts coverage a fair shake ...
DeleteThere was a great punchline too ...
...The only article in Monday’s paper, on page nine, was a negative one about the Garden of Unearthly Delights charging a $4 admission fee during peak periods. The fee has been in place since 2021...
...A former arts editor of the Advertiser, Samela Harris, told the Guardian she was “mystified” about what had gone wrong.
“You can’t say that this incredible event isn’t a big story,” Harris said.
“In the past you couldn’t fault the paper’s generosity with the amount of coverage it gave. There were lift-outs and programs so that audiences could just choose their shows from the paper.”
Organisers say ticket sales are up and 482 performances are already sold out.
Yep, do the opposite and apparently tickets waltz out the door ... and earlier ...
The editor of the Advertiser, Gemma Jones, who has been at the helm for 18 months after a stint as deputy editor of the Daily Telegraph, refused to answer questions about the publication’s apparent reversal of support.
The Terror strikes again! How they hate carpet bagging eastern staters blowing in from convict and cockroach infested rat holes ... and then ...
...There has been some speculation the masthead no longer has the resources to cover the event after years of staff cutbacks.
News Corp is facing more culls of one in 20 staff after posting a 47% decline in earnings in its news media division and lower quarterly revenue overall.
Frabjous joy ... how to improve productivity in a Dame Groan way ...
Herding cats ?
Deletehttps://youtu.be/BgLLKSL-S1s
Oh yes Dorothy - that outstanding sportsperson, Akerman, inventing 'tossing typewriters' to fill in the day. Characteristic of 'Dear Piers', as ladies of a certain age used to address comments to him, was that he, um, 'invented' that new sport right about when most people in his line of trade were moving from typewriters to electronic word-processors. Perhaps in his mind it was a symbol of the 'fearless editor' of B'n'W movies.
DeleteOh! Banh Mi in Equitable place
ReplyDeleteI hardly ever eat in the CBD these days (maybe 6 times a year) and I'll never go for Uber Eats delivery, but thanks for the tip.
Yes, the Bromancer has been strumming the hysteria. ‘Media Watch’ last night had him again instructing the nation - well, that portion of it that watches ‘Sky’ - that ‘the Virginia class submarine is perhaps the most complex artifact which the human race has produced.’
ReplyDeleteI guess the Large Hadron Collider hasn’t registered with the Bro. brain. To be fair, it’s not as if it is likely to produce anything useful - like anti-magnetic polarization ray guns, or even light sabres - because those Roossians are participants in CERN.
Oh - in looking at the occasional viewer numbers for ‘Sky News Australia’ it occurs to me that, on a good night, it bears about the same proportion to our national population as the concentration of CO2 bears to our atmosphere - around 400 per million, so - unlikely to have any effect on anything?
The Bro seems to think that a submarine being the most complex artifact ever is a good thing. If you have followed the work of Joseph Tainter you will probably disagree - eg "Joseph Tainter, our guest in this episode, is an anthropologist and historian. In 1988 he wrote a book called The Collapse of Complex Societies in which he argues that societies inevitably increase their inherent complexity, and, if and when the complexity becomes too “expensive” (diminishing returns), a society will collapse." http://omegataupodcast.net/184-societal-complexity-and-collapse/
DeleteThank you for the reminder, and link, Joe. In the case of military toys, we just watch the ratio of active time to maintenance time shrink with each wonderful new gizmo. One of the things we should have learned from Vietnam was that they required 180 hours maintenance for every flight hour - and that ratio was set in Australian climatic conditions. Try doing some of that maintenance during the monsoon season, and you multiply your problems. So they never saw actual combat. That was left to the aircraft the F111s were supposed to replace - the Canberra.
DeleteBut we don't see the same with our 'civil toys' do we: commercial jetliners seem to manage a quite decently high ratio of flight to maintenance or international airlines would go broke. So is the phenomenon inherent or is it just the usual case of trying to jam too much into limited capacities. We could say the same about ships - the increasing rate of 'problems' with naval vessels versus commercial vessels.
DeleteBut the motor vehicle has also got more 'complex' - at least the one I (occasionally) drive now is quite a bit more complex than my first vehicle (a Morris Minor side-valve low-light back in the 1960s). But it's very reliable, there doesn't seem to be any issues arising from its 'complexity'.
As to societies, well ... apart from Great Britain, how many have actually collapsed from "complexity" in the most recent 100 years ? And back in history, did Rome collapse from 'complexity' or from invasions and pandemics ? And what about the 'eastern' Roman empire (aka Byzantium). It significantly outlasted the 'western Roman empire', maybe because it wasn't subject to the plague of Justinian rather than because it wasn't as 'complex' as the western lot.
GB - with items of technology, I see it as another demonstration of diminishing returns. I am careful about citing a 'Law of Diminishing Returns', because that has a specific meaning in economics, going back to the early writers - Adam Smith, David Ricardo and others. I think motor cars offer an illustration - I recall reading that it takes several hours just to complete a stationary warm up of a Formula 1 car, before the count-down of quite some minutes for starting the engine, and so on, but this is about shaving hundredths of a second off your time to drive around a circuit in about 2 minutes.
DeleteBy analogy, the latest military aircraft is to passenger jets as an F1 car is to the Honda that I drive. The military aircraft are promoted as being able to fly higher or faster or - in some way or other surpass what 'the other side' currently have, even though the gains are marginal - a few percentage points - and come with disproportionate cost, as in comparison of the F111 with the Canberra bomber, in an actual Asian war.
All analogies should be suspect - each new type of passenger aircraft has a few whoopsies. I am of the generation that thought the 'Comet' was going to be wonderful, until they started falling apart up there in the sky. Yet the version with improved airframe continued in service for another 45 years, not including its derivative 'Nimrod'.
Oh I don't know, Chad; some sort of 'diminishing returns' is kinda universal, I think. Radical breakthroughs are generally few and far between. Though I'm not sure it was all 'slow progress' that got us from my 1950s Morrie Minor to my 2010s Mazda 2, there might have been a few little 'leaps of progress' along the way.
DeleteThe Comet, by the way, was just a victim of normal human stupidity: fitting windows designed for ships into an airplane (so the passengers could look out upon the passing world) which led to fairly rapid onset 'metal fatigue' in the body. But yes, in general any major new thing has its 'whoopsies' though the passenger airplanes manage to have relatively few - possibly at least in part because of what happened with the Comet.
But military toys ? Well, if they can fly (or sail) at all it's a success, isn't it.
It would seem that this most recent manifesto from the Productivity Commission has mentioned the general theory of second best, because I cannot recall our Dame recognising it in any of her other writings. Yes, she mentions, no she shows little sign of understanding, what it said. Well, it has only been around since 1956 (our Dame has been around since 1954)
ReplyDeleteThe Dame offers the glib view that the theory of second best says that if you have a system running in its optimal state, and some factor changes, then you cannot expect to bring the system back to optimality by fiddling with the factor that has changed.
In fact, the authors - reminder, one was the Australian Kelvin Lancaster (now deceased) and the other is Richard Lipsey - still at Simon Fraser U, at age 94 - showed that it was quite possible to bring a system near to optimality with several interventions. They acknowledged that those interventions might seem counter-intuitive in isolation, but the authors showed that wise administration, looking across the now-flawed system, could bring it back to a high level of optimality.
The positive prospects of the Lipsey/Lancaster work were widely discussed in South Australia during the Dunstan administration, but our Dame was not noted for joining in on economic workshops and colloquia. Perhaps she was too busy, even then, in writing her newspaper column, and positioning herself for invitations onto several corporate boards - and, in time - onto the then nascent Productivity Commission.
Oh Chad: "wise administration, looking across the now-flawed system..." If only that were ever possible, but our world isn't run by Lancasters and Lipseys, it's run by Groanies.
DeleteLatest memo doing the rounds in the Pentagon...
ReplyDeleteSo those Ossies want subs
To replace their old tubs
They've got hundreds of billions of bucks
So we'll string 'em along
And when it goes wrong
All we will say is...AUSHUKS!
Oh, genius, Kez.
DeleteCheers GB! Here's another one just out of the airfryer.
DeleteBiden's diary entry after the San Diego Subfest last week...
Aukwardness
I've searched for its meaningness
But it's so hard to find
As a word it's uninformative
And when I hear the sound of it
I just go out of my mind
I start to scream and lose the will to live
Au-u-kus...
Is such a crazy word
Everybody loathes it too
Aukus is...
The strangest word I've heard
Is that the best these masterminds can do?
Apologies to Billy Joel's Honesty.
Right on target, I would say, Ken
DeleteCheers Chaz! :)
DeleteThat's going back a few years (1978) so I didn't remember it (I only remember Piano Man) but as Chaz says, right on target.
DeleteYes, 'Chaz' is a fair call, this time, GB - apology to Kez - with a 'zed' (none of this 'zee' post modernism!)
DeleteI just took it as an affectionate variant Chad, so I thought I'd join in.
DeleteAll good Chadders. Mine was simply an affectionate tongue in cheek response to what was clearly a trivial keyboard slip on your behalf. I am totally appreciative of your, and all loonpond comments on my little ditties. :)
DeleteGroaner: "But the length of the list [1000 pages, presumably A4 sized with 12pt text ?] and the often superficial analysis that underpins it..." Wau, such incredible productivity ! 1000 pages of ill thought-out Productivity Commission bureaucracy. And so very cheap too.
ReplyDeleteBut hey, Groany again: "It's called the theory of the second best and the PC commissioners are fully aware of it." They being fully engaged in the task of trying very hard to rise to that level.
Here's some more Groany: "There is far too little discussion about governments getting out of the way, by allowing individuals to set up businesses without incurring massive regulatory costs and seeing workers moving to jobs that are the best fit for their skills and aptitudes." Ok, so there haven't been any new businesses set up in Australia ? Not since John Elliott showed his business genius by running CUB down ? But hang on, it's Japanese owned now and still going well - isn't it ?
But, butt our productivity has fallen off ! So Groany assures us, whilst also informing us that this has happened "with the service economy now making up over 80 per cent of the total." Oh my goodness; so those things that mechanisation and automation and technology advances materially assist - eg mining and agriculture - have gone ahead, but those things that are all about people effort - the service economy which is hard to automate and where "productivity" is hard to define and harder to measure - have stayed down, lowering our overall productivity 'rating'. Yeah, sure, I can grock that.
And wadda ya know: "...Australia is not alone in experiencing a slump in productivity growth: it is evident in most developed economies." What ? Because all of the "developed economies" are changing into "service economies" maybe ? And, at least according to Robert Gordon (whoever he is) we reached the peak of our productivity growth potential around a century ago. Yeah, way back in 1922 - just after WWI - we hit our peak and it's been downhill ever since.