Friday, September 17, 2004
Welcome to Freaky Friday!A California company which cloned the world's first cat nearly three years ago is starting to fill orders for cloned pets. Genetic Savings and Clone recently produced Bengal kittens Tabouli and Baba Ganoush. Now five customers are paying US$50,000 each for a clone of their cats, which should be ready by December. And several hundred clients are paying $150 a year plus an initial $900 to preserve tissue for future cloning. Critics say that the company is exposing animals to risks without any benefits. "The quest for immortality in ourselves and even in our pets opens the door to commercial interests who want to make a profit on it," says David Magnus, a Stanford bioethicist. However, the company is offering customers their money back or a new clone if their cloned pet has any defects.
Cybersecurity not much improved
About six years ago, Time magazine ran a cover article on cybersecurity in the United States. (Sorry, don't have a link to it.) One of the article's conclusions was that America was not well prepared to resist attacks in cyberspace.
It appears things have only changed marginally, although attempts are being made to shore up the fences.
The NZ Herald yesterday ran an interview with Paul Kearns, director of Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). "I don't think people have an understanding of what could be the impact of cyber attacks," Kearns said. "They don't understand the threat."
In recent months, US security officials have warned that the nation is not prepared against cyber terrorism.
"I am confident that there is no system connected to the Internet, either by modem or fixed connection, that can't be hacked into," said Laurin Dodd, who oversees INEEL's national security programs.
He added that only a computing system totally isolated from the outside, such as that used by the Central Intelligence Agency, would be immune to hacking.
Another problem is that many once-isolated systems used to run railroads, pipelines and utilities are now also accessible via the internet and thus susceptible to sabotage.
About six years ago, Time magazine ran a cover article on cybersecurity in the United States. (Sorry, don't have a link to it.) One of the article's conclusions was that America was not well prepared to resist attacks in cyberspace.
It appears things have only changed marginally, although attempts are being made to shore up the fences.
The NZ Herald yesterday ran an interview with Paul Kearns, director of Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). "I don't think people have an understanding of what could be the impact of cyber attacks," Kearns said. "They don't understand the threat."
In recent months, US security officials have warned that the nation is not prepared against cyber terrorism.
"I am confident that there is no system connected to the Internet, either by modem or fixed connection, that can't be hacked into," said Laurin Dodd, who oversees INEEL's national security programs.
He added that only a computing system totally isolated from the outside, such as that used by the Central Intelligence Agency, would be immune to hacking.
Another problem is that many once-isolated systems used to run railroads, pipelines and utilities are now also accessible via the internet and thus susceptible to sabotage.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Can we keep a lid on inflation?
New Zealand seems to be doing a pretty good job of keeping inflation under control at the moment (although home owners might argue that mortgage rates in the 9% range hardly seems like low inflation. Ah, but you see, the Reserve Bank does not take mortgage rates into account when it compiles inflation figures. The fact that you're paying more is only imaginary!)
Can we keep it up in the long term? Gareth Morgan says the long-term international forces are actually well beyond our ability to control.
"In his excellent 1996 tome, “The Great Wave – Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History�, David Hackett Fisher provides an appraisal of 800 years of price cycles which readily shows the folly of getting comfortable with any one rate of price inflation, or any one prescription of how to control general price levels. Such a salutary lesson seems timely when we’re seeing reasonable price stability but only as the direct result of opposite forces that happen to be equal for now – globalisation and IT-sourced productivity on the one hand, versus monetary expansion and an explosion of debt on the other."
This is a very good article on understanding the underlying forces.
New Zealand seems to be doing a pretty good job of keeping inflation under control at the moment (although home owners might argue that mortgage rates in the 9% range hardly seems like low inflation. Ah, but you see, the Reserve Bank does not take mortgage rates into account when it compiles inflation figures. The fact that you're paying more is only imaginary!)
Can we keep it up in the long term? Gareth Morgan says the long-term international forces are actually well beyond our ability to control.
"In his excellent 1996 tome, “The Great Wave – Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History�, David Hackett Fisher provides an appraisal of 800 years of price cycles which readily shows the folly of getting comfortable with any one rate of price inflation, or any one prescription of how to control general price levels. Such a salutary lesson seems timely when we’re seeing reasonable price stability but only as the direct result of opposite forces that happen to be equal for now – globalisation and IT-sourced productivity on the one hand, versus monetary expansion and an explosion of debt on the other."
This is a very good article on understanding the underlying forces.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Massive opposition to Civil Union Bills
A count of the submissions on the Civil Union and Relationships Bills has finally been completed. It's not surprising it took them so long (submissions closed on August 6). The final count is 6,170, of which more than 80% were opposed to the two Bills.
It's the greatest number of submissions on any Bill, easily eclipsing the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. That's all the more remarkable considering the short time that people had to get their submissions in, and the extended time and encouragement that the Government gave to people wanting to have their say on the Foreshore and Seabed.
Let's hope the media updates the "700" figure they keep trotting out.
A count of the submissions on the Civil Union and Relationships Bills has finally been completed. It's not surprising it took them so long (submissions closed on August 6). The final count is 6,170, of which more than 80% were opposed to the two Bills.
It's the greatest number of submissions on any Bill, easily eclipsing the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. That's all the more remarkable considering the short time that people had to get their submissions in, and the extended time and encouragement that the Government gave to people wanting to have their say on the Foreshore and Seabed.
Let's hope the media updates the "700" figure they keep trotting out.
Parliament - not judges - is sovereign
There's been an unusual amount of back-chat between judges and politicians lately, with charges that each side is overstepping the mark. NZ Herald columnist Tapu Misa claims that the various criticisms the Government has made of the judiciary over the past few months are in breach of Cabinet rules and are, hence, unjustifiable.
Auckland lawyer Richard Ekin responds that while one of the foundations of judicial independence is the convention that politicians, especially ministers, should not criticise a judge's performance or seek to undermine him or her in public, Deputy PM Michael Cullen has not acted inappropriately and irresponsibly in his recent public comments.
Writing in the New Zealand Law Journal, Dr Cullen had responded to a speech by the Chief Justice (Dame Sean Elias) in which she had argued that as a matter of law, Parliament was not sovereign. The Chief Justice asserted that parliamentary sovereignty was an unattractive and antiquated, and hence false, understanding of our constitution.
Dr Cullen criticised the Chief Justice's claim on the grounds that parliamentary sovereignty was the law of the land, which judges had no authority to change, and that it was, furthermore, a good rule that underpinned our democracy.
Ekin says this public criticism was justifiable for two reasons. First, the Chief Justice's comments were made in a public speech at a conference, rather than in a judicial decision. Second, even if the Chief Justice had made her remarks in the course of a decision, it would still have been appropriate for politicians to respond. In fact, it would have been necessary that they do so. The reason for this is that the Chief Justice's remarks were extremely radical. If she had purported to decide a case on the basis that, as a matter of law, Parliament is not sovereign, she would have been guilty of attempting to initiate a constitutional revolution.
"New Zealand's legal system is based on the Westminster model, the central tenet of which is that Parliament may make any law whatsoever. The rule dates back to medieval views about the sovereignty of the king and was decisively settled by the British revolutions of the 17th century. Judges did not make the rule and they have no authority to change it. The alternative to parliamentary sovereignty is that judges have the final say on what the law shall be, not Parliament."
There's been an unusual amount of back-chat between judges and politicians lately, with charges that each side is overstepping the mark. NZ Herald columnist Tapu Misa claims that the various criticisms the Government has made of the judiciary over the past few months are in breach of Cabinet rules and are, hence, unjustifiable.
Auckland lawyer Richard Ekin responds that while one of the foundations of judicial independence is the convention that politicians, especially ministers, should not criticise a judge's performance or seek to undermine him or her in public, Deputy PM Michael Cullen has not acted inappropriately and irresponsibly in his recent public comments.
Writing in the New Zealand Law Journal, Dr Cullen had responded to a speech by the Chief Justice (Dame Sean Elias) in which she had argued that as a matter of law, Parliament was not sovereign. The Chief Justice asserted that parliamentary sovereignty was an unattractive and antiquated, and hence false, understanding of our constitution.
Dr Cullen criticised the Chief Justice's claim on the grounds that parliamentary sovereignty was the law of the land, which judges had no authority to change, and that it was, furthermore, a good rule that underpinned our democracy.
Ekin says this public criticism was justifiable for two reasons. First, the Chief Justice's comments were made in a public speech at a conference, rather than in a judicial decision. Second, even if the Chief Justice had made her remarks in the course of a decision, it would still have been appropriate for politicians to respond. In fact, it would have been necessary that they do so. The reason for this is that the Chief Justice's remarks were extremely radical. If she had purported to decide a case on the basis that, as a matter of law, Parliament is not sovereign, she would have been guilty of attempting to initiate a constitutional revolution.
"New Zealand's legal system is based on the Westminster model, the central tenet of which is that Parliament may make any law whatsoever. The rule dates back to medieval views about the sovereignty of the king and was decisively settled by the British revolutions of the 17th century. Judges did not make the rule and they have no authority to change it. The alternative to parliamentary sovereignty is that judges have the final say on what the law shall be, not Parliament."
Comments welcomed
I've finally managed to get the Comments feature of this Blog functioning (thanks to some kind help from a Blogger technician - yes, they do actually answer your emails). Civil discussion on any posting will be welcome.
I've finally managed to get the Comments feature of this Blog functioning (thanks to some kind help from a Blogger technician - yes, they do actually answer your emails). Civil discussion on any posting will be welcome.
Methodist Church comes out
The Methodist Church of New Zealand has clarified that gay and lesbian people can be ordained in the church but gay ministers may still be kept out of parishes where they are not welcome.
While gay people can continue to be ordained, the church will decide if it is appropriate to send them to certain parishes, said Methodist Church president Lynne Frith.
Dr Frith said a church committee carefully "matched" parishes and ministers. "If a parish vociferously did not want a gay or lesbian minister, they would simply consider there was no matching and therefore the parish would not be forced to have that person and the person would not be forced to go there," she said.
The Methodist Church of New Zealand has clarified that gay and lesbian people can be ordained in the church but gay ministers may still be kept out of parishes where they are not welcome.
While gay people can continue to be ordained, the church will decide if it is appropriate to send them to certain parishes, said Methodist Church president Lynne Frith.
Dr Frith said a church committee carefully "matched" parishes and ministers. "If a parish vociferously did not want a gay or lesbian minister, they would simply consider there was no matching and therefore the parish would not be forced to have that person and the person would not be forced to go there," she said.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Colson calls for preaching initiative on marriage
Chuck Colson (former Nixon aide and now head of Prison Ministries) is fronting a new initiative to encourage pastors, priests and clergy across the United States to address their congregations on the spiritual foundations of marriage during the months of September and October, 2004.
The initiative is a response to the court ruling in Massachusetts which legalised same-sex “marriage�. "Since then, we’ve seen challenges to traditional marriage in San Francisco and Washington state," says Colson. "This movement threatens to permanently damage our society’s most basic institution. That being so, you would expect a huge public outcry. Unfortunately and surprisingly, that isn't happening."
Colson's hoping that a wide band of preachers from all denominations will get across the message that redefining marriage is a crisis for children.
Chuck Colson (former Nixon aide and now head of Prison Ministries) is fronting a new initiative to encourage pastors, priests and clergy across the United States to address their congregations on the spiritual foundations of marriage during the months of September and October, 2004.
The initiative is a response to the court ruling in Massachusetts which legalised same-sex “marriage�. "Since then, we’ve seen challenges to traditional marriage in San Francisco and Washington state," says Colson. "This movement threatens to permanently damage our society’s most basic institution. That being so, you would expect a huge public outcry. Unfortunately and surprisingly, that isn't happening."
Colson's hoping that a wide band of preachers from all denominations will get across the message that redefining marriage is a crisis for children.
