This will hurt me...

As an unapologetic man of science, I am (of course), an enthusiast of immunisation. Whatever the standpoint that I try to attack it from – historian, scientist, logician, economist, philosopher, parent or just plain old gambler working the odds off the pure metrics that we have – I can come to no other conclusion that immunisation has been a boon to human society. As it is my blog, I can assert this with total and utter unyielding authority. In this manner then, I always find that the best World Health Organisation campaigns are those that are blunt and to the point. Thus, I really, really like this immunisation campaign poster from 1975. I apologise for the poor quality of the image, but the pictures should be clear. Here we see two new mothers, one trusts the health worker and chooses to immunise her child. The second is not so sure and chooses to not do so. Of course, baby number one now has a glowing protective halo, and baby number two does not. When disease strikes (as it inevit...

For those of you not here in Australia, you may have missed the 2020 Summit held over the weekend. There were many different ideas thrown around, some worthy, and some less so. Overall, I think that is was a positive exercise. Lavartus Prodeo offer a neat summary here . The one suggestion that I have been amused by is the suggestion that we should change our national anthem. We tend to have this 'discussion' every five or so years, so should not take a summit to flog this dead horse. That said, I reckon that Advance Australia Fair is a rubbish song, and I find it a bit embarrassing really with its lameness. Now PM Kevin Rudd has already knocked this one on the head , but this has not stopped the arguments spreading like wildfire . I personally have been advocating change for a long time, and now have the forum to do it! I have long argued that there already exists two quintessentially songs out there that would be perfect for Australia's next national anthem. My first ch...

I posted a few days ago some thoughts that I'd had about the noticeable sexism that can be found in the US Presidential pre-selection process. Without wanted to rehash it, I've been equally parts bemused, angered and depressed by some of my experiences online. Indeed, I've had a number of 'unpleasant' interactions in attempting to flag some of the inappropriate (read: sexist) attacks and assumptions on Clinton, or at least in trying to get people to at least self-identify that maybe some things should be 'out of bounds' in campaigning (like the t-shirt identifying Clinton as a prostitute). Generally speaking though, endeavouring to raise this doesn't seem to be provoking useful and thoughtful debate. I'd like to think that I tread warily in these matters, and attempt to promote a good discourse rather than go in too heavy handed (at least on someone else’s blog!). But it appears to be to no avail, responses generally start at "Don't be so s...

Alright, I promise that I won't say any more, it's been done to death and he's now been cleared , but I'd like one last word on the whole sorry Roos saga. My understanding of the rule breach that Paul Roos was investigated over states that one is not supposed to "intentionally induce or encourage any player to perform otherwise than on his merits". Roos said that any comment that he may or may not have made was simply in jest. Fair enough, but I struggle with that given that the other part of his defence appeared to be "why would I seriously tell him to not kick a goal (and throw the game), I didn't need to because he knew that we never intended to win the game!" Now, I have no doubt that he's telling the truth. Footage of the game showed McVeigh run on to the groundlaughing after receiving his instructions from Roos, so it probably was all a funny little comment about not kicking a goal that the four witnesses probably heared (albeit their s...

I was looking at the Marginal Revolution site today and stumbled across an interesting little post (and subsequent discussion) by economist Tyler Cowen on Robert Nozick 's famous "Wilt Chamberlain" argument around tolerable wealth and taxation. For the uninitiated, Nozick's line was that if people were prepared to pay to see Wilt play, then he was entitled to higher compensation because of his demonstrably superior ability. Nozick used Chamberlain as a real-life example to demonstrate that non-entitlement theories of justice (most pointedly, that of John Rawls ) were inherently unjust. Now, as my earlier stated interest in both the Young Hegalians and the Frankfurt School probably indicate, I obviously take some issue with Nozick's assumptions. Broadly identifying myself as a 'reconstructed' social democrat (with a pragmatic streak), I found myself locking horns on numerous occasion with my favourite undergrad lecturer. Now, despite our philosophical ...