DEFECTING TO WORDPRESS

I have had enough of Blogger, and too many of my friends and acquaintances have been singing the praises of Wordpress.

So I have defected. My new blogsite is here.

Please update your links (if you have them).

ANZAC Day

I read Tracee Hutchison's opinion piece in The Age today. She really irritates me. Her opinions are so terribly predictable and, above all, shallow. I am so mad that I am sitting here at one in the morning typing.

Hutchison's piece is driven by her ideological motivation (which is to criticise John Howard, those who are nationalistic and those who don't agree with her particular idea of how Australia should be). While I'm certainly not a fan of Howard, or blind patriotism, I think she really needs to take off her idealogical blinkers and look at the big picture.

She describes ANZAC day as "tub-thumping over diggers", and seems to see it as some kind of militaristic and nationalistic occasion that is harnessed by John Howard to keep the right wing death bogans happy.

Has she ever participated in an ANZAC day ceremony? Hutchison has ANZAC day all wrong. To my mind it is not a glorification of war or of brutality. It is the very opposite. Hundreds of thousands of young idealistic Australian men volunteered for war in foreign countries, for a cause that did not directly involve Australia, and many of those young men died or were wounded in terrible ways. Other people showed great courage and bravery. Should we forget that sacrifice just because Australian society at that time was not perfect according to the standards of today? The standards of today didn't exist then, so why should people in the past be judged as worthless for failing to live up to them? It's so easy to look back at the past and judge people harshly. Hindsight is a marvellous thing.

I think it is a real mistake for commentators to judge the actions of people in the past solely according to today's standards, using today's political agendas. It is also a mistake to draw broad and loose analogies between two very different wars at very different times (eg, World War I and the present conflict in Afghanistan).

My great-grandfather fought on the Somme. He lied about his age so as to be enlisted, and was only 16 years old. He was apparently in some of the worst battles of the Somme. He eventually died many years after World War I because of shrapnel which could not be removed from his chest. My grandmother tells me he had one word of French, which he proudly pronounced as follows: "Lez Erfs" (otherwise known as les oeufs). He never spoke of what happened otherwise. My grandmother was not fully aware of where he had fought until my mother sought out his war records. I am proud of my great-grandfather, and that he bravely went and fought in a foreign country. I am also proud of my paternal grandfather, who was a sapper in Borneo in World War II, and fought against the Japanese. He suffered nightmares for the whole of his life as a result of his wartime experience.

I am proud that these men risked their lives because they thought it was the right thing to do for their country. And I am proud of being Australian.

However, this does not mean that I'm Pauline Hanson in legal garb. (God forbid!) Quite the reverse. What I know from my forebears, and ANZAC day in general, is that war is a terrible thing.

Few who have read the histories would argue that World War I was a glorious event. In fact, it was frequently futile, resulting in terrible loss of life for no strategic gain. The conditions were appalling beyond belief and the casualties unimaginable. One Christmas I heard someone reading out a story of how the German, ANZAC and English soliders played soccer together on Christmas Day in World War I in the battlefields of France. The next day, they went back to trying to kill each other. I cried. The fact of the matter is that most of these men were ordinary decent men, with families and loved ones. They had just been pushed into a hideous situation by the exigencies of war.

The cause of the Allies in World War II resonates more strongly in modern terms, as the Allies were fighting the forces of fascism and intolerance. Surely Hutchison is not arguing that the Allies should just have let Hitler invade whichever countries he wanted to in Europe? The problem is that a person like Hitler can't be stopped by asking him nicely.

To sum up: ANZAC day is about remembrance. It is about remembering those who died fighting under the Australian flag, and those who were wounded. It is also about honouring those who came back safely, and saying that we appreciate their sacrifice. While we may be able to see with hindsight that a particular war was not a good idea, or was motivated by improper political motives, this does not mean we should dishonour the people who fought and died in them. Part of the message of ANZAC day is that war is a terrible thing. Certainly, my forebears seemed to have been indelibly scarred by it.

ANZAC day tells us that we wish for peace in all areas of the world where war rages. I would like nothing better than for soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq to be unnecessary, and for the populations of those countries to live in peace.

Would you like fries with your writ?

Today I found this interesting post from Robert Ambrogi's Law Sites blog. It concerns a site called "Expert Legal Advice", where UK punters in search of legal advice call up a team of Indian lawyers in New Delhi and get advice from them. The site explains:

This site has been created to satisfy the demand for basic legal advice at a low fixed price. Few of us are sufficiently important to our solicitors to be confident in troubling them for simple advice. Even fewer want to pay them £250 an hour to take full instructions and provide advice in writing.

NL Advice is provided by a team of solicitors in New Delhi supported by the same precedents and sources as are available to UK solicitors. These are very bright people who have shown a real knowledge of English law before they even begin to look at legal source material.

...

The Net Lawman advice system fills a gap. The law compels solicitors to deal with advice in a complicated and expensive way. They do not choose the system. However, there are very many occasions when the advice you seek simply does not justify a bill for some hundreds or even thousands of pounds.

Because we are not solicitors, we do not offer a full range of legal services. But within the range we offer, we aim to provide a service second to none. You will find us fast, receptive and efficient. If you do then need help from a solicitor, the information and advice we have provided to you will enable you to make the best and fastest use of their expensive time.

I have explained in a few different previous posts that I think that legal representation is too expensive for most ordinary people. I certainly couldn't have afforded to hire myself at the rates at which I used to be charged out in my last job. And I wasn't working for a "Top Tier" firm either (although I have done so in the past). I suspect the six-minute billing unit is instrumental in pushing up legal bills, which is one of the reasons why I continue to call for its abolition. Six minute billing makes firms obsessed about meeting targets and maximising profits. It makes lawyers forget what their aim should be: to serve the client efficiently and effectively.

One of my first posts described a horrible situation where we were sued by our former landlords. I am an educated confident lawyer, a commercial litigator and experienced advocate. How much scarier would it be if you were a non-lawyer who could not afford legal representation? There is a real potential for unscrupulous individuals to use litigation to bully people. This is why I volunteer at a community legal centre; I want to help those who do not have the resources to obtain advice. Usually the answer does not take too long to come up with, and the same kinds of questions come up again and again.

However, the answer is not just to provide more funding for community legal centres, although that certainly helps. The problem is deeper than this. The fact is that the law is scary and arcane, and often people don't know where to turn when a legal problem arises. Unfortunately, many lawyers like the law to be unknowable, because it keeps them in a job. I would like everyday people to have an opportunity to learn about and understand basic concepts of the law (contracts, mortgages, wills, personal injury and the like).

If a person cannot find adequate legal representation, they often have to represent themselves. I have written posts on litigants in person previously (here and here). Having worked in and around courts for most of my career, I have always found litigants in person very difficult to deal with. Litigants in person use up valuable court time, often with spurious arguments, but a judge cannot just dismiss them, because there may be an argument of value in there.

So, the Net Lawman site is right: there is a gap in the market for people who just want simple legal advice and don't want to have to pay through the nose for it. Because I am a nerd, I couldn't help thinking about Robert Ambrogi's question. How can these guys give quasi-legal advice? This seems like a worrying kind of arrangement to me.

I think Net Lawman tries to avoid infringing UK law by explicitly stating on the website that the advisers are not lawyers and they do not purport to give advice as qualified solicitors.

Section 20 of the Solicitors' Act 1974 (UK) ("the Act") says that no unqualified person is to act as a solicitor:

(1) No unqualified person shall--
(a) act as a solicitor, or as such issue any writ or process, or commence, prosecute or defend any action, suit or other proceeding, in his own name or in the name of any other person, in any court of civil or criminal jurisdiction; or
(b) act as a solicitor in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, to be heard or determined before any justice or justices or any commissioners of Her Majesty's revenue.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1)--
(a) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for not more than two years or to a fine or to both; and
(b) shall be guilty of contempt of the court in which the action, suit, cause, matter or proceeding in relation to which he so acts is brought or taken and may be punished accordingly...

I presume that the advisers would not be able to issue proceedings on behalf of clients, and if a client had a problem that needed a litigator, he or she would be referred to a litigator so as not to contravene this section. Sections 22 and 23 provide that certain documents may not be provided to clients by unqualified persons for reward. Presumably the advisers would not be authorised to provide such documents, and again, a client who required such a document would be referred to a solicitor.

Section 21 of the Act says that an unqualified person is not to pretend to be a solicitor: but in this case, the advisers are not pretending to be solicitors - they clearly state that they are not solicitors.

Furthermore, the advisers are protected because they are not within the jurisdiction. Section 87 of the Act provides that "solicitor" means a solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales. These advisers are not purporting to be solicitors of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, they just purport to have some detailed knowledge of the jurisdiction, and to be qualified lawyers within their own jurisdiction (India). It's a fine line to draw.

Nevertheless, I was wondering whether this arrangement complies with the International Code of Ethics 1988 established by the International Bar Association. Rule 20 of the Code states:

Lawyers should not permit their professional services or their names to be used in any way which would make it possible for persons to practice law who are not legally authorised to do so. Lawyers shall not delegate to a legally unqualified person not in their employ and control any functions which are by the law or custom of the country in which they practice only to be performed by a qualified lawyer.

Presumably, Net Lawman would argue that the advisers are in their employ and control, and thus they do not infringe this rule.

Although, as I have outlined above, I have some sympathy for the argument that even the most simple legal services are not within the grasp of ordinary people, I am not sure that outsourcing to Indian "quasi-lawyers" is the answer. It seems fraught with risk, particularly as the advisers are on the other end of the phone. I'm a big fan of face-to-face meetings with a client. Maybe lawyers need to reconsider how they charge, so that they do not lose business to organisations such as this. Of course, we're entitled to earn our living! (Lawyers are human too, we really are). But we should also remember that our function is to mediate disputes between people, and that we should not put our services too far out of the financial range of ordinary people.

Update

For more thoughts on this topic, see John Flood's post here at Random Academic Thoughts.

Fleeced

I read in the Brisbane Times today that some poor Japanese women apparently bought "poodles" from a company called "Poodles as Pets".

As you can see from my cartoon, it was reported that the "poodles" were in fact sheep, shorn to look like poodles.

Alas, it was not the Japanese women who were fleeced, it was the unsuspecting Western public. Apparently Hokkaido is full of sheep, and there is no record of a company called Poodles as Pets. Darn. It was such a funny story. I still like my cartoon.

(via Cerebral Soup)

Update

Snopes now has a page on the myth, citing Cerebral Soup. As I said before on my post on giant dogs, we all like to believe crazy stories, and I must admit that at first blush I liked this sheep/poodle story too...

Update 2

Snopes draws a similarity between the sheep/poodle story and the "Mexican dog" story. Of course, the Mexican dog is actually a rat. And, of course, the story is an urban legend.

However, a few years back I took some English friends up to Healesville Sanctuary (an Australian wildlife sanctuary just out of Melbourne). We looked at wallabies, wombats, Tasmanian devils. About half way through our circuit, we came upon some American tourists photographing a small "native animal" on the path with coos of delight. "Should I take a photo?" asked my English friend, looking at me for guidance. I shook my head quietly, and drew her and her husband away.

"I don't know quite how to tell those tourists there, but they are taking pictures of a rat." We couldn't think of a way to break it gently without crushing the enthusiasm of the poor tourists. Mixing up a rat and a kangaroo rat is far more understandable than mixing up a rat and a dog or a sheep and a dog.

The Sovereign State of I Do What I Want

With some experience in courts and commercial litigation, I must confess that my heart always sinks when I hear of a defendant who has set up his or her own country (in documents, I have seen such "countries" variously described as "principalities", "sovereign states" or even "palatinates").

Usually defendants who take such measures are resisting repossession of a house or trying to argue that they don't have to pay Federal or State taxes. Of course, they are unrepresented litigants (ie, litigants in person). Often they've written to the UN for confirmation of sovereign nation status. Invariably, they claim rights pursuant to the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and various other miscellaneous documents. Often they say that the Constitution was not validly enacted. There's usually a bit about Freemasons thrown in. (In an idle moment of curiosity, I once considered ringing the Freemasons to find out what they thought about being the bugbear of litigants in person.)

I've written posts about litigants in person before. The tragedy is that litigants in person who adopt these kind of conspiracy theories often let it consume their life. They waste their own time, but also the time of the Court and the time of lawyers. I never heard that any litigant in person who ran a Masonic conspiracy argument or a Magna Carta argument was successful in any way. It's desperation stuff, but they push it nonetheless. Sometimes they end up in gaol on charges of contempt of court.

The sovereign state invented by litigants in person usually lacks sophistication. However, it seems that some have more resources than others. A report in Yahoo News said:

Two men who set up their own sovereign state in a Queensland suburb and made up their own currency to pay bills have been ordered by a court to stop operating as a bank.

In the Federal Court in Brisbane, Donald James Cameron and Darryl John Wheeley, who operate from the southside suburb of Moorooka, were ordered to stop operating their unauthorised financial business - the Federal State Bank of Australia - as a bank after an application made by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

Evidence to the court said the men made fake currency and cheques valued at more than $500,000 and used it to pay bills including rent, mortgage repayments, phone bills and legal fees.

The currency was created under the authority of their own so-called Independent Sovereign State of Australia, of which Cameron is the self-styled attorney-general and chief justice. He also calls himself the archbishop of the Church of Love and Peace.

All very funny - until you think about the small businesspeople who were ripped off by these guys when they tried to cash "cheques" and "bank notes". Not much love and peace being generated there...

Genius does not equal money

A US study reportedly shows that people with high IQs are just as likely to get into financial difficulties as those with average or below average IQs. I'm glad to know that just because I haven't made my first million yet, this doesn't mean I'm dumb...

The study confirmed previous research which has shown that smarter people tend to earn more money, but pointed out there is a difference between high pay and overall wealth.

"The average income difference between a person with an IQ score in the normal range (100) and someone in the top two per cent of society (130) is currently between $US6,000 ($A7,200) and $US18,500 ($A22,250) per year," it said.

"But when it came to total wealth and the likelihood of financial difficulties, people of below average and average intelligence did just fine when compared to the super-intelligent."

An irregular pattern of total wealth as well as financial distress levels - such as maxed out credit cards, bankruptcy and missing bill payments - emerged among the various degrees of intelligence, the study said.

My observation would be that knowing how to handle money has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with whether you are the kind of person who likes to face up to problems, or whether you just like to ignore them.

Financial problems sometimes arise through misfortune (eg, an illness, a redundancy, a marriage break-up). There's not much you can do about that. But other times, I think financial problems arise because people just don't want to think through the consequences of their actions. They don't imagine that disaster could ever happen to them - financial ruin is something which happens to other people. They overextend themselves with a huge loan, not thinking about what will happen if interest rates rise. They buy that expensive plasma television using a credit card, without thinking that they're just deferring payment of the television - without thinking that if they don't have the money to pay for it this month, what's going to be different about next month or the month after? It's so easy to spend on a credit card - all that lovely available credit there, waiting to be used...When I first got a credit card in my 20s, I fell into the credit card trap myself.

I met with some of my old colleagues today. At one point we all worked in banking litigation. We discussed again the "head in the sand" phenomenon, and agreed that this seemed to pervade the behaviour of many of those who defaulted on loans.

As I've discussed before, there may be a positive side to having unrealistic expectations - I suspect many entrepreneurs succeed because they do not see risks as other people do, and forge ahead regardless. However, this is also a reason why some entrepreneurs end up in trouble - they keep going when any prudent person would wind up the business.

I'm no psychologist, but I wonder if there's a reason for this function of the human brain which makes us put our head in the sand and pretend there is not a problem. I guess it has evolved as a necessary personality trait because it helps humans survive against the odds in terrible situations. But it also has its downsides when it means people deny that there is a problem, and that problem desperately needs to be dealt with.

Coming out of the blue...

There has been much publicity in the last few days about the results of a recent survey by Beaton Consulting and beyondblue, which has established that lawyers are two and a half times more likely than members of the general public to suffer from moderate to severe depression. They are also much more likely to use alcohol or drugs to try to manage stress. I have written a few posts (here and here) on the issue.

Have a look at this post by guest contributor Helen on the Junior Lawyers' Union blog. She is trying to set up an organisation, Blue Letter Lawyers, to help lawyers deal with depression. If you want to get involved, please contact myself or BLL.

Big Brother is watching you...

"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork." (1984, George Orwell)

Apparently there has been privacy problems with Channel 10's Big Brother website. Fans are able to sign up for access to "special features" on the website, but this has led to fans' personal details (including credit card details) being available to all and sundry.

Does anyone else find this as ironically amusing as I do? Or am I just a sick puppy? (Don't answer that).

One year old!

This blog is now just over one year old!

Happy Birthday dear Blo-o-o-o-og! Happy Birthday to you!

It's been lots of fun. I can't quite believe it's still going a year later, and that so many people read it. Thanks especially to all my readers, but also to those who link to my posts/blog, those who comment and those who give me ideas and inspiration.

I mustn't forget to thank Miss V, Lol and my funny, thoughtful, argumentative Mum, all of whom encouraged me to get into this blogging thing. You know who you are.

Motherhood and setting up your own business

When I first had my baby, a friend got in touch with me. "I've got a great business proposition for you!" she said. "Come around to my place and we'll chat about it." I was somewhat wary, but wanted to be open-minded. It turned out that she had recently joined a pyramid-selling organisation, and wanted me to join her "team". "It's only $250 to get a start-up kit!" she enthused.

Pyramid-selling organisations really aren't my kind of thing, although I understand that some people get pleasure out of working for them, and need the extra money. However, I don't have much use for make-up, candles, bath products or cleaning products. And I'm not comfortable with the concept of turning friends into potential clients, unless friends seek me out for something particular.

Sometimes pyramid sales can grab people like a religion. I saw a 20 year friendship between two women almost destroyed because one of the women became involved in Amway. She tried to sell products to everyone. Suddenly her friends weren't friends any more - they were potential buyers and/or converts. One couldn't have a normal conversation with this woman any more without some reference to the great products of Amway or the way in which becoming a member had changed her life. The other woman didn't want to get involved, and politely said so after her friend had tried to recruit her a few times. The first woman became very upset and didn't talk to her friend for a few years. I believe that they're talking again now, but it's never been quite the same afterwards.

But starting your own business is an attractive idea, particularly once you become a mother. Personally, I like being my own boss, and I like being in control of my own destiny. I can do my work in the way I choose, in my own time, when it suits me. If you have ownership of a business, you feel passionate about it. And if your work is flexible, it is far easier to also spend time with your child. I have thought about doing some consulting work myself, although I think I'll have to build up a few more publications in my field before I can hold myself out as an expert.

As far as I can see most women want a balance - they want to spend time with their children, but they also want to be able to keep their careers to an extent too. Certainly that has been my experience. Karen Terry came upon this blog, and sent me her book to review: Full-Time Woman, Part-Time Career. Her website is here. It is an interesting read, with many hints as to what you will need to do if you want to run your own business. She looks at various different possibilities, including consulting, freelance writing, coaching, teaching computer software classes and public speaking. She also looks at the nuts and bolts: what you will need to do if you want to set up your own business, how to market your business and the pros and cons of working from home. She raises a number of case studies which show how other women have managed to establish their own businesses successfully.

The main drawback of this book from an Australian point of view is that it has a natural focus on the US. Therefore, the specific details about whether to incorporate, what training certificates are available and so forth only applies to a US audience. However, the general gist of the advice remains sound, because the way in which things work in Australia is similar.

I think if I ran my own business, I'd do a lot better selling legal advice than I would if I had to sell lipsticks or dishwashing liquid, because I'd actually feel passionate about my "product". Anyone need any advice about unjust enrichment out there?

The biter bit?

A Chinese dissident and his wife are suing Yahoo! Inc ("Yahoo") in a United States District Court (with the help of the World Organisation for Human Rights USA). The Complaint states that Yahoo "willingly provided Chinese officials with access to private e-mail records, copies of email messages, e-mail addresses, user ID numbers, and other identifying information about the Plaintiffs and the nature and content of their use of electronic communications."

Wang Xiaoning was accused of "incitement to subvert state power" because of certain essays he wrote for online journals called Democratic Reform Free Forum and Current Political Commentary. Wang and his wife allege that Yahoo was pressured by the Chinese government to block Wang's Yahoo "Group account". Wang then set up a new individual e-mail account via Yahoo and continued sending material. It is then alleged that Yahoo allowed the Chinese government to access information which allowed it to identify and arrest Wang. He was arrested in September 2002, and a year later, he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison and two years’ subsequent deprivation of political rights. Wang is imprisoned in a high security prison where many political prisoners are held. He alleges that he has suffered severe physical and psychological abuse as a result of his imprisonment.

According to Human Rights in China, the offending sentiments expressed by Wang included the following:

• "Without a multi-party system, free elections and separation of powers, any political reform is fraudulent."


• "Never forget that China is still an authoritarian dictatorship."


• "The Four Cardinal Principles [upholding the socialist path, the people’s democratic dictatorship, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong thought] are the greatest impediment to establishing a democratic system in China."


• "Look at China today – workers and peasants have been suppressed into the lowest level of society. Tens of millions of workers are unemployed and many workers are cruelly exploited and oppressed; they have no right to strike or establish labor unions, and no protection for their most basic rights."


• "The main reason that the Chinese Communist Party has been able to retain power in spite of being so corrupt is that China does not yet have a party that can replace the Communist Party."

The claims are brought pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute 28 U.S.C. § 1350 and the Torture Victim Protection Act 28 U.S.C. § 1350. It is claimed that these statutes give jurisdiction over actions which American based companies commit in other countries. The Complaint alleges that Yahoo provided information about Wang and other dissidents, despite its knowledge that the provision of such information would enable the Chinese government to torture and commit torts against Wang and other dissidents. It is alleged that Yahoo provided the information because it had to do so to continue its profitable business in China.

Usually, the extraterritorial operation of US law has been used enforce the interests of American corporations abroad, sometimes to the detriment of locals and local companies (as Australia may learn to its sorrow as a result of its entry into the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement). It is heartening to see that the argument that certain principles should apply in other countries can be turned against American corporations who aid and abet violations of human rights in other countries.

(Via Jurist and the Washington Post)

Care in the Community

A friend of mine is anorexic, and over the last few years, she has become very unwell. I was so concerned that I spoke with her parents a while back. "There's nothing we can do," they said with despair. "She's an adult. We can't force her to seek treatment. We have tried everything we can and exhausted every avenue." I have also tried to help my friend, but with limited success. The desire to help oneself must come from within; otherwise, no matter how much help and support you give, your efforts are fruitless. All I can do is make it clear that I am there for her when she decides that she needs me and wants to do something about it. I had other anorexic friends during high school who came out the other side, and now live happy, healthy lives, so all I can do is hope that she will also be able to do so too.

What do you do with people who are so mentally ill that they harm themselves and others? In the last few decades, there has been a tendency towards deinstitutionalisation and "care in the community". "Care in the community" has two motivators. On the one hand, people with psychiatric problems are encouraged to live normal lives within the community, instead of being incarcerated in an asylum. The other (less noble) motivation is to enable government to save the costs of having to staff and fund mental institutions by keeping people in the community instead.

While I support the idea that people should be able to live a normal life where possible, all too often "care in the community" becomes "out of sight, out of mind". Although it is hard to get statistics, it appears that a very high proportion of homeless people have psychiatric problems: far more than in the general population. This study suggests that 75% of homeless people in Sydney have a mental illness, as opposed to 20% in the general population, and that this is in some ways linked to deinstitutionalisation. It is a "chicken and egg" situation: homelessness and poverty can cause mental illness, but by the same token, mental illness can cause homelessness.

There is also a natural concern that people's psychiatric records should be private. A 1996 study by the British Mental Health Charity, MIND, found that many people with psychiatric problems had suffered from significant discrimination in the workplace, in parenting and in the community generally once their psychiatric problems became common knowledge. This doesn't surprise me. As I have discussed in this blog before, depression is a big unspoken problem in the legal industry (more than in almost any other industry). Statistics show that lawyers are 3.6 times more likely than non-lawyers to suffer from depression and other mental illnesses. But does anyone ever talk about it openly? No way. If you raise the issue in the workplace, then people start to doubt your ability to cope, and suspect that you might "go mad" again at any moment. One woman I know mentioned her mental health problems to her workmates, and was then discriminated against in a most appalling manner...which, ironically and terribly, caused her to fall into a deep depression.

What to do, then, when a friend, a colleague or an acquaintance displays signs which tend to show that he or she is mentally ill and in need of psychiatric assistance? These questions have come into prominence again with the Virginia Tech shootings, as it has become evident that Cho Seung-Hui had a documented history of mental health problems, and displayed signs that he was a risk to himself and others. University officials, students, lecturers and the police all knew that he had problems, but there was very little that they could do about it. As this New York Times article discusses, Federal privacy and antidiscrimination laws restrict the ways in which universities can deal with students who have mental health problems. The article says:

Universities can find themselves in a double bind. On the one hand, they may be liable if they fail to prevent a suicide or murder. After the death in 2000 of Elizabeth H. Shin, a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who had written several suicide notes and used the university counseling service before setting herself on fire, the Massachusetts Superior Court allowed her parents, who had not been told of her deterioration, to sue administrators for $27.7 million. The case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

On the other hand, universities may be held liable if they do take action to remove a potentially suicidal student. In August, the City University of New York agreed to pay $65,000 to a student who sued after being barred from her dormitory room at Hunter College because she was hospitalized after a suicide attempt.

Also last year, George Washington University reached a confidential settlement in a case charging that it had violated antidiscrimination laws by suspending Jordan Nott, a student who had sought hospitalization for depression.

There is a difficult balance. Just because someone is suicidal, or suffers from a mental illness, does not mean that they should be prevented from attending university (or work). It is possible to overcome mental illness and psychiatric problems, and a past history of including problems should not be held against a person for life. However, there should definitely be better processes for identifying problems, for keeping tabs on vulnerable people and for treating the mentally ill.

There seems to be a serious deficiency in the way in which even highly developed countries such as Australia and America deal with mental health issues. Patrick McGorry, a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Melbourne has said:

When a young person experiencing an acute asthma attack goes to see a doctor, they can be guaranteed an almost immediate response. When a woman notices a breast lump and seeks a diagnosis and treatment, it is readily available. When a middle-aged man experiences chest pain and calls the ambulance, he gains immediate access to high-quality care. Everyone accepts that a rapid response, early diagnosis and expert treatment can save lives and prevent disability.

What about the 22-year-old with depression who deliberately harms themselves? The Not for Service report (Mental Health Council of Australia, Brain and Mind Research Institute and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) shows the situation for mental disorders is totally different. Why? Serious funding constraints force mental health services to provide little more than palliative care. Treatment has to be rationed until it can be withheld no longer.

Despite the best efforts of many dedicated clinicians, there is a vast and unnecessary gap between the quality and coverage provided for general medical illnesses and psychiatric illnesses, which leads to Third World outcomes in a First World country

In the report cited above, Not for Service, a parent said:

Regarding 'involuntary intervention'; although the Mental Health System espouses 'early intervention' and carers are encouraged to practice this, the constraints surrounding 'involuntary intervention' can make 'early intervention' impossible. From personal experience, it means that intervention will not be carried out without the consumer's consent until that person is acutely unwell and a 'crisis situation' arises. Although it will then, still be without the consumer's consent, probably even more so, and will probably mean a more forceful intervention, somehow this policy is considered more humane...As ridiculous as it sounds, it means that the behaviour of the unwell person has to disturb, alarm or frighten a member of the public enough to bring it to the attention of the police or the Mental Health Service - a carer's word that the person is at risk is not enough...and we talk about reducing the stigma of mental illness.

(Submission No. 178)

Another parent said:

After exhibiting psychotic behaviour my son spent 21 days (detained) in Glenside Hospital in March 2002. He was counselled and medicated then turned out into the community with some medication but no follow up care. Shortly afterwards he stopped his medication, reverted to his anti-social, aggressive and irrational behaviour, a state he has been in unchecked for two years.

(Submission No. 11)

Even where a patient voluntarily seeks psychiatric help, they may be unable to get adequate help. But what if someone is so unwell that they cannot appreciate the depth of their illness? Should they be involuntarily admitted to a mental institution? The situation seems to be that involuntary admission will only be contemplated once a mentally ill person seriously harms himself or another. Such situations are rare but unfortunate, as they only increase the stigma towards the mentally ill in general.

Obviously, reopening asylums is not the answer. But there must be a better answer than letting seriously ill people go without treatment before they harm themselves or others. I think schools, universities and workplaces should have guidelines as to when it is appropriate to intervene, and some way of dealing with mentally ill people which does not stigmatise and marginalise them but allows them to be properly treated. There needs to be law reform and policy reform which makes it clear to universities, schools and workplaces what procedures should be followed.

Stop and take a deep breath...if you still can...

I guess my main problem with the nature of the climate change debate is that I want people to think about things before they do them, and complete proper research. Instead of mucking around with the Kyoto Protocol and carbon credits, I think the focus should be on increasing scientific research into alternative fuels. My concern is that if governments make emotional knee-jerk reactions, the cure may be as bad as the disease it is designed to alleviate.

Accordingly, the results of recent research on ethanol fuel are a salutory reminder for everyone to think carefully and take a deep breath before anything too drastic is done. Mark Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University published an article in Environmental Science and Technology Online yesterday. The journal's press release says:

His results...show that ethanol is no silver bullet for health. Switching to E85 blends (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) could result in slightly higher ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma (9% higher in Los Angeles and 4% higher in the U.S. as a whole), the study finds. Cancer rates would be similar for gasoline and E85.

"It's true that ethanol does decrease some pollutants, but it also increases some others," Jacobson says. Compared with gasoline, ethanol tends to produce less benzene and butadiene, but more acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, when burned.

The result: more ozone and about 185 more deaths per year across the U.S., with 125 of those in Los Angeles. Jacobson studied that city in depth because of its ongoing smog problem and found that it has the right atmospheric chemistry to make the ethanol switch particularly problematic.

Previous studies have estimated the pollution and health effects of burning ethanol, but Jacobson says those researchers simply scaled up tailpipe emissions and plugged those numbers into outdated formulas to calculate ozone changes and cancer rates. His atmospheric model, called GATOR-GCMOM, accounted for the transport of tailpipe emissions across the U.S. along with chemical transformations in the atmosphere—key components that had been neglected in previous studies.

The findings suggest that ethanol cannot be promoted simply as a boon to public health, Jacobson adds. Other factors need to be studied and weighed before ethanol use is made widespread, he says, such as greenhouse-gas emissions, U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and the environmental impacts of growing plants for ethanol.

As an asthmatic, I'm not too keen on the sound of the side-effects of ethanol. Let's look more closely at fuel cells, say I.

Potter Schmotter

Why do we read books? And what makes a book "well-written"? I have been thinking about this in the run-up to the imminent publication of J.K. Rowling's seventh and final installment to the Harry Potter series. Seems I'm not the only one who is a bit sick of the series.

Litlove wrote a great blog post discussing Daniel Gilbert's book, Stumbling on Happiness, in which she discusses the way in which Gilbert theorises that human beings are the only animal to think about the future in a imaginative and anticipatory way. Instead of reading literature to better ourselves, Litlove says:

How much more likely, given what Daniel Gilbert is saying, that we find pleasure in literature, for instance, because it gives us a spurious sense of understanding the world better, and being therefore more able to master and control it. The basic premise of stories is to represent a conflict and speculate on the ways it could develop. If we feel anxious about the events that might happen to us in life, then storytelling is a wonderful way to increase our possibilities in the planning department, offering us a tremendous store of solutions, consequences, possible outcomes and manipulative strategies to choose from. Literature rehearses for us all kinds of likely and unlikely situations, and provides those delicious anticipatory, imaginary pleasures we are so hungry for, as well as reassuring, or at least interesting, conclusions with which to assuage our anxieties.

I love these posts which make me think about things I often take for granted. I thought that this was a beautiful analysis.

I am a voracious reader. But what motive do I have for reading so much? To an extent, it's part of my job: I have to read cases and texts. But I also read for knowledge and information, for inspiration, for fun and to admire the exquisite skill of a particular writer. There are some books I read for comfort, and some books I read when I want to have a good cry. I read some books just once, and others are worn thin because I have read them so many times. Sometimes I never manage to get through a particular book. (I see a trend: those Russian authors are troubling for me - I've never finished Crime and Punishment or Anna Karenina).

I think good art is something which:

1. Makes you say, “Ah, that’s how it is” with a sense of recognition (often, in the process, illuminating some detail or nuance of life that you haven’t previously understood yourself);
2. Makes you think about the world in a different way: “What if things were like this? What an interesting/disturbing/thought-provoking way of looking at it!”

I don’t like artwork such as a cow's head in formaldehyde - it doesn’t "say" anything to me at all, and it doesn’t make me look at things in a new way. There's no skill in it, and it seems like art purely for shock value alone.

I agree that a sense of anticipation is definitely one of the pleasures of a good novel or movie - one often knows that Boy will get together with Girl, or Detective will discover Murderer, or Fantasy Character will succeed in her quest…but how will it happen? We enjoy recognising the patterns and rehearsing the situation.

Some books are purely for enjoyment. Some we read because they have a "hook" - we simply must find out what happens. I would put The Da Vinci Code in this latter category - it was appallingly written, but I had to find out what happened - it was the archetype of a "page -turner". We read other books because they are beautifully written - but if there isn't a hook to pull us through, we might not finish the book (eg, The Eye of the Storm by Patrick White - exquisitely written, but finishing the book is like wading through half-set concrete.) The very best books have a "hook" and are well-written to boot. Mmm, such books are pure pleasure.

I like novels that make me think about the world differently. I have a collection of novels about dystopias. Since my teenage years, I have an idea of writing a novel about a revolution where an underclass rebels but the new leaders are no better than the old (in a science fiction context). But I've never written it because it's probably a bit passe these days.

I also like children's fantasy novels (perhaps I need them to lighten my cynicism). I find that they are often very well-written and thought provoking. I must confess that I quite enjoyed the first three Harry Potter books. I didn't take them seriously. But later, I began to dislike the series. There were a few things which changed my mind on this point:

1. I arranged to play a board game with my friend "The Wordies". The game was based on Book 1 of Harry Potter. Always competitive, I read Book 1 twice over the evening before the game, just to make sure I was primed to win. Unfortunately, my team mate and I found ourselves in Slytherin so all that reading was in vain - the game was arranged so that Slytherin could not win. However, the point is that after reading Book 1 twice over in quick succession, I found that aspects of the story to be very derivative, and the writing style really began to irritate me. (I'm in good company here: Harold Bloom also thinks it is badly written.)
   
2. After the first three books, I started to see that the books were just written to a formula. Some books are written to a formula, but it doesn't get boring (eg, Agatha Christie). But Harry just started to get predictable.
   
3. Books 4 and 5 were far too long and I didn't really enjoy them. Harry the whining self-indulgent teen really didn't "gel" with me. And I hate bloody Quidditch.

The first two Harry Potter movies were two of the most boring movies I've ever seen, so I never bothered to see any others. Likewise, I never bothered to read Book 6. I won't bother to read Book 7 either.

I couldn't quite put my finger on why I was dissatisfied with Harry Potter until I read A.S. Byatt's biting commentary on it. She said:

"Auden and Tolkien wrote about the skills of inventing "secondary worlds." Ms. Rowling's world is a secondary secondary world, made up of intelligently patchworked derivative motifs from all sorts of children's literature — from the jolly hockey-sticks school story to Roald Dahl, from "Star Wars" to Diana Wynne Jones and Susan Cooper. Toni Morrison pointed out that clichés endure because they represent truths. Derivative narrative clichés work with children because they are comfortingly recognizable and immediately available to the child's own power of fantasizing.

...

But in the case of the great children's writers of the recent past, there was a compensating seriousness. There was — and is — a real sense of mystery, powerful forces, dangerous creatures in dark forests. Susan Cooper's teenage wizard discovers his magic powers and discovers simultaneously that he is in a cosmic battle between good and evil forces. Every bush and cloud glitters with secret significance. Alan Garner peoples real landscapes with malign, inhuman elvish beings that hunt humans.

Reading writers like these, we feel we are being put back in touch with earlier parts of our culture, when supernatural and inhuman creatures — from whom we thought we learned our sense of good and evil — inhabited a world we did not feel we controlled. If we regress, we regress to a lost sense of significance we mourn for. Ursula K. Le Guin's wizards inhabit an anthropologically coherent world where magic really does act as a force. Ms. Rowling's magic wood has nothing in common with these lost worlds. It is small, and on the school grounds, and dangerous only because she says it is."

Source: A.S. Byatt, 'Harry Potter and the Childish Adult', New York Times, 7 July 2003 (subscription needed)

To my mind, all great children's fantasy series have an underlying moral compass. This doesn't mean that the books should be didactic, but there should be an exploration of what is right and what is wrong. Any good fantasy book is a rehearsal of a battle between good and evil. It helps us rehearse for situations when we face real wrongs in the real world. The Harry Potter series is missing this moral compass. Voldemort is "evil", but we are never quite sure what is so very "evil" about him, other than his desire to kill Harry (the nasty side of me secretly thinks that perhaps that is a good thing).

Perhaps I can illustrate my point by listing books which I think are great examples of fantasy for children, young adults, and adults:

• The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien;
• The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis (Yeah, I know they've got that underlying Christian message, but they're still darn good books);
• The Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander (he manages to end the five book series without any fall in quality - no mean feat);
• The Dark is Rising Series by Susan Cooper (also Seaward);
• Diana Wynne-Jones' books, including Hexwood, Deep Secret, A Tale of Time City, Howl's Moving Castle (I think she's one of the most seriously underrated children's authors, although Miyazaki's recent film seems to have led to a greater exposure of her work);
• Alan Garner's books including The Weirdstone of Brisengamen (which is set at Alderley Edge - near where I lived in the UK - I always hoped I might see the Wizard of Alderley there);
• The Earthsea Series by Ursula K Le Guin (I also love The Left Hand of Darkness and The Lathe of Heaven);
• A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L'Engle;
• Garth Nix's Abhorsen series (Australian author);
• Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials series;
• Margaret Mahy's books (real world stories with a magical touch);
  
• Terry Pratchett.

In a good fantasy novel, characters are put in situations where they are tested, and learn something about themselves (not always positive things). They grow up. The evil is real: those on the dark side enslave, kill and limit the freedoms of others. Often, the evildoers wage war on the forces of good. The consequences of victory for the side of evil impacts on all of society. Such books often explore the possibility of evil arising as a result of a desire to do good, or the possibility of those who seem evil having some good in them.

Harry Potter just seems shallow and simplistic by comparison. Part of the problem, I think is the fact that the world of Harry Potter is too black and white. It lacks subtlety. The attempts to introduce questions about racial purity, discrimination and bullying are didactic and heavy-handed.

For example, Harry Potter is bullied by the Dursleys and by Draco Malfoy, for no apparent reason other than the fact he is Harry Potter. But as far as I know (remember, I haven't read Book 6), the bullying remains very clichéd. This can be compared with the rivalry of Taran and Prince Ellidyr in The Black Cauldron by Lloyd Alexander. Taran (the hero) is bullied by Ellidyr, but contributes to the problem with his hot temper. He eventually understands that, while you can't control someone else's behaviour towards you, you can control the way in which you react to them when they goad you. In the end, Taran sees that Ellidyr's unkindness is partly spurred by his insecurities and desire to prove himself, and forgives him. Ellidyr finally understands that his conduct is wrong, and finds he has some good qualities. Both end up sacrificing a great deal for the safety of all. Despite the serious questions raised, Alexander handles the matter with humour and compassion, and does not become didactic or preachy. Harry, the Dursleys and Malfoy never seem to get beyond the childish tit-for-tat behaviour portrayed in Book 1. There is no room for learning or growing up.

If we read books to rehearse and anticipate the problems of real life, I'd recommend having a look at some of the books I've listed above, which manage to do this a lot better than the Harry Potter series. If my daughter decides to read Harry Potter, I certainly shan't dissuade her, but I will try to introduce her to some other books as well. I think there's better examples of the craft out there.