Correction:

Crikey writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (July 6, item 7). An item on the sale of Macleay College incorrectly stated that Keith Windschuttle sold the business. Windschuttle is in fact not an owner of the business; it was sold by his wife Elizabeth Elliott. Crikey apologies for the error.

US debt:

Andrew Lewis writes: Re. “No reason or evidence will cure US of its debt fetish” (Tuesday, item 3). That Centre for Independent Studies sure can keep a consistent line. It’s quite uncanny how all these independent studies keep coming up with the same conclusions. What a wonderful, but not ironic, coincidence.

The latest fluff piece from Adam Creighton sets the alarm bells ringing in the second paragraph where in one fell swoop he blames the Obama administration for the dilemma and describes the predicament as a “debt fetish”.

Adam reveals himself as entirely partisan by pinning the blame on the guy who has been there three years and forgetting the profound work done before him by he who shall not be named. (No, it’s not Voldemort!)

But even describing it as a debt fetish is just ridiculous. The problem is not a debt fetish, it is a political stalemate between those who believe that you can’t just throw people out on the street with no medical insurance or unemployment benefits, and those who believe all taxes are, by definition, bad. Correction, EVIL! It is a political stalemate made worse by the fact that they don’t have a system of government like us where it is much closer to a winner-takes-all outcome, and party ties actually mean that you are expected to vote the party line.

At least the Obama administration has some underlying narrative. The Republican “all taxes are evil” line is nothing more or less than pathetic childish whingeing. You live in a democracy, you pay taxes. That’s the deal. The “other guy’s” tax cuts to the rich are a major source of the funding problem now. It is the politics that has created the debt, not some illusory “debt fetish”. How does Creighton define the “debt fetish” that was going under the watch of, uhhmmm, that other guy. “Tax relief”, I imagine?

Creighton goes on to talk about spending on the military, a fair point. Well, blow me down, but who got America into two unnecessary and incredibly costly wars? Sorry, he shall not be named.

And finally, Creighton, having mistakenly analysed the situation and found a source unconnected to the problem, he exacerbates it all by furnishing the statisticoid that for every dollar of additional taxation lead to an extra $1.59 of expenditure.

Well, blow me down genius. How many Republican presidents were running US between 1947 and 1991 (no doubt, a cherry-picked period in any case, but dominated by Republicans in my living memory).

Creighton is given the title Research Fellow. Perhaps the title is ironic, as must surely be the grand name “Centre for Independent Studies.”

Bookshops:

Keith Thomas writes: Re. “Death of the bookshop: what you pay for when you buy local” (yesterday, item 16). I agree wholeheartedly with Matthia Dempsey. Canberra’s Paperchain bookshop is right on top of the game, with a well-informed selection of new publications, great displays (which I especially appreciate when browsing for books I can read to my infant granddaughters) and they even sell me a few metres of book-covering plastic. With about 10% of the floor space of the recently closed Borders, they have four or five times the number of books recently reviewed overseas and almost none of the schmaltzy pulp that crowds the big chains. Beats me how they do it!

Although I used to shop at Amazon and Book Depository, I now e-mail Paperchain to check the availability of newly published books, they reply the same day and I usually place my order with them. I’m a middle-level book buyer, spending about $2500 a year, and I always look forward to my bookshop visits — still spending longer with them than I intended, purchasing more than I planned — and never regret any of it.

Carbon tax:

John Hunwick writes: Re. “Regurgitating rubbish facts on carbon price effects” (yesterday, item 10). If it wasn’t for Crikey (and Bernard Keane in particular) it would be nearly impossible for concerned citizens to follow the carbon tax debate. Why can’t the misinformation so clearly exposed by Keane be held against the reporter and the paper?

Of all the issues in which science and transparency should be uppermost a distinguished from comment and opinion it is this one that involves the quality of lives in the future (if there is anyone left to live it). It is vital that the day to day discussion in the media be scrutinised and rebutted instantly if the community is to overcome the blizzard of untruths and lies that are flying around like rain in a tropical storm right now.

Maybe Q&A can out some of these people alongside some scientifically literate media experts to engage them in a debate that should expose them for the frauds they are.

Retail:

Richard Brinkman writes: Re. “Underestimating the threat of the internet to retail” (yesterday, item 1). My partner and I  stood in a large, prestigious Adelaide department store (David Jones) deciding the specification for our Apple computers. No one came near us for one hour. My partner then went and bought his MacBook Pro from a polite, informed, enthusiastic young salesman at the Apple Store. I wanted to do some more desktop research, and that completed bought my IMac from the online Apple Store (free home delivery). That’s seven thousand dollars DJ’s didn’t see.

The retailers should look to themselves. There’s no shopping “experience” at the bricks and mortar shops any more.  Tired, dispirited sales people mope around with less product knowledge than you. Online, anonymous though it may be, there’s often a happy, friendly commentary between buyer and seller. The internet offers a range of  brands different to the bog standard uniformity on sad display at the shops. Goods arrive at your door quickly, well-wrapped, and sometimes even with a small bonus.

Look! I said all that without mentioning P-R-I-C-E.

Climate change:

Tamas Calderwood writes: Re. “CSIRO says sea level claims from Oz expert are dead in the water” (yesterday, item 17). Well, well — reality is finally piercing the climate debate in Crikey.

Luke Miller quotes Neil White of the CSIRO saying that “in the second half of the 20th century … there was a plateau in global temperature”. Yes indeed. In fact, since 1940 there was only one warming spurt (from 1975-1998), for a total net warming of less than 0.5C in the past 70 years.

White is also quoted saying “if we look at recent estimates of global mean sea levels from measurements and the IPCC projections they agree quite well”.

They sure do. Just as a reminder, those IPCC projections say the worst case sea level rise by 2100 will be just 59cm and could be as low as 18cm. (IPCC — The Physical Science Basis, 2007, p13).  Keep in mind that humanity somehow survived a 20cm sea level rise during the 20th century.

So to recap — not much warming and sea levels are rising pretty slowly. This is pretty much what I’ve argued in Crikey for the past few years, so I’m looking forward to some articles explaining the uselessness of our proposed carbon tax in the face of exploding Chinese, Indian and other emissions — and maybe some arguing that global warming simply isn’t a crisis.