five years*

Amongst all the analysis of five years since the World Trade Centre attacks, I found this piece by Hugh White to be the most compelling. It reads as very well balanced and based on some pretty deep analysis.

I don't know where White stands in the policy firmament in Oz. His bio lists his positions under the former Keating government, his inaugural position at the School of Strategic Studies and then some time in Defence under the current government. If he's out of favour now, maybe that explains the somewhat contrarian (to the endorsed official, you know what that means) view he espouses. Good for contrarians, we need lots more. It's a shame we don't seem to get more of this depth of analysis, too.

I'm going to have mega fun tomorrow. Offpsring number two has a uni assignment that - once you burrow under the several tons of pseudo-po-mo wankery in which it is couched, is about how to take account of greenhouse in urban planning and design. To give her and her project group some insights I have assembled a small band of my policy mates, all of whom have firm views (including on pseudo-academic wankery) but also on issues such as this. Several have not met each other, to the best of my knowledge, and are of exceptionally strong character, shall we say. There will be fireworks (I hope), leading to (I also hope) some good insights into the policy dilemmas the assignment hints at. Nothing like a good argument.

*No, this five years, silly.