I just stumbled across reference to one Jane Humphries (a professor of economic history at Oxford) and her work on child labor in Victorian England.
It was the subject of a BBC doco back in 2011, and I'm pretty sure I have not seen it. However, it is available in full on Youtube. Sounds worth watching.
Friday, February 02, 2018
Brave
I've found a good quality version of the video released last week showing in painful detail how Tom Cruise broke his ankle while filming MI:6 last year. Of course, the main reason for watching is to (once again) be amazed at the guy's physical bravery and complete disregard for heights, regardless of the fact that he is on a safety harness:
The conspiracy party
Hardly surprising to read this:
The big examples: climate change (the prime, overarching, example); Benghazi; Hillary about to die; Obama re his birth and religion; uranium deal with Russia; and now the FBI.
It's poisoning the Right, and they don't realise it.
All aligns with a now obvious fact: the American (and the stupider parts of the Australian) Right has become consumed by conspiracy ideation, whipping itself into a frenzy via its bubble universe of Right wing media, and then failing to learn the lessons of simply being wrong.Inside the Trump administration, sources who've been briefed on the Nunes memo expect it will be underwhelming and not the “slam dunk” document it's been hyped up to be.What we're hearing: There is much more skepticism inside the administration than has been previously reported about the value of releasing the memo, according to sources familiar with the administration discussions.Be smart: Trump still wants to release the memo. But there are a number of people in the White House who are fairly underwhelmed, and there's internal anxiety about whether it's worth angering the FBI director and intelligence community by releasing this information.
The big examples: climate change (the prime, overarching, example); Benghazi; Hillary about to die; Obama re his birth and religion; uranium deal with Russia; and now the FBI.
It's poisoning the Right, and they don't realise it.
Thursday, February 01, 2018
That didn't take long
From Axios:
Because the tax bill reduced government revenues, Congress must act to raise the debt limit by early March, instead of as late as April, the Congressional Budget Office said today, according to Bloomberg.
Still suspicious of Swan
Jonathan Swan tweeted this yesterday about the "pro-life" adoption bit from Trump's speech:
Quite a few people have challenged him about this. Adoption over abortion may well be something that many people favour (in principle, I like the idea too), but in telling the story this way, with the fate of the addicted birth mother left completely unmentioned, seems a dubious way of selling the message. (Many people feel an even "more beautiful" outcome would have been for the mother to get the addiction treatment she needed via a properly government funded option, keep her child and go on to lead a productive life as an ex-user. Successes of that kind do happen. But no, that doesn't suit the conservative, small government message.)
One other thing - the adoptive father already had 4 kids at age 27? I know Americans still marry young compared to international figures, but such a reproductive record even in the 1950's would have been on the high side.
Look, almost certainly this indicates a very religious, possibly Catholic background, and I don't wish them ill. But it would not be at all surprising if this family, under pressure from its reproductive rate and marrying at a young age, later breaks up. It just has those sort of "danger" hints to me, making it unwise to give it large prominence as an example to the nation.
But young Jonathan Swan seems to recognize nothing of these reasons to not embrace the story as a PR, conservative triumph, which again really makes me wonder about his background. Is he a conservative Catholic himself? NTTAWWT, but I just like to understand reporters and where they are coming from. Especially if they are reporting on Trump and are not cynical about his pandering to Conservative sentiments.
Update: Slate makes the same points here.
One other thing - the adoptive father already had 4 kids at age 27? I know Americans still marry young compared to international figures, but such a reproductive record even in the 1950's would have been on the high side.
Look, almost certainly this indicates a very religious, possibly Catholic background, and I don't wish them ill. But it would not be at all surprising if this family, under pressure from its reproductive rate and marrying at a young age, later breaks up. It just has those sort of "danger" hints to me, making it unwise to give it large prominence as an example to the nation.
But young Jonathan Swan seems to recognize nothing of these reasons to not embrace the story as a PR, conservative triumph, which again really makes me wonder about his background. Is he a conservative Catholic himself? NTTAWWT, but I just like to understand reporters and where they are coming from. Especially if they are reporting on Trump and are not cynical about his pandering to Conservative sentiments.
Update: Slate makes the same points here.
More on Brexit
Simon Wren-Lewis writes against Brexit again, following the leak of government forecasts which all predict a negative effect on the economy. But this aspect, regarding the effect on immigration and services in the NHS, is something I hadn't heard of before:
There is even a large fantasy element when it comes to immigration. Yes, there are a few Leavers who would pay a large amount to avoid hearing a foreign language spoken in their town, but they do not represent most Leave voters. Instead there is the belief, carefully cultivated by the Conservative party, that immigration has reduced real wages and our access to public services. Large numbers voted Leave because they thought less EU immigrants would mitigate the NHS crisis. Now those EU immigrants who also happened to be doctors or nurses are leaving, and the NHS cannot fill vacancies. And, of course, those lower growth numbers mean less money to spend on the NHS: the Brexit dividend is negative.
Trouble in the White House?
It's hard to believe that there isn't some trouble going on in the Trump marriage. Might take public news of just one more affair since the marriage to end up with a walk out, one suspects.
The only person I feel a bit sorry for in the situation is Barron. Many kids might have a lousy, philandering Dad, but not many have one who is the subject of intense media interest in publicising his infidelities. However, as adults, I do tend to find the Trump kids' strong allegiance to their Dad a bit surprising. So maybe it'll be all money off a duck's back to Barron in the long run too...
The only person I feel a bit sorry for in the situation is Barron. Many kids might have a lousy, philandering Dad, but not many have one who is the subject of intense media interest in publicising his infidelities. However, as adults, I do tend to find the Trump kids' strong allegiance to their Dad a bit surprising. So maybe it'll be all money off a duck's back to Barron in the long run too...
Jesus and curry
It was interesting to read at the TLS about the origin of the popular 1970's New Age story that Jesus had spent his young adulthood in India.
I would have guessed that someone had dreamt it up in the 1950's or 60's (like the fraudulent Lobsang Rampa books that were popular in the period); but it dates backs to an odd Russian living in Paris in the 1890's. It's an interesting story about an unreliable character, whose heart may have been sort of in the right place.
Speaking of the 1970's and its odd penchant with all things paranormal and pop-mystical - I reckon astrology has taken a very big hit in popularity since those days. I'm not even sure my teenage kids would know their star sign, whereas in the 1970's virtually everyone did, and reading newspaper predications for the day was a bit of jokey habit for many people.
I would have guessed that someone had dreamt it up in the 1950's or 60's (like the fraudulent Lobsang Rampa books that were popular in the period); but it dates backs to an odd Russian living in Paris in the 1890's. It's an interesting story about an unreliable character, whose heart may have been sort of in the right place.
Speaking of the 1970's and its odd penchant with all things paranormal and pop-mystical - I reckon astrology has taken a very big hit in popularity since those days. I'm not even sure my teenage kids would know their star sign, whereas in the 1970's virtually everyone did, and reading newspaper predications for the day was a bit of jokey habit for many people.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Stupid ABC
I'm not at all convinced that this rebranding of ABC2 to ABC Comedy is a good idea.
Problem is, there is so much space to fill it becomes a mix of old dross with new stuff that I do want to see but which gets insufficient advertising.
Case in point - Red Dwarf XII. I only realised last week that it was running at 9.30 on a Tuesday evening, and I've only caught the last 2 episodes. (It started on 26 December, apparently.)
That show has a devoted, long standing fan base (and it cheery good nature remains pleasing, and pretty amusing, despite the stars ageing before our eyes), yet the dire Tom Ballard with his swear-like-a-bogan monologues on his awful Tonightly show, has received much more promotion.
Not at all sure recent changes of the ABC are in the right direction.
Problem is, there is so much space to fill it becomes a mix of old dross with new stuff that I do want to see but which gets insufficient advertising.
Case in point - Red Dwarf XII. I only realised last week that it was running at 9.30 on a Tuesday evening, and I've only caught the last 2 episodes. (It started on 26 December, apparently.)
That show has a devoted, long standing fan base (and it cheery good nature remains pleasing, and pretty amusing, despite the stars ageing before our eyes), yet the dire Tom Ballard with his swear-like-a-bogan monologues on his awful Tonightly show, has received much more promotion.
Not at all sure recent changes of the ABC are in the right direction.
What shabby, crooked politics
So, we all know a clear non-denial in a situation like this means it did indeed happen - the Republican generated anti FBI and Justice Department memo was not generated by the committee independently, it had input from White House Staffers. How convenient for Trump.
The description of the memo, which almost certainly Trump will release with no acknowledgement of its self serving creation, given by Democrat Mark Warner looks very accurate:
The description of the memo, which almost certainly Trump will release with no acknowledgement of its self serving creation, given by Democrat Mark Warner looks very accurate:
“a partisan sham cooked up to undermine the FBI, DOJ, and the Mueller probe. House Republicans are playing a very dangerous game.”
It shouldn't need to be repeated, but culture war propaganda and blindness requires it
A good list put up by Mike Allen at Axios, about the indisputable things known about the Russia investigation:
Why it matters: Take the known knowns — 10 undisputed facts — and the smoke clears considerably.
Speaking of bad writing
This is a very strange piece of writing at Slate about (Apple boss) Tim Cook. I don't know what to make of it, except to think that it shouldn't be there.
A review best avoided
I do torture myself occasionally by trying a Helen Razor column, and if you thought one in which she complains about The Post, feminism when it is "pressed into the service of power", as well as her fear of menopause and dislike of hot weather, would be an excruciating read - yes, it is!
Her discursive, always self-involved, style is (as usual) virtually impenetrable, and yet she has her supporters in comments. (Not many, though.)
Her discursive, always self-involved, style is (as usual) virtually impenetrable, and yet she has her supporters in comments. (Not many, though.)
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Brexit and the economy
Axios notes:
Update: Simon Wren-Lewis writes about Brexit and the Conservatives:
Seriously, why would a sensible government continue down that path when it believes those are the consequences?An analysis from the U.K. government anticipates entirely negative economic impacts from Brexit regardless of the terms of the exit deal, Buzzfeed News, which got its hands on the analysis, reports.
- Top-line figures: Growth would fall by 8% over 15 years under a "no-deal Brexit," 2% under a "soft Brexit" and 5% under a middle course. Nearly every economic sector would be hurt, with the exception of agriculture, along with every geographic region.
The bottom line: The British government is going to spend the next year or so in intense negotiations over a process its own analysis suggests will bring entirely negative economic consequences.
Update: Simon Wren-Lewis writes about Brexit and the Conservatives:
This Brexit syndrome, which infects nearly half the Conservative party MPs and most of its membership, is a visceral dislike of the EU in all its manifestations. I am not talking about why most voters chose to leave, which was an unfortunately all too familiar reaction to a public campaign that has blamed immigrants for every grievance and fear they have. Brexit syndrome is instead manifested in a belief that you must leave a customs union with your overwhelmingly biggest trading partner so you can seek inferior trade agreements with other more distant countries. The only explanation for that belief is a deep irrational dislike of all things EU.
For those Conservative MPs not subject to Brexit syndrome I have bad news. Leaving the EU as planned is not a cure. The nightmare of Brexit will not pass. Whatever deal the UK eventually concludes with the EU, it will be unacceptable to the Brexiters. Only a clean break with all things EU will satisfy them.
Monday, January 29, 2018
In other stuff watched on Netflix
* Tried watching the first episode of "Black Lightning", a DC superhero show that seems oddly timed to match the soon to be released Marvel "Black Panther" movie (which I doubt is funny enough for me to bother seeing.) Terrible.
* Am getting through the second series of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. Yes, it's often very amusing. I haven't come across an episode yet which I felt didn't work at all. Also, in the Julia Louis Deyfus episode, I was surprised how ordinary and suburban her part of Hollywood (where she lives) looked.
* Watched the well reviewed movie "The Witch" on the weekend (I think it's a recent addition.) Well, it's very odd, I think, the way it comes across as a very authentic recreation of the isolation, hyper-religiosity and hysteria leading to the witch panics in New England, but then the ending seems to undercut it completely. While it looks very painterly and is pretty well directed, I just didn't get it...
* Am getting through the second series of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. Yes, it's often very amusing. I haven't come across an episode yet which I felt didn't work at all. Also, in the Julia Louis Deyfus episode, I was surprised how ordinary and suburban her part of Hollywood (where she lives) looked.
* Watched the well reviewed movie "The Witch" on the weekend (I think it's a recent addition.) Well, it's very odd, I think, the way it comes across as a very authentic recreation of the isolation, hyper-religiosity and hysteria leading to the witch panics in New England, but then the ending seems to undercut it completely. While it looks very painterly and is pretty well directed, I just didn't get it...
A good thing
I've been meaning to commend the Netflix comedy show The Good Place for some months, and after watching the first episode of the second season last night, it's time to do it.
The show has been a hit with most critics, and deservedly so. It's rare to find something that is so intelligent, so well acted by every single cast member, and so frequently very funny. (Its humour is not timed for every 60 seconds, as it is for "filmed before a live studio audience" sitcoms, but nonetheless it is continually amusing.) Also, it's good to see Ted Danson in something as classy as this after his long run in pretty B grade sitcom material.
I was a bit dubious about the scenario set up for the second series, but the first episode (well, sort of two episodes combined) was very good. Not sure they'll manage to wrangle a 3rd series though!
The show has been a hit with most critics, and deservedly so. It's rare to find something that is so intelligent, so well acted by every single cast member, and so frequently very funny. (Its humour is not timed for every 60 seconds, as it is for "filmed before a live studio audience" sitcoms, but nonetheless it is continually amusing.) Also, it's good to see Ted Danson in something as classy as this after his long run in pretty B grade sitcom material.
I was a bit dubious about the scenario set up for the second series, but the first episode (well, sort of two episodes combined) was very good. Not sure they'll manage to wrangle a 3rd series though!
Sunday, January 28, 2018
Roubini hates everything crypto and block
I don't really understand enough about the economic theory of currency to tell whether Nouriel Roubini is correct in how he says Bitcoin won't work, but here is part of it anyway:
Cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value, whereas fiat currencies certainly do, because they can be used to pay taxes. Fiat currencies are also protected from value debasement by central banks committed to price stability; and if a fiat currency loses credibility, as in some weak monetary systems with high inflation, it will be swapped out for more stable foreign fiat currencies or real assets.
As it happens, Bitcoin’s supposed advantage is also its Achilles’s heel, because even if it actually did have a steady-state supply of 21 million units, that would disqualify it as a viable currency. Unless the supply of a currency tracks potential nominal GDP, prices will undergo deflation.
But not only that, he believes that blockchain is a bit of a crock too:That means if a steady-state supply of Bitcoin really did gradually replace a fiat currency, the price index of all goods and services would continuously fall. By extension, any nominal debt contract denominated in Bitcoin would rise in real value over time, leading to the kind of debt deflation that economist Irving Fisher believed precipitated the Great Depression. At the same time, nominal wages in Bitcoin would increase forever in real terms, regardless of productivity growth, adding further to the likelihood of an economic disaster.
As for the underlying blockchain technology, there are still massive obstacles standing in its way, even if it has more potential than cryptocurrencies. Chief among them is that it lacks the kind of basic common and universal protocols that made the Internet universally accessible (TCP-IP, HTML, and so forth). More fundamentally, its promise of decentralized transactions with no intermediary authority amounts to an untested, Utopian pipedream. No wonder blockchain is ranked close to the peak of the hype cycle of technologies with inflated expectations.Yes, I strongly suspect that blockchain technology is being way over-hyped. It's working great to get RMIT professors who have given up on noting "no statistically significant increase in temperatures" and warning about Keynesian induced stagflation invitations to international conferences, though.
Saturday, January 27, 2018
Very, very mixed feelings
I don't think there is any issue which gives me more internal conflict than watching the matter of indigenous issues and politics in Australia.
Yesterday, I see there were very large "invasion day" marches, indicating that the "change the date" movement (with which I have sympathy, given the rather non-crucial connection the actual date had with the creation of the modern Australian nation in the first place) is stronger than ever.
I further sympathise with the view that the mistreatment of aborigines as the colony expanded has long been underappreciated, as is the general "caught between two cultures" dilemma that befell them. (European arrival so frequently has had the same effect - with high rates of alcoholism, poor education results and apparent listlessness in remote communities, and welfare dependence.) I was leery at first of the effect of the Mabo decision, but it has been implemented in a way that hasn't had (as far as I know) any detrimental effect on reasonable development. I really dislike how people on the Right (such as Andrew Bolt) can oversimplify the matter of aboriginal identity, and take a pretty sneery attitude to the whole matter of how long the effect of historical culture shock can reach into modern life. The attitude is rather like the obnoxious "it's your choice whether to take offence at words" meme of libertarians, thereby giving free reign to the obnoxious.
On the other hand: I don't doubt that much of what passes for respect for aboriginal culture is genuinely what those on the (pretty obnoxious) Right call mere "virtue signalling" - such as "acknowledgement of traditional owners" statements made even to rooms where it is clear there is no descendent of a traditional owner present as a guest or observer; yesterday's "#AlwaysWasAlwaysWillBe" on Twitter, in which many Lefty celebs appeared to be agreeing with activists that land over which Aboriginal groups have no meaningful control must still be called Aboriginal land; incorporation of aboriginal ceremonies which are, in key respects, modern inventions; trying to wring way, way more out of aboriginal knowledge as relevant to modern education than is reasonable; disregarding the historically harsh aspects of aboriginal societies in terms of treatment of women; and, yes, some people of very limited aboriginal ancestry who insist it is still of vital relevance to their identity. Seriously, at some point you have to imagine that Chinese tourists watching some aboriginal dance troupe doing their thing must be thinking "I didn't know aborigines could be white."
It just seems so hard to get both sides to stop with factual and rhetorical exaggerations on the matter - and to express mutual good will. It makes me dislike both sides.
Update: the rhetoric of Ms Onus-Williams is a good example of why it is so difficult to be completely onside with aboriginal advocacy groups, and to be annoyed with virtue signallers who don't call it out. If she wants the Andrew Bolts and Tim Blairs of the world to show some greater sympathy to historical wrongs, she needs to get real herself.
Yesterday, I see there were very large "invasion day" marches, indicating that the "change the date" movement (with which I have sympathy, given the rather non-crucial connection the actual date had with the creation of the modern Australian nation in the first place) is stronger than ever.
I further sympathise with the view that the mistreatment of aborigines as the colony expanded has long been underappreciated, as is the general "caught between two cultures" dilemma that befell them. (European arrival so frequently has had the same effect - with high rates of alcoholism, poor education results and apparent listlessness in remote communities, and welfare dependence.) I was leery at first of the effect of the Mabo decision, but it has been implemented in a way that hasn't had (as far as I know) any detrimental effect on reasonable development. I really dislike how people on the Right (such as Andrew Bolt) can oversimplify the matter of aboriginal identity, and take a pretty sneery attitude to the whole matter of how long the effect of historical culture shock can reach into modern life. The attitude is rather like the obnoxious "it's your choice whether to take offence at words" meme of libertarians, thereby giving free reign to the obnoxious.
On the other hand: I don't doubt that much of what passes for respect for aboriginal culture is genuinely what those on the (pretty obnoxious) Right call mere "virtue signalling" - such as "acknowledgement of traditional owners" statements made even to rooms where it is clear there is no descendent of a traditional owner present as a guest or observer; yesterday's "#AlwaysWasAlwaysWillBe" on Twitter, in which many Lefty celebs appeared to be agreeing with activists that land over which Aboriginal groups have no meaningful control must still be called Aboriginal land; incorporation of aboriginal ceremonies which are, in key respects, modern inventions; trying to wring way, way more out of aboriginal knowledge as relevant to modern education than is reasonable; disregarding the historically harsh aspects of aboriginal societies in terms of treatment of women; and, yes, some people of very limited aboriginal ancestry who insist it is still of vital relevance to their identity. Seriously, at some point you have to imagine that Chinese tourists watching some aboriginal dance troupe doing their thing must be thinking "I didn't know aborigines could be white."
It just seems so hard to get both sides to stop with factual and rhetorical exaggerations on the matter - and to express mutual good will. It makes me dislike both sides.
Update: the rhetoric of Ms Onus-Williams is a good example of why it is so difficult to be completely onside with aboriginal advocacy groups, and to be annoyed with virtue signallers who don't call it out. If she wants the Andrew Bolts and Tim Blairs of the world to show some greater sympathy to historical wrongs, she needs to get real herself.
The (pretty strong) skeptical case against the multiverse
Hey, Sabine Hossenfelder has written as clearly as I think I have ever read about the reasons people should be very skeptical about the idea of the multiverse, covering the three main types of multiverse scientists speculate about.
She has a book coming out too, which I strongly suspect may be worth reading.
I'm sure people (including me!) at least partly like the multiverse idea because of the large slab of science fiction scenarios it lends itself to. But I'd be happy if there was just one other universe that consciousness can interact with, as many religions would consider as the supernatural realm...
She has a book coming out too, which I strongly suspect may be worth reading.
I'm sure people (including me!) at least partly like the multiverse idea because of the large slab of science fiction scenarios it lends itself to. But I'd be happy if there was just one other universe that consciousness can interact with, as many religions would consider as the supernatural realm...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)