Joseph Stiglitz writes

Joseph Stiglitz Says Standard Economics Is Wrong. Inequality and Unearned Income Kills the Economy - Evonomics

It's pretty long, and I haven't read it all yet, but he does write clearly and sounds very reasonable.

Judith Sloan will hate it.

Despite the title, this is a good article

Is It Really Possible To Faint From Heat, As Clinton Claims?

Is it really possible that Right wing conspiracists are so dumb that they don't believe fainting from protracted standing in even mild warmth is not only possible, but not un-common to see happen in any large crowd of any age?  Obviously, they haven't witnessed many military parades or guards of honour...

I would also assume that the pneumonia diagnosis is a case of so-called "walking pneumonia".

She has enough time to rest before the first Presidential debate.   I predict Trump won't be so lucky as to have her pull out before that.

Yes, we'll take the lying, shallow, narcisstic, short attention span, draft dodging man boy who we don't trust to do anything he promises and whose man-crush on Putin we find rather disturbing because - Hillary

I think the heading fairly summaries the view of Instapundit's Glenn Harlan Reynolds, whose list of Hillary misdemeanours includes:

*  the email issue (even when it became clearer than ever last week that she did indeed have encouragement from Colin Powell to do what she did),

* the fact that contributors to the Clinton charity meant people asked for favours, yet no actual serious scandal of someone getting something they clearly shouldn't have has been shown; and

* a reference to the IRS targeting conservatives (because, argues Reynolds, the civil service is totally in the tank for the Democrats.)

That last point (and by the way, has anyone actually shown corruption in the American tax investigations?)  reminds me of Australian political conservatives complaining about how the institutions are against them - be it the public service, the ABC, or the Churches.   Funny thing is, it never seems to occur to them that facing widespread organisational opposition might be a sign of a self created problem - some examples being  denying climate change (boo hoo, the ABC doesn't feature the backyard scientists who don't believe NASA scientists); believing that cutting taxes always helps an economy (why won't Treasury just get, like, totally on board with that?); and pretending that keeping a couple of thousand people - including children - in indefinite detention in third world countries because they attempted to arrive in a boat is not a morally compromised position (Churches, stop being namby pamby wimps).  

The only explanation for this pathetic justification of Trump support is that the American Right (and its Australian fan base) has become so self deluded by its Right wing media echo chamber about the Evils of Hillary and the outrages of Obama that they would prefer to vote for anyone but her.  Yes, some of them think Trump is a hopeless, lying, changeable, windbag with worrying connections to Russia; but he's not Hillary, the woman who clearly deserves to be in jail because (despite detailed and repeat investigations that never can pin anything on her) the Right wing media just can't believe that prosecutions of her would fail.

As for the fate of the Nation under Clinton, there is nothing to really suggest that the path of American policy  would take a large detour from what it has been under Obama, who, for a President in charge of an alleged hell hole nation, has a pretty good approval rating.  Can't they face the fact that the American economy has not tanked?

Reynolds has outed himself, as has large slabs of the American Right, as having become simply unable to accept and process evidence with anything even faintly resembling objectivity.  Turn off the Fox news, read something other than the WSJ,  fellows, and get a grip after all these years.

Historical blender films

I'm only 16 years late to the party, but last night I watched the Cate Blanchett 1998 movie Elizabeth for the first time, in pleasing High Definition on SBS.

I'm always of two minds about these movies, given that you can always safely assume that to one degree or another they will not be historically accurate.   Does that really matter, particularly if it inspires viewers checking up on the true story to learn some real history; or is it a puzzling insult to veracity that so many screenwriters can't make an entertaining movie without grossly misleading, or lying to, the audience?

I guess I am more forgiving if a movie opens with "inspired by true events" as a warning to the audience; but how often does that happen?  (And, incidentally, I missed the first couple of minutes of Elizabeth, so I don't know if any such disclaimer last night.)

Anyhow, I remember at the time the movie came out there were many articles talking about its inaccuracies, and having refreshed my memory about them now, the movie really is like an experiment to see what happens if you put into a blender a list of historical true characters, a separate list of their ages,  some notes about events over an entire life (even if you're only supposed to be covering the first half), some soft erotica, and a few kilometers of fine fabrics.  Hit the button and see how it all tumbles out.

At the end of the day, we can all agree it looked fantasitc, and with her features and good acting, it was the role Blanchett was born to play.   But even on its own terms as a movie story, it was a bit of a mess; and when you read up on the true facts, I think the historical liberties were just too extreme to forgive.   (I , mean, seriously:  the young transvestite French suitor never even made it to England, let alone being interrupted mid-orgy by the queen.  The major dramatic revelation - that her lover was already married - is also pure invention, given that the real Liz was at his wedding.)

A few links about the inaccuracies, for anyone who cares:   here, here, here and here.

I can't stop Prisma-ing

 

 

The American floods and climate change

Flooding, Extreme Weather, and Record Temperatures: How Global Warming Puts it All Together - The Equation
I haven't posted anything about the recent American floods and climate change, even though I saw the occasional report referring to that question.  This article, though, does confirm that the rainfall intensity that lead to them was exceptionally intense, and a climate change link seems obvious.
Unless, of course, you're a Right wing, science and evidence rejecting twit from America, or Australia, who can write things like this (Hinderaker, from Powerline blog):

Is the debate over catastrophic anthropogenic global warming over? In one sense, it is. One thing we know for sure is that the models that are the sole support for alarmism are wrong. The substantial heating they projected has failed to materialize. Having been falsified by observation, we know that they are no good. The alarmists will have to come up with something better than these discredited models if they want to convince the rest of us.

Yet, again, this is the chart he is evidently unaware of (or refuses to believe over what climate non-scientist Anthony Watt and his man-shed "scientists" publish): 

Sad that the Right has become so self deluded on this matter.

It's a (ultra-Orthodox) man's life

The ultra-Orthodox Jews combining tech and the Torah - BBC News

I didn't know that this was how some Orthodox Jewish life worked (or "didn't work"):

Like many of his friends, Slaven grew up expecting a life of quiet
learning. Haredi men are expected to spend most of their time studying
the Torah and Talmud, Judaism's sacred texts, leaving their wives to go
out and work. About half of Israel's Haredi men live this way.

But while the cost of living has risen in recent years, child benefit has
been cut - bad news for Haredi families, which often have eight-to-10
children and rely on benefits to make ends meet.

In other suicide news...

Is Pokemon Go helping prevent deaths at one of Japan’s most notorious suicide spots?

Guns and suicide

When a Smaller Military Means Fewer Suicides - The Atlantic

Some strong evidence given here that if you decrease access to guns, you decrease the suicide rate.  A nice, clear, article.

More Friday Physics

Backreaction: Sorry, the universe wasn’t made for you

Here's a post by Bee H about the anthropic principle, and objecting to the idea that the universe was "fine tuned" for life.  

Lots of false equivalence noted

The media’s coverage of NBC’s Trump-Clinton forum was a disaster.


Donald Trump's proud ignorance reveals his contempt for the presidency


Fear of a female president


Last night, Clinton got 6 questions on her emails. Trump got zero on his Iraq lies.

A look at an obvious Trump feature

Donald Trump’s Shortest Attribute Isn’t His Fingers - POLITICO Magazine

Lots of evidence provided from lots of people that Trump has always had a very, very short attention span. Given that there have been many examples from the campaign where can barely articulate a thought in a full sentence before going onto some other thought, this is far from surprising.

I also see that Snopes has already called out as false the conspiracy  theory (promoted on twitter by actor James Woods, of all people) that Clinton was wearing an ear piece yesterday.

She may be reluctant to give them the attention they crave, but I don't think it would hurt Clinton to go in, boots and all, in calling out a substantial slab of Trump's supporters as being reality challenged, very gullible people who need to get a grip.

How about playing the tape to him at the Presidential debate?

Donald Trump just lied about opposing the Iraq War before it started. Here’s proof. - Vox

The article notes that there is a recording of Trump saying in 2002 (without much enthusiasm, but still) that he supported the Iraq War.

The rest of the article bemoans how the media knows that a serial repeat liar who continues repeating a lie, will more or less get away with it.

But really, why should this be:  why cannot a reporter play the audio to his face and say "why have been repeatedly lying about this?"  Why not do it as part of the Presidential debate - just play the tape, and see how he tried to deal with it?

 

The "no jack" scandal (talk about your First World problems)

Funny to read this wanky, typically Apple, explanation noted at Slate about why the new iPhone has no ear phone jack:

Apple’s own explanation for the change was a little baffling. Schiller said the rationale for jettisoning the headphone jack could be summed up in one word: “courage.” What kind of courage? “The courage to move on, and to try something new that betters all of us,” he elaborated. OK then!

Further down, it is said that there is something the phone gets from not having one:

Well, for one thing, you can now drop your iPhone in the toilet. I mean, you could do that before, but now when you get it back out, there’s a decent chance it will continue to function. Eliminating the headphone jack enabled Apple to seal the phone at last, making it “dust and water resistant,” albeit not fully waterproof.

But wait a minute - the Samsung Note 7 (yes, I know - it can explode) has been heavily promoted as being waterproof to a similar degree, and it has an audio jack.

Why is Apple not able to use a similar water resistant jack?

I'm still sticking to my Samsung allegiance - even though my first experience with their cheap, early Tab 2 tablet was not great.  (Known bugs that were never fixed with any update.)  It's been made up for by my very, very pleasing Tab S, and a cheapo phone that is still pretty damn reliable.  I always have liked the look of the round edged Galaxy 7, too, but I'm not willing to spend that much on a phone.

Only 104 years ago

Once you get past 50, events that happened 100 or so years ago no longer sound all that far in the past.  Only twice your lifetime...that's not so long ago!

So, as I was walking around the Rydges Hotel at the Exhibition grounds last Saturday (it's my routine now, and I really like its Paddock bar for coffee or, later in the day, their house beer), I noticed this metal history note around a tree:

The first flight in Brisbane was "only" 104 years ago at the Exhibition grounds.   This deserves a look at a real photo of the event:

Not the best photo to see what's going on, but what I like the next one is that you can clearly see the grandstand that is still there, and within sight of the Paddock bar.

The State Library blog post that I got these from notes that the plane crashed on landing. "Wizard" Stone was OK, though.

Incredible to consider the advances in aviation since then. 

Resistance to weed

In Colorado, a revolt against legalized marijuana - The Boston Globe

I'm not at all sure, of course, that the local anti legalisation activists are credible in all that they claim, but that said, I understand opposition to things like this:

She hates that her kids’ school is near several dispensaries. She’s
frustrated by the full-page ads in the local paper with huge photos of
buds and coupons for $1 joints with a purchase of $20 or more. 

Yes, surely a large part of the potential problem with legalisation is the accompanying capitalist urge to expand the market.   If it were ever legalised here, I would certainly hope that it is the subject of severe advertising restrictions of at least the same severity that tobacco faces.   Apparently, the Americans couldn't see their way to do that with marijuana.

There are also claims in the article that the period of legalisation has been accompanied by an increase in youthful homelessness - something you might expect to see in increased cases of schizophrenia that is likely to accompany increased youthful use.

Political correctness and the Republicans

Conservative Movement & Republicans -- ‘Establishment’ Is Only the Beginning of Their Problems | National Review

Gee, here I am recommending an article at National Review.  I thought this part was especially true:

There’s a lot to be said for refusing to be hemmed in by political
correctness, but we’ve gotten to the point where many conservatives have
embraced the idea that if political correctness is bad, then anything
that’s politically incorrect must be good. This has created an
environment where saying foolish and inflammatory things can be a major
career enhancer for conservatives. If you can say something that makes
liberals talk about how much they hate you, but conservatives won’t walk
away even if you make them cringe, that’s a recipe for selling books
and getting on TV. This may be great for the careers of a few people,
but it also gives the public at large a terrible impression of
conservatives. Even if they say some things you agree with, the last
thing that anyone who cares about the conservative movement should want
is for the public to base its opinion of it on people who are trying to
offend as many people as possible to get attention.

The moral panic continues

Under the odd headline which seems to me to be somewhat of a failure if it's meant to conjure up moral outrage (Schools told to teach kids that sex varies like the weather), I see that The Australian, and some politicians, are doing their best to drum up a moral panic over the fact that some sex education material now refers to the (rather obviously true) fact that some people over their lifetime experience somewhat varying sexual preferences:

Education Minister Adrian Piccoli yesterday ordered his ­department to withdraw the ­sexual and gender diversity ­resource for teachers, which ­appears to have been heavily based on the Safe Schools program. Alerted to its existence by The Australian, he said he was “very angry” the resource had “got out”. “I have directed the ­department to take it down ­immediately and review the ­material and all links,” he said.
“Safe Schools materials are only to be used strictly in accordance with the revised guidelines established by the federal ­government. I am furious this policy has not been adhered to and have demanded a full explanation from the (departmental) secretary.”
Launched quietly this year, the 17-page teacher toolbox for delivering content relating to ­diversity of sex, sexuality and gender contains a list of resources the educators can refer to in their teachings. One recommended activity invites Year 10 students to consider a range of characters, such as “Joseph”, who is married with three children but “when he masturbates, fantasises only about men” and “is attracted to several of his male friends” and “Alex”, who had sex with girls as a teenager but developed a relationship with a man after moving to a country town.
Students are asked to determine each character’s sexuality and whether they fit into ­“traditional binary thinking” ­regarding sexuality.

Given that it's rather likely now that in any given school of significant size, there is going to at least one  kid who has a parent who has moved into a same sex relationship (after a heterosexual one), I find it rather difficult to see how the material quoted there is doing much more than confirming what a lot of kids already know or guess sometimes happens.  (And it's also worth noting again that just because something is suggested in a teacher's manual does not mean that teachers will use it in exactly that fashion.  Hence, I wouldn't be surprised if many don't refer specifically to what the "Joseph" fantasises about, for example.) 

As I have suggested before, acknowledging that bisexuality (or fluid desire?) exists does not even necessarily imply support for same sex marriage - if we're going to be like ancient Greeks and Romans, who had little problem with sexual desire for some being "non binary",  a modern person can also take their view that marriage is primarily about heterosexual reproduction, and no matter that some people fall in love with people of the same gender, the State or society has no particular interest in recognizing those relationships as "marriage".

A simple suggestion

As much as the Trump supporting Right is the dumbest and most gullible block of voters since, well, I don't know that I can think of any valid comparison in my lifetime, the news playing up Hillary's recent coughing is, unfortunately, something she should address.

To me, it usually has sounded like a simple case of a cough induced by post nasal drip, which is nothing to write home about.  But we're talking image here, as well as the stupidest political movement in history, and I would suggest she simply has her doctor talk about it, noting that it is not serious, and that Right wing nut jobs talking about her virtually being on her death bed are being ridiculous.

Prion diseases discussed

When People Ate People, A Strange Disease Emerged : The Salt : NPR

I didn't realise that the PNG highland matter of cannibalism of the dead used to be so, um, thorough:

As one medical researcher described, "If the body was buried it was eaten by worms; if it was placed on a platform it was eaten by maggots; the Fore believed it was much better that the body was eaten by people who loved the deceased than by worms and insects."

Women removed the brain, mixed it with ferns, and cooked it in tubes of bamboo. They fire-roasted and ate everything except the gall bladder. It was primarily adult women who
did so, says Lindenbaum, because their bodies were thought to be capable of housing and taming the dangerous spirit that would accompany a dead body.

"So, the women took on the role of consuming the dead body and giving it a safe place inside their own body — taming it, for a period of time, during this dangerous period of mortuary
ceremonies," says Lindenbaum.

But women would occasionally pass pieces of the feast to children. "Snacks," says Lindenbaum. "They ate what their mothers gave them," she says, until the boys hit a certain
age and went off to live with the men. "Then, they were told not to touch that stuff."