Tears for the transhumanists

As noted in this story at Nature, gene editing by CRISPR on human embryos is still not a thing, basically because it's too clumsy a technique:

As well as addressing broader concerns about ethics and social justice, editing embryos would require a safe and effective genome-editing platform to minimize the chances of harm to the embryo, the resulting child and any descendants. Most research on genome editing in embryos, however, has been done using animal models such as mice, which might not accurately reflect what happens in human embryos. And, although potential genome-editing therapies have been widely studied in adult human cells, embryos might respond differently than adult cells to the DNA damage caused by some of the tools.

Only a handful of laboratories have directly tried to edit the genomes of human embryos using the popular editing system CRISPR–Cas9, and several of these presented concerning results at the summit.

The Cas9 enzyme works by breaking both strands of DNA at a site designated by a guiding piece of RNA. The cell then repairs the break, either by using an error-prone mechanism that stitches the two ends together but sometimes deletes or inserts a few DNA letters in the process, or by replacing the missing DNA with a sequence copied from a template provided by the researcher. DNA breaks created by Cas9 in embryos are usually repaired using the error-prone pathway, said Dietrich Egli, a stem-cell biologist at Columbia University in New York City, at the conference.

Egli and other researchers also reported on the consequences of the double-strand breaks made by Cas9. Developmental biologist Kathy Niakan, now at the University of Cambridge, UK, recounted that her lab found that some human embryos lost large regions of chromosomes when they were edited using CRISPR–Cas9¹. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a reproductive biologist at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, also said that his team had found large DNA deletions at the editing site in human embryos, and that these deletions might not be detected using standard tests².

“Can human embryos at this stage really tolerate this kind of intervention?” asked Dagan Wells, a reproductive geneticist at the University of Oxford, UK, who also reported concerning responses to DNA breaks in human embryos. About 40% of the embryos in one of his genome-editing studies failed to repair broken DNA. More than one-third of those embryos continued to develop, he said, resulting in the loss or gain of pieces of chromosomes in some cells. That could harm the health of the child if such embryos were allowed to develop further. “These results are really a warning,” he said.

 

 

Fad nerve

Here, I'll gift an article from the New York Times about the (rather faddish) attention that has been given to the vagus nerve on social media.   

I've had Youtubes recommended to me about "toning" this nerve (really, a bunch of nerves), and none of it sounded very convincing:

In recent years, the vagus nerve has become an object of fascination, especially on social media. The vagal nerve fibers, which run from the brain to the abdomen, have been anointed by some influencers as the key to reducing anxiety, regulating the nervous system and helping the body to relax.

TikTok videos with the hashtag “#vagusnerve” have been viewed more than 64 million times and there are nearly 70,000 posts with the hashtag on Instagram. Some of the most popular ones feature simple hacks to “tone” or “reset” the vagus nerve, in which people plunge their faces into ice water baths or lie on their backs with ice packs on their chests. There are also neck and ear massages, eye exercises and deep-breathing techniques.

Now, wellness companies have capitalized on the trend, offering products like “vagus massage oil,” vibrating bracelets and pillow mists, that claim to stimulate the nerve, but that have not been endorsed by the scientific community.

 Apparently, stimulation of it by implanted devices has seemed to help some conditions, but if you aren't going to go under the knife, you've still got to resort to things like putting your face in ice water.

I'm ok, thanks...

"Stupidest cult" watch

 

Yet more retrocausation and superdeterminism discussion

Gee, I would not have guessed that it is now over a year since I had a fairly lengthy post about the confusing issue of the difference between the ideas of "retrocausation" and "superdeterminism" as explanations for (or solutions to) the quantum measurement problem.   

But there is an article up at the Conversation which tries to explain the distinction between the two:

Quantum mechanics:  how the future might influence the past

I have to say, though, that the explanation doesn't make a lot of intuitive sense to me.   (Ha!, you might laugh - I'm expecting intuitive sense from quantum mechanics?)   I have the strongest feeling that Sabine Hossenfelder is going to have a problem with these paragraphs:

Superdeterminism agrees with retrocausality that measurement choices and the underlying properties of the particles are somehow correlated.

But superdeterminism treats it like the correlation between the weather and the barometer needle. It assumes there’s some mysterious third thing – a “superdeterminer” – that controls and correlates both our choices and the particles, the way atmospheric pressure controls both the weather and the barometer.

So superdeterminism denies that measurement choices are things we are free to wiggle at will, they are predetermined. Free wiggles would break the correlation, just as in the barometer case. Critics object that superdeterminism thus undercuts core assumptions necessary to undertake scientific experiments. They also say that it means denying free will, because something is controlling both the measurement choices and particles.

These objections don’t apply to retrocausality. Retrocausalists do scientific causal discovery in the usual free, wiggly way. We say it is folk who dismiss retrocausality who are forgetting the scientific method, if they refuse to follow the evidence where it leads.

I await her commentary...

 

Beautiful

From the Oscars today, and a little movie from 1984:

Incidentally, Stephen Colbert did a protracted interview with Steven Spielberg (alone, and with John Williams) and showed it segmented over a couple of nights last week.

I have said it before, but Spielberg always comes across as a very decent and quite humble man who has made no significant enemies in his career, and makes for a loyal and good friend.   He and Williams have been close friends for 50 years!  And for a man in his 90's, Williams still seems as sharp as a tack.   Their discussion of Williams' music in some of Spielberg's key movies is enlightening:

 

I also liked this short clip of Spielberg talking about the movie he has watched most often (excluding any of his own).   As it happens, I've never seen it all - only bits and pieces:

Update: for the first time in quite a few years, I watched all of the Oscars because, although I don't think it's the greatest movie ever made, Everything Everywhere All at Once did seem to have an unusually large number of likeable personalities attached to it.   And it was, at heart, good natured and positive, and made on a small budget:  all things that it's nice seeing a film being rewarded for.  And hey, Spielberg was going to be there too (I feel guilty for not having seen The Fabelmans yet), and I like Jimmy Kimmel as host, so it was worth a look.

The reviews for the show have been positive - the near universal theme being that it felt like a relief to watch a version which wasn't, um, trying too hard.   It felt like a throwback to an older style, with one slightly sardonic male host making relatively safe jokes, and although I suppose Asian representation was a significant theme, it didn't feel like the show was an intense complaint about it, in the way that in recent years they seemed to be in relation to black and female representation.   

So, good job everybody.

My main complaint about the awards given:   I reckon that song from RRR is pretty awful, as is all of that silly movie.   I don't understand why it received such sympathetic reviews in the States.

Why isn't the Washington Post leading with a headline: "Defamation case evidence shows Fox staff and management thought their audience was dumb and gullible but had to be pandered to"

The Washington Post has another deep dive into the Dominion defamation evidence - communications between Fox management, some of whom formerly worked for Trump.   

The evidence is just red hot, but you have go a fair way in the article to get to the worst of it, and look at the bland headline:

Ex-Trump aide at Fox wrestled with election lies, network’s interests

That's ridiculously soft.   Read what they were saying amongst themselves:

Despite his behind-the-scenes lobbying, Shah counseled a middle course in dealing with her claims on air. On the day after Carlson publicly challenged Powell, Shah and a Carlson producer weighed whether Carlson should devote time in his next show to Powell’s claim that she had an affidavit that would link Dominion to Venezuela.

“Might wanna address this, but this stuff is so f------ insane. Vote rigging to the tune of millions? C’mon,” Shah wrote.

Carlson’s producer, Alex Pfeiffer, responded: “It is so insane but our viewers believe it so addressing again how her stupid Venezuela affidavit isn’t proof might insult them.”

Shah advised that Carlson should mention the affidavit noting it was “not new info, not proof” but then quickly “pivot to being deferential.”

Pfeiffer, who has since left the network, answered that the delicate dance was “surreal.”

“Like negotiating with terrorists,” he added, “but especially dumb ones. Cousin f----- types not saudi royalty.”

In the following weeks, Trump continued to court voices who embraced his false claims the election was stolen — and Powell continued to appear on Fox.

On Jan. 3 — three days before the Capitol was attacked by Trump supporters as Congress met to confirm Biden’s win — Shah exchanged text messages with another former White House spokesman, Josh Raffel, who had been primarily responsible for handling communications for Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, senior adviser Jared Kushner.

Raffel flagged to Shah a tweet noting that Trump’s daily schedule now carried with it the vague assurance that the president would make “many calls and have many meetings” and “work from early in the morning until late in the evening.”

“I think what they meant is The President will wake up early and commit many, many crimes including but not limited to obstruction of justice, attempted fraud, and treason in an effort to conduct a coup. Then he’ll fly to a rally in furtherance of the same,” Raffel wrote. (Now a public relations executive in New York, Raffel declined to comment on the text.)

“It’s really disheartening,” Shah responded. “The only clear cut evidence for voter fraud is the failed attempts from Trump.”

Hey John:   next time you are over at New Catallaxy, can you bring to cranky old Tom's attention that he's been had?   For years his theme has been "MSM journalists hate their readers" because they don't  write stuff that endorses his political and social biases.

Now the evidence is out there, in black and white, that in fact Fox (the heroic network that tells it like it is - hahaha) has management, including those who work with Carlson, who secretly despised the stupidity of their audience - such as Tom.  And Carlson himself despises Trump.

It's a harsh lesson, but time for Tom, and a host of New Catallaxy participants, to admit that they've been had, as those on the MSM side have been trying to tell them for years....

 

Monbiot on Brand

I enjoyed George Monbiot's take down of Russell Brand (and Rogan and Greenwald) both in The Guardian and on Twitter.   (I also learned for the first time that George has a full public disclosure of this income and assets - and it certainly appears he hasn't become rich through journalism and advocacy.   It's quite refreshing to see this openness from someone like him and I wish there were more of it.)

I happened to watch Brand's smug, loudmouthed performance on Bill Maher's show on Youtube last week.  I don't care for Maher, who suffers to a much milder degree from "a pox on both their houses" form of criticism, while actually complaining most about the Left, but his guests can make him worth watching.   Brand is like Maher X 20, though.  As Monbiot says:  

I can’t help noticing that most of the people who say “left? right? It’s all meaningless, man” are those who have made a major shift from left to right. Denying that left and right exist any longer seems to be a form of self-justification.

Someone else on Twitter made this wry observation of Brand as guru, too:

I am also more on the side of those on Twitter who responded to Monbiot with "actually, I've never cared for Brand, there always seemed something off about him, and his true addiction has always been to seeking attention".  

Monbiot thinks that Brand is merely chasing money and been corrupted by the algorithm, so to speak:

I don’t believe for a moment that his transition is ideological. I think it’s cynical. 

Here I think George is not giving enough credence to the psychological rule that if you pretend something long enough, you start to believe it.   But that rule also tends to make me agree with him here:

I think Russell, like Glenn Greenwald(@ggreenwald),@joerogan and other such entrepreneurs, who do not seem to be not committed to the far right themes they now amplify, but appear to use them to ramp up their numbers, are more dangerous than the actual fascists.

I think that second "not" is an error, by the way;  but I agree with the idea that someone who makes a lot of money by spouting fascist arguments while privately not believing or fully endorsing them (to a degree, surely we can put Carlson in that group now too?) may be more dangerous simply because of their successful reach and greedy motivation to never admit error.    

The claw

I'm having a hard time getting around to writing up a holiday report on Hanoi and nearby areas, but before then, I will note one minor oddity I didn't know about Vietnam:  the popularity of chicken feet as a packaged snack, as is shown by their continual presence in convenience stores:

I mean, I sometimes eat chicken feet at a yum cha restaurant, but the idea of eating a pre-cooked one from the shelf is not highly appealing.

Drilling for hydrogen?

I didn't know anything about this:  

The Malian discovery was vivid evidence for what a small group of scientists, studying hints from seeps, mines, and abandoned wells, had been saying for years: Contrary to conventional wisdom, large stores of natural hydrogen may exist all over the world, like oil and gas—but not in the same places. These researchers say water-rock reactions deep within the Earth continuously generate hydrogen, which percolates up through the crust and sometimes accumulates in underground traps. There might be enough natural hydrogen to meet burgeoning global demand for thousands of years, according to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) model that was presented in October 2022 at a meeting of the Geological Society of America. 

That's from a lengthy article about it at Science, which I hope is open for all to read.   

It also points out how drilling for oil has such a short history:

It is still early days for natural hydrogen. Scientists don’t completely understand how it forms and migrates and—most important—whether it accumulates in a commercially exploitable way. “Interest is growing fast, but the scientific facts are still lacking,” says Frédéric-Victor Donzé, a geophysicist at Grenoble Alpes University. Big Oil is hanging back, watching while wildcatters take on the risky exploratory work. Commercialization of the Mali field has run into snags, and elsewhere only a few exploratory wells have been drilled. Donzé, who has sworn off accepting industry money, worries about hype.

Yet some scientists have become true believers. Eric Gaucher, a geochemist at the University of Bern, left a career at French oil giant Total because it wasn’t moving fast enough on hydrogen. He believes the Mali discovery might end up in the history books alongside one that happened 163 years ago in Titusville, Pennsylvania. At the time, the world knew about seeps of oil in places such as Iraq and California but was blind to the vast deposits that lay underground. Then on 27 August 1859, a nearly bankrupt prospector named Edwin Drake, working in Titusville with a steam engine and cast-iron drill pipes, struck black gold at a depth of 21 meters, and began collecting it in a bathtub. Before long, U.S. companies were harvesting millions of bathtubs of oil every day.

“I am thinking we are not very far from that with hydrogen,” Gaucher says. “We have the concept, we have the tools, the geology. … We only need people able to invest.”

 

Flash floods in dry areas discussed

From a commentary piece at Nature:

Last year, around two-thirds of Pakistan was affected by widespread flash flooding, with more than 1,500 people killed and around 33 million made homeless. Almost 2,000 people died in flash floods across Africa, and parts of the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Yemen were inundated with water.

Flash floods are a growing threat in some of the world’s driest regions. Deluges can trigger sudden and rapid torrents of run-off that flow down dry river beds and rocky channels.

Because parched soils repel water rather than allowing it to soak in, flash floods can be more devastating in drylands than in wetter areas. Surges can result from relatively small amounts of rain, as little as 10 millimetres in one hour. By comparison, floods in wetter regions typically follow more prolonged bouts of rainfall.

Look at this:

A slew of other factors will put many more people at risk from flash floods in future (see ‘Drylands: flash-flood risks’). Climate change is making such events more intense and frequent^1–3. In parts of Pakistan, for example, the 5-day maximum level of rainfall is 75% greater today than it was before 1900 (see go.nature.com/41awzzj). Our analysis shows that globally, the rate of dryland flash flooding was 20 times higher between 2000 and 2022 than it was between 1900 and 1999 (numbering 278 and 64 floods, respectively).

 

Just wow

I hadn't fully appreciated how close in time Carlson's private attacks on Trump were aligned with going on TV and defending him:

 

Wouldn't you think pro-Trump Fox viewers would be embarrassed?...

....Or are they just too dumb to admit they're the willing victims of the Murdoch empire's fully exposed mantra "making money is more important than truth, fairness, or confidence in democracy?" 

 As far as I can make out, the Australia decrepit Right wingers who love Tucker Carlson and Trump so far seem to be taking a "shrug shoulders" attitude to the fact that the opinion leader they admire and watch religiously actually hates the politician they thought he did a good job defending.   (And lies continously about his true views on whether the election was fraudulently conducted.)

They are too dumb and shameless to argue with.      

Update:  what a classic juxtaposition of photo and caption by the New York Times:

Also, their succinct summary is good:

Actually, sounds pretty true to the original...

So, the New York Times reports that Alan Alda asked ChatGPT to write a scene from MASH for him and former co-star Mike Farrell to perform.   

I think MASH was only really good for the first few seasons, and sort of blanded out for the rest of its run, with increasingly uninteresting characters gradually replacing the sharp and memorable original cast.   I still mostly watched it, but cared less and less if I missed an episode as time went on.

So, the banter that the AI has made between the characters strikes me as about as bland as many of the exchanges that were written for the show.

You can read it here, at a gift link.   

By the way, I have said little about the hype surrounding ChatGPT and its ilk, because I just don't really see the "threat" they yet represent.  Seems to me a bit like the "self driving cars are just around the corner, and will change everything!" hype of about 4 or 5 years ago:  too much overestimation of the importance of a modest technological improvement.

Major lifestyle change news...

For the first time in my life, I have bought a pair of (leather) loafer style shoes, and wore them to work.

Feels oddly like wearing slippers.  Quite comfortable.

As you were...

A good question

Why hasn't some Pentagon official been asked this at some congressional hearing?   Or have they?  

I mean, my general impression from the Trump years is that the top levels of military are (with rare exception) too smart to go along with Trump MAGA-isms, including that the last election had any significant fraud.  So why would they allow the lower ranks to be potentially influenced by politically dangerous rhetoric known to be wrong?:

The hunt for transgender nuance

I am still finding it pretty incredible how, when it comes to transgender issues, there are two extreme polarised views that both really have it in for anything ever vaguely resembling nuance.   I don't  know that I can think of any other subject on which the polarisation has reached such weird extremes.  

Perhaps unwisely, for example, I currently follow on Twitter the well known (former) sitcom writer Graham Lineham, who seems to now spend every waking moment coming up with attack tweets on pro-transgender extremists, and often giving the impression he is doing so while drinking.   (Lots of pro-transgenderists love to taunt him about losing his marriage and career over this issue, and to be honest, such obsessive, single minded tweeting on one issue does not seem to indicate a healthy state of mind.)

On the other hand, he does love to tweet photos of transgender folk (older men as women, mainly) who do the very common transgender social media thing of posting selfies for which the motivation is clearly seeking endorsement or praise for their new look and identity, sometimes complete with wildly masculine themed tattoos and a general air of, well, how should I put this:  not in touch with reality if they think anyone is objectively going to think they make an attractive additional to the feminine world.  (But, of course, more than likely, no matter how weirdly anyone looks or poses in these, some other transgender person will offer a bit of "you go girl" encouragement.)    So you know, he does have a point about such self delusion, sometimes.   Rarely will a woman encounter in a female public  toilet an obvious burly man dressed as a woman with a huge penis and testicles tattoo on his chest (as one of Graham's tweets showed recently), but honestly, if it happened, who could blame her for being nervous?

On the third hand, he (Graham) can be so extreme as to (as he did recently), call Jon Stewart a "groomer" simply due to his pointing out in his recent confrontation with a Republican that it's wildly hypocritical for them to be obsessed with kids seeing a drag show as being a "danger" to them worth legislating about, when thousands are indisputably actually killed by guns each year, and the Republicans refuse to do anything substantial about that.  I think that even most of Graham's strongest defenders could see that this was a nonsense insult.

When it comes to the Australian blogosphere, you can see 100% full blown Right wing moral panic on display at the New Catallaxy blog, where old Cassie preached to the choir of other ageing Right wingers about how it's shameful and horrifying that it's mostly women who are seen in any of the video clips of drag performances with kids in the audience.  Here she is, in her standard style (like Lineham, if you assumed she a substance abuse problem, it would help explain how easily she turns the dial to "11"):

No good mother takes a child to watch drag queens perform. But what is more worrying is how our society, if it is not at the stage where it actively celebrates and applauds such deviancy, is just happy to shrug its shoulders and says, “what harm can drag queens do”.  It is this rank stupidity and apathy in the face of such obvious deviancy and degeneracy that proves that it is no longer only children and parents who are being groomed, our whole culture is being groomed, and we are willing participants in modern day child sacrifice. If this doesn’t ring alarm bells, we are doomed.

But hey, if you ask me, the fact that anyone finds drag, in this generation or previous, as an amusing performance style is something I don't get.  I've said before, as a young person I never understood why anyone would watch Danny La Rue, or go to Les Girls in Kings Cross.  That said, as for the recent clip that has been doing the rounds of a mother's show where babies - not even toddlers -  are watching (barely, when not distracted by anything else in the room, as babies are want to be) some luridly dressed drag/caberat performers:   well, I think it kind of weird that the mothers find this entertaining; but come on, be serious moral panickers:  there's no way those babies are going to have memories of this.  I reckon the performers could be completely nude and it still wouldn't be a thing that would register in, or influence, the minds of babies that age.   Get real.

So, this post is just a (no doubt) pointless attempt to ask, can't we all just agree on some simple things, all of which might be true at the same time?:

a.  some transgender folk, especially late in life transitioners, are just never going to look like attractive members of the gender they think they are.  It's a bit cringe to see transgender people to whom this is an important aspect of their transition, though.  

b.  Some transgender folk are going to engage in behaviour that is attention seeking and basically nutty.  (Obvious example - Canadian fake boob teacher.)   It's doing no service to, um, "mainstream" transgender people to pretend that using that label means any behaviour is acceptable and must be tolerated or accepted.   (Incidentally, is there still a possibility that this guy was trolling the transgender rights lobby?  It seems not - and it also seems to have been such a prolonged incident that you have to wonder about the extremism of anyone who troll for so long in such a ridiculous way.)

c.   Similarly, if you still have a penis (and, especially, a history of sexual violence against women), of course there can be a legitimate concern about being a potential threat within traditional women's only spaces.   It's just a nonsense to claim that self labelling of a person's mental space should be the be-all and end-all of assessing whether sexual danger is a risk, or not. 

d.   Drag shows are a specialised form of entertainment that some people find entertaining, and some can't see the appeal of at all.  But claiming that, say, a two year old seeing one is in moral danger, or that all drag performers are pedophile groomers, is just ludicrous.    Similarly, carrying on as if this isn't a self limiting, currently largely social media driven, obsession that will eventually find some social equilibrium (in the case of the USA, probably after litigation!), and is the same as a sacrifice of kids to Moloch, or whatever, is just nuts in its own way.

Apart from those propositions, there is a wide space for issues which should allow for nuanced argument, especially with respect to the issue of how young people who want to be the other gender should be most wisely treated.  But if you aren't going to pull back from some basic extreme hyperbole, there is zero hope of even getting to the same ballpark area to allow for any nuance debate.   It's really like  neither side wants to allow for nuance to be possible, on any aspect.  

Who writes the headlines for The Conversation?

This seems really odd, and more like something you would expect from a News Corpse editor:

That's the "headline" for a post by Adrian Beaumont about a Newspoll that showed a one percent drop in Federal Labor polling (both on primary and TPP).

It's a ridiculous way to summarise the article.

An entertaining book on a little known invasion

Last year, when I took a short holiday to Singapore, I bought at Kinokuniya (the terrific bookstore in the Takashimaya building in Orchard Road) this book, Raffles and the British Invasion of Java: 

That's how, as I was recently flying over Indonesia on my way to Hanoi, I was reading about the invasion of one of the islands below, a little over two hundred years ago.  

While I haven't yet finished it, I am finding it a very enjoyable read, mainly due to the wittiness of the author when dealing with an era which now seems so foreign to modern sensibilities.   As it turns out, the story is full of over-the-top, self made and often eccentric men who rose to success on the back of the capitalistic (and nationalistic) turmoil of those days.

I haven't read about Stamford Raffles before, but the author offers this period in his life (administratively heading, at remarkably young age, a sizeable but short-lived military invasion of Java to take it from the Dutch, who were nominally French, due to Napoleon's adventurism in Europe) as something of a counterpoint to the view of him as the wise and high achieving subsequent founder of Singapore.   Apparently, there is strong divide in the historical record between those contemporaries who thought he was great, and those who couldn't stand him.   

It's not written as "dry" history, and sometimes there are flourishes which are perhaps more for putting a picture in your mind, than knowing if they are literally true.   But the surprising thing is that some of the quasi-absurd details do, on further reading, turn out to be clearly true.  (Or, at least, based on historical records, while allowing for autobiographical details to sometimes be invented.)

One of the key things from the book which I had never thought about before was how unhealthy and disease ridden the far flung parts of the empires were for Europeans.  Tim Hannigan notes that this meant that it was a common view that you had to be a pretty desperate type of character to want to voluntarily work there, which explained some of their bad behaviour.   

Anyway, based on what I've read thus far, I recommend it. 

As I expected

Samantha Maiden writes about the government's modest superannuation change:

A majority of voters have backed Anthony Albanese’s controversial plan to slug millionaires with super balances worth over $3 million a year into paying more tax.

Newspoll has found that a whopping 70 per cent of voters under the age of 50 give the plan the tick of approval.

Despite claims it represents a super-sized broken promise, The Australian’s respected pollster suggests voters think otherwise and backed the move.

A large majority – 64 per cent – approved of the policy.

Almost two-thirds of voters ­across all age groups approved of the plan to double the concessional tax rate.

Voters aged over 50s were more likely to be worried about it, but even among the oldies a clear majority – 60 per cent – approved.

By comparison, less than one in three Australian voters polled – 29 per cent – had a bee in their bonnet about the changes that are expected to raise $2 billion from 80,000 millionaires.

A whopping 80 per cent of Labor voters approved of the policy.

Even a majority of Coalition voters backed the policy, despite the fact opposition leader Peter Dutton is vowing to repeal it if he wins the next election.

It must be bothering those on the payroll to Murdoch as permanent attack dogs against the Left as to how to maintain a credible way to criticise the policy.  

Queensland drug law surprise

What, I go away for a week or so, and when I return my home state has gone all Euro tolerant on drug use?  

Well, not exactly, according to this Vice article looking at the changes, although it does seem to me that the number of chances given to users found with a small amount is one too many.   

It's a bit weird to be seeing this when I have just returned from a trip which went via Singapore on a Singaporean airline, as on arrival at Hanoi, the pilot actually reminded people that under Singaporean law, it's an offence to consume drugs in other countries.   I guess the point is, if they test someone for drug use back at Changi, a Singaporean cannot use the excuse that they hadn't actually taken the drug within Singaporean jurisdiction.

Given my fondness for the Asian countries that have no illicit drug problem to speak of (Singapore, Japan), I have my usual misgivings about being too tolerant of personal use, while at the same time, agreeing that American criminalisation approaches have been at the cost of useful harm reduction  approaches.  

I wonder, incidentally:  has any jurisdiction ever legislated that users who dob in their dealer get a mandatory reduction in sentence (or complete removal of prosecution) for personal use?    I mean, I'm sure that being helpful to the police in that regard is routinely given in sentencing as a reason for leniency, but if you actually legislated that you won't even be prosecuted would seem to be a major incentive for dobbing.