Barry's depressed, with justification

Barry Jones: the 2013 election and the death of rationality

The article is taken from a lecture, and so wanders a bit, but his end take on Joe Hockey seems particularly accurate:

I have watched, with some pain, election telecasts being given by the shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, somebody who I have always had some regard for, balanced, recognisably human, and not a fanatic, with touches of self-mockery.

He could have taken a more subtle, nuanced approach in his pitch, saying, perhaps, “while it is true that Australia has had some outstanding successes, such as the AAA rating and 21 unbroken years of growth, nevertheless there are some worrying indications that…”, and go on from there.

Instead, he plays the catastrophist card, that the past six years had left the Australian economy as a smoking ruin, and the rest of the world is looking to see when Australia will turn the lights back on. Catastrophic? Disaster? Tsunami? The clear suggestion is that practically every nation, with the possible exception of Somalia, is performing better economically than Australia.

Does Joe Hockey really believe what he is saying? I hope not.

Uncertainty Queen's failure

Well, there you go.  Tamino has a good post about that "ENSO masks global warming paper" paper, and points out that Judith Curry has mis-read it spectacularly.  

I predicted that she would soon be shot down, remember.

The biggest mistake Julia Gillard made

...was in not promoting hard the argument that a fixed price for carbon permits for an introductory period is not a carbon tax.  

Listening to Rudd agree with journalists that this was a mistake only confirms this.  He gets no traction from saying that - people who have been brainwashed into thinking its the worst thing ever done by a government are not interested in his half baked apology for it.  

Labor would doubtlessly have been better off by arguing it is not a tax, and not a broken promise.

Let them eat oysters

To Live, the Oyster Must Die 

I had read before that oysters used to be the food of the poor in England, but I didn't realise it was quite to this extent:

As the population of London boomed, doubling again and again from the 16th century onwards, these little nuggets of protein became an irresistible way for the fishermen of anywhere within reach of the capital to make a living....
 
The oyster boom expanded as industrialisation accelerated, with oysters fuelling industrial Britain’s industrious workers. Modern machinery made them easier to catch, store and transport, and oysters became the signature food of Victorian Britain.

“The poorer a place is, the greater call there seems to be for oysters. Look here, sir; here’s a oyster stall to every half dozen houses. The streets lined with ‘em. Blessed if I don’t think that ven a man’s wery poor, he rushes out of his lodgings and eats oysters in reg’lar desperation,” remarks Sam Weller in Charles Dickens’ The Pickwick Papers.

That was published in 1836, and Londoners were only just getting going. In 1864, they consumed 700 million oysters. That’s five oysters a week, every week, for each man, woman and child in the city.

The same was true elsewhere in Britain, with predictable results. Oyster fishing began to collapse in Scottish waters in the 1870s, and had all but ceased there by 1920. In the 19th century, fishermen discovered a 200 by 70 mile oyster bed on the seabed between England and Germany, and had cleaned it out within decades. 

And we have still not learned from our mistakes. In the 1970s, fishermen found oysters in the Solent, the channel between the Isle of Wight and the South Coast, giving hope that the industry could be reborn sustainably, but we ate them all instead.

Of course...

Tony Abbott willing to break emissions pledge over funding hole

Malcolm Turnbull on, I think, The Drum last week, called Abbott an "intelligent skeptic" on climate change.

No: Abbott is not smart enough to take sensible policies to reduce CO2 seriously.  He is the triumph of political opportunism and shallowness over making a genuine attempt to deal with an important issue in a sensible way.

Turnbull should be appalled at this, but there is a possibility, I suppose, that he could still be leader if Abbott implodes.  His keeping quiet might therefore be good in the long run.  At least, I hope so.

Update:   I had forgotten how outspoken Turnbull used to be on this issue.  From 2009:

....the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, its cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.

Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing. After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all. I disagree with that assessment, but many people in the community will be excused for thinking the leadership ballot proved him right.

Remember Nick Minchin's defense of the Howard Government's ETS was that the Government was panicked by the polls and therefore didn't really mean it.

Tony himself has in just four or five months publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and if the amendments were satisfactory passing it, and now the blocking of it.

His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with "Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but....."

Yes, that's the pathetic political calibre of the  man about to be PM, apparently.

Politics and singing noted

It seems that Rudd got good reviews for his campaign launch speech, but with Newspoll doing another leap, this time in the wrong direction, no one can envisage the possibility that Labor will win.

But I did think the Abbott attack ads I saw while watching X Factor last night with my daughter were pretty good.  Even on a very soft interview on Insiders yesterday, Abbott still hesitates and ums and ahs like there is no tomorrow whenever a journalist asks an even mildly difficult question.   This makes for pretty good ads, for Labor.

Speaking of X Factor:  it's a very good show for parents to watch with pre-teen daughters, I reckon.  It leads to easy conversation about the inappropriate dress, make up and song choice of teenage contestants, and the silliness of raunchy choreography.   This year is better than last year:  there are far fewer tattoos on display in the judging panel, and on stage, and there are fewer contestants about whom I cannot comprehend why they are still there.

I have only seen a bit of The Voice - I thought it was pretty awful in comparison.  The X Factor has more likeable judges (it's not even clear this year that they have one in the role of "contrary and hard to please" judge), and (I think) less of an intrusive concentration on the personal lives of the contestants.  Now if only the show could fire the person who applies eye make on all of the females with a trowel, it would be perfect. 

This year, the star is no doubt Dami Im, whose amazingly powerful voice seems so incongruous coming out of a modestly proportioned Asian body.  And she's just married, Christian (I think - she has made brief reference to singing in Church), almost certainly free of tattoos, and appears a very genuinely nice person with a very happy husband. What's not to like?

My wife said she has seen on TV that she has had lots of publicity in Korea now too, due to her performances here.    Barring a nervous breakdown, or a vocal cord catastrophe, they may as well hand her the recording contract now and finish the show early.   But the producers probably have an entire store room full of short female skirts, and eye make up in 44 gallon drums, that has to be used up, so it won't happen.

Physics of interest

I wonder how many readers are actually interested in my posts pointing towards odd physics papers that I usually don't fully understand myself.  Who knows, but here's some examples of recent physics stories I liked for their novelty:

*  Great title here: Can the Higgs Boson Save Us From the Menace of the Boltzmann Brains?

I can't be the only person who thinks of the Futurama episodes with giant floating brains whenever I hear "Boltzmann Brains", can I?

In any event, the paper notes that one of the simplest present explanations for the universe carries with it a serious "Boltzmann Brain" issue, and asks whether there is a way around it.   The answer seems to be:  maybe.   Here's co-author Sean Carroll giving an easier to read explanation of the paper.   I should have read that first.

*  The Economist, of all places, notes a paper that argues that dark energy, causing an acceleration in the expansion of the universe, does not exist at all.  Instead, the universe is just getting heavier:

In Dr Wetterich’s picture of the cosmos the redshift others attribute to expansion is, rather, the result of the universe putting on weight. If atoms weighed less in the past, he reasons, the light they emitted then would, in keeping with the laws of quantum mechanics, have been less energetic than the light they emit now. Since less energetic light has a longer wavelength, astronomers looking at it today would perceive it to be redshifted.

At first blush this sounds nuts. The idea that mass is constant is drilled into every budding high-school physicist. Abandoning it would hurt. But in exchange, Dr Wetterich’s proposal deals neatly with a big niggle in the Big Bang theory, namely coping with the point of infinite density at the beginning, called a singularity, which orthodox theories cannot explain.

Dr Wetterich’s model does not—yet—explain the shifts in the shapes of galactic clusters that the Dark Energy Camera, SuMIRe and ACTPol are seeking to clarify. But perhaps, one day, it could. Dr Wetterich is a well-respected physicist and his maths are not obviously wrong. Moreover, his theory does allow for a short period of rapid expansion, known as inflation, whose traces have already been seen in the CMB. Dr Wetterich, however, thinks this inflation did not happen just after the beginning of the universe (the consensus view), for he believes the universe had no beginning. Instead, a small static universe which had always existed turned into a large static one that always will exist—getting heavier and heavier as it does so. There was thus no singularity.

Probably, this theory is wrong. As Cliff Burgess of Perimeter Institute, a Canadian theoretical-physics centre, puts it, “The dark energy business very easily degenerates into something like a crowd of people who are each claiming to be Napoleon while asserting that all the other pretenders are clearly nutty.”

 I like to think that God has given us a direct clue to this, by ensuring that from middle age, a mass increase takes place in nearly all human bodies for no obvious reason.   So goes the universe too, possibly.

*   Someone from CERN complains that the LHC has not come up with any significant surprises for the Standard Model of physics, which is very annoying for physicists.  Here's the abstract:

The first three years of the LHC experiments at CERN have ended with "the nightmare scenario": all tests, confirm the Standard Model of Particles so well that theorists must search for new physics without any experimental guidance. The supersymmetric theories, a privileged candidate for new physics are nearly excluded. As a potential escape from the crisis, we propose thinking about a series of astonishing relations suggesting fundamental interconnections between the quantum world and the large scale Universe. It seems reasonable that, for instance, the equation relating a quark-antiquark pair with the fundamental physical constants and cosmological parameters must be a sign of new physics. One of the intriguing possibilities is interpreting our relations as a signature of the quantum vacuum containing the virtual gravitational dipoles.

 As with many papers on arXiv, you should read the introduction, which paints a comprehensible summary of the problem before venturing into scores of equations and terminology which are hard to follow.

*  Someone (I have no idea who)  from Hungary seems to think he has found a way that you can get Einstein's results without Einstein-ian physics.  The paper has a charming title:  A simple minded question: Do we live in the four-dimensional spacetime? and starts in a very modest fashion: 

The author of the present paper is not sure that the following ideas are worth for publication or they are more similar to a somewhat lunatic conception.

 I don't really follow the argument at all, but have only looked at the paper quickly.  Still, if this is ground breaking new physics, you read it here first.

*  If you are interested in the "fine tuning of the universe" issue, Catalyst on the ABC had a pretty good 30 minute summary last week, which features some short interviews from some of the big names in physics.   There are the more extended interviews with them here, I think, although I haven't watched them yet.

I saw from the show that Paul Davies, who moved from Adelaide University to Arizonia State University (he seems to showing greater affinity for "dry and remote" as he ages) finds a sort of backwards causation causation appealing, although I don't really understand the mechanism he thinks might work.  As Frank Tipler's similar idea, that the future God causes the past, seems to have sunk under the experimental finding of the mass of the Higgs boson, I should look up what Davies is saying on the topic.

That was un-necessary

I liked a couple of recent articles about the [lack of] merit in much modern writing.

The first, in the Fairfax Good Weekend magazine (get your digital subscription now, and be hip and fight the Murdoch hegemony, like me) is about a spate of 20-something "hyperconfessional" women writing autobiographies, sometimes making much money in the process.   The question is - should any 25 year old who has done nothing extraordinary really think they should be writing autobiography?   The obvious answer is "no":

Summerlandish reads like an engaging blog; the prose is restless and flecked with Gen-Y pop-culture references, as if Carrie Bradshaw wrote it after a night in with a bottle of Prosecco and The O.C. box set. She has the "cute girl with the dirty mouth" routine down pat. A certain audience will love it. But good or bad, the question remains: is Summerlandish necessary? Are any of these 20-something memoirs necessary? If acclaimed British singer Adele, 25, could turn down a seven-figure book deal because she felt she was too young to say much of anything, what do these Oscar-less, Grammy-less writers think they can offer the world?

The other article was in The Guardian, by a publisher who wishes people (be they successful authors or not) would just stop writing for a while:

According to Google, some 130m titles have been published since the first books took form on the desks of monks. This overwhelming catalogue is today being supplemented at a rate never before seen in the history of the book. Another industry statistician, Bowker, reports that nearly 1.8m new titles were published in 2012, an increase of half a million in just three years. As the constant thrum of laptop keyboards in coffee shops across the nation testifies, nearly everyone, it seems, wants to be an author. And, according to the New York Times, 81% of Americans feel they have a book in them. New technology plays its part here. So too, perhaps, does writing's attraction as a way of asserting one's existence in a world where the traditional terrain for being acknowledged by others – the workplace, family or neighbourhood – is increasingly under strain.

But if writers today are ubiquitous, readers seem an increasingly endangered species. A recent survey revealed that one in four Americans had read not a book in over a year. Again, technology is a significant factor in this (electronic Scrabble entered my life like a new drug a couple of years back). Bye-bye bedtime novels.

Paradoxically, the deluge of writing itself contributes to declining readership. It's not just that if you're writing then you can't be reading. It's also that the sheer volume of what is now available acts as a disincentive to settle down with a single text. The literary equivalent of channel surfing replaces the prolonged concentration required to tackle a book. Condensed capsules of digital communication are infecting all forms of reading. But books, the longest form that writing takes, are suffering disproportionately in the reduced attention spans of readers.

I sometimes have a creative story telling urge, usually while thinking idly in the shower.  But for as a long as I can remember, when I am thinking about story ideas, my mind rushes back to past books or movies I have liked a lot, and gets stuck in reverie about how good they were.  I don't seem to have anything resembling a truly creative gene, and it puzzles me how people develop the skill to come up with engaging, realistic characters in interesting plots. 

 

Some novelists do it via continual drawing on life experiences (either their own, or of others in their circle - I remember reading a biography of Evelyn Waugh and thinking that people he had met could more or less be assured of turning up, not necessarily favourable, in some fictionalised form in one of his books sooner or later.  And his contemporary Graham Greene had a ridiculously complicated personal life that provided lots of source material.)

 

Writers in the field of science fiction and fantasy perhaps have the harder task of coming up with characters who have to react to things which have never happened anywhere to anyone real, and I suppose that may mean that when they do characters well, they deserve special credit for their feat of imagination.  It's just a pity that fantasy generally leaves me cold, and science fiction is not all that well known for well detailed characters.

I would like to be able to do science fiction, if only because I find myself dissatisfied with nearly all of it these days.  But the skill set is not there, I'm sure.

And anyway, it probably is true - too much of everything is being written these days...

 

 

Disagreement with the Uncertainty Queen

Learning From the Hiatus | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog

Judith Curry's "blown mind"about the recent paper on the East Pacific being behind the hiatus in global surface temperatures has been criticised as in error by conservative climatologist John Neilsen-Gammon.  His post above contains a detailed look at the issue, and is not all easily understood, but his strong belief that Curry is wrong is clear.

I still expect others to weigh in on this.     

But it's a dis-aster

Life is much better under Labor after all, says study

From the above article:

Politicians of both persuasions will always, during election campaigns, claim that they know "families are doing it tough".  But that's just politics.   John Quiggin had a column recently about the false perceptions that flourish and why, and ended with this:

Another possible explanation of the ‘doing it tough’ perception arises from inconsistent responses to price variation. Despite sustained low inflation and falling interest rates, many Australians perceive themselves as facing ‘cost of living’ pressures. Over the past decade some highly salient prices such as the retail price of electricity have risen sharply, but consumption continued to grow until recently, driven largely by the increased use of airconditioning. By contrast the cost of telecommunications services has fallen , but households have responded to lower prices and the availability of new products by increasing their total expenditure. It is easy enough, though misleading, to see this as a story of ever-increasing bills for everything.

Despite all of these partial explanations, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the ‘doing it tough’ perception is nothing more than a manifestation of some of our less appealing human propensities: envy and chronic dissatisfaction. This can be seen all the way up the income scale, to the point of British bankers who complain that they can’t live on a million pounds (roughly 2 million dollars) a year.

News media have an obvious commercial interest in telling stories that make their audiences feel victimised, and politicians have made the judgement that telling voters the truth is too costly. At current rates of growth, incomes will double by 2050, but we will doubtless still be living on Struggle Street.

Amazingly, too, I note how little attention there has been in the media (and how unsuccessful Labor has been in talking about) the reductions in government family support the Coalition is committed to (such as ending the School Kids bonus) while at the same time promising that families will be $500 a year better off because of the carbon tax going.

Families, do your maths! 

Introduced last year, the bonus provides eligible families with $410 a year for each child in primary school and $820 for each in high school.

 If you intend voting Coalition, you probably think you are "doing it tough" and that your electricity bill is a dis-aster.  Yet if you have kids at school, this one item alone shows, what the Coalition "gives" is going to be more than taken away.   

Good news

Remember the awesome trailer for Gravity?  The movie has opened in Venice, to pretty much ecstatic reviews.

It's a must see for me....

Labor policies people might like, if they ever heard about them

Amongst all the "it's a disaster!" analysis coming from News Ltd and Fairfax and now even Lenore Taylor at the Guardian (Lenore, pull yourself together!), it seems to me there are some policy things that are more Labor than Coalition, and which most common sense people would support, with little need for explanation:

1.  an emphasis on high speed rail from Sydney to Canberra, and then perhaps Sydney to Newcastle.  The Sydney to Canberra route is particularly apt - the distance seems too short for a plane flight, it takes too long to get through the outskirts of Sydney in a car, and people are always going to need to travel there.  If the train connected to Sydney Airport, it would be perfect.  Why doesn't someone commit to that, at least?

2.  the commitment to bring some Navy ship construction forward at Williamstown.   Everyone thinks we should be able to build ships, don't they?  It's manufacturing, it's a bit high-techy; it's the next best thing to having an aircraft industry.

3.  the support to the car industry.   Everyone sensible likes the fact that we can design and build cars, and I gather that lots of countries give support to car builders in one way or another.   The Coalition presumably thinks it is quite OK that we attempt to emulate New Zealand, which is trying to build an economy on making frozen food, soap and Hobbit films, as far as I can make out.  The way the Coalition is going about the FBT has let them off the media scrutiny hook on this one - it's a disgrace.

The other odd thing is that ideas which Rudd has flown seem to be being treated in media talk as if they would actually happen - the Northern Territory tax reduction, and the wholesale removal of the Navy from Garden Island.   In fact, these were kite flying exercises and don't need to be treated all that seriously.  There is plenty of scope for them not to happen at all, or on reduced scale.

But no, it's a disaster.

Pretty much how I see it

From The Economist:

The choice between a man with a defective manifesto and one with a defective personality is not appealing—but Mr Rudd gets our vote, largely because of Labor’s decent record. With deficits approaching, his numbers look more likely to add up than Mr Abbott’s. Despite his high-handed style, Mr Rudd is a Blairite centrist. A strategic thinker about Asia, he has skills that will be useful, especially as Australia has to balance its economic dependence on China with its security dependence on America. It would be nice if he revived his liberal approach to asylum-seekers. And, who knows, he may even live up to his promise to be less vile to his colleagues.

An upset possum

The Possum who runs Pollytics is very cranky about the reporting of the costing issue yesterday.  It is fun to read an argument between two furry animals:

Surely the problem that Possum alludes to is the "sound bite-ese" which is used in all political reporting, but particularly at election time.  That elevates an exaggerated bit of rhetoric into an unqualified claim, and both sides of politics both use it, and are victims of it, all the time.   (Even Malcolm Turnbull, who has been happy to repeat a claimed  $90 billion plus estimate for the NBN many times, completely without running through the questionable assumptions.)  But this time, an out of context Rudd made some public servants worry that people might think they had been used inappropriately, and they made it clear they hadn't.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Coalition is playing silly buggers with paper that is already in their hands gets ignored in headlines.

Free Advertising

Having paid for a digital subscription to Fairfax, I have put the App on the Samsung and iPad at home. 

I had previously used the apps without paying for the subscription, and found the advertising intrusive and the navigation a bit annoying.

The subscription makes it a much, much better experience, and my wife is happy that she a supply of suduko.

Go on. Do it.

Headlines, headlines

Fairfax has had its fair share of "it's a disaster for Rudd!" headlines this campaign too; often with the headline sounding more extreme than the article itself.

And Tim Colebatch, who I have been quoting a lot over the last 12 months, actually said at the Hockey/Bowen press club debate on Tuesday that he assumed Hockey would be Treasurer. 

So is it much surprise that he is running a "it's an absolute disaster!" column today about the costings issue yesterday?

It's interesting this self fulfilling prophesy business.  I suggested a couple of times at places like John Quiggin's blog that if you keep talking down how Gillard is a failure, of course you're helping the public perception of that and assuring a Labor loss, even when you think the Coalition would be the true disaster.

It's also interesting how clearly David Koch on Sunrise this morning was doing what I would do - telling Hockey, who has transformed himself into a unlikeable s*#% for the purpose of getting government, that the real problem here is that the Coalition is sitting on papers which they claim support them, and could release them anytime to support their argument.  The Coalition is hiding its assumptions, except, it would appear, to selected friendly journalists.

Mind you, Rudd himself did this in 2007.   He faked his way into government, and Abbott and Hockey are doing exactly the same this time.

I was unhappy in 2007; I am very unhappy now, because the Coalition will seek to disassemble some decent policies and replace them with crap ones.

The Coalition trusts Rupert, but not you?

So, according to The Australian, Treasury is perhaps a bit peeved that Rudd is using some figures they did before the election was called to contradict Coalition costings of savings.   But, says Treasury, their work wasn't a true costing of Coalition policy: it was more a hypothetical exercise and different assumptions would give different results.

OK.

But here's the thing:  The Australian is saying it has seen the Parliamentary Budget Office costings on public servant cuts that Abbott and Hockey are refusing to release.  (Maybe next week you'll some of their work?):

The costing, seen by The Australian, assumes that natural attrition would see the size of the federal public service cut by 6,000 positions by June 2014 and another 6,000 by September 2015.

So who leaked this to The Australian - the surest source of a sympathetic account for the Coalition that is possible?

I think I should assume that the Coalition is leaking to Rupert what they won't give directly to the public.

How ridiculous is that?

It is done....

Inspired by the appalling standards of the Murdoch press (and, I have to admit, the paywall that kicks in after 30 visits in a month) I have just for the first time ever paid for a digital news subscription to Fairfax.

Go on, join me.  Keep alternatives to Murdoch alive (at least while ever Gina isn't telling them what to write.)  

But please - don't pay for the AFR with their Murdoch escapee Stutchbury.  He should not have been let into the place.

New subscribers will be sent my entertaining video "Hey Kids! Make your own Tony Abbott Voodoo Doll!" in time for the election.

Short answer: no, they don't

Do Hockey's clean energy cuts add-up? | Business Spectator

Read it for some explanation of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and how Coalition claims of where money will be saved is on very, very shaky grounds.

Andrew's band of twits

Cooling ocean blamed for hiding missing warming | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

You have to wonder:  does Andrew Bolt take pride in being the ringleader for a band of followers who don't have a clue about science, and  aren't bright enough to even realise they don't have a clue about science?

Read some of the comments following the article for illustration.  It's gobsmacking.

Mind you, I reckon Judith Curry is about to get some heavy smackdown from other climate scientists for her [mis] interpretation of the implications of the study, too. 

Sometimes, it's quite OK to not understand

Millard Fillmore's Bathtub has noted this letter from the Financial Times:

From Mr. K N Al-Sabah.
Sir,
Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!
Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.
But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!
Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!
Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!
Gulf states are pro-US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi.  And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!
Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.
K N Al-Sabah
London EC4, UK

Which is a relief.  I mean, my lack of knowledge of the geo-political significance of this civil war is now fully justified as being one of those things just a handful of my fellow citizens probably understand.  (And note, the letter doesn't even mention Russia backing Assad.)  

History to drink to

Gin and tonic kept the British Empire healthy: The drink’s quinine powder was vital for stopping the spread of malaria. - Slate Magazine

I didn't realise the full extent of quinine's historical importance:

Quinine powder quickly became critical to the health of the empire. By the 1840s British citizens and soldiers in India were using 700 tons of cinchona bark annually for their protective doses of quinine. Quinine powder kept the troops alive, allowed officials to survive in low-lying and wet regions of India, and ultimately permitted a stable (though surprisingly small) British population to prosper in Britain’s tropical colonies. Quinine was so bitter, though, that British officials stationed in India and other tropical posts took to mixing the powder with soda and sugar. “Tonic water,” of a sort, was born.

Still, tonic water was basically a home brew until an enterprising Brit named Erasmus Bond introduced the first commercial tonic water in 1858—perhaps not coincidentally, the very same year the British government ousted the East India Co. and took over direct control of India, following the so-called Sepoy Mutiny, a violent rebellion and counterattack. 

Bond’s new tonic was soon followed by Schweppes’ introduction, in 1870, of “Indian Quinine Tonic,” a product specifically aimed at the growing market of overseas British who, every day, had to take a preventative dose of quinine. Schweppes and other commercial tonics proliferated both in the colonies and, eventually, back in Britain itself.

And another bit of quirky history from the article:

Quinine proved as critical to the battle over the Pacific in the second world war as it had to the struggle over India. As Amy Stewart notes in her new book, The Drunken Botanist, Japan seized Java, the home of huge cinchona plantations, from the Dutch in 1942, cutting off nearly all of the Allied supply of quinine. The last American plane to fly out of the Philippines before it fell to the Japanese carried some 4 million quinine seeds. Unfortunately, the effort was largely in vain: The trees grew too slowly to provide sufficient quinine to the Allied war effort. 

Some more skepticism needed

Abbott to hit business with hikes

Apart from Colebatch's column linked above, there seems to be little in the way of commentary about on whom the Coalition's claimed savings are falling.

In fact, there seems to be little skepticism about the claim that the Paid Parental Leave plan would actually save money in the long run.  To give just one example, I'm pretty sure that in the summary Hockey provided,  it made mention of savings from double dipping being reduced in State public service schemes.  How does that work?  Why is a saving to a State budget being credited to a Federal bottom line? 

But back to Colebatch:

The Coalition will pay for its campaign promises by raising taxes on business, cutting support for middle-income and low-income earners, and cutting environmental programs, under the list of savings given out by shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey and shadow finance minister Andrew Robb....

The decision to hit business - mostly small business - with $4.6 billion of tax hikes was politically shrewd. Not one business lobby came forward on Wednesday to criticise the Coalition's new taxes on its members. They would have screamed had Labor done the same.

The Coalition made its riskiest cuts known long ago, and they don't seem to have hurt it.
The savings claimed are surprisingly large - $4.6 billion from axing the Schoolkids' Bonus, $3.7 billion from scrapping superannuation contributions for low-income earners and $5.2 billion from cutting 12,000 public service jobs.

These claimed savings are higher than previous estimates, even by the Coalition. It was a surprise to learn that the Coalition will over-fund its controversial paid parental leave scheme by $1.1 billion in its first two years. The policy it released two weeks ago made no such claim.

There are some errors in Hockey's costings. Innovation Minister Kim Carr pointed out that the Coalition could not claw back the $680 million it claims from axing two business programs without breaking contracts: the money it already committed.

And on another matter of flakey Abbott policy - why is the "Green Army" attracting so little attention?

It's an absolute bit of trivia and typical of Abbott's terrible judgement on environmental issues that he is determined to stop the Clean Energy Finance Corporation - which is specifically about making returns on lending, a point the Coalition does not want people to know - but proceed with his own silly idea.

Save a bit of money now, pay more later

Can Australia afford the Coalition’s NBN?

No doubt the writer is biased, but this article does set out in pretty good detail the reasons I have read elsewhere why the Coalition's planned revision to the NBN is not technically or financially a good idea.

Hint to Kevin Rudd No2

Kevin, a politician who has a video in circulation containing what seems like 5 minutes of swearing to the camera and room in frustration at not being as good at something as you thought you were should not talk about the poor temperament of your opponent.

The way to attack Tony Abbott on how he would conduct foreign affairs is to note that he's never shown much interest in the topic, as Peter Costello said about him with respect to economics; he would take over-simplified lines with no nuance ("Go Israel!" would be the guiding principle for anything to do with the Middle East, just as it is with the Tea Party), and he keeps putting his foot in his mouth with odd comments on all matters.  (What was that line about "maybe you shouldn't be there" in reference to being king hit in Kings Cross at 2 am all about?)

Well, that's odd

I could have sworn I heard Judith Sloan on the Drum last week saying something about how she was writing a column about all the ways she considered the Coalition's Paid Parental Leave scheme a bad idea.

So what do we get today?  A Sloan column that boosts the suggestion that the PPL will not actually cost any money to the budget at all!  So, does that mean you actually like the policy now, Judith?  One could be excused for thinking so.  (And by the way, you caused a bit of a stir a year or two ago amongst Labor types by talking about how it probably made sense to increase unemployment benefits.  I haven't seen that mentioned in an Australian column for a long time - or did it ever appear there?)

The headline to her column, which she presumably did not come up with personally, is of the "Ha! Take that Rudd!" variety, which is very, very popular at the Australian at the moment.

If a photo like this was real, the Murdoch headlines would be:

Looks familiar

Record-breaking floods in Russia force thousands to evacuate - ABC News

The story carries this photo, which looks remarkably like much of Australia in 2011:

Actually, the long buildings also put me in mind of the scenery in the zombie infected world of DayZ, which I have played a bit with my son in the last 6 months.  I've never written an appreciation of that game - I should do so one day.

Some good Krugman

This Age of Bubbles - NYTimes.com

I've been forgetting to check in on Paul Krugman.  (How I wish he lived here for some clear and erudite commentary on what passes for economic policy in the Coalition now!)

The column at the link above notes the renewed economic worries in India and Brazil.  He doesn't think it will cause a world meltdown, but sounds slightly nervous.  (He expressed worries about China recently too.  From a lay man's point of view, the publicity that it has recently had with its "ghost" empty cities has certainly made me think - surely this is a bad sign.)

But he writes with common sense on most topics he touches.  Have a look at his post on Microsoft and Apple, for example.  I feel pretty much the same.

He's also taken delight in noting that changes to Singaporean health system  will no longer make it the free market poster child for health that US Republicans used to claim it was.

As for his summary of the current state of American politics:

If you haven’t been reading the political blogs much — say, Greg Sargent — you may not have a sense of just how dire the political environment is. But here’s the situation. You have a Republican base that truly believes that guaranteed health insurance is the work of the devil. Meanwhile, there’s a Republican majority in the House that owes its position not to broad popular support — Democrats actually got more votes in 2012 — but to a district map that concentrates Democrats in a minority of districts, which in turn means that most Rs are more afraid of Tea Party challengers than outraged independents.

And the debt ceiling looms, with many ideologues assuring the base that Obama can be bullied into gutting his main achievement, which he won’t.

Everyone seems to assume that this will be worked out somehow, but nobody has even a halfway plausible story about how this will be done. Default looks like a real risk.

How depressing...

Hint to Kevin Rudd

Stop announcing things that appear to be, or are, all your own idea.  

That was the problem with you the first time around.  

You must emphasise the consultative process by which you came to a policy or initiative.  Assuming you did consult.

And if you didn't consult with more than Bruce Hawker or your daughter or son - do not announce the policy or initiative at all.

Piffle

Why Abbott is right to abandon surplus promise

Geoffrey Garrett is saying Tony Abbott is doing the right thing in abandoning a promise to get the budget back into surplus in a few years.

What piffle.

Everyone knows that the "budget emergency" will be declared worse than they thought, and that greater public service and spending cuts than claimed will be made in all of the areas a large slab of the Coalition thinks it is having a "cultural war" with - climate change, science generally, education - in particular.

Abbott should be given credit for shifting on nothing in the run up to this election.

Yurt thoughts

I am having the strongest feeling that I should be designing an "urban yurt", a bit like the "urban sombrero" from Seinfeld...

I think it's an idea I could "sell" to Clive Palmer.  

A tired genre considered

Why does live-action fantasy fail at the movies?

I've never been keen on the fantasy story genre, and this is not a bad discussion about why so many of them fail as movies.

(And despite the success of a few movie series in the genre, the article notes that those are based on already fabulously popular novels, thus helping ensure their audience on screen.  I still say Lord of the Rings is boring, though, in book or on screen.)

Free campaign advice

1.  Kevin Rudd:  stop going to childcare centres and talking to children about infrastructure projects:

ASHLEY HALL: Playing with building blocks offered him the chance to share a campaign slogan.

KEVIN RUDD: We're just going to keep building up, because we've got to build things up, haven't we? Making sure we are building and building for the future.

Oh please...

2.  Tony Abbott:  stop bringing up sex appeal when talking to or about women:



On second thoughts, Tony:  please, keep talking to women about how great it is to be women in a workplace dominated by men.   I'm really interested, as are the women of Australia.

Good summary

Why We Should Not Trust Tony Abbott | Tim Colebatch

In short: it's complicated

Improving the scientific foundations for estimating health risks from the Fukushima incident

The article points out the complications with trying to work out the risk from radioactive fallout on humans.  It seems to be written by someone mostly concerned that risk  is probably always being over-estimated, but it does end with a call for some hard work to be put in on the issue.

In any event, if you are a parent with kids in an area around Fukushima, of course you are going to lean towards the side of caution.

NBN talk

I noticed this blog a few weeks ago, that takes a very technical and detailed look at the NBN and the Coalition's alternative, and falls very heavily in favour of fibre to the premises and hence the NBN.

I've always been unsure whether the NBN was really worth it.  But the fact is, it seems hard to find people with detailed knowledge in IT and communications who doubt that the NBN is a good investment that will last many, many decades.

On this basis, I've stopped worrying about it.

And now for something completely different (well, not really) - some anti-Coalition stories

1.  Lenore Taylor has a great explanation of the obviously calculated Abbott bulldust that he's the guy who's trying to rise above tawdry politics:

For three years he conducted a relentless, deliberate and effective negative campaign against the Gillard government, a campaign at times so aggressive that many on his own side were deeply concerned it was causing irreparable damage to voter perceptions of Abbott himself.

But with negative views of Labor’s record apparently entrenched – aided, it must be said, by Labor’s own self-destructive leadership saga – Abbott is flipping to positive just in time.

Slowly but surely his personal approval ratings are improving. He has toned down the attacks. His colleagues and his daughters talk about his “authenticity” as a community member and a family man. They label Rudd a “fake”.

And all the while Abbott refuses to deviate from his strategy of claiming to have a “real plan” without setting out what it is and how it will be paid for in anything like the detail provided by previous oppositions.

And, as I have noted before, the tactics being used against Rudd this time are those he used against Howard:

The last time we saw “the flip” exercised with such confidence and dexterity was in Rudd’s campaign launch speech in 2007, when he managed to flip the economic management debate to one where John Howard, who had just presided over 11 years of consecutive growth and record low unemployment, was on the defensive over the economy.

Rudd had made $45bn in spending promises during the formal campaign, just $5bn less than Howard's $50bn in campaign promises, but when Rudd told the party faithful “this reckless spending must stop” he looked like the competent and frugal economic manager.

2.  Lenore also had a good column a few days ago about the Coalition's deliberate delays to disclose funding for policies:

.... while oppositions of both persuasions have tried to game the formal costings processes, individual policies have almost always been released with their full price tags detailed over four years.

The Coalition's health policy, released on Thursday, had one line under costings which read: "The Coalition's policy to support Australia's health system will cost $340m over the forward estimates." Some of that – we were told on "background" – would come from cuts inside the health portfolio, and some from "elsewhere". In other words: they'll get back to us.

The "PBO has still got our homework" schtick has also worn thin since the Coalition has been telling us for months they already have everything fully costed and figured out.

The "Labor is running a scare campaign" excuse worked for a little while – aided by the ALP's silly insistence on using the $70bn figure for the Coalition's costings black hole, which by a quick reckoning is clearly overstated.

3.  Abbott's mysteriously unanalysed by Rupert's papers "let's go to Indonesia and buy boats!' scheme has apparently not gone over well in that country:

The buyback plan has met with heavy resistance in Jakarta, with a senior member of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's ruling coalition saying it showed Mr Abbott lacked understanding of Indonesia, and the broader asylum-seeker problem.

Mahfudz Siddiq, the head of Indonesia's parliamentary commission for foreign affairs, said on Monday that it was Mr Abbott's right to suggest the policy but warned that it had broader implications for the relationship between Jakarta and Australia.

"It's an unfriendly idea coming from a candidate who wants to be Australian leader," Mr Siddiq said.

"That idea shows how he sees things as [an] Australian politician on Indonesia regarding people smuggling. Don't look at us, Indonesia, like we want this people smuggling.

"This is really a crazy idea, unfriendly, derogatory and it shows lack of understanding in this matter."

4.  Quentin Dempster makes a good point:  if the Coalition is going to make big changes to the ABC, they should be up front about it now.  And let's face it, everyone knows that an Abbott government will find an even worse budget emergency crisis than the terrible disaster of an emergency budget crisis that they have already been warning us about [/sarc], and the urgent need to commercialise the ABC will be justified as a cost saving.  

Quick! Send us money! These cigars don't buy themselves, you know...

Interesting report at The Age on Sunday about the IPA.

For a "think tank" (using the term loosely) whose executive and members get a lot of screen time on the ABC and columns in the Murdoch press and elsewhere, it's always handy to read how they're viewed more broadly.  Their mere ubiquity gives an impression of credibility. 

The main point of the article, though,  is that it seems many prominent corporations who used to support them no longer will, because they recognise that it devotes a lot of effort to running a nutty extremist climate change denying line.

At the same time, they are doing very well financially due to a recent surge in donations.  We still don't know who the corporate donors are, although it is openly acknowledged that Gina Rinehart helps fund it.  (That's no surprise: their "we think everyone should be on a level playing field, except when it comes to those parts of Australian our favourite billionaire Gina Rinehart invests in" policy made that obvious.)

The article says British Tobacco was (or is still - it's not clear)  a donor.   That's not news, really, but it's worthwhile reminding people when you get IPA mouthpieces like Chris Berg rubbishing cigarette plain packaging in the media.  Mind you, Chris Berg was also writing in 2010 that internet material for terrorist bomb making was not really worth worrying about:

When they're not utterly stupid, they are oddly banal. Another Inspire recommendation is to shoot up lunch spots that are popular with government workers. So in a decade, al-Qaeda has gone from targeting the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon - the two symbolic organs of American power - to threatening Starbucks outlets one at a time.

Then there is ''Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom'', which suggests repurposing a home pressure cooker to become an explosive device. Such a device is weak, apparently, so the magazine recommends it is placed ''close to the intended targets''.

It is surprisingly hard to detonate explosives successfully.

That was, of course, before the Boston bombings killed 3 people and maimed and injured 264 others.

You don't have to be wrong about terrorism, climate change, stagflation, the health effect of wind turbines, and tobacco plain packaging to work for/be associated with the IPA, but it certainly helps.

In any event, it's amusing to read the reaction Andrew Bolt  which I will now paraphrase as follows:

"Look!  The Age says the IPA are corporate shills, but then admits that more money comes from donations!   Stand up, everyone,  and be proud that the IPA has become a mutual support club for climate change nutters, and for people like me who do lousy research on aboriginal issues and then get taken to court and lose and want to act like a martyr for the next 2 years. 

And send money - more money!  The price of freedom, especially my freedom to do lousy research via Google and ridicule people based on mistake, is not cheap!"

What Andrew doesn't address is how much more money the place needs.  I see that, after a fairly lengthy delay, the IPA financials for 2011/12 are finally available (I have been checking for them for the last year or so.) 

They indicate that in 2011, it received $562,000 in donations; in 2012: $2,612,000.  How much of that is loose change from Gina's deep pockets is not clear.  (And seriously, Andrew Bolt, do you think a donation from any body controlled by Gina should not be counted as effectively coming from a corporate interest?)

Total income went from $2.4 million to $4 million.

The current year income surplus after expenses went from $217,000 to $313,000, with a total retained surplus of $1.544 million.  

And yet,  Andrew Bolt and Sinclair Davidson have been big on asking for donations over the last year or so, and there is no doubt that the martyrdom of Andrew Bolt played big with his fanbase.

So, yeah, the anti-mooching "think tank" is very big on panhandling. Even though I would have expected the cigars for the board meetings are free....*

And Tony Abbott says that the IPA "...has supported capitalism, but capitalism with a conscience."

Yeah, sure.  To put it at its most charitable, Abbott is living in the past.

To be less charitable, and more realistic:  he's a dill who doesn't know who to listen to....

* reliable details from John Roskam to dissuade me of how I like to imagine meetings there are welcome.  I wonder how many ex smokers are on staff too. 

Another Jericho

Wage rise blowout a figment of Coalition’s imagination | Business | theguardian.com

Another good, clear column from Greg Jericho here, with lots of graphs, and ending with this summary:

For the past six years there has been a lot of hoo-hah said and written about industrial relations. As soon as the ALP moved to change IR legislation, warnings came from the Liberal party and conservative commentators of a wages boom. They also warned that the Fair Work Act would destroy productivity.

It didn’t.

In his campaign launch speech on Sunday, Tony Abbott talked of returning IR to the “sensible centre”. It’s a claim based on the view that unions now have too much power. If that is true, there is scant evidence they have used it to gain excess wage rises which have decoupled earnings from productivity.

When the Liberal party does finally announce its changes to IR after the election, it would be nice if they could keep themselves to fixing problems that actually exist, and not ones that occur only in their imagination.

How's the Murdochcracy going?

It was a stunningly beautiful day in Brisbane today.  The tides were right too, so it was off to Cleveland for some canal fishing for (as it turned out) about 5 hours.  (Small fish caught and thrown back; prawn smell still slightly persisting on everyone's fingers.  Takeaway pizza for dinner.)

So, while I was out, can anyone let me know if the installation of the Murdochcracy has been completed, with the rise to power of his favourite "conviction politician" (ha!), Tony Putin Abbott?*

Seriously, there seems to be a pretty unusually muted response by anyone to the completely over the top editorial line being pursued by the Murdoch papers in this election campaign.

But then, even Insiders was weird today.   Barrie Cassidy started by asking some pointed questions about why Rudd's movements yesterday were so important to the Murdoch press;  Malcolm Farr half fobbed it off, making out that he didn't think what Rudd did was such a sin.   But then by the time Cassidy got to the Rudd interview, he was very aggressive towards him on the matter of the Gillard record   As Cassidy was supposed to be pals with (Gillard's) Tim, I can only assume there was a large element of revenge in this for Rudd's role in her departure.  

Rudd's sin apparently was in not making it clear he was doing Kitchen Confidential (essentially a bit of campaign related work) before having a briefing last night on Syria (done in lieu of some Brisbane campaign thing, I think I read.)  The video of the briefing that took place did look pathetically transparent - but then again, there have been several videos of Tony Abbott pep talks to his shadow caucus team over the last six months which looked every bit as stilted and "for the cameras" as yesterday's effort.  As for appearing on Kitchen Confidential - Abbott has already done his episode. 

So, as far as I can tell, Rudd has every right to be furious with his treatment at the hands of the Murdoch press; but as nearly everyone thinks Rudd was a jerk for the way he undermined Gillard, no one's going to put their job on the line by putting in too much effort into calling out Murdoch.

What a sad state of affairs for someone like me, who has never liked Rudd, but considers that Labor collectively now has a sounder approach on economics and a majority of other issues than the alternative, which is headed by a bloke who has become a disgraceful fence-sitter and increasingly shows himself to be just not very bright.  (Not that you need to be all that bright to be a successful politician.  In fact, being too smart as a politician runs the risk of frequent paralysis.  But you need to have enough smarts to know who to listen to.  Abbott hasn't even got that, if you ask me.)  

And look at the way that Abbott's odd ideas (buying people smuggling boats in Indonesia) are simply not getting any significant coverage in the press.  For God's sake, I saw that quite a few at Catallaxy thought it was a stupid idea on Friday; then phftt; the proposal gets next to no attention while Murdoch's minions come up with the next "Rudd's a disaster!" headline for the following morning.

I haven't read much about the Liberal Policy launch today.  I saw Abbott's daughters front and centre (for God's sake, Tony & Kevin, leave the kids at home like 99% of working people do), and something about defence spending being 2% of GDP in future.  Tying defence spending to GDP was a Romney promise**.  What a surprise.  Mind you, this was an aim to be reached "in a decade".  As irrelevant as Rudd's "aim" to reduce company tax in the Northern Territory if re-elected in 3 years.

And how appropriate that one of the few election commitments was for a big boost in Alzheimer's research.  I wasn't really aware that Australia had any particular expertise there, and would have thought that other areas of biomedical promise might be worth pursuing - but Tony does have his power base to support.

All I can say in conclusion - if you value  press coverage that runs something other than Murdoch's geriatric views, go an and pay for a digital subscription to a Fairfax paper.  I'll be doing it tomorrow.   It would be an appalling state of affairs if Fairfax did not exist.

* Has anyone else called Tony's never ending appearances as fitness he-man his Putin-isation?  I doubt that is an original thought...

** I see that Labor has previously committed to this figure as well, which Alan Kohler calls a nonsense way to determine appropriate defence spending.   At least Labor won't be reminding people of this the election campaign.

Goodbye trees

I wasn't expecting much from the video, but watching trees disappear vertically underwater makes for a very peculiar look:



Incidentally, is it just me, or does the number of sinkhole stories in the media seem much higher now than it ever used to be? 

What a load of absolute bollocks

Gillard led a contest of 'crude political head-banging', says Abbott

Sorry, folks, but this confirms it.

Abbott is not smart and has no self awareness.

There has been nothing in the history of Australian modern politics to compare to the personal slagging off and rumour mongering that Julia Gillard suffered at the hand of the right wing media such as Alan Jones, Michael Smith, Larry Pickering (and Andrew Bolt, who would gleefully point people to those last two sites even if he wouldn't repeat it himself.)

Tony Abbott did make snide comments about Gillard's single woman status for years (a minor list is collected here) and the Gillard "misogyny speech" was red hot because he had just echoed Alan Jones' highly offensive "died of shame" comment made after her father had died. 

Now Tony confirms that he felt really sorry for himself after that speech.

I don't care that he was a Rhodes scholar.    He's just not smart.

Update:  Wendy Harmer's take on this is pretty good too, likening him to a bully boy who just can't resist going back for one last punch, when he's already won (vis a vis Gillard).    I don't know that nastiness is the best explanation, though.  I tend to lean more to mere gormlessness. 

This analysis of him at Independent Australia (admittedly an over the top site in many respects) also seems pretty accurate:

It’s as if he can’t be bothered. Or it’s as if he has missed the past four decades entirely. Though, presumably he wasn’t alone in this. Presumably he is in sync with an entire demographic that has not seen the need to pull back the curtain and only reluctantly ever answers the door.

He really does think, when confronted with the issue of the recognition of the rights of gays, that it’s a matter of fashion.

There’s a certain laziness here. It represents the approach that says that some things aren’t worth noticing, learning, respecting. They’re just not important. He is comfortable where he is and really can’t be bothered to take on new information, or understand new dynamics.

I would add - he appears to show an interest in changing mainly when the need presents itself directly to him in his family - thus more (allegedly) understanding of gay issue because his sister went into a lesbian relationship.  He realises the importance of parental leave to women because his daughters are now of child bearing age.  He's on board with fertility treatment (against Catholic teaching, incidentally) because he knows Christopher Pyne and his chief of staff have had it.  Yet again, this indicates to me a significant degree of shallowness and/or opportunism that I find unacceptable in anyone aspiring to be PM.

From the Friday night video archives

I just stumbled across this at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub (a blog I still don't quite understand thematically):  a segment from the old Groucho Marx quiz show featuring a very young, and very tall, Ray Bradbury.


This is apparently from 1955, and Ray is rattling off all of his most famous books as already being written.  I would have thought they came a bit later - in the late 50's to mid 60's.  Obviously my mental chronology of his career is wrong.   I also had no idea he was such a strong looking bloke.  My image of him is as being grey haired with thick glasses, and not physically imposing at all. 

A peppery tale

Tableside pepper grinding at restaurants: Why servers started wielding pepper mills in the early 20th century.

I would have thought Slate would have covered this before; but evidently not.

It's actually quite a good read that gives a bit of background about the evolution of restaurants between the 19th century and now.

Changing expectations

English views of marriage: From here to eternity | The Economist

From a review of a new book looking back at changing views of marriage in England.  The author reckons that high expectations really kicked in during the 1950's.  These paragraphs are interesting:

The growing idea that marriage was all about feeling alarmed many. The Bishop of Sheffield thought that the institution would buckle under the load of emotional and sexual expectation. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce of the early 1950s feared “an undue emphasis on the overriding importance of a satisfactory sex relationship”. They were not wrong. By 1959 the Archbishop of Canterbury was thundering against the “tide of adultery” sweeping the land. Ms Langhamer convincingly argues that the sexual permissiveness of the 1960s and the subsequent decline in marriage were less a reaction to the so-called stability of the 1950s than a product of the decade’s instability.

She sees the 1920s and 1930s as a time of pragmatism, of slow courtships and modest expectations. The question was less whether a couple were in love than whether she could housekeep and he could earn. Ms Langhamer concedes that the trends she traces are winding and unsteady—that caution was urged in the 1960s, just as emotional intimacy was sought in the 1920s. Still, she finds that after the devastation of the first world war, steadiness was valued above all. The woman who, in 1930, wished simply to meet someone “clean, and if not good-looking, at least pleasant”, with £5 a week, was not untypical.

What a waste of research effort

New research suggests 'female sperm' and 'male eggs' possible - Science - News - The Independent

As a person who thinks that IVF research has been pretty much an inappropriate allocation of medical resources, I can't fathom why it is thought useful to do this research for the tiny number of humans who find they would want to go absolute extremes to reproduce. 

There are probably thousands of biology research subjects into how cells work that are of more potential benefit to humanity than this.

Defending Kevin

Kevin Rudd does have a huge burden of well known examples of past poor treatment of his minions to overcome.  For years, I noted he had a fake public persona, according to many, many accounts.

And it is entirely possible that anyone who saw how he interacted with the TV make up woman the other night might have thought "that's a bit much Kevin, you *%#@."

But honestly, should the press really run with an uncorroborated complaint of  being "treated badly" which contains no details at all?

She didn't say at all how he was rude.  It could have been anything from heated swearing to ignoring an attempt at polite chit chat to saying "hurry up, and don't talk to me while I prepare mentally."  Yet it was run all day by not only the Murdoch press, but Fairfax and on the ABC too.

On the Drum, they wondered why he didn't just apologise.  Apologise for what?  We have no idea what he actually did.

OK, so perhaps its Kevin just reaping the consequences of past bad behaviour.   It still seems to me to be disreputable of the media to spend so much time on it during a campaign without knowing how he allegedly "treated her badly".

Update:  I see that Andrew Bolt, who ran with the Rudd rudeness story at great, great length yesterday, is now complaining that the story was not covered enough by Fairfax!    Apart from the fact that it did run on Fairfax websites all day, he apparently can't see that his comparison with the story of Abbott and an incident from his university days is just a little different in this way- we knew exactly what Abbott was alleged to have done.  (And, incidentally, Bolt's own employer recently had to apologise in Court for running Kroger's claim that the complainant had a history of lying and was a nutter.  Did Bolt ever note that at his blog?  He certainly hasn't updated his original post giving publicity to Kroger's claim.   Just like he has never updated corrections to Anthony Watt's wrong claim about how his project would show the temperature record was wrongly attributed to CO2.  Bolt is a propagandist who hardly ever bothers noting corrections to his past errors - and when a court confirms they are errors, he whines bitterly about that too.)

Update 2:  what a sleazy, sleazy gossip monger Bolt has become.   Running a post today about a band aid on a the hand of Rudd, and parsing Rudd's comment about it as if there is a scandal being hidden (the suggestion obviously being that he hurt himself hitting something in a rage.)

Even a two faced politician doesn't deserve groundless crap like that.

Update 3:  the first account I have heard that gives any detail of what is supposed to have happened in the make up room:

Whether Rudd deserved the critique is another question. Accounts of those who were in the room are consistent with Rudd's - that he said ''hello'' and ''goodbye'' to Fontana and virtually nothing in between as he prepared for the most important 60 minutes of the campaign to that point, reading intently from last-minute briefing notes before taking the stage. ''I was in the zone,'' is how he put it.

Murdoch's journalists not what they used to be

I have been wondering how the intense anti-Labor editorial and headline slant of Murdoch's papers has been sitting with some of his senior journalists.   Their reaction certainly seems a far cry from what went on in 1975, when they went on strike:

A letter written by News Limited journalists and presented to management outlines clearly some of the concerns they had resulting in their strike action on 8th-10 December 1975, the last week of the election campaign.

…the deliberate and careless slanting of headlines, seemingly blatant imbalance in news presentation, political censorship and, more occasionally, distortion of copy from senior specialist journalists, the political management of news and features, the stifling of dissident and even palatably impartial opinion in the papers’ columns…

~ Denis Cryle; ‘Murdoch’s Flagship: 25 years of The Australian newspaper’; MUP (2008)

Is the only difference that Murdoch's editors have given up on actually altering senior journalist's column's to give a different slant?  Come on, you weaklings - speak up for yourselves.

There's money in underpants

Well, there you go.  Just yesterday, as I noticed the pre-Father's Day blitz of underwear advertisements at the local shopping centre,  I wondered to myself "how much money does Bonds make from men's underwear?"

Quite a lot, seems to be the answer:

A SURGE in demand for Bonds underwear has helped clothing group Pacific Brands post its first full year profit since 2010. 
 
But the maker of work clothes, bed linen and shoes is bracing for a tough financial year ahead as consumer confidence remains weak.

Pacific Brands' $73.8 million net profit in the year to June 30 is a turnaround from a $450.7 million loss in fiscal 2012.

The underwear division drove much of the result, with earnings rising to $78.1 million, compared with a loss of $330.3 million the previous year.

Undergarment sales revenue also rose by five per cent, to $453.9 million, as wholesale, in-store and online sales for Bonds underwear accelerated in the second half of fiscal 2013.

So, undergarment sales for just one company are approaching half a billion dollars?   In which market, I wonder?

In a different shopping centre, I was annoyed by several poster ads for (I think) Bic women's razors, which featured only a close up frontal shot of a woman's panties (with woman inside them.)  The byline was something like this (I am going by memory, because I can't find an image of it on the net):  "Showered, shaved and ready to go, all before he's even found his keys."

Whatever the exact line was, the point of the ad was obviously to encourage women to have a daily pubic shave, just like their blokes do to their face.

I am not exactly outraged by this current hairless fashion per se, but there is something about razor companies actually encouraging it for profit that irritates me.   Perhaps because it is obvious that the fashion is often having a poor effect on women's self image, 'cos they get to see clearly shapes and folds which would normally be somewhat obscured by hair.  And besides, the ad is surely guilty of that old term "objectifying" a women's (hairless) torso in a way that I think everyone should be uncomfortable with in a public space like a shopping mall.

And while we are in the general groin-al area, can the papers please stop running headlines such as this:

Lily Patchett explains why she allowed student newspaper Honi Soit to publish a photo of her vagina

The fact that a University newspaper was intending to publish a front page featuring 18 vulva images (which is, technically, more correct than saying they were photos of vaginas) is surely not that dramatic an issue is it?   University newspapers have been routinely "in your face" for the mere sake of it for the last 40 years, haven't they?, and while I think the idea is not in great taste, I find it less objectionable in the context of who would likely see it and the effect on attitudes to women than decades of page 3 girlie photos in Murdoch owners papers in England.

The motive for it was actually on pretty solid feminist grounds:

The editors of Sydney University's Honi Soit publication said they published the graphic edition in order to make a statement about how vaginas have become "artificially sexualised ... or stigmatised".

Yes, it was a response to the effect of the likes of the Bic poster which I had a problem with.

Of course, it goes too far, as University papers are wont to do (the people who run them are immature, let's face it).  Surely the point could just have readily been made by referring people to a website or two which feature "average" vulva for women's reassurance without them being on the street.  (There was a website set up specifically for this purpose in the US recently; I read about it at Slate or Salon.)  Or the photos could simply have been inside the paper.

But still, as for the mainstream media, it should be treated as a bit of a non story, rather than taking it as an opportunity to write a half dozen headlines referencing genitalia.