Paranomal & ParaNorman

A couple of nights ago I feel asleep on the sofa while the TV was on, but woke up in time to see the last half or so of Paranormal Activity, the faux reality movie very much in the vein of Blair Witch Project.  It made a lot of money, at least compared to the cost to make it.  (Box Office Mojo says $193 million on a - wait for it - $15,000 budget.)  So there have been several sequels, not that they seem to attract much critical attention now.

I thought it was crap.   Sure, watching it late at night while everyone else in the house is asleep made it feel a bit creepy at times (it's really the silence that is effective), but by the time it got to the climax, it was just silly.   Bizarrely, it got an 83% approval score on Rottentomatoes, although I see David Stratton found it "extremely unthrilling, very obvious, very clichéd. We've seen it all before."   Hear hear.

The second movie I watched this weekend with "para" in the title was last years ParaNorman.   I bought it on DVD for my daughter as a Christmas gift (not the only one, I hasten to add) and this was the second time we watched it together.

It is a terrific film.

Made by the same company (Laika) that made the very impressive, if somewhat narratively unclear, Coraline, it uses the same beautiful and engaging stop motion animation to great effect.   If you liked the look and feel of Coraline, you will also love this movie.

Apart from its look, the script combines humour that is sometimes slapstick, sometimes beautifully subtle; scares and (honestly) emotional depth that may get to the adults watching more than the kids.

I'm happy to see I am not alone in enjoying it - there's an 87% approval rating at RT, and it got an Oscar nomination last year (but losing out to Brave - what an absolute travesty of a decision that was!)

It didn't make much money at the box office - $107 million on a $60 million budget; and even Coraline was only marginally more financially successful. (I am also disturbed to see that the very enjoyable Wes Anderson stop motion version of Fantastic Mr Fox was pretty much a financial disaster that barely recovered its budget.  Why don't more people go to see these films at the cinema?   Done well, they have a "hand made" warmth and charm that is just a pleasure to watch in every frame. And there sure doesn't seem to be a lot of justice in the world when the cheapo Paranormal Activity makes so much money for so little craft.)     But it seems at least that Laika is successful enough that they have another film coming out in 2014, and this very charming teaser trailer gives you an idea as to why their films cost so much:



I see there is also a great short video from the studio about the making of ParaNorman:



May this company continue to have critical success, and make more money in the future too.

A likely explanation for some ball lightning

Natural ball lightning probed for the first time - environment - 16 January 2014 - New Scientist

I don't think it can possibly explain all ball lightning - such as the well attested cases where small balls have appeared inside houses and even an airplane - but it appears there is a good explanation for one type:

In 2012, Jianyong Cen and his colleagues at Northwestern Normal University in Lanzhou, China, were observing a thunderstorm in Qinghai, China with video cameras and spectrographs. Purely by chance, they recorded a ball lightning event. When a bolt struck the ground, a glowing ball about 5 metres wide rose up and travelled about 15 metres, disappearing after 1.6 seconds.

The spectrograph revealed that the main elements in the ball were the same as those found in the soil: silicon, iron and calcium. The observations support a theory for making ball lightning put forth in 2000 by John Abrahamson at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.

Abrahamson surmised that when lightning hits the ground, the sudden, intense heat can vaporise silicon oxide in the dirt, and a shockwave blows the gas up into the air. If there's also carbon in the soil, perhaps from dead leaves or tree roots, it will steal oxygen from the silicon oxide, leaving a bundle of pure silicon vapour. But the planet's oxygen-rich atmosphere rapidly re-oxidises the hot ball of gas, and this reaction makes the orb glow briefly.

The theory garnered support in 2006, when scientists at Tel Aviv University in Israel were able to create ball lightning in the lab by firing mock lightning at sheets of silicon oxide. The event in China marks the first time such an orb has been captured in nature with scientific instruments.

Movies really could be much shorter...

Neuroscientists find the brain can identify images seen for as little as 13 milliseconds

Not such a great idea

Privatising Australia Post � Harry Clarke

I like it when Harry Clarke gets in a narky mood, and the second line in this post about privatising Australia Post is a great example:

Its a weak argument from a posturing bunch of low-intellect phonies who are promoting self-interest, neo-con ideology and third-rate economics.

The reasons why are set out succinctly in the post, and I find them pretty convincing.

Heinlein taken down

Libertarian types like to quote Robert Heinlein's comment that "an armed society is a polite society", yet anyone who has been to the United States can't see much evidence for that.  (I am surprised that I can Google up no evidence of a sociologist ever doing study of this: comparing States which have the most lax concealed carry laws with those with much tighter restrictions.)

Of course libertarians are not much interested in evidence anyway, they just have an ideological agenda to run; but it seems pretty obvious to normal folk that an armed society is not primarily a more polite society (if it is more polite at all) - it's primarily a more dangerous society for getting shot.

And the thing that really strikes me about the last year or two of shooting tragedies in the US is how readily it's glossed over that it was legally purchased weapons that were involved the killing.  I mean, doesn't that make it obvious that it doesn't matter that the buyer appears to be a "good guy" at the time of purchase:  what matters is how the gun eventually comes to be used.   In other words, the problem is the guns being everywhere.

A good article in The Guardian puts this all in perspective.  Here are the crucial paragraphs:

The National Rifle Association likes to argue that criminals, or people intent on committing a crime, will obtain guns no matter what the law says. Among the 5,417 gun homicides in 2012 that the FBI assigns a circumstance to (3,438 are "unknown circumstances"), a mere 1,324 were committed in conjunction with another felony. Three times that (3,980) were committed by otherwise law-abiding citizens. Of that, over half (1,968) were the result of an argument that escalated fatally out of control.

To put it another way: otherwise unpremeditated murders, where people kill out of momentary rage, are the single most common type of gun homicide in America. More than gangland killings (822); more than murders committed during robberies (505) and drug deals (311) combined.

Stunning figures that for any sane person means we are very glad to live under Australian gun laws rather than American.   Here's the final paragraph from the article:

 You keep a gun out of the argument, you will save lives. This is not hypothetical. A person may be intent on killing someone else, but it is simply harder to do with anything else. That's why forms of homicide other than guns account for only about a third of all homicides. Someone gets angry at someone else, they may reach for a weapon. If we make guns harder to get, by requiring a test for the license, or by banning handguns more broadly, the one at hand might be far less deadly. Like, say, popcorn.

Another fake crisis considered

Economists dispute audit commission's federal government growth claims

This time on the size of government.  Some of these figures are from the ACTU, which means they should be approached with some caution, but still, here it is:

It says the commission should also be aware the size of government has not ''expanded significantly'' if it is measured by reference to government employment.

''In June 1996, the Commonwealth employed 354,800 people in the general government sector. As at June 2012, the number stood at just 250,000.

''Commonwealth government employment is lower now, as a share of the population or total employment, than it has ever been before. ABS statistics show that the number of people employed in the general government sector [across all levels of government] fell in 2011-12 for the first time since 1998-99.''

Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows Australia has one of the lowest-taxing, lowest-spending governments in the OECD.

According to the most recent figures, Australian government spending accounts for 35 per cent of nominal GDP. In the euro area, it is 49.5 per cent. In the US it is 38 per cent

And Andrew Leigh weighs in:

''It's recognised by all serious commentators that the size of government in Australia is pretty close to Korea and the United States, and far smaller than Sweden and Finland,'' Mr Leigh said.

''Australia is a low-taxing country and the tax-to-GDP share fell by about one percentage point under the previous government.''

Sounds pretty convincing to me. 

Already prepared for next Halloween

Found here.  And no, I would not wear speedos with it. 

Physics worth doing

Backreaction: Why quantize gravity?

Poor Bee Hossenfelder isn't having much luck in finding funding for her field of quantum gravity, but she makes an elegant argument in this post as to why this is a subject worth research dollars.  

Fake crisis already averted

Australia ranked one of the three best countries to do business in

Interesting to note that it was a conservative think tank claiming this - before there was any talk of an Abbott "repeal day".   Apparently, our nightmarish over regulation looks different from the US.  

Missing heat in some detail

Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News

Here's a pretty lengthy and interesting discussion on the "missing heat" issue, mainly concentrating on what goes on in the Pacific Ocean.   You know, PDO, El Nino, etc.

It notes that there is a minority view that AGW might be driving the lengthy La Nina conditions which, if true, might provide a long term mechanism for some cooling.   (It would mean models need adjusting down.)   However, many modelling attempts apparently indicate the opposite, that longer term AGW will drive more El Nino's.

The article ends on this note:

Scientists may get to test their theories soon enough. At present, strong tropical trade winds are pushing ever more warm water westward towards Indonesia, fuelling storms such as November’s Typhoon Haiyan, and nudging up sea levels in the western Pacific; they are now roughly 20 centimetres higher than those in the eastern Pacific. Sooner or later, the trend will inevitably reverse. “You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.

It sounds a bit peculiar, doesn't it, talking of the Pacific as if it is one dish of water that "shloshes" about from one side to the other.  

A Quiggin post where Spielberg gets a mention

John Quiggin - The Repubs won’t Douthat (crosspost from Crooked Timber)

This Quiggin post is of interest because he again notes the movement ("defection") of several formerly Republican intellectuals to the left in the US, and predicts that Douthat may have to do the same if he is intellectually honest.

Sounds plausible.

But also - Steven Spielberg as a Democrat funder gets mentioned in comments a couple of times.  Seems some people think he would oppose tax increases on the top 20% percent,  but how dare they pre judge him on that!

In other Spielberg observations (by me):   I have been meaning to note for some time that 2013 was kind of depressing on the upcoming movie front because no one knows what Spielberg will next direct.   It seems he has been uncommitted to anything for about a year now, and I have no idea what he has been doing with himself.

I suppose he's entitled to a break, but please, Steven, come back!  I have a few ideas if you are short of them.

(Update:  In other Spielbergian news, I noticed somewhere recently that Poltergeist is to be remade.  Why?  In a sign of the bankruptcy of novel ideas in Hollywood, it seems a hell of a lot of 1980's films are now slated for remake.  None of them as good as Poltergeist, though.)

More from the "only in America" files

*  12 year old boy carries sawn off shot gun to school and shoots two students.   Yeah, Heinlein, an armed society is a polite society, is it?   (I thought about that yesterday too about the story where an argument in a cinema turned into a fatal shooting by at 71 year old.)

*  Neo nazis try to take over a town. 

Evil Twins

BBC News - Twin DNA test: Why identical criminals may no longer be safe

I didn't realise there have been a number of cases around the world where prosecutions have been thwarted by the police being unable to be sure which identical twin committed the offence.

Evil president sounds pretty normal to me

What Happens When the President Sits Down Next to You at a Cafe - Robinson Meyer - The Atlantic

Nothing special about this report about what's its like to be in a cafe when Obama turns up for a staged media event, except that it makes the President sound rather normal.

I suspect Rush Limbaugh will still find something sinister about it.   (Limbaugh is the subject of another Atlantic article today, which notes his recent explanation that he intuitively knows true Conservatives are right about everything, and never sexually harass people.  Republicans who have strayed from the "true Conservative" line on anything - such as Chritie - don't get the same treatment though.)

Surprising coral

Coral reefs in Palau surprisingly resistant to naturally acidified waters

Scientists have found corals in one place with surprisingly highly "acidified" water which are doing surprisingly well.   They hasten to point out this goes against a lot of other examples in the world, but the reason why this bunch are fine remains very unclear.

Biology is very complicated...

Fun research

Reflections in the eye contain identifiable faces

Has this already been used in a crime or science fiction show?   I feel pretty sure it has, but can't remember where.

Scientific explanation for beer goggles

New study shows alcohol impacts vision by 30 per cent

Proof that Second Amendment nutters are vindictive nutters

Target: Me - Dick Metcalf - POLITICO Magazine

Read what happens when a gun loving, life long, career shooter and journalist makes a legal observation deemed to be heresy amongst his kin:

“Way too many gun owners seem to believe any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement,” I wrote. “The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.”

It's a miracle...sorta

Miracle fruit brings a change in taste › Dr Karl's Great Moments In Science (ABC Science)

While in Canberra on holiday we went to Questacon, the gigantic kids' science centre, and in its shop I found "miracle fruit" tablets.  We gave them a try last night at home.

This red berry fruit has featured on some TV programs in the last few years, and an interesting account of what they do (make sour acid things like a lemon taste sweet) is at the link above.  The thing you buy at the shop is a biggish tablet made from the dried pulp of the fruit.

The effect really is interesting to experience, not just because it makes lemon taste entirely palatable (to the detriment of your tooth enamel no doubt),  but because (as Karl says) it makes it taste really intensely sweet, rather as if you have popped a few saccharine tablets on your tongue at once.  And the effect seemed to last quite a long time.   Normal sweet things aren't much changed in flavour.

I was interested to read in Karl's account that in the early 1970's, it was hoped that it may be used as an artificial sweetener of sorts:

It took until 1968 for two separate groups of scientists to isolate the active ingredient. It turned out to be a chemical that was mostly protein with about 191 amino acids, and about 14 per cent carbohydrate (sugars such as mannose, galactose and fucose). The active ingredient was given the name 'miraculin'.

Soon after miraculin was isolated, Robert Harvey, an American biomedical postgraduate student, became aware of its wonderful property. 

At the time, the artificial sweeteners (which have sweetness, and virtually zero kilojoules) had a slightly noticeable after-taste. 

But Robert Harvey realised that miraculin did not. He tried mightily to market it as an alternative sweetener, one that was based entirely upon a natural product. 

But in 1974, just as he was about to launch it, the US Food and Drugs Administration refused to classify it as 'generally recognised as safe', despite the West Africans having eaten miraculin for centuries with no problems. 

Robert Harvey could not afford the several years of testing needed, so miraculin never made it into the marketplace.

All rather interesting...

Just get Bolt on board and be done with

Ha!  The intellectual, um, bogan-isation? of the Catallaxy blog is nearly complete, with "come back and fight, you Lefties, there's still a culture war I want to win"  Nick Cater now becoming a regular poster there, apparently.

The blog has gone into a tail spin of intellectual credibility over the last couple of years - for any post that actually contains something useful in terms of economic analysis (it happens about once every three or four months now) there will be scores of posts of the kind where Judith Sloan tosses her hair and complains about all the tosh from teachers and Greenies she had to put up with over the years;  Steve Kates doing his excruciatingly simplistic Tea Party/Fox News analysis of US politics (when he's not explaining again how he's the only economist who really understands Say's Law);  and Sinclair Davidson hyperventilating about how anyone (including Jews) who dares question the wisdom of repealing s18 of the Racial Discrimination Act is an enemy of All Things Good.  (The IPA campaign on freedom of speech has been the most hyperbolic think tank campaign I can ever recall.)

What I don't understand is how these people do not see that the way they talk on this blog harms their credibility generally.  The blog is certainly, to my mind, a thriving advertisement against any economics student even contemplating going to RMIT. 

Libertarians think a society where this can happen is a good idea

Man shot dead at movies after texting | World news | theguardian.com

A retired Florida policeman has been charged with murder after allegedly shooting a man who texted during a film.

Authorities said Curtis Reeves, 71, and Chad Oulson, 43, got into an argument before the screening of the film Lone Survivor when Reeves asked Oulson to stop texting.

“Somebody throws popcorn. I’m not sure who threw the popcorn,” said witness Charles Cummings. “And then bang, he was shot.”

Who knows until they are visited

BBC News - Few asteroids are worth mining, suggests Harvard study

There's an enormous amount of uncertainty, it seems, as to the number of asteroids which may be of the metallic iron-nickel variety which is presumably the main type worth mining.

A pro space mining source also claims this in the article, and count me as surprised:

"We have only discovered 1% of the asteroids in the Solar System - and we are discovering them at a larger and larger rate. We discover two or three asteroids a day. If we get from 1% to 10%, then the 650,000 asteroids we have discovered jumps to 6.5 million."

Some startling figures

Quark Soup by David Appell: Climate Change: The Next 10,000 Years

David Appell has been reading up on how long human induced climate change is likely to last.  The answer seems to be - at least 10,000 years.  (!)

Time to look at fertilizing the oceans again, perhaps, as the only large-ish scale means of reducing CO2 that seems vaguely possible.

Bad news for gym owners

Do fast workouts really work?

The article is light on detail, but it does seem that the idea of short, sharp workouts being as good as long, tedious exercise has really caught on in the US.

Good news for people like me, who have always found lengthy exercise a boring waste of time.  Harry Clarke recently linked to this article, from which I have cut the example set of exercises:

 

Interesting.   Perhaps I should now spend two years evaluating which set of exercises is best for me.

Guardian goodness

Two good columns in the Guardian recently:

*  Greg Jericho on the pitfalls of privatisation (why is it he sounds so much more convincing than "just privatise everything" message of Julie Novak I heard on Radio National last week - perhaps it's because he actually suggests an evidence based approach, rather than a pure ideological one?)

*  Lenore Taylor on the culture war approach of this Abbott government.   Donnelly leading a review of curriculum is a bit of a joke;  in my view, he's become a perpetual whinger who doesn't acknowledge improvements towards the centre that education has made over the last decade or so.

I'm waiting for Abbott to announce a Rupert Murdoch led enquiry into media ownership and regulation in Australia.  It would make as much sense.

Drug problems can turn up in the oddest places....

Charts: Vermont's "Full-Blown Heroin Crisis."

No, he didn't like it

We went off to see Frozen yesterday, and I for one came away completely underwhelmed.

The last couple of the so-called Disney "princess"movies - The Princess and the Frog and Tangled - were great in all respects.  In Tangled in particular, the combination of the beauty of the animation and music in a key scene nearly brought me to tears; but both movies made a real effort in the slapstick-y style of the humour to appeal to boys as well as girls.

Frozen is a fizzle is any way you care to compare it.   The music is a mess in all respects - it starts off sounding awfully like something from the Lion King (for no discernible reason), then has an all male chorus song with lyrics I couldn't decipher, and the "hit"tune is of the pretty generic Broadway pop-ish style that is quite forgettable (it reminded me of the style of a couple of the songs I have heard from Wicked.)  

The computer animation has received lots of praise, but I have to say that when you get to this level of photo realism, the characters start to look at bit distractingly like actual toys:  it's as if you were watching Ken and Barbie come to life, which is OK in a Toy Story movie, but not so much in one where they are meant to be people.   I have noticed this a bit before in other computer animated movies, but it bothered me particularly in this one for some reason.

The biggest problem is with the story and characters - the title character is pretty resolutely annoying throughout the whole thing; the sympathetic male lead is underwritten; and it really is (to my mind) the most relentlessly girl oriented Disney film since (probably) the Little Mermaid, but without the fantastically catchy hit song.   And, it's just not very funny or witty. 

So why has it been a substantially bigger box office success than Tangled?   (Box Office Mojo shows US box office of $300 million already; Tangled had only $200 million.)  I have absolutely no idea.  

Both movies seem to have the same high scores on Rotten Tomatoes, and I was surprised to see that Anthony Lane from the New Yorker was listed as liking Frozen.   But this is an example of the sometimes dubious tallying of Rotten Tomatoes, as when you go read his actual review he hardly gave it a strong endorsement:

In short, where is our villain? Idina Menzel, who voices Elsa, played the green-faced lead in “Wicked,” on Broadway, so everything is set for vengeance and spite, but nothing happens. True, Elsa starts waltzing around in a long skirt slashed to the thigh, which is hot stuff for Disney, but, still, Cruella de Vil would skin her alive.

The other sister is Anna (Kristen Bell), who follows on from Belle, in “Beauty and the Beast,” and Rapunzel, in “Tangled,” being spunky and reckless, with a hint of tomboy, though retaining her capacity to swoon if anything princely shows up. Most of the men, by contrast, look milky and mild, with a hint of tomgirl, and, once a chatting snowman is introduced, presumably to keep your toddlers satisfied, much of the movie turns to slush. Disney has thus arrived at a mirror image of its earlier self: the seriously bad guys and the top-grade sidekicks—the Shere Khans and the Baloos—are now a melting memory, while the chronic simperers, like Cinderella, have been superseded by tough dames. As Anna sings, “For years I’ve roamed these empty halls, / Why have a ballroom with no balls?” Go get ’em, sister. 

 He's still the wittiest reviewer around (and that also explains the reminder of Wicked from the songs.)

My negative reaction to the movie caused some interesting family revelations - both my wife and daughter rated it as better than Tangled or Princess and the Frog - my wife saying she particularly didn't like the latter.  I only recalled her saying she quite liked the music from it,  and in fact I bought her the CD.   (My daughter and son both like the Randy Newman jazzy style of the music, actually.)  I kept wanting to explain last night why I thought this movie was crook - the family kept telling me to stop going on about it, but fortunately there is always this outlet, which I can always imagine someone has read to this point, even if no one actually got past the first line. 

The other big, intensely girl orientated animation by Disney/Pixar, Brave, was also a dud.   It seems to me someone at Disney has suddenly forgotten how to make them.

Cold weather

I suppose I should put a link or two here about how the cold American winter is not that cold for the country, polar vortex or not.

I thought this post at Wonkblog dealt with the whole climate change denying mocking response of the Right very well.  Except that, of course, most of them are too stupid to read it.

Truly, the Right is currently intellectually bankrupt, but when will this finally pass?   We really have to wait for the next global heatwave (to get past 1998 on Roy Spencer's chart) before they'll reconsider?  (Funnily enough, Spencer's figure for the month of December 2013 does not even show it as a particularly cool month, globally.  Yet Roy himself has joined in the "ha ha!" mood, showing what an ideologically driven tosser he is.  Judith Curry did the same on her blog about the ship stuck in ice in Antarctica - quoting serious papers discussing why Antarctic sea ice is lately increasing, none of which doubt AGW - but then going "ha ha, isn't it hilarious how this is a PR disaster for AGW.")

They are not to be taken seriously.

It might be important, or it might not

Cloning quantum information from the past | KurzweilAI

If I could understand the explanation better, I might be able to tell if this is of significance to the issue of an understandable means for a future resurrection.

An odd thing to be wrong about

N-test legacy in stratosphere bigger than thought

It was previously thought that plutonium radionuclides—radioactive atoms which can take decades or thousands of years to degrade—were present in the stratosphere only at negligible levels.

It was also believed that levels of these pollutants were higher in the troposphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is closest to the ground, than in the stratosphere. Both ideas turn out to be wrong, according to the new study, whose authors also found no likelihood of a hazard to health.

Radiation levels in the stratosphere are "more than three orders of magnitude higher than previously thought," study co-author Jose Corcho of the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection told AFP.

Somehow, I expected scientists to have a better grip on this topic than they appear to have had.

A look at US income inequality

Is income inequality as bad as Obama says? In many ways, yes. - CSMonitor.com

This seemed to me to be a pretty fair and dispassionate look at the topic. Yes, they do have a problem. 

Frank should give Steve a call

The Agony of Frank Luntz - Molly Ball - The Atlantic

I haven't really noticed this Frank Luntz before, but given that he is a right wing figure who appears to have slid in depression after Obama's election win, and blames it all on Obama being a divisive figure who is ruining society, he should get on the phone to Australia's own analyst of the "damaged women" who foolishly voted for Obama, Steven Kates.    They appear to have much in common. 

(Actually, at least Luntz has enough nous to recognise Romney made major campaigning mistakes.  I don't think Kates has even acknowledged that.   But their insistence that the problem is with a large slab of the public - which was just too stupid to understand - marks both of them as political dunderheads.)

More brain boosting discussion

Can I increase my brain power? | Science | The Guardian

I should have added this to my last post, but for those interested in the future of artificial brain enhancement (I'm hoping for a electric skull cap to hold off deterioration by the time I'm 80), this article is a pretty good read.

Three odd science stories for the New Year

*  I didn't realise it was so big, either.  (The Andromeda Galaxy, if you could actually see it fully in the night sky.)

*  The NSA is looking into quantum computing?   That, along with Google (and its near impossible to follow rules about what they can do with info they glean from use of their products) means you may as well abandon any last hope you had of future privacy right now.  In fact, you should probably buy and install the bedroom webcam while they are cheap before they become compulsory.

*  The hunt for evidence for time travel on the internet fails for now.  I could have told them that.  Some years ago I invited future scientists to email me (they don't have to personally visit, just send the information back in time) next week's winning Lotto numbers, but they never arrived.  (Just in case - future scientists, you can find my permanent email address at the side.  Don't give up!)

Drug commentary

So, while I was on holiday, I see that David Brooks has copped a lot of flak for his column which might be summarised as "sure, I tried marijuana as a teenager too, but all successful people realise that it's basically for losers.  We shouldn't experiment with legally selling it."

Much of the criticism is over the top, I think, and they let indignation get in the way of some sound points.  (See the Slate article Should Black Kids Pay for David Brooks’ Pothead Sins? as a good example.)

And, let's face it, it is hard not to be a little annoyed with the "don't do as I did, you young 'uns, or you might not end up as President" approach of, well, US Presidents.  

As for libertarians;  for goodness sake, they keep on citing Portugal's decriminalisation of possession of drugs as if it is something they think should be emulated, when in fact the system is nothing like an easy going libertarian dream at all.  Sure, the possessor of small quantities may not face court, instead they face this (assuming Wikipedia has it right):

The drugs are confiscated, and the suspect is interviewed by a “Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction” (Comissões para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência – CDT). These commissions are made up of three people: A social worker, a psychiatrist, and an attorney.^[9][10] The dissuasion commission have powers comparable to an arbitration committee, but restricted to cases involving drug use or possession of small amounts of drugs. There is one CDT in each of Portugal’s 18 districts.

Oddly enough, one of the fairest takes on Brook's article is to be found in an Economist blog, even though that magazine keeps on talking up relaxing drugs laws.   (And, everyone has to admit that America has had issues with dealing with drug use as a health issue rather than a criminal one.  But the Australian and European approaches have generally not resulted in excessive criminal prosecution for small time users, and we have long been advanced in matters such as the methodone program for heroin users, and needle exchange programs.)

As it says in the Economist article that I'm recommending:

The point is that however the cost/benefit formula is constructed, there are factors on both sides of the equation. Lives have been ruined by marijuana as well as by its prohibition. It may be facile to lament the legalisation of the drug while ignoring the damage wrought by prohibition, but it is equally silly to assume that there will be no losers from the unprecedented experiments in Colorado and Washington. Mr Brooks may sound supercilious and priggish, but he is a columnist for the New York Times; that is virtually a job requirement. He does not explicitly argue for prohibition to be maintained, as many of his critics appear to assume. Nor would his conclusions be incompatible with widespread decriminalisation of marijuana, which would alleviate much of the harm of prohibition without carrying the implicit imprimatur of state approval Mr Brooks dislikes so much (that is not my position, nor that of The Economist, but it is not a dishonourable one). Opposition to marijuana legalisation is the position of a substantial if dwindling minority. Perhaps Mr Brooks's column is best understood as an expression of that minority concern.

[Update: here's a short article from a site I am completely unfamiliar with, linking to other pieces I haven't actually read yet, about the genuine complexity of legalising the use of marijuana.]

As for a broader bit of commentary on drug use, I was quite impressed by this article in Slate:

Cocaine trafficking horrors: Users are complicit in the atrocities of the drug trade

in which a scientist can't get over the fact that rich Americans who want their cocaine simply will not factor in that they are feeding a horrendous situation in Mexico.  Sure, they can say the true blame is the government anti-drugs regime (at an international scale) that sets up the money to be made in drugs by criminals.  Put surely the proper, moral thing to do in that case is to campaign against that approach to drugs, while not personally feeding the system that is causing criminal mayhem in poorer countries.

I imagine some readers might argue that you could say the same thing applied during Prohibition, and ask whether I think all people who went to a "speakeasy" in that period where immoral too.  Well, basically, yes: I think they were if they knew the extent to which they were directly fuelling murder in their country.  The thing is, as bad as gang warfare might have been in the mafia in that period, it was  nothing on the scale of what people can read about in the situation in Mexico and other countries today.  (Read the Slate article on that point.)   Also, people are (or should be) better exposed to the effects of their paying for drugs now given modern communications compared to how people got the news 90 years ago.

The argument that cocaine is a drug which, like marijuana, is capable of use just for occasional recreational fun is a two edged sword - libertarian types will puff up and get indignant about why such a drug is criminalised and banned at all, but I say the fact that some users only want it for that special one night buzzy feel makes it even worse that they will not consider the dire consequences of their feeding the criminality in Mexico.

Why can't people just live with the one, ancient, social (but still dangerous) drug that comes in thousands of taste varieties?  

UPDATE:   Add Slate's David Weigel to the list of writers over reacting to Brooks.  In fact, while Brook's "confession" of once not being to perform in front of his class due to overindulgence was a bit embarrassing, Weigel comes up with is own confession which I find a tad cringeworthy in its own way:

Actual confession: I smoke pot. I've never bought it, but I've had it when friends bring it out to enliven a party. Frankly, I'm a terrible pothead. Having never really smoked cigarettes, I'm all thumbs at lighting a pipe or joint. The last time I smoked, earlier this week, the product overcame the wan barriers of my tolerance and I passed out on a kitchen floor—actually a pretty excellent goodbye-to-the-old-year metaphor, though somewhat embarrasing at the time. (UPDATE: Should note that the time before this, pot was part of a lovely evening of conversation and record-playing. It's like any other drug, and the experiences vary.)

David, David.   As I assume you are mature enough to not pass out through over indulgence in alcohol any more, it's not that great an advertisement for marijuana to tell us you passed out from it a bit unexpectedly only last weekend.

And then he runs with the "it's not so different from alcohol anyway" argument:

Point is, I didn't fear or confront any other consequences. I knew I wouldn't because none of the people I've smoked with, in D.C. at least, have found it impeded their work any more than a bit of heavy drinking would. As a habit, it's somewhat less dangerous than heavy drinking, as it neuters the violent instinct, is hard to overindulge on, and isn't as fun to ingest. (Your choice: Suck on a wet roll of paper full of vegetation in your friend's bedroom, or knock back an aged and aerated red wine across the table from a date?)

 Oh OK, so like I argue, good alcoholic beverages can taste great and  (I take David's word for it) are more fun to ingest.   So why do people who want to use it (say) once a month so insistent that they are missing out on much if they can't get it?  Go buy a particularly good bottle of one of that "more fun to ingest"drug instead.

Look, as the Economist article suggests, what most of these attacks on Brooks are suggesting is that moderate personal use of marijuana should be largely decriminalised, because the over the top approach to criminalising it in the US has gone too far.  Australians and Europeans can largely agree with that.

But the Brooks article is about the effect of outright legalisation, which is quite a different thing.

New Year improvements

I'm suffering a touch of New Year, post Christmas holiday ennui, especially as going to Canberra made the sensation of  humidity and heat of Brisbane feel more extreme than ever.   Tonight I am sure I can smell the smoke from the week long fire on Stradbroke Island too.

Anyhow, before I start posting my fascinating notes from a driving holiday, I am thinking about getting serious about losing weight, and that intermittent fasting idea does hold appeal.

Here are a couple of recent articles about it:  one from the Los Angeles Times, warning that it is not really studied enough in humans; and another from the BBC, indicating that it seems to have long lasting effects beyond weight loss.  (And really, that could be a reason to try it anyway.)

I did think about this a couple of months ago, and started looking around for reasonable options for the 600 calorie days (I would just follow the Michael Mosley plan of 2 days a week fasting - Tuesday and Thursday seem the picks of the week, and certainly the "fast every other day" version has no appeal.) It is trickier than I thought working out a day's eating to exactly 600 calories, and often sources on the web refer to brands of food from overseas, but I could get there, I'm sure.

Perhaps next week is the start.We'll see...

Now to greet me every morning....

Humble beginnings

A pleasant Christmas, World.

Good Christians

Heart of the slums

This was a pretty remarkable story in Fairfax over the weekend about a couple of Christians who take their religion very seriously in terms of helping others.

Amongst other things, I did not realise Bangkok was quite as "slummy" as the article indicates.

You can tell the news isn't inspiring me this weekend...

Yes, I'm down to re-posting cat Christmas photos...

Baby face

I was very amused by the photo used for this story on Slate this morning:

Smoke away, kids

If Marijuana Legalization Sends the Wrong Message to Teenagers, Why Aren't They Listening? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Reason, unsurprisingly, poohs poohs the idea that legal marijuana (medical or otherwise) has caused an increase in teenage use of the drug.   Yet it does note:

It is true that marijuana use among teenagers has been "drifting higher in recent years" (as the University of Michigan researchers who oversee the Monitoring the Future Study put it). But this upward drift began around 2007, whereas the first medical marijuana law (California's) was enacted in 1996. In between, past-month use among high school seniors went up and down, but it did not exceed the 1996 rate until 2011, 15 years after cannabis was first legalized for medical use. It certainly does not look like marijuana reform is driving increases in adolescent pot smoking. If you dig a little deeper, comparing cannabis consumption trends in states with and without medical marijuana laws, there is little evidence that such legislation boosts pot smoking by teenagers.

 and they end up saying:

  I would therefore not be surprised if legalization is accompanied by an increase in marijuana consumption by teenagers, although not because of the message it sends so much as the increased access it brings.

Yeah, talk about your finest of lines, there.

In all honesty, given that there seems to me to now be clear acceptance amongst the medical researchers that teenagers in particular should not be using marijuana due to its effect on still developing brains, what I am most surprised at in the Reason story is the percent of American teenagers who do use it by year 10, let alone year 12.

This, of course, will be a matter of little concern to libertarians. 

Note to time travellers

Was Jesus a common name back when he was alive?

If one was travelling back to Israel at the time of Christ, it seems to me that it may not be all that easy to identify Him until he started to get a reputation as a preacher*:

Many people shared the name. Christ's given name, commonly Romanized as Yeshua, was quite common in first-century Galilee. (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.) Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus' death. The name also appears 30 times in the Old Testament in reference to four separate characters—including a descendent of Aaron who helped to distribute offerings of grain (2 Chronicles 31:15) and a man who accompanied former captives of Nebuchadnezzar back to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2)....

What was Jesus' last name? It wasn't Christ. Contemporaries would have called him Yeshua Bar Yehosef or Yeshua Nasraya. (That's "Jesus, son of Joseph" or "Jesus of Nazareth.") Galileans distinguished themselves from others with the same first name by adding either "son of" and their father's name, or their birthplace.

Now, I don't know how big a town Nazareth was at the time, but it seems a very good bet that there was more than one "Jesus of Nazareth", and (I would guess) another local "Jesus, son of Joseph" sometime before our Jesus hit 30.

And while on the topic:  I see that Wikipedia has at this entry (under the subheading "Jesus") a list of science fiction books and stories featuring time travel back to Jesus' time.

The one story idea which I don't see mentioned there is a time travelling expedition from the future to make sure the Jesus story as shown in the Gospel happens.  (Sponsored by someone from the Catholic Church who has lost faith, but figures on utilitarian grounds that the net benefits of belief to society would be worth the fraud, and employing one of the modern illusionists of the kind we see on TV now apparently performing convincing tricks in the middle of the street.) 

Having thought of this idea quite some time ago, it has had the unfortunate effect that when hearing a Gospel reading at Church, my mind often wanders to how a modern illusionist would replicate the effect.   Certainly, the glowing or shining appearance of angels, especially at night, is easy to imagine with simple UV light; unconsumed burning bushes (yes, I know, wrong Testament) would be easy as, too, and so  on.


*   Yes, I know a bit of Jesus identity confusion did feature in one episode of Red Dwarf, and I'm not being completely original.

Abbott's understanding questioned (again)

RET cuts: Why Abbott has got it all wrong on green energy | Crikey

The argument about the effect of renewable energy on costs to business and households is, I do tend to find, a difficult one to follow.

But, given that I think Abbott is not smart enough to know who to take advice from, I'm naturally willing to believe he's wrong on this, for the reasons outlined in the article above.

The creepy Watts

Quark Soup by David Appell: Being Clear About Watts

It's been clear for years that Anthony Watts is immature in his personal attacks on people in climate science he disagrees with.   (Who can forget his snide questioning of whether they are patriotic enough to fly the American flag), but David Appell has been a recent target of his attention.

What's clear is that Watts just makes things up, both on science*, and in his personal attacks.  

* He had no basis for a claim he made to Andrew Bolt, which I covered a couple of years ago.  Andrew Bolt never corrected it.

Bitcoin dissed

Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire - Charlie's Diary

I have pretty much ignored the Bitcoin story - it seemed to be a popular idea with the same Libertarian crowd that likes the idea of floating artificial islands of nerds doing whatever Libertarians fantasise think it would be cool to do together all day (I dunno - play paintball?) - and therefore it was safe to assume it was a bad and anti-social idea.

So, today I see an article by Charlie Stross with his list of reasons why it is, indeed, a bad and anti-social idea.  (I would have my doubts about the carbon cost issue, though, but everything else seems fair enough.)

I repeat my recent theme - Libertarians are useless.  It probably would be a good idea if they all lived on one giant ship together, as (of course) they would be well armed (you know, just in case), and within 12 months some argument over an arcane matter of economics that no one else in the world worried about would result in a civil war and the sinking of their ship, both literally and metaphorically.

Two issue Tim

What did I say in ranty post yesterday about Tim Wilson not exactly being inundated with work as Human Rights Commissioner?

I noted two issues he is or is likely concerned with:  s18C as used against Andrew Bolt (he's against it), and the anti bikie legislation in Queensland and elsewhere (where anyone could accurately guess - he'd be against it.)

And so it came to pass (it is nearly Christmas), Tim has an article in the Fairfax press this morning in which he talks about two issues - the ones I identified.  (Oh, alright, he mentioned a third one, which has already been decided yesterday by the High Court, so he ain't going to be taking a lot of phone calls on that matter either.)

So we can pretty much see the future here:   Tim will have a lot of arguments at Commission meetings about how his mate Andrew Bolt should never again face the horror of being taken to court when he refuses to acknowledge insulting, race based, mistakes, and will fail to persuade them that the law should be abolished in its entirety. 

And he might take some extra phone calls (more than the 4 or so the HRC currently annually takes on freedom of expression issues) from bikies, in which his response will be "mate, I sympathise, I really do.  And I'm writing an article about it as we speak.  But not much else I can do at the moment, we're waiting on the High Court decision."

What a completely useless, partisan, appointment.

Update:  I see that in comments flying about the internet, many have noted that one would have thought the biggest concern of a "Freedom Commissioner" might well be the incarceration of thousands of attempted immigrants on Christmas and Manus Island.   Has Tim ever been known for talking about them, instead of his mater of Bolt and his really hurt feelings?   Is there a little bit of a problem with "freedom of expression" from those who are involved in this hush-hush business?   And is there anything that the HRC could do about it anyway? 

I see that someone says he was on Insight once when the topic was assylum seekers, but no one has turned up what he actually said.

But lots of people haver noticed his tweet from 2011:

Walked past Occupy Melbourne protest, all people who think freedom of speech = freedom 2 b heard, time wasters ... send in the water cannons

Yes, just what the HRC needs:  a commissioner not afraid to use water canon on people he disagrees with.    

The Useless Libertarians Who Think They're Useful

I don't recall the libertarian types of the Institute of Paid Advocacy (the right wing think tank funded, at least formerly, if not presently, by tobacco companies, and now in the pocket of Gina Rinehart and - I expect - Rupert Murdoch) being particularly concerned about s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act until Andrew Bolt found himself being prosecuted under it.

I assume that Bolt decided to fight rather than apologise for making inaccurate claims in an article with a clearly ridiculing tone.  Or was he put up to a fight by his bosses prepared to fund his defence for the purposes of a bit of corporate grandstanding?  Who knows?  In any event, Bolt lost, has been carrying on like the biggest martyr ever in the history of Australia for free speech, despite his offending columns still being easily Googled to this day (with a "corrective notice" as ordered by the Court heading them), and all the while has had his hand held by the likes of John Roskam and Tim Wilson of the IPA, and Tony Abbott (the professional weathervane who became Prime Minister) while being told soothing words about  how outrageous this whole action has been and he really is a tragic victim.

This has, psychologically for Bolt, been the worst thing that could have been done.

But the IPA, taking their cue from that and the Labor government's Finkelstein review into media regulation (which went no where, given that the government had no particular media scandal to hang their hat on) have decided that Freedom of Speech is the top way they can build a fake political crisis; and their supporters, clearly not the brightest people when assessing genuine political problems, have been happy to send money, despite the publicly available financial reports on the IPA website showing they have cash reserves of 1.5 million dollars which they appear to be saving merely for a rainy day.   Fools and money, etc.

And now this is all topped off by the Abbott government appointing Tim Wilson to be a "Freedom Commissioner" on the Human Rights Commission.   Yes, Tim Wilson from the organisation that has as a policy position the abolition of the HRC.

In this exchange on the Drum with the President of the Commission, Wilson was all outraged that the Commission did not specifically use the words "free speech" in a submission made to the government a year or two ago.

But what is more interesting is what Triggs notes in response (at 2.31) - the Commission takes 17,000 calls a year from the public, with a total of 4 being about freedom of expression.

Yes, Brandis:  for the sake of 4 complaints a year, there is a need to have a Freedom Commissioner on the HRC.

Wilson's sole job seems to be to advocate for a repeal of s18C - the Bolt section - and Wilson's background in IP, trade and climate change denialism indicates no particular experience in matters of human rights at all.   (Oh sure, he's no doubt been to dinners with Andrew Bolt and assured him he's a martyr.)    What else he is supposed to spend his time on once the 18C issue is dealt with by the government - who knows?    Prime advocate for bikies, perhaps, to have the freedom of association in criminal gangs?   Yes, they'll be some useless grandstanding to be done over that, perhaps.  And apart from that issue, given that the Abbott government is not going to introduce anything like what Labor was contemplating for media regulation reform, what is he going to spend his time on?

This is the most blatant political appointment conceivable to an unqualified big mouth and wannabe politician from what has become he most disreputable think tank in the land.  (On that last point, as an example - as far as I know, Sinclair Davidson has never sought to defend the IPA's adoption of Gina Rinehart's Northern Australia "special treatment" program from this criticism by John Quiggin.  Indeed, Davidson carries on like the biggest drama queen of all on the free speech issue, recently telling anyone from the Jewish lobby who are expressing concern about repeal of s18C that this is a some sort of dramatic fork in the road.)

Remember my rule of thumb:  any person who has a good education yet spends their time on climate change denialism - they're not to be trusted on anything.  This applies to Wilson, and anyone from the IPA.   Of their crew, I only have a bare tolerance for Chris Berg, who (as far as I know) tends to steer away from the climate change issue.  Yet he, of course, is also a Freedom drama queen.  They all are. They are also useless and not to be trusted on the matter of the development of good policy.  They know the answers already (small government!  less taxes! climate change is a fraud! Repeat and repeat), and always work backwards from there.

Exactly

Conservatives Have No Idea What To Do About Recessions | Business Insider

Thanks to monty for the link, which explains exactly the problem with the Republican economics, and indeed with Australia right wing economists:

Log your dreams in public

Naked in public? Dreams Cloud wants to get inside your mind | Crave - CNET

I haven't looked at the app yet, but the idea of people publicly logging their odd dreams sounds like it might be sorta fun, at least for a while.

Does Tony Abbott know what he is doing?

Reserve Bank Reserve Fund foreign currency Australian dollar | Crikey

Bernard Keane in Crikey notes that Tony Abbott seems to think that his government giving the Reserve Bank $8 billion (and causing an immediate increased "blowout" - don't media organisations love that word  - to the budget deficit) is about the Reserve Bank being able to intervene to drive down the Australian dollar.

Bernard says this is  not the case:

But the odd thing about Abbott’s remarks linking the $9 billion to pressure on the dollar is that there is no link. In contrast to the urgency portrayed by Hockey, the RBA hasn’t received the funding yet — as Treasury’s briefing on the issue to then-treasurer Wayne Swan earlier this year noted, there is no mechanism for the government to simply hand $9 billion to the RBA, so it will require a parliamentary appropriation. The RBA will in turn use the funding to buy foreign currencies, mainly the US dollar, because it aims to hold just over half of its assets in foreign currencies.

The $9 billion in fact has no bearing on whether the bank can intervene against the strength of the dollar — for one thing, it’s nowhere near enough to make a big difference. And pushing the dollar down will actually increase the value of the bank’s foreign currency holdings, rather than deplete its assets as Abbott appeared to suggest. It seems that Abbott doesn’t have a basic grasp of why exactly he’s blowing a $9 billion hole in his own deficit (no matter how much he might insist it’s Labor’s deficit).

Worse, he has created the impression that the $9 billion handout has a quid pro quo that the independent RBA will now intervene against the dollar. Our trade-exposed sector, particularly manufacturers but also miners (whose contracts are usually set in US dollars) will all benefit from a fall in the dollar, with flow-on benefits for federal government tax revenue. This will help the Abbott government avoid the nightmarish fate of the Gillard government, which had to sit back and watch as the Aussie dollar hammered the trade-exposed sectors of the economy and slashed corporate tax revenue while the RBA hummed and hawed about why the dollar wasn’t reacting like normal to a fall in our terms of trade.

Abbott’s remarks apparently caused confusion and concern at senior levels within the bank — yet another legacy of Hockey’s $9 billion handout, and the Prime Minister’s hazy grasp of economics.

Pressure on mothers to be

Developmental biology: Support mothers to secure future public health

Quite an interesting commentary here on the vital role for public health that science increasing sees in having healthy mothers right from pregnancy.

For example:

The Hertfordshire data and similar records from other UK towns revealed, for instance, that a person weighing 2.7 kilograms (6 pounds) at birth has a 25% higher risk of contracting heart disease in later life, and a 30% higher risk of having a stroke, compared with someone weighing 4.1 kilograms (9 pounds) at birth³.

These findings were soon strengthened by data from a cohort of 20,000 people born in Helsinki between 1924 and 1944. This study showed, for example, that if all the babies at birth had had weights within the highest third of the total range, the incidence of diabetes in later life would have been halved⁴. In the years since, numerous other studies, involving people from places as diverse as Europe, India, Guatemala, the Philippines and South Africa, have revealed similar correlations with effects that extend to the health of grandchildren.

In the past 15 years, researchers have begun to understand the biology underlying the links between development and chronic disease. The evidence suggests that women should start eating healthily well before they get pregnant. Women who are obese, for example, accumulate more metabolites (such as insulin, lactate and triglycerides) in their ovarian follicles⁵ than do women who are not obese. This accumulation can reduce their fertility and increase the likelihood that their offspring will develop certain diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease or cancer, later in life.

 And how about this for some justification for my feeling that IVF has involved too much mucking around with nature:

 At the moment of conception, the growing embryo seems to be exquisitely sensitive to its nutritional environment. Studies of babies born through in vitro fertilization, for instance, have shown that birth weights can be affected simply by changing the constituents of the medium in which the embryos are cultured.

It would certainly appear that it will be decades yet before we truly know the long term health consequences of the IVF techniques.

Spin, spin, Sheridan

Now this is a phone call I would like to have the exact transcript to.

Greg Sheridan took a call from the Indonesian ambassador to the US on the weekend who was  delivering President SBY's reaction Sheridan's (and The Australian's) Saturday story that there really was good reason to spy on his wife.

I found the reasons given pretty unconvincing, and could only imagine that SBY would find them offensive, but Sheridan is trying to put the phone call in the best possible light:

Dr Yudhoyono instructed Dr Djalal to ring me to convey the President's personal reaction to the stories. Dr Djalal checked with Dr Yudhoyono that these remarks could be publicly attributed to the President. The President said he found elements of The Weekend Australian's coverage showed balance and that there were some positive aspects of the coverage.

Dr Yudhoyono also pointed out that it was he, as President in 2005, who first moved to elevate the Indonesia-Australia relationship to the higher plane it has existed on in recent years. Since that time, he said, he had worked consistently to improve the relationship between the two countries.

He said the dispute over the spying story had hurt him personally. The President said he was determined to repair the relationship and would work towards a solution. This needs to happen through the steps the two nations had agreed on. It also needed to happen in a way that satisfied his domestic needs.

This has the heavy smell of spin around it, doesn't it?    On Sheridan's part, I mean.  I would like to know how much of the conversation was about the "personal hurt", and whether they was mention of "negative elements" as well as the "some positive elements".

Politicians and movies don't mix

It's regrettable that Al Gore headed "An Inconvenient Truth":  he gave Right wingers an excuse to claim a serious environmental issue as being something only a "Lefty" should worry about.

But now we seem to have another good example of a politician unwisely getting into the movie business.  Rick Santorum is the CEO of a Christian movie company, and its first release "A Christmas Candle" is receiving some disastrous, but pretty funny, reviews.  The movie features Susan Boyle, a bit of casting that appears to have very wrong.

Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian:

The urgent question of when Susan Boyle will give us her cinema debut has been settled. She makes a truly extraordinary appearance in this film, not just singing but acting, too, playing a churchwoman with the voice of an angel in a stilted, treacly, and, frankly, bizarre tale of yuletide miracles....

Every 20 minutes or so, Boyle is allowed on to say a line, which she does weirdly quietly, as if talking in her sleep. Her facial expression never changes. And all the professional actors around her look stunned, like those Dallas cops when Jack Ruby stepped forward to shoot Lee Harvey Oswald.

It's not just a Left wing Guardian reviewer, though.  In the Daily Mail:

So I didn’t go to watch The Christmas Candle, Boyle’s big-screen acting debut, with the same negativity as the audience when Ant and Dec sent her out on stage four years ago.

Maybe she’d be just fine.

Unfortunately, she isn’t. Boyle really can’t act.

In fact, Ant or Dec might have been more convincing as church warden’s wife Eleanor Hopewell, and one of Boyle’s co-stars, Lesley Manville, has publicly questioned the decision to cast her.

Yet the big problem with this film is not dear old Subo and the slightly creepy little giggles she keeps emitting, it’s the muddled narrative.

And another (although this review does leave poor Susan alone):

"The Christmas Candle" is a determinedly retro-minded holiday saga that contains no foul language, gruesome violence indeed anything beyond the mildest suggestion of hanky-panky, and for a certain portion of the moviegoing public, these absences alone would be enough to warrant a recommendation. The trouble is that the filmmakers have also neglected to include such other elements as wit, style, energy or anything resembling a coherent narrative.

Better luck next time, Rick! 

It's OK when Rupert does it...

So, how's this supposed to work?

The Guardian and the ABC report from the Snowden leaks that Australia had targeted the Indonesia President's wife's mobile phone, causing a major diplomatic falling out which is supposed to cured with some future protocol.  Presumably, this will involve an indication from us that we agree it's not a nice thing to spy on politicians' wives.

The ABC Collective* condemns the Guardian and the ABC for publicising the spying story.  Against our national interests, etc etc.

Story goes quiet for a couple of weeks.

Then today, The Australian comes out with headline stories that read:

Hey!  It's quite OK to spy on Indonesian President's wives after all!  Kevin Rudd made a good call!

How the hell is that supposed to help repair the relationship?

In fact, isn't it just about the worst possible thing that you could do if our robot Foreign Minister is still negotiating some future promises with the Indonesians?   No, according to Bolt, it's important that the Right attack the Left for criticising the decision to spy on her.

This is ludicrous behaviour by the Right, if you ask me.

 * The Australian, Andrew Bolt, and Catallaxy, for any new reader.

Who knows what this means for education policy?

Nature trumps nurture in exam success: GCSE results 'mainly determined by genes,' says landmark study of twins

Michelle's summary seems pretty right to me

Grattan on Friday: 100 days and the "adults" still have a lot of growing up to do.

It starts:

It is just 100 days on Monday since the election, but the Abbott government lacks that air of excitement that power often brings. Rather, it is staggering towards Christmas, mugged by moving from rhetoric to reality, from the disciplined order of opposition to the setbacks and unexpected challenges of office.

We will do, Abbott pledged before the election, reeling off intentions, only to find there are many things, including the core promises of repealing the carbon and mining taxes, that he can’t do, at least for the moment.

He’d run a government of no surprises, he said. Well, he has been surprised, unpleasantly – most notably by the revelations about Australian spying in Indonesia, as well as by Holden’s intended departure.

And there’s been the unsettling reminder that voters were more anxious to throw out Labor than enthusiastic about the Coalition; now they’re unimpressed by the government’s early efforts. This week’s Newspoll had the ALP leading 52-48%. Satisfaction with Abbott’s performance was 40% - it has fallen steadily from 47% in October. Opposition leader Bill Shorten’s satisfaction rating was 44% - it has risen steadily from 32% in October.

Spooky children's stories

The Science of Reincarnation | The University of Virginia Magazine

The work of the late University of Virginia Professor Ian Stevenson on reincarnation was mentioned in comments here recently, and I see now that the University still has a psychiatrist who conducts research on the topic.

The link gives a pretty good example of one case he knows about in detail.

I am  a bit surprised to see that 70% of children who suddenly claim to have lived before are male.   But it is interesting to hear of American cases.  If I recall correctly, one of the big issues with Stevenson's work which (I think) dealt with a lot of Indian cases, is that the kids were being raised in a society which already accepts reincarnation, and they would surely be influenced by that in their imaginative life.

That's a lot harder to see as an influence in America.  

You should also read the comments following the article.   Some people are "appalled" that the University magazine would run such an article.

Wasted trip

BBC News - Dinosaur asteroid 'sent life to Mars'

 The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs may have catapulted life to Mars and the moons of Jupiter, US researchers say.

They calculated how many Earth rocks big enough to shelter life were ejected by asteroids in the last 3.5bn years.

The Chicxulub impact was strong enough to fire chunks of debris all the way to Europa, they write in Astrobiology.

Thousands of potentially life-bearing rocks also made it to Mars, which may once have been habitable, they add.

"We find that rock capable of carrying life has likely transferred from both Earth and Mars to all of the terrestrial planets in the solar system and Jupiter," says lead author Rachel Worth, of Penn State University.

"Any missions to search for life on Titan or the moons of Jupiter will have to consider whether biological material is of independent origin, or another branch in Earth's family tree."

Sounds kind of improbable to me...

Life possible in the early Universe 

Aliens might have existed during the Universe’s infancy. A set of calculations suggests that liquid water — a pre­requisite for life — could have formed on rocky planets just 15 million years after the Big Bang.

Abraham Loeb, an astrophysicist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has realized that in the early Universe, the energy required to keep water liquid could have come from the cosmic microwave background, the afterglow of the Big Bang, rather than from host stars. Today, the temperature of this relic radiation is just 2.7 kelvin, but at an age of around 15 million years it would have kept the entire Universe at a balmy 300 kelvin, says Loeb, who posted his calculations to the arXiv preprint server this month (http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0613).

Loeb says that rocky planets could have existed at that time, in pockets of the Universe where matter was exceptionally dense, leading to the formation of massive, short-lived stars that would have enriched these pockets in the heavier elements needed to make planets. He suggests that there would have been a habitable epoch of 2 million or 3 million years during which all rocky planets would have been able to maintain liquid water, regardless of their distance from a star. “The whole Universe was once an incubator for life,” he says.

 But as one critic says further down in the article:

Christopher Jarzynski, a biophysicist at the University of Maryland, College Park, is not convinced that life could exist in a uniformly warm Universe. Life on Earth depends thermo­dynamically not only on the heat source of the Sun, but also on the cold cosmic microwave background, which provides a heat sink, he notes. “Life feeds off this,” he says. And Alexander Vilenkin, a cosmologist at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, says that a few million years is too short a time to produce intelligent life.

 Anyway, if true, and aliens did evolve then, it certainly sets up well the idea that our alien overlords (like the ones in 2001 A Space Odyssey) are very old indeed. 

Love fight

A rather odd on line fight has broken out between those who hate the movie Love Actually, and those who defend it.  (The 10 year anniversary of its release seems to be the motivation for this re-assessment.)

Christopher Orr started it with his lengthy explanation of why he thinks the movie is awful and actually anti-romantic.  His critique is not perfect - he says he thinks Bill Nighy is terrific, whereas I always find him hammy and annoying.   But he makes a pretty strong case against the movie overall.

(I just found the movie extremely unconvincing in virtually every story thread.   I wrote at the time that I found some of the stories verging on creepy, but I've actually forgotten which ones now.)

Orr's article has now been followed by this:

I Will Not Be Ashamed of Loving Love Actually - Emma Green - The Atlantic

and she brings in CS Lewis to defend her take on the movie.  (!)  [I somehow have my doubts that he would have taken to the love story between actors doing fake porn scenes.]

Other haters and lover of the movie have taken this as a cue to join in.  I see that this Australian entry is pretty good - she seems to dislike it in pretty much exactly the same ways I do.  After than, you can read a defence of the movie on Mother Earth News.  Then you can go visit another Australian woman who dislikes the movie.

I think the "noes" have it.

UPDATE:  An English young bloke in The Guardian now has a go at Australians for criticising it, even though this round of criticism started in America, declaring it his favourite movie, ever.  (!)   I think he should be a little embarrassed about that, in all honesty.

Drink up

BBC News - Artificial sweetener aspartame 'is safe'

I work on the assumption that if the Europeans think a food additive is safe, it almost certainly is.

An early Christmas present...

...at least for those of us who didn't vote for Abbott.

From the Financial Review:

The Abbott government’s extraordinary collapse in public support has been confirmed in the latest Newspoll, which puts Labor well ahead on a two-party basis and shows the Coalition has lost its carbon tax advantage.

The Newspoll, published in The Australian on Tuesday, finds the Coalition’s election-winning margin has been erased in just three months, with Labor now leading the two-party preferred vote with 52 per cent compared with the Abbott government’s 48 per cent.

The poll result confirms an Australian Financial Review/Nielsen poll, published two weeks ago, which was the first since the election to show that voters had dramatically shifted allegiance away from the Coalition, despite the party’s landslide win on September 7.

This translates into a 5.5 per cent swing against the government since the country voted, a shift strongly represented in the Financial Review’s Poll of Polls.

 Actually, I don't really think that it was "a landslide victory", but apart from that, a good report!