To Canberra and Back, Part 7

We're on the last legs now.  From Jenolan Caves we headed up north to Taree, via Katoomba:

I don't know when I was last in Katoomba - perhaps I had been there briefly once as an adult, but I think I may have just driven through on the way to my adult visit to Jenolan Caves.  I wanted to show the family the famous view, but even at midday, this was all that you could see:

  

 

I was reduced to going into the souvenir shops and pointing to postcards and saying to slightly skeptical family that it really looked spectacular if it weren't for the cloud:

(Apologies to Australian readers who didn't really need the illustration.)

I felt sorry for the busloads of Chinese tourists who being delivered to stare into the fog for a few minutes, before being shuffled into what looked like a lacklustre cultural show featuring suburban people of aboriginal descent.  (I'll slip into slight condescension mode and mention again that an interest in Australian aboriginal culture, no matter how it is presented, is something which still eludes me, and I really have my doubts it interests the average Chinese tourist either.)

Anyway, on we drove, descending out of the Blue Mountains and skirting Sydney as we hit the road north.  Lunch was at a McDonalds. 

I've always liked the motorway north out of Sydney to Newcastle; the way it carves through some hills and the high bridges over which (unfortunately) the driver only gets a brief scenic glance.

And in fact the road right through to Taree was pretty good most of the way.  

Taree was chosen to overnight just because of its distance.  It seemed a pretty nondescript town; I prefer some of the more northern big river towns of New South Wales.  More about them later.

A serious problem

Given that the last month in Australian media has been full of appalling stories of pedophilia (apart from the Morecombe case itself, there are the terrible allegations from several women about - alleged - comic actor Robert Hughes, and the extraordinary case of the Cairns based gay couple who acquired a baby with the explicit purpose in mind,)  I thought I would look around for recent commentary on the whole issue of pedophilia and recidivism.

This one from Harvard Medical School in 2010 is pretty good.  The problem is, as the title says, there is pretty widespread pessimism about how it can be treated with any sufficient degree of certainty that you can prevent recidivism.   This is a real nightmare for those in the justice system, and the community more generally. 

Look at Cowan himself.  After serving 4 years for a second rape of a boy, and being sent by his parole office in Darwin to Queensland so that could do a sexual offenders program, he apparently got into an evangelical Church and met his wife there, with whom he had two children (one before he killed Daniel, one after.)  He certainly looks clean cut and reformed in this street interview in Brisbane in which he proclaimed he was a new man.  For any psychologist dealing with him, this must have sounded like the best possible type of support group to help ensure he did not re-offend.  Yet the urge to sexually assault boy strangers was strong enough that he acted on it.

The thing is, what confidence should the public have in sexual offender programs delivered through the justice system?   The Harvard article above notes this about recidivism:

Estimates of recidivism vary because studies define this term in different ways. One review found recidivism rates of 10% to 50% among pedophiles previously convicted of sexual abuse, although this could include anything from an arrest for any offense to reconviction on a crime against a child. One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children.

This would indicate the recidivism rate for someone like Cowan is extraordinarily high, and his case is far from atypical.

Are judges kept fully aware of the research on the topic?

And what about the style of treatment and its efficacy that is attempted in the sexual offender programs in Australia?   I see there is a 2010 Queensland study on the sexual offender program, but it is only for about 409 released from 2005 to 2008 - a pretty small sample size over a very short period.  (The report acknowledges these shortcomings;  it also notes that for offences against children, there is often a substantial delay before the offence is reported.)

The report finds that the program seems to have a positive effect (in that those who did the program have a somewhat lower recidivism rate for sexual offences), but obviously the study is looking at a very short period.    The parts that discuss sexual offence recidivism rates generally are of interest. On the "down" side:

Despite a great deal of research effort devoted to the question, knowledge concerning the dynamic risk factors associated with sexual offender recidivism (otherwise referred to as criminogenic needs) remains limited. Some of the psychological characteristics commonly targeted for improvement in sexual offender programs (e.g. sexual preoccupations; impulsivity; intimacy problems) tend to be only weakly (even if significantly in a statistical sense) associated with sexual offender recidivism. Other common treatment targets (e.g. denial; victim empathy) have recently been shown, on average, to be unrelated to sexual offender recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005).

 On the (slightly) more positive side:

A meta-analytic review of sexual offender recidivism studies, involving more than 80 separate studies and almost 30,000 sexual offenders, found an average sexual recidivism rate of 13.7% over an average time at risk of five to six years (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). In that meta-analysis, rates for nonsexual violent recidivism were 14.3%, and for ‘any’ recidivism 36.2%. For the present evaluation, the average time at risk of two years and five months was a little less than half the average observation period for the studies included in Hanson and Morton-Bourgon’s meta-analysis. Notwithstanding jurisdictional variations in crime reporting.  and recording, it would be reasonable to expect that over the next two or three years observed recidivism base-rates for the Queensland offenders would be more similar to international averages.

But what about for longer periods?   This passage seems to me to be written with unwarranted optimism, given the number quoted:

Notwithstanding the limitations of official recidivism data, it seems clear that a significant proportion (perhaps the majority) of convicted sexual offenders do not go on to commit further sexual offences, even without treatment. Studies that have followed sexual offenders for 20 years or more still tend to find sexual recidivism rates well below 50% (Hanson, 2000; Janus & Meehl, 1997). This raises further questions about the universal need for specialised sexual offender treatment.    

What's missing, of course, is more specific figures for the rate of pedophiliac recidivism.

From reading the Harvard commentary, and this Queensland report with its hesitation about how effective these programs really are, it would seem reasonable to conclude  that the rate of recidivism for pedophiles is significantly higher than for sexual offenders against adults, and is very likely to stay that way even if they undergo a sexual offender course.

More pessimism can be taken from the psychologist who actually treated Cowan.   While he considers sexual offender programs do help (and while ever they have some effectiveness, I wouldn't argue against them - except to the extent that they may give unwarranted confidence to judges when sentencing,) he freely admits you can never really know if someone will re-offend:

He says evidence suggests such programs are effective when they are "well designed and well implemented".

"But there are never any guarantees for individuals, and when you're dealing with high-risk offenders in the first place there's bound to be some recidivism among that group," he said.

"The difficulty is predicting who among that group is and isn't likely to go on to commit further offences."

He says sex offenders often display no observable behavioural features apart from the offences they commit.

"In fact for many sex offenders, the most unusual thing about them is that they have committed sex offences," he said.

"We know that in retrospect, but it's obviously very difficult to know in prospect."

It seems to me that if the long term recidivism rate for guys like Cowan is around 50%, and if sexual offender programs have only ever been shown to have modest effects (say, reducing re-offense by pedophiles to 40%?) this is a really significant matter which must be taken into account in terms of how both sentencing and the terms on which they should ever be released back into the community.

(If any psychologist thinks my guesstimate figures in that paragraph are  wrong - let them come out and be specific about what figures they know about.)

So how is the justice system supposed to deal with these offenders?    The judge in the Cowan case has been criticised for making the observation that an unintended consequence of tougher sentencing for sex offenders is that it can give them a greater incentive to kill their victim.   This makes some intuitive sense, but really, it has got to be balanced with the actual evidence about the rate of recidivism.   What I find particularly hard to credit is that second offence sentences for sexual assaults on children should take this effect into account. 

The Courier Mail is running hard on the previous judges being too lenient in sentencing.   I generally am wary of such media campaigns for various reasons, but it is interesting to note that there was an appeal by the Prosecution which failed against the 7 year (with non parole of 3 1/2 years) sentence for Cowan's second offence in Darwin.  The point is that, reading around on the topic, there do appear to be grounds to be concerned that judges may have an inadequate appreciation of the recidivism rates for this particular type of offender.  If the media can play a role in highlighting this, I don't have a problem with that.

But even then, longer sentences for early offences is not the only issue.   The community hates the idea of released repeat offenders of any age being anywhere near them, and who can blame them, really?  Chemical or physical castration if issued as a punishment by the State feels either too medieval, or "Clockwork Orange," to most liberals, I assume, but it is interesting to see it is still a live issue as a voluntary measure in the United States, and chemical castration is a recently introduced punishment in Korea.  

(One argument noted against physical castration is that men can seek to counteract its affects by testosterone patches - which are presumably not so hard to get your hands on these days.)

The article about the Korean situation notes the 50% recidivism rate for pedophiles:

Surgical castration reportedly produces definitive results, even in repeat pedophilic offenders, by reducing recidivism rates to 2% to 5% compared with expected rates of 50%. Chemical castration using LHRH agonists reduces circulating testosterone to very low levels, and also results in very low levels of recidivism despite the strong psychological factors that contribute to sexual offending (10). Chemical castration has some advantages over surgical castration. First, although chemical castration is potentially life-long for some offenders, it might allow sexual offenders to have normal sexual activity in context with psychotherapy. Second, some sexual offenders may voluntarily receive chemical castration. Third, chemical castration may be a more realistic restriction than electronic ankle bracelets or surgical castration. Fourth, unlike surgical castration, the effects of anti-libido medication are reversible after discontinuation. Finally, the general public may feel relieved knowing that sexual offenders are undergoing chemical castration.

 I'm not at all sure that the public thinks the reversibility of chemical castration is an advantage, but at least chemical castration (I assume) avoids the issue of physical castration being countered by testosterone.

I do not have a conclusive view on this, but I would not reject a serious discussion about the voluntary use of chemical castration as a precondition for release of offenders such as Cowan, regardless of their age.

Update:   I see that a New South Wales Parliamentary committee is said to be already considering chemical castration as a sentencing option.   This report notes that civil libertarians were unhappy with the suggestion, but interestingly, the opinion of one important group of professionals sounds quite sanguine and practical about it:

But the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists president-elect, Louise Newman, believes chemical castration, which works as long as the patient stays on the medication, should be considered for the more "hard core" sexual offenders.

"It's certainly not a cure or a way of reducing all risk, but it might be seen as a useful component of treatment or management for some of these very difficult cases, where we're unlikely to see response to other methods," Professor Newman told ABC News Online.

"They're not commonly used at all and they are not needed other than in the fairly difficult group of very severe offenders."

The drugs impact on liver function, so those undergoing the treatment usually have their health checked regularly.

Professor Newman says that although some sex offenders have a good chance of recovery, there will always be a small group of people who will continue to pose a risk to the community.

"There's always some risk of reoffending and obviously someone can offend in various ways," she said.

"Clearly there is a group of people for whom risk is significant and they might have ongoing and really severe difficulties in managing their impulses.

"Containment and monitoring of those sorts of people might actually be necessary to ensure community safety."

 I could not think of a more ideal candidate for having his release on parole subject to a lengthy mandated period of chemical castration than Cowan on his second sentence.  Of course, this would presumably have stopped a relatively young man from marrying and having kids as he did, but look at what it could have stopped.

I also see from Wikipedia that, surprisingly, in the United States, California was the first state to introduce it as a punishment for child molestation.  It is a mandatory if going on parole after a second offence.  The article notes about 7 other states have "experimented" with it; I am a little surprised that it has not been used more widely in some of the more conservative states. 

The Wikipedia story also lists quite a few European nations that have implemented it since about 2010.  There would seem to be a bit of an international movement towards accepting it as useful particularly for repeat offenders against children.

It seems to me that it is time for it to be discussed in more detail in this country, too.

Don't forget "expensive"

BBC News - Viewpoint: Does Singapore deserve its 'miserable' tag?

I've always quite liked my short stays in Singapore, although the last one was maybe 8 or so years ago now (I think.)

I am told by someone who was holidaying there recently, though, that it really has become expensive.

The interesting thing is that, as far as I can gather (since I don't bother reading that much about American libertarians) Singapore has developed a bit of a fan club amongst at least a subset of those of that political persuasion.  Certainly, I think the country has a reputation for a self sufficiency of its people.

According to the article though, that self sufficiency seems to have progressed into lack of empathy with strangers.   If it is a society that does reflect libertarianism, I am not exactly surprised.

The old "I'm just being reasonable" line

I see Sinclair Davidson is again running with the old "I'm just being reasonable" line in which he seeks to downplay his active promotion since at least 2007 of public disbelief in the seriousness of climate change.

Here are some of his cute lines today:

To the extent that we all agree that CO2 emissions are a problem, and we want to do something about those emissions, then theory tells us that the least-cost solution would be to impose a tax on CO2 emissions...

So, a person who is an high ranking member of the IPA, and who runs a blog with contributors who are all openly dismissive and hostile towards climate change as a serious issue is suggesting that he agrees that "CO2 emissions are a problem"?   Or is there some subtle interpretation I am missing out on here?

Well, the next paragraph notes that some people don't agree that there is a CO2 problem at all - (yeah, like every single contributor to his blog.)

Would Sinclair like to explain whether he is within the some people, or would he prefer to keep it somewhat  vague so he can try to distance himself from his fetid IPA colleagues when, as is widely expected by the scientists he routinely seeks to discredit, the next change in the Pacific sees the temperature increase its rate of climb? 


I think I have known the answer to that one for quite a while now.

Reason for optimism?

The Economist has a short article on the potential for "distributed generators" and large scale batteries to beat down things like big coal.  It starts:

WHO needs the power grid when you can generate and store your own electricity cheaply and reliably? Such a world is drawing nearer: good news for consumers, but a potential shock for utility companies. That is the conclusion of a report this week by Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, which predicts that ever-cheaper solar and other renewable-energy sources, combined with better and more plentiful batteries, will allow many businesses and other electricity users to cut the cord on their electricity providers.

Tesla Motors, an American maker of electric cars, recently said it will build a “gigafactory”, which by 2020 will turn out as many lithium-ion batteries as the whole world produced last year. These batteries can do more than power cars; they can also store electricity which is produced when it is not needed, and discharge it when it is.

Is everyone fed up with Andrew being fed up, yet?

You know, I think Andrew Bolt might be playing the martyr line to such a tiresome degree that even his supporters may be wavering in their loyalty.

I was going to write something about how, if you don't want to be labelled a racist (even if in error), it probably helps to not spend so much time rubbishing aboriginal activists, arguing that every single "stolen generation" claim is bollocks,  and pointing at and deriding pale skinned people who claim aboriginality. 

But the opening paragraph in a wry Guardian opinion piece (semi sarcastically imploring Bolt not to quit) sort of summed up the situation well:

There is a classic scene in The Simpsons parodying the borderline un-parody-able Fox News, wherein the network’s news helicopter is emblazoned with the slogan “Not racist, but #1 with racists”.

It was the first thing that sprang to mind upon reading about poor, maligned Andrew Bolt and his claim that, so hurt by an accusation of racism by Marcia Langton on Q&A, he didn’t turn up to work on Tuesday (freeing him up to write a cheeky 14 posts on his blog, happily).

What? You mean no productivity crisis either?

One graph that completely contradicts Australia's 'productivity crisis' | Business Spectator

Last week, I noted there was no wages growth crisis in Australia.

As Kohler points out, the Australian government is also happy to tell foreign investors that there is also great crisis in productivity either.

I just heard that unemployment was steady at 6%.  Not great, but not a crisis either.

And all of this happening while we still have a carbon tax, and no certainty it will be gone in July.

Odd, that.  [/sarc, of course.]

History: A medieval multiverse

History: A medieval multiverse

This somewhat interesting look at the theories of a medieval scholar and bishop includes this bit:

The possible existence of more than one universe was indeed a live issue
of the period, and a highly contentious one — appearing, for example,
in the Papal edict of 1277 that banned a list of scientific teachings.
But it was a debate that Grosseteste apparently chose to avoid. None of
his surviving treatises discusses the possibility of other forms of
universe, however close he came to implying it in his cosmogony.

I wonder what else was covered in that Papal edict of 1277.

Catholic conundrums

Pope Francis at one year: Why intense focus on the papacy is bad for the Catholic Church

I quite like this article, particularly when it talks about the problems the Catholic Church faces in trying to resolve the contradictions which came out of Vatican 2.  (The fundamental one, which was brought into sharp focus in the minds of tens of millions of Catholics because of the Church's contemporaneous  rejection of the Pill, was the renewed emphasis on individual conscience, while insisting that a good Catholic conscience cannot disagree with the Church's pronouncements on matters such as contraception.)

This passage rings true:

These divisions, and the disputes they provoke, are mind-numbingly
familiar. What is a “faithful” Catholic to think about artificial birth
control; homosexuality and same-sex marriage; divorce; the exclusively
male, celibate priesthood; the possibility of electing bishops; the role
of the laity, especially women, in church decision-making; the
relationship between popes and bishops; religious pluralism; and clergy
sexual abuse and the unaccountability of the hierarchy? These and other
questions go to the heart of Catholic self-understanding, yet a church
notorious for valuing discipline and unanimity remains deeply divided on
all of them. Catholics on both sides of every issue claim to be the
true heirs of the Second Vatican Council. All agree that Vatican II
promulgated the most authoritative understanding of the church’s
teachings. Yet they read the council’s documents in diametrically
opposed ways.

How is that possible? The answer lies with the documents themselves.
On the one hand, the proclamations of Vatican II opened startling new
possibilities for how Catholics might engage both one another and those
outside the church: “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the
anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in
any way afflicted, these too are the joys and hopes, the griefs and
anxieties, of the followers of Christ,” the bishops insisted at Vatican
II, in an unprecedented spirit of ecumenism. At the same time, however,
the council effectively reaffirmed the Catholic absolutism of the past.
The distinguished Lutheran theologian George Lindbeck, an official
Protestant observer at Vatican II, described the resulting dilemma as
one in which “radical and fundamental ambiguities in the most
authoritative” statements promulgated by the council—including those on
papal infallibility, relations with other Christians, and the challenge
of reconciling Catholic tradition with the Bible—enabled those on
different sides of every neuralgic issue to find ample textual support
for their interpretations. “When the supreme law of the land directly
authorizes rival, perhaps contradictory, positions and provides no way
of settling the disputes,” Lindbeck concluded with genuine regret,
“conflict becomes inevitable and, unless changes are made in the supreme
law, irresolvable.”

Little has changed in the nearly 40 years since Lindbeck offered his assessment.

That Groucho Marx club quip comes to mind

The Society of Mutual Autopsy  -  Mind Hacks

The brief explanation:

In October 1876, twenty Parisian men joined together as the Society of
Mutual Autopsy and pledged to dissect one another’s brains in the hopes
of advancing science. The society acquired over a hundred members in its
first few years, including many notable political figures of the left
and far left. While its heyday was unquestionably the last two decades
of the century, the society continued to attract members until the First
World War. It continued its operations until just before World War II,
effectuating many detailed encephalic autopsies, the results of which
were periodically published in scientific journals.

Andrew Bolt, professional martyr

I see that Andrew Bolt's self assigned job (although encouraged with much hand holding by the IPA and, I suspect, News Ltd itself) as professional martyr continues unabated.  Today, complaining that Marcia Langton was mean to him, he writes:

I could prove that my banned articles argued against racism and racial division by republishing them - but the Federal Court has ruled that I may not. Mein Kampf can be published, but my articles fighting racism cannot.

The articles remain (and as far as I know, have always been) available on his own blog, although they are headed by a notice required by the Court that it had made findings that they were inaccurate.  

As for Langton, she may (for all I know) have been exaggerating as to the effect Bolt's comments on Misty Jenkins, but Bolt is also being disingenuous if he is claiming he was not having a go at her for identifying as aboriginal.  The quote in Q&A:

Page four has a feature on Dr Misty Jenkins, a blonde and pale science PhD who calls herself Aboriginal and enthuses: “I was able to watch the coverage of Kevin Rudd’s (sorry) speech with tears rolling down my cheeks ...

Given that we know the question of self identification of aboriginality has been a strongly contested matter even with aboriginal circles, and has been commented on by other right wing figures even in the Australian without there being any legal consequences, the matter has always been not that Bolt deals with the issue, but how he goes about doing it.

Andrew is not big or sensible enough to recognise this, and right wing activists (with who knows what corporate backing) are happy to see him play the role.  All a bit sad for Bolt, really.   As with his gullible acceptance of climate change denialism, he just really continues to prove he's not so smart.

(Oh sure, getting rich on his Fox Lite media performances, no doubt.   But showing himself to be dumber by the day.)

In related news:   it's amusing to read today that the IPA is stamping its feet over the prospect that the Abbott government is not going to repeal s18C in its entirety.  Fairfax writes:

 The dispute is likely to get worse, especially if Senator Brandis introduces, as some expect, a new criminal offence of racial vilification. IPA executive director John Roskam said he would rather there were no changes to the law than a new criminal ban on hate speech. He also said it had ''got back to me'' that Senator Brandis had been criticising the IPA in private conversations.

Oh noes!  A politician who might be rather sick of the bullying blowhards and culture warriors of the IPA (see Sinclair Davidson publicly suggesting that Brandis shouldn't be re-elected if he doesn't toe the IPA line) says he doesn't appreciate their attitude.   How surprising.

Great moments in American "rights" law

Watching what American courts get asked to determine as matters arising from their legislated approach to rights provides some excellent reasons for never going down that path:

The US Supreme Court on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that seventh- and eighth-grade students in a Pennsylvania school district have a free speech right to wear bracelets proclaiming “i ♥ boobies!”

School officials had asked the high court to take up the case and reverse the ruling to allow administrators more leeway to censor messages worn by students at school. The high court turned aside the appeal without comment.

The bracelets were designed to build awareness of the struggle against breast cancer, and wearing them became a fad among a group of 11- to 14-year-old middle-school students in the Easton Area School District in eastern Pennsylvania.

Rupert knows everything

Has anyone been paying attention to Rupert Murdoch's twitter account lately?   He's taken to making some very big (and very, very dubious) calls:

On Sunday:

 777crash confirms jihadists turning to make trouble for China. Chance for US to make common cause, befriend China while Russia bullies.

Why bother investigating when you can just give Rupert a call?

On 1 March (following the mass stabbing in China):

Obama should all Chinese President following today's incident and say " we both have the problem of Muslim terrorism. Can we work together?"

So, the US has a role to play in dealing with Chinese internal Muslim issues?  What - looking at ways to stop the spread of knives amongst terrorists?  

On religion:

Pope Francis appoints brilliant Cardinal Pell from Sydney to be no.3 power in Vatican. Australia will miss him but world will benefit.

Um, no.  A small rump of hard core conservative right wing Australian Catholics will be sad to see George disappear into the Vatican in a low public profile job.   The large majority of church attending Catholics, including priests and bishops, will be happy to see his pompous style go.  

On the weather, now that he has no young wife with liberal friends:

Wild winter in US, UK, etc. no respectable evidence any of this man made climate change in spite of blindly ignorant politicians.

Rupert confirms he is old and has jumped the shark.   It also sounds like he sits around watching Fox News all day.  I wonder if his new squeeze is already searching the internet for high end nursing homes in Manhattan?

An odd result

In an article in The Atlantic, about how gay marriage has made substantial grounds in public approval in even the conservative Southern states of America, the writer notes this surprising polling result:

While 48 percent of southerners now favor same-sex marriage, only 37 percent of southerners say sex between two adults of the same gender is morally acceptable. To put it bluntly, support for the legality of same-sex marriage outpaces moral approval of same-gender sex by double-digit numbers.

There follows a fair bit of discussion about it in the comments that follow.   

The article also notes the (well known) incredible divide between young folk and old folk on the issue.   I do not really know that anyone has convincingly pointed out the cultural reason as to why this happened amongst younger people, so quickly. 

A very accurate drought prediction?

Climatologist Who Predicted California Drought 10 Years Ago Says It May Soon Be 'Even More Dire' | ThinkProgress

It's not so often that some modelling work seems to have made such an accurate predication, but in this case, the 2004 work seems to have been very close to the mark.

Tamino has a post on the same issue (it's via him that I found the Romm article), taking to task NOAA's Martin Hoerling, who has written that there is no evidence of global warming being behind the Californian drought.

I have noted for years that NOAA has been prominent in issuing quick denials of connections between  AGW and extreme weather.  I'm not sure if Hoerling is the one who has always been behind this policy; I would have to search back a bit.   In any event, as I have argued before, dismissing connections too quickly is not a very sound approach in something as complex as climate and weather.

As I expected

Solidoodle 4: Testing the home 3-D printer.

I have always felt rather cynical about the claims for the revolutionary nature of 3D printers, and this Slate writer's experience with trying out a domestic model seems to justify my doubts.

The open secret

Abbott’s paid parental leave will do little to bring women to the workforce | Business | theguardian.com

Greg Jericho column is pretty good on the topic.

What I find most amusing about this is how everyone - and I mean everyone - knows that Abbott has no support at all from anyone, even within his party, for the policy.  Yet he has decided to stake his reputation on it.

What a loser, with poor judgement.   

Organising health care

What makes a community healthy? - latimes.com

A somewhat interesting article here arguing that differences in how health care services are organised in the US are very important.  I see in the map on the site, nearly all of Texas is shown as performing poorly, but also large parts of California.  Odd.

To Canberra and Back - Part 6

After a week in Canberra, it was time to start heading north, and I wanted to show the family the Jenolan Caves.  I had first visited them on a day trip when I was about 9, and the place left a strong impression.  I would have been in my 20's when I went there again, and this time stayed overnight, enjoying a trout dinner in the old art deco dining room.  It's a great spot at which I could  happily spend days.

The route from Canberra takes you past Lake George (currently empty, I think, but some big wind turbines are to be seen on the other side.)   The most interesting part of the drive is the rather lonely road from Goulburn north.   As you can see from the map, it really only has one, small town on the way, Taralga:

We stopped there for lunch and had some quite delicious store made pies (chicken and leek for me and my son; I forget what the "girls" had.)   Here's the shop (on the right as you head north):

The buildings on the other side of the road (and this is pretty much the centre of town) look like this:

That's a bed and breakfast on the left.  There is an old pub nearby with accommodation, and another one further up the road.  The general store is pretty small, and the cafes probably only do lunch, but there are meals at the pubs.  The Wikipedia entry says it has a population of 312, which is perhaps smaller than I expected, and they do well to have what they do in the town, then. 

The somewhat remote feeling about the place, and unexpected collection of old but relatively well kept buildings, were quite appealing to me.  It would seem my favourable impressions were well founded:

Taralga differs from many towns in that a large proportion of its existing buildings date from the 1860s to 90s (although now subject to later uses) and because most of them are of stone construction - built from the vast number of stones and rocks which litter the volcanic soils for miles around.

These two combined to produce an architectural style which is unique to Taralga - not quite Georgian, not quite Victorian - with a tendency to larger windows and quite substantial construction even for modest dwellings. It also means that the town retains a special heritage of particular interest to the traveller.

I am not sure what one would do if you stayed there, but it was the sort of place I felt I should hang around for a couple of days.  It sometimes gets snow in winter, apparently, which would make it look particularly pretty. 

But on northward, through more pretty empty country, til we got to the famous Jenolan Caves.  I like everything about the place, except (I suppose) how busy it can be during holidays.   I like the setting:

the old accommodation 

the blue water (caused by dissolved limestone) in the pond outside:

even the skinks are a pleasing, golden, colour:

And of course the caves themselves.  We only had time for one, and it was the Lucas Cave, the one I first went into when I was a child:

(No, you don't use the ladder, but the maintenance people who do use to change lightbulbs are pretty brave.) It's hard to do justice to the caves with your basic digital camera, but you get the idea:

They say there are still parts of this extensive network of caves still being newly explored, which is quite amazing given how long these have been a tourist attraction (since the 1860's.)

Unfortunately, the day visit was a bit tarnished by a night spent in some bush cabins beside some extremely rowdy young folk from some overseas place - I suspected Iranians.  The setting was nice - full of kangaroos and a wide open field, but these young pests were chasing each other around spraying soft drink on each other before it was dark, then the music came on and it was party time til we (actually, my wife) shouted at them at 12.30 am.  It would have been better if they were religious Muslims.

Then the trip continued the next day....

Tiny, tiny black holes, again

I haven't spent much time browsing through arXiv lately, which is a pity, because here are a couple of papers of interest spotted today:

*  here's one suggesting that the early universe could have led to the creation of lots of tiny black hole "atoms", which have the unusual feature of having electrons within them, and no charge, and therefore to be very weakly interacting with anything else.  They are therefore suggested as a candidate for dark matter.  (I'm pretty sure black hole remnants have been suggested as a dark matter candidate before, just not this type of micro black hole.)  Interesting.

*  here's another paper, much harder to follow, but it is about the blocking of Hawking radiation if a black is inside of a neutron star.  This is of interest because I thought that the safety of the potential micro black holes created in the LHC was based on studies looking at the long term existence of neutron stars.  I am not sure whether those studies considered the potential for the blocking of Hawking Radiation inside of a neutron star which might not exist inside of a planet.  Someone smarter than me would have to look into this.

More bad PR for India

BBC News - India's invisible widows, divorcees and single women

Another way for the Omega Point?

Physics - Cosmological Constant Redefined

I need an article that explains this better for me, but as my preferences lie towards a universe that will collapse rather than just end in a run away expansion, I am encouraged that there is a way that it might still happen:

The cosmological constant refers to a uniform energy density that presumably could explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe. However, a straightforward calculation of this constant gives an impossibly large value. A new approach to this problem, detailed in Physical Review Letters, involves a slight reformulation of general relativity, in which the cosmological constant ends up being a historical average of the matter energy density in the Universe. Besides predicting a small cosmological constant, the theory foresees an eventual collapse of our Universe in a big crunch.

Because the cosmological constant is, by definition, constant throughout time and space, it’s natural to associate it with the energy of the vacuum. Unfortunately, if one calculates the vacuum energy density from quantum zero-point fluctuations (i.e., when particles pop in and out of existence), the result is a factor of 10120 higher than the value deduced from astronomical observations.

Theorists have tried to “tune” the cosmological constant by assuming that the quantum vacuum energy is cancelled out by some additional energy (for example, coming from a Higgs-like particle). But these solutions have proven to be unstable. Nemanja Kaloper of the University of California, Davis, and Antonio Padilla of the University of Nottingham, UK, have devised a new strategy, in which they rewrite Einstein’s general relativity equations. The new equations effectively cancel out the input from quantum fluctuations, by treating the cosmological constant as an average of the matter contribution over all of space and time. This produces a relatively small cosmological constant, but it also predicts that our current accelerated expansion will somehow stop in the future and reverse direction. – Michael Schirber

I wonder if Frank Tipler feels encouraged too for his Omega Point idea? I haven't read anything about him for a while. He still seems to be on the Faculty at Tulane University.

Beautiful science

Found via Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, here's a spectacular bit of film making by a young guy who works on salmon research at the University of Washington.   It certainly shows you don't need a huge budget to get great nature footage these days.  Watch it in High Definition, full screen.

Salmon Research at Iliamna Lake, Alaska 2013 from Jason Ching on Vimeo.

What a repulsive bunch

So, Republican Mitch McConnell tries to up his popularity with the conservative, gun loving, climate change denying CPAC crowd by walking on with an (antique) gun held aloft.  What a revolting image for a  nation with regular gun massacres.  As this video shows, it didn't actually work when it came to his speech.

Also, have a look at this good commentary on the speech by vile NRA head Wayne LaPierre.

Norton's very funny episode

I don't watch Graham Norton's chat show all that often:  it's sometimes pretty good, sometimes just so-so. 

But last night, while looking for something to watch, I settled on a Norton episode which turned out to be pretty recent.  Featuring Matt Damon, Bill Murray, and the English actor from Downton Abbey (they were all in that Monuments Men movie, which seems to have been a bit of a critical and box office fizzer), it was genuinely very funny and felt very spontaneous. 

I see that my opinion is shared by others.

It is, at least for the moment, able to be watched in full here:

Dubious tax claims

I did note during the week, via Jason Soon's twitter feed, Adam Creighton's claim that the "rich" are obviously paying enough tax because it is only the top 25% of households that pay "net" tax.

I thought this smelt like more right wing, small government economist spinalysis* which is all about dissuading politicians from ever talking about raising high end tax rates ever again; in fact, its motivation is to suggest the rich should be taxed less.  (See IPA, CIS, right wing American economists.  Adam Creighton used to do CIS articles.)

John Quiggin has a short, sharp response. 

*   (I thought analysis which is really all about ideological spin deserved its own word)

Wages non disaster

As Koukoulas says: hardly the wages blowout of an inflexible market.

I would guess that the reduced number of restaurants doing Sunday trade means most people assume that penalty rates in hospitality should come down a bit.   That's probably about the only change to current wages arrangements for which there is any public sympathy.

Today's Rage choice

Well, there are a lot of uninteresting songs and clips still being put out, but I still didn't this mind one, by a new-ish Liverpool band.  It seems a while since I've noticed a band made up of young guys who don't look overly angst-y, and you can certainly imagine them going over big in the young female market, which deserves a break from the female domination of pop at the moment:

Roger lying down with dogs, again

I give Roger Scruton credit for being the rarest of things:  a clearly right wing intellectual who takes a precautionary approach to climate change, and advocates taxation as a means to address it.  (According to this review of one of his books - by Peter Singer no less - Scruton advocates a carbon consumption tax, even though it appears rather impractical to put an accurate figure for such on imported goods.)

So what's Roger doing coming out here and being the headline act, so to speak, of yet another IPA "Western Civilisation Symposium" in May this year?   Unless these symposiums are a bit of a money spinner for the far from poor IPA, it's hard to see why they are running another one.   You can tell from the comments at Catallaxy that the attendees are all more than likely already members of the IPA who are simply attending - and paying - to get the warm inner glow of hearing what they already believe, and to have drinks with people who think Labor and Unions are appalling people, darling, (and causing the downfall of the once great glorious West).

It keeps them off the street for a weekend, I suppose, and from making inane comments at Catallaxy.

But, does Roger know of the IPA's starring role within Australian politics at promoting not only skepticism over political responses to climate change, but disbelief in climate change per se?  

If he is genuine in his concern about a political need to take action about it (as he obviously is if he is promoting a tax as the answer), why would his lend his support to this organisation?

Unfortunately, there is a precedent for this behaviour.  Scruton was caught out as a handsomely paid shill for tobacco companies just over a decade ago.   What an embarrassment that turned out to be, and one would have thought that he might be more careful about his associations in future.  But then, the Institute of Paid Advocacy and him obviously have something in common.

Now, I assume the symposium will not touch climate change, but even so - if there is any prospect that this event is a money spinner for the IPA, or even if he is just helping raise its public profile, he's helping support an organisation that deserves his disrespect and complete disdain if he is genuine about climate change.

I see that Scruton is also doing a Quadrant event.  Similar comments apply.

Not sure if I approve

Flipboard buys rival news reader Zite from CNN

I've been meaning to comment for some time that I enjoy using both Zite and Flipboard on my Samsung tablet, and recommend them to my vast international readership. 

Now that they are going to merge, I hope I still approve.

On Qantas

Everyone has an opinion on Qantas, regardless of prior knowledge of the aviation industry, so why shouldn't I?   A few points:

*  Someone, I forget who, was saying that Qantas has been looking for an airline to partially buy into it for about a decade, and has had no success.   Is that really because of the ownership level restrictions, or because most airlines don't see it as a good buy?

*  Maybe it was the same person, maybe someone else, was saying that removing foreign ownership restrictions was no guarantee that Qantas would soon find a large foreign airline that wanted to buy into it;

*  Coalition politicians have been saying that if, say, China Southern wanted to buy a large chunk, it would still need Foreign Investment Review Board approval, which is not assured.

Why then, in light of these points, should anyone assume that the Coalition's priority - removing ownership restrictions - is going to do anything to solve Qantas problems either in the short term, or ever?   The general impression one gets is that its problems need addressing on a pretty quick time scale (within a couple of years, anyway.)

Some more observations:

*  There is no doubt at all that Joyce has done a terrible job on the politics of the help the airline needs.   This was covered on Radio National this morning.   Apparently,  few months ago he was talking as if the business was going to go under any minute, now he says it won't;  there is a heap of confusion over whether the airline does or doesn't recover carbon tax by adding a few dollars to each fare (and I note - people get hit with large fees for paying for a discount ticket with a credit card with Jetstar which dwarfs the extra few dollars of a carbon tax); he apparently asked for an unsecured loan of $3 billion (!) originally, which is just ludicrous in anyone's books.   Everyone recognises that the Asian expansion was ill considered, and it seems quite a few think the airline has made some poor choices with its fleet, although whether or not some of that predates Joyce, I have no idea.

Also, regardless of whether the unions really "deserved" Joyce's grounding a couple of years back, there is no doubt that such action hurts the public image of the airline for at least a couple of years.   (Anyone who misses a wedding or important function for this reason can probably be written off from ever flying the airline again.)

And, with my shallowest hat on - Joyce just looks and sounds like someone not smart enough to run an airline.  James Strong dressed and sounded like a toff, but actually, at a time when  people are looking at the stability of an airline for their long term business, image counts; and Strong's image was a hell of lot more reassuring than Joyce's.  

So, as much as I hate to say that I agree with a position that is being run hot at Catallaxy - yes, I think Joyce really needs to go.   He needs to take responsibility and give the job to someone new who seems to know what's going on and can keep his story straight.  (No pun intended.)

Update:   try as I might, I can't outdo the shallowness of Judith Sloan's Qantas analysis, which now includes "Oh My God - they let their off duty pilots fly in Business Class.  That just gives the public the wrong impression!"   

She also makes a claim about ex-staff entitlements which I am pretty damned sure, having a close relative who is ex-staff, is not true.  This has been pointed out by 2 people in comments already, and Judith has retreated to "well, maybe that just applies to some categories of ex-staff."   How about clarifying your claim in the actual post, you careless ideological warrior?

Update 2:  Good Lord.  About half a dozen people on the thread have now told Judith she's wrong about the hotels, and that having staff sitting in spare business class seats is routine across the industry, costs the airline nothing, and on long distance lets them catch a bit of sleep, which most people think is a good idea for pilots and even cabin crew   But she's insisting this is a bad look.  It's about time The Australian updated her pic:

Update 3:  It has occurred to me that in her post, JS did not make it clear whether, on the Qantas trip in which she say a pilot in uniform in business class, she was travelling business class or not.  If in fact she only spied this outrage while passing through the aircraft to her modest economy seat, then the word balloon should be modified to this, perhaps"  "Get to the back of the plane, who do you think you are, taking the seat that I might have been upgraded to?  Hmph." 

Update 4:

The Joyce spin on the carbon tax, which allows one person in Qantas to say it is not a factor, and then for the boss to contradict it, is explained here.   Basically,  Joyce is  being slippery with the truth, if not dishonest.   Even with his reduced fares, they still incorporate a carbon tax surcharge, so it is not right to claim the tax is unrecovered.

Innocent this time?

My dislike of Kevin Rudd and the awful disruptive power he wielded within Labor is well known, but it seems there is a very good chance he's being treated unfairly over his trip to Russia:

But a spokeswoman said the visit was linked to Mr Rudd’s new role as a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy school and a related research project on China.

“Mr Rudd is meeting with think tanks and other officials in Europe including the UK and Russia on this and broader foreign policy interests,” she said.

“This travel was planned more than a month ago and is not connected with recent developments in the Ukraine.”

Krugman on inflation obsessives

The Inflation Obsession - NYTimes.com

Paul Krugman writes, after noting that inflation worrying was dominating the Federal Reserve just before the crisis hit, writes:

The point, however, is that inflation obsession has persisted, year after year, even as events have refuted its supposed justifications. And this tells us that something more than bad analysis is at work. At a fundamental level, it’s political.

This is fairly obvious if you look at who the inflation obsessives are.While a few conservatives believe that the Fed should be doing more, not less, they have little if any real influence. The overall picture is that most conservatives are inflation obsessives, and nearly all inflation obsessives are conservative.

Why is this the case? In part it reflects the belief that the government should never seek to mitigate economic pain, because the private sector always knows best. Back in the 1930s, Austrian economists like Friedrich Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter inveighed against any effort to fight the depression with easy money; to do so, warned Schumpeter, would be to
leave “the work of depressions undone.” Modern conservatives are generally less open about the harshness of their view, but it’s pretty much the same.

The flip side of this antigovernment attitude is the conviction that any attempt to boost the economy, whether fiscal or monetary, must produce disastrous results — Zimbabwe, here we come! And this conviction is so strong that it persists no matter how wrong it has been, year after year.

Finally, all this ties in with a predilection for acting tough and inflicting punishment whatever the economic conditions. The British journalist William Keegan once described this as “sado-monetarism,” and it’s very much alive today.

Soldier problems

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Researchers reported Monday that most American soldiers who attempt suicide had preexisting mental health issues before enlisting in the armed forces, raising new questions about how to address sky-high suicide rates in the US military.

The research, published as three papers in JAMA Psychiatry, found that more than a quarter of current soldiers have at least one mental disorder, a rate about twice that for the general public. More than three-quarters of soldiers with mental illness say that their disorders preceded their enlistment in the armed forces, and some 60 percent of solider suicide attempts can be traced to those preenlistment mental troubles, the report said.

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised about this.   The all encompassing aspect of a soldier's life (and the chance to play out aggression for real) might well appeal to those who are somewhat troubled about some aspect of their life and want a big change.

I think this means I should keep dieting...

Study results confirm BMI is a direct cause of Type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure

The last bastion

Spotted in the thread following Hysterical Steve (Kate's) post about the Ukraine at Catallaxy:

Face it guys, we lost. All that remains of western civilisation and the glory that was the spread of the anglosphere is a few sites like diplomad and catallaxyfiles. Abbott and Brandis are shirking the repeal of 18C. The ABC is sacred. The paternalists are in charge. The ALP are in the lead in opinion polls. The USA is a mess. The UK is a worse one, and Oz is well down the same path.

I suppose its good that they have somewhere in cyberspace to gather and console themselves, and give the rest of us a chance to laugh at their delusions of grandeur. 

The manly man diet not so good

Animal protein-rich diets could be as harmful to health as smoking | Science | The Guardian


I think this means there will be less libertarians around in 20 years time.  (I have made the observation before that high protein diets are big with their side of politics:  it appeals to their "strong man" fetish and insistence that progressive politics is for girls and limp wristed men.   Did Ayn Rand's male characters eat half a cow for dinner before forcefully having their way with the strong willed heroine who just wants to be taken?  I certainly expect so.)

It's an interesting study, though, as it says that high protein may be good for you once you get older. But before then, not so good at all for your longevity.

Jericho on disability pensions

Those scary DSP numbers aren't so scary after all - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Greg Jericho brings a bit of his cool, calm and collected analytical style to the issue of disability pensions in this column.

Which also reminds me - Judith Sloan briefly, ever so briefly, flew the flag a year or two ago that raising the  Newstart allowance would probably be a good thing.  How often has she talked about that since then?  Has she repeated it in the hallowed halls of Catallaxy, ever? (I don't believe she has.)  

As Jericho indicates, the government is suggesting possibly merging DSP and Newstart into one allowance.  Maybe that would mean the former would drop and the latter rise a bit?   Who knows how Judith would react to that...

Freeman's change of heart

Well, isn't that interesting.  Via David Appell, I see that Freeman Dyson, in the late 1970's, accepted that increasing CO2 was (based on "prevailing opinion") more likely to be dangerous than beneficial.  What's more, he apparently thought that a carbon tax to undertake mass tree plantings to hold off any bad climate effects while clean energy came on line might be appropriate.

A couple of points:

a.  his article certainly helps show that the "is the earth cooling towards a new ice age?" issue in the early 70's was a brief, minority, view.   Just like actual climate scientists have been trying to tell dimwit climate denialists for years.

b.  Dyson is now a "lukewarmenist": he's also aged 90.   He would have been 54 when he wrote his cautionary 1977 paper.

I'm sorry, but when any person, brilliant or not, has one opinion on science in their 50's which is reversed in their late 80's, observers are generally wise to treat the "young" man opinions as sounder than the "old" man's opinion.  That's just life.

It is a particularly worth following this rule when their belief trajectory is running against the increasing consensus amongst scientists active in the field.

Questions for those promoting repeal of s18C Racial Discrimination Act

1.  Apart from the Andrew Bolt case, do you have any examples of complaints made relating to the section which have resulted in some form of unjust, or free speech inhibiting, result?    As Tim Soutphommasane notes, there are quite a few complaints made each year which are conciliated, and a few which go trial:

Central to the current racial vilification provisions, then, is the conciliation process that exists for complaints made about racial discrimination. The emphasis of the legislative provision against racial vilification is to bring parties to a complaint together to discuss the matter and arrive at an agreed resolution of the complaint. This educative and civil quality of Part IIA is frequently overlooked. For example, it is commonly assumed that breaching Section 18C results in a prosecution or criminal penalty. No one, of course, can be prosecuted for a crime under the Racial Discrimination Act, or convicted for racial vilification under Commonwealth law. In most cases, litigation does not even occur: last financial year, of the 192 complaints concerning racial hatred, only five (or 3 per cent) ended up in court. This is because any complaint involving racial vilification must be made to the Commission in the first instance, where the Commission will attempt to resolve the matter between the parties (which we do at no cost, and do successfully in the majority of cases). Only if the complaint is not resolved through conciliation, may the complainant can apply for the allegations to be heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia or Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

2.  Given that at the crux of the Andrew Bolt case, there were claims he made about individuals that were factually in error, do you not think that Mr Bolt could have simply apologised for the mistakes and hurt caused, and that this would have prevented it going to hearing?

For me:  Tim Soutphommasane full speech the other night (at the link above) gave a good defence of the current law, and was very detailed philosophically and about its background.

Andrew Bolt has been playing the martyr about a column which contained mistakes, and which anyone can still read in its original form.   I expect that he was encouraged to run the case with costs covered by his paper. Otherwise, anyone would expect that a sensible person would have simply dealt with it as I indicated above.

The Human Rights Commission will not accept Commissioner Tim Wilson's position that the section is a dire thing for free speech, because he's both an intellectual light weight, and apart from bleating about the Andrew Bolt case, he hasn't actually shown any other case that people will think was a particularly unfair outcome.  

The Bolt was not a case which actually did have an effect on free speech.  Bolt's continual claim that his lawyers now tell him he can't write columns on the issue is obvious self serving disingenuousness.   

Commentary from a hysteric, and some others

Want the most rabidly, over the top, Obama-is-the-Great-Satan-trying-to-destroy-the-United-States-which-he-hates commentary from an Australian academic?  Look no further than Steve Kates at Catallaxy, of course.

His calm and reasoned (hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha) post prompted by Putin's actions starts:

It’s not as if Obama’s intentions from the start were difficult to read. He’s a hard left ideologue whose greatest hatreds are for the civilisation of the West and in particular the country of which he is president. That there are revelations upon revelations as one by one, but ever so slowly, the truth begins to dawn on those fools who elected him, or the international mobs who supported him, is something like a revelation to me. Just how self-deluded can these people really have been.

And now, despite my confession yesterday that I have no understanding of this geopolitical slab of the world, I will still say that I am somewhat persuaded by the "well, what do you expect the West to do, anyway?" line.   I would guess, however, that Malcolm Fraser goes further down the "it's actually the West's fault" path than is really necessary.

Elsewhere in The Guardian, however, I am finding myself persuaded by this take:

As in practically every international crisis, the pundit class seems able to view events solely through the prism of US actions, which best explains Edward Luce in the Financial Times writing that Obama needs to convince Putin “he will not be outfoxed”, or Scott Wilson at the Washington Post intimating that this is all a result of America pulling back from military adventurism. Shocking as it may seem, sometimes countries take actions based on how they view their interests, irrespective of who the US did or did not bomb.

Missing from this “analysis” about how Obama should respond is why Obama should respond. After all, the US has few strategic interests in the former Soviet Union and little ability to affect Russian decision-making.

Our interests lie in a stable Europe, and that’s why the US and its European allies created a containment structure that will ensure Russia’s territorial ambitions will remain quite limited. (It’s called Nato.) Even if the Russian military wasn’t a hollow shell of the once formidable Red Army, it’s not about to mess with a Nato country.

The writer, Michael Cohen, goes on to argue that it is actually Putin who will lose out, long term, by this strategy:

But this crisis is Putin’s Waterloo, not ours.

Which brings us to perhaps the most bizarre element of watching the Crimean situation unfold through a US-centric lens: the iron-clad certainty of the pundit class that Putin is winning and Obama is losing. The exact opposite is true.

Putin has initiated a conflict that will, quite obviously, result in greater diplomatic and political isolation as well as the potential for economic sanction. He’s compounded his loss of a key ally in Kiev by further enflaming Ukrainian nationalism, and his provocations could have a cascading effect in Europe by pushing countries that rely on Russia’s natural gas exports to look elsewhere for their energy needs. Putin is the leader of a country with a weak military, an under-performing economy and a host of social, environmental and health-related challenges. Seizing the Crimea will only make the problems facing Russia that much greater.

For Obama and the US, sure, there might be less Russian help on Syria going forward – not that there was much to begin with – and it could perhaps affect negotiations on Iran. But those issues are manageable. Meanwhile, Twitter and the opinion pages and the Sunday shows and too many blog posts that could be informative have been filled with an over-the-top notion: that failure to respond to Russia’s action will weaken America’s credibility with its key allies. To which I would ask: where are they gonna go? If anything, America’s key European allies are likely to fold the quickest, because, you know, gas. And why would any US ally in the Far East want Obama wasting his time on the Crimea anyway?

You don’t have to listen to the “do something” crowd. These are the same people who brought you the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other greatest hits.

Noah's precedents

It seems the Literary Review website does not allow for an easy way to get to its past month's on line articles.   But I've found the link to a review from last month's page of a book called "The Ark Before Noah - Decoding the Story of the Flood."

I liked this part, as an example of an unusual academic reaction to a discovery:

...in the 1870s, George Smith identified two pre-biblical accounts of a hero divinely commissioned to build an ark and so save the denizens of the world from a cosmic flood. Reading The Epic of Gilgamesh for the first time 'after more than 2,000 years of oblivion', he rushed around, tearing off his clothes in a state of ecstasy resembling St Francis's embrace of his vocation.

I've never read much about the Epic of Gilgamesh, although I have a distinct memory that after he made True Stories, David Byrne was supposed to have said he thought it could be a good source for his next movie.  (I hope I didn't dream that!)    But further down in the Literary Review article, it's noted:

...the biggest difference the Hebrew version makes is to the moral framework of the myth: in Mesopotamian accounts, gods unleash the flood capriciously, or for no declared reason, or to eliminate a distractingly, irritatingly 'noisy' world that is becoming uncontrollably overpopulated. The Jews' God, by contrast, acted justly, to punish evildoers and spare the only righteous man.

 But the most interesting thing is that the earlier version of the ark was not boat shaped:

In the course of his investigation Finkel sheds much light on philological and literary problems of ancient Mesopotamian cultures, but one revelation dwarfs all others: in the earliest surviving description, the ark was round. The text is unambiguous on this point and includes detailed instructions for building a giant coracle out of more than 300 kilometres of coiled palm fibres, strengthening the structure with wooden ribs and decking, and coating everything in a waterproof mixture of pitch and lard. Finkel's painstaking and lively investigation of coracle-weaving traditions on the Euphrates makes the concept intelligible.

 Update:  this profile of the author appeared in Fairfax in February (actually, it's from the Daily Telegraph, I see), and it adds some detail that the round ark was not all that big:

''It was a coracle,'' says Finkel: a kind of round boat of rope around a wood frame. ''Half the people in Mesopotamia were professional boat people, so when someone told them this story, and said, imagine the biggest boat you ever saw, they must have asked: what did it look like?'' What is incredible is that the tablet has detailed instructions on how to build this enormous coracle, 21 metres across, 5.5 metres high, even down to the length of rope required.

Unbelief and the "happy atheist"

So, Adam Gopnik wrote an essay in the New Yorker recently about the loss of faith in religion, which I haven't read properly yet.

But I have read this Ross Douhart post about it, and think he makes a couple of interesting points about "the return of the happy atheist" (or maybe he's just expanding on some Gopnik's points, I'm not sure):

In a related sense, too, the fall of the Soviet Union and the intellectual collapse of Communism have actually been good for atheism’s credibility, in ways that weren’t necessarily apparent before the Berlin Wall came down. You might have thought, back when Kolakowski was writing, that the death throes of the world’s most famous atheist experiment would deliver the last rites to any remaining atheist utopianism as well. But actually, by sweeping the embarrassment of Communism off the world stage, 1989 and all that probably made it easier for atheists to be quasi-utopians again, because they no longer had to defend or explain away a dreadful, cruel attempt at a godless paradise on earth. With the U.S.S.R. gone the way of all flesh, they could simply say that their ideal society is “Sweden, but even nicer” — in which case the argument that atheism and human progress go hand in hand no longer seems so transparently contradicted by reality.

 And then, too, to the extent that any force has replaced Communism as an antagonist-cum-alternative to Western civilization, it’s been Islamic fundamentalism, which almost seems laboratory-designed to give the idea of atheism-as-Progress a new lease on life.

And this:

...I’d throw on, as well, the decades-long crisis for institutional religion in the West that the social revolutions of the 1960s ushered in. Mostly, as I’ve argued at length elsewhere, this crisis has sent people drifting into various quasi-Christian and spiritual alternatives rather than embracing atheism tout court. But among the intelligentsia, it does seem to have helped put to rest certain doubts about the association of unbelief with moral progress, by creating a landscape — particularly around issues related to sex — where all right-thinking people have decided that the Christian churches are on the wrong side of history once again.

An experiment begins...

Prevalence of high school seniors' marijuana use is expected to increase with legalization -- ScienceDaily

Large proportions of high school students normally at low risk for
marijuana use (e.g., non-cigarette-smokers, religious students, those
with friends who disapprove of use) reported intention to use marijuana
if it were legal, a new study reports.

A pretty accurate column

Why Are Jesus Movies Always Lame? - Yahoo News

Here's a couple of key parts from the above column, brought about because of the new movie "Son of God" (actually just put together from a mini series, I think) just released in the US:

Nothing makes Jesus more fictional than a movie. Some Christly movies are better than others. For instance, 1961’s King of Kings isn’t completely awful if you can watch past the plethora of Americanisms it commits and The Passion of the Christ has
a moment or two where Jesus comes to life if you’re able to block out
the violent way Mel Gibson beats and kills the story in the end. Still,
even the best Jesus movies fail to do the story justice. Even when the
acting is stellar and the production is spot on, the medium of film
seems incapable of translating the essence of Christ’s story, the true
reason the story has managed to survive generations.

Whether or not Christ’s story can survive Son of God and
Roma Downey remains to be seen. Few things cause the story of Jesus to
fall short of God’s glory like a factual cinematic portrayal acted out
by pretty Caucasians with British accents and bed-head walking joyfully
across barren landscapes to a dramatic symphony of flutes and strings.
At times, I swear I was watching the cast of Downton Abbey on vacation in Morocco. Among the long list of Christ-centric films that have been made in the last fifty years, Son of God—with its sexy Jesus who engages in cheesy “change the world” dialogue and seems to channel Harry Potter every time he performs a miracle—might end up being the chief of sinners.

 

The Opinion Dominion Zone of No Opinion (and Ignorance)

I can't be bothered working out the geopolitical history and intrigues of the Ukraine, Crimea and Russia:  I have to 'fess up here, but if you draw a large circle centred on the western side of Ukraine, most of the countries caught in it have histories about which I can say next to nothing.  Here, I'll even illustrate my personal zone of (pretty much) ignorance:

It's not that I even feel particularly guilty about this.   With some regions of the world, say China, parts of South America, etc, I usually think it would be good to improve my knowledge of the history of the place, and maybe one day I will.

No, with Eastern Europe, with its ethnic mixes and 2500 year history of armies marching in one direction or the other across it, I've just always felt it is a place that is too far away, too complicated, and too difficult to be bothered understanding.

Now, people's interests change as they age, and if you have an eternity in which to increase knowledge, well, then pretty much everything can be interesting for a time.  But so far, after 50 odd years or so, a desire to understand this part of the world has so far successfully eluded me.

Sorry.

Update:  Oh look.  I've found an interactive map of European history which, if I'm given 5 years to study, might start to diminish my ignorance of the Eastern parts in particular. 

Update 2:  the Sydney Morning Herald helps me at little, but mainly by confirming that I am not wrong when I say the history of Crimea is very, very complicated.