That tax return

John Cassidy at the New Yorker looks at the matter of the Trump tax return (partial) leak. 

It is a curious thing - the leak has largely worked in Trump's immediate favour, raising suspicion that he was in fact behind it.  It lets him claim that he has been a good tax paying citizen (once, 12 years ago, at least), and to huff and puff about illegal leaks used by the press.

But in the longer term, it raises questions about the sense of Republican policies to remove the very tax that led to Trump paying a realistic amount:

According to the return, which Johnston also posted on his Web site, Trump and his wife, Melania, had taxable income of about a hundred and fifty-three million dollars in 2005, and he paid about $36.5 million in federal income tax. That’s an effective tax rate of about 23.9 per cent, which is a long way from the zero per cent that many people, myself included, had speculated about last year.

Almost as noteworthy was the fact that most of the tax Trump paid was captured by the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is a backup tax designed to insure that people with a lot of deductions don’t entirely escape taxes. Because Trump took a write-down of more than a hundred million dollars in 2005, his initial tax liability was just $5.3 million. If not for the Alternative Minimum Tax, which he and other Republicans want to get rid of, his effective tax rate would have been about 3.5 per cent. Because he was liable to the A.M.T., he was forced to pay an additional thirty-one or so million dollars.

And, it also raises suspicions as to why only one return is leaked - do the rest of them since then look much, much worse for the Trump image? 

Ethics, Monsanto style

From NPR:

Two years ago, a U.N.-sponsored scientific agency declared that the popular weedkiller glyphosate probably causes cancer. That finding from the International Agency for Research on Cancer caused an international uproar. Monsanto, the company that invented glyphosate and still sells most of it, unleashed a fierce campaign to discredit the IARC's conclusions.

New details of the company's counterattack came to light this week. Internal company emails, released as part of a lawsuit against the company, show how Monsanto recruited outside scientists to co-author reports defending the safety of glyphosate, sold under the brand name Roundup. Monsanto executive William Heydens proposed that the company "ghost-write" one paper. In an email, Heydens wrote that "we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak." Heydens wrote that this is how Monsanto had "handled" an earlier paper on glyphosate's safety....

The emails also offer hints of a friendly relationship between Monsanto and a senior regulator at the Environmental Protection Agency, Jess Rowland. The EPA was already doing its own assessment of glyphosate's health risks, but after the U.N. report appeared, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention apparently was considering launching its own study.

In late April, 2015, Rowland called a regulatory expert at Monsanto, Daniel Jenkins, to ask who at the CDC was working on the glyphosate study. Jenkins reported on the conversation in an email to his colleagues. He wrote that Rowland "told me no coordination is going on and he wanted to establish some saying 'If I can kill this I should get a medal."

Trouble in Steyn-land

Even if you only casually follow what Mark Steyn is up to now, you might be aware that he tried to make a mark in American Right wing cable TV, only to have his show ended very abruptly, with consequent litigation.

Given that every Right wing commentator in this wide brown land thinks he's terrific, they should be reading this vicious attack on his behaviour by those who had to work with him on the set.

If you think he's a complete jerk for his behaviour towards climate scientists, as I do, you'll find plenty to indicate that his jerk-like behaviour appears to extend well beyond climate science attacks: 

Steyn generally went out of his way to avoid dealing with the crew at all, they say. “We only one time had a meeting with the staff and Mark,” Kullman recalls. “There are many staff members who never even spoke to him.”

Crew members say Steyn often refused to rehearse segments, showed up at the studio minutes before filming was scheduled to begin, and occasionally declined to show up at all, leaving crew members, some of whom had commuted hours to the studio, in the lurch.

Kullman remembers driving two hours through blizzard conditions only to discover that Steyn had canceled the day’s shoot. In a sworn statement, another crew member recalled Steyn emailing employees late at night telling them to come to the studio the next morning for an unscheduled shoot. “When we showed up, Mark Steyn canceled the shoot.”

 Sounds rather like Kevin Rudd, no?   There's more:

“Mark Steyn was incredibly disorganized, often did not show up on scheduled production days, and snuck out of the studio so that nobody would know his whereabouts,” another declaration recalls. “Because of this conduct, it would take a week to shoot an episode instead of the designated day.”

The crew was never given a production schedule, they say. They often didn’t know what they would be shooting until the day of the shoot. Because Steyn would frequently show up last-minute, they were forced to figure out content on the fly. When the inevitable hiccups in production occurred, Steyn would berate crew members who say they simply did not know what he wanted.

On two occasions, those tirades ended with Steyn firing an employee on the spot, according to Kullman’s sworn statement. “Anyone at any moment felt like they could have been fired by him,” he added in his interview.

And this is the funniest part:

When cameras weren’t rolling, crew members say Steyn was almost entirely inaccessible. His offices were on the second floor of the studio facility, and they say Howes, who is Steyn’s publisher in addition to being his spokesperson and an executive on the show, instructed crew members not to approach him there—and, when he entered the studio, not to make eye contact.

Gas explainer

I thought this fairly lengthy explanation of what has happened with Australian gas (and why we don't seem to have enough here - or enough at a good price) was pretty good.  A key paragraph:

It seems that, in gas as in electricity, over-cooked forecasts for demand have justified excessive spending and therefore ensured higher prices. This is precisely what the gas cartel wants: the spectre of shortages whipping up prices. They have been doing it for years.

Culture wars noted

*  Talk about your over-compensation.   Days after his death, News Ltd folk are still singing the praises of  the outstanding work and character of Bill Leak, and how terrible it is that some Lefties have been calling him a racist and celebrating his death.   (True, some Lefties have been behaving badly:  but I still say that News Ltd rush to praise him in every respect smacks of a guilty conscience.  I find it hard to believe that Paul Kelly, for example, wasn't cringing at some of Leak's output in the last few years.)

*  Coopers Beer says sorry:   I still don't really understand the connection between the brewery and the Bible Society - but the company says it didn't approve (or know about?) the video which not only seemed to associate the company with the Society and conservative views on gay marriage, but with the Liberal Party.   One comment from a pub noted the Party connection in particular - and it is a peculiar thing for a brewer to find itself apparently being aligned with a political party.

But curiously, I had noticed even before Coopers was in the news that a current ad for Bundaberg Rum on TV seemed heavy on showing support for the gay community, and (I think) gay marriage.   Bundaberg Rum - from a Queensland farming town not too far from Queensland's Bible Belt (around Gympie), an area not exactly known for its progressive attitudes.  And rum I always thought of a blokey, man's man type drink - not a spirit that would be big in gay pubs.   But, not having ventured into a gay pub recently (not that I can ever recall being in one) perhaps I'm wrong about that?  Or is it just an advertising executive's idea of how to expand its base?   Anyway, I thought it odd.

Perhaps this will all balance itself out in the alcohol drinking community as a whole - some Bundy drinkers might be a bit put off buying a "gay" drink? 

Anyway,  don't these product boycotts have a way of not working, when the conservatives/Lefties go out of their way to buy the product to annoy the SJWs/conservatives?  I wouldn't sweat about it too much if I were Coopers.

And personally, I don't mind most Cooper's beers, and gay pubs refusing to stock it is hardly going to affect my attitude to drinking it.

All this will pass...

Update:  let's go to the threadsters of Catallaxy to note their reasonable and balanced approach to the Coopers storm in a stubbie.   First, DB, who lives in New York, happily (as far as I know), with a wife who he has said works in the fashion industry and therefore knows lot of gay folk:  facts all of which, one would have thought, may have made him realise that legal gay marriage does not cause the end of civilisation.    But, here he is, commenting on the (somewhat stilted) apology video put out by Coopers:

OMG. The Coopers hostage video is unbearable to watch. I could just imagine a cage and a can of Ronson just to the side, off-camera. The Waffen-SSM is just like the Terminator, it cannot be reasoned with, but unlike the Terminator, it is a creampuff, that can be smashed if you simply stand up against it. Which is why they opposed a plebiscite that would involve organised opposition against it and a free vote of the people. And they must be smashed.

 And CL, the other uber Catholic of Catallaxy:

Not sure if he's endorsing stoning or just jail...

But I'll end with the usual disclaimer:  I actually don't support gay marriage either; it's just that I'm not going to panic about it.

Pepsi endorsed

I really like the new Pepsi Max Vanilla.  

That is all...

Alien conjecture

A planet sized radio source to power a light sail is causing mysterious fast radio bursts? 

I'm finding that a bit of a stretch...

A quick Spielberg

I think this is good news:

Just last week, it was announced that 20th Century Fox and Amblin Entertainment were quickly rounding up talent for director Steven Spielberg’s The Post, a film about the Pentagon Papers controversy which will star two-time Oscar winner Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump, Captain Phillips) and three-time Oscar winner Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady, Florence Foster Jenkins). Now, Deadline is reporting that the timely film about the importance of a free press is being fast-tracked for a May start date in order to complete the picture for an Oscar-qualifying release, likely in late December of 2017.

The Post is clearly looking to capitalize on the story’s zeitgeist-tapping potential amid the current administration’s attacks on the press, and may even signal a whole wave of socially-relevant films from major studios. The May start date gives the film only eight months from cameras rolling to release, though the speedy Spielberg previously completed his 2005 Best Picture-nominee Munich in a mere six months. This also means that the director’s sci-fi flick Ready Player One will have the honor of being released three or four months AFTER The Post in March of 2018, despite having finished filming months ago. Spielberg will finish work on both films this year while also continuing his meticulous search for a child actor to star in The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara with Mark Rylance and Oscar Isaac. He also has the fifth Indiana Jones movie starring Harrison Ford for Disney, which has a July 19, 2019 release date.

At the rate Harrison Ford seems to get into accidents these days, I hope he makes it to the studio.

I also repeat my call for the perfect ending to the Indiana Jones films: an aging Indy is added as one of the astronauts taken on board the mother ship at the end of Close Encounters.

I will accept very modest reimbursement for the idea, as well as meeting Steven Spielberg at the Premiere.

Call me, Steven...

More on Catholic in-fighting

Is Pope Francis really facing a coup? Or just ‘fake news’?

The article leans more to the "fake news" view:

Several curial officials, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely, readily admitted they see what they described as “concern” among some in the Vatican, and perhaps more than the usual amount of bureaucratic resistance to the structural overhaul Francis is pursuing.

But as for serious, organized opposition, as one senior Vatican official put it, “I think it’s just wishful thinking by some people, to be honest.”

Even some Catholic conservatives are growing impatient with the narrative of unprecedented crisis that is swirling around.

“A lot of this is pure or impure speculation,” said Robert Royal, head of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington and a regular visitor to the Vatican. Royal cautioned that “there is a lot of turbulence in Rome these days.”

But, he said, “some Catholic conservatives assume there is a coordinated network of liberals waiting to take over the church. I don’t, but I think (Francis) has given an awful lot of fuel to critics who want to see some bad things.”

Indeed, the claims are hard to ignore. Traditionalist websites and canon lawyers are openly debating whether the pope is a heretic - and what can be done if he is - while others wonder whether Francis is leading the church into schism, or if such a split has already happened.

Many of these conservative opponents have rallied around American Cardinal Raymond Burke, an outspoken critic of the pope who was a senior Vatican official until Francis moved him into a largely ceremonial role at the Rome-based charitable Order of Malta - where he recently was involved in another uproar over the ousting of a top leader there.

Could help explain something

Bill Leak obviously had a lot of friends, on the Left and Right, and but even so there has been a somewhat extraordinary amount of column space in the News Ltd press lauding him.

I see that Chris Mitchell, former editor from when the paper went full blown Tea Party lite, has written this about Leak's post accident period:

Bill knew that fall could have, should have, killed him. He was in a coma, had severe brain damage and a 15cm hole in his head as wide as his thumb.

He suffered debilitating headaches for the first few years back in the cartoonist’s chair. He struggled through the fog of heavy pain relief to get his thoughts together each morning for the day’s cartoon.

After starting back a couple of days a week, in time he came back to full- time work. 

Someone on line, in the last year or two, made the observation that the problem with post accident Leak was not just that he was being "controversial", but that his work had stopped being funny.

Mitchell provides evidence that the lingering effects of the head injury had a role in that.   (Although, it has to be said, that his moving house out of concern for radical Muslim death threats in 2015 could be good reason for loss of sense of humour, too.)

Mitchell claims that Leak didn't change politics, as people claimed - but looking back over some of his old work, as people have been posting since his death, I reckon that is rubbish.

Update:  another person writing in the Australian notes:

He rose most days at 5am, went downstairs to his office, and, ­fuelled by coffee and cigarettes, scanned the overnight news while waiting for his friends to wake up so he could engage them in vigorous, often ribald phone calls and email exchanges.

Sounds like quite a big tobacco habit.  As some others have noted, in response to the hysterical "the HRC hounded him to death!" claims from some on the Right, the smoking no doubt had a major  hand in causing Leak's death.  

Sinclair Davidson, in his semi-routinely hyperbolic way, went so far as to have his post on Leak's death entitled "The Australian Human Rights Commission has blood on its hands".    Yet, ironically, he spends much of his time deriding tobacco plain packaging; work which undoubtedly the tobacco industry is happy to see.   Say no more...

Update:   two more things about Leak I heard today:  I caught a bit of a replay of a Richard Fidler interview with him in 2009 (post accident) in which Leak spoke about now being off alcohol, giving the distinct impression he had been a very heavy drinker before.  Then Guy Rundle, in an obit which I presume will upset some, claims Leak had 30 plus years of high functioning alcoholism (and drug use - although he doesn't say illicit drug use.)   I don't even know if Rundle knew Leak, of course.  But still - it would seem that Leak had a very far from healthy lifestyle for much, or most, of his adult life.  

Developments in the afterlife

Peter Whiteford tweeted a link to a review of an interesting sounding book review in New Humanist (a journal I'm not in the habit of noting.)   Here's an extract, which I hope is not too long:

In his latest book, The Ransom of the Soul, Brown offers an exhilarating survey of attitudes towards death, mourning and the afterlife in late antiquity, and their connections to money, politics and social justice. He reminds us that the Christians of the third century were still an insurgent minority, inspired by what he calls a “countercultural longing for a religious community” – a form of community at loggerheads with the blatant inequalities of wealth and status that prevailed in the world around them. They also believed that Christ was going to return to earth in a matter of weeks or months or at most a few years, and that he would then preside over an earthly paradise in which the faithful dead would join the rest of his followers in endless celebrations of their victory over paganism, sin and death itself.

Two centuries later, Christian certainties were in disarray. Believers had to recognise that their messiah was taking far longer to return to earth than any of them had imagined. (If you are a socialist with a sense of history, you will know how they must have felt.) They could not carry on assuming that the dead were going to rise from their graves like sleepers waking from a nap: they realised that the bodies of the waiting dead were not in any condition to resume their former functions, and they also started to face up to the question of what activities the souls of the dead could engage in while waiting for their bodies to be resurrected.

To complicate matters further, the church was running into problems of worldly success. Christianity was on its way to encompassing Roman society as a whole, and its followers now included hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who were not “altogether good”, but not “altogether bad” either. Christians began to suppose that the souls of the departed spent their time trying to make amends for their sins, and they started to draw up graduated schemes of reward and punishment – systems of moral taxation, in effect, designed to account for different grades and qualities of guilt. Augustine tried to turn back the tide of speculation by arguing that the living could never understand the world of the dead; but he went along with the idea that the afterlife is fraught with dangers, and that the faithful here on earth should do everything in their power to support the souls of the deceased in their quest for salvation.

On top of that there were difficulties about the sort of existence that could be attributed to the soul. Paradise was starting to be seen as heavenly rather than earthly, and, as Brown puts it, “the distance between heaven and earth seemed to yawn more widely”. Augustine went so far as to ask his fellow Christians to give up their attachment to the earthly body, maintaining that the soul was a spiritual entity, completely distinct from matter. But that theory was closer to the pagan philosophy of the Greeks than to anything in the Bible or the gospels, and most Christians were unwilling to accept it: they could not see how a soul without a body could have an individual identity, or any real connection with a life that had been lived on earth.

Despite Augustine, therefore, they persisted in taking an unplatonic interest in the fate of dead bodies, and they aspired to have their corpses enclosed in stout coffins, inscribed with their names to prevent confusion, and buried in the vicinity of the mortal remains of saints, or at least in a sanctified building or consecrated ground.
Unfortunately these burial practices were in obvious conflict with the teachings of Jesus: instead of favouring the meek and the poor, they gave enormous spiritual advantages to rich grandees. To make matters worse, the recommended technique for interceding on behalf of the dead – repeated prayers asking God to have mercy on their souls – offered the rich further opportunities to jump the queue: they could pay for prayers on behalf of their friends and family, and endow colleges, chapels or religious houses on condition that they say prayers for their benefactors in perpetuity.

Augustine did his best to block the plutocratic path to salvation, telling the rich that if they wanted to be saved, they would have to give large sums to the church, not for their own sakes but to fund the relief of poverty together with prayers for the souls of the poor. This was a novel idea, and as Brown points out it involved a far-reaching revolution in “the social imagination”. Early Christianity, like Judaism, was a tribal religion, and social obligations were not seen as extending beyond the limits of the tribe. In the same way, the civilisations of Greece and Rome rested on loyalty to individual cities, and acts of civic generosity – gifts of public buildings or circuses, games or races – were designed not to assist the poor but to enhance the magnificence of the city, and no doubt the donor as well. But the new Christian doctrine of death and charity involved a move from what Brown calls a “closed” moral universe to an “open” one, throwing down an implicit challenge to the social assumptions of both Jerusalem and Rome. From now on, he says, the rich would be expected to spend their money not on themselves or their cities, but on the “faceless mass of the poor”. Some teachers advocated a total renunciation of wealth, but Augustine advised the rich to retain their capital so that they could carry on giving to the poor, year after year, world without end. Either way, they could be assured that they were making a sound investment, building up “treasure in heaven” by directing their generosity not to particular people or groups, but simply to the wretched of the earth.

Death and sorghum

There's a short transcript of (parts of) an interview up at NPR with an American comedian who I'm not aware of, but who has taken to talking about his grief process since his wife died. 

He made one comment that rings very true:

One thing that I've learned since what happened to me happened is: You don't know the kind of pain and loss other people may have gone through — even close friends and acquaintances. ... In really awful science fiction terms it is like putting on the sunglasses in They Live and then seeing the world for what it really is. Do you know what I mean? Obviously I knew there was loss and death and depression, but you can only sympathize so far until it directly happens to you.

And he ended with a bit which I thought was pretty funny (after earlier saying that he personally didn't buy the idea that getting physically fit was a help with grieving):

On whether he's disappointed people who expected him to be funny
Sorry for bumming you out. I'm very sorry. Go walk for half an hour; it will flood you with endorphins. ... What am I saying?! You're NPR listeners. You're used to being bummed out. Now let's cut to some sad jazz. Stay tuned: We're going to talk about things to do with sorghum. It's sorghum season!

Oddly, as it happens, only last weekend I was pointing to a crop in a field near Mulgowie and opining that it might be sorghum.

Also somewhat oddly - I have no memory at all as to how it is that I know what sorghum looks like.  Perhaps it was covered in primary school?   In fact, behind my primary school, there were several factory buildings, one of which used to be a place that dealt with different seeds/grains - I think truck loads of stuff would arrive there and perhaps be distributed out in smaller packaging.   The place had a distinctive, but not unpleasant, smell.  It's no longer there;  I was in the area about 6 months ago.

And for the uneducated, here is sorghum in the field:

Yes, I am sure that is what I was seeing out of the car window in the Lockyer Valley.

By the way, fresh corn from the Valley is particularly delicious at the moment....

Scratching mice

Just a test, posting a page from Science magazine, about how scratching is "contagious" amongst mice, as with humans.

Oh, that works well...At least on my tablet.  Click on the image and I can read it easily.

About Bill Leak

There are sufficient numbers of people of Left inclination on Twitter saying that Bill Leak was smart and funny in real life to make me not doubt he was more likeable in person than his recent years' cartooning output would indicate.  And it is not a good look for anyone to be celebrating his death as the means of ending that output.      

What those people should wish for is that he were alive but that his work showed more thoughtful, subtle and diverse opinion than the narrow, bitter, and quite extreme Right wing, culture war politics that they routinely did in the last few years.

He had become a tribal hero of  those who you could say are the Australian equivalent of the Tea Party Right - a group who I am frankly pleased to see not get its daily endorsement that their views are widespread and reasonable.    I really did intensely dislike his recent output for that reason:  foolish people are not best served by public endorsement or incitement of their foolish views.   But do I wish it ended this way?  No. 

As some have noted on Twitter, too, one can surely resent the editorial guidance of The Australian for never pulling him back.   I doubt that even his tribal admirers could often describe his recent work as witty - I think they were more inclined to laugh in delight their views were being endorsed in an over the top way - and in a (little read) national paper!  Brilliant!  (/sarc).  That's not the same, in my books, as smart, witty cartooning.

It remains an open question as to whether his personality, judgement or political views were changed by the serious head injury he suffered some years ago - it seems his work was just politely dropped (by the likes of The Insiders) when it became more extreme, rather than anyone who knew him wanting to talk openly about why he had gone that way. Perhaps, in coming months, we might learn more about whether that incident really did seem to have personality changing effects...

Update:   I had forgotten that Leak had written in 2012 that he knew that critics were saying he had gone strongly Right wing after his head injury, and denied it.   I am curious as to what people who knew him well are prepared to say (apart from Right wing commentators, who clearly have no problem with his continual Muslim baiting, for example), but I guess it may be some time before we'll hear.

Furthermore, the Right wing meme is around that the stress of the HRC complaints (all dropped or dismissed in relatively short time, and nearly 3 months ago) caused his heart attack.  He clearly did complain about the stress of it all:

"It shows what a farcical process this is. I've got News Corp backing me legally. But if I was a private citizen, this would have cost me an absolute fortune," he told The Australian.

"She has put me through a month or so of incredible stress. She never met me, she doesn't have to justify anything she does. No one asked her any questions and it doesn't cost her a cent. As a consequence my life has been thrown into utter chaos. And at time when it just happens to suit her, she just decides this could turn into a bit of a hassle, so she can withdraw it."

Look, I just don't understand this - I have read elsewhere that he moved house once due to Muslim death threats - now that I can understand being stressful. 

But being stressed out by complaints lodged by distant complainants about an aboriginal themed cartoon when you have the full backing of your employer to legally fight said complaints?    No, I actually don't get that.

I'm sorry, but this reminds me too much of Andrew Bolt's martyrdom over his columns - in both cases, I think the complaints could have been resolved easily with good will (a "sorry if any offence caused, but it was not done with racist intent" style apology from Leak, and correction of errors in Bolt's case), and they could have been free to continue to complain about what they perceive as the HRC interfering with their work.   I also entirely understand Leak being unhappy with the HRC inviting complaints. 

But really, I find the stress complaints from deliberate provocateurs hard to sympathise with.

Sorry if that sounds like a criticism of Leak too soon - it's partly a statement of puzzlement.  But, to be honest, if we're all going to agree that Left wingers and their stupid "trigger warnings" idea is a matter of pandering to people's exaggerated sensitivities too much, I don't see why some on the Right should be free of the same criticism.

Update:  Richard Fidler talking on Radio National about his long friendship with Leak was interesting.   He says Leak was once one of the most Left wing guys he knew, and his politics did change, although Leak would claim they hadn't.   Nonetheless, Fidler was very sad about it, as are many Left leaning journalists.    There seems no doubt about his charm and wit as a friend, which in a way makes some of his work all the harder to understand....

Hey Jason...

I don't think Thiel sounds all that bright, really.   Not just because of climate change (although my  rule of thumb about that still applies), but the other quotes from him lately.

He just sounds rather vapid to me.

Krugman's take

Krugman has taken a very dispassionate tone on this column on the Republican health plan.  I presume he is correct.

Ryan's lost his lustre

Paul Krugman has complained bitterly for years that Paul Ryan's treatment by much of the media as the Republican's reasonable and moderate smart guy was completely unwarranted, and I would have to  guess that he is probably laughing wildly about how Ryan is, indeed, making himself look foolish in the fight over Obamacare.

The quote, which I heard this morning on Radio National, that the problem with Obamacare is that it's a case of the healthy young paying for treatment of older sick people (that's a pretty close paraphrase) just sounded like the silliest possible criticism of health insurance you could hear from a politician's mouth.

You can read about that line, and much twitter reaction to it, here.

OK, here's the actual quote:

“The fatal conceit of Obamacare is that we’re just going to make everybody buy our health insurance at the federal government level. Young and healthy people are going to go into the market and pay for the older, sicker people. So the young, healthy person is going to be made to buy healthcare, and they’re going to pay for the person, you know, who gets breast cancer in her 40s or who gets heart disease in his 50s,” Ryan said.

Talk about your simple solutions

From the Atlantic:   Can Salted Doorknobs Prevent Superbug Infections?

...it was a casual conversation with a former butcher that led Brayden Whitlock, a graduate student at the University of Alberta, to design a pilot study that put salt and copper head to head. Coupon-sized strips of pure, compressed sodium chloride were covered in an MRSA culture, alongside similar strips of antimicrobial copper and stainless steel. Whitlock found that salt killed off the bug 20 to 30 times faster than the copper did, reducing MRSA levels by 85 percent after 20 seconds, and by 94 percent after a minute.

That was “considerably faster” than expected, Whitlock says—and he believes this efficiency could have major ramifications for how bugs like MRSA spread. “It’s great to be able to eliminate pathogens over the course of a few hours,” he says, “but if you think of a busy place that has a doorknob, or a push pad, can you imagine a time when it goes more than a few minutes without being touched? The answer to us is no. And that’s why this is really exciting.”....

The salt-covered doorknobs, meanwhile, are already in the market. Doug Olson, the former butcher who first told Whitlock about the idea, has already received a patent for the technology in nine different countries, and registered the trade name Outbreaker. Prototypes have been built by local salt companies—the compression process is identical to how salt licks for livestock are made—and discreetly installed in a handful of settings around Edmonton, Alberta’s capital, over the past few years. Compressed and smooth, with a feel akin to ceramics, Whitlock says most users have no idea that what they’re really grabbing is a fistful of table salt.

Corruption in Russia

An interesting piece here via Sky News about Putin and a recent report on the way corruption is done in Russia. 

It also features a photo of what appears to be a rather dangerous form of "celebration" in the backwoods

The caption reads:

A man tries to get a prize from a pole during a celebration in Krasnoyarsk last month

No need to add salt?

From the BBC:  Why a German lab is growing tomatoes in urine.

(Answer - to develop systems for future use by astronauts.)   It's more interesting than you might think.

Stroke your rodent

From the Improbable Research site - a serious study involving stroking mice, as type of mouse massage, to see how it affects their immune system.  (It does them good, it seems.)

Large scale clean power storage soon a reality?

Yeah, this guy was on Radio National this morning, saying that Tesla batteries are capable of being deployed on such a scale that they could have prevented SA losing power during that recent heatwave.

Quite remarkable, if true, and possible at acceptable cost:

Tesla's confidence of being able to plug gaps in grid power has been buoyed by its successful completion of a similar assignment in southern California last year, when it built an 80MW battery farm in 90 days after a gas peaker near Los Angeles leaked tonnes of methane and had to be mothballed.

Tesla was one of three battery companies to step forward when the California power system operator called for emergency storage and it is one of a large number of battery companies vying for the 1.6 million solar rooftop homes and businesses in Australia.
"We could install everything and get it up and running within 100 days," Mr Rive said at the launch of Tesla's Powerwall 2 battery in a converted substation at Newport, near Melbourne.

"We had a similar challenge in southern California ... We got 80MW up in 90 days. That's unheard of. You just don't get power plants running up and down that fast." 

Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/tesla-battery-boss-we-can-solve-sas-power-woes-in-100-days-20170308-gut8xh#ixzz4amuio0lU
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

Cause for slight optimism

China's world-leading coal consumption fell for the third straight year in 2016, government data showed Tuesday, as the planet's biggest carbon emitter struggles to break its addiction to the heavily polluting fuel.

Coal consumption fell by 4.7 percent year-on-year in 2016, and the share of coal in the country's energy mix slipped to 62.0 percent, down 2.0 percent year-on-year, the National Bureau of Statistics said in a report.

Overall coal production also fell, dropping 9.0 percent to 3.41 billion tonnes in 2016.
The data suggests that "coal consumption probably peaked around 2014," according to a statement from environmental group China Dialogue.

It added that "there is still some concern about a 'rebound' in coal demand if China continues to stimulate its economy by infrastructure investment".

The link.

As the world turns...

I hadn't heard this before, and I don't know if the Indian commentator, writing in The Japan Times, is reliable, but according to him, Putin is getting friendly with the Taliban in Afghanistan, for his own reasons:

Almost three decades after the end of the Soviet Union’s own war in Afghanistan — a war that enfeebled the Soviet economy and undermined the communist state — Russia has moved to establish itself as a central actor in Afghan affairs. And the Kremlin has surprised many by embracing the Afghan Taliban. Russia had long viewed the thuggish force created by Pakistan’s rogue Inter-Services Intelligence agency as a major terrorist threat. From 2009 to 2015, Russia served as a critical supply route for U.S.-led forces fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan; it even contributed military helicopters to the effort.

Russia’s reversal on the Afghan Taliban reflects a larger strategy linked to its clash with the U.S. and its European allies — a clash that has intensified considerably since Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea spurred the U.S. and Europe to impose heavy economic sanctions. In fact, in a sense, Russia is exchanging roles with the U.S. in Afghanistan.

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan used Islam as an ideological tool to spur armed resistance to the Soviet occupation. Reasoning that the enemy of their enemy was their friend, the CIA trained and armed thousands of Afghan mujahedeen — the jihadi force from which al-Qaida and later the Taliban evolved.

Today, Russia is using the same logic to justify its cooperation with the Afghan Taliban, which it wants to keep fighting the unstable U.S.-backed government in Kabul. And the Taliban, which has acknowledged that it shares Russia’s enmity with the U.S., will take whatever help it can get to expel the Americans.

Something you don't read about every day

Tiny (and I mean tiny) people/aliens sightings - a wave of which apparently took place in Malaysia in 1970!

Jason Soon can perhaps inform us of his knowledge of these matters...

DNA data storage keeps getting better

I forgot to mention a month or so ago - one good thing (the only good thing?) to come out of having Trump as President is that the AAAS ran a big subscription campaign to get more people supporting science, which meant I now get full access to Science magazine for a year for the princely sum of $50 (US)!  

This week's edition had a story about new techniques being done to see how good DNA data storage could be - and the answer is very, very good.   From the free article about it:

Now, researchers report that they’ve come up with a new way to encode digital data in DNA to create the highest-density large-scale data storage scheme ever invented. Capable of storing 215 petabytes (215 million gigabytes) in a single gram of DNA, the system could, in principle, store every bit of datum ever recorded by humans in a container about the size and weight of a couple of pickup trucks....

Erlich thought he could get closer to that limit. So he and Dina Zielinski, an associate scientist at the New York Genome Center, looked at the algorithms that were being used to encode and decode the data. They started with six files, including a full computer operating system, a computer virus, an 1895 French film called Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat, and a 1948 study by information theorist Claude Shannon. They first converted the files into binary strings of 1s and 0s, compressed them into one master file, and then split the data into short strings of binary code. They devised an algorithm called a DNA fountain, which randomly packaged the strings into so-called droplets, to which they added extra tags to help reassemble them in the proper order later. In all, the researchers generated a digital list of 72,000 DNA strands, each 200 bases long.

They sent these as text files to Twist Bioscience, a San Francisco, California–based startup, which then synthesized the DNA strands. Two weeks later, Erlich and Zielinski received in the mail a vial with a speck of DNA encoding their files. To decode them, the pair used modern DNA sequencing technology. The sequences were fed into a computer, which translated the genetic code back into binary and used the tags to reassemble the six original files. The approach worked so well that the new files contained no errors, they report today in Science. They were also able to make a virtually unlimited number of error-free copies of their files through polymerase chain reaction, a standard DNA copying technique. What’s more, Erlich says, they were able to encode 1.6 bits of data per nucleotide, 60% better than any group had done before and 85% the theoretical limit.

So, at 215 million gigabytes of storage per gram, I was curious as to how much information could be potentially stored in a human body's worth of DNA.

Googling the question "how much does all the DNA in a human weigh?" came up with estimates that seem to vary from around 6 g to 300g, but then there is also the question of DNA in all the microbes we host in our guts.  

But sure, it seems that, in theory, a human could be an enormous data storage device...

Some great Colbert

Like all late night chat show hosts, Stephen Colbert has some nights that are better than others, but I really thought this series of bits from yesterday's show, talking about the Republican's underwhelming reform to Obamacare, the rather odd Ben Carson, and spying on us through Samsung TVs, were all very funny:







I'm very pleased that he is now doing so well, ratings wise.

Rich and thick

Peter Thiel gave a talk the other night at some energy conference, and curiously, it has not yet been widely reported.

But here is what one site has quoted:

HOUSTON -- Peter Thiel, the technology investor and advisor to President Donald Trump, questioned the global push toward restricting carbon emissions as "group think" while speaking Tuesday at an international energy conference here.

"I'm not sure I'm an extreme skeptic of climate change, but I have my doubts about the extreme ways that people try to push it through," he said. "Even if climate change is quite as bad as people think it is, if we group think we're more likely to misdiagnose the problem. Maybe it's methane emissions, and the real problem is eating steak."

I suppose I should be cautious and note that perhaps he is not being entirely serious with that last line.

But he supports Trump, so why should I give him any benefit of the doubt?  No, I'm going with the Greek yoghurt theory - he's rich and thick.

"Not an extreme skeptic" = fence sitting lukewarmer, happy to watch temperatures rise with no carbon pricing because "taxes - I hate taxes", and then say "well, they were right 30 years ago - too late to do anything about CO2 now.   Here, I've got this great geoengineering idea I can sell you.  Please pay in bitcoin to my floating island in Tahiti.  See ya." 

Update:   other reports don't repeat the "steak" comment, which is odd.  From Axios:

"I don't know whether I am an extreme skeptic on climate change, but I have my doubts about the extreme way that people try to push it through, and I would say that I would be much more convinced of climate change, of the need to do something, if I thought there was a more open debate in which both sides were given a full hearing."

 And other sites point out that he has provided funding for some clean energy ideas (some sounding very improbable.)  

But no, he is simply not to be trusted on climate change.   Or anything much, in my books...

Bubble world

Surely this is what it feels like to an outsider visiting North Korea and hearing everyone endorsing how great their Dear Leader is doing?   Being told how He will protect them from the nefarious forces that want to harm them?

Because I have never seen anything like the self delusion that is accompanying those endorsing Trump.   Look at Steve Kates, with this fantasy today:

I don’t know whether this was what Trump intended but the stories about Russian hacking the election have gone absolutely dead, as have almost all stories related to Obama having placed some kind of phone surveillance on Donald Trump himself. Having become blindingly clear that the Obama White House had indeed initiated that surveillance, with the virtual certainty that none of it would have been done without Obama’s complicity, the entire episode seems to have vanished into air. Since there is nothing that can any longer be used in bringing Trump down, it has gone into hibernation across the media and will remain that way unless something happens that the left and the media believe can again be used to undermine Trump.

This is part of what disturbs me about the blog support network on the right. It is entirely defensive. A story that was utterly preposterous, that Trump and his associates had collaborated with the Russians was, and is, treated as a genuine issue that needs to be sorted out, rather than as a pathetic and disgusting ploy by a bunch of leftist loons and their scribes to harm Trump and short circuit his election.

The only way this can possibly be explained is that he lives in an absolute self imposed information bubble - only reading news from Fox or Breitbart (or worse) that he knows in advance will align with his pro-Trump stance.

In totalitarian states, the State has to impose the media control that leads to such brainwashing - in the West, citizens gleefully impose it on themselves, building self reinforcing belief systems impervious to outside information - because it is, by definition, not to be trusted.

The other thing to note is the paranoia and siege mentality involved - Kates is always beating it up into a "end of civilisation" crisis if Trump (or at least Republicans) lose control of their country.   And, indeed, Bannon is known as a "clash of civilisations" panic merchant, and Trump will use that language when it suits. 

As for Kates' claim that no one is talking about the Trump Obama tweets now, he obviously cares not to observe twitter on matters Trump, or read the NYT, where this account of Trump's mad tweeting Saturday was given (again, apparently leaked by people close to him):

That led to a succession of frantic staff conference calls, including one consultation with the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, as staff members grasped the reality that the president had opened an attack on his predecessor.

Mr. Trump, advisers said, was in high spirits after he fired off the posts. But by midafternoon, after returning from golf, he appeared to realize he had gone too far, although he still believed Mr. Obama had wiretapped him, according to two people in Mr. Trump’s orbit.

He sounded defiant in conversations at Mar-a-Lago with his friend Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax Media, Mr. Ruddy said. In other conversations that afternoon, the president sounded uncertain of the procedure for obtaining a warrant for secret wiretaps on an American citizen.

Mr. Trump also canvassed some aides and associates about whether an investigator, even one outside the government, could substantiate his charge.

Kates in his bubble world wouldn't have heard of this...

This won't fit neatly into the Conservative Catholic narrative

I think the Catholic Herald is pretty mainstream and moderate/conservative as far as Catholic media outlets go, so this story does not come from a liberal Catholic site:

A spokesman for Egypt’s Catholic Church has praised local Muslims for helping embattled Christians after a series of Islamic State attacks in Sinai.

Fr Rafic Greiche, spokesman for the Coptic Catholic Church, said Christians must differentiate between ordinary Muslims and extremists.

“Ordinary Muslims are kind and try to help however they can – they’re often first on the scene, rescuing the injured and taking them to hospitals,” he told Catholic News Service March 3, as Christians continued to flee Egypt’s North Sinai region.

Fr Greiche said the attacks had affected only Coptic Orthodox Christians, but added that Catholic churches and schools in Ismailia had offered shelter to Orthodox families with help from Caritas.

Fr Greiche said Islamic State militants were now “strongly entrenched” in North Sinai, having been allowed by the Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood organisations to use tunnels from the Gaza Strip.

It is, though, a worry to read how IS is running around the Middle East trying to find a new area to terrorise.  

The Daily Trump

Yeah, I get a bit sick of posting about Trump all the time too, but honestly, it's so incredible to watch this weird situation, falling as it does so close to unbelievable fiction, it's hard to stop.  So today's highlights:

*  I've really been enjoying John Cassidy's pieces on Trump at The New Yorker:  it's a calm style that is perhaps all the more effective for it.   Here, in his latest piece, he opines: 

Trump has learned a couple of things since the start of his Presidential campaign, in 2015. The first is that the media, especially the broadcast media, has an insatiable desire for “news breaks,” even fake ones, and thus is easy to manipulate. The second is that he can say virtually anything, however false or outrageous, without suffering any political consequences with his base. He can call a female journalist a “bimbo,” insult a political opponent’s wife, make bogus accusations of widespread voter fraud, say Obama founded ISIS, claim he won a bigger majority in the Electoral College than any President since Reagan—and none of it alienates his core supporters. Arguably, these outbursts make them like him more.

In his tweets this weekend, however, he may, just possibly, have gone too far. Trump has now added his voice to the calls for a proper public investigation into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election. The only way for Congress to properly assess the truth of Trump’s claim about Obama would be to call on Comey and other senior officials to provide a full accounting of the interagency investigation into alleged contacts between Russian officials and Trump associates. Is that really what the White House wants?

He then summarises what we do know, from leaks and public comments, in a calm way, and how none of it backs up Trumps claims of Obama's direct and personal involvement.  With Comey's response, it is quite the opposite.

*   Back to the question though - who is manipulating who in Trump world?   As Axios notes, Trump has just made a series of Tweets directly about stories he was obviously watching on the teeth gratingly awful  Fox & Friends.     Now, are the editors of that show pitching stories to please Trump?    Does Trump believe everything they claim, uncritically?  

I think most people, with common sense, are concluding that yes, he does believe, uncritically, anything  which he thinks useful propaganda, because he's a dumb, insecure, narcissist.  If challenged, he will not "own" his own judgement, he'll just deflect by claiming "well, that's what other people say."

And some people think this is not something to be very concerned about.... 

What would happen if you actually had an experiment where someone at Fox put up a story that ran against a long held Trump belief or bias?    (Ha!  As if that will happen - there's no money in scaring away your nutty base.   All Murdochs are too cynical to put the interests of actually educating the viewers ahead of making money.)

*  Speaking of Trump re-tweets of Fox, here is The Washington Post on one of them:   You'll never guess who tweeted something false he saw on TV. 

*  If former CIA directors think things are bad, they probably are:

As Michael Hayden, the CIA director under George W. Bush, noted on Morning Joe on Monday, “We’ve been in continuous crisis now for 45 days, and none of it has been externally stimulated. This is all an intramural game within our own government. No one’s tickled us from abroad. So I can only imagine what this is going to look like when we actually start to get pressure, events start to happen, that do require that sober, methodical response from a government that doesn’t appear as if it’s gotten itself organized yet.”

 And in the same article, someone asked in December some good questions, the answers to which no one has a right to feel confident about:

In December, Elizabeth Saunders, a professor at George Washington University who studies decision-making in foreign policy, listed eight questions she had about how President Trump would handle an overseas crisis: Where is Trump physically, since he’s so frequently away from the White House? What is the state of Trump’s relations with U.S. intelligence agencies? Which of Trump’s staffers briefs him on the crisis? Which officials are brought into the deliberations about what to do? How many options are given to Trump and how are they described? Will those who oppose the preferred option express their concerns? Who will execute Trump’s decision? And will a record be kept of how the decision was made?

Message to JC

You're being stupid and getting sucked into the Catallaxy conspiracy zone.  Kates has gone down the rabbit hole completely - don't follow him.

Here are key points you conspiracists are ignoring:

*  the FBI was reported as being party to the warrant applications;

*  you have to be nuts (like Kates) to think that Comey is a Democrat stooge, given the obvious advantage it gave to Trump to declare that the email investigation was being re-opened, so close to the election;

*  Comey is already reported to have taken offence at Trump's claim - he is obviously prepared to stand up and be counted about the bona fides of the application for a warrant, and whatever it was it authorised them to do;

*  it doesn't matter if Obama knew what was going on - and he presumably was advised.   That is not corruption in any way, shape or form.   What upset Democrats, after the loss of the election - was the fact that Obama did know some of what was going on, and studiously avoided making any official comment on it.  Obama (if I recall correctly) even felt, post election, that he had to make it clear to his fellow Democrats that he just couldn't do that, due to perception that it would be an abuse of his position during an election.
 
Update:  CL, who is prone to partisan fantasy, calling it "bigger than Watergate" if Obama knew of the warrant and investigation, is just ridiculous.   (He is, clearly, becoming more and more ridiculous with what he will claim as he ages.)    If intelligence agencies believe there has been hacking and release of emails by a foreign nation with a clear intent to influence an election, and there is a string of contacts between Trump connected people and that foreign nation preceding a change in party policy more favourable towards it - of course the existing Presidential administration of any party should be concerned, and knowledge of further investigation about it is entirely appropriate.

Update 2:   A CNN report just out starts with:

FBI Director James Comey was "incredulous" over the weekend after President Donald Trump's allegation via Twitter that former President Barack Obama ordered a wiretap of his phones during the campaign, a person familiar with the matter told CNN.

Update 3:  message to monty:  for goodness sake, can you just point out to them that the FBI and Justice Department are not the same entity as President Obama.   And yes - we do not know the details of the warrant, and what and who it authorised as the target.

But it is 100% clear, from Comey's reaction, that he is deeply offended at the suggestion - implicit from Trump's tweets that it was Obama personally telling them what to do -  that he was dancing to the tune of Obama.

Update 4:  Sheesh - CL is just like Trump:  will just say anything, completely and utterly without concern for detail and accuracy and established fact. Leaves the rest of us wondering if he's nuts, prematurely senile, or knowingly bloviating and trolling for deliberate effect? 

There is no point in engaging with such blowhards...

Juices, noted

Yesterday, I drank for the first time "cold pressed" mandarin juice, manufactured in Brisbane from Australian produce, apparently, and I thought it very nice.  

Which reminded me - a long time ago, in Malaysia, I bought watermelon juice, made in the juicer while I waited.  From memory, there was a sugar syrup added too, but I also recall it being very nice.

Is there a reason that, in Australia, despite the myriad of juice combinations you can now see on the supermarket shelf, none seem to contain watermelon juice?   Does it not preserve well?

Alfred's gay period

I re-watched Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train for the first time in decades over the weekend, and it was an interesting experience.  It's far from the director's best film - the climax is a little silly - but it is, of course, a great premise for a movie.

What I couldn't remember wondering about on first viewing was the degree to which the audience is meant to recognize the villain of the piece, Bruno - the stranger who proposes exchange murders, and then carries one out,  leaving tennis playing Guy in a bit of a pickle - is homosexual.  Certainly, on viewing it now, the hints seems everywhere - but is that just because I have read somewhere in the years since I saw it that this was indeed deliberate?      

Realising that it was based on a Patricia Highsmith novel, and knowing that gay elements appear in her other stories, I would have thought that the homosexual side would have been clear in that source material.   Yet according to Wikipedia, the movie screenplay made more of out of a homoerotic element that was only "hinted at" in the novel.  

Now that we have gay studies as part of academia, there's lots of "queer" movie analysis on the net about the movie, together with Rope, the other Hitchcock film with a clear homosexual subtext.   (With Rope, it's hardly in dispute, given it was a fictionalised version of the real life Leopold and Loeb murder - and they did have a sexual relationship.)  You can Google for "Queer studies Hitchcock" if you are inclined.

Anyway, what I didn't realise about all of this was that the actor who appeared in both films, Farley Granger (who played Guy in Strangers, the definitely heterosexual character) was clearly bisexual in real life.   His Wikipedia entry contains an awful lot of information about his sex and relationship life, much of it surprising, presumably sourced in many respects from a memoir he published in 2007.

He was, it would seem, someone who it would be difficult to categorise as other than genuinely bisexual, right from the start:

It was during his naval stint in Honolulu that Granger had his first sexual experiences, one with a hostess at a private club and the other with a Navy officer visiting the same venue, both on the same night.^[13] He was startled to discover he was attracted to both men and women equally, and in his memoir he observed, "I finally came to the conclusion that for me, everything I had done that night was as natural and as good as it felt ... I never have felt the need to belong to any exclusive, self-defining, or special group ... I was never ashamed, and I never felt the need to explain or apologize for my relationships to anyone .... I have loved men. I have loved women."^[14]

You can then read in the rest of the Wikipedia entry about the enormously lengthy list of flings and relationships he subsequently had with both men and women had throughout his long career of (mostly) pretty B grade movies and TV. 

Incidentally, Robert Walker, who played Bruno, seems to have been definitely heterosexual - or, at least, I would presume so seeing he had been twice divorced by age 30, and had children.  He suffered serious mental health issues, and died of a combination of alcohol and an injection his psychiatrist gave him (!) at the age of 32.  (He could easily pass for older in Strangers, I reckon.)

I haven't read whether Hitchcock knew of Granger's sexual inclinations before using him in two movies with a gay subtext.  (Apparently, Granger even slept with the gay screenwriter for Rope, but whether Hitchcock ever found out, I don't know.)  But it is a little odd how Hitchcock also liked using Cary Grant, who, despite a string of marriages, was widely rumoured to have been in at least one homosexual relationship when he was younger.  

Anyway, old Hollywood certainly carried its fair share of gossipy intrigue.  And the degree to which Hitchcock didn't mind using homosexual subtexts as a signal that the characters were prepared to do anything, within or outside the bounds of society's mores, is somewhat interesting.

The Trump non management style

Oooh - I do still sometimes find a link to something worthwhile in a Catallaxy thread. Sure, it's a bit like finding a diamond ring in the bottom of a septic tank, but this one is good:   an article from last week about Trump's lack of management skills, as told by several people who have worked for him in decades past.

And let's be honest here - the mere fact there are so many people close to Trump willing to talk to the press about how things are not going well in the White House (the Washington Post cites 17 in today's article, which Trump is bound to hate), there must be plenty of genuine concern about him from those in the know.

A "normal" Presidency does not face such sustained, critical, leaking so intensely at its start, and it is not credible that it is all coming from Obama aligned figures.  

As I was saying about the problem in the Catholic Church

Remember last week I was saying how the Catholic Church had tied itself in knots by trying to insist it had never been wrong before?   Well, here it is, plain as day, in the Catholic Herald:

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia has said that it would be good for Pope Francis to answer the dubia, and that Francis cannot contradict Pope St John Paul II’s teaching on marriage.

In an interview with Crux to mark the publication of his new book, Archbishop Chaput was asked what he thought was at stake in the debate over marriage and Amoris Laetitia.

The document does not mention Communion for the remarried, but some bishops, including those of Malta and Germany, have claimed it authorises the practice.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI reaffirmed Church teaching that the remarried may not receive Communion, except possibly when they try to live “as brother and sister”.

Archbishop Chaput said that this teaching, and Jesus’s prohibition of adultery, could not be changed: “It seems to me that it’s impossible for us to contradict the words of Jesus, and it’s also impossible for a teaching to be true 20 years ago not to be true today when it’s the teachings of the pope.

Also, The Guardian ran a pretty good summary of the current controversy within Rome:

Civil war in the Vatican as conservatives battle Francis for the soul of Catholicism

He has no evidence

I see that JC, and others at Catallaxy, were convinced that Trump wouldn't be making claims of Obama's direct and personal involvement in "wiretapping Trump Tower" without evidence.

Time for them to wake up to understand how Trump is a con man who uses Right wing conspiracy theories to (what he thinks) is his advantage. He did it with birtherism; he is using Right wing conspiracy theory again.

There were reports that the Breitbart article was being circulated in the White House on the Friday.  There were reports that he was furious that Sessions did the (at least half) honourable thing in his recusing himself from investigations about Russian involvement. There were reports that his staffers (left back in Washington) were surprised at the Saturday morning tweet storm.   His press spokesman had no idea when any evidence would be offered.  (See my previous post.)

The response to questions that he produce evidence (as I predicted, there will be none provided) - punt it over to Congress and say that Trump will not speak of it again.  (Let's see if he can keep to that.)

The circumstances are overwhelming clear - Trump was inspired by a Right wing radio host, via Breitbart, to make exaggerated but serious claims against Obama personally as a diversionary tactic and with no evidence.  His staffers have been left struggling how to respond, and the best they have come up with "we'll say it's Congress's responsibility and therefore it would be inappropriate for us to keep speaking about it."

And his gullible base swallow it whole.

Look, if anyone thought that it was bad how the Bush administration and its agencies convinced voters (and other nations) to join in the Iraq invasion based on unreliable evidence, they should be horrified at how easy it will be for Trump to convince his base of any stupid over-reaction he wants to make against some international provocation.

And finally:  to be clear, I think it very likely the reports that there was a successful application to the court for a wiretap of some sort are correct.  If Trump wants us all to know the evidence that led to that successful issuing of a warrant - fine.  Lots of people would have liked to have known that - before the election.

Update:   This Hot Air post about it by Allahpundit (who is often accused in comments of being a rabid anti-Trumper, because he dares to question Trump) is pretty reasonable, and notes this:

Does Trump really want another high-profile Comey press conference, this time laying out precisely why the FBI was suspicious of, say, Paul Manafort’s communications with Russia? How do you suppose that would play politically for the White House?

 Update 2:  Fascinating, from the NYT.  (Both for content, and how everywhere is leaking in Washington!):

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.

Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment. Sarah Isgur Flores, the spokeswoman for the Justice Department, also declined to comment.

Mr. Comey’s request is a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president, putting the nation’s top law enforcement official in the position of questioning Mr. Trump’s truthfulness. The confrontation between the two is the most serious consequence of Mr. Trump’s weekend Twitter outburst, and it underscores the dangers of what the president and his aides have unleashed by accusing the former president of a conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump’s young administration.

Continue reading the main story

A careless, dumb, gullible President with a gullible, dumb voter base not interested in facts

I'm waiting for some better analysis of the Trump "Obama tapped me, it's like Watergate" tweets before posting about it in too much detail.   But as far as I can tell so far, what's likely to have happened is this:

*  Trump read a Breitbart article by Pollack,  expanding on a Mark Levin call that Congress should investigate "the Obama administration" for "monitoring" Trump Tower.

*  Trump, apparently (or acting) unaware of previous reporting of leaks that FISC approval for a FISA warrant had been sought and granted in October,  tweets about it as if "the Obama administration" means Obama personally, and at least appears to accept, gullibly, everything in the Breitbart report as being true.  (Such as the line "No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons..")

*  In fact, in previous leaks, it was said that the FBI sought and obtained the FISA warrant.  Other reports say "The Justice Department and the FBI".  In any event:

a.    The Justice Department is not "Obama";

b.    The fact that the FBI - whose Trump friendly announcement of the nothing burger of a further investigation of Clinton emails should surely be compelling evidence of it not being in the pocket of the Obama administration - was asking for it shows that an independent investigative body thought there was serious evidence making it worth getting the warrant.

*  Nonetheless, Trump, either deliberately, or through his dumb, carefree attitude to facts and a willingness to say anything to shore up his base, claims it was all about Obama, personally, wiretapping "his phones".

*  His dumb, gullible, couldn't care about facts, base, swallows this whole, and are about to go on Sunday rallies to support their dangerous cult leader.

Here's why this is dangerous:

This may well blow over as a case of Trump carelessness and his easy manipulation into making claims by the Right wing media.   (Whether it is also a case of him deliberately manipulating his base - who knows?)   He will be challenged to produce the evidence that Obama was personally involved (and that he managed to sway the FBI to join in) and it will not be there.    He and his Right wing conspiracy mongers - they've been doing this for over 20 years - will just go down muttering that they still think he did it.

But the thing is - when he faces a real life crisis in his administration, say, a serious terror attack, who can possibly trust that he will not take the same careless, fact free lines in his response, and encourage the same to his stupid base, and that this will cause real trouble?

 Update:

Comment by nutty Australian Trump conspiracist noted:

 Update 2:   The American Right has brainwashed itself into believing and promoting conspiracy for nearly a couple of decades now - who can forget that as late as 2015, 43% of Republicans still believed Obama was a secret Muslim;  in 2010-2011, polling showed between 31 to 45% believed he had been born outside of America;   in 2016, Gallop showed Republicans hitting a new high in believing that climate change is happening and is caused by humans - but it's still only around 40% holding that view compared to 85% of Democrats.  (Furthermore, only 20% of Republicans think it will be a problem in their lifetime.)  And let's not bother looking at all the cynical use of Benghazi claims and conspiracy by Republicans, that went no where but are doubtless still believed by their base in large numbers.

It is unhealthy for any society or group of people to be so prone to believing nonsense conspiracies - I've complained before about the unusual degree to which it seems the residents of many Muslim countries will accept conspiracy.

So it is with America (and Australia, for that matter) too - but Trump is exactly the wrong person to lead the country out of the corrosive effect of conspiracy belief, with his attitude that he can say anything, regardless of facts.

Update 3:   Here's the succinct version of my post, from The New Yorker News Desk:

It would seem that Trump, in the same spirit of diversion, has conflated the work of the courts, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies with “Obama.”

That article also gives a good summary of a favourite Trump tactic:

One of President Trump’s most consistent rhetorical maneuvers is a fairly basic but often highly effective one—the diversionary reverse accusation. When he is accused of benefitting from “fake news,” he flips the neologism on its head; suddenly CNN, the Times, and the rest are “fake news.” When Democratic politicians such as Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi call for investigations of his campaign’s contacts with Russian officials, Trump posts pictures of those critics meeting publicly with Vladimir Putin and calls for an investigation. This happened on Saturday. He fogs the language and clouds the issue.

(Those of my readers who are familiar with CL, who has long commented at Catallaxy, will recognize this as his constant tactic over the years, too.   It's always hard to tell, when people use such an obvious tactic repeatedly, whether they have managed to convince themselves that it's really a convincing response, rather than just a transparent debating trick to show "winning".)

Update 4:    Gary Kasparov sounds very accurate in this series of tweets (read from the bottom up):

And for Jason Soon:  I just noticed this in Kasparov's Wiki entry:

Kasparov collaborated with Max Levchin and Peter Thiel on The Blueprint, a book calling for a revival of world innovation, planned to release in March 2013 from W. W. Norton & Company. The book was never released, as the authors disagreed on its contents.

Update 5:    you could almost feel sympathy for the Trump clean up team; except for the fact that if they had any moral and decent judgement, they would never have taken their jobs in the first place:

Certainly took their time...

‘False prophet’: Duterte, the Catholic Church and the fight for the soul of the Philippines

Making cannabis safer

Nearly a year ago, I made the observation here (see the comments to this post) that it seems odd that, if countries are going to legalise cannabis use, they don't also regulate it to make it safer.   I mean, they do it with alcohol (at least within venues where it is served - and I see some places ban the sale of nearly pure ethanol as an alcoholic beverage); why should another legal drug avoid nearly all regulation as to its content?

It's been well recognized for years that THC content has been increasing, for example:  why not legalise strains with a set upper limit?   Also, it seems reasonably well established CBD can be protective of the brain - why not regulate that the sold product has to have a certain balance between it and THC?

Anyway, my very reasonable suggestion has been endorsed by some researchers in the UK.

They do note that not much is known about what a protective does of CBD might be, and the problem might be (I would guess) how many years of research it may take to be more certain about it.

But I thought its protective effects were established enough to at least know you would be doing no harm to take a stab at mandating a certain content for it.

I expect John will be along to comment on this!

Meet the Russians

I have to say, the "Trump campaign and the Russians" keeps looking  worse for Trump.  You know it's bothering him, too, when he issues a series of tweets that's its all a witch hunt, and the leaks are the real story.   (That's silly - if there is no story, there's no reason for anyone to leak.)

I have never written off the possibility of this hurting Trump in a major way, but it is seeming more and more likely that it will.

And man, aren't Trumpkin/wingnuts struggling with their false equivalence stories about Democrats and meetings with Russians?    But they'll convince themselves of anything - they're so ridiculously partisan they'd convince themselves the Moon is made of cheese if it would help their culture warrior dumbo-in-chief.

Obsessions of conservatives and libertarians

I don't have much doubt that the QUT s18C Racial discrimination case was poorly handled all around, and I have sympathy for the students involved.    So some legislative corrections to how these cases are handled procedurally are at least warranted.

I also get the impression (without looking into it in too much detail) that Gillian Triggs has made mistakes in her defence of the handling of the matter.  But at the same time, her treatment by conservatives in the Coalition, and the intense journalistic and editorial support for them in The Australian, has amounted to a nutty jihad that has lasted years now.   Despite her errors, I think the overwhelming impression the public is left with is that conservatives (and the odd libertarian) in the government, and a newspaper, are absolutely obsessed with her, and seem to think there is still nothing better to do than hound the head of a commission because of perceived slights to them and their journalist pal Andrew Bolt.

I can't really recall anything like this in Australian politics - and the sooner the nutty conservatives in the Coalition split from their parties, the better it would be. 

Gene networks and evolution

An article at BBC - Earth explains the idea.

Not as intriguing an idea as morphic resonance - but more likely to be true...

Nice photos

The Atlantic put up some photos from The Smithsonian 2016 photo contest, and they're all great.

The first one, showing a rugged part of the Isle of Skye, really caught my eye for its alien landscape looks: