There's a lot of viewing of Netflix going on in my new-to-Netflix household at the moment. To update the one or two people (maybe I am being optimistic) who think my media reviews are worth reading:
Stranger Things (cont.): nearly at the end of the first series, and I have to upgrade my opinion of it. Something clicked in episode 5 about how much I was finding the acting of everyone involved very convincing and likeable. The four child leads are really good, but the teenagers and all of the adults - they're just great too. The Spielbergian mash up aspect of the scenario has stopped bothering me as I have realised that I just like being in the show's universe anyway.
I fear that there is a big danger that series 2 will disappoint - in fact, I think it quite possibly might follow a Twin Peaks spiral. (Truth be told, I don't really recall anything about series 2 - I think I may have not watched it based on bad reviews coming out of the US.) But let's hope not.
Norsemen: who knew Norwegians could be this funny? Have only watched the first episode, but there is a lot to like about its mocking of Norse cultural extremes. It's a bit Monty Python and the Holy Grail (although more witty than absurdist); a bit Blackadder; even a bit The Office (according to someone on Reddit - I still have never watched either incarnation of that show despite its reputation.) It can be gross and violent, but really, the writing is very amusing and unexpectedly good. (Sorry, but I just didn't imagine the teeth chattering climate of Norway as an environment for producing good comedy.)
The show is made by Norwegians and shot in both English and Norwegian,
and hasn't even been on Netflix in the US for long. I strongly suspect
it will develop a cult following.
The Babadook: I knew this low budget Australian film, which I am not sure even got an Australian cinema release, was surprisingly well received by many American reviewers. So, despite my quite intense, but readily justified, dislike of my own nation's cinema efforts, I gave it a go.
Let's just say, the reputation of Australian cinema remains for this viewer lower than a wombat's burrow. (Go on, make up your own witticism, then.)
The movie exemplifies a couple of things that I have always disliked about Australian cinema:
* the low budget emptiness: cheaply made movies in Australia somehow, more than low budget features from anywhere else on the planet, always manage to make the settings seem empty, lifeless and underpopulated. Sure, you'll occasionally see some extras in this film, but it still manages to make everywhere look unrealistic due to a lack of, I don't know, normal people in the background doing normal things? It's almost like a perverse special talent of Australian film makers: do they never try to film secretly in a natural setting so that, for example, you actually do see streets or buildings with more than a handful of people in them?
* some arch, almost campy, acting. Most of the supporting actors don't do well, in my opinion, and fall into some stereotypical (for Australian cinema) close to camp acting that doesn't ring true. In this case, I point the finger at the Childrens Services couple, the police officers, the boss at the aged care home, the sister's friends. But even the female lead, who has to carry the film, increasing struggles with the material, and becomes unconvincing in what is meant to be the scary climax. As for the boy - he really is too irritating to be sympathetic for the first half of the movie, and his conversion to being the sensible one in the house for the second half doesn't make much sense. (Nor does his precocious mechanical talent - no attempt to explain where that comes from at all.)
Which leads to my biggest complaint - the story just doesn't make psychological sense. It's presumably meant to work like a version of The Shining (one made with on a credit card budget in a friend's big old house,) in that it has deliberate ambiguity as to what is going on - just madness and mental health issues, or something supernatural, or a combination of both. But at least in Kubrick's film there was some information of trouble in the father's past - alcoholism, domestic violence, perhaps a less than successful career - which you could see that, either through generic madness or a supernatural evil, were the seeds of his turning on his family. In this film. there's nothing like that at all.
[Spoilers if you continue]. There is nothing to indicate the mother had a troubled relationship with the dead father - quite the opposite in fact. And nothing to indicate why the father (if the babadook is him in some guise) would want to threaten the son who he never met. If, as many reviewers say, the supernatural creature is a metaphor for grief, I just don't see why grief would manifest in psychotic hatred for the son. Sure, he was annoying at the start, but not so annoying that Mum would want him dead instead of getting him into counselling. At one stage, I thought that the script was setting up for a split personality scenario, with the mother herself being the author of the book that is frightening her. (She tells her sisters friends that she was a writer who had done some work for children.) But that possibility goes no where - there are no further hints along this line - and if it was the old dissociative personality under stress situation, it doesn't really fit in with the possession by the babadook scene in the bedroom.
If it is meant to be taken as a supernatural cause, there is no hint as to why it is in the house - no hint of past violence there, for example. Again, Kubrick gave enough (with the son's apparent psychic ability, the talk of past murders, not to mention the famous last shot) to give some reasons as to why there might be supernatural presences in the hotel. In this movie, we have a boy who is having nightmares and worries about monsters under the bed - but we see nothing of what he is seeing.
The final sequence of this movie continues the ambiguity but in an oddball, unsatisfying way. Sure, use it as a metaphor for the Mum successfully taming but never banishing entirely rampant grief/psychosis, but how does feeding it work into that metaphor? I don't think it does. And if it is meant to indicate a real supernatural being of some kind - as I said before, where it came from remains completely opaque.
So - contrary to what a slew of American reviewers seem to think, I thought the story was a complete unconvincing mess from a psychological perspective. It's not that I expect things always have to made clear in such a film (I love the discussion The Shining generates), but the film has to have enough in it to make possible interpretations plausible. That's where this one fails utterly, if you ask me.
It's also, in my opinion, not even very scary. My son watched it with me, and he is easier scared by ghost stories than me, but he also was underwhelmed.
So, no chance of me changing my mind about Australian cinema based on this. No surprises of any variety, actually.
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Friday, September 08, 2017
Some big damage
One of the best sets of photos I have seen of the damage already caused by Hurricane Irma is here at The Atlantic. You don't often see cars, trucks and containers so tossed around by hurricanes. It does look like tornado level damage, but over a huge area.
A tad stupid
Sinclair Davidson thinks that it's "a tad hypocritical" of Bill Clinton to defend DACA when it was under his administration that Elian Gonzalez was forcibly removed from his uncle (who thought he should stay in Florida) so that he could be given to his father (who thought he should return with him to Cuba?)
What was, essentially, a custody dispute is not by any stretch of the imagination in the same category as what DACA is about.
To correct my post title: the comparison is not just "a tad stupid", it's completely stupid.
What was, essentially, a custody dispute is not by any stretch of the imagination in the same category as what DACA is about.
To correct my post title: the comparison is not just "a tad stupid", it's completely stupid.
Positive things I have heard recently
* was told by someone who saw it himself that, yesterday morning, a dugong was happily feeding just off the rock wall at Manly (Brisbane) yacht harbour. Some other guy there, apparently an old timer who has lived and fished in the area for many years, said he has never seen one, or at least, one so close to shore. [I knew that there were dugong in the southern part of Moreton Bay - in fact, this website from 2009 says there are about 1,000. But they are are not a common sight so close to shore, obviously. It augurs well for a healthy local sea environment, I presume, so it pleases me.]
* was speaking recently to a surgeon in the Queensland public health system. Asked how our public system here was going - pretty well, he said. In fact, he said if people need a major operation, he thinks the equipment and staffing of Queensland public hospitals is such that he considers it is a better choice than going private.
These were both nice things to hear.
* was speaking recently to a surgeon in the Queensland public health system. Asked how our public system here was going - pretty well, he said. In fact, he said if people need a major operation, he thinks the equipment and staffing of Queensland public hospitals is such that he considers it is a better choice than going private.
These were both nice things to hear.
I like airports...
Slate has several articles up about American airports and how bad most of them have become. One article is entitled: How the airport came to embody our national psychosis.
While I appreciate that airports servicing New York, for example, may have their problems due simply to the huge numbers they need to provide for in sometimes hemmed in locations, I think Australian airports are doing pretty well, actually.
I like airports. I like hospitals (well, new ones) too. I guess I like all places where people are busy achieving remarkable things in buildings that look clean and modern.
I was in Sydney domestic for the first time in many years recently. It was a lot better than I remembered. Pretty great food selection now. A very large number of recharging facilities on the long tables in the food court. Security did not take long, even on a Sunday evening, with lots of people travelling home.
As with health care, where we manage to get better results with less money, maybe we just do some things better than the Americans...
While I appreciate that airports servicing New York, for example, may have their problems due simply to the huge numbers they need to provide for in sometimes hemmed in locations, I think Australian airports are doing pretty well, actually.
I like airports. I like hospitals (well, new ones) too. I guess I like all places where people are busy achieving remarkable things in buildings that look clean and modern.
I was in Sydney domestic for the first time in many years recently. It was a lot better than I remembered. Pretty great food selection now. A very large number of recharging facilities on the long tables in the food court. Security did not take long, even on a Sunday evening, with lots of people travelling home.
As with health care, where we manage to get better results with less money, maybe we just do some things better than the Americans...
Thursday, September 07, 2017
Ethics question of the day
Is it wrong to wish that Hurricane Irma destroy Trump's cheesy looking Mar-a-Lago resort?
(I hope Disneyworld is OK; and Cape Canaveral too. The rest of Florida - well, 49.02% of it - deserves at least a mild smiting because of their last electoral college vote.)
(I hope Disneyworld is OK; and Cape Canaveral too. The rest of Florida - well, 49.02% of it - deserves at least a mild smiting because of their last electoral college vote.)
The Right in schism
Want to read a Republican hardliner's view on DACA? Try Michelle Makin, who used to be bigger in the world of wingnutty online commentary than she is now. Her stone hearted nonsense entitled There is no such thing as a 'deserving DREAMer' encourages her base to blame immigration for everything from undereducated white guys not being to find a job to crime and murder. The odd thing is that Trump himself used the same demeaning arguments during his rallies against illegal immigrants generally, yet it seems that even he and 66% of his supporters think the kids of illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay - in other words, that DREAMers do deserve something.
It's an incredible, messed up Party, that's for sure.
It's an incredible, messed up Party, that's for sure.
Just a reminder
The heading for an article in 2010:
Atlantic Hurricanes to Become Less Frequent But More Intense
NOAA-Led Study Looks at the Impact of a Warming Ocean
Postal probably gone?
My feeling is that the High Court should find that the government can't spend the money on the same sex marriage postal survey/plebiscite/Turnbull escape strategy. George Williams thinks so, and that's good enough for me.
Which would lead me to go back to my previous suggestion: let the government get a quote from Newspoll for doing a really large sample poll on the matter, and say that if there is a clear majority far enough outside of the margin of error, the Government will let it go to a vote in Parliament.
Update: Well, HC goes its own way, again. They're getting hard to pick...
Which would lead me to go back to my previous suggestion: let the government get a quote from Newspoll for doing a really large sample poll on the matter, and say that if there is a clear majority far enough outside of the margin of error, the Government will let it go to a vote in Parliament.
Update: Well, HC goes its own way, again. They're getting hard to pick...
Chaos in government
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank notes how government "works" under Trump:
On Tuesday, even as the administration announced that it was ending protection from deportation for the 800,000 “dreamers” — mostly young people who know no country but America — there were signs that Trump had no idea what he was doing. “As late as one hour before the decision was to be announced, administration officials privately expressed concern that Mr. Trump might not fully grasp the details of the steps he was about to take, and when he discovered their full impact, would change his mind,” Michael Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis of the New York Times reported, citing an anonymous source.
Sure enough, Trump fired off a tweet Tuesday night that revised his position. He called on Congress to “legalize” the dreamers program and vowed to “revisit the issue” if Congress can’t.
Even Trump’s close advisers seem to have little knowledge of, much less control over, what he says and does.The biggest boost to the economy of a Trump presidency is probably going to be to the publishing industry, as there is going to be a never ending supply of "My first hand experience of chaos in the White House" memoirs.
Trump has signaled that he wants to end a free-trade deal with South Korea, even though his national security adviser, his defense secretary and the director of the National Economic Council all object. He and Defense Secretary James Mattis have contradicted each other about whether to talk with North Korea. Chief of Staff John Kelly’s attempts to tone down Trump’s antics have reportedly led Trump to escalate his attacks — on Kelly. Trump has publicly criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions and repeatedly contradicted Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner have let it leak that Trump ignored their advice on Charlottesville and other matters.
Wednesday, September 06, 2017
Lucifer as the misunderstood naughty boy with Daddy issues
Jason suggested I watch the first episode of Lucifer, a combined supernatural/police procedural show with a humorous touch that is on Netflix now.
I did last night, and my thoughts are as follows:
It was enjoyable enough for me to watch again, but I have some reservations.
The actor playing Lucifer does it with a tad too much of what might be called "straight camp" if you ask me, but perhaps that's bit unavoidable given the lines he is given. The emphasis on his enjoyment of sex I found a little bit off putting. It reminded me of the movie Michael, in which John Travolta played the Archangel Michael as a supernatural character who enjoyed pleasuring women sexually. I remember reading at the time that the writer defended this as being closer to the Old Testament version of angels, who walked and interacted with humans and weren't the ghost-like pure spirit creatures as Christianity came to think of them. That may be right, but I think that supernatural beings enjoying sex with humans is still a very odd concept to the modern mind, where ever it appears: I think its a large part of what makes Greek mythology strange to us now.
As for the bigger picture, of Lucifer's depiction as more or less "just doing a job" when he was Lord of Hell: yes, it is sort of interesting. I found a detailed version of this explained in an article from 2006 at Phys.org, of all places - reviewing a book "Satan: A Biography".
I did last night, and my thoughts are as follows:
It was enjoyable enough for me to watch again, but I have some reservations.
The actor playing Lucifer does it with a tad too much of what might be called "straight camp" if you ask me, but perhaps that's bit unavoidable given the lines he is given. The emphasis on his enjoyment of sex I found a little bit off putting. It reminded me of the movie Michael, in which John Travolta played the Archangel Michael as a supernatural character who enjoyed pleasuring women sexually. I remember reading at the time that the writer defended this as being closer to the Old Testament version of angels, who walked and interacted with humans and weren't the ghost-like pure spirit creatures as Christianity came to think of them. That may be right, but I think that supernatural beings enjoying sex with humans is still a very odd concept to the modern mind, where ever it appears: I think its a large part of what makes Greek mythology strange to us now.
As for the bigger picture, of Lucifer's depiction as more or less "just doing a job" when he was Lord of Hell: yes, it is sort of interesting. I found a detailed version of this explained in an article from 2006 at Phys.org, of all places - reviewing a book "Satan: A Biography".
Henry Ansgar Kelly puts forth the most comprehensive case ever made for sympathy for the devil, arguing that the Bible actually provides a kinder, gentler version of the infamous antagonist than typically thought.That fits in extremely well with his depiction in the show, don't you think?
"A strict reading of the Bible shows Satan to be less like Darth Vader and more and more like an overzealous prosecutor," said Kelly, a UCLA professor emeritus of English and the former director of the university's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. "He's not so much the proud and angry figure who turns away from God as [he is] a Joseph McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover. Satan's basic intention is to uncover wrongdoing and treachery, however overzealous and unscrupulous the means. But he's still part of God's administration."
Frum on DACA - and Trump and the evangelicals
David Frum talking about immigration and the Trump move to pass the buck is, I think, a very good (and pretty balanced) explanation of what's going on.
In other Trump readings, I thought this article in the Guardian by a former evangelical explaining why he thinks they love Trump despite him being an obvious sinner was pretty good too. He reckons it's because they recognize a similar aggressive outsider psychology. Here's part of it:
In other Trump readings, I thought this article in the Guardian by a former evangelical explaining why he thinks they love Trump despite him being an obvious sinner was pretty good too. He reckons it's because they recognize a similar aggressive outsider psychology. Here's part of it:
When I was a young evangelical Christian, I was eager to be oppressed for my faith. The Bible and my pastors had warned me to avoid “worldly” people – celebrities, intellectuals, scientists, the media and liberals. Those were the ones who forbid us from praying in school while indoctrinating us with communism and evolution.
Jesus once said: “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven.” So I went out of my way to piss people off – telling the goth kids they were prisoners of Satan’s lies, handing anti-abortion literature to the “loose” girls, and forcing science class to run late while I debated evolution with the teacher.
My entire identity became wrapped up in being disliked by a specific group of people, and they were happy to accommodate me. Trump has had no problem arousing hatred from those same “worldly people”, creating what appears to some like an imploding presidency, while others see a heroic martyr against liberalism.
After nearly eight months in office, it’s becoming clear that many of Trump’s actions are not ideologically based, but designed to inspire maximum outrage from climate-scientists, academics, feminists, LGBTQ rights activists – pretty much every demographic that evangelicals hate. Whether he’s banning transgender soldiers from serving in the military, pardoning a vigilante sheriff, or refusing to properly distance himself from white supremacists, it’s not about the act itself, it’s about the negative reaction he gets from liberals.
You’ll never get anything done in government with this approach, but that’s not the point. Just as the point of my witnessing to the lost souls of my public high school wasn’t to convert them to Christianity, it was to see how persecuted I could be.
Sounds reasonably plausible to me, and not really an explanation I have heard before.
Which is a remarkably addictive sensation, one that became a competitive game for me and my fellow young believers. My youth-group friends and I would share stories of being punched, spit on, or called “the biggest loser in school” the way other kids would brag about sports or sexual conquests. Just as Morrissey fans discovered loneliness to be a fashionable accessory, we wanted to emulate the sociopathy of our messiah, who said in the book of John: “If the world hates you, know that it hated Me before it hated you.”
Tuesday, September 05, 2017
Wild man sightings
Nothing here that's as mysterious as bigfoot/yowie glimpses, but this post about unexpected sightings of what appear to be "wild" men living nude and dirty (or greasy - the story from New Jersey in 1935 is especially odd) is interesting nonetheless:
The group watched this naked individual for several minutes before he reportedly dropped down on all fours and fled, in a way resembling that of an animal. The group watched, stunned, as this wild-looking man “galloped off through the high grass along the edge of the road, along the tracks,” leaving nothing behind but bare footprints that marked his path.The writer notes, however, that this story is reminiscent of folk myth from the other side of the world:
Heading in the same direction the strange phantom fled on their way home, they once again encountered this individual, who was purportedly in a sunken barrel of oil by the railroad tracks, “up to his neck, his hands grasping the outer edge, and moving around in the oil.”
The unsettling incident was perhaps the first of what became known as encounters with “Oily Oliver,” as the degenerate had been so-named by the conductor and motorman on the trolley, who seemed well aware of the fiend when Quackenbush* and his company reported it to them. Similar stories would persist on up into the 1960s, including one encounter two women had while visiting a cemetery, during which they observed a naked, oily man creeping through the weeds toward them.
“Oily Oliver” bears some similarity to peculiar folk beliefs in Malay cultures that involve “grease devils,” phantom attackers that cover themselves in grease which makes them slippery, and thus able to evade capture more easily.* Seriously, the number of American surnames which sound funny to the rest of us is pretty remarkable.
Meerkat life
The organisation of meerkat life is pretty complicated and tough:
Meerkats (Suricata suricatta) live in complex, hierarchical social groups or "mobs" consisting of two to 50 individuals. These groups are ruled by a dominant male and female, called the alpha pair, that have exclusive breeding rights. The group also contains subordinate females who are typically closely related to the dominant female; subordinate males who are usually the offspring of the alpha pair; and one or more unrelated immigrant males.
Meerkats reach sexual maturity at 1 year old, and males willingly leave their group permanently at around 2 years old to attempt to join or take over another group. Adult subordinate females, on the other hand, are often forcefully (and sometimes violently) evicted by the dominant female — they'll sometimes remain on the group's territory, sleeping and foraging alone or with other evicted females until the dominant female's aggression towards them subsides...
Subordinate females may occasionally mate with the immigrant males from within the group or outside of the group. But this sneaky behavior comes at a price — dominant females routinely kill subordinate females' pups and evict the wrongdoers (sometimes while the subordinate female is pregnant, forcing her to abort).
As payment for their misdeeds, subordinate females that lose their litters or return to the group after being evicted act as wet nurses for the dominant female's pups.
Salt revisionism
Not a bad discussion here of the "how much dietary salt is too much" debate that seems to have been revived recently.
The problem with geo-intervention
Victor Venema, who does work on climate change, has a post up in which he explains that he thinks taking climate geo-intervention seriously is probably unavoidable, and we may as well start investigating it now.
But he does explain a key practical problem with the concept, as follows:
I would much prefer to not have the dangerously high temperatures a possibility.
And besides, at an ecological level, no one knows how ocean acidification is going to pan out. Lots more algae, sometimes of the poisonous variety; key crustaceans in the ocean food chain (pteropods) dying out; oxygen low areas of the ocean that can support little sea life of any variety - these are all realistic predictions of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, and keeping the temperature down alone won't solve them.
So, I will remain a skeptic of this band-aid approach to dealing with climate change and CO2 emissions.
But he does explain a key practical problem with the concept, as follows:
We would have to keep on managing the insolation for millennia or until someone finds a cheap way to remove carbon dioxide from the air. The largest danger is thus that humanity gets into trouble over these millennia and would no longer be able to keep the program up, the temperature would jump up quickly and make the trouble even worse. Looking back at our history since Christ was born and especially the last century, it seems likely that we will be in trouble once in a while over such a long period.I am surprised that he does not also consider that natural disasters effectively beyond human control might put a serious hole in maintaining the necessary work - a seriously large asteroid strike, for example, would have economic and society disrupting consequences that I doubt anyone can forecast. While it won't likely be the end of humanity (it's a big planet), and the dust it throws up would initially cool the place, perhaps to crop destroying and famine inducing levels, when the sky clears enough again the world economy may take a long time to recover before large scale geo-intervention can resume. This scenario would involve initial disaster from sudden darkness and lingering cold weather, to a reversal where the temperature climbs rapidly to dangerously high levels.
This danger could also be an advantage, just as the mutual assured destruction (MAD) with nuclear arms brought us a period of relative peace, the automatic triggering of Mad Max would force humanity to behave somewhat sensibly and make people who love war less influential.
My impression is that the main objection from scientists against geo-interventions is their worry about creating such an automatically triggered doomsday machine. Those people seem to think of a scenario without mitigation, where we would have to do more and more Solar Radiation Management. While carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere over millennia, the stratospheric particles (after a volcanoes) are removed after a few years. So we would need to keep adding them to the stratosphere and if we do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions increasingly many particles.
I would much prefer to not have the dangerously high temperatures a possibility.
And besides, at an ecological level, no one knows how ocean acidification is going to pan out. Lots more algae, sometimes of the poisonous variety; key crustaceans in the ocean food chain (pteropods) dying out; oxygen low areas of the ocean that can support little sea life of any variety - these are all realistic predictions of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, and keeping the temperature down alone won't solve them.
So, I will remain a skeptic of this band-aid approach to dealing with climate change and CO2 emissions.
Trickle down revisited
John Quiggin has a nice post re-stating, in economist terms, the problem with trickle down economics.
Of sociological interest
It's worth clearing your history so you can read the lengthy Washington Post feature on the annual "gathering" of Insane Clown Posse fans.
I really knew very little of the band, apart from seeing the odd photo of their ridiculous act, but limited knowledge is aided by the fact that they are, apparently, genuinely talentless as well as banned by nearly all TV and radio in the USA.
Being a commercial outcast who likes to act insane attracts other outcasts who like to act insane, and they apparently all come together in that fairly saccharine "we are family" way that Americans seem to like to embrace.
As people in comments say, it's like Burning Man for white trash, although I don't know that at Burning Man they really throw trash around for fun.
It all sounds very ridiculously immature to me; and somewhat dangerous for the borderline mentally ill who cannot always tell when an act should stop being an act. The article talks at length about the controversy when the FBI deemed the fans to be gang members.
But if you want a grotesque example of how they entertain themselves, have a read of this:
I really knew very little of the band, apart from seeing the odd photo of their ridiculous act, but limited knowledge is aided by the fact that they are, apparently, genuinely talentless as well as banned by nearly all TV and radio in the USA.
Being a commercial outcast who likes to act insane attracts other outcasts who like to act insane, and they apparently all come together in that fairly saccharine "we are family" way that Americans seem to like to embrace.
As people in comments say, it's like Burning Man for white trash, although I don't know that at Burning Man they really throw trash around for fun.
It all sounds very ridiculously immature to me; and somewhat dangerous for the borderline mentally ill who cannot always tell when an act should stop being an act. The article talks at length about the controversy when the FBI deemed the fans to be gang members.
But if you want a grotesque example of how they entertain themselves, have a read of this:
They said the gathering was a place of radical acceptance, welcoming all comers. “If you can’t find any other place to fit in because society tells you you can’t fit in with this or that group, you’ve got to find your own group,” Creel said. “I kind of think that’s where Juggalos came from. We are outside of the outsiders.”
That point was driven home when I met Adam Roberts. Roberts became a Juggalo legend in 2013 for doing something so out-there even the gathering was shocked. He auctioned off his right nipple at the festival for $100 and then removed it with a scalpel. (He had previously sliced off his other nipple.) “I was going to do it anyway,” Roberts told me while sitting in a golf cart. “A lot of the Juggalos seemed to get a kick out of it. I figured if they liked it I would do it. … I was going to have dermal implants done with diamond tips, so I could have nipples of steel that could cut glass.”Roberts, who has a ghoulish tattoo that covers his entire face, has yet to follow through on the plan, so he has the featureless chest of a doll. He said this year he ate a live scorpion. Some campers had trapped it and were offering $100 to anyone who could choke it down, but no one came forward. Roberts did it for $70 after chopping off the stinger. What did it taste like? “Seventy-dollar dirt,” Roberts said.
Monday, September 04, 2017
Must be the making of a conspiracy theory of some kind in this
Pope Francis went to a female Jewish psychotherapist for 6 months when he was 42. A tad unusual, but apparently Argentinians really like their psychotherapy (why?):
Among the other women he confided in was his psychoanalyst whom he consulted between 1978 and 1979. These were trying years for Pope Francis as he was transitioning from the difficult task of provincial superior of the Society of Jesus in Argentina to rector of the Philosophical and Theological Faculty of San Miguel.
The pope’s visit with a psychoanalyst is not surprising, considering that Argentina has the highest number of therapists per capita in the world, according to the World Health Organization.
“I consulted with a Jewish psychoanalyst. For months I went to her house once a week to clear up some things. She was a doctor and psychoanalyst, and she always stayed put. Then one day, when she was about to die, she called me. Not to receive the sacraments, since she was Jewish, but for a spiritual dialogue. She was a very good person. For six months she helped me a lot, when I was 42 years old.”
Well, that makes sense...[no, it doesn't]
With the expectation that Trump is about to announce a big change to that DACA system, an article in The Atlantic talks about the odd politics around it:
What a mess the Republicans are. When will it end?
Five years ago, President Obama ordered that young illegal immigrants be protected from deportation, a program known as DACA. As a candidate, Donald Trump promised to rescind that protection. He could have done it on his first day in office—but he didn’t, and still hasn’t, for reasons no one quite understands.
Now, President Trump appears poised to revoke DACA. The action has not been officially announced, and administration sources believe that the impulsive president’s mind is not totally made up, but he is reportedly planning to do so as soon as Friday.
If he does, he will have effectively been boxed in by immigration restrictionists—potentially against his own better political judgment. “I do not think Trump wants to do this,” Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, told me. “But they’ve cornered him. This artificial deadline has created the moment the opposition needed to force a decision.”
The article explains how the Republican Party is split on this, with State attorneys taking action against Obama's scheme a big part of the problem, and that it would appear that Trump actually has his heart in the right place, for a change (in that he doesn't want to hurt the youth protected by it.) Yet he is not strong enough to overcome the "restrictionists". If he had any abilities to actually get political foes behind him, instead of just abusing everyone who disagrees with him, maybe he could have actually changed minds.
Immigration policy is the battleground for the White House’s warring factions, and DACA is ground zero. Around 750,000 undocumented youths now benefit from the program, which allows them to work and go to school without fear of deportation. Allowing the so-called “Dreamers” to stay is broadly popular even with Trump’s base: Nearly 80 percent of Republicans, and three-quarters of Trump voters, support it. But immigration hardliners like the pundit Ann Coulter, Breitbart, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have been vocal proponents of ending the policy.
What a mess the Republicans are. When will it end?
People can do amazing things
I forget where, but I think I saw someone doing this on TV, and it's really surprising how well it can work:
Like some bats and marine mammals, people can develop expert echolocation skills, in which they produce a clicking sound with their mouths and listen to the reflected sound waves to "see" their surroundings. A new study published in PLOS Computational Biology provides the first in-depth analysis of the mouth clicks used in human echolocation.The research, performed by Lore Thaler of Durham University, U.K., Galen Reich and Michael Antoniou of Birmingham University, U.K., and colleagues, focuses on three blind adults who have been expertly trained in echolocation. Since the age of 15 or younger, all three have used echolocation in their daily lives. They use the technique for such activities as hiking, visiting unfamiliar cities, and riding bicycles.
Something I don't understand...
Having nuclear weapons always goes hand in hand with having the missiles to deliver them, and there was talk in the media a few weeks ago about North Korea having received theirs from a Ukrainian factory:
So - why is it so hard to stop the supply of missiles to North Korea? Did they receive a very large batch a few years ago that they are just working their way through now? Surely, you would think, the Ukraine and even Putin would think it a good idea to work hard on the matter of black market supply of missiles and missile components?
North Korea’s success in testing an intercontinental ballistic missile that appears able to reach the United States was made possible by black-market purchases of powerful rocket engines probably from a Ukrainian factory with historical ties to Russia’s missile program, according to an expert analysis being published Monday and classified assessments by American intelligence agencies.
You certainly don't get the impression that a country barely able to feed itself is capable of making anything but the most basic missile.The studies may solve the mystery of how North Korea began succeeding so suddenly after a string of fiery missile failures, some of which may have been caused by American sabotage of its supply chains and cyberattacks on its launches. After those failures, the North changed designs and suppliers in the past two years, according to a new study by Michael Elleman, a missile expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
So - why is it so hard to stop the supply of missiles to North Korea? Did they receive a very large batch a few years ago that they are just working their way through now? Surely, you would think, the Ukraine and even Putin would think it a good idea to work hard on the matter of black market supply of missiles and missile components?
A Douthat attack
Ross Douthat really gets stuck into Dinesh D'Souza in his latest column, which is also interesting because it makes it feel like Ross, as a sophisticated conservative, is barely clinging on to anything the Republicans believe on economic policy these days.
It's true: D'Souza is like a walking Catallaxy thread - full of hyperbolic claims of evil in anything Democrat or even vaguely progressive. Any credibility he used to have has long gone, and he is a prime example of the poisonous, nutty element that dominates so much now in the American Right. (He is, of course, a climate change fake skeptic, as is compulsory for all Right wing culture warriors.)
Anyway, go read Ross.
It's true: D'Souza is like a walking Catallaxy thread - full of hyperbolic claims of evil in anything Democrat or even vaguely progressive. Any credibility he used to have has long gone, and he is a prime example of the poisonous, nutty element that dominates so much now in the American Right. (He is, of course, a climate change fake skeptic, as is compulsory for all Right wing culture warriors.)
Anyway, go read Ross.
Sunday, September 03, 2017
A Close Encounter Anniversary
Way to make me feel old - it's the 40th anniversary of the release of the Spielberg classic Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the New York Times has a good story looking back at its reception at the time. (The movie's also getting a short remastered re-release in the US, which I think I read on Reddit is actually back to the original version, dropping the later tagged on scenes within the spaceship, which I didn't really care for. Some things are best left unseen.)
I really liked it from first viewing, which was with high school friends, and it was probably the first Spielberg movie that I saw at the cinema. (I didn't see Jaws for quite a long time later, and I still tend to think it is a relatively minor work in the Spielberg catalogue - it's more like a preamble showing what he would capable of later.)
But Close Encounters - it was quite a joy because I had read serious books about UFOs in my teenage years, including those by J Allen Hynek, the astronomer who was always the most credible writer on the topic and who appears briefly in the film. It was therefore clear to me that Spielberg was incorporating elements from some credible, still unsolved, sightings of the last 20 years from the US in particular. (He is credited with the screenplay.) I knew by this time that the Bermuda Triangle books were nonsense, so I wasn't as keen to see that element in the film, but hey, it made for some great images.
It was the film that showed me that Spielberg was a smart guy and natural wit too - as with Poltergeist*, one of the things I have loved about him is his ability to combine humour and shivers in the one shot or sequence. My favourite example from CE3K: our hero's first encounter with a UFO while stopped on the road in his van - shot face on through the windscreen so we can see another car come up from behind, stop, and then drive around him. Next set of lights (looking again like it could be a vehicle) approaches, stops, and then slowly rises in the air, unnoticed by Roy until he is blasted in bright light from above. Just a brilliant idea, so well executed. I don't really know of any other director who has done that type of nervous laugh scare so well.
Spielberg himself has claimed in much later interviews that, with his large extended family of many kids, he couldn't write a movie like that now, with a father effectively abandoning his children. But the fact it happens is key to the film having a semi-religious feel about it - suggesting as it does that there are matters of greater transcendent importance than family ties. And besides, we don't really know if he is going to be whisked away for 30 years, or just a week.
So, a great film that I would be happy to see again in its original format. Long live Spielberg.
*(OK, he is just the writer on that one, and the director Tobe Hooper died just last week, but Spielberg was definitely on the set a lot too)
Update: Homer mentions Duel in the comments, which I am pretty sure I saw on TV before I saw Close Encounters. I didn't see it on the cinema release it got overseas. I did enjoy it a lot, but for whatever reason, I don't think I have ever seen it a second time. So Close Encounters was the first Spielberg at the cinema.
I really liked it from first viewing, which was with high school friends, and it was probably the first Spielberg movie that I saw at the cinema. (I didn't see Jaws for quite a long time later, and I still tend to think it is a relatively minor work in the Spielberg catalogue - it's more like a preamble showing what he would capable of later.)
But Close Encounters - it was quite a joy because I had read serious books about UFOs in my teenage years, including those by J Allen Hynek, the astronomer who was always the most credible writer on the topic and who appears briefly in the film. It was therefore clear to me that Spielberg was incorporating elements from some credible, still unsolved, sightings of the last 20 years from the US in particular. (He is credited with the screenplay.) I knew by this time that the Bermuda Triangle books were nonsense, so I wasn't as keen to see that element in the film, but hey, it made for some great images.
It was the film that showed me that Spielberg was a smart guy and natural wit too - as with Poltergeist*, one of the things I have loved about him is his ability to combine humour and shivers in the one shot or sequence. My favourite example from CE3K: our hero's first encounter with a UFO while stopped on the road in his van - shot face on through the windscreen so we can see another car come up from behind, stop, and then drive around him. Next set of lights (looking again like it could be a vehicle) approaches, stops, and then slowly rises in the air, unnoticed by Roy until he is blasted in bright light from above. Just a brilliant idea, so well executed. I don't really know of any other director who has done that type of nervous laugh scare so well.
Spielberg himself has claimed in much later interviews that, with his large extended family of many kids, he couldn't write a movie like that now, with a father effectively abandoning his children. But the fact it happens is key to the film having a semi-religious feel about it - suggesting as it does that there are matters of greater transcendent importance than family ties. And besides, we don't really know if he is going to be whisked away for 30 years, or just a week.
So, a great film that I would be happy to see again in its original format. Long live Spielberg.
*(OK, he is just the writer on that one, and the director Tobe Hooper died just last week, but Spielberg was definitely on the set a lot too)
Update: Homer mentions Duel in the comments, which I am pretty sure I saw on TV before I saw Close Encounters. I didn't see it on the cinema release it got overseas. I did enjoy it a lot, but for whatever reason, I don't think I have ever seen it a second time. So Close Encounters was the first Spielberg at the cinema.
Saturday, September 02, 2017
The move made
I've finally made the move to Netflix, and am catching up on some shows that I know had been a success in the US. (And no, I am not really inclined to even try Game of Thrones.)
Some observations so far:
Stranger Things: Only watched the first two episodes, and have to say I feel a bit uncertain as to how much I should like it. I'm very fond of many 1980's films, and have commented before about how there was a certain aesthetic about them that I miss. So on the one hand, I am enjoying this deliberate attempt at a sort of rehash of the Spielberg/Carpenter look and themes; but I am finding myself a bit too distracted at being reminded of specific scenes from specific films. I suspect that will stop as the show goes on. Those twins who are making it must have watched Spielberg even more often that I have...
Mr Robot: saw the first episode last night. Pretty intriguing; good to see Christian Slater on screen again. That lead actor - I hope the ease with which he shows what might be called "resting mad face" doesn't reflect his natural facial expressions in real life. [Update: I forgot, that's not on Netflix - it's just that I paid for a season pass on Google Play last night - all of $13. DVD manufacturing is going to be in serious decline, I suspect.]
Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt: pretty amusing comedy, with a likeable star. And Carol Kane, too - haven't seen her for years.
Netflix, at its current cost, and range of shows, is remarkably good value.
Some observations so far:
Stranger Things: Only watched the first two episodes, and have to say I feel a bit uncertain as to how much I should like it. I'm very fond of many 1980's films, and have commented before about how there was a certain aesthetic about them that I miss. So on the one hand, I am enjoying this deliberate attempt at a sort of rehash of the Spielberg/Carpenter look and themes; but I am finding myself a bit too distracted at being reminded of specific scenes from specific films. I suspect that will stop as the show goes on. Those twins who are making it must have watched Spielberg even more often that I have...
Mr Robot: saw the first episode last night. Pretty intriguing; good to see Christian Slater on screen again. That lead actor - I hope the ease with which he shows what might be called "resting mad face" doesn't reflect his natural facial expressions in real life. [Update: I forgot, that's not on Netflix - it's just that I paid for a season pass on Google Play last night - all of $13. DVD manufacturing is going to be in serious decline, I suspect.]
Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt: pretty amusing comedy, with a likeable star. And Carol Kane, too - haven't seen her for years.
Netflix, at its current cost, and range of shows, is remarkably good value.
Here it is
I had been wondering when a Martin Scorsese appreciation of Jerry Lewis was going to appear, and here it is.
As it happens, I have never watched King of Comedy, although I had a friend who saw it at the time and said it was very good. I should try it now, on Google Play, perhaps.
As it happens, I have never watched King of Comedy, although I had a friend who saw it at the time and said it was very good. I should try it now, on Google Play, perhaps.
Time for a "most creative alternative use" competition for bag squeezing machine
I deemed the silly Juicero story blogworthy back in April, and am not surprised to see it fail. Creative owners now unable to get their bags of pre-diced fruit will have to see what other things in the house it can usefully squeeze.
Communist and gay
I made brief mention in an earlier post about Right wing panic attacks that gay marriage is a Marxist/socialist/feminist plot to turn all of our youth into limp-wristed/butch (as the case may be) homosexuals/gender benders.
Now, it has to be said, it's not as if there aren't Marxist progressive feminists types out there who do have an avowed, um, queer affirming society agenda? Look at Roz Ward, as the obvious recent example.
But it's also true that actual communist countries didn't show any particular sign of sympathetic tolerance of homosexuality. And their "we're all in this together" feminism of encouraging women into the workplace hardly changed any cultural ideas about gays.
I just Googled the topic and found this letter which is pretty interesting. Harry Whyte, a serious British gay young Communist wrote at length to Stalin in 1934 trying to get him to reconsider the criminalisation of sodomy. What I find surprising about the letter is how current the arguments feel - arguing that panic about the corrosive effects of allowing a small percent of homosexual live their life don't really make sense, and that it is an innate sexuality that can't be cured, etc.
It counts, I suppose, as a more or less well reasoned argument that Marxism, as properly envisaged, has nothing to fear from legal homosexuality. (He does gild the lily by seeming to claim that bourgeois capitalism encourages opportunistic homosexuality - but hey, he was trying to convince Stalin.) Anyway, it's quite a different argument from later feminists that Marxism and justice require the breakdown of gender and sexuality roles. That's where it all gets silly, and it's no explanation for how quickly many countries have learnt to tolerate homosexuality.
Now, it has to be said, it's not as if there aren't Marxist progressive feminists types out there who do have an avowed, um, queer affirming society agenda? Look at Roz Ward, as the obvious recent example.
But it's also true that actual communist countries didn't show any particular sign of sympathetic tolerance of homosexuality. And their "we're all in this together" feminism of encouraging women into the workplace hardly changed any cultural ideas about gays.
I just Googled the topic and found this letter which is pretty interesting. Harry Whyte, a serious British gay young Communist wrote at length to Stalin in 1934 trying to get him to reconsider the criminalisation of sodomy. What I find surprising about the letter is how current the arguments feel - arguing that panic about the corrosive effects of allowing a small percent of homosexual live their life don't really make sense, and that it is an innate sexuality that can't be cured, etc.
It counts, I suppose, as a more or less well reasoned argument that Marxism, as properly envisaged, has nothing to fear from legal homosexuality. (He does gild the lily by seeming to claim that bourgeois capitalism encourages opportunistic homosexuality - but hey, he was trying to convince Stalin.) Anyway, it's quite a different argument from later feminists that Marxism and justice require the breakdown of gender and sexuality roles. That's where it all gets silly, and it's no explanation for how quickly many countries have learnt to tolerate homosexuality.
Trans chumps
I have to say, I agree with this NYT column complaining about the nauseas way progressives (and Vogue magazine!) are glamorising transexual Manning.
Not so CRISP
Ground breaking genetic and biological research these days seems incredibly ripe for claims that have to be soon retracted. Looks like the successful use of CRISPR technology on human embryos may be one of these:
Doubts have surfaced about a landmark paper claiming that human embryos were cleared of a deadly mutation using genome editing. In an article1 posted to the bioRxiv preprint server on 28 August, a team of prominent stem-cell scientists and geneticists question whether the mutation was actually fixed.
Friday, September 01, 2017
More words of wisdom from Catallaxy [SARCASM]
Same sex marriage is starting to frazzle their composure (hahahahahaha - as if they ever had any) at Catallaxy, and some fairly remarkable statements are appearing in threads lately:
And poor old dover beach:
Update: by coincidence, I see that Philosophy Now has a free article on line entitled "The Further History of Sexuality: from Michael Foucault to Miley Cyrus" (!). Actually, it's not bad, and parts would actually be embraced by those at Catallaxy who insist that the normalisation of gay sexual relationships is all part of a Marxist socialist plot.* It ends on this note:
At some point there is going to be a backlash, and we are going to go back to jailing sodomites if not throwing them off tall buildings. I should find that utterly disgusting, but perhaps not quite as disgusting as that article.
I suspect that almost all men and a lot of women find homosexuals disgusting. Maybe even homosexuals feel the same. It is something that people can be conditioned into denying, human beings are good at deceiving themselves. We should probably conceal it in their company out of kindness, and we *should* treat them kindly. But pretending that it isn’t a horrible mental disease may be going too far for our own mental health.Uhuh.
And poor old dover beach:
The Yes campaign are terrified that the soft center of Australian politics that has been swayed largely by a decade of inane rhetoric, I.e.. Love is love, marriage equality, is going to realise that a Yes vote would put anal sex on the same normative plane as sexual intercourse. Further, that erasing the category of sex from marriage will further the claim that sex is just gender. And this and more would find its way not only in sex education programs but throughout the curriculum. That is why a fire brigade of Yes advocates was sent out the day after the No ad. Panic stations.Oddly, I didn't imagine that lesbian couples (a bigger percentage of which, one suspects, may be more likely to be keen on marrying than male couples) were all that interested in the sexual activity that dover seems to think same sex marriage is all about. And don't a reasonable number of gay men avoid it as a matter of preference too? In any event, this article from last year should definitely kept out of the reach of Catallaxy threadsters - they'll be talking about it for hours on end.
Update: by coincidence, I see that Philosophy Now has a free article on line entitled "The Further History of Sexuality: from Michael Foucault to Miley Cyrus" (!). Actually, it's not bad, and parts would actually be embraced by those at Catallaxy who insist that the normalisation of gay sexual relationships is all part of a Marxist socialist plot.* It ends on this note:
As we have seen, Foucault’s analysis of the shifting significance of homosexuality in Western culture over the last two centuries identifies two stages, corresponding to the production by power of its own opposition:* They don't seem to notice that decades of quasi Marxist attitudes towards women doing their bit in the factories and fields to build the socialist paradise in Russian and China has actually led to the least gay friendly nations on Earth. Some Marxist feminists may well think this way - it is not a realistic explanation of why many Western nations have accepted gay relationships.
(i) Homosexuals identified as a ‘deviant’ group, the target of medical and legal intervention.
(ii) Homosexuals accepting this identity, as gay people, and campaigning for equality and integration into general society.
This second stage can be said to have culminated in the recent acceptance, in many countries, of gay marriage. But the ending of this conflict inevitably generates a completely new situation, in which:
(iii) The division homosexual/normal having been overcome, the category of ‘homosexual’ itself loses its rigid borders and begins to dissolve into contemporary ‘pansexuality’.
Because I am a cool dude...
...(well, that's what I like to tell my teenagers) and just to show that Taylor Swift is not the only pop music I sometimes notice, I predicted more than a month ago that Imagine Dragons Thunder would be a hit (after I heard some guy on ABC radio make the same prediction), and I think it is. This band actually has had quite a few good songs, and I don't know that they are objectionable in any sense.
Anyway, here's the video:
Anyway, here's the video:
The issue of AGW and intensification of rainfall explained
Chris Colose has chosen to explain via a series of tweets starting here that increased warming under AGW was always predicted to led to increased intensification of rainfall.
Well worth reading.
Well worth reading.
My crypto currency skepticism maintained
From an article in SMH:
The surge in bitcoin's value, which started all of this, comes despite the fact that bitcoin's underlying utility remains debatable. While it has been used as a form of payment in some investment deals, relatively few merchants who sell things to consumers in the real world accept it.
There is little doubt blockchain – which is being used by the big banks, the ASX and others to speed up and reduce friction in transactions – is a big innovation. But no one has been able to explain what any crypto-currency using it actually achieves. If you aren't engaged in secret cross-border transactions, normal money still seems to work.
As people who are better versed in this world than me have said, bitcoin still looks like a solution in need of a problem. And if the biggest crypto-currency of them all still has this question hanging over it, then what does it say for the rest of them?
Thinking too much about herself
Once again, I will inappropriately ponder the question of Taylor Swift. (Hey, I have a teen daughter, it gives me something to talk to her about.)
The video for the (still pretty awful) new single does indeed show that there is some deliberate self deprecation going on - especially at the end where a whole row of Taylors in her various former images appear and argue with themselves. They spent quite a bit of money making the clip, by the looks, but there are far too few shots of her at her most attractive - nicely made up and taking a bath in a tub of diamonds.
Anyway, it probably indicates she's not genuinely that obsessed with her past feuds, but it still seems that she spends too much thinking about her image and reputation in any event. Can't she just decide what look and image she currently likes, and sing pleasant pop songs without so much self referential stuff?
Update: at the risk of annoying Homer no end, here's Slate's kinda witty take on the video:
The video for the (still pretty awful) new single does indeed show that there is some deliberate self deprecation going on - especially at the end where a whole row of Taylors in her various former images appear and argue with themselves. They spent quite a bit of money making the clip, by the looks, but there are far too few shots of her at her most attractive - nicely made up and taking a bath in a tub of diamonds.
Anyway, it probably indicates she's not genuinely that obsessed with her past feuds, but it still seems that she spends too much thinking about her image and reputation in any event. Can't she just decide what look and image she currently likes, and sing pleasant pop songs without so much self referential stuff?
Update: at the risk of annoying Homer no end, here's Slate's kinda witty take on the video:
Swift’s tour de force of deflective petulance is amazing: It’s essentially a catalogue of every public feud she’s had that, without naming them, manages to extend, mock, and, most important, commodify them. (Side note: Do you know anyone in real life who has “feuds” who isn’t utterly insufferable?) “Look What You Made Me Do”—it’s right there in the title—is an anthem that turns the abrogation of personal responsibility into a posturing statement of empowerment. With its tense “The old Taylor can’t come to the phone right now. Why? … ’Cause she’s dead!” it embraces the possibility of calling “Do over!” as a form of self-realization, and imagines a world in which a clean slate means never having to say you’re sorry because every conceivable way you lash out must be someone else’s fault. Is Taylor Swift to blame for anything? How can any of us know? There was violence on many sides, many sides.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Odd, poverty driven, disease of the day
I had missed an earlier NPR story about this disease podoconiosis - caused by walking barefoot for years in volcanic soils, such as in parts of Africa - but they have an update to it here.
Never heard of it before, and it looks like it has horrible effects - all for the want of footwear.
I know I'm not going to catch it if I am a tourist, but the African continent seems to suffer from so many diseases in the water, or insect carried, or even from just walking barefoot, it kind of puts me off ever wanting to go there.
Never heard of it before, and it looks like it has horrible effects - all for the want of footwear.
I know I'm not going to catch it if I am a tourist, but the African continent seems to suffer from so many diseases in the water, or insect carried, or even from just walking barefoot, it kind of puts me off ever wanting to go there.
Just not funny
Just as being under 35 and having at least several gay friends seems a crucial determinant of giving lavish praise to gay written ABC comedy like Please Like Me and The Family Law, each of which I gave an honest try but for which I did not care, I think it takes being in a certain demographic to find the comedy of the two female comedians behind The Katering Show and last night's Get Kracki!n hilariously funny.
I've complained about them before - see my comments about The Katering Show, which, after last night's experience with their second project, I think were too generous.
Get Kracki!n takes the key problem of the earlier show and makes it much, much worse. It is a parody/satire that (to use that mocked explanation from a Woody Allan movie) doesn't just bend the stick, but breaks it, repeatedly, in the way the audience of a University review might find funny, but not the rest of us.
Some women and men of a certain age or background find the completely unrealistic outbreak of "honesty", involving lots of swearing and mock live to air chaos, hilarious. They probably all love Tim Minchin too. I beg to differ.
Happily, I see that, despite The Guardian reviewer giving it a 4 star review, most of the comments following indicate that it didn't go over well even with your Lefty biased average Guardian reader, for whom one would think the "women being crude" aspect would not be a concern.
It's basically poorly written comedy by a couple of women who, I suppose I should say, might be good at comedy acting if they weren't doing their own material.
I've complained about them before - see my comments about The Katering Show, which, after last night's experience with their second project, I think were too generous.
Get Kracki!n takes the key problem of the earlier show and makes it much, much worse. It is a parody/satire that (to use that mocked explanation from a Woody Allan movie) doesn't just bend the stick, but breaks it, repeatedly, in the way the audience of a University review might find funny, but not the rest of us.
Some women and men of a certain age or background find the completely unrealistic outbreak of "honesty", involving lots of swearing and mock live to air chaos, hilarious. They probably all love Tim Minchin too. I beg to differ.
Happily, I see that, despite The Guardian reviewer giving it a 4 star review, most of the comments following indicate that it didn't go over well even with your Lefty biased average Guardian reader, for whom one would think the "women being crude" aspect would not be a concern.
It's basically poorly written comedy by a couple of women who, I suppose I should say, might be good at comedy acting if they weren't doing their own material.
Enough with dragons
I haven't been bothered to actually read the articles, but I take it from various headlines that some people have thought that Game of Thrones has been teetering on "jump the shark" territory in this penultimate season. I also heard on the radio the other day that a big internet discussion had broken out as to whether an ice dragon should actually be able to breath fire, or ice instead.
This is what counts as entertainment in the adult world these days, hey?
Yes, yes, that's very snootily elitist of me: someone who is happy enough to see what happens next in the fantasy-ish world of Star Wars. (Mind you, if there is - what are we up to? 4th? - version of a planet destroying Death Star-ish mega device, I really might have to abandon that too). But really, I've never been one for anything other than short term engagement with fantasy or dragons, and I don't get people taking seriously a very lengthy violent adult show in which such fantasy beasts play a key role.
I will be glad to see the back of it in popular culture, just as I was glad to see Tolkien movies peter out in eventual recognition that they gone on too long.
This is what counts as entertainment in the adult world these days, hey?
Yes, yes, that's very snootily elitist of me: someone who is happy enough to see what happens next in the fantasy-ish world of Star Wars. (Mind you, if there is - what are we up to? 4th? - version of a planet destroying Death Star-ish mega device, I really might have to abandon that too). But really, I've never been one for anything other than short term engagement with fantasy or dragons, and I don't get people taking seriously a very lengthy violent adult show in which such fantasy beasts play a key role.
I will be glad to see the back of it in popular culture, just as I was glad to see Tolkien movies peter out in eventual recognition that they gone on too long.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
American murder
I wouldn't have thought that Houston would have a much higher murder rate than New York, but here you go (from a City Journal article about the flood and why Houston is not an easy place to evacuate)
And in Australia, we struggle to make it to 1.5 per 100,000 in a year, for murder and manslaughter combined.
Before Harvey hit, Houston had a murder rate of about 13 per 100,000 residents. That’s nowhere near as low as New York, with its own murder rate at fewer than four equivalent homicides, but it’s much better than New Orleans, with its homicide rate in 2004, the year before Katrina, of 59 murders per 100,000 people (and 45 today). Houston has also seen its population soar, from 1.6 million in 1980 to 2.3 million today. New Orleans, before Katrina, was shrinking, from 558,000 in 1980 to 455,000 in 2005: thriving municipalities have more civic unity and the necessary service infrastructure to respond to crisis than do cities in decline.I see in an article from the Economist earlier this year there was this graphic:
And in Australia, we struggle to make it to 1.5 per 100,000 in a year, for murder and manslaughter combined.
Fake news triumphs again
Have you seen the tweets? There is a very good chance - a virtual certainty in fact - that a significant number of Trump supporters actually believe that Trump is responding better to this hurricane than Obama did to Katrina, despite, well, Obama was not then the President. (I also saw one that had a go at Michelle Obama for going shopping 3 days after Katrina - probably as a defence of the ridicule Melania got for wearing high heals on the way to Texas.)
I think the internet might be causing the end of civilisation, but not by those "AI is going to kill us all" freaks who think Google might become conscious and decide to kill us off, but by more mundane method of Facebook and Twitter and its bots empowering the malicious and stupid humans of the world.
I think the internet might be causing the end of civilisation, but not by those "AI is going to kill us all" freaks who think Google might become conscious and decide to kill us off, but by more mundane method of Facebook and Twitter and its bots empowering the malicious and stupid humans of the world.
Is this guy still the online editor at Quadrant?
Roger Franklin, apparent friend of Sinclair Davidson and ABC bombing fantasist, shows at Catallaxy (under his open secret identity) that chronological age is no barrier to chronic immaturity and gender attitudes approximately 120 years out of date . For the sake of women everywhere, be warned: this manly hot looker:
...would like to rub himself against you. Here's his explanation of the problem of women in the news workplace
So, this is the quality of editors working in a conservative publications in Australia today. It's a joke publication.
...would like to rub himself against you. Here's his explanation of the problem of women in the news workplace
I love women. They are very pleasant to cuddle and rub against, and they have an astonishing ability to spot things that need cleaning and dusting long before the XY eye notices them. I like women in newsrooms as well. Alas, too much of the feminine sensibility screws news judgement. Women, you see, get excited about “issues”, rather than story-specific facts, and if you have enough women at the morning news conference, it is a sure bet they will validate the particular interest and inclination of the moment. Thus have we seen interminable stories about the battered wives of stock brokers and lawyers — there must be days when Rose Bay resembles a scene from the Rape of the Sabine Women — and very little exposure of the fact that, if you overlay a map of DV incidence atop one displaying Aboriginal population densities, they will be a near-perfect match.
Same with “gossip and trivia”. Newsroom women don’t like Trump, so any hint of a squib of a fact to advance that view will be highlighted.
Ah, you say, but what of newsroom men? Well here is where it should be noted that the news business trailblazed the practical application of gender fluidity. Stroll through a Fairfax or ABC newsroom and you’ll certainly see humans who stand up to pee, but mentally they are girls.
I hope this helps to explain Ben Cubby, Peter Hannam, Jonathan Green, Jon Faine…..One strongly suspects he is a cranky old bachelor who sensible women won't touch with a barge pole. He certainly deserves to be treated that way, at least. Sensible women being in short (or no) supply at Catallaxy, they'll go "oh, ah, you're so naughty Roger" and give him a pass.
So, this is the quality of editors working in a conservative publications in Australia today. It's a joke publication.
It's a gas
People at one of those things the English laughingly call a beach had a chemical gas haze of some kind come and ruin their day recently, and no one can tell what caused it.
Very odd.
Very odd.
It rains elsewhere, too
Yes, I had been meaning for some days to note the floods affecting Nepal, India and parts of Africa, which I think have been getting scant attention in the media. The poor dying is not as newsworthy as the relatively rich in America having flooded houses. But the Washington Post does have a reminder today about what is going on elsewhere, flood wise. (I did recently post about record rainfall seeming to become a routine summer thing in Japan, though.)
One major consequence of more intense rainfall in some regions is the risk of landslides, and we have been seeing quite a few major ones lately.
One major consequence of more intense rainfall in some regions is the risk of landslides, and we have been seeing quite a few major ones lately.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Count me amused
Here are four panels from First Dog on the Moon's mocking of current Right wing hysteria of the Andrew Bolt/Sky News/Murdoch tabloid/Murdoch broadsheet/Catallaxy/desperate-to-improve-the-polls-anyway-they-can Coalition kind. Actually, I'm not sure Dog could bear to read Catallaxy threads: I think they would make his head explode in consternation. [I can assure you, many of the things these characters are saying could have been lifted straight from Catallaxy, with the only modification the deletion of a few swear words.]
Anyway, you can view the whole thing at The Guardian.
Anyway, you can view the whole thing at The Guardian.
A great post on climate change and that hurricane
I think David Roberts does a great job in this lengthy article at Vox, with plenty of links, that covers a great deal of nuanced ground regarding the issue of climate change and its contributions to floods and hurricanes.
I reckon Jason should read it on the mitigation/adaptation issue too.
I reckon Jason should read it on the mitigation/adaptation issue too.
The 2 conservative gays who subscribe to Quadrant might have just cancelled their subscriptions
Augusto Zimmerman, who I haven't heard of before but I see that he is an academic and has written for the IPA (never a good sign for sound judgement), has decided to take the conservative line on same sex marriage that I had noticed taken at Catallaxy recently - the homosexual community is disease ridden and largely mentally ill and violent, so of course they don't deserve same sex marriage. (I don't think I'm exaggerating the gist of his argument at all.)
He is upset that the AMA came out saying that same sex marriage is a health issue, and it's in the interests of children in same sex households that their parents be able to marry.
Now, I think the AMA is exaggerating here, and to be honest, there is a substantial element of victimhood in the same sex marriage campaign which I find objectionable. I mean, there are many, many children of unmarried straight couples now who face no discrimination in schooling, at law, or socially because of their parents marital status, and it seems a bit obtuse to be making out that there is a particular concern of the children in gay relationships having issues just because their parents cannot "marry".
On the other hand, Augusto's listing of every possible study indicating health and social problems amongst homosexuals, many going back decades, is pretty ridiculous and gratuitously insulting to a substantial number of gay folk.
First, everyone can agree that acceptance of gay relationships has risen remarkably quickly in the West, and that going back 30 - 40 years ago discrimination (up to an including bashing or killed a suspected gay man just for looking at a bloke the wrong way) was widespread in the community. Of course this was likely to contribute to mental health issues. You have to give some allowance for that to have a lingering effect in social studies.
Secondly, I think it fair to say that sexuality studies have always had their limitations and problems, arising from matters such as how participants are selected and the fact that researchers are often reliant on self reporting of conditions. This works on both sides, of course, with conservatives rightly criticising the way progressives sloppily use the "1 in 10" figure for the size of the gay population, although conservatives exaggerate in the other direction too.
Thirdly, right back to Kinsey, it's a field where the researchers often seem to know what they would like their study to show.
In short, if people (rightly) think that there is a problem with psychology studies generally, they should be particularly cautious about sexuality studies and what they show.
As for the matter of promiscuity and disease: of course there is a conservative case that too many homosexuals place hedonism above common sense when it comes to limiting the spread of a dire disease such as HIV. And I would agree that it is pretty ridiculous to find patently absurd and dangerous fetish practices given a non judgemental nod ("as long as it is done cautiously and safely") by progressive health workers. (I'm specifically thinking of something starting with the letter "f".) I also don't think that many people really think that relentless promiscuity over a life time is great for mental health.
But such concern is hardly a logical reason to say that gay men or women who are conservative in their sexual and relationship practices should not have marriage available to them because of what others sharing their sexuality may do. You may as well say that straight men and women should not have married during World War 1 while so many of them were catching venereal disease when sent overseas. (And I have made the point before that it is very remarkable that a dire disease like syphilis didn't stop men using prostitutes when there was no form of protection or cure for it at all.)
On the other hand, I think there is inadequate acknowledgement from the pro-SSM side that many gay men, in particular, just don't consider monogamy in the same way most heterosexual couples do, so that gay marriage is much more likely to be of the "open marriage" variety than in straight marriages. Does that mean there is a reason for arguing marriage should not be available to homosexual couples? Well, I think it plausibly does, but of course, some will say that logically it shouldn't, given that we don't stop straight marriage because we know a certain percent don't care if their partner has an open or discrete affair.
Anyway, my point is that I don't dismiss all conservative arguments against same sex marriage in their entirety - I've been clear that I don't support it myself, much to my daughter's annoyance.
At the same time, conservatives like Augusto go completely over the top in listing all harmful behaviour and illness amongst homosexuals as reason why they shouldn't have same sex marriage, and it is embarrassing to be on the same side of the vote with someone as cavalier as him.
I think my preferred choice is just not to participate.
He is upset that the AMA came out saying that same sex marriage is a health issue, and it's in the interests of children in same sex households that their parents be able to marry.
Now, I think the AMA is exaggerating here, and to be honest, there is a substantial element of victimhood in the same sex marriage campaign which I find objectionable. I mean, there are many, many children of unmarried straight couples now who face no discrimination in schooling, at law, or socially because of their parents marital status, and it seems a bit obtuse to be making out that there is a particular concern of the children in gay relationships having issues just because their parents cannot "marry".
On the other hand, Augusto's listing of every possible study indicating health and social problems amongst homosexuals, many going back decades, is pretty ridiculous and gratuitously insulting to a substantial number of gay folk.
First, everyone can agree that acceptance of gay relationships has risen remarkably quickly in the West, and that going back 30 - 40 years ago discrimination (up to an including bashing or killed a suspected gay man just for looking at a bloke the wrong way) was widespread in the community. Of course this was likely to contribute to mental health issues. You have to give some allowance for that to have a lingering effect in social studies.
Secondly, I think it fair to say that sexuality studies have always had their limitations and problems, arising from matters such as how participants are selected and the fact that researchers are often reliant on self reporting of conditions. This works on both sides, of course, with conservatives rightly criticising the way progressives sloppily use the "1 in 10" figure for the size of the gay population, although conservatives exaggerate in the other direction too.
Thirdly, right back to Kinsey, it's a field where the researchers often seem to know what they would like their study to show.
In short, if people (rightly) think that there is a problem with psychology studies generally, they should be particularly cautious about sexuality studies and what they show.
As for the matter of promiscuity and disease: of course there is a conservative case that too many homosexuals place hedonism above common sense when it comes to limiting the spread of a dire disease such as HIV. And I would agree that it is pretty ridiculous to find patently absurd and dangerous fetish practices given a non judgemental nod ("as long as it is done cautiously and safely") by progressive health workers. (I'm specifically thinking of something starting with the letter "f".) I also don't think that many people really think that relentless promiscuity over a life time is great for mental health.
But such concern is hardly a logical reason to say that gay men or women who are conservative in their sexual and relationship practices should not have marriage available to them because of what others sharing their sexuality may do. You may as well say that straight men and women should not have married during World War 1 while so many of them were catching venereal disease when sent overseas. (And I have made the point before that it is very remarkable that a dire disease like syphilis didn't stop men using prostitutes when there was no form of protection or cure for it at all.)
On the other hand, I think there is inadequate acknowledgement from the pro-SSM side that many gay men, in particular, just don't consider monogamy in the same way most heterosexual couples do, so that gay marriage is much more likely to be of the "open marriage" variety than in straight marriages. Does that mean there is a reason for arguing marriage should not be available to homosexual couples? Well, I think it plausibly does, but of course, some will say that logically it shouldn't, given that we don't stop straight marriage because we know a certain percent don't care if their partner has an open or discrete affair.
Anyway, my point is that I don't dismiss all conservative arguments against same sex marriage in their entirety - I've been clear that I don't support it myself, much to my daughter's annoyance.
At the same time, conservatives like Augusto go completely over the top in listing all harmful behaviour and illness amongst homosexuals as reason why they shouldn't have same sex marriage, and it is embarrassing to be on the same side of the vote with someone as cavalier as him.
I think my preferred choice is just not to participate.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Don't mean to sound rude, but...
....I am a bit surprised by the number of people in Houston caught out by a massive flood for which they actually seemed to have a fair bit of warning. I get the impression that we seem to do precautionary evacuations a bit better than what we're seeing in Texas.
I mean, there would be quite the scandal in Australia if nursing home residents were shown like this:
even if they were all eventually rescued.
I'm reading that Houston is a flood prone city: perhaps that makes the residents lazy about evacuation warnings? But then, so is Brisbane, and while you had people caught out in the 2011 flash floods of the Lockyer Valley, I don't know that you had all that many people in Brisbane city needing rescue from their homes as they did have some hours warning.
Update: Oh yeah, I forgot that I had linked two years ago to Andy Revkin's lengthy piece about how Texas and its famously relaxed zoning laws had led to lots of housing on flood plains. Another case of "Yay for minimal regulations!" [sarc].
I mean, there would be quite the scandal in Australia if nursing home residents were shown like this:
even if they were all eventually rescued.
I'm reading that Houston is a flood prone city: perhaps that makes the residents lazy about evacuation warnings? But then, so is Brisbane, and while you had people caught out in the 2011 flash floods of the Lockyer Valley, I don't know that you had all that many people in Brisbane city needing rescue from their homes as they did have some hours warning.
Update: Oh yeah, I forgot that I had linked two years ago to Andy Revkin's lengthy piece about how Texas and its famously relaxed zoning laws had led to lots of housing on flood plains. Another case of "Yay for minimal regulations!" [sarc].
What a weird White House
Gee, that new-ish Axios site has proved great for quick, succinct and accurate reporting as to what's going on in the White House, hasn't it?
So, they are noting how Tillerson's "the President speaks for himself" quip on the weekend is certainly indicative of a limited future he has in the job, and Trump already doesn't like him.
In another post, they quote some very specific details from a White House meeting in which Trump bemoans that the globalists are opposing him on tariffs, with Trump saying:
So, they are noting how Tillerson's "the President speaks for himself" quip on the weekend is certainly indicative of a limited future he has in the job, and Trump already doesn't like him.
In another post, they quote some very specific details from a White House meeting in which Trump bemoans that the globalists are opposing him on tariffs, with Trump saying:
"John, let me tell you why they didn't bring me any tariffs," he said. "I know there are some people in the room right now that are upset. I know there are some globalists in the room right now. And they don't want them, John, they don't want the tariffs. But I'm telling you, I want tariffs."Yet, as Allahpundit at Hot Air notes about Tillerson's obvious slight against Trump, it's hard to follow what's going on:
This hard jab at the boss underlines the strange timing of Trump ridding the White House of nationalists at a moment when he’s under fire for his Charlottesville reaction. The one man in the West Wing who loudly supported Trump’s comments afterward was … Steve Bannon, who was out of a job within the week. Sebastian Gorka, another big name among Trump’s nationalist base, left two days ago. The “globalists” are in ascendance — but the “globalists” are the ones most likely to take issue with Trump’s “very fine people on both sides” equivocating. We’re experiencing a weird moment where centrists like Tillerson and Gary Cohn keep dogging the president publicly for how he responded to Charlottesville and meanwhile it’s the populists like Bannon and Gorka who are being ushered out. If Trump flips out and starts canning people like Tillerson for insubordination, who’ll be left?In the meantime, as Houston goes under water, Trump's tweets sound hardly Presidential, with Vox's article on this entitled:
President Trump's response to Hurricane Harvey devastation: "Wow"An AP report more or less goes the same route:
Donald Trump’s tweets during the hurricane have left people baffledA stranger man so totally devoid of the gravitas of the role of President we will never see.
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Everyone's over the top
Gee, Guy Rundle lets Chris Uhlmann have it with both barrels for his "you have to do deals with the devil, sometimes" defence of our ASIS boss being photographed doing a stupid fist pump of support with the execrable Duterte.
I think the photo was inappropriate (what, does Duterte start every meeting with "If you don't do the fist thing with me for my photographer, there will be no co-operation"?). I also think Uhlmann's defence was pretty ridiculously soft on Duterte, who is only referred to in this way:
I still don't really care for Uhlmann, though - I still suspect he is unconvinced of climate change as a serious issue, and was always soft on Abbott as an interviewer on 7.30 when he was hosting. He is, at least, right about Trump, so I have to give him credit for that, but it's such an obviously correct response to this gormless President it's not as if it is hard for him to hold that position.
I think the photo was inappropriate (what, does Duterte start every meeting with "If you don't do the fist thing with me for my photographer, there will be no co-operation"?). I also think Uhlmann's defence was pretty ridiculously soft on Duterte, who is only referred to in this way:
To confront those threats Australia needs the cooperation of all the region's leaders, even those many find objectionable....But then, I also think Rundle sounds a bit over the top too. Unfortunately, I know so little about the Cambodia story (yeah, sorry, even though it was well and truly during my lifetime) that I am unsure whether his description of what happened is completely fair.
This apparently means he is giving full throated support to the President's brutal policies.
I still don't really care for Uhlmann, though - I still suspect he is unconvinced of climate change as a serious issue, and was always soft on Abbott as an interviewer on 7.30 when he was hosting. He is, at least, right about Trump, so I have to give him credit for that, but it's such an obviously correct response to this gormless President it's not as if it is hard for him to hold that position.
Putin love would be tested
The Atlantic notes:
Still, I sort of want it to be true, so I can laugh at the Conservative Right's (and Jason Soon's) mancrushy defences of Putin.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this week became the latest U.S. official to say Russia was supplying arms to the Afghan Taliban, calling it a violation of international norms. His remarks, which came just days after President Trump announced a new open-ended U.S. military commitment to Afghanistan, echo those of General John Nicholson, the head of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, and Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of the U.S. European Command. Russia, which has been critical of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, has vehemently denied the accusations.The article then goes on to quote experts explaining that this is an easy claim to make, and it almost certainly is true that Russian is starting to play footsie with the Taliban, but it is very hard to verify.
Still, I sort of want it to be true, so I can laugh at the Conservative Right's (and Jason Soon's) mancrushy defences of Putin.
Heh...
This is how Alec Baldwin opens when he's spoofing Trump at his Phoenix rally:
“I'm going to give you the hits. Electoral map, ‘drain the swamp,’ ‘lock her up,’ all of them. But first, I want to talk about Charlottesville. As we know, there was a tragic victim that came out of Charlottesville: me."
I always wanted an antenna in my head
Haven't readers of science fiction always liked the idea of having an implanted antenna in their head? Science makes it possibly closer:
Engineers have figured out how to make antennas for wireless communication 100 times smaller than their current size, an advance that could lead to tiny brain implants, micro–medical devices, or phones you can wear on your finger....
The team created two kinds of acoustic antennas. One has a circular membrane, which works for frequencies in the gigahertz range, including those for WiFi. The other has a rectangular membrane, suitable for megahertz frequencies used for TV and radio. Each is less than a millimeter across, and both can be manufactured together on a single chip. When researchers tested one of the antennas in a specially insulated room, they found that compared to a conventional ring antenna of the same size, it sent and received 2.5 gigahertz signals about 100,000 times more efficiently, they report today in Nature Communications.
“This work has brought the original concept one big step closer to reality,” says Y. Ethan Wang, an electrical engineer at the University of California, Los Angeles, who helped develop the idea, but did not work on the new study. Rudy Diaz, an electrical engineer at Arizona State University in Tempe, likes the concept and execution, but he suspects that in a consumer device or inside the body the antennas will give off too much heat because of their high energy density. Wang notes that the acoustic antennas are tricky to manufacture, and in many cases larger conventional antennas will do just fine.
Still, Sun is pursuing practical applications. Tiny antennas could reduce the size of cellphones, shrink satellites, connect tiny objects to the so-called internet of things, or be swallowed or implanted for medical monitoring or personal identification. He’s shrinking kilohertz-frequency antennas—good for communicating through the ground or water—from cables thousands of meters long to palm-sized devices. Such antennas could link people on Earth’s surface to submarines or miners. With a neurosurgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, he’s also creating brain implants for reading or controlling neural activity—helpful for diagnosing and treating people with epilepsy, or eventually for building those sci-fi brain-computer interfaces.
Not good
Yes, having it heard it once, I would have to say that I agree with this Slate criticism of Taylor Swift's new song. Wisely, it even covers the possibility that it is a send up of her media image:
“Blank Space” worked as a light-hearted tribute to Swift’s tabloid reputation as a man-eating cyclone of drama; “Look What You Made Me Do” is neither fun nor funny enough to make for a satisfying meta riff on her reputation. The narrator sounds more bitter than self-aware and, given Swift’s history of well-placed disses, the story sounds too close to the truth.And no, I don't actually follow her feuds at all - just as I know nothing about the Kardashian family except for sometimes seeing photos of the ridiculously disproportionate butt of one of them. But Swift can write some terribly likeable songs, and one can only hope she avoids the self destruction that's so common with pop super-stardom.
Friday, August 25, 2017
Message to Jason
All of the unpopular ideas in that list are unpopular for pretty good reason.
What I find more productive is to look at fanciful ideas of the likes of libertarians - who, for pretty good reason, can be blamed as being behind the large scale destruction of cities and infrastructure later this century and next, all for current greed.
A pretty good unpopular idea, then: confiscate their riches and use it for clean energy development, and consider sending them into exile in some God forsaken desert.
What I find more productive is to look at fanciful ideas of the likes of libertarians - who, for pretty good reason, can be blamed as being behind the large scale destruction of cities and infrastructure later this century and next, all for current greed.
A pretty good unpopular idea, then: confiscate their riches and use it for clean energy development, and consider sending them into exile in some God forsaken desert.
Here's a hint to JC
My sometimes reader JC hasn't turned up here in comments lately, but I note that he's expressing surprise at the possible rainfall dump from the current hurricane near Texas:
Can you tell your Wingnut Misery Support Club mates, including the chronic whinger (and chronically lonely) Rabz, that this is what was expected under global warming? (Johanna is right, by the way - he should stop talking and just leave the country if it depresses him so much.) And, with another 1 degree rise, how bad do you think new flooding is going to get?
Harvey could be freaking huge with estimates of up to 30 inches of rain, which is unheard of… well rare anyway.Yeah, well, there might be a reason for that, as I've been noting here for about 7 years or so:
Can you tell your Wingnut Misery Support Club mates, including the chronic whinger (and chronically lonely) Rabz, that this is what was expected under global warming? (Johanna is right, by the way - he should stop talking and just leave the country if it depresses him so much.) And, with another 1 degree rise, how bad do you think new flooding is going to get?
Why (some) mushrooms are "magic"
Ed Yong has an interesting article at the Atlantic, explaining a theory that some mushrooms make hallucinogens to ward off insects:
These genes seem to have originated in fungi that specialize in breaking down decaying wood or animal dung. Both materials are rich in hungry insects that compete with fungi, either by eating them directly or by going after the same nutrients. So perhaps, Slot suggests, fungi first evolved psilocybin to drug these competitors.
His idea makes sense. Psilocybin affects us humans because it fits into receptor molecules that typically respond to serotonin—a brain-signaling chemical. Those receptors are ancient ones that insects also share, so it’s likely that psilocybin interferes with their nervous system, too. “We don’t have a way to know the subjective experience of an insect,” says Slot, and it’s hard to say if they trip. But one thing is clear from past experiments: Psilocybin reduces insect appetites.
Powerline in fantasyland
I visited Powerline to see if they have started to turn on Trump yet (no, of course not, although I would say it is more muted than before), but I note that John Hinderaker tries to defend Trump on Afghanistan by - you got it - blaming it all on Obama:
Barack Obama’s administration was a horrific failure in just about every way, but he has had the press running interference for him for eight years and counting. His lies and broken promises about Afghanistan are a sobering reminder of what a poor job he did as president. So far, Donald Trump has been a vast improvement.This is where the American Right is stuck - in a ridiculous belief that, against all economic and other evidence, the Obama administration was a disaster. They have no credibility til they stop believing that.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Nuts for Trump
I had noticed this guy in the background at the Arizona rally. Here's his story:
Strange story of a 'Blacks for Trump' guy standing behind President at Phoenix rally
Strange story of a 'Blacks for Trump' guy standing behind President at Phoenix rally
The weird Dershowitz show
At last, some background on why Alan Dershowitz has been putting himself out there in support of many Trump views.
It has been weird, and I could have just put it down to my general theory that most people above a certain age come to have, shall we say, unreliable views. (Don't worry, I've got at least another 20 years of blogging before you can start to hold this against me.)
It has been weird, and I could have just put it down to my general theory that most people above a certain age come to have, shall we say, unreliable views. (Don't worry, I've got at least another 20 years of blogging before you can start to hold this against me.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)