Self regulation fail

I wonder what libertarians and their love of low regulation have to say about this:

The series of deadly explosions and fires that tore through suburban Boston on Thursday has thrown a spotlight on proposed upgrades to safety standards for natural-gas pipelines, something that has languished amid opposition from utilities.

“We have been pushing for more regulations for years and there has been some huge regulations in the works but for some reason they have been stalled,” Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust in Bellingham, Washington, said in a telephone interview. “The industry does a whole lot to slow these things down.”

At least one person died and dozens were injured Thursday after a series of explosions and fires along NiSource Inc.’s natural gas network in Massachusetts. Investigators say it’s too soon to say what the cause is, but past incidents have led safety advocates to issue proposals for tighter rules or closer oversight that have gone unheeded.

Federal filings show NiSource, which owns seven local gas distribution companies from Ohio to Virginia, has joined the broader pipeline industry in opposing rules on when certain pipelines need to be inspected, frequency of corrosion monitoring, and reporting leaks.

The enormous scale of the Boston incident outright killed only one person.  I didn't even remember this deadly gas pipeline problem from 2010:

U.S. oil and gas pipeline-related deaths jumped to the highest level in seven years in 2017. The 20 fatalities were the most since 2010, when a natural gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California, leveled a neighborhood and killed eight people. 

Another article ends by saying that "serious consequences" from natural gas distribution aren't all that common, but then gives some figures that make that sound a dubious proposition:

Even though natural-gas leaks are fairly common, serious consequences aren’t. From 1998 to 2017, 15 people a year, on average, died in incidents related to gas distribution in the U.S. “Significant incidents”—those that do things such as cause an injury or death, result in at least $50,000 of damage, or lead to a fire or explosion—happen about 286 times a year.

That might sound like a lot. But then again, the streets of Boston carry an average of four gas leaks a mile.
 

Myer-Briggs discussed

I've never done a Myer-Briggs test, and really only knew that it had some foundations in Jungian ideas and seemed to be a bit of a fad in the 1980's.

So, it's interesting to see it discussed in more detail due to a new book about its origins.   Turns out Myer and Briggs were women (a mother and daughter as it happens).  From the Nature review:

Isabel Briggs Myers (1897–1980) was an autodidact who eschewed formal psychological methods of test development and validation. She became interested in personology, as she called it, largely as a result of an obsession her mother, Katharine Cook Briggs (1875–1968), had with the ideas of psychoanalyst Carl Jung. Emre charts the women’s competitive relationship and expanding ambitions with sensitivity and skill.

Initially Cook Briggs wanted to make a landmark contribution to the practice of child-rearing. In popular-magazine articles, she presented Isabel as a triumph of an “obedience-creativity” regime. In this model, kindness, warmth and play were won only after authoritarian orders to study and work had been complied with. Before reading Briggs Myers bedtime stories, Cook Briggs required her to complete a demanding programme of study. By her early 30s, Briggs Myers was an accomplished polymath and award-winning writer of formulaic but engaging detective fiction.

These ventures paved the way for both women’s fervent interest in personality. Cook Briggs hoped to make Jung’s obscure writings accessible to the world by cataloguing the character of everyone she met on index cards. Briggs Myers formalized her mother’s project into the MBTI, after losing the proceeds of her novels in the 1930s economic crash.

The Guardian has an interview with the author, and is also well worth reading. I thought that this was a particularly interesting observation:

Attitudes towards the Myers-Briggs indicator have varied over the years. In its early incarnation, especially the 1950s and 1960s, it was deemed more desirable to be an introvert. “There was something very suspicious about the extrovert,” Emre notes. “The extrovert is the people-pleaser, the social man, the superficial one. And the introvert is the serious, creative intellectual who commands respect because he or she will not change herself to meet the demands of others.”

This flipped in the 1970s, Emre thinks, and since then we’ve lived in “the age of the extroverts”. She says: “Despite the fact that introverts are being summoned by someone like Susan Cain [in her book Quiet], there still is a really strong bias towards extroversion. Towards a person who is incredibly flexible with their personality and who can change themselves to meet the demands of any given situation. In some ways it is because that’s what is utterly necessary to succeed in today’s economy, right? You have to be a kind of constantly flexible labourer.”

There are clearly problems, though, with reading too much into a Myers-Briggs score. Peer-reviewed scientific papers on the effectiveness of the indicator are hard to find. It is criticised for giving binary outcomes – you’re either extrovert or introvert – and human personality is often more slippery and changeable. Moreover, one of the central tenets of the instrument is that you can’t change your type: it is innate, fixed from birth. Yet the company that now publishes the MBTI concedes that half of subjects change at least one of their four types when they answer the questions a second time.

Then, to my surprise, I see that David Roberts had a tweet thread in which he explains that he thinks the critics of it go a bit overboard. You can read his take on it here. 

Sort of all makes me want to do the test now....

Beer gets more ancient

Not sure that I am entirely convinced by the evidence as explained in this report, but this is what they say:

A new study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports suggests beer brewing practices existed in the Eastern Mediterranean over five millennia before the earliest known evidence, discovered in northern China. In an archaeological collaboration project between Stanford University in the United States, and University of Haifa, Israel, archeologists analyzed three stone mortars from a 13,000-year old Natufian burial cave site in Israel. Their analysis confirmed that these mortars were used for brewing of wheat/barley, as well as for food storage.

Sardines in history

Must be time for me to re-visit the topic of sardines.   (I had a can of John West lemon, chilli and garlic yesterday.  They were OK.  I think I prefer the rosemary and sea salt ones, though.)

Anyway, from a 2007 article in The Atlantic.  I didn't realise that Cannery Row was about canning sardines:

Sardines have had a surprising and important revival in the Pacific. For decades in the 20th century their abundance gave birth to an industry that fed millions of soldiers fighting both world wars and sustained thousands of Sicilians, Asians, and other foreign-born workers—the fishermen and packers of Cannery Row, in Monterey, California—during the worst years of the Depression. Visitors to the Monterey Bay Aquarium can see photographs and machines from the cannery that originally occupied the building, and promotional films from the 1930s and ’40s showing the factory life that was the backdrop of John Steinbeck’s novel Cannery Row. (You can also watch the films at www.mbayaq.org.) The California sardine fishery was the largest in the Western hemisphere, and in its peak season, 1936–37, fishermen took 726,000 tons of sardines. 

But even as Steinbeck wrote the novel, which was published in 1945, the sardine population was mysteriously declining, and by the early ’50s the industry had collapsed. By the middle of the decade, Cannery Row was practically deserted. The easy explanation was overfishing: In the ’30s, “reduction” operations were grinding sardines into meal for animal feed and oil for paint, glue, and industrial purposes. But decades of close study of sardines after the collapse revealed that Cannery Row might have turned into Skid Row even without the voracious reduction plants. For 2,000 years the Pacific coastline had seen roughly 60-year cycles of sardines and anchovies (their cousins), following temperature cycles: Sardines prefer warmer water, anchovies prefer cooler, and their populations fluctuate in similar cycles around the world. After severe restrictions and moratoriums on sardine fishing that lasted from 1967 to 1986, the fish began coming back in numbers that made commercial fishing thinkable again.

But the canneries were gone for good. Pacific sardines caught today are frozen and sent to tuna-fattening farms in the waters off, for example, Australia

Dead government walking

Has Canberra ever seen a clearer case of a dead government walking than it has in the Morrison led coalition government?   OK, well, alright - it probably did with the second coming of Kevin Rudd.  But the signs are still very, very bad at the moment:  that embarrassing "let's get cool with the kids" video on Twitter;  the refusal to deal with doubts over Dutton's eligibility to be in Parliament; the women in the team suddenly all agreeing that the Party has done a crap job of getting women into seats; Morrison not being able to stamp his authority on the Turnbull replacement preselection.  Not to mention bad, bad polling.

It's one of those situations where the public pretty much just wants to see the government put out of its misery, I reckon, and can't wait for the electoral opportunity.

News on TV

As much as I love the ABC, I have to say that they still do one thing pretty badly - breakfast news television.

I've tried watching it for a few days this week, as I didn't have to do school morning drives.   Then today, after watching it from about 6.20 to 7am, I switched over to Channel 7.  The level of detail in both local and international news put the ABC show to shame.  

On the downside, I then had to sit through uber-prat Mark Latham as a guest commentator with Jeff Kennet for a segment, and the show has been absolutely key in successfully promoting populist bad politicians from Pauline Hanson to Kevin Rudd.  It has a lot to answer for in Australian politics.

While the hosts on the ABC show are pleasant enough, it just seems that despite having a 24 hour news channel, the ABC lets whoever it is who compiles their normal news not get into work until 9 am or something, because they really have poor coverage of actual news on the breakfast show. 

I think Channel 9's breakfast TV is pretty bad too, but that's largely because I have never liked Karl Stefanovic (and never cared for Lisa Wilkinson either.)   David Koch is pretty harmless, I think, although with him absent today, possibly I enjoy Sunrise more without him. 

In other TV news news:   sometimes I get to see the PBS Newshour on SBS at 1pm - it is really high quality news commentary, made cheaply but effectively.  

Stan Grant on his evening show:  the guy really bores me.   A good voice, but he just tends to waffle on to fill up time.  

I seem to have left no natural way to end this post.   Let's try this:

Fin

Has anyone done this before? (Hope it wasn't me)

I've done a lot of Tim Wilson posts over the years, pointing out his remarkable fondness for...himself.    So:

Stupid whining losers

You know the big picture - the Trump Right has already lost the culture war and the youth vote and barely won the Presidency by virtue of where the votes fell, not how many the nation gave them;  they got their narrow win in significant part by using social media owned by people who are always going to be more Left than sclerotic Trump voters, and which also gave inadvertent platform to Russian mischief makers.

Yet the wingnut Right is speculating on government control of Google because its management was upset with the Trump win!

What a bunch of morons.   John Hinderaker at the Powerline blog:

 The question is what to do about the left-wing tech monopolies of Silicon Valley. Start conservative companies and platforms to compete with them? Break them up under the Sherman Act? Turn them into regulated public utilities, with public employee-level salaries and no stock options? Those are all possibilities. After watching the video, you no doubt will be ready to take action.

When nothing is stopping them from taking that first option - trying to set up their 100% guaranteed conservative controlled competition in the search engine and social media fields - why are they even speculating about forcing a government intervention into the existing players?  


I would tempted if I were a Democrat politician over there to say:  "OK, Republicans, we'll have a hearing about your paranoia about how Google allegedly tweaks its search results against you, provided we also have a hearing as to how exactly Fox News manages to have 98% of its content with an intensely pro Trump take on all issues.   Both private companies - why should one get away with complete and patent bias while you want to micromanage the other?"

Revisiting Australian volcanoes

There was a recent article at The Conversation about the active volcano field that runs across Victoria and South Australia.   ("Active" in the sense that the last eruption was only 5,000 years ago, at Mt Gambier, and we could apparently get another any time.)

One of the authors had an earlier post in 2016 on much the same topic, in which he explains:

So what can we expect the next volcanic eruption to be like? It depends where it happens.

If the next eruption occurs in the northern areas of the Newer Volcanics Provinces (around Bendigo, Ballarat or Hamilton), we can expect lots of lava flows and fire fountains.

But if it occurs in the southern part (Colac, Camperdown, Warrnambool or Mt Gambier), the presence of groundwater could make it much more explosive.

We could be up for an eruption just like the 2010 Iceland eruption where a big plume of ash was sent high in the atmosphere. In this case disruption will occur in Eastern Australia and New Zealand.

Will it happen any time soon? Well, the Newer Volcanics Province has been active for more than 4.5 million years, with eruptions occurring at least once every 10,000 years.

It could happen in our lifetime, but more likely it will happen after that.

Oh, another outcome of the research was that the first warning signs with Mt Gambier would have been noticed only by the most sensitive equipment up to two days in advance.

Such equipment is not present in the area at the moment.

I see that in 2011 I had a post on the same topic, with a Professor suggesting it might be a good idea for local governments to think about what to do if a volcano suddenly emerges.

But gee - with only a couple of days notice, what could they do anyway?

More creating their own reality

Seriously, Andrew Bolt thinks this?:

For three weeks the ABC obsessively pushed fake news: claims that the federal Liberals had a culture of bullying, particularly of female MPs.

So how about an apology, now that this fake news has gone splat?

The rest of the column explaining how, against the evidence of my eyes and ears, it has "gone splat" is behind a paywall.  But this just appears to be a case of the current Right wing quasi post-modernistic "I interpret evidence in the manner that best creates my own chosen reality".  

It's all of a kind with Trump's "we did a fantastic job on Puerto Rico - A Plus!".


Who exactly do they think they are fooling?  It's weird.

Not just my age

BBC Culture has a sympathetic story on the rise of the "acid house" clubbing scene in London in the 1990's:  "The 30-year-ol soundtrack to hedonism".

I am completely unconvinced, and not just because of my age.

Any hedonistic movement based largely on the consumption of illicit drugs specifically designed to hone into the brain's pleasure centres, and protracted periods of being off your face with no sleep, does not warrant endorsement of any kind.   Unhealthy both physically and mentally, it was and remains a bad thing.

And I have always felt that way...

Birthdays

Hey, it was my birthday a couple of days ago, and now I see that it was apparently David Roberts' birthday yesterday.   It's a bit funny, isn't it, how we tend to think a shared or close birth date might partly account for why we like someone?   Feels like a hangover from astrology even though it overall has much less hold on the public imagination than it did (say) 40 years ago.*

Speaking of people getting older, Youtube yesterday popped up this new Dial-a-Song from They Might be Giants:  two guys who are my age - late 50's - who just keep pumping out songs which are witty, dark, eccentric and upbeat - all at the same time, in most cases:



[Look, I know there is a case to be made that their sound and song construction hasn't changed much since 1986 - but for me it's a case of "if I liked it then, why wouldn't I like it now?"]

*  Checking who else is born on my day:  Harry Connick Jr, TV vet Chris Brown - check, check - both nice enough guys.   Moby - don't know enough about him.  Oh wait:  Bashar al-Assad.   Hmm...

The hypocrisy is off the scale

From WAPO: 

House Republicans bracing for November's midterm elections unveiled a second round of tax cuts on Monday that could add more than $2 trillion to the federal deficit over a decade, aiming to cement the steep cuts they passed last fall despite criticisms of fiscal profligacy and tailoring their policies to help the rich.

Yeah, but wingnuts trust his instincts...

I read this in the AFR yesterday.   Remarkable:

The exchange is one of several detailed in the book showing how many of Mr Trump's now-former staffers spent the first year of the administration attempting to deflect the President on trade, with him quoted repeatedly saying he didn't want to "hear that" and that "it's all bullshit".

Mr Woodward describes an episode in which Mr Cohn enlists the help of Defence Secretary Jim Mattis to conduct a kind of "off-site corporate retreat" for the President, at a venue known as "The Tank" within the Pentagon.

They hoped to draw links between a healthy economy, and the strength of intelligence partnerships with foreign allies, writes Mr Woodward.

"Together they would fight Trump on this. Trade wars or disruptions in the global markets could savage and undermine the precarious stability in the world.

"Mattis and Cohn organised the presentations as part history lesson and part geo-strategic showdown.

"Maps depicting American commitments around the world – military deployments, troops, nuclear weapons, diplomatic posts, ports, intelligence assets, treaties and even trade deals – filled two large wall screens, telling the story of the United States in the world."

"The great gift of the greatest generation to us," Mr Mattis opened, according to Mr Woodward, "is the rules-based, international democratic order."

Mr Woodward observed: "This global architecture brought security, stability and prosperity to the world."

The book describes how the pitch fell on deaf ears, as Trump pressed his cabinet, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, to declare China a currency manipulator.

"Mnuchin explained that China had, years ago, been a currency manipulator, but it no longer was.

"What do you mean?" Mr Trump asked. "Make the case. Just do it. Declare it."

Next Mr Trump railed against the cost of maintaining troops in South Korea, dismissing their role in guaranteeing security in the region.

"So, Mr President," Mr Cohn said, "what would you need in the region to sleep well at night," Mr Woodward writes.

"I wouldn't need a f---ing thing," the President said. "And I'd sleep like a baby."

The meeting ended, after the President walked out of the room, with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson saying: "He's a f---ing moron."

Hurricanes in the news

With all of the attention on the American East coast, it's easily overlooked that a big typhoon is off the Philippines too:

Superstorm expected to make landfall with speeds of up to 260km/h; 1.2m hectares of rice farms could face severe damage.

(Typhoons seem so routine to that country, they seem to only make the international news if they are a mega disaster, not just an average disaster.) 

So, how's that Brexit going?

Well, it's certainly not helping with the remarkable understaffing of the NHS:

The NHS was short of 41,722 nurses – 11.8% of the entire nursing workforce. That is the highest number yet and a big rise on the 35,794 vacancies seen at the end of March.

Similarly, there were 11,576 vacancies for doctors across all types of NHS services inside and outside of hospitals. That was again a record and a significant increase on the 9,982 posts that were vacant three months before. Across England, 9.3% of posts were vacant.

Experts warned that NHS understaffing was so widespread that it was becoming a “national emergency”.

Siva Anandaciva, the chief analyst at the King’s Fund thinktank, said: “After a punishing summer of heatwaves and ever-increasing demands on services, today’s report shows that the NHS is heading for another tough winter.

‘Widespread and growing nursing shortages now risk becoming a national emergency and are symptomatic of a long-term failure in workforce planning, which has been exacerbated by the impact of Brexit and short-sighted immigration policies.”

Bit of an irony going on there if some anti-immigration pro Brexit voter has to wait months longer for their operation because foreign doctors and nurses are reluctant to go there now...

A bit of a twit after all

English philosopher John Gray has got a mention here a couple of times over the years, including recently where I noted an "interesting" article he wrote, but I don't know much about him. 

I think the evidence of this latest piece of his is that he is a bit of twit after all.   Obviously, he hates "illiberal liberalism", but if you're going to start calling out liberals as being the paranoid ones when it comes to comparisons with the state of the American Right at the moment, you need your head read:

Visiting New York a few weeks after Trump’s victory in the presidential election, I found myself immersed in a mass psychosis. The city’s intelligentsia was possessed by visions of conspiracy. No one showed any interest in the reasons Trump supporters may have had for voting as they did. Quite a few cited the low intelligence, poor education and retrograde values of the nearly 63 million Americans who voted for him. What was most striking was how many of those with whom I talked flatly rejected the result. The election, they were convinced, had been engineered by a hostile power. It was this malignant influence, not any default of American society, that had upended the political order.

Conspiracy theory has long been associated with the irrational extremes of politics. The notion that political events can be explained by the workings of hidden forces has always been seen by liberals as a sign of delusional thinking. A celebrated study by the political scientist Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1964), linked the idea with the far Right. Yet in New York in December 2016, many of the brightest liberal minds exhibited the same derangement. Nearly two years later, they continue to reach to conspiracy theory as an explanation for their defeat....

For those who embrace it, a paranoid style of liberalism has some advantages. Relieved from any responsibility for the debacles they have presided over, the liberal elites that have been in power in many western countries for much of the past 30 years can enjoy the sensation of being victims of forces beyond their control. Conspiracy theory implies there is nothing fundamentally wrong with liberal societies, and places the causes of their disorder outside them. No one can reasonably doubt that the Russian state has been intervening in western politics. Yet only minds unhinged from reality can imagine that the decline of liberalism is being masterminded by Vladimir Putin. The principal causes of disorder in liberal societies are in those societies themselves.

There are problems on the Left, but seriously, the greatest and most dangerous paranoid conspiracy belief in the world is that held almost exclusively by the American Right - that climate change is a UN hatched socialist plan to bankrupt Western civilisation with no basis at all in science.

Call out the identitarian Left  as illiberal and annoying by all means - and even somewhat "post truth" in its revisionism -  but I can't take anyone seriously if they pretend it represents the same level of real, physical, humanitarian and environmental danger as the American Right's desire to ignore climate change with their myriad excuses for not believing that it either doesn't exist, or that it is worth addressing. 

Recent movies considered

I've been thinking lately that this year seems to be a pretty underwhelming one as far as enjoyable movies go.

It's not that I strongly disliked any of the big blockbusters I've seen, but to be honest, all of these felt somewhat underwhelming in one way or another.   Last Jedi, Antman and the Wasp, Ready Player One, Incredibles 2, and even (I have to admit) I wasn't quite as happy with Mission Impossible 6 as I should have been.   (On reflection, I think it needed more humour.  I have re-watched much of MI:4 since seeing 6, and its lighter touch was one reason I found it so pleasing.)   

Surprisingly, the main movie which surpassed my expectations was Infinity War - perhaps because I have not followed the Avengers movies before, only to find that it did combine humour with final gravitas in a satisfying way. 

I didn't even go to see the new Jurassic World movie, as it had so-so reviews, nor Solo. 

As for anything new or unexpected - no sign of that.  Perhaps that's why I enjoyed a weird movie like A Cure for Wellness when I saw it recently. 

He really dislikes the Murdoch tabloid press

As I said last week, I know little about Imre except that he presumably used to be pals with Tim Blair.

Given Imre's dislike of the tabloids Blair works for, are they still friendly?

Honestly, has the barracking for one side this far out from an election ever been as crudely blatant as this?:

How to explain without an undercurrent of racism?

Andrew Bolt, who doesn't spend much time critiquing Trump (because that's what culture warriors do - spend all their time on How Bad is the Enemy, Hey?)  does a short post on Obama's criticism of Trump, and gets 300 comments, nearly all, of course, agreeing that Obama was just the worst.  

Ben Shapiro the other day tweeted that it was all Obama's fault - for "lecturing us" - that the US ended up with Trump.   As Ezra Klein wrote:

You see this on the right a lot, and I’ve come to think it the most revealing argument in conservative politics right now. It shows how desperate conservatives are to absolve their movement of responsibility for Trump, but it’s also, in an important sense, true — it’s just a truth the right (and sometimes the left) refuses to follow to its obvious conclusions.

Let’s state the obvious, and state it neutrally: A critical mass of Republican voters responded to the eight years of Obama’s presidency by turning to Trump. The question is why.

Obama’s answer blames demographic and technological shifts that scrambled our economic, social, religious, and civic institutions. Shapiro’s blames an emotional reaction to the first black president.

It's extremely hard to understand why conservatives reacted so strongly against the moderate and reasoned approach to rhetoric that Obama deployed.   (And I say that while fully acknowledging that  the "now the oceans will start to drop" was a very unwise bit of hyperbole - but not one that indicated that there was something wrong in his head,  like Trump looking at photos of his inauguration and insisting that they told a story that everyone else's eye could see wasn't true.)   

But Klein goes on to note that it's not as if conservatives were ever listening directly to Obama anyway:

For all Shapiro’s focus on Obama’s “lecturing,” the reality is that the right experienced Obama less through listening to his full speeches and more through hearing his presidency refracted through Fox News and conservative talk radio. And in those spaces, Obama’s presidency was framed in the most threatening possible terms. In 2009, Rush Limbaugh, whom Shapiro has honored as “one of the founders of the modern conservative movement,” told his millions of listeners:

How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people, or even saying you do, or that they’re not good, or whatever. Make white people the new oppressed minority, and they are going along with it, because they’re shutting up. They’re moving to the back of the bus. They’re saying I can’t use that drinking fountain, okay. I can’t use that restroom, okay. That’s the modern day Republican Party, the equivalent of the Old South, the new oppressed minority.

On its face, this is laughable. But Limbaugh’s audience wasn’t laughing. They were listening.

True.  

While Klein doesn't use the word "racism", he does refer to "white fragility":

The term “white fragility” is overused in politics right now, but it is relevant here: The unwillingness to state the obvious — a critical proportion of Republican primary voters enthusiastically supported the candidate who promised to turn back the demographic clock — might be politically wise, but it’s analytically disastrous. Black voters who supported Louis Farrakhan would never be treated with such delicacy.

Personally, from years of reading Catallaxy comments, I think it's hard to deny that an undercurrent of simple racism helps explain the unreasonableness of extreme reaction to Obama too:    this black president thought he was better than us.  For Australians, a useful comparison may be made with Kevin Rudd - sure, he was disliked for being a "I know better than you", plum voiced lecturer;  but the intensity of hatred for him I  think was still significantly less than that which his Australian haters still hold towards Obama (and even his wife.)     And I find it hard to believe that the comparative race backgrounds doesn't have something to do with that.

A germ theory for Alzheimers?

Gee:  I don't recall reading some of the reasons given in this NPR article as to why there are some grounds for suspecting that Alzheimer's Disease is caused by an infection:

Norins is quick to cite sources and studies supporting his claim, among them a 2010 study published in the Journal of Neurosurgery showing that neurosurgeons die from Alzheimer's at a seven-fold higher rate than they do from other disorders.

Another study from that same year, published in The Journal of the American Geriatric Society found that people whose spouses have dementia are at a six-times greater risk for the condition themselves.

Contagion does come to mind. And Norins isn't alone in his thinking.

In 2016, 32 researchers from universities around the world signed an editorial in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease calling for "further research on the role of infectious agents in [Alzheimer's] causation." Based on much of the same evidence Norins encountered, the authors concluded that clinical trials with antimicrobial drugs in Alzheimer's are now justified.

Another dream jumble

Last night, Jason Soon invited me to his country house where he was having Bob Dylan attend to give a private concert.  I was having trouble getting there on time.   There was also something about a very large sort of accommodation place I was staying at, downhill from the concert venue, with really creepy looking vast toilets which weren't working (unusually, a dream not inspired by waking up needing to go to the toilet.)    There seemed to be some morphing then into a completely separate story about working in a hospital where a heart patient was waiting for a donor heart for transplantation - from a dog.  I visited the potential dog donors too, but the one we were hoping to use was not well.   [I have yet to work out the source material for that one.  Can't think of any transplant stories have I read in the last few weeks, but something will probably come to me soon.]

White House Cluedo continues...

Allahpundit at Hot Air summarises the theories floating around about who wrote the Anonymous op-ed.  

I think it seems reasonably clear that it's not going to turn out to be someone at the very bottom of  the range of people who could be called a "senior official"  - which was one way I thought it might pan out.

Quiggin on Creighton

Back on 29 August I noted that it seemed rich (ha, a pun) of Adam Creighton, given his history of trying to make out that it is obviously wrong that the well off pay so much tax and the lower income don't, to be talking positively about inequality not having increased when the report he was citing said it was due to our well targetted tax and welfare policy.

I see now that John Quiggin made the same point last week:

Shorter Carling and Creighton:  High income earners pay more tax than everyone else and that’s bad.

All this contrasts strikingly with last week’s rightwing talking points, making much of the relatively limited growth of inequality in Australia due, almost entirely, to the redistributive policies introduced under Hawke and Keating. The Oz was all over this, and one of their sources was none other than Robert Carling

If you thought I was sounding cranky...

...you should read David Roberts twitter thread (handily put together here) for his similar despair.

Meanwhile, I thought Politico had a good article about the 25th Amendment (and the author's certainty that it could not - yet - be used against Trump, even though apparently some White House insiders have discussed it.)

Politico also has an article criticising many liberal historians' takes on the history of conservatives.     
Finally, although I don't pay much attention to Andrew Sullivan any more, I think he has a neat analogy here:

Sometimes I think it’s useful to think of this presidency as a hostage-taking situation. We have a president holding liberal democracy hostage, empowered by a cult following. The goal is to get through this without killing any hostages, i.e., without irreparable breaches in our democratic system. Come at him too directly and you might provoke the very thing you are trying to avoid. Somehow, we have to get the nut job to put the gun down and let the hostages go, without giving in to any of his demands. From the moment Trump took office, we were in this emergency. All that we now know, in a way we didn’t, say, a year ago, is that the chances of a successful resolution are close to zero.

My big gay wedding

No, it's no self outing, it's just that the King Street area where I often am on a Saturday afternoon is set up today for some late afternoon gay weddings:

If you can read the sign, it says Bob Downe will be there.  His camp act still in demand, I assume. 

The sign also notes an after party at a nearby venue, which appears to be this:

Yes.  All weddings should be followed by parties featuring disembodied splayed legs. 

Look, while I know we don't police the solemnity of straight weddings or receptions, I still have an issue with gay ones when they go out of their way to appear as unserious and profane parodies of, dare I say it, the real thing.

Disclaimer: of course gay relationships can be loving and respected.  They don't need weddings for that. 

Is time the only answer?

Everyone with a brain can see the problem:   a significant chunk of the Right has constructed its own reality:  self-propagandised itself into thinking cultural warrioring is all that matters, and that a few simplistic ideas are all that count in economics, or any field, really. Trump is the pinnacle of such self delusion:  look at his absurd self puffery in talking about how his speeches will be highly regarded in future, just like the Gettysburg address got better press over time.   In the same speech, I think, he was unable to pronounce "anonymous". 

It's become kind of distressing to see it repeated day after day after day:  and you can't even see how they think that they are being internally consistent.    It takes some pretty strong self brainwashing for pro-Trump conservatives to applaud tax cuts and increased military spending that all objective forecasts say will turn what was an improving deficit situation into a much worse one.  But they do.   

There seems to be growing concern that economic problems from Turkey, Argentina and (perhaps) China will grow into the next global economic contagion, and who could possibly think that Trump would have any idea who to listen to with respect to a response?  Well, of course, pro-Trump conservatives think that a many who has used bankruptcy several times to swing past business mistakes does.  Again:  the guy has shown repeatedly he doesn't understand the very basics of economics and repeatedly, insiders have explained he is impossible to teach.   Yet they think he will save them.

Anyway this is just a bit of a bleg to complain that I get tired of mainstream analysis understanding the problem, but not really having a clue as to how it is going to be overcome.  Does anyone have ideas about how it will change?

Sure, the GOP losing control of Congress would help, but will that solve the more the fundamental problem that David Roberts called the tribal epistemology problem?

Because, at the moment, it seems that time is the only answer.  
 

Finding the happy medium

Isn't it sort of frustrating to hear, on the one hand, if reported accurately:

* that carpenters in the new Brisbane Queen's Wharf hotel/casino development will get a base annual salary of $288,000 - indicating some pretty ridiculous salaries negotiated by a building union with a bullying reputation;

and on the hand:

*  Amazon operating its sales warehouses on completely casual, outsourced staff, at low rates of pay, with workers being  permanently in fear of losing position because of tough "performance targets".   All for a company run by a multi-billionaire.

Both things are not right, but from opposite sides of the spectrum.   

On a related matter:  I'm deeply sceptical of the "gig economy", and am very reluctant to ever engage with it - I haven't even tried a Uber yet.

On the other hand, it is too hard for small businesses to deal with difficult employees who take unfair advantage of the Fair Work rules.

On the third hand:  it is pretty ridiculous when some businesses - often franchises - will operate on clear underpayment of staff for years before it is corrected.   You know for some of them it is no error made in good faith:  the business model itself means it could not survive with full pay.

And often that model is as result of it being a franchise:   man, hasn't this model taken a battering in credibility in recent years?   Does anyone go to "Franchise Expos" anymore to find the franchisors selling their "product" as a safe way to get into business?    Greed seems to overtake all common sense - with franchisors imposing competition that hurts all franchisees, and supply deals that just kill profitability, all as a way of the franchisor maximising profit.

In short, as in politics, where it seems the "happy medium" is harder to find these days, our business economy seems to have been hit by extremities too.  

I miss the middle ground.

Another observation

You know, I have looked through the long, long list of the late Burt Reynolds film appearances, and I am pretty sure that I have seen none - not one - in which he was the headline star.  It's almost uncanny, but if he was the star, I had no interest in it.  Not that I ever felt a particularly strong dislike of him  - I pretty much considered him harmless - just he chose material which had no appeal to me.  

I am a bit embarrassed to admit I did see Boogie Nights, for which he did get fairly prominent billing, but I don't recall that he had all that much screen time.  I thought it greatly overrated.  I should have continued using my rule of thumb and not seen it.

It's funny how many of us can find some actors who become a pretty reliable guide to whether a film will be enjoyed or not, regardless of box office success.    

Trump madness update

Jonathan Swan at Axios (who I don't entirely trust, given his apparent disdain of the Left) noted yesterday that it's not just one renegade within the White House administration:

The big picture: He should be paranoid. In the hours after the New York Times published the anonymous Op-Ed from "a senior official in the Trump administration" trashing the president ("I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration"), two senior administration officials reached out to Axios to say the author stole the words right out of their mouths.

• "I find the reaction to the NYT op-ed fascinating — that people seem so shocked that there is a resistance from the inside," one senior official said. "A lot of us [were] wishing we’d been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows — maybe he does? — that there are dozens and dozens of us."

He then got a threatening email which he showed on Twitter in full, including the guy's email address.

I note that the letter writer calls the Trump election the Flight 93 election - exactly the same way Peter Thiel was describing it in a recent interview.  This must be quite the meme on the wingnut Right - seeing electing Trump as a civilisation saving necessity. 

More later....

Update:    So the White House reaction is to try and call their wingnut base to harass the NYT to reveal their anonymous source:

Many on twitter have pointed out that it breaches some online harassment law - but whether it does or not, it's a ridiculous thing to do that will only be supported by the wingnut base.

The Trump madness

A few observations:

*   If Trump's staff are so readily disclosing embarrassing behaviour they have seen during the term of his presidency while they are still working for him, can you imagine what is going to come out when he has actually left the White House?   I'm pretty much expecting another 20 Omarosa  books with the theme "Of course I was lying that everything was great - I had a job to keep.  But let me tell you some stories."

*  The "soft coup" of an administration which simply sidesteps Trump because he's an idiot is an incredible situation.    Any normal person in the Oval Office faced with the deluge of savage, highly personally insulting, leaking against him would already have resigned - if you can't find staff that actually support you in private as well as public, it's humiliating.   But the GOP have decided it's best to keep Trump and his tribal, dumb, conspiracy believing base just ticking along, thinking he's actually doing a great job, so they can just work around him.  Or does this NYT piece signal a rebellion from within?   Because surely the author would know it would increase the paranoia in Trump's head - with any luck, sending him over some sort of edge.   David Frum's piece, This is a Constitutional Crisis, puts it well: 

If the president’s closest advisers believe that he is morally and intellectually unfit for his high office, they have a duty to do their utmost to remove him from it, by the lawful means at hand. That duty may be risky to their careers in government or afterward. But on their first day at work, they swore an oath to defend the Constitution—and there were no “riskiness” exemptions in the text of that oath.

 *  We actually know what will hasten the end of the Trump Presidency - Fox News turning on him.   But is it a case of Rupert doesn't know how to do that without shedding a huge slab of his brainwashed audience?  

Update:  sounds about right:

The problems on the Left

I watched that Jazz Twenlow segment from Tonightly about the self defeating Leftwing outrage machine and it is pretty good, but not perfect.   (Can't people like him admit that Hillary was correct in her judgment about half of Trump's base being pretty much deplorables, even if it was politically unwise to be honest about it at that time?  And never forget - who won popular vote convincingly despite that mistake?)

But more importantly, someone commenting on Twitter linked to this article in a magazine I have never heard of before:  No, Liberal Lefties are Not Right Wing, and it does seem a very good analysis of the Left's problem with what she calls the identitarian Left.   A sample:

To understand this, it is probably necessary to have a quick look at divisions on the left right now. While all lefties support economic policies which seek to redistribute wealth, reduce inequalities and support the most socially disadvantaged in society, the largest and longest split is between the socialists who advocate social ownership of the means of production—thereby putting control in the hands of the workers—and the social democrats who seek to redistribute wealth within a regulated capitalist system within a liberal democracy. These have loosely been understood as the “radical Left” and the “liberal Left” and this is also loosely connected to differing principles around social issues such as feminism (radical feminism vs liberal feminism).

There has been much animosity between these groups with the radicals accusing the liberals of being half-measure sell-outs and the liberals accusing the radicals of being delusional Utopians. Nevertheless, these have been straightforward disagreements on comprehensible issues and civil and reasonable conversation and compromise have also been possible because both groups believe that objective truth exists, that evidence and reason are the way to access it and that language is a tool for conveying these.

More recently, we have seen a rise of the identitarian lefties who hold very different ideas about objective truth, evidence, reason and language and who view society as structured by discourse (ways of talking about things) which perpetuates systems of power and privilege. As they often fit the definition of “radical” but have little in common with the older radical leftism and seldom address economics or class issues coherently, preferring to focus on identity groups like race, gender and sexuality, things have become much more messy, and communication and compromise much more difficult. These are the individuals who frequently insist that the liberal lefties are actually right-wing. As the liberal lefties make up the majority of lefties and as they are the most moderate and reasonable element of the left—and therefore the most likely to win the support of the political middle ground—this is an accusation we cannot allow to stand. We are the left and we cannot let the identitarians define us any longer.

 And further down:

These lefties share some core tenets of leftism in that they want to support the most vulnerable in society, but they tend to neglect the poorest people if they lack other identity characteristics associated with disadvantage—being female, of ethnic minority or LGBT. There is little support for white, working class men and they frequently deny that straight, white men can face any disadvantages at all or speak in ways which assume this. This has almost certainly assisted the present reactionary surge to the right.

Identitarian lefties also share the care/harm foundation of liberalism with this drive to end inequality and prioritize groups seen as marginalized, but this is accompanied by a rage at groups seen as privileged. The result is a highly illiberal practice of evaluating the worth of individuals by their gender, race or sexuality. Because of the belief that power in society is constructed by language, they are also prone to authoritarian censoriousness about what language can and cannot be used and which ideas may or may not be discussed.

This bent to control is in profound contrast to the traditionally liberal support of the “marketplace of ideas.”

The final summation of the state of play:

We are now in a situation in which the three parts of the left—radical, liberal and identitarian—are locked in an unproductive deadlock. The radicals oppose the identitarians whom they see as bourgeois elitists rooted in the academy who have completely abandoned the working class and the meaning of leftism. They remain at odds with the liberals for their lack of support for socialism. The liberals oppose the identitarians whom they regard as profoundly illiberal and threatening to undo decades of progress towards individual freedom and equality of opportunity regardless of race, gender and sexuality. They find the radicals of little help in supporting liberalism. The identitarians largely ignore the radicals except in the form of radical feminist rejection of trans identity which they condemn as transmisogynistic hatred but pay some confused lip-service to anti-capitalism (which does not mollify the radicals). They reserve most of their ire for the liberals who are addressing the same social and ethical issues that they are.

If you think those paragraphs are convincing, go read it all.  

News best left unreported?

At the BBC, a story of a woman who poisoned her husband by putting eyedrops in his water.   Who knew this was a such a readily available poison?:

She was detained when a toxicology test discovered a chemical called tetrahydrozoline in his body.

The substance is found in over-the-counter eyedrops and nasal sprays that are available without a prescription....

Tetrahydrozoline can cause seizures, stop breathing and induce comas, according to the US National Library of Medicine.

Even a few drops of the drug, which is intended to reduce redness, can cause "serious adverse events".

Somewhat blackly amusing, though, is this part of the report:

Prosecutors say they are now reviewing a 2016 incident, in which she shot her husband in the head with a crossbow as he slept.

Police determined that that shooting was "accidental", according to a police report obtained by the Charlotte Observer.

Investigators found Mrs Clayton at home "crying and upset" after the crossbow incident, according to the report.

Update:   OK so, obviously, eyedrop poisoning has been a "thing" for some time - just that I have missed it.   From Wired in 2013:

Surprised? You shouldn't be. Eye-drop poisoning is more routine you might think. Remember the Ohio man arrested last year for sending his father to the hospital by putting two bottles of Visine into his milk? The Pennsylvania woman who'd been sneaking Visine into her boyfriend's drinking water for three years? (The poor man suffered all that time with nausea, breathing and blood pressure problems). Oh, and let's not forget the Wyoming teenager who was angry with her step-mother; the girl just pleaded no contest to aggravated assault charges this Friday.

Risky encounters with eyedrops have turned up on poison center roundups; the myth-busting website Snopes.com has tallied up even more. And those are lists of deliberate eye drop attacks. Let's not forget the hazards posed by accidental poisonings; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning to parents about leaving eye drops containers around where they might be found by children.

Snopes took up the question to debunk an apparent belief that sneaking eye drops into a drink would basically induce a hilarious case of diarrhea – a scenario portrayed in a prank scene in the 2005 movie Wedding Crashers. Did I mention that Snopes specializes in myth busting? The website labeled the diarrhea scenario false and more. It went on to issue this warning: "Ingestion of such a concoction is downright dangerous making this 'harmless' form of retaliation fraught with hazard."....

The record tells us that tetrahydrozoline while poisonous is not a top-of-line-lethal substance. According to the safety sheet, acute oral toxicity in lab mice stands at an LD50 of 345 mg/kg. (LD50 stands for lethal dose 50 percent, meaning the amount of a toxic substance that will kill half of a test population). For comparison, the LD50 of potassium cyanide in mice is 5 mg/kg. And that difference means that while people do end up the hospital, they tend to survive the stay. This is good news for victims and also for perpetrators, as so many of them end up arrested thanks in part to the very characteristic symptoms of eye drop poisoning.

That's weirdly irresponsible of Wedding Crashers, isn't it?  (I've never seen it.)

Back to Bannon

I agree with the tweet, and most of what is said supporting it in the thread:

I think there is a world of difference between a writer's festival disinviting Germaine Greer and Bob Carr, both somewhat eccentric but (for want of a better description) harmless professional thinkers willing to engage in genuine debate,  and one disinviting a person who was crucial to the rise of the most blantantly authoritarian President we are ever likely to see, still supports him, and seeking to get back into political influence by preaching hyper-nationalism and shallow populism.

If you don't support people who would refuse to attend a writers festival if Bannon is there, you don't appreciate the danger and obnoxiousness of the guy.   [Leigh Sales might be well served to read this article, for starters.]   And that's pretty shameful and dumb, especially for journalists.

Three propositions

1.  What you choose is what the Universe chooses.

2.  Therefore, choose carefully.

3.  "Grace" is a matter of being  aware of points 1 & 2.


Update:   Gee, I had a really nice curry for dinner last night, and it seems to have turned me into Jordan Peterson.   (Actually, I was thinking about free will and determinism and Tipler and spacetime and Burt Bacharach and whether he was really onto something with that awful song from Lost Horizon, etc.)

Bannon out

Even allowing for the fact that literary writing or "ideas" festivals seem to have increasingly become an insular haven for the political Left and (in the last few years at least) the worst of identity politics,  I still think that the great majority of people who watched Steve Bannon's 40 minute interview on Four Corners last night would see no point in him appearing at something like the New Yorker festival.  (He has been disinvited after public outcry.)

He motormouthed his way through the interview, and doesn't address correction or criticism so much as dismiss them as simply being typical liberal media takes on the matter, and therefore obviously wrong.

He shows no sophistication or nuance in his understanding of trade, economics and corporate behaviour;  everything is perceived simply through his populist, nationalist, "clash of cultures" worldview, with his apparent love of capitalism mixed up with his somewhat contradictory distrust of corporate elites for making too much money.   (The Catholic influence is pretty clear - but only in so far as identifying a problem with capitalist excess.  There's not much sign that accepts the simple proposition that is also Catholic:  that it is an appropriate role of government to directly intervene in those excesses for the greater good.   Instead, he just seems to think that if all globalism stops, all companies will naturally behave better.)

In short, as lots of people have been saying about the New Yorker decision - it's ridiculous to think we don't know enough about his views and politics already, or that he is ever amenable to genuine, detailed debate.  He has his views; he makes his living by being a polemicist; and he dog whistles for support from the obnoxious and racist alt.right continually.

There is no point in his coming to a Left leaning festival, other than to invite an unedifying shouting match.

Update:

I've gone back over some of my past posts about Bannon. 

Even if I do say so myself, I nailed it pretty good in this one. 

And from another post, look at the way he was the source of the Trump quasi-fascist "fake news" meme that has killed hope of rational debate with Trump cultists:

But it's clear that a huge part of the problem is the people around him - particularly the unhealthy looking Stephen Bannon, who is obviously either behind, or completely supportive of, Trump's paranoia with how the media presents him.  Here he is, quoted by the NYT:

“The elite media got it dead wrong, 100 percent dead wrong,” Mr. Bannon said of the election, calling it “a humiliating defeat that they will never wash away, that will always be there.”

“The mainstream media has not fired or terminated anyone associated with following our campaign,” Mr. Bannon said. “Look at the Twitter feeds of those people: they were outright activists of the Clinton campaign.” (He did not name specific reporters or editors.)

“That’s why you have no power,” Mr. Bannon added. “You were humiliated.”

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” 

“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”

Yes, just what you want.  An unstable, vindictive culture warrior who won't accept that the Trump victory was, in fact, very narrow, advising a vain, insecure man-child who stumbled into a presidency he didn't really expect.

The guy has ideas, sure:  but they are obnoxious and merely asserted - it is not as if they are well researched or ever justified with details you can argue about.

As such, no matter how much you don't care for Lefties not challenging themselves at literary love ins (or however you want to put it), to invite Bannon to a serious "ideas festival" is too much like the false equivalence of  claiming you must have a climate change fake "skeptic" at a science festival or a serious TV discussion in order to say it has given the topic proper coverage.

No, he has shown he does not deserve a mainstream platform to bluster his views again, or to attempt to rehabilitate himself as some sort of misunderstood Mr Reasonable.

Update:   amusingly, I see that some of the old characters at Catallaxy thought Bannon did great in that interview.   Their reactions are so predictable:   if any right wing guy talks over a woman interviewer (especially one from a public broadcaster), they'll think he's fantastic.

Transgender research wars, continued...

I've mentioned the 4thwavenow website before [it's subtitled "A community of parents & others concerned about the medicalization of gender-atypical youth and rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)"], and how transgender activists hate it.  Now Science reports on a researcher who did surveys with parents from that and similar sites, only to be condemned for, you know, investigating what a lot of concerned parents were claiming:

Controversy is exploding around a paper published earlier this month in PLOS ONE by a public health expert at Brown University describing reports by parents that their children suddenly experienced unease with the gender they were assigned at birth; the paper calls the condition “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD). The paper, by physician-scientist Lisa Littman, is drawing fierce criticism from transgender advocates, who call it antitransgender because it suggests that some cases of gender dysphoria may be “socially contagious.” They say the paper has serious methodological flaws, noting that Littman interviewed only parents, not the young people themselves, and recruited from websites frequented by parents who were concerned about their children’s apparently sudden gender transitions. Meanwhile, the reactions of Brown and the journal are being assailed by critics who accuse them of caving to political pressure.

On Monday, PLOS ONE announced it is conducting a postpublication investigation of the study’s methodology and analysis. “This is not about suppressing academic freedom or scientific research. This is about the scientific content itself—whether there is anything that needs to be looked into or corrected,” PLOS ONE Editor-in-Chief Joerg Heber in San Francisco, California, told ScienceInsider in an interview yesterday.

Also on Monday, Brown officials removed the university’s press release highlighting the paper from its website. On Tuesday, Bess Marcus, dean of Brown’s School of Public Health, wrote in an open statement that the university acted “in light of questions raised about research design and data collection related to the study.” She added that people in the Brown community have raised concerns that the study’s conclusions “could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.”

 Another researcher says there is no denying the upswing in sudden onset transexuals, though:

But Ray Blanchard, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto in Canada who worked for 15 years in a gender identity clinic that screened candidates for sex reassignment surgery, says the paper points to a clear phenomenon: a new subgroup of adolescents, mainly women, with gender dysphoria and no behavioral signs of such dysphoria during childhood.

“Many clinicians in North America and elsewhere have been seeing such patients,” Blanchard, who worked with adults, wrote in an email, “and it has been speculated that this subgroup is one reason for the predominance of adolescent females now being seen in North America and elsewhere (Aitken et al., 2015). No one can deny the clinical reality,” he wrote, that the documented increase in adolescent girls being referred to clinics for gender dysphoria is being augmented by those with no history of the condition in childhood.

In the study, Littman acknowledged its limitations, describing it as a starting point. “Like all first descriptive studies, additional studies will be needed to replicate the findings,” she wrote. She told ScienceInsider that in upcoming research she plans to recruit parent-teen pairs in cases where the teenager experienced ROGD that later resolved.

About that Productivity Commission report on inequality

I wrote about Adam Creighton's biased take on it last week, and I see that Peter Whiteford has written on the topic, showing that my complaint was well justified. 

I don't really know how he manages to always be so polite.

A modern Gothic well worth watching

First off:  I think Gore Verbinski is pretty underrated as a director and visual stylist.   I'm a strong defender of all three initial instalments of Pirates of the Caribbean, even as the pace lagged in number 3: they all show real directorial and visual flare.    I then enjoyed Rango, his eccentric animated Western, as well as The Lone Ranger - not a perfect film by any means, but again, always watchable, great to look at, and amusing enough to keep me watching.    [I've never seen his version of The Ring, as it happens:  perhaps soon.]

This is by way of explaining why I was interested to see his last movie - A Cure for Wellness.   I caught up with it on Saturday via Google Play.

I knew that it had received mixed reviews - 47% on Metacritic - so I was expecting flaws.  And while I knew (before double checking) that it had been been a box office flop - I didn't realise it was a spectacular commercial failure - $8 million in the US, and only $26 million worldwide!

But it turns out to be one of those movies in which lowered expectations are well exceeded.

Best reason to watch it - looks absolutely fantastic, with great directorial flair.   Honestly, it's worth watching for that alone.

As for the story - I think it's best described as modern Gothic, and a pretty weird one at that.   In many respects, it reminded me of The Shining:  it's often ambiguous as to whether we are seeing reality or full or partial hallucination.   As such, it could in theory make for a lot of interesting on-line analysis (like Kubrick's move), except for the fact that no one saw it!  Also like Kubrick, the characters are not overly sympathetic or deeply drawn, but it doesn't matter much in this case.  And it does have a touch of redemption at the end.

I thought it was also interesting how unsympathetically Europeans are generally portrayed:  the village outside of the Alpine sanatorium looks like a dump full of punks with no jobs, and as for the  German speaking workers back in the spa - none of them are to be trusted.   I see that Verbinski was born in the US but had Polish grandparents.  He is also credited as co-story writer for this film.   I wonder if he intended that it have a "never trust a German" subtext, even though set in Switzerland?

It is obviously not going to be everyone's taste:  there are two scenes in particular that are somewhat over the top (one a torture scene that was short but so intense I had to look away.  That's not so common for me, although that's perhaps because I don't watch awful torture themed movies - like the Saw series - anyway.)   There is too much ambiguity in terms of where reality ends and hallucination begins.   And really, do movies with plots involving incest ever do all that well?   (OK, excepting Chinatown - which, incidentally, I consider over-praised.) 

But overall, I would strongly recommend that folk with a taste for dreamlike Gothic horror, and who want to see a stunningly good looking film made by a director who really knows what to do with a camera, go watch it.

Finally, here's an article that talks about where they filmed it - part of it was in a military hospital where Hitler was once treated!  Interesting.

Update:   I suppose I should have checked Reddit, but there is a fair bit of discussion there trying to get to the bottom of the story.   I would love to know whether there is a deliberate hidden explanation waiting to be found in it, or whether Gore deliberately kept things so ambiguous so as to make that a talking point.  (Same could be speculated about Kubrick and The Shining, too.)  

Saturday photos

You've all been waiting for an update on the wood and glass office building in King Street, haven't you? :

On the same street, a long awaited fancy deli and food shop is supposed to open soon.  I will be interested to see if the main entry ends up really looking like the faked up door:

King Street used to be part of the RNA showgrounds, which is now open to public access all year round.  I still can't quite get over how strange it feels to be able to walk into the empty old grandstands.  One imagines that if this was an American city, it would be full of the homeless camping out in them.  But this is Brisbane, and there is no sign it happens here:

Finally, a photo from late yesterday, showing how, for only the second in the 15 odd years I've lived in my current house, a kangaroo has been hopping up and down the street:

Sorry, I didn't have time to walk up closer...

The lab grown meat challenge

Vox has an article about regulatory issues with lab grown meat, about which I am very sceptical as ever being a large scale and economical substitute for real meat, and it contains a handy explanation of the challenges:

Depending on the type of cells and the medium ingredients, you can grow different kinds of tissue. Muscle cells grow more muscle cells, fat cells grow more fat cells; both are in meat as we know it. Stem cells can be coaxed into growing different kinds of tissue. 

There’s one more element beyond cells and soup: scaffolding. The cells need something to grow on. If the scaffolding is going to be part of the eventual product (as it would if you’re growing a whole muscle meat like a steak or a chicken breast), then it obviously has to be edible. If the meat gets removed from the scaffold, as it would if the product was more like ground meat, then it just has to be safe. 

That’s the simplified version of a process that, in practice, is complex and tightly controlled. It all takes place in what’s called a bioreactor — a tank where you can control the temperature, pH, oxygen levels, and a host of other factors. Right now, Santo is working with 2-liter tanks, and one of the big questions of clean meat is how scalable the process is. 

According to Ben Wurgaft, a historian working on a book about lab-grown meat, there are some significant challenges involved. First is sourcing the proteins, vitamins, sugars, and hormones that go into that medium without using serum from the blood of those actual animals, which would at least partially defeat the purpose of lab-grown meat and would certainly be cost-prohibitive. Second is creating bioreactors that are “vascularized,” or have the infrastructure to deliver serum to cells at the center of a piece of meat, as blood vessels do to animal cells. Without that, you can’t grow the thick tissue necessary for steak or chicken breast (although you can still grow the equivalent of ground meats).

“If those don’t turn out to be easier nuts to crack than they seem to be so far, we will not see cultured meat emerging at the time scale of companies and venture capitalists,” Wurgaft says — which is to say, soon.

 I say again:  all the money being poured into this would be better off put into research for making vegetable or fungal or microbial protein more similar in taste and texture to real meat.   

The Producers: Chinese version

For something more lightweight:  the BBC explains that some Chinese producers and investment companies have worked out that if they fake box office success for a movie they've invested in, the rise in the company's stock value can make just as much (or more?) money for them as a genuinely popular movie:

So a film might be on in the cinema and one of the companies which paid for it might buy out entire late night screenings. These will register as full houses when they are, in reality, entirely empty theatres.

Regulators have been catching onto this so producers have allegedly started just buying all the bad seats across many hours of screenings.

Yet the authorities have now worked out that if a showing is somewhat empty in the middle and for some reason all the seats around the walls have been purchased something must be amiss.

It's not exactly the same as The Producers, but not million miles away either...

Tim Blair - immature, dumb disgrace

As I have noted previously, Tim Blair makes jokes about real life suicides and then tries to justify it by arguing you stop suicide contagion by laughing at it.    

The latest - he responds to an ABC report, citing concerns by health professionals who have worked extensively on Nauru regarding depressed, self harming kids on the island, and tries to make a joke about it.

I guess the authorities on Nauru should be sending over copies of his post because of the public good it will do in preventing those kids from working out ways to try to kill themselves?

Or, more truthfully, Tim Blair should realise he's an immature disgrace who should give up his day job and do something useful for a change.  

Real life effects of "enemy of the people"

Eric Wemple at WAPO details how Trump's fascist friendly language affected a nutter.

Trump is a dangerous disgrace.

Sounds about right

The glasses that make money disappear, magically

I had read one or two other less than enthusiatic reviews of a new attempt by a company to do augmented reality glasses in a way that people might want to use, unlike the response to Google Glass.   But boy, this write up from the Washington Post is really negative, and starts with this startling fact:

Magic Leap, a Florida start-up, has raised $2.3 billion (yes, billion) from investors on the promise it can mix computer-generated images into regular human sight.

It is really hard to understand what they were thinking - it sounds wildly unlikely, after the failure of Google Glass, that there is going to be a market for such a clumsy looking device.