It was a lot of cannabis, but still..

While the cannabis industry becomes legal in the US, in South East Asia it is still taken very seriously:

The West Jakarta District Court handed down the death penalty on Tuesday to Rizky Albar, 29, and Rocky Siahaan, 37, for their roles in smuggling 1.3 tons of cannabis to Jakarta from Aceh in December last year.
The verdicts were read in two separate hearings.

"There are no mitigating factors. The defendant is sentenced to death," presiding judge Agus Setiawan said as he read Rizky's verdict, kompas.com reported.

The panel of judges found him guilty of being the right hand of an infamous drug dealer named Iwan — who currently remains at large — in the drug's smuggling scheme.

Should be sunk by his response

Some more comments on the ongoing Kavanaugh matter:

*  while Christine Ford's story was, overall, pretty persuasive, I am a bit skeptical of at least one detail she offered - that she had one beer.   She might be able to explain why she could remember that - perhaps because it was her firm policy, until she was older, to only ever accept one beer at any party, for example.   But given that her drink was before the traumatic event happened, there seems to be no reason to otherwise think why she should be able to remember that detail in particular.  I think it's inconsistent with her otherwise very plausible explanation (much discussed on line by other people who  have experienced something similar in terms of a specific memory burned into the brain arising out of a traumatic incident) as to why she can remember the details of the alleged assault itself so clearly.

*  There has also been some discussion on Right wing sites as to whether her explanation of why the second front door was an issue is accurate - but that may also be a case of something that could have been better explained, but wasn't.

*  I suspect, overall, that there is a mild degree of embellishment in the way she has set out her story.   I don't think, however, that it really detracts from the firmness with which she insists that it was Kavanaugh and his drunk mate both in the room confining and assaulting her.

*  Kavanaugh was really caught in a bind as to how to respond to the claim.   His problem, poorly dealt with in his response, is that plenty of evidence has come out that he was a pretty regular, stumbling, aggro drunk as a young man, and good mates with another heavy drinker - starting before he was of legal drinking age.   That makes it seem extremely likely that he could have suffered alcoholic blackouts on occasion. 

As some have suggested, if his response had been one of disbelief that he could have done it, but begging forgiveness if there is any possibility that his bad, unwise and deeply regretted youthful drinking habits had led him to acting so badly,  might just have got him out of trouble.

But he obviously saw that as a bridge too far - conceding that he might have come close to committing rape, even if drunk.

So instead, he went for the unconvincing denial that there is any way that youthful drinking led to this. What could have been sold as a warning to other young people to stay sober at parties was lost.

His position comes across as more embellished than that of Ford's. 

*  But even worse, his angry response to the Democrats means he sounds as if he is far too hurt by them raising this to ever be able to objectively deal with any matter which is of crucial importance to Democrats - such as with constitutional questions concerning a nutty and possibly incompetent Republican President.

*  So yeah, I think he really did shoot himself in the foot in the way he chose to respond - and while  youthful excess with drinking or other drugs would not normally be a disentitling event, if some women say that it led to some bad sexual behaviour, well, it is a problem (or at least, depending on how you respond).

   

Black holes probably not accounting for dark matter

One theory bouncing around for a long time has been that maybe primordial black holes make up a lot of the universe's dark matter.

However, a new attempt to find evidence for this has drawn a blank:

Based on a statistical analysis of 740 of the brightest supernovas discovered as of 2014, and the fact that none of them appear to be magnified or brightened by hidden black hole "gravitational lenses," the researchers concluded that primordial black holes can make up no more than about 40 percent of the dark matter in the universe. Primordial black holes could only have been created within the first milliseconds of the Big Bang as regions of the universe with a concentrated mass tens or hundreds of times that of the sun collapsed into objects a hundred kilometers across.

The results suggest that none of the universe's dark matter consists of heavy black holes, or any similar object, including massive compact halo objects, so-called MACHOs.

Dark matter is one of astronomy's most embarrassing conundrums: despite comprising 84.5 percent of the matter in the universe, no one can find it. Proposed dark matter candidates span nearly 90 orders of magnitude in mass, from ultralight particles like axions to MACHOs.

Several theorists have proposed scenarios in which there are multiple types of dark matter. But if dark matter consists of several unrelated components, each would require a different explanation for its origin, which makes the models very complex.

Personally, I'm still more inclined to suspect that it's gravity that needs modifying.   

A new theory to be run

An interesting article at Slate:

Conservative Intellectuals Have a New and Absurd Theory for Why Wages Aren’t Rising Faster

A lengthy compilation of bad relationship decisions

I don't visit Reddit much, but I drop in to the popular thread once in a while for mild diversion.

Every now and again, though, there is a thread about personal experiences which is worth reading.  I remember one good one about (I think) readers' worst early work experiences, which featured many Americans talking about working in fast food outlets.  The stories they could tell...

Recently, this one caught my attention for the number of comments and the remarkable warning stories told:

What's the biggest red flag you overlooked because your SO was so hot?

I haven't read it all, of course, but there seem to be a very high number of cases of people regretting having ignored warnings from the family members of the Significant Other not to hook up/date/live with/marry their daughter/son/sister/brother.

Also many stories of their boyfriend/girlfriend initially saying "you know, I'm terrible, you shouldn't get involved with me" and it proving true.

Which reminds me, a girl friend of my own once said the same, inspired by that popular Radiohead song:  if a guy (or women) ever ironically/sardonically says they're a creep,  they are just to be believed.  Don't accept any alternative explanation - they are just trying to play up to some version of "I'm a bad boy, but you might like that about me" or to pander to the (not uncommon) idea that a good relationship can change them.

And I've always thought that sounded like good advice, as the Reddit thread seems to indicate.

Might even add it to my slowly increasing "Rules for Life".

Peter Whiteford on the taxed and "taxed-nots"

He's talking again about the frequently revived argument by Right wing think tanks that there is something wrong with the number of people who get more from the government than what they pay in tax.

Something is wrong here

Recent comments found at Catallaxy, highlighting the reason I am routinely appalled by culture warrior conservative Catholics, and social media in which ridiculous and offensive takes on matters are aired with no consequence, other than giving permission to others to exhibit the same lack of charity and civility, and to hold onto nonsense beliefs (such as no climate change):

Seriously, in what moral universe is there a case for congratulating "those lads"? 

Oral history

I don't know why, but it occurred to me the other day that I didn't know all that much about the history of teeth cleaning.

Yeah, I had read before about chewing sticks as the original teeth cleaning device (still popular in some parts of the world - you can download a Word document paper about them here.) And I remembered I had read before about all types of abrasive stuff that people used to try to remove gunk off their teeth.   But when and where tooth brushes and daily cleaning became popular, I wasn't sure.

A "Fun Science Facts from the Library of Congress" site gives a surprisingly specific year for the invention of something like the modern toothbrush - 1498 in China.  They took a while to catch on, it seems:

The bristles were actually the stiff, coarse hairs taken from the back of a hog's neck and attached to handles made of bone or bamboo.
Boar bristles were used until 1938, when nylon bristles were introduced by Dupont de Nemours. The first nylon toothbrush was called Doctor West's Miracle Toothbrush. Later, Americans were influenced by the disciplined hygiene habits of soldiers from World War II. They became increasingly concerned with the practice of good oral hygiene and quickly adopted the nylon toothbrush.
Some other interesting toothbrush facts:

• The first mass-produced toothbrush was made by William Addis of Clerkenwald, England, around 1780.
• The first American to patent a toothbrush was H. N. Wadsworth, (patent number 18,653,) on Nov. 7, 1857.
• Mass production of toothbrushes began in America around 1885.

Another link from that site credits the French as early adopters:

French dentists were the first Europeans to promote the use of toothbrushes in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

A New York dental practice's blog claims some pretty low figures for teeth cleaning of any kind in the US at the start of the 20th century:

In the early 1900’s only 7% of American household brushed their teeth or at least had toothpaste in their houses. During World War 1 most of the Army recruits had such poor oral hygiene that the military considered dental disease a national crisis.

A few sites say that the military strongly promoted tooth brushing during World War 2, and this habit (together with nylon toothbrushes, I suppose) meant that daily teeth cleaning finally took off in popularity.

But my favourite website talking about "oral care" is from the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.  And the part of it which amused me most was this, about the liquid teeth cleaner Sozodont:

During the late nineteenth century, Sozodont was the most successful patent liquid dentifrice , due in great part to its many eye-catching advertisements. Historian Kerry Segrave notes that Sozodont company profits had reached $10 million by 1894. The product contained a high percentage of alcohol—37.15%. In 1897, the financial manager of the Sozodont firm had to testify before Congress to assure the government that consumers were not purchasing the product as a tax-free form of liquor. Sozodont also contained abrasive and acidic ingredients that gradually destroyed tooth enamel.

Heh!  37.15% alcohol!  No wonder this woman looks happy after a good long brush with it:

This product has its own Wikipedia page, but I had never heard of it before.  Given the concern that the medical profession now has that  mouthwashes containing  alcohol promote oral cancers, I can only assume that Sozodont didn't help in that regard, either.

Back to the Smithsonian site, we learn a bit more the failure of libertarianism in consumer products: 

Before new drug and cosmetic regulations were enacted in the late 1930s, consumers had little information about the ingredients and safety of the products they used. Dentists and journalists wrote articles about the need to warn the public of the dangers of many dentifrices. In 1931, the Journal of the American Dental Association reported on the danger of products such as Ex-Cel Tooth Stain Remover, Bleachodent, and Snowy White, which all contained hydrochloric acid. One such product, Tartaroff, was in 1928 famously shown to dissolve 3% of one’s tooth enamel each time it was used.

And thus ends the history lesson, for now...

 

Gangsters and me

I never got around to seeing Scarface until this weekend just gone.

Given that I only saw The Godfather in 2016, and found it lacking, there just might be a bit of a "it's not you, it's me" going on with my reaction to well received mafia/gangster movies.   Because, yeah, I was underwhelmed with this movie too, despite my fondness for a lot of the work of Brian de Palma.

I just thought the story didn't have much dramatic drive.  It was too simple, really, and as such, perhaps I can blame Oliver Stone's script.  But even the direction was uneven - sometimes some swooping crane shots, sometimes some heavy handed zooms into eyes or faces - signs of de Palma thinking about what to do.  But often on the important sequences, it seemed the direction went suddenly static and mundane.  I love the entire shoot out at the train station sequence in The Untouchables - there was nothing thrilling like that in this one.  The one big public shoot out was nothing special, directorially.

As with The Godfather, I didn't hate it:  just didn't really understand why a lot of reviewers thought it was great.   But it's true - I rarely think much of any film that dwells on the lives of gangsters.  For example, I've seen Goodfellas once (at the cinema, I think) and also found it OK, but nothing to get excited about, and I am disinclined to watch it again.    And yet I am enjoying the second season of Fargo.  And I love The Untouchables.  I think I see the pattern here - I can only really like movies featuring criminal families and gangsters if the Good Guys also have a prominent role in the story.  Simplifies my viewing choices, that does...

The empathy question

David Roberts also hits it home in his tweet thread on the matter of conservatives and empathy.  Here's part of it:

He makes a good point.   

However, I think it should also be acknowledged that liberals can take empathy too far:  for example, isn't extreme identity politics a matter of demanding that empathy extends to never questioning the views or actions of someone because you aren't inside their skin?   Or even (in the case of silly cultural appropriation extremists) claiming that authors should empathise with the pain they are causing if they even try to write (ironically, empathetically) from the other's perspective?  

Currently, I think it clear that there is a fashion for too much empathy in the matter of transgender activism;   there sometimes is in response to hedonistic behaviour be it sexual or with drugs.   I think it became politically important in race issues when Labor under Hawke became paralysed with inability to call out some aboriginal activism as fabricated.  In short, a liberal overemphasis on empathy can be a way of arguing against anyone ever being able to make a legitimate moral argument about behaviour.

Like lots of things in life, the deployment of empathy needs to fall within a happy medium - your judgement is going to be way off if you have trouble using it at all, or if you overuse it as a way of denying the very ability to judge.

That's how I see it, anyway...

Colbert on the Kav

Stephen Colbert is so impressive when he mixes his comedy talent with anger.   He rates highly too on days like yesterday.   Wingnuts hate him:

A failed big nuclear promise

Can't say I had heard of it, but seems Peter Thiel (amongst others) blew a couple of million on a nuclear start up that make some wildly inaccurate claims:

Nuclear reactor startup Transatomic Power is shutting down operations, after deciding it doesn’t see a viable path to bringing its molten salt reactor designs to scale. ...

Transatomic’s current work doesn’t include its initial goal of using spent nuclear fuel to power its reactors, however. Dewan and co-founder Mark Massie launched the company in 2011, while they were doctoral candidates at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with the goal of creating a reactor that could use spent fuel rods and thus manage the challenges of safely disposing of this nuclear waste.

This promise helped Transatomic raise $2 million in 2014 from Peter Thiel's Founders Fund, and raise another $2.5 million round in 2015 from Acadia Woods Partners, Founders Fund, and Daniel Aegerter, chairman of the Swiss fund Armada Investment AG.

But in 2016, the company was forced to backtrack on its earlier claims, after an informal review by MIT professors found errors in its calculations. As first reported by MIT Technology Review, these errors included its initial claim that its design could produce "75 times more electricity per ton of mined uranium than a light-water reactor” of typical design — a figure that was downgraded to “more than twice” the usual reactor’s output per unit of uranium in a company report from November 2016.

Quick comments on the Kav

*  Seeing the media reports on waking up this morning, they were all headlining Kavanaugh's angry rejection of Ford's claim - giving the impression that the headline writers thought it was effective.  But looking at the live comments on Twitter, and seeing a bit of him on TV, it was not as effective as angry, white men think it was.   I endorse this tweet:

*  Surely it's obvious that the best thing, electorally, for the Republicans would for Kavanaugh to withdraw voluntarily, and then the Wingnuts can outrage without blaming the GOP Senators, and be motivated to get out to vote to punish the e-vil woman supporting Democrats who persecute good old boys who just reasonably thought that Animal House and Risky Business were guides for life.

*  I saw some GOP Senator, not sure who, insisting that near rape claims must be corroborated to be credible:  yeah, way to explain why a women near raped might not report it at the time, Senator.

*  The absence of the best friend to support Kavanaugh is very telling, and something that could presumably be overcome by referral to the FBI.

*  On ABC Breakfast, the point was being made that by Kavanaugh  getting emotional about his life being ruined by this (maybe he can't coach girl's netball anymore?),  then isn't he also painting a picture that his credibility on women's issues in Supreme Court decisions is also going to be under a permanent cloud?   Seemed a bit of an obvious two edged sword he raised there.

*  I dunno - I have the feeling that Republicans are so obnoxiously set on winning culture wars that they will confirm him - and the vote against them in the midterms is going to be massive.  

*  Of course, over at Sinclair Davidson's Blog for Obnoxious, Ageing, White Men (and the White Women Who Love them),  the assessments of the credibility of Ford are shot through with resentment against women generally.   CL, a fantasist who I like to quote occasionally for his unwitting disclosures that he presents as a lonely ageing Catholic bachelor who could never meet a woman as good as his Mum, and he resents them for it:

Updates:

*  I quite like the sarcasm of the WAPO piece "HOW DARE YOU DO THIS TO BRETT KAVANAUGH". 

*  But I think Jennifer Rubin at WAPO has a measured, sensible take on it:

The shouting didn’t end with his opening statement. He barked at the ranking Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Then the Republicans got into the screaming act, pushing their outside lawyer Rachel Mitchell aside in favor of histrionics from Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.). If President Trump loved the nasty, male grievance game, the rest of us had reason to wonder if anyone of this temperament — Cornyn, Graham or Kavanaugh — should be in a position of power. If they were women, they would be called “hysterical.”...

Kavanaugh says he was not the attacker. But even if you believe that — despite Ford’s riveting testimony — one can reasonably conclude he is not the right person to sit on the court. His anger toward liberals is palpable, his lack of humility bracing. He has the partisan mindset that opponents are unworthy of respect and kindness.

One has had the sense, since his testimony skated past the truth on his involvement with Charles Pickering and on his awareness that documents he received were purloined, that his heart is that of a conservative partisan, one who tried so very hard to make himself into Supreme Court material. The mentality of a political operative — willing to go on Fox News, ready to inflame passions, disrespectful toward opponents — is still there. A nonpartisan would ask for, if not demand, an FBI investigation and Judge’s appearance. Kavanaugh wants to avoid both at all costs.

Update 2:  I didn't watch the Ford evidence, but Saletan's take on the matter of a witness being open and careful about the gaps in their memory actually works in favour of their credibility is a point well taken.  

Good for Toowoomba (and some autobiographic details)

Toowoomba is a lovely, lively regional town, and it's great to see that it will be a hub for training of this kind:

Qantas has chosen Toowoomba as the location for its first pilot training school, which it says will eventually turn out 250 pilots a year to help address a global shortage of skilled aviators.

The airline said on Thursday that Toowoomba, in Queensland’s Darling Downs, beat a shortlist of other regional towns thanks to its favourable environment and infrastructure, and students and trainers' willingness to live in the area.

The shortage of pilots predicted internationally is huge:

Qantas says an estimated 790,000 extra pilots will be needed globally over the next 20 years - about a third of those in the Asia Pacific - as population growth and burgeoning middle classes see more people take to the sky.

As for why this is of personal interest:   as a kid, I always fancied the idea of being a pilot.   Not coming from a rich family, however, paying a private pilot school was never a possibility.

I was reminded of this a couple of years ago when going through some old personal papers at home, with the kids around.   I found a letter, written to me in (I think) 1974, from QANTAS thanking me for the enquiry, but advising that they did not conduct their own pilot training.   "See!"  I said to my I-don't-have-any-idea-how-I-would-like-to-make-a-living high school age children "at 14 I was writing to a company asking about how I might get to work for them - and they were taking me seriously enough to write back!"   (I like to complain about young people today taking far, far too long to work out what they might like to do work-wise:  I am particularly encouraging my kids to not waste time accumulating HECS debt on courses they start but don't finish.)

A consequence of the QANTAS letter was that I knew the only prospect I had to be a pilot would be via RAAF entry.  But then, around age 15 I think, I realised that my left eye was considerably weaker than my right.   This led to me dropping in one day at the Defence Force Recruiting centre in the city, and asking whether it could be checked so that I would know whether pilot entry was a possibility.  They did, and the answer was "no, sorry". 

Hence, I knew that pilot as a career was not an option, and I started thinking about other things.

As it happens, go forward a few years and I was learning to drive and finding it a much more stressful experience than I expected.  (I really did not like the first driving instructor I had.)  It made me realise, though, that the weaker eye sight in one eye may have been a blessing in disguise - I think I would have found RAAF pilot training a bit too stressful.

As it happens, the path I chose ended up with spending years in the RAAF anyway, with the occasional joy ride in jets (including one in an F-18 - but for which I ended up with no documentary proof.  There is a photo of me about to get into it, but I don't even know where that is at the moment.  My son likes to annoy me by saying that I probably dreamt it all.)

I also tried learning to fly in gliders, but I found landings a bit of a worry, including once landing roughly with the gear still retracted!  (My instructor kicked himself for missing it.)   My Dad took terminally ill in this period anyway, causing me to lose interest and did not go back to it.

But, yeah, perhaps a good thing the pilot career option was abandoned at an early age...:)  

Sweden and China go to war...

...well, at least to PR war.

It's a pretty funny situation, explained at the BBC.

Cultists think this press conference went fine

In other, uh, highlights (from Axios): 

On the media: "I think ABC, CBS, NBC, The [New York] Times, The Washington Post, they're all going to endorse me, because if they don't, they're going out of business. Can you imagine if you didn't have me?"

On North Korea and Kim Jong-un: "If I wasn't elected, you'd be in a war....You would've had a war and you would've lost millions, not thousands, millions of people."

On United Nations members laughing at him: "That's fake news, that's fake news. It was covered that way...They were not laughing at me, they were laughing with me."

On soybeans and farmers: Trump called farmers "patriots" and said his policies are creating growth for the soybean industry, but they've fallen 12% year to year.

Oh, and by the way, Axios also has the full prepared testimony of that Christine Ford, re rich, drunk kid Kavanaugh, and it's pretty persuasive.  

Rambling on about retail woes

Oh good - an ABC report talking about the worrying decline in retail in Australia.

I almost daily walk through 2 suburban shopping centres - one a major sized one, with 3 supermarkets and 3 of the big retailers; and the other a smaller, local one with one supermarket and maybe 20 other small shops and food outlets.

Both were substantially renovated and extended about (I think) 7 or so years ago.

Walking around them these days, you just get the unavoidable feeling that the centre owners expanded too far - they just can't fill all of the space that is now available.  In the last year or so it has become clearly worse in the bigger centre - new tenants who took up leases for 5 or 6 years in the expansion just aren't renewing.

People blame on line shopping for the downturn, but I am not sure it can account for too much of the problem.  (Or is that just my bias because I buy very little on line as I actually want to support retail on the ground?   For some things, though, on line is ridiculously cheaper.   I am astounded at the almost throw away price of some electronics coming out of China.   For example, my car is old enough that it does not have Bluetooth built in, but a device that plugs into the cigarette lighter works fine by rebroadcasting from my phone to the FM radio.  That hi tech, tiny device cost all of $15.)

And the problem is just not Australia.   One of the very, very few useful things  I learn from reading the madhouse comments at Catallaxy is that even in NYC, retail in former swanky retail areas is emptying out.

Another old commenter at that blog was saying recently that he thinks people might just have reached a realisation that they have everything they need.    And I am feeling inclined to agree.  For some electronics stuff (big screen TVs for example), the quality has become so good that you can't imagine needing to upgrade for increased viewing pleasure;  and the build is such that they would seem to have many years of life in them.   I guess TVs always were a bit that way - you never bought one not expecting it to last a long time - but there used to be room for improvement in the basic function in a way that is hard to imagine now.   Other technological changes make some items hardly necessary - DVDs and DVD players are being replaced by streaming services; I hardly ever bother trying to record something off free to air TV now, even with higher definition broadcast.  

Clothes tend to mostly last a long time,  and if I go to DFO I can buy a good business shirt for all of $30 any day of the year.   Any purely cotton item is more likely to need to be replaced more for being completely outdated in fashion terms  rather than for developing holes.  (Except in pockets - that remains the weak spot in pants.)

So, yeah, I am feeling a bit lately like I do have everything I need.   I couldn't think of anything to ask for from my family for my recent birthday.   Or is this just a function of older age?   And busy-ness generally?

Anyway, failing retail feels bad, because of the knock on effect on investment in retail space.   Mind you, maybe part of the problem is ridiculously greedy landlords, too.

A busy marketplace makes everyone feel good, and confident in the economy.   I would like to see retail on the ground at more confident levels than it is now, but I am sure how that is going to happen in current circumstances.... 

Rich kids and acting

Somewhat interesting article about the serious faced young actor Will Poulter in The Guardian, notable because it talks about a disproportionate number of British actors coming from rich kids' schools:

...he was a pupil at the Harrodian School in west London (current fees: upwards of £6,000 per term), whose alumni also include Robert Pattinson, Jack Whitehall, Tom Sturridge and George Mackay....

I wonder how it felt to hear Daniel Mays observe, in 2016, that the industry was “awash” with privately educated actors, or to read the Sutton report’s findings that the same group takes a disproportionately high share of awards (42% of British Bafta winners and 67% of British Oscar winners). Is it like being under attack? “No, no. Not at all. I’ve undoubtedly benefited from my middle-class environment. I hold my hands up to that. And I know that unless we try to make pathways into the industry more open and accessible, then we can’t expect it to reflect society.”

I wonder how that compares with the backgrounds of Australian (and American) actors.  Not something I have thought about all that much...

A bigger problem than we knew at the ABC

This story has legs, surely:  

ABC chairman Justin Milne told former managing director Michelle Guthrie to sack high-profile presenter Emma Alberici following a complaint from then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.

In an extraordinary intervention that underlines the political pressure on Ms Guthrie before she was axed on Monday, Mr Milne appeared to acquiesce to government complaints about “bias” by calling for the chief economics correspondent to be fired because she was damaging the public broadcaster's standing with Coalition MPs.

Also, it shows Turnbull in a bad light for having made such a song and dance about the report, too.

So, all we need now is a change of government, a new ABC Chairperson, and a new ABC managing direction.

About Kavanaugh

I said a few days ago that I don't get that much into the minutiae of things like the odd, highly politicised way America goes about appointing Supreme Court judges.  But this Kavanaugh case is very strange in more ways than one.  

Isn't it unseemly for him to be going on Fox News to talk about his (lack of) a sex life at high school/college?   Have previous nominees treated it all as a big PR war that have engaged in outside of the hearing room? 

And the evidence seems clear from several people that he was a young, obnoxious drunk.  Take this statement:

It seems entirely plausible that he would make a drunken grope at a woman, or expose himself, and not remember the next morning.   Being a repeat, aggro, young drunk doesn't mean he did do those things - but it does tend to raise questions about how much to trust his recall and denials as to what he may have done.

His sycophantic suck up to Trump too was really remarkable (and not in a good way):

Brett M. Kavanaugh thanked President Trump for his nomination to the Supreme Court on Monday night. Almost immediately, he made a thoroughly strange and quite possibly bogus claim.

“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination,” Kavanaugh said.

It may seem like a throwaway line — a bit of harmless political hyperbole. But this was also the first public claim from a potential Supreme Court justice who will be tasked with interpreting and parsing the law down to the letter. Specificity and precision are the name of the game in Kavanaugh's chosen profession. How on earth could he be so sure?

On the other hand, oddly for a conservative, he seems to be on record for saying that climate change is real and man made and is a serious policy issue.   But apparently there is still such concern about his narrow view as to the limits of government power that he will be very bad for climate  action anyway.

Isn't it time America put its mind to a less politicised way of getting its Supreme Court chosen?  I don't know - let there be a panel selected and then a random draw, or something.   And compulsory retirement ages.  

It's too weird the way it is...


 

Stupid solar / good solar

Why would anyone have ever taken solar cells embedded in roads seriously?   The problems are obvious - and are set out in this article about a couple of tests of the concept that gave very underwhelming results.

On the other hand, why is no one in Australia talking about floating solar on our dams and lakes? :

....installing Solar PV system on water bodies like oceans, lakes, lagoons, reservoir, irrigation ponds, waste water treatment plants, wineries, fish farms, dams and canals can be an attractive option. Floating type solar photovoltaic panels have numerous advantages compared to overland installed solar panels, including fewer obstacles to block sunlight , convenient, energy efficiency, higher power generation efficiency owing to its lower temperature underneath the panels . Additionally, the aquatic environment profits by the solar installation because the shading of the plant prevents excessive water evaporation, limits algae growth and potentially improving water quality.
Floating photo voltaic power plant:A review | Request PDF. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307540858_Floating_photo_voltaic_power_plantA_review [accessed Sep 25 2018].

My Rules for Life (updated)

As indicated in a previous post, I have two firm rules already.   But sometimes I think of a new one, and unless I get it down quick, it may be forgotten.   So I might just keep updating them here, when inspiration strikes.  So, the list now:

1.  Always carry a clean, ironed handkerchief in your pocket.  Always.
2.  Never buy into timeshare apartments or holiday schemes. 

And now:

3.  If you have a choice, buy the washing machine with a 15 minute "fast wash" option.   

More as they occur to me.

Pretty much agree

I wonder if this anecdote is true

I haven't followed the Guthrie story with any great care, but I never felt she seemed particularly impressive, and certainly seemed to be a bit all over the shop in terms of defence of the organisation at a time it needed strong pushback against culture war idiots in the Coalition.

I don't really like the changes that have taken place in ABC content under her leadership.   But if she had any hand in the cancellation of Tonightly, I'll give her credit for that...

Aldi's big adventure

I didn't read about this before:   a 19 year old gets stuck aboard a floating "fishing hut" and drifts from Indonesia to Guam before rescue:

Sort of cool, actually.  Read about it at NPR.

O M G

Bernard Keane is a TMBG fan too?:

I shouldn't be surprised:  I can imagine him liking Hopeless Bleak Despair, for example.   (It is a great song, typical of TMGB unique ability to make you feel happy about darkness.   Come to think of it - by rights they should be big in Mexico.   That Day of the Dead stuff is along similar lines.)

Netflix update

I'm sure readers are fascinated to know what I've been watching on Netflix recently:

*  Grimm:   a long running crime/fantasy series which I had never watched before, although I have a feeling it used to be on free to air TV.    (I can't be bothered watching  this type of show on commercial television any more - the week to week changeability of programming that's become its hallmark over the last couple of decades just means you can't get into a set weekly pattern of viewing like you used to.)

Anyhow,  I find this a pleasing enough show - the acting can be a little hammy, but its got a light touch and I see that it's actually filmed in the town where it is set - Portland, Oregon.  The frequent trips it makes into green forests and quaint looking suburban streets and houses do make it look like a nice part of the States.  (I half expected it would turn out to be shot in Canada, but no.)    Only into the first season so far:  it's not earth shattering but it's good enough to keep watching.

*  Fargo:   because my son started watching the first season without me, we've started watching together season 2.   Quite a lot to like - visually very cinematic, good acting and the same, dry sort of approach to character and humour as I recall from the movie.  (Which, incidentally, I never held in particularly high regard.  It was more-or-less harmless, but I never understood the strong critical enthusiasm.  I have only seen it once and have little interest in re-watching.)   It seems to me this show, or this season, is more enjoyable than the movie.  Good.

* Godless:  I had trouble convincing my son to watch it - he's not the biggest fan of the Western.  But the first episode last night was really impressive - again, the cinematic looks and fine acting (and some unexpected scenes - riding the horse into the church service was something you don't see in Westerns every day) all worked a treat.   Very happy so far.

*  American Horror Story:   I know it's a different story every series, but the season I first tried is unimpressive.   Won't continue after 2 episodes.

Returning soon:    The Good Place (yay!), and (I saw by accident last night) another series of the very under-watched Norsemen (comedy Vikings from Norway.  I don't know why it doesn't seem to be better known.) 

Yay for solar in hurricanes (and why aren't we floating solar?)

David Roberts has linked to two renewable stories that impress:

*  A report that despite having quite a lot of solar farms installed in North Carolina (again - a bit of a surprise that a conservative region in the US has been quietly going about installing renewables - would Judith Sloan and Alan Moran care to explain why it's happening in those parts of the US?), the solar farms seem to have come out of Hurricane Florence with little damage.

*    California is building some floating solar farms on water reservoirs.   Why aren't we?   Especially in South East Queensland, where the water cooling effect in summer may be welcome as a side effect.

More about Lachlan

I noted recently that I was surprised to read somewhere that Lachlan Murdoch was actually more conservative than his Dad Rupert. 

More detail on this is provided in The Guardian today.

I'm pretty sure, now that my memory is refreshed, that I had assumed he was not like his Dad because he had seemed to act with great haste on sacking Roger Ailes, the late sleazy head of Fox News.

But as The Guardian explains, there was likely bad blood between them going back years.  In fact, the article suggests that people think Lachlan is not one for overtly taking revenge, but take revenge he does.

So, I used to think things would improve re Fox News when Rupert died.   Now, all we have to hope for is some family wide tragedy instead.   Do Lachlan and Rupert ever take the same flight, I wonder?

Amateur, defaming detective at work

This really is a remarkably inane thing to do - but we're talking a Republican attorney here:  he's from a group that has hardly been showering itself in glory with its defence of all things Trump. 

I read the Tweet thread concerned because Jonathan Swan re-tweeted it, saying that lots of people in the White House were giving it close attention.  Then Swan realised that it was a ridiculously defaming thing to do (well,he called it irresponsible) and deleted it.   As did that NYT journo whose name I forget.

But Whelan has left them up.   It's like he's riding around Washington in the back of a pick up truck yelling through a bullhorn "So sue me!  I mean it - you, Sir, give me name so I can accuse you of attempted rape, and you'll be a million bucks richer!" 

  

China and privacy

A short article at MIT Technology Review tries to make the case that China's "big data" interest in social control may actually be a bit better than the more ultra-local forms of social control they used to be known for:

Better or worse than what?

China’s surveillance culture existed long before the rise of big data. In his book The Government Next Door, Luigi Tomba details how Chinese politics have been micromanaged at the neighborhood level. Residential communities are monitored by neighborhood committees performing semigovernmental functions: reporting dissent, resolving conflicts, and managing both petitions to the government and protests against it. These functions used to be the task of retired elderly women, whom the former Wall Street Journal reporter Adi Ignatius memorably called the “small-feet KGB.” (In traditional China, women had their feet bound at birth.) The question is whether monitoring and repression through impersonal technology is better or worse than these personal intrusions.

One of the most important roles of the small-feet KGB was to enforce China’s one-child policy. The Chinese fertility rate fell dramatically while the policy applied, from 1979 to 2015—a testament to the effectiveness of these personal surveillance tactics.

In ancient China, there was a joint liability system under which three to five households were linked together. If a member of one household committed an offense, all the households were punished. During the Cultural Revolution, punishments for political dissenters were routinely meted out to their immediate family members. The political system compensated for a lack of data on individual activities by deterring dissent broadly and harshly.

Big data would be a threat if Chinese citizens could be expected to have an abundance of political and civil liberties in its absence. But China is a repressive, authoritarian society with or without big data. Technology has made the repression more precise, but precise repression might be an improvement over indiscriminate repression.

The article also talks about how the Chinese have traditionally distrusted privacy as a concept:

One reason Chinese attitudes are different is that as recently as the 1980s, the word “privacy” had negative connotations in China. Chinese norms are anchored in 2,000 years of a Confucian culture that values the intensity of interpersonal relationships. One way to solidify those relationships is through transparency and full disclosure. A circumstance that triggers secrecy is typically an unsavory one. If something is good, why not tell us? Privacy in this context was equated with preserving a dirty secret. To be private was to be antisocial.

 The point is made that the wide surveillance now underway may be changing that.

Message for monty

I don't even know that you drop in here much anymore, but I see you are trying to have a debate with someone who thinks that the world is about to be saved by energy to be mined from the quantum vacuum or some such, who seemingly thinks that the Kansas Laffer experiment was not a failure - despite the fact that Republicans themselves reversed it.   Could you ask him why that happened? 

I am also dying for someone - anyone - amongst Lizzie's myriad admirers to raise the slightest doubt about the wisdom of repeatedly  leaving her children to the care of nannies (or whoever) in Australia while she and her rich husband take extended overseas holidays - this one for 3 months.  Parenting over Skype is not quite the same as being there...

A word that makes me reach for my (imaginary) revolver

An article in the SMH by the NSW education minister (a Liberal too!) talking about concerns regarding teacher education standards (my bold):

Both the government (as the largest employer of teachers in the state) and current teachers and principals (as guardians of the profession) have a legitimate expectation that universities produce graduates who are capable of making significant contributions to the pedagogical landscape.

Hey Minister:  you could improve the public's confidence that you are on the right path by not adopting the professional jargon by which self serving (and Left leaning) teachers who teach teachers have sought to increase their status. 

Politics is kinda weird in America

Can you imagine another other county where parties rush into PR campaigns like this to defend their Supreme Court nominee of choice?:

Speaking of weird politics:   why on Earth would our new PM think it wise, or funny, to imitate the dumbest, most character deficient world leader by doing this:

I just can't see Morrison's PR flim flam winning over voters.  

Election please...

Jaws Lite - Just what the Whitsundays didn't need

I've been feeling sorry for the Whitsunday Islands for years - resorts closing down even before cyclones came and tore them up, people who invested money there 30 years on the assumption that it would always be popular getting burnt.   And now, two shark attacks in 24 hours.

Rather unusual.

The remarkably increasingly popular Japan

From a BBC story about a couple of YouTube stars (who I had occasionally looked at before), I get this:

Global interest and international visitors could have something to do with it. Tourism numbers are rising at lightning speed – 250% between 2012 and 2017. The World Tourism Organization says that Japanese tourism has seen six straight years of double-digit growth, with a record 28 million foreign visitors travelling to Japan within the last year, a figure especially powered by China. The government aims to attract 40 million visitors in 2020 for the Tokyo Olympics.

YouTube content from the country has also been on the up and up:

The rise in J-vlogging is part of a bigger trend: YouTube is more popular in Japan than ever. “The hours of content uploaded from YouTube channels in Japan has more than doubled between 2016 and 2017,” says Marc Lefkowitz, YouTube’s head of creator and artist development for Asia-Pacific.

Its popularity is well deserved.  

Another maybe, possibly, useful line of Alzheimer's research

From Ed Yong in The Atlantic:

Wiping Out the Brain’s Retired Cells Prevents a Hallmark of Alzheimer's

Don't what to be there when the big one happens again

A brief note at Nature News explains that if the Himalayas have a repeat of the very big earthquakes of the 16th century, the death toll today (due to population rise) could be huge:

A quake in the western Himalayas in 1555 may have been as large as magnitude 8. Today, a quake of this magnitude could kill 221,000 people and injure 884,000. Meanwhile, the 1505 earthquake that struck the central Himalayas may have measured as much as magnitude 8.7. A repeat could kill 599,000 people and injure more than one million. 

Australia going in the right direction

The Guardian notes that in the UK, immunisation rates are going slightly in the wrong direction:

Data from NHS Digital revealed the proportion of children receiving the MMR vaccine by the age of two fell to 91.2% in England in 2017-18, from 91.6% the year before. The figures showed 87.2% of five-year-olds had received both MMR vaccines, well below the 95% recommended by the World Health Organization.

I wondered how Australia compared, and it's pretty good:

In 2016-17, 93.5 per cent of Australian five year olds were fully immunised, this is up from from 92.9 per cent in 2015-16 and 90.0 per cent in 2011-12. The national target is 95 per cent.

So for 5 year olds, we're a full 6% higher rate of immunisation.

A little surprisingly, it would seem that US rates of MMR vaccination for up to 35 months old kids is 91.9%.  Close to the UK rate.

Still, Australia does vaccination pretty well.

I'm suffering from an urge...

...to reach through the screen and hit this plate from below, with an upwards and backwards trajectory:

Mad as Hell's satiric perfection

The Liberal Party having provided Mad as Hell's writers and actors an embarrassment of riches to work with, I had high hopes for  tonight's series return, and they were more than met.

It was spectacularly funny, smart writing and performance:  a perfect episode where not a line was out of place.  The opening segment was especially great - I hope it appears on YouTube sometime.

Go watch it on iView if you missed it...

Pill testing and the limits of hedonism

OK, I have to admit, no matter the low regard in which I hold his work now:  my initial inclination was to agree with Tim Blair on the question of pill testing and the open drug taking culture of music festivals.

I see Bolt has done some editorial on it as well, but I don't know what position he eventually came to.

Meanwhile, of course, I've noted the vast swathe of Left leaning journalists and commentators who are appalled that conservatives don't want to just admit that the yoof will never stop dropping E and God knows what else at raves, and the war on drugs has never worked, and look at Europe where pill testing is working, etc etc.

Having surveyed a lot of pieces about this, I'm somewhat torn.   It will be too much work to link to everything, but here are my impressions:

* of course I sympathise with the conservative take that an open slather attitude to all drug taking encourages hedonistic indulgence which should not be endorsed.  (An explanation of the pragmatic conservative approach to wanting to chemically adjust mood follows).   [Update:  I also meant to mention that in the comments following a Guardian pro pill testing piece, there was a surprisingly high number of readers saying - just don't do drugs.  Given the non-conservative readership of that paper, it certainly indicates that even for Lefties, this issue is pushing the limits of toleration for demands to make hedonism safer.]

* on the other hand, harm minimisation is often an appropriate component of the response to public health issues, and I can see how it is not implausible that rigorous pill testing could save some lives in some circumstances;

*  however, the state of research on pill testing at festivals seems pretty limited and much of it seems pretty anecdotal in nature.  For example, you have people who watched the testing regime saying that some pills were dumped when the intended consumer were told that they had a dangerous ingredient.   But the research on how attendees view pill testing is often based on survey results which I am not sure are all that trustworthy, and the overall research on the effect in terms of long term reduction of deaths and hospitalisations seems pretty thin, really.   (It is, probably, a hard thing to research, given the variability of the illicit drug market from year to year.)

* drug legalisation proponents - like Alex Wodak - have always been so wildly pro harm reduction that I don't trust their advocacy at all.   It's like euthanasia - if you want to convince me, don't even think of bringing obsessive Phil Nietzsche into the debate.

* not all harm minimisation is the same, and you can draw pragmatic lines:  for example, I don't think it is hypocritical to support heroin safe injecting rooms and not endorse pill testing for other drugs.  The heroin addict has a real need to get the drug for avoidance of feeling awful and not being able to function; the party goer faces no similar down side of not taking their preferred temporary high.

* I do, once again, wish that those who think illicit drugs are simply inevitable in society would at least acknowledge that it's not impossible to imagine a functioning, rich, basically successful society where the drugs are limited to the old standbys of alcohol and tobacco - because in fact you do have a few, modern examples which are pretty much exactly like that - Japan, Singapore and (to a lesser extent - but crucial because of it being a Western society example) Sweden.   Young folk of those nations are not throwing themselves off tall buildings because life is not worth living if you can't go to a rave every second week and hug strangers under the influence of ecstasy.  Can you admit that, drug softies? 

* the practical advantage of societies with one crucial, good time, legal drug (hello, alcohol, and Japan) is that its medical effects both temporary and long term are very well known and understood.  You can target public health messaging accordingly, and set up treatment using well understood methods and drugs.   One of the unacknowledged things that drug legalisation advocates never talk about is that the state of research on the brain effects of  illicit pleasure is at a much, much less advanced stage, and it's kind of irritating that there even needs to be research on stuff that the cool kids are taking for purely hedonistic reasons and just because mere alcohol is not enough for them.


* I could fully endorse pill testing at festivals if it were done on some placebo sort of basis.   Just lie, testers ("oh wow, that's really bad - rat poison chemical in those"), or hand out substitute sugar pills pretending that they are from a stash that someone surrendered and, in an act of generosity, let the testers give out as a safe substitute.   Given what we know of placebo effect, half of the users will probably feel at least a bit high from them anyway...

Buddhism, sexuality and Asians

I'm not 100% sure, but I think most people probably know that the Western pop Buddhist view that the religion has an easy going, shrug-shoulders attitude towards matters of sex and sexuality is not exactly well founded in its origins.    But I hadn't read before this story, which appeared recently in  an AEON article indicating the amusingly extreme degree to which you can say that the Buddha himself was far from "sex positive":

The inciting incident was when a man named Sudinna left his wife and parents to become a monk. Some time later, he came home and made love to his wife – not for love or lust, but at the urging of his mother. She worried that if she and her husband died without an heir, the king would seize their property. Although there was no rule against monks having sex at the time, Sudinna felt guilty and told some other monks what had happened. Those monks tattled to the Buddha, who summoned Sudinna for perhaps the worst scolding in Buddhist literature:

Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman’s vagina. Why is that? For that reason you would undergo death or death-like suffering, but you would not on that account, at the breakup of the body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad destination, the abyss, hell.

Over the long history of Buddhism, most of its vast literature has been composed by celibate monks. Sexual intercourse – defined as the penetration of an orifice even to the depth of a sesame seed – was the first transgression to entail permanent expulsion from the monastic order. Monks have written works of particular misogyny, such as the ‘Blood Bowl Sutra’ where the blood is menstrual blood. They’ve also sought to control the sex lives of Buddhist lay people by imposing a wide range of restrictions, such as prohibiting sex during the day or the penetration of any orifice other than the vagina. These rules have remained in place, cited in modern discussions of Buddhist attitudes toward gay and lesbian sex. Buddhist texts across Asia have presented monks as models of chastity. However, their depiction in the plays and novels of various Buddhist lands can be quite different – like in medieval Europe, monks were often portrayed as lechers.

The article then goes on to talk about how the Indian idea of tantric sex, which apparently came along about a millennium after Buddha's death (really? - I wouldn't have guessed that timing), was a theory that elevated sex as spiritually important.   (I thought tantra was more of a Hindu idea that one related to Buddhism, but I've never made a study of it.)

Such efforts to spiritualise sex have always struck me as unconvincing and pre-modern; particularly so in light of an understanding of evolution.   

But as far as I know, the Indian attempt to make sex something divine still only extended to heterosexuals, and it seems you actually have to go back to later Buddhism, at least in Japan, for making the same attempted justification for homosexual activity, particularly of the pederast variety.    I was surprised to learn recently that there is a common belief there that the founder of one of the Buddhism branches gave endorsement of sodomy amongst his monks.  It's explained in detail in this lengthy (and really quite interesting) scholarly article on Buddhism and  homosexuality in Japan, from which I extract this: 

Although present, Tantric sexual imagery which involved the unification of male and female was of marginal influence in Japan.  Far more pervasive in male Buddhist institutions was the influence of homoerotic and even homosexual imagery where beautiful acolytes were understood to embody the feminine principle.  The degree to which Buddhism tolerated same-sex sexual activity even among its ordained practitioners is clear from the popular myth that the founder of the Shingon school, Kooboo Daishi (Kuukai), introduced homosexual acts upon his return from study in China in the early ninth century. This myth was so well known that even the Portuguese traveller, Gaspar Vilela had heard it.  Writing in 1571, he complains of the addiction of the monks of Mt. Hiei to ‘sodomy’, and attributes its introduction to Japan to Kuukai, the founder of Koyasan, the Shingon headquarters[6].  Jesuit records of the Catholic mission to Japan are full of rants about the ubiquity of pederastic passion among the Buddhist clergy.  What particularly riled the missionaries was the widespread acceptance these practices met with among the general populace.  Father Francis Cabral noted in a letter written in 1596 that ‘abominations of the flesh’ and ‘vicious habits’ were ‘regarded in Japan as quite honourable; men of standing entrust their sons to the bonzes to be instructed in such things, and at the same time to serve their lust’[7].   Another Jesuit commented that ‘this evil’ was ‘so public’ that the people ‘are neither depressed nor horrified’[8] suggesting that same-sex love among the clergy was not considered remarkable....

The homoerotic environment of Buddhist monasteries actually inspired a literary genre, Chigo monogatari (Tales about acolytes), which took as its theme the love between acolytes (chigo) and their spiritual guides.  These homoerotic relationships were ‘firmly grounded in the familiar structures of monastic life’[10] and were meant to appeal to their Buddhist audience. A common theme of these tales is the transformation of a Buddhist deity, usually Kannon (Sanskrit Avalokite'svara), Jizoo (skt. Ksitigarbha) or Monjushiri (Sanskrit Ma~nju'srii)[11], into a beautiful young acolyte.  The acolyte then uses his physical charms to endear himself to an older monk and thereby lead him to Enlightenment.  In the fourteenth-century Chigo Kannon engi, Kannon takes the form of a beautiful novice to become the lover of a monk who is longing for companionship in his old age.  After a few years of close companionship, however, the acolyte dies, leaving the monk desolate.  Kannon then appears to the monk, reveals that he and the acolyte were one and the same and delivers a discourse on impermanence.  Childs comments that:

The homosexual relationship between the monk and the novice implied in this tale expresses both Kannon’s compassion and his accommodation to the needs of a situation.  Kannon has appeared to the old man to teach him about human transience and the futility of earthly pleasures.  This goal is accomplished, because, as the monk’s lover, Kannon has become fully integrated into his life.[12]

The article then goes on to give other examples of how the love of "beautiful youth" was given a metaphysical context.   (Some of the other examples from literature of the time are pretty surprisingly graphic.)

Now, while I had read before that the Samurai class in Japan had a pederastic mentoring thing going, I hadn't realised that it was connected to Buddhist justification for such activity too:

As pointed out above, many sons of the samurai were educated in Buddhist monasteries and Buddhist paradigms of intergenerational friendships, often sexual in nature, influenced male-male relations in the homosocial world of the samurai more generally.  This was especially true in the Tokugawa period (1600-1857) when the samurai became concentrated in great castle towns like Edo (present-day Tokyo) where there were comparatively few women.  That there was a ‘positive moral value attached to male-male love relationships among the samurai during this period’ is clear from the large amount of literature dealing with these relationships.

I think it fair to say that there has never been anything similar in Christian history.   (By which I mean, while obviously there would have been monks having gay sex, no one ever tried to paint it as something with a divine purpose or endorsement.)   And, obviously, the question can be asked as to how much of the attempted rationalisation of pederasty is really just opportunistic.    (In fact, the description in the article suggests the Japanese monks' practice was bordering on paedophilia rather than pederasty - but it's not 100% clear.)   It also suggests that amongst Samurai, while open and nothing to be ashamed of, the sexual aspect of mentoring relationships was not emphasised, and it was expected that it would end at the boys' coming of age, even if the close friendship was to continue.

Both articles I have linked to here make the point that Buddhism was fully on board with the idea of women being defiled by menstruation - something that I think Christianity didn't dwell upon, although I am not sure why.    The second article suggests that the lower status of women in Japan helped account for the greater value put on male to male relationships, and I suppose I have read the same thing about Greece.    Did Ancient Roman culture not go down the pederastic path to the same extent because they weren't quite as dismissive about the status of women?   I'm not sure.  Certainly, in the case of Afghanistan's creepy boy love scene amongst the dirt poor rural Muslims, the low status of (and separation from) women must figure prominently into how such a cultural practice arises.

Or so you would think.   I mean, India is supposed to have long been very conservative in the matter of pre-marital sex, which apparently means some opportunistic same sex activity amongst the likes of male truck drivers, for example.  [I remember this was a concern for the spread of HIV].   But I don't think it has any kind of reputation for a cultural acceptance of pederastic interests.   Each culture is complex in its own way when it comes to these matters, it seems.   [Update:  here's an article arguing that the prudish version of Hinduism dominating modern India is the fault of the Victorian English rule!  Who knows how accurate that is?]


Anyway, the whole attitude to sexuality thing seems to be in some state of flux again throughout Asia, where it seems that China has decided to officially panic about the current fashion for young male feminisation spreading through youth media:

China's 'sissy pants phenomenon': Beijing fears negative impact of 'sickly culture' on teenagers

Everyone should blame South Korea for this.   As anyone who has ever strayed onto SBS's Popasia program in the last 6 months would have seen, it is very, very, very clear that someone in that highly controlled and somewhat weird K Pop industry has decided that the market wants not just the former soft, gay/androgynous, non threatening version of young masculinity that it (and the Japanese equivalent) used to be known for, but actually fully fledged feminised fashion which looks more akin to guys going through a transgender process.   It's really weird to see, and personally, I can't see how it can appeal to its (presumably) predominantly female audience on a long term basis.

I still wonder though whether the big gender imbalance in China is going in future to once again lead to a softening of Chinese cultural attitudes to same sex relationships.  But obviously, the government fears that this may make them look weak.

Perhaps they should be sending out experts to look at how it worked in Sparta and amongst the Samurai as examples of  how to make gay activity look masculine.   Perhaps they can give the Japanese Buddhist example a bit of a miss, though...

Oh, so that's why libertarians have a soft spot for the "gig economy"...

The Financial Times has an opinion piece noting that the so called gig economy is not really something new: it's a high tech reversion to ye olde methods of worker exploitation:

 ...in the low-paid economy that sits alongside — and often services — the higher-paid workforce, new technology has enabled the return of some very old ways of working. The courier companies that shuttle documents between London’s banks and law firms, for example, disperse the work available to couriers who they pay on a piece rate.

“It drives you crazy,” one bicycle courier told me. “You always want to be doing 20 or 30 deliveries, minimum. If it’s five o’clock or six o’clock and you haven’t reached that, you’re going to have to work extra hard another day. But it doesn’t really matter how hard you work, because it’s up to someone else how many jobs you get.”

The way she works is not so different to the vast “gig economy” that was London in the 18th century, where piece rates were the norm. It is a similar story for an agency worker on a zero-hours contract I spoke to recently, who was told to come to work in a food factory by text message that morning, only to be sent home after just two hours of paid work because of a production lull. It was the middle of the night and the first bus was not due until dawn. His working life is not so different to that of the “lumpers” who once worked at the docks unloading cargo, hired as casuals for each boatload.

I wonder - did she mean the 19th century rather than the 17th?

As I've observed before, some libertarians have a fondness for either Victorian England or 19th century America as representing the great, exciting days when government just let people get on with things (never mind the slavery, half of the population not having the vote, dangerous factory work, etc etc).   As I think it would fair to say that libertarians have been big supporters of the gig economy, you can see the connection between these two ideas.

So Rupert definitely wanted Turnbull gone

Joe Aston in the AFR says Rupert Murdoch definitely wanted Malcolm Turnbull gone:

In this context, bear the following in mind: Rupert Murdoch was in Australia the week Turnbull was toppled. The Sun King and the Crown Prince of Point Piper spoke by telephone before the Liberal leadership was spilled on August 24. The media proprietor denied his empire was campaigning for the PM's ouster, besides The Australian. "Boris [nickname of the paper's editor-in-chief Paul Whittaker] is the only one". 

But only days earlier, Murdoch met with Seven West proprietor Kerry Stokes and implied the very opposite. "Malcolm has got to go," he told the Perth billionaire.

Stokes, whose interests extend well beyond media into mining services and energy, pointed out that a change of Liberal leadership meant a certain change of government next year. "That means we get Bill Shorten and the CFMEU."

KRM was unswayed. "They'll only be in for three years – it won't be so bad. I did alright under Labor and the Painters and Dockers; I can make money under Shorten and the CFMEU." Problem is, it won't be for three years, and it's liable to be very f---ing bad.

Not sure of the source for that conversation.   Stokes himself?  (And by the way, that last quote is supposed to be Murdoch's words, not Stokes.)

Anyway, it suggests that for Rupert, it's all about making a buck.   Great...
 

Party like it's 1899

What a glorious time for women in the Liberal Party, hey?    When a bunch of women parliamentarians start complaining about how they are bullied and treated in the party, the new Vice President (female) tells them to stop their bloody whining, toughen up and start acting more like men.  (Well, that's my paraphrase, but it's not too far off the meaning.)

Andrew Bolt is completely on board, of course: 

Teena McQueen, new vice president of the Liberal Party, has no time for the Liberal Left women complaining of bullying and demanding quotas:  “Women always want the spoils of victory, without the fight.”

Can't we have an election now, instead of watching this muppet clown show for another 8 months?