Vaping mystery

I would have thought that the pro-vaping lobby would have some misgivings about their position until doctors work out what is causing serious lung disease amongst vapers in the USA.

But I have noticed no sign of that in Australia.   I see that Terry Barnes, former Liberal health adviser, is still running a pro-vaping line in the interests of reducing smoking rates. 

I know he can claim some academic support - but I think it very likely that within a few years, it will be seen to have been misplaced. 

I am surprised that people cannot apply some common sense to this issue, and judge that it is unlikely to be a healthy thing to coat your lungs regularly with the liquid needed to deliver nicotine.  Less unhealthy than smoking?  Presumably so, but the key thing should be how much it helps smokers quit - and the research on that is still early.   Even if it helps more smokers quit, it would need to be a substantially higher number than other nicotine replacement methods in order to justify the health risks associated with vaping.  As to how much higher - that is just a judgement call, and for me, it is one the vaping industry is unlikely to pass, especially taking into account how many young users it attracts. It is not as if the industry wants only ex-smokers as users, after all.

Heinlein believed

...in an afterlife, so it would seem from a 1968 letter that Michael Prescott has posted.

I am not sure I am all that surprised - I would say he always showed interest in other dimensions (a bit like in the Flatland scenario), and alternative universes, and perhaps his afterlife interests were connected with that.   (In other words, a belief that if we understood science better we could work out where "Heaven" is.)

Portland is still there

Today I had read this very anti Ngo article at Jacobin: Portland's Andy Ngo is the Most Dangerous Grifter in America, then had a look at his twitter feed during the anticipated confrontation between out of town Right wing provocateurs and local Antifa, many of whom are unsavoury looking characters in their own way.

And yeah, I have to say, it is clear Ngo isn't a real journalist.  He was tweeting short clips (taken by others - I assume he did not turn up this time, which is no doubt a good idea in his own self interest), without context, and giving the uniformly worst possible interpretation against Antifa in all cases.  He's as much as a journalist as, say, John Pilger was when doing his completely one-sided takes.  In other words, just a biased commentator with a camera. 

Anyway, it seems there wasn't as much drama at Portland as people feared, even though there were arrests.  I did see on Twitter that one of the Right wing organisers of their intervention said it was a success because it got Trump's attention on Twitter.

Yeah, right.  A real sincere exercise in free speech.

Portland is still there, and Andy Ngo is still doing his part to encourage wingnuts into thinking the US is going to collapse because of Liberals, rather than because it has a narcissistic, dumb, wannabe authoritarian President with an enabling Party behind him.

Update:  the Daily Kos version of events during the day.  Because you would have no idea what was happening if you relied on Andy Ngo.

Fluffy donut

Am sitting beside this at the moment:

She had a bath this morning...

Milk under attack

On a busy Brisbane street this morning, the anti dairy folk are out:

This is a busy street, just outside the Ekka.   Which, I now realise, is almost certainly why they are here.  

I haven't been into the Ekka this year, or last year.  I wonder if the vegans have much of a presence yet?  Given the increase in vegan products I've been noticing in supermarkets (Coles brand smoke flavoured tofu, for example), there must be some vegan promotion in there.   

Now I'm imagining late night fights there between big-hatted cow cockies and tofu stall holders.

I must go next year and find out...

Limited truth in advertising

Just saw this flyer:

Checking Wikipedia, I find that this now comprises just one original member..the drummer.   Rather like Ringo going on tour and calling himself The Beatles, no?

Saturday photo

Colmslie Beach Reserve, Brisbane:

Finger workout

This one's for reader Tim, who is interested in all things German, I think:

German finger wrestling pulls a crowd in Bavaria

Competitors, who are matched in weight and age, sit opposite each other and pull on a small leather loop using just one finger.  The winner is the one who pulls his opponent across the table. As in other forms of wrestling, those taking part must put in lots of training. Squeezing tennis balls and lifting heavy weights with just one finger are both part of the routine. To emerge triumphant, technique and physical strength are important, as is a high pain threshold.

Fingerhakeln is traditional in Bavaria and in Austria. Its origins are unclear but it is believed to have started as a way of settling arguments.

I thought at first, if only Hitler had been prepared to settle disputes with a good fingerhakeln session.  But then I thought of poor old Roosevelt being flung across the table, and America going all Man in the High Castle.

Churchill, on the other hand, might have kept Britain safe that way.

The articles has lots of photos of men in traditional get up, pulling fingers.

Does it make cream too?

More on that company that wants to get fake milk made using milk protein from GM yeast:

After working at MassBiologics less than a year, Pandya quit in 2014 to found Perfect Day with another vegan biologist, Perumal Gandhi, also now 27. Their Berkeley, California, company has developed a technology to insert a DNA sequence into microflora like yeast that produces casein and whey proteins that are identical to those found in cow’s milk. Rather than create its own line of grocery store items, Perfect Day, which has raised $40 million from investors, is selling its proteins to large food manufacturers to turn into mayonnaise, protein bars, baby formula and cookies.

I don't really understand - do those proteins make cream?  Because milk only tastes good because of the cream.  (If you're going to drink skim milk, you may as well go with unsweetened almond milk.)   And the article does not involve any actual taste test of a milk product made this whey way.  (Ha ha).  

Anyway, I am curious as to whether this can be a success.   Isn't raising yeast in gigantic bio-reactors pretty efficient,  and economical?      

Good grief

WSJ reports:

The idea of the U.S. purchasing Greenland has captured the former real-estate developer’s imagination, according to people familiar with the discussions, who said Mr. Trump has, with varying degrees of seriousness, repeatedly expressed interest in buying the ice-covered autonomous Danish territory between the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans.

In meetings, at dinners and in passing conversations, Mr. Trump has asked advisers whether the U.S. can acquire Greenland, listened with interest when they discuss its abundant resources and geopolitical importance and, according to two of the people, has asked his White House counsel to look into the idea.

Some of his advisers have supported the concept, saying it was a good economic play, two of the people said, while others dismissed it as a fleeting fascination that will never come to fruition. It is also unclear how the U.S. would go about acquiring Greenland even if the effort were serious.

Maybe Peter Thiel told him it was a good idea?   He's nutty enough to think it might make a good future Libertarian Land.  I have no idea why Trump himself would come up with the thought...

Yay for science thwarting vegans

Have I mentioned before that I'm pretty dismayed how veganism has seemingly completely trumped vegetarianism in the alt. normal diet marketplace of ideas?    I mean, really:  the idea of giving up cheese, or eggs, is a huge ask for many people, me included.   And besides, I would be pretty sure that it is much, much easier to get a load of essential vitamins from your food if you include dairy, eggs, and the occasional not-very-sentient source of protein.   (Say, prawns and oysters - I am never going to worry too much about upsetting their farmed friends by taking them out of the sea.)  

But I can see why vegans argue about not wanting to support the egg industry, which involves killing huge numbers of day old rooster chicks.   (Why they wouldn't eat ones from their own backyard, though - that seems way too purist to me.)

So I am happy to read about the big effort to find a way to deal with the problem, by not even allowing the rooster eggs to hatch:

Modern laying hens have been bred to produce huge numbers of eggs, but their brothers are useless. They don't put on weight fast enough to be raised for meat. So hatchery workers—specialized "sexers"—sort day-old chicks by hand, squeezing open their anal vents for a sign of their sex. Females are sold to farms. Males—roughly 7 billion per year worldwide, according to industry estimates—are fed into a shredder or gassed.

Sorting males from females before chicks hatch at 21 days wouldn't just avoid the massacre. Hatcheries would no longer need to employ sexers, they wouldn't waste space and energy incubating male eggs, and they could sell those eggs as a raw material for animal feed producers, the cosmetics industry, or vaccine manufacturers. The United Egg Producers, a U.S. cooperative, says it wants to be cull-free by 2020, and the German government has said it will outlaw the practice. "Everyone wants the same thing, and the right piece of technology could solve this right now," says Timothy Kurt, scientific program director at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) in Washington, D.C.

Look at how hi-tech one method of achieving this is:

One contender is the technology behind the respeggt eggs, which sorts them based on sex hormones. Funding from governments and industry has prompted an abundance of other ideas—from laser spectroscopy to MRI scans to genetic engineering. And next month, FFAR will announce seed funding for six finalists—selected from 21 entries from 10 countries—for an Egg-Tech Prize competing for up to $6 million for a workable method.

Almuth Einspanier, a veterinary endocrinologist at Leipzig University in Germany, and her colleagues laid the groundwork for the respeggt brand. They found that by day 9 of development, female embryos produce a hormone called estrone sulfate that can be detected reliably in fluid that builds up in the egg—"essentially the embryo's pee," Einspanier says. The German grocery chain Rewe and HatchTech, a Dutch hatchery equipment supplier, founded Seleggt, a spin-off based in Cologne, Germany, to market the technique. The company built a robot that fires a laser to open a hole in the shell much smaller than a pinhead. It sucks out a minuscule drop of the fluid and adds it to a solution that turns blue in the presence of the female hormone. Female eggs go to the incubator and male eggs are sent off to be frozen and processed into powder for animal feed.

Next thing we need work on - how to make milk other than from an udder.  What happened to this artificial cow's milk that is made from GM yeast?   Deserves another post, probably.

To be added to the international "everything in Australia wants to kill you" files

An elderly couple have been badly injured trying to break up a fight between their dog and a goanna in north Queensland.

The 72-year-old man underwent surgery after being bitten by the goanna while his wife was treated for her injuries at the Proserpine Hospital.

The couple's dog was killed during the attack.

I have to admit, that is an unusual and somewhat disturbing story, even for Australia.

No surprise

Of course, climate change deniers are thrilled;  but honestly, I don't think anyone sensible should ever have held high hopes that this was a useful energy idea:

World’s first solar road fails to meet expectations 

Roads need constant maintenance and get covered in dirt - they are about the last place I would expect it to make sense to lay thousands of solar cells.

Overcompensating

The reporting about the attractive young woman killed in Sydney by a nut a couple of days seemed odd to me from the start.    I mean, no one thinks a sex worker deserves death, but most people (surely including the parents of such a good looking and apparently smart young woman) would feel it is shame, at least to some degree, that she did that to make money.   Certainly I do - I'm one of the few people who strenuously objected to Pretty Women being a de facto glamorisation of prostitution at the time it came out. 

But the reporting on this woman seemed to be overcompensating from the start to promote her as a fantastic person, loved by all, who travelled the world and just happened to make a living via prostitution (sorry, sex work.)   And the print reporting has been full of warnings from some sex worker advocate telling people that she deserved to be able to work safely and without fear (duh) and people shouldn't look down on her because of how she made a legitimate living, etc etc.

It all seemed very much a case of the media trying to pre-empt anything less than fulsome praise for the women in every respect of her life - as if mere sympathy was not going to be enough.

As I say, I found it distinctly odd.  

What??

Comment moderation off

Graeme - nothing about Jews.  No sweary insults.  Or back into moderation we go.

About that nuclear powered missile

That recent explosion in Russia is believed to have been caused by work on a nuclear powered missile:

The explosion happened on a military missile test range and was carried out by engineers from Russia’s Federal Nuclear Center, under the state atomic agency Rosatom. 

Putin has touted the missile as having almost “unlimited” range and it is a centerpiece of a new generation of nuclear weapons that he has been saber-rattling at the West in an attempt to look tough at home and force the U.S. to negotiate with him on arms control abroad. 

The missile is believed to be a ramjet, which propels itself by sucking air in, heating it and pushing it out behind it. To heat the air constantly, the missile would carry essentially a miniature nuclear reactor. Outside experts though are skleptical that Russia is close to getting the missile operational. The U.S. tried to develop similar missiles in the 1960s but abandoned the idea as impracticable.

I haven't even posted about this proposed weapon before, because it always sounded so unnecessary, expensive and impractical.   (I'm not engineer, but sometimes you hear an idea and think "if that was possible, and useful, it would have been done by now.")

Everyone has probably heard of US military investigations into nuclear powered aircraft during the Cold War.   [That Wikipedia article I just linked to says there was also a proposal for nuclear powered airships too (!).]   The thing is, what could really have changed about nuclear fission reactors to now make them attractive for a cruise missile?  Is it just that you don't have to worry about shielding a human crew from radiation in a missile? 

And I thought the point of normal cruise missiles was that they could skim so low that they were really hard to detect and track, although I guess airborne radar from above, particularly over the ocean, must have a chance.

Anyway, as I say, no expert here, but I wonder if Putin is the victim of believing some crank engineer/scientist's pet project that more sensible people in the field overseas think is impractical and a waste of time.

Back to Les Miserables

This:

is the very nice, comfortable and acoustically great theatre at the Queensland Conservatorium of Music, where my wife and I saw them putting on the ever popular Les Miserables today. 

I see it's been 6 years since I wrote my extensive post on the show (and Victor Hugo), after seeing it in for the first time in its movie version.  (I'll pat myself on the back - it's great reminding myself sometimes of what I found out in previous research on a topic.)

After that, I saw the show live at QPAC, and noted that I found it more moving in parts than the movie.

Well, increasing familiarity seems to be making it worse for me, as now I feel on the verge of tears every (I don't know) 10 minutes of this show. One song*, particularly well sung, did cause tears, but I think it was manfully hidden from knowledge of everyone in the theatre, wife included.

I could just be succumbing to the tendency of older men to cry more easily, although that's not exactly an idea I welcome.  I was thinking often during the show of the Hong Kong residents singing Do You Hear the People Sing as a protest song over recent weeks, and was very much hoping I would not come out of the theatre to hear news of major military against them.   Maybe these thoughts kept me more emotional than normal.

In any event, as you imagine, a show put on by enthusiastic young music students should be pretty high quality, and it was.  Tickets were about half the cost of the cheapest seats in a professional show too.  I must watch out in future for what other musicals they put on each year.

Update:  don't think I previously linked to this blog summary of the real life events the second half of the musical is based around. 

* not that anyone's asking, it was Bring Him Home in the second half. 

Why compromise on abortion makes sense

Religions are free to develop their own views on the matter of abortion, and their members make their own decisions whether to follow or ignore their Church's teaching.  (It being widely known that many churchgoing women still opt for abortion.)  And personally, I have long adopted what might be called a precautionary approach to the matter:  this is a difficult topic, and I don't know where precise lines should be drawn in any objective sense, but I share most people's moral intuition that a late term abortion of a likely viable and healthy baby is a very serious matter and should have some exceptional justification if it is to happen at all, but a newly conceived embryo warrants a different set of moral concerns.   (As I will argue below, conservative anti-abortionists will say that they are above any line drawing, but by their actions and advocacy, they really aren't.)    My approach is that if there are moral ambiguities to taking an action, people should usually err on the side of not doing it. Hence, in a broad sense, I would say that I am more against abortion than for it.  

But what about the question of how governments should view it, in light of the mixed views held by different voters?   The abortion debate in the US is hotter than ever, with a renewed push for the overturning of the clear compromise position of Roe v Wade, despite it having maintained pretty popular survey support.   In Australia, we have had, for no very clear reason, a burst of recent State legislative activity to decriminalise abortion, but which in effect is changing nothing of the practice of abortion which has been in place for many decades.   (Conservatives who are in a rage about it seem to think legislators need to pointlessly keep prohibitions which everyone knows are virtually never used.)

Here's a pragmatic suggestion:   if both extremes of an issue have a problem with maintaining consistency, doesn't that make it obvious that a compromise between the two is the more justifiable outcome if you're trying to work out a legal framework?     And there are inconsistencies.

First:  on the pro-Life side - as many have noted, if they serious about every embryo being treated with the same value as a fully formed human, they should be calling fertility clinics which routinely dispose of unwanted, viable embryos as detention and execution centres for human life.

They don't.   Quite a few opinion pieces have made this point - here at the New Republic for one.
And if you put it in a utilitarian context of the trolley problem, who seriously would argue that it is would be better to switch the track to save the potential lives of (say) a hundred frozen embryos (of which, treated properly, a large proportion could be brought to term in families that would welcome them), over that of even one elderly woman past the prime of her life?

This article about the new Alabama law with a specific exemption for IVF embryos notes that pro-Life politicians are simply pragmatic on this:

The fertility industry didn’t support the Alabama bill, nor did it lobby for an exemption, says Sean Tipton, spokesman for the Birmingham-based American Society for Reproductive Medicine. It didn’t need to, he says: Politicians recognized that the popularity of fertility treatments was preventing anti-abortion laws from passing.

The pro-Choice side say, with justification, this:

Abortion-rights advocates call the exemption both outrageous and cynical. “When I heard Chambliss say it was for embryos in the woman’s uterus, it really highlighted what this is really about,” says Barbara Ann Luttrell, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Southeast. “It’s not about the embryo.”

Most people intuit that an embryo, by virtue of its form, does not warrant the same legal status as a more fully formed foetus or new borne baby.   While it has the potential to become a fully functioning  human, and warrants a different ethical attitude towards it than other human tissue for that reason, it goes against most persons intuition to treat it the same as a fully fledged human.

The reluctance of the pro-Life movement to press for equal treatment for all embryos shows they recognise this sentiment and know they will not easily convince people they are wrong.  Hence they will live with the inconsistency in their law making.

Second:  on the pro-choice side, the reaction against the conservative attempts to ban abortion has lead to calls for women to be forthright in praising abortion as a normal and good thing.   Rather than even conceding that they should be rare, as with the old Clinton-ian formulation, they argue that there should be no apologies for having one.  They are usually "empowering".  See the Shout Your Abortion site for examples of this genre.

The inconsistency I have lately been thinking about is the comparison with the increasingly powerful animal rights lobby.   Public concern about the treatment of farm animals, and the associated uptake of veganism, is taking off in a surprisingly sudden way.   While climate change concern is part of the motivation, I would be pretty confident that social media promotion of scenes of animal suffering has also had a very large effect.

I am not immune from concerns about animal treatment, and nor are all empathetic humans, even if it doesn't stop us from eating meat or using animal products.

But the point here is that if a vegan won't eat eggs because the egg industry kills healthy young rooster chicks by putting them through a grinder, how could they not have concerns about a healthy, viable fetus being at risk of death because the mother made a late decision that she does not want the baby?     A well developed and healthy fetus is undoubtedly living, as is a chick.  Why is it a moral concern as to the premature death of one, at the will of humans who deem it unwanted, but not the other?

When you look at protesting young, pro-choice women, surely it would be a good bet that it would contain a disproportionate number of dedicated vegans motivated by wanting to reduce animal suffering, and not cause the premature death of any creature for human benefit.  Surely there is an inconsistency if you think a woman's choice is unquestionable when it comes to late term abortion, but not if it is about whether she should eat an egg for breakfast?

To my mind, the inconsistencies show that neither extreme should be treated as having a fair take on the matter, and legislators should not follow either extreme.

This is what makes the compromise position argued in Roe V Wade such a popular approach.  A reminder:

The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[6 

The matter of how Australia implement a sense of compromise is an interesting issue of itself:   obviously, requiring more doctors to be involved in approving a late term abortion has an element of that.  There was an argument appearing in The Conversation today that there should be no gestational limits on abortion, and the argument was put more convincingly than I expected.   As is often the case with abortion, it would seem the practice tends to override the letter of the law:  

There is no evidence that legal restrictions on second and third trimester abortions reduce the number of abortions that occur later in pregnancy. In fact, based on the most recent statistics, the proportion of abortions performed after 20 weeks in Canada, which has no gestational cut off, is half that in Queensland, which has a 22 week cut off (0.66% compared with 1.34%).   

But overall, I am not convinced that it should be left unregulated.

I can see some conservative arguing that my whole position relies too much on moral intuition, which can be so flexible as to be unreliable.   Indeed, death of unwanted new born babies by exposure was apparently a not uncommon practice in some places:  it is a bit hard to know, though, how their moral intuitions felt about it at the time.

The problem for conservative reasoning about abortion is that it seems to not align with common women's intuition about at least early pregnancy - I know my Catholic mother was annoyed to have fallen pregnant (again - she had 7 children) with me, and said she took hot baths that she hoped might end it early.  My eldest sister laughed at the story when it was told - and I was a bit taken aback at the time.  (I still don't think it's the best idea to tell your kid that you had really hoped for miscarriage at first!)  My sister in her life had fallen pregnant unexpectedly while single while living overseas - I know for a fact that she had the option for legal abortion but she didn't take it. 

But I later reflected on how this showed that many (probably most) women, even from a Catholic background, do not automatically feel any maternal connection with an unexpected embyro attached to their uterus.   Perhaps especially after having all the children they expected to have? 

And I have to say, I find effort to argue against that common women's intuition feels like one of those cases where men (in particular) philosophise themselves into positions against common sense - Kant going on about masturbation being worse than suicide, for example.

So no, I think this is an area of human experience where human, particularly women's, intuition has to be given attention, and moral intuition is a reasonable approach.   And as I say, this should lead to a compromise position in terms of public policy, regardless of how you would feel about your own decision.

Davidson hosting incitement to murder now?

The latest legislative moves to decriminalise abortion in an Australian state have sent the conservatives of Catallaxy over the edge, with one long time participant repeating this often:

Clean up your toilet, Sinclair; it's reeking.  

More on Brexit - and Right wing clowns in politics

I see on Axios that the UK speaker says he won't let Johnson suspend parliament as a way of avoiding it passing an extension to the Brexit deadline.   That's nice of him.

But also, the article ends noting that John Bolton is a strong supporter of a no deal Brexit.

Even leaving aside the clownish behaviour of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage in the UK, and Trump in the US, shouldn't it give the libertarian-ish/classic liberal supporters of Brexit like J Soon and H Dale misgivings that a very, very serious US figure who they presumably feel is disastrously wrong in his interventionist inclinations is a strong supporter?   I get the feeling that they have simply abandoned the rule of thumb about judging people (or ideas) by the company they keep.  

And going back to clowning - why does the nutty Right and its causes attract this type so much now?  Look at Monckton and Delingpole on climate change, for example - they seem to think that acting the clown lends credibility to their cause.   Of course, thousands of words have been written about Johnson's use of clowning - so I'll say more about that.  Farage is a genuine upper class twit:  he doesn't have to act it out.

It's all part of a culture war attitude, I guess - that they want to point at Lefties as being so serious and earnest that they are not to be taken seriously.   The point is valid on some matters of identity politics,  but when it becomes pretty much your whole shtick, it becomes an obvious PR mask for lack of detailed understanding on complex and serious matters.   Look at Tim Blair for a local example.



 

Consitutional crisis coming?

This discussion of whether England is about to face a constitutional crisis [or should that be - a "no constitution crisis":)]regarding steps the Johnson government could take to force a no deal Brexit even in the face of a no confidence vote in Parliament in September is all very interesting.   I bet the Queen is asking for advice already on how to deal with the situation should it happen.

I would be advising locking Johnson in the Tower of London - he would get a thrill from the notoriety. 

If it bends, it's funny; if it breaks it's not...

That line from Crimes and Misdemeanors often comes to mind when trying to work out why some TV shows or movies work for me, and others don't.   (And yeah, I know we're meant to take it as more fatuous than serious.)

Case in point:  Amazons The Boys.  I gave up at about the 30 minute mark. 

I have often explained how I can only enjoy the superhero genre if it doesn't take itself too seriously - otherwise the silliness of the scenarios just leave too much rationality in my subconscious objecting that it's a waste of time. 

But I realised while trying this latest show (essentially, a black humour quasi-satire - pretty much a bloody, sweary adult version of The Incredibles, now that I think of it) that I can't warm to any scenario in which superheros are too engaged in the world, whether or not its done for humour.   In other words, it's one thing for a superhero to live a private life in his downtime; it's another, way less credible thing to have them fully engaged in the world, as they are in the scenario in The Boys.  One bends, the other breaks.

Someone might say, what about The Avengers?   Well, I haven't even watched all of those movies (and hence was surprised how much I liked Infinity War) but I think they are still allowed a private life, even if the identity is not so secret.  And Ironman is more a technological hero than a superpower one.

Anyway, the first episode of The Boys was not engaging me - I thought it was too talky, and could just tell I wasn't going to buy into its world.  I see since viewing that it that Seth Rogan had a producing hand in it, further convincing me that nearly nothing he has touched holds any appeal to me.

Secular stagnation

A nicely explained economics piece here at NPR.

Fast-forward to 2013, and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, fresh from his stint as director of the National Economic Council in the Obama administration, resurrected the term at a speech at the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C. And he has been warning the world about it ever since.

Secular stagnation, he says, "may be the defining macro-economic challenge of our times."

Like Hansen in the 1930s, Summers points to declining population growth as one source of stagnation. But he also points to other factors. A big one: Our economy might require less investment than it used to. Think Kodak (the old economy) vs. Instagram (the new economy). Kodak required factories and assembly line workers and trucks and film and film developers and a bunch of other resources to give us photography. Instagram basically needs just an office with laptops and a few hundred smart workers. It needs much less investment.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of savings out there looking for a return, and there don't seem to be enough investment opportunities to sop it all up. As we explained in last week's Planet Money newsletter, a shortage of investment relative to a glut of savings is why we're now in the upside-down world of super-low interest rates.

Summers warns that this world of disappointing growth and super-low interest rates means it will be hard for traditional tools, like the Fed's cutting of interest rates, to rescue us from future recessions. And it could mean the only way we'll get solid growth is if the government attaches the rocket boosters of deficit spending and cheap credit to the economy. Even then, it might look just OK-ish.

Sounds very plausible.  But still not sure about this:

Secular stagnation does have an upside, actually: Low interest rates mean it's supercheap to borrow. That includes for the government. Not only that, but the government might be able to rack up big deficits and give us tons of cheap credit and not cause runaway inflation. That's why respected folks like the former chief economist of the IMF, Olivier Blanchard, are discarding the old rules and saying that deficits don't matter like they used to.

Secular stagnationistas are arguing that now is the time to spend big, on things like roads, bridges and a Green New Deal. That's one way to increase investment in the economy and get us out of this hole. Of course, many disagree. They have faith that new technologies in the pipeline will expand industry, increase investment and productivity and rescue us from stagnation.

Another Netflix review

A surprising benefit of Netflix has been watching foreign language series and seeing how good they can be - for example, the terrifically engaging Babylon Berlin;  Norwegians poking fun at their Viking heritage in Norsemen; Norwegian political drama in Occupied.   I've tried German Stranger Things-ish territory in Dark, but didn't find I liked it enough to stick with it;  I have heard people praise the Danish series The Rain too, and it's OK, but I am not that big a fan of the post apocalyptic quasi-zombie genre.  In  any event, these shows are often interesting in a cultural way - what they show us about how other people live.

Which brings me to a recommendation to try the Indian series Typewriter.

I would describe it as a curry flavoured combination of Goosebumps, an Enid Blyton "Four Go on an Adventure!" style book, and the recent Netflix updating of The Haunting of Hill House.* 

The show is set in the Goa area of India, and there is not a crowded street, wandering cow, or poor person to be seen.  The characters are middle class (at a minimum), and the school the kids go to is Catholic (given the Portuguese history of the place, that is not surprising.)   The thing is, it really looks nothing like what I thought a show set in any part of India should look like.   Maybe this is just my ignorance of Indian movie and TV shows - I doubt many are based around the lives of the struggling poor living in cramped conditions - but I still find the look of the show surprising.

And as for the use of language - I had no idea that Indian folk could move in and out of English so often that it can even be within the one sentence.    (Not just throw in some English nouns or exclamations, but starting a sentence in - I presume - Hindi and finishing it with a whole English phrase.)   I find that really intriguing.  I mean, the Norwegians in Occupied use English often too, at least when needing a common language with (say) a Russian.  But this complete mixing up of languages in Typewriter - it makes this poor monolingual Australia feel even more incompetent for his lack of ability to mind-shift into a different language than do the multi-lingual Europeans.  

The other peculiar thing is that the story and script seems to swing from very child friendly (and somewhat corny) to inappropriately adult at a rapid pace.  It will move from the kids getting up to mischief with a dog that understands instructions as improbably as did Rin Tin Tin (dating myself much, hey?), to adults swearing and making sex jokes as if they are in a different show.  

It is basically a haunted house story, with bits of black magic and people up-to-no-good thrown in.   In episode two, some of it even starting giving an Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom vibe:   not that this bothered me.   As long as it feels creepy at times (and large, quiet  houses  are pretty easy to make feel scary on film, even in daylight) I'm happy enough.   The acting is uneven, but as I say, so is the writing. 

Maybe the show will start to stretch the silliness too far and teeter into un-watchability, but so far, I'm enjoying it not because it's terrific, but for the way it's all so mixed up.     

 

*  My son thought calling it "curry flavoured" would be a bit racist - perhaps he meant stereotypical - but I know someone who recently travelled to India and said, at least going by the hotel food she got sick of, they really do have virtually every meal as a variation on a curry.    

Dear Reader/s (updated)

I'm sorry, but I had to Google the topic of how I got notified of a comment awaiting moderation.  (I thought I might get an email, but no.)

I see now that some have been making comments that have been stuck in moderation.  I have approved some.

I will consider un-moderating comments if it seems Bird has gone, or will abide by the rules.

Soft on Boris

I watched Four Corners on Boris Johnson last night, and thought it was pretty soft on him.  There was lots of generic talk about criticisms and scandals both personal and professional, and how he is a polarising figure; but next to no details on his career, and the inaccuracies in the Brexit campaign he effectively headed.    So it was rather disappointing - more like some lightweight commercial current affairs take on the matter, such as you might see on 60 Minutes. 

And gee, Alexander Downer carries big bags under his eyes now.   Aged 67, I see.  Bad genes, or does too much time on the champagne diplomat circuit cause that?

An alternative gay rights history

Not exactly a topic I spend much time thinking about, but a review at the TLS notes a book which argues that, at least for the US:

“Gay commerce”, writes David K. Johnson, “was not a byproduct of the gay movement but a catalyst to it”. This is the somewhat heretical thesis of Buying Gay: How physique entrepreneurs sparked a movement....

Johnson makes the case that, in the 1950s and 60s, erotic gay magazines (many of which began life thinly disguised as bodybuilding manuals), pen pal clubs and directory guides (to gay bars and businesses) played a crucial role in the formation of a nascent political movement for legal equality and social reform. These outlets created the conditions for the eventual decriminalization of homosexuality, which began on the state level in 1961 and culminated in 2003 with the Supreme Court ruling Lawrence vs Texas, which overturned same-sex sodomy laws across the land.

I think I have read this before - how bodybuilding in the mid 20th century had a very large gay following.  I suspect that this might have changed by the time of (say) Arnie - when championship bodybuilding looked (as it still does to my eye) distinctly weird, and too grotesque to have much of a gay vibe about it.   Perhaps steroid boosted muscles de-gayified the hobby? 

Anyway, the article goes on to note that underground gay business was quite big business:

Bob Mizer did indeed have dreams, but he was also intent on making them reality. A frequent spectator at body-building competitions (where much, if not most, of the audience was discreetly composed of gay men), he started a photography business in 1945, the Athletic Model Guild (AMG), with a casting call placed in the back of a weightlifting magazine ostensibly aimed at heterosexual men. The response – from both potential models and, later, consumers of his beefcake photographs – was immense. Imitators and innovators, unleashed by capitalism’s animal spirits, soon followed Mizer’s lead to vast financial success.....

From its founding in 1955, the Grecian Guild – which, in addition to publishing a magazine, organized gatherings in an early form of gay community-building – appealed to ancient traditions of same-sex desire, as did the homophonic Adonis Male Club, a pen-pal service set up in 1959, which allowed men and women to come out to an empathetic stranger, share experiences and advice, and arrange dates. As homosexuality remained illegal, such outfits relied on coded language (“artistic”, “musical” and “temperamental” being euphemisms of choice).

 I won't extract all of the the parts explaining the aggro action taken against these businesses, except to note this description of one of the key players:  

... US Postmaster General Arthur Summerfield (a cross between J. Edgar Hoover and Mary Whitehouse) described the Adonis Male Club as “one of the most vicious, filthy, and widespread operations” in the country.

All interesting in its own way.  A right wing gay character like "look at me" MP Tim Wilson would lap up this pro-capitalism take on gay rights.   Someone else can tweet it to his attention.  

Mass hysteria noted

Hey, there's a great long read (with plenty of photos) at the BBC site:   The mystery of screaming schoolgirls in Malaysia.

Apparently, Malaysia has a long history of episodes of mass hysteria - interestingly, going back to before the recent-ish period of increased conservative Islamic influence on the country:

Incidents in Malaysia were particularly prevalent among factory workers during the 1960s. Today it largely affects children in schools and dormitories.

Robert Bartholomew spent decades researching the phenomenon in Malaysia. He calls the South East Asian country "the mass hysteria capital of the world".

"It is a deeply religious and spiritual country where many people, especially those from rural and conservative states, believe in the powers of traditional folklore and the supernatural."

But the issue of hysteria remains a sensitive one. In Malaysia, cases have involved adolescent girls from the Malay Muslim ethnic majority more than any other group.

"There's no denying that mass hysteria is an overwhelmingly female phenomenon," says Mr Bartholomew. "It's the one constant in the [academic] literature."

The girls (as it usually is) see it as a supernatural phenomena - seeing a ghost or feeling possessed of an evil spirit.   Scary (and pre-Islamic) ghost folklore plays its role:

Malaysia's fascination with ghosts dates back centuries and is deep-rooted in shamanic tradition and South East Asian folk mythology.

Children grow up hearing stories about dead infants called toyol - invoked by shamans using black magic - and other terrifying vampiric ghosts like the pontianak and penanggalan, vengeful powerful female spirits that feed on the living.

Trees and burial sites are common settings for these eerie tales. These locations stoke fears that feed into superstitious beliefs.

Unfortunately, as the article indicates, conservative Islam is perhaps not the most helpful religion ina society beset by strong supernatural beliefs:

He abides by the teachings of the Koran, Islam's holy book, and also believes in the power of Jinn - spirits in Middle Eastern and Islamic cosmology that "appear in a variety of shapes and forms".

"We share our world with these unseen beings," Zaki Ya says. "They are good or bad and can be defeated by faith."

 Anyway, I was also a bit amused to see in the article this photo:

It is explained:

A more controversial approach comes from a team of Islamic academics in Pahang, the largest state in peninsular Malaysia.

Priced at a hefty 8,750 Malaysian ringgit (£1,700; $2,100), the "anti-hysteria kit" they offer consists of items including formic acid, ammonia inhalants, pepper spray and bamboo "pincers".

 All of this reminds me:   Jason, does your family coming from this part of the world help explain your somewhat hysterical right wing content lately?  I'll be recommending you buy one of these kits if you keep tweeting with apparent approval Right wing numbnuts. 

A not so late movie review

Saw The Invitation this weekend - the 2015 movie which I had wanted to watch for a while but my son resisted during our usual Saturday evening argument over what to view on Netflix.   (I was pumping for the Chinese save the planet movie The Wandering Earth, which has belatedly turned up on Australian Netflix, but for some reason I can't fathom he is against it.)

Anyway, The Invitation is a very fine, dread filled movie experience:  well acted, well made in a one house setting that makes me wonder why Australian movies in one place look cheap to me, but American movies that do the same do not.  Also turned out it was kind of topical, given some of the discussion around Tarantino's latest plot.

It is of the "dinner party from hell" genre, but one that plays on the question of what is really going on quite well, inserting just enough doubts at key points in a pretty clever script.

Recommended.   It did make me feel pretty sick with dread for much of the way, though.   (Reminded me a bit of 10 Cloverfield Lane in that sense.) 

Update:  out of curiosity, I just checked what this movie made when it had a cinema release.  A paltry $232,000 in the US apparently (and maybe got no international release?) - pretty unbelievable, given its quality and generally good reviews.  I don't know where I had heard about it - I thought maybe it on At the Movies, but that show wound up before it was released.   Maybe on the Radio National review show?

Where is the common sense middle on the video game debate?

Once again I find myself getting annoyed with the problems of both sides of an argument - this time on the matter of video games and connection with real life violence.

On the conservative American Right:  of course the claim about the connection of violent video games to shootings is not an argument put in good faith - it is (along with general bleating about mental health) primarily a diversionary excuse for not doing anything very serious about gun control.

On the Left (and libertarian) side:  the point about the low international rates of violence despite the popularity of violent games everywhere is overly simplistic - isn't that obvious?  If people who might be triggered to live out a gaming fantasy in real life are prevented doing so by the sensible gun restricting laws of most countries, that tells us nothing reliable about the possible connection between games and shooting in the USA.   Do those game defenders think that those who worry about a connection are making an argument so unsubtle that it along the lines of "violent games make players want to kill in any manner possible - knives, bombs, cars - any way"?  

Part of the problem here is probably the whole question of "causation" in this context.  I have had my say on the dubious relevance of psychological studies on the effect of video games before - see my posts "Useless Violence Studies" and  "Video Violence and Empathy" - I think they stand up well.

I get the impression that studies on video violence are in a similar position as was research on marijuana use and mental illness about 40 years ago - when there was a great deal of expert doubt that there could be any connection, versus the more common sense reasoning of parents who hadn't seen a psychotic episode in their child until they were smoking cannabis.   Finally, the expert opinion swung around to "well, yeah, it can cause serious problems particularly with young smokers in a real, causative sense - although it's still tangled up with pre-existing susceptibility to mental illness as well."

The problem is that video violence is even harder to study than cannabis, given that it's not as if there are plenty of mass murders to study, and identifying those who are having thoughts of mass murder before they commit it is never going to be easy.

There is also the question of the degree to which one contemplates interference with an entertainment business just because it may implant a bad idea in the mind of some viewer.   This guy, in the Conversation, makes this point - there have moral panics over movie violence which seem quaint today.   But as I have argued before, there is something about the repetitive nature, and the involvement in directing the action, of video games which common sense ought to suggest may have different and more worrying effects than watching a movie on screen violence.    Although of course, I have great concerns about the morally numbing effect of movie violence as well.

It would, in my opinion, be a healthier society if violence in games and movies was decreased from its current excesses.  I am annoyed that there are few mainstream cultural commentators who put that line forward - I am stuck with pointing to a string of recent Popes who haven't liked violence in video games.   On this matter, as with many other social issues (as long at they are not to do with sex and reproduction!) the Catholic Church does maintain pretty sensible views. 

While on the topic of free speech

This Will Wilkinson take seems spot on:

And this comment about how American got there sound right too:

Dear Reader/s

Due to Graeme Bird's insistence on polluting my comments section with complete and utter conspiracy nonsense (as I have said before, just like Alex Jones, but with the added offensiveness of anti-Semitism), I have put the comments onto moderation.    [I have tried deleting his comments, but he just re-posts them over and over again in a game that is tiresome and pretty childish on his part.]

Some may argue that I shouldn't worry - people know he's a nut and will just ignore his rambling theories, even finding them funny sometimes - but really, I don't want to host a forum that spreads such offensive, fact free material.   I have spent years criticising Catallaxy (and Sinclair Davidson in particular) for hosting offensive religious bigotry (about Islam in its case; a religion not above criticism here, of course) and sexist, homophobic, racist and defamatory content in comments in the name of free speech, so it's not as if I can continue hosting  it here without being inconsistent.  

I've never done it before, and I'm not even sure how it works yet. 

He's been told to just revive his dead blog is he wants to rabbit on as he does, but it seems he prefers annoying others instead.

I will see how this goes. 

PS:  can someone try to comment so I see how I get to moderate it?

Bret Stephens gets it right

A lot of Lefties were annoyed with the New York Times taking on Bret Stephens as a regular contributor, but we should all be praising his column today which scorches Conservatives' "whataboutism" in relation to the Dayton shooting (agreeing with my point made earlier today in the context of the same exercise by Andy Ngo), and attacking Trump for his role.   Some highlights:

Connor Betts, the alleged Dayton shooter, had left-wing political views, believed in socialism, supported Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy, and regularly inveighed on Twitter against various personages on the right (including, it turns out, me). This has some conservatives fuming that liberal media is conveniently ignoring the progressive ideology of one shooter while obsessing over the far-right ideology of another — Patrick Crusius, who posted an anti-immigrant manifesto shortly before police say he murdered 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso.

Sorry, but the comparison doesn’t wash. It’s idiotic.

The Dayton victims did not fit any political or ethnic profile: They were black and white, male and female, an immigrant from Eritrea and Betts’s own sister. Crusius’s victims, overwhelmingly Hispanic, did: They were the objects of his expressly stated political rage.

What happened in Ohio was a mass shooting in the mold of the Las Vegas massacre: victims at random, motives unknown. What happened in Texas was racist terrorism in the mold of Oslo, Charleston, Pittsburgh, Christchurch and Poway.

The former attack vaguely implicates the “dark psychic force” that Marianne Williamson spoke of in last week’s Democratic debates. The latter directly implicates the immigrant-bashing xenophobic right led by Donald Trump.

This needs to be said not because it isn’t obvious, but because too many conservatives have tried to deny the obvious. It’s not about ideology, they say: It’s a mental-health issue. But that’s precisely the kind of evasive reasoning many of those conservatives mocked in 2016, when the mental state and sexual orientation of Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen was raised by some media voices to suggest that his attack had not really been an act of Islamist terrorism. 

Alternatively, conservatives have cited the decline of civil society, the effects of the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill, the paucity of prayer and the ubiquity of violent video games — in sum, the breakdown of “the culture” — as explanations for mass shootings. This is the right-wing equivalent of the left’s idea that poverty and climate change are at the root of terrorism: causes so general that they explain everything, hence nothing. Why not also blame Friedrich Nietzsche and the death of God?

Get real: The right’s attempt to downplay the specifically ideological context of the El Paso massacre is a transparently self-serving effort to absolve the president of moral responsibility for his demagogic rhetoric. This, too, shouldn’t wash. The president is guilty, in a broad sense, of a form of incitement.

As for his reaction to Trump's use of "infestation" when decrying illegal immigration:

In today’s America, the dissemination of the idea, via the bully pulpit of the presidency, that we are not merely being strained or challenged by illegal immigrants, but invaded and infested, predicated the slaughter in El Paso.

It’s worth noting that the Walmart massacre is, as far as I know, the first large scale anti-Hispanic terrorist attack in the United States in living memory. On current trend, it will surely not be the last or the worst. The language of infestation inevitably suggests the “solution” of extermination. As for the cliché that sensible people are supposed to take Trump seriously but not literally, it looks like Patrick Crusius didn’t get that memo.

The main task for Democrats over the next 15 months won’t be to convince America that they need yet another health care re-invention, or that the economy is a mess, or that the system is rigged, or that the right response to Trump’s immigration demagoguery is an open border. It’s that the president is a disgrace to his office, an insult to our dignity, a threat to our Union, and a danger to our safety.

Quite right.

So far from normal as to be virtually inexplicable

Of the many photos of bizarrely inappropriate smiling and thumbs up from Trump and his equally strange wife during the hospital visits this week, this one just takes the cake:

How can we be sure that those two are not aliens wearing human skin suits, as in Men in Black?   It strikes me as just about the only plausible explanation.

As for the reaction on Twitter, Mediaite explains it well:

Twitter Recoils at White House Photo Op of Trump and First Lady Smiling With Baby Orphaned in El Paso Massacre: ‘Act Like a Human Being’

 The baby was brought back to the hospital for this photo op at White House request.

Killed for the avocado trade??

In The Guardian's report of a gruesome scene in a Mexican city:

The merciless dogfight between Mexican drug cartels has produced its latest macabre spectacle with the discovery of 19 mutilated corpses – nine of them hung semi-naked from a bridge – in a city to the west of the capital.

it goes on to note that the cartels fight is not just over drugs, but more importantly, over avocados (!):

Falko Ernst, an International Crisis Group researcher who studies Mexico’s cartels, said this week’s slaughter was clearly intended to intimidate rival criminal groups, the families of their members, as well as Mexican authorities.

Ernst said the bloodbath was partly about the struggle for control of Uruapan’s local drug trade. But a more important motivation was the fight for the region’s billion-dollar avocado industry. “The big magnet here is avocados,” he said.
 

What a sad, strange country - which I would like to visit if only it didn't have such appalling problems.

Fear of invading cultural supremacy

William Saletan writes at Slate that he has read three of the recent white supremacist killers' "manifestos" and finds that all of them actually indicate fear of the cultural supremacy of the "invaders" that they go on to kill.  

Which is kind of odd - it's a bit like self hatred of their own group leads to rationalisations for attacking the other.    Interesting, as Saletan usually is.   Here are his last paragraphs:

These reflections on the assets of immigrant communities—spiritual strength, cultural strength, economic and educational ambition—have led some white nationalists to recalculate their propaganda. Breivik, for instance, rejected “supremacist arguments” and portrayed white Europeans instead as an oppressed native tribe, like “Aborigines in Australia and Native Americans in the US.” “Rhetoric related to ‘indigenous rights’ is an untapped goldmine,” he wrote. “Playing the victim card is the most potent strategy of our times.” He concluded with this message: “Preserving your tribe, cultural and demographical, is a basic human right and has nothing to do with ‘white supremacy.’ ” 

Tarrant offered a similar pitch, based on the idea of “diversity.” His massacre of Muslims, he argued, “was not an attack on diversity, but an attack in the name of diversity.” How? According to his manifesto, the goal was “to ensure diverse peoples remain diverse, separate, unique, undiluted.” “A rainbow is only beautiful due to its variety of colours,” he wrote. “Mix the colours together and you destroy them all.” 

What’s happening among these extremists, in short, is a shift from white supremacy to white nationalism. That’s no consolation to the hundreds of people they’ve killed or wounded, or to the millions they’ve terrified. But it does undercut a core premise of their ideology. Even racist mass murderers are being forced to admit, in their own manifestos, that whites are losing their economic and cultural dominance based on merit. The dogma of white supremacy is collapsing.

Quality editing

I get the feeling that quality control at Quillette is not much of a thing, as long as the politics are "right":  it looks like an essay that immediately sounded fake to many readers has been pulled after a short appearance on the site.   Tweets about it here.

Quillette's Andy Ngo, meanwhile, has been busy tweeting support for the the proposition that the Dayton killer is the "first antifa mass killer".   (The guy had apparently even turned up at an antifa rally - in support of them - with his rifle.)

The problem for Ngo and his New York Post ilk is that the actual target of the killings has no connection with antifa rhetoric:   I haven't noticed them spending time whipping up criticism of people who go out to an entertainment district on a Saturday night.  (And it would also seem, given his sibling was one killed, that he may have had family issues that led to the spree.)

There's no doubt that young male killers with emotional and social issues can follow either side of politics:  the problem comes when you can see a clear connection between the targets of the killings and the political rhetoric they endorse and follow.   

Is that too much for Andy to grasp?      

He has no idea

Have you seen the nauseating video the White House put out of Trump's hospital visit to Dayton, Ohio?  See it at this Tweet, which puts it context:

It is genuinely bizarre - a pure PR exercise by Trump that looks exactly like a campaign commercial.

(And a sign that celebrity culture has completely corrupted the way people think they should act around anyone famous - regardless of how appropriate it really is that smiley, happy images should be appearing around a tragic event.)

The comments reactions on Twitter are good. For example:

Now for something really important - more thoughts on fast food

I'm sick of being appalled at Fox News and its terrible, terrible propaganda pandering to the Trump base (and Trump himself).   That Tucker Carlson clip where he says "white nationalism?  it's a problem about as real as Russian interference" just makes me sick for its reality denial. 

So instead of dwelling on that, let's deal with a burning issue closer to home:   what's going on at Dominos pizza?

*  I am deeply suspicious that the Dom Pizza Checker - the alleged scanner that is supposed to check the quality of each pizza - does anything useful (or perhaps, anything at all?)  Maybe it's there to take a pic of each pizza so as to help the shop owner defend any claim of contamination?    Has any employee spilled the beans as to its true point and utility yet? 

*  We noticed recently that the regular pizza size has become smaller - and now there is a large size that is below the ridiculous "New York Pizza" size.  The New York Pizzas are a pathetic range in their toppings, by the way.

*  Something was different about the taste of the pizza last night.   A sourer taste that was not inedible, but different.  I think it was in the taste of the tomato sauce, but I might be wrong.   Was it a temporary aberration, or have they change their sauce supplier?  (I wouldn't be surprised if its from some far flung corner of the world as a cost savings measure.)

My main point is - why does fast food keep changing so much?   They seem to never get to a point where things can stay more or less the same for more than 12 months.   The same with McDonalds - they used to have much more stable menu with just one special menu item that might come and go in a month.   Now (although I really don't go there much anymore), it just seems that the entire menu is in a state of constant flux.  

I don't really understand this - I get the benefit of having some menu variation (the burger or pizza of the month, for example) to keep customers coming back to try something new, but surely too much variation starts to annoy customers, like me?

I get the feeling that the fast food industry has succumbed to something equivalent to the managerial wankerism of the 1980s, where "experts" with MBAs thought the most important thing was for organisations to spent a month of meetings on drafting a mission statement.  Are there fast food business consultants having a similar rein over the fast food industry at the moment?

How they do politics in Uganda

A Ugandan court on Tuesday charged pop star turned leading opposition figure Bobi Wine with "annoying" President Yoweri Museveni, his lawyer told AFP.

Here is a link.

Signs of a lobby group having passed through Canberra recently?

What's behind the sudden talk of small, modular nuclear power for Australia?   Angus Taylor on Radio National Breakfast one morning, talking them up; then Ziggy Switkowski the next - both speculating that this type of nuclear could be a good way to go.  See this article at the ABC website about it.

Given that the concept of this type of nuclear power being deployed has been around for a long time now, yet still appears to be no where near actually being sold as a commercial product, there is something more than a bit suspicious about why it is on the minds of Coalition politicians suddenly.   I would guess some lobbying from some industry group from the US?

John Quiggin explained back in 2014 why this nuclear option was dubious at best - and re-reading that post, it seems little has happened to change his assessment.  Indeed, JQ has posted recently that it is really an "entire exercise...founded in fantasy".

I used to think there was promise in small, modular nuclear - but the fact that it has languished in development suggests that it just doesn't add up.   (One thing I have always had my doubts about was the oft repeated idea that they could just be buried on site - which might be a good containment idea as far as the atmosphere is concerned if one blows up, but isn't such a great idea for the water table.)

If making small nuclear work would take a lot of government directed research and investment, then it now appears to me it may well be more beneficial to put the effort into new, large scale storage instead.   There are some ideas there which seem to warrant support.

No, not deplorable at all [sarc]

I don't remember seeing this video during the Trump campaign, but someone recently put it up on a  Reddit thread in light of the discussion of racism after the recent mass shootings.   It gives a good idea of the kind of stuff that goes on in a Trump rally audience:



I think it would be an extremely useful thing if this type of video was put up with respect to his recent rallies.  People need to know what his base really thinks.

Where is the spending?

Last Saturday I had a couple of hours to spare and went for a walk around Fortitude Valley, the inner city area which has had a lot of urban development in the last 10 to 20 years.  It was a beautiful Brisbane late winter's day for being outside.

I went down to the Emporium shopping and restaurant area, which is surrounded by new to new-ish apartments, a pretty upmarket hotel, and used to be very popular for mid range restaurants:  

 

 This is what one of the large, outdoor eating areas look like now:

It also used to have an upmarket deli (many years ago, when it first opened.)  That has been replaced by a Chemists Warehouse.

The place still has one upmarket restaurant (an Italian one which we ate at last year - it was OK, but I didn't think particularly good value for money).   But the other eating places left are decidedly more downmarket - a Guzman & Gomez, a Grill'd hamburger joint (and a second burger joint), as well as (I think) a teppanyaki place that is somehow still surviving.

I then walked further down the road to a shopping centre that contains a Harvey Norman and a furniture store.  They were extremely quiet in terms of the number of shoppers.

This area has had huge development in the last 20 years - Teneriffe is a very nice, riverside suburb within walking distance of these shopping and eating areas, too, that has had many large highrise apartments blocks opening continuously in recent years - but it seems that the increase in residential living in this part of Brisbane just has not been enough to sustain the commercial centres opening within it.

And don't get me started on the nearby Chinatown mall - it was attempted to be revived by a re-design about 10 years ago too, and it is nearly completely dead.  A mere handful of restaurants left now, it seems.

This obvious lack of spending in an area of town that used to looked to be doing well only a few years ago seems a very bad sign to me as to what is going on economically in Australia.

It certainly gives a sense that discretionary spending is way, way down, and that funds that have invested in commercial retail developments must be doing much, much worse than they ever expected only 5 years ago.

I do not think there is much confidence in most aspects of the economy.

Update:  I forgot to mention, across the road from Emporium there was a yum cha restaurant that opened a couple of years ago in a pretty new building.  It was large, seemed busy on the couple of times we ate there, and had parking beneath the building.   I liked it.   It has closed, and the landlord is trying to lease it again as a retail/display space - not even as restaurant or food outlet.   (What must have been a pretty extensive kitchen has been completely removed - I could see inside the building.)  

The de facto police state the Right desires

Trump adviser Sean Hannity is being rightly ridiculed for his solution to mass shootings in the US:

I'd like to see the perimeter of every school in America surrounded, secured by retired police -- which you are -- retired Secret Service -- which you are -- military, and I want guys to donate 15 hours. I think we could cover every school, every hour, every day.

Add a metal detector, and I think we're going to have safer schools. Have one armed guard on every floor of every school, all over every mall, the perimeter, and inside every hall of every mall. Now, that gives us an instant response opportunity that we normally wouldn't have.

 I can't see Trump buying it.  I get the impression that Trump is a purely politically opportunistic pro-gun figure - he doesn't have any private history of enthusiasm for gun ownership or hunting, does he?  Certainly not for using one on the battlefield!   And he did support the bump stock ban.  

But his need for approval means he won't cross guns rights activists too far.

Cultural issues

On Gulf News:

Dubai: Sometimes words fail to express human compassion towards a mother who has lost her child. Saudi Arabia's Minister of Islamic Affairs Sheikh Abdul Latif Al Asheikh, was seen on video embracing and kissing the forehead of a woman, who was grieving the loss of her son. He was killed in the New Zealand Christchurch mosque shooting.

The footage, which is currently circulating on social media, shows the Saudi minister trying to calm the woman pilgrim crying in Makkah.....

Sheikh Abdul Latif said on Sunday that bringing the Christchurch pilgrims over to Makkah, was part of the Kingdoms efforts to “confront and defeat terrorism.”

Generally the laws of Islam prevent females and males from embracing, if they are not direct family members, especially when they are performing Haj. Many took to Twitter to criticize Sheikh Abdul Latif for coming into contact with the woman.

Twitter user @AlodidanSalwa tweeted that the Minister owes the public an apology for his behaviour.

“The minister owes an apology to the public for his behavior, even if it was spontaneous and in the moment. What is considered haram is forbidden. He embraced a non-muharam woman. We are waiting for his apology.”

"Is this the Minister of Islamic Affairs of the Unification State?! How has he legalised something for himself that is prohibited in Islam. To hug a woman, when she is someone who should not be hugged by him?" tweeted @1s2s3n4h

While another user, @Jawahir61 tweeted “You can express your feelings without the use of arms to hug.”

"It is not permissible to even look at a women, let alone touch her. God counted on you, God showed us the correct way," tweeted @ar_coffee1.

Others praised and supported Sheikh Abdul Latif for being kind and warm to a crying grieving woman.

What an over prescriptive religious/cultural tradition, based on antiquated ideas about the meaning of physical contact.