AR-15s discussed

Here's Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent talking about AR-15s in the Washington Post (and I'll gift link again, so you should be able to read it all):

Indeed, among some Republicans, the rationale for doing little to restrict access to AR-15-style weapons seems untethered from any real-world considerations. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) recently opined that people need AR-15s to prepare for a future doomsday in which law and order breaks down entirely and police protection essentially vanishes.

Meanwhile, as The Post’s Colby Itkowitz reports, AR-15 variants have appeared in numerous GOP ads of late, and they are often brandished as little more than cultural signifiers. Assault-style weapons have taken on a kind of “own the libs” cultural life of their own: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) website recently enthused that such weaponry “TRIGGERS the Fake News Media and Democrats all across the country.”

Federal law seems decades behind this cultural shift. “The concept of what a long gun is in American culture has changed a lot in recent decades,” Mark Follman, the author of “Trigger Points,” a new book on mass shootings, told us.

Follman noted that the long gun was once understood as being primarily about hunting. But now, he said, rifles are increasingly marketed as a weapon of aggression and an “object of masculinity,” with a deliberate eye toward encouraging the “militarization” of gun culture.

In this sense, federal law is trapped in something of an anachronism. “The law may need to catch up with the way these weapons are perceived by 18-year-olds,” Follman said, citing massacres in Texas and Upstate New York.

There’s still another layer of perversity here. As Follman notes, mass shootings were historically carried out by semiautomatic handguns. “But that’s begun to shift in recent years,” he said. “More and more of these attacks are being carried out with AR-15s.”....

Ryan Busse, a former gun company executive who has emerged as a fierce critic of the industry, notes another absurdity: The age was set at 21 for handguns, Busse says, in part precisely because they were deemed more likely to be used by criminals against human victims than rifles would be.

“Now we have the AR-15,” Busse told us, which is the “most lethal, offensive thing out there.” Yet it isn’t treated as on a par with handguns, Busse notes, adding: “This demonstrates how behind-the-times our gun laws really are.”

The article is too softly worded, really:  I would prefer if it more directly said that Right wing political paranoia and culture warring, encouraged by money grubbing Right wing pundits and the gun industry itself, is what stops reasonable gun control measures in the USA. 

 

Yes, this does worry me a bit

Institute full of Right wing kook influencers

Ross Douthat had an interesting column recently about the Claremont Institute, the conservative think tank which (I had forgotten) published the absurd Flight 95 Election essay in 2016, that tried to argue the country was on a catastrophic course unless loon Trump took over.  

Today, I see that one of its publications has an article by Jim Troupis in which he makes mad claims that the 400 2000 Mules movie shows that the courts failed in not taking the election fraud cases seriously.  Jim Troupis is discussed in this article.   

The problem is, of course, that the internet so easily spreads such material into a Right wing disinformation echo chamber audience that finds it convincing.   I mean, these guys sound serious:  they are "influencers" who the gullible see no reason to question.    (And when other Right wing influencers think they are wrong - Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro have refused to endorse the 400 2000 Mules theory - they don't want to actually spend time telling their audience that one of their Tribe is wrong and misleading them.)      

PS:  don't know 400 got stuck in my mind as the number of Mules.   Just like how I keep thinking "Coorey" is spelt "Cooroy" I guess!  I do write most posts pretty quickly these days, so sue me...:)

 

So much for the Durham investigation

Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine has a clear, concise take on the failed Sussman prosecution, well worth clearing cookies to read:  

John Durham Tried to Prove Trump’s Russiagate Theory. Instead He Debunked It.

Trump’s prosecutor face-plants.

From a conservative site point of view, even  Ed Morrissey seems to acknowledge there was always reason to suspect the prosecution would fail.  

Update:   Here, I will gift link to Greg Sargent in the Washington Post:  John Durham's flop is only the latest of many Trump cover-up failures.   Let's extract some of it too:

To appreciate the significance of this moment, you have to remember that Trump and Republicans have spent years working to show that there was never any serious cause for concern about the idea that Russia went to extraordinary lengths to try to swing the 2016 election to Trump.

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did not find evidence that Trump criminally colluded with Russia. But he found that Russia interfered “in sweeping and systematic fashion” and that Trump’s campaign expected to “benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” Mueller also refrained from explicitly exonerating Trump of criminal obstruction of justice....

 

“The Durham probe has turned into what conservatives always accused the Mueller probe of being: a politically premised fishing expedition that has failed to discredit its original target, namely the Russia investigation,” prominent national security lawyer Bradley Moss told us.

None of these efforts have been able to disappear a fundamental truth: The stubborn facts show that Russiagate actually was an extraordinarily grave and disturbing scandal.

Among them: the well-documented Kremlin effort to gin up support for Trump and opposition to Clinton on American social media. Their hacking of Democratic Party systems, resulting in data dumps by WikiLeaks to aid the Trump campaign. The copious contacts between Trump, his family and his advisers with Russian officials. The fact that his own campaign chairman was secretly sharing confidential campaign information with a Russian intelligence officer. And so much more.

Sargent then lists the other ways in which the Trump team has tried to undermine "Russiagate" as a scandal.   But go read the whole thing.

Hurry up and retire, Chris

 

Voting systems and their effect on policy

Forgot to post this yesterday, but it was great to see on the weekend that Michael Mann (with the help of Malcolm Turnbull) pointing out that the features of the Australian electoral system - independently set electorate boundaries, compulsory voting ensuring none of the ridiculous US effort just to get people to vote, and a preferential voting system - are a key reason why you can get a significant centrist cross bench that is likely to be very significant in forcing faster action on climate change.  

The harm in first past the post voting seems really underappreciated - and I don't buy that James Allan argument in an article I linked to last week:

The least conservative Liberal (and National) government in Australia’s history lost last weekend.

There was no enthusiastic move to Labor. In fact, both major parties scored woefully low first preference counts. In any country with a first-past-the-post voting system both big parties would be reeling. There’s a reason why only Australia and one small South Pacific nation uses preferential voting; it’s because it works as a protection racket for the two big parties.

Which is why, I suppose, James, we see such influence of independent members of Congress (and Presidential candidates) in the USA?

Children in America - some remarkable figures

From an eye opening NPR article "The US is uniquely terrible at protecting children from gun violence", this table:

What are the equivalent figures in Australia, I wondered.  I can't find a site that lumps all children up to 19 together, but there is this:

You would have to suspect that an awful lot of the third column is made up of 20 to 24 year olds.   I strongly suspect that the Australian death rate for up to 19 year olds might be around 3 to 4 per 100,000, and therefore below that of the US.  But how substantially below - I don't know.

PS:  on another positive note (for Australia, at least), it's surprising to read of the reduction in youth deaths overall in the period 1999 to 2019:

Between 1999 and 2019, among young people aged 15–24:

• the death rate fell by 44%, from 72 deaths per 100,000 young people in 1999 to 41 deaths per 100,000 in 2019
• the rate fell for both males (down 46%, from 105 to 57 per 100,000) and females (down 39%, from 38 to 23)
• the rate fell by 45% across both age groups: for those aged 15–19, from 59 to 32 deaths per 100,000; for those aged 20–24, 86 to 48 deaths per 100,000

 I don't know the explanation for that.... 

Update:   I just thought to look up the rate of children killed by firearms in Australia.  Haven't found it yet, but there is a study showing the rate of childhood injuries from firearms (not deaths) in NSW in a recent period is .8 per 100,000 population.   The rate of actual death from those injuries would, of course, be substantially lower.

Things I learnt on the weekend

1.    Someone had told me in January that the Harris Farm Markets shop in West End was terrific, and my wife and I finally got there on Saturday.   It is great, and I wondered if this was a new company.  But Googling it, I see that it has been down south for a long time, although I don't know whether every store is as big and impressive as the outlet at West End.   I particularly liked the somewhat steam punky contraption you could use to select your sourdough loaf from -  well, actually, it is excessive, but shows a certain dedication to fancy shop fit out you don't often see.   The West End markets down the road are still better for cheap fruit and vegetables, but parking is usually impossible unless you pay $4.

2.    I knew that some ancient Greek dude had used shadows in wells and trigonometry to work out the size of the Earth, but I don't recall knowing before that they had even used it to work out the distance between the Earth and Moon.   Dr Becky explained, as well as showing how you can do it yourself:

3.  Something I didn't learn:  how humans get used to this sort of motion without getting dizzy or sick:

 

I have mixed feelings about a woman making a living this way: doing dangerous and silly things is something the more expendable male of the species is more suited to do, no?

Thinking about influencers

Gee, there's a real lack of stories that make me feel happier today. 

Even before the terrible event this week in Texas, I have been thinking about how the wingnut Right maintains its beliefs in America.   

It seems impossible to overestimate the effect of hyperpartisan Right wing media in this.   Ted Cruz ludicrously decides to run with "too many doors" as the main thing to be addressed to reduce school shootings (oh, and mental health, while his Republican governor cuts funding for mental health services), and he can be assured that his "ideas" will be run for hours Fox News with no scepticism at all - with full endorsement, in fact.

When independent news challenges him, he accuses the media of "hating America" and retreats, and he will be fully supported on Newsmax, Fox, and the scores of Right wing podcasts which are devoted to selling a story of everything the Democrats say is part of an evil conspiracy to kill freedom and institute socialism.   Tucker Carlson gets to encourage paranoia that "they're coming to take your guns" again - a line that, by no co-incidence at all, was ramped up to the max when there was a black president - and gets to mutter about "civil war" if they try it.

Basically, the country has been ruined by "influencers":  media and media personalities that make a living by promoting one, politically hyperpartisan, view, and the way Right wing supporters cocoon themselves in that information environment.   

It's awful, and so hard to see how it is going to change.... 

Astounding lack of common sense

So, from this BBC report, it looks like there is going to be a blame laying argument over whether a school door was locked or not:

After crashing his truck into a ditch near the school, the gunman emerged and began firing an AR-style rifle at two people who were exiting as funeral home.

The suspect then jumped a fence and began firing "multiple, numerous rounds" at the building, Mr Escalon said.

As he approached the entrance to the school he "was not confronted by anybody", the ranger said.

According to Uvalde County Independent School District Officers protocol, campuses are required to have staff "who patrol door entrances, parking lots and perimeters". Teachers are told to keep doors locked at all times.

"We will find out as much as we can why it was unlocked," Mr Escalon said. "Or maybe it was locked. But right now, it appears it was unlocked."

 Yet the media has been full of photos of the school, like this:

I mean, seriously:  do they think a door is the only way into a ground floor classroom with windows?

The new government vibe: flim flam has been replaced with quiet substance

This is humour, of course:

But really, I'm sure much of the public much be sharing the feeling that it really does look like a serious government of substance after a lost decade of Coalition time wasting.   Morrison's big thing was meant to be marketing, except that he was pretty woeful about it with foreign nations.

PS:  Phil Cooroy, in a column in which he sounds glum about the election result, says it has a very Kevin Rudd vibe, where he and Wong rushed to a climate conference within day of his election.

The difference, the way I see it, is that Rudd was always into self promotion in a way that suggested more style over substance (in a Morrison-esque sort of way.)   I always thought he was a bit of a poseur.  The thing that I find appealing about Albonese is that he has done the minimum in terms of that kind of self promoting PR. 

Police tactics questionned

A lot of people are now questioning whether the police effectively allowed the killer time to kill, while holding back parents on the street.

But to be fair, it is not yet entirely clear as to whether the police really could do something else to prevent the deaths (you would have to first know how quickly he killed after locking the class room door, and whether access through windows was possible) but nonetheless, it is true that the incident makes a mockery of the wingnut argument that all you need is more and more security at schools and this is readily stopped:

 

And this:

Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District had doubled its security budget in recent years, according to public documents, in part to comply with state legislation passed in the wake of a 2018 school shooting in which eight students and two teachers were killed. The district adopted an array of security measures that included its own police force, threat assessment teams at each school, a threat reporting system, social media monitoring software, fences around schools and a requirement that teachers lock their classroom doors, according to the security plan posted on the district’s website. 

It happened anyway.

I have also seen it said on twitter that shooter drills have gone on so long now in the US that a student who wants to shoot the place up knows exactly what to expect, and can work around it.

 

Profound or banal can be a fine line

From a couple of reviews of a new book out about Wittgenstein (a translation of some of his "diary" entries made during WW1).  First, in the Guardian:

The Tractatus is written as a series of numbered propositions, closer in form to modernist poetry than philosophical treatise. Its central ideas can be traced back to the notebooks Wittgenstein kept during the early years of the conflict. The right-hand side of each spread was used to set out his evolving thoughts on logic and language. The left-hand side was saved for his personal notes, written in a simple code in which the letters of the alphabet were reversed (Z = A, and so on).

It is these private remarks that are published in English here for the first time, edited and translated by Marjorie Perloff. They range from complaints about the other soldiers – “a bunch of swine! No enthusiasm for anything, unbelievable crudity, stupidity & malice!” – to the number of times he masturbates (“Yesterday, for the first time in 3 weeks”). He recounts his depression – “like a stone it presses on my chest. Every duty turns into an unbearable burden” – and his living conditions. These are accompanied by constant updates on how his work is going. And by “work”, he always means philosophy. “Remember how great the blessing of work is!” he writes. This work is the focus; the war, a backdrop....

...in the material on the left-hand pages Wittgenstein first begins to reflect on the inner self, on God’s presence in the world, on what is required for life to make sense. It can sometimes seem irrelevant to the discussion of logic taking place on the right-hand side. “Have thought a great deal about all sorts of things,” he writes, “but curiously enough cannot establish their connection to my mathematical train of thought.”

And then in 1916, facing death on the frontline, the connection is forged. Paradox in logic arises when you try to say those things that can only be shown. But that applies equally to God, the self and meaning. As he writes on a left-hand page, “What cannot be said, cannot be said”. The purview of ethics, like the purview of logic, lies outside the realm of what can be stated in language. And thus we get to the seventh and final statement of the Tractatus: whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

An odd thing to say about a philosopher here:

Even the masturbation is hard to separate from the philosophy: it happens when work is going well. For Wittgenstein, it seems, masturbation and philosophy are both expressions of living in the face of death.

 And in The New Yorker, the bit about Carmen Miranda makes me laugh:

The American philosopher Norman Malcolm, who was a student of Wittgenstein’s, writes of the “frequent and prolonged periods of silence” in his classes, of how sometimes, “when he was trying to draw a thought out of himself, he would prohibit, with a peremptory motion of the hand, any questions or remarks.” Malcolm goes on, “His gaze was concentrated; his face was alive; his hands made arresting movements; his expression was stern. One knew that one was in the presence of extreme seriousness, absorption, and force of intellect. . . . Wittgenstein was a frightening person at these classes. He was very impatient and easily angered.”

Many things angered him: someone failing to tend to one of his houseplants, a student unable to formulate a thought. (“I might as well talk to this stove!”) But he could sustain the intensity for only so long. A couple of hours of that, and he would be ready for an excursion to the “flicks.”

He loathed British films and generally insisted on American ones, being a particular fan of Carmen Miranda. (He was also a devotee of the pulpy murder mysteries served up in the magazine Detective Story.) He would sit in the front row so that he could see nothing but the screen—perhaps fearing memories of the draining lecture. Woe betide any companion who tried to talk to him. There was only the movie on the screen, and Wittgenstein, rapt in his seat, munching on a cold pork pie.

Anyway, as to the question in the title of the post:

Clever students can eventually make sense of the logic and turn out elegant little essays about the “picture theory of meaning,” “logical atomism,” and “the saying/showing distinction.” But cleverness seems the wrong virtue to employ for understanding a man who tells us, mysteriously, that the “world of the happy man is quite another than that of the unhappy man” (6.43). Or that “he lives eternally who lives in the present” (6.4311). Taken out of context, the seeming mysticism comes perilously close to kitsch. Some clever people (starting with Russell) have concluded that we’d do well not to bother with it.

But others see in those remarks a call to a virtue rarer than cleverness.

And:

Sometimes there are philosophical remarks that are familiar from “Culture and Value,” a volume of miscellaneous observations which drew from the verso pages of these notebooks. “When we hear a Chinese man talking, we are inclined to take his speech as so much inarticulate gurgling,” he writes. “But someone who knows Chinese will be able to recognize the language inside the sound. Just so, I often cannot recognize the human being inside the human being.” As is the case with many of Wittgenstein’s aphorisms, it is a real question whether the observation is profound or banal.

Finally:

His tendency to turn every human encounter into a confrontation, a reckoning, sounds an awful lot like moralism. But he was not moralistic in the sense of imposing on people the demands of a received body of rules. Compulsory seriousness might be closer to the mark, although his seriousness was compatible with a deep strain of silliness: he was capable of writing campy letters, of joining his friends at the local fairground, of playing the demanding part of the moon in an impromptu reënactment of celestial movements. An intensely rational man—he had, after all, started off as a logician—he loathed mere reasonableness, a squalid ideal for squalid people.

PS:  I've left out the other bits about his sexuality (primarily homosexuality, but it seems he was uncomfortable with sexuality generally speaking.)   This bit was dryly funny:

Briefly, there was talk of marriage to a Swiss woman, Marguerite Respinger, a relationship that appears to have involved a considerable amount of kissing. But he made it clear, during a prenuptial vacation that he decided should be dedicated to solitary Bible study, that the marriage was to be chaste and childless. (She demurred.)

 

He is a genuine moron

 As note in the thread following:

Update:

One very small, tiny, but kind of pathetic, thing to apparently be grateful for after the Texas shooting

I've had a look at the Alex Jones Inforwar site a couple of times since yesterday, to see whether his (and his companies) being successfully sued by the parents of Sandy Hook has stopped him from spruiking this latest appalling event as a conspiracy that didn't really happen.

And yes, as far as I can tell, he and his site is not going down that path again.  [He is, however, suggesting that it is "convenient" that it is happening in an election year, as if there is still some Leftist conspiracy involved.  It's just that he is not doing the awful damage to the families when his conspiracy nut followers believe they were involved in a politically staged fake event.]

But isn't it shocking and pathetic that the only way he has been forced into that is by parents taking tortuous and expensive legal actions (which still have not reached finality - damages are yet to be worked out) instead of Jones being called out and punished by politicians.

There is also a column by someone other than him that further demonstrates that it is the special brand of American paranoia and money, utilised cynically by the Right, that prevents any serious action on gun control.   It's the line that only it's widespread gun ownership that prevents American becoming an authoritarian socialist/communist hellhole, and that the true motive of all and any suggestion of gun control measures is actually to disarm the entire nation so that the evil Left can have its way.

Update:  interesting column by a guy who used to be in the gun industry, and now works for gun control. 

Man, I'm glad Uhlmann is retiring

Dare I say it (sorry, Tim! - and Jason if you visit here) but the opening of Chris Uhlmann's commentary on the election helps confirm my allergy to high brow poetry as an artform.   I'm just not enough of a pretentious wanker for it, I think!:

After the concession and victory speeches were made in the sleepless small hours of Sunday morning, a line from The Journey of the Magi worried away in my head: “Were we led all that way for birth or death?”

T.S. Eliot continues: “I had seen birth and death but thought that they were different; this birth was hard and bitter agony for us, like death, our death.”

I have no idea what that means.   And when does Uhlmann retire - can't be long now, surely.

A pretty remarkable result

I've seen a similar graph before, but never shared it here.   This version is from the New York Times, and I'm posting because of the Australian result:

And so is this:
 

Everyone knows there's nothing new to be said, but I will say this...

The clearest sign of the American Right being absolutely nuts is when the response to an Elementary school mass shooting is this:

Ken Paxton, the attorney general for Texas, told Fox News that more teachers should carry guns.....'Nothing is going to work perfectly, but that, in my opinion it's the best answer to this problem.'

Yeah, because when Mrs Smith signed up to be a teacher of 6 year olds 30 years ago, she went into it for the excitement of learning to become a crack shot so she could take out the nutter with a semi automatic with no risk of accidentally shooting one of her own kids.  

Update:  the bitter reality - 

 

Very mixed feelings

I fit broadly into a "trans sceptic" category - in that I usually agree with most things that are said on the "TERF" side of the argument, and think there are some ridiculous extremes on the pro-trans side, and really cannot stand their attempt to shut down all argument about the difficult margins of the issue (such as the appropriate level of medical treatment to give a under 18 year old) by calling all questions "trans phobia" or such like.

But I really wish there were comedians that I actually liked who are prepared to take on the issue as a subject of comedy.  The thing is, I already found Bill Maher, Dave Chapelle and Ricky Gervais not very appealing in their comedy style - it's hard to put my finger on it, but they all share some sort of smart alecky air which I don't find very likeable.   (Mind you, as readers would recall, I am pretty resistant to all stand up comedy as an art form.)

So it's with very mixed feelings that these three are the ones who have decided to take on the subject, and cop a mountain of criticism for doing so.

Part of the problem is no doubt that it is very, very difficult to deal with this as a subject in comedy at all without risking genuine upset to families that do have a traumatic time with the issue.   I mean, I can understand parents of a depressed, apparently trans, teen really not wanting to read about any attempted jokes on the subject at all.   On the other hand, it's pretty clear that all of these comedians are trying to attack some of the extremes of the pro-trans movement, and no doubt would not want to wish ill on an adult who has gone through the trans process. 

So it all leaves me with very, very mixed feelings.

Overall, I think it probably is safest to give up attempts at comedy on the subject.  But is that conceding too much to the pro-trans attitude that everything that is ever said in disagreement is an "attack" and "phobia" and "hate speech"?

A difficult issue...

 

Some enforcement needed

A couple of tweets showing the problems that can be encountered on public transport in the US:

You can clearly see the crack pipe being used in the video (as well as the cigarette being smoked.)

I was very amused by this (apparently serious) Elon fanboy comment following, too:

I've been wondering about Barnaby too...

I thought he looked even worse on ABC News this morning.  Even on election night, I thought he looked kind of...sedated?   A bit bleary eyed, at least.  

Count me amongst the amused

There's no arguing with these people, Part 2

The Wall Street Journal - yes, another Murdoch owned disinformation outlet - has editorialised excitedly that Hilary Clinton has to be condemned by history for starting the "Trump-Russia collusion" narrative.

Philip Bump explains at length why this is ahistorical nonsense.  But millions of wingnuts will feel vindicated.

Well, at least from the Murdoch press and Sky News at Night

 

There is no arguing with these people

Story old as time - at least if you define "time" as about 20 years - there's a large slab of conservatives (and even libertarians) who can't support the Liberals anymore because they hitched their wagon to a giant conspiracy theory about the greatest environmental/economic issue facing the world (with the support of a mere handful of scientific contrarians) and they have an inability to recognise, or admit, that they chose wrong.   Hence we get post-election comments like this:

Cassie of Sydney says:

21 May, 2022 at 8:59 am

I have just written this on DB’s forum…

For over fifty years ordinary people across the West have stood back and allowed the Marxists to steadily infiltrate our institutions, academia, church, entertainment, education, MSM and social media and so on, even the monarchy is now a Marxist mouthpiece. And over the last two decades we’ve seen how this infiltration has ramped because of the scam known as climate change. This scam called climate change has been a perfect vehicle for the Marxists to fully indoctrinate our young and our impressionable. They’ve succeeded beyond their wildest dreams because most ordinary people have stood back and allowed it to happen, even politicians and parties on the centre and the right across the West have refused to engage in pushback, fightback, rebuttal or discussion about the science of climate change, more often than not they’ve naively, gullibly and stupidly just accepted the far-left false narratives. A few years ago, at a conservative function, I asked a Liberal politician in attendance whether the Liberal party would do with gas what they’ve done with coal. In other words, will the Liberal party just sit back and allow the demonisation of gas the same way they sat back and allowed the demonisation of the the one fuel that has lifted more people across the globe out of poverty in the last two hundred years than in previous human history. Whilst he agreed with me, his response was to just shrug his shoulders…..and you see, ladies and gentlemen, therein lies the rub. Why should I vote for supposedly centre-right, right-wing parties and politicians that just shrug their shoulders and refuse to fight and refuse to stand up about anything, and not just about fossil fuels, but about this insidious transgender nonsense, about free speech, about fiscal responsibility, about religious freedom and so on? Why? All the Liberal party has done is swallow this Marxism, it makes most of the so called Liberals we elect no different to those in Labor.

There is no arguing with this - and the Liberals have finally paid the price for not telling this significant slab of their "normal" support base that they are simply wrong and have to face up to it. 

That comment, by the way, appeared at Currency Lad's blog, where he has (of course) posted that the problem for the Liberals is that they are not conservative enough.   All of the old Catallaxy crew are applauding him, leading my reader Homer to make the following astute comment:

Not Trampis says:

23 May, 2022 at 12:46 pm

oh dear reality bites.
If CL was right then the UAP vote would have gone gangbusters. Sorry only the morons voted for it.
If the Liberals cannot win back the teal seats then they will never win government. If you think Dutton can do that I have some Harbour bridge shares to sell to you.
I have never thought any party should have more then two terms. The Liberals have a problem. Unlike the ALP they have little talent. just look as who has been proposed as leader.
In terms of the ALP losing we can throw some scenarios out. They won’t become a divisive rabble like last time if only because the NSW right neither have any ‘strategic geniuses’ like last time and after the Keneally fiasco little credibility.
It is unlikely like Abbott Albo is not up to the job as his record as a minster is okay BUT even if you disagree his cabinet will will chockful of talent.
If you are thinking we are entering conditions to the early 70s then both Treasury and his ministerial team ham have the experience to learn from that.

We will need a change of government two elections from now and if the Liberals think being more ‘conservative’ ( a true conservative would support a federal ICAC as it wouls make instituions more open and transparent as they should be.) they are living on another planet.

 Not sure that I agree that you ideally have a change of government every 3rd term - but otherwise, a sensible comment.

 

  

Suspect this is true

I think the frequency of fire and flood crises all over the world over the last 3 years is consistent with this, and explains why the "Teals" and Greens did well this election:

Dumb column by legal academic

Here's James Allen, in the Spectator (Australian edition, which has always been trash), complaining about the weekend election:

The only way to show your displeasure with your own side of politics – because you can’t even stay home when there’s also compulsory voting – is to preference the other side. I did that this past Saturday, practising what I preached.

As a law professor (and one who appears to unfortunately decided to call Australia his permanent home), I would have thought he would be more careful to explain that, yes, you have to "vote", but you can always "vote" for no one. Or cop the fine of (I believe) $20 and stay in bed all day.

But he also bemoans this:

Many may not like that fact, but it’s already happened in Canada, Britain, and America. Our voting system merely slowed it down here. The truth is that the well-off rich (and I generalise of course) now vote solidly Left – maybe because they can afford to and like to virtue-signal? They vote more like Canberra public servants than anything else.

He may like to consider other possibilities:  such as "the rich" having an education level high enough to see through the culture war/conspiracy denial of reality, not to mention authoritarian and wannabe be fascist bent of current American brand of conservatism, and reject it.

Look, I pointed out back in 2019 that to Allen, evidence is optional.   He encapsulates what has gone  completely wrong with the Right.

Problem not recognized

Barnaby Joyce quoted in the AFR today:

Barnaby Joyce has put the next Liberal leader on notice that he will “bargain hard” for extra National Party shadow positions after the junior Coalition partner withstood an outgoing political tide by retaining all its seats and gaining one senator.

Chiding some inside the Liberal Party for their failure to manage the fight against independents, Mr Joyce also blasted the teal independents movement for doing “an exceptional job of decapitating the moderates out of the Liberals”.

“I’m hoping they’re happy with their work,” Mr Joyce told The Australian Financial Review on Sunday. “They’ve managed to get rid of three gay guys, one Aboriginal and one Asian. Was that their game plan?”

The Nationals are on track to retain every one of their 16 lower house seats and will pick up a NSW Senate spot, taking their total to 22. By contrast the Liberals look set to lose more than 20 Senate and lower house seats, dramatically decreasing the relative weight of the senior partner.

Saturday’s Liberal Party devastation was concentrated in southern states, turning Queensland into the Coalition’s bulwark. One analyst said the Queensland LNP was set to provide as much as 40 per cent of the Coalition’s national total. If Peter Dutton survives in his seat, there’s every chance Queensland also supplies the Coalition’s leader.

Well, if there's one way to ensure a resurgence of support for the LNP in the big cities where it crashed, it's to have the climate change denying (or at the very least, downplaying) Nationals, led by a guy who faced an internal investigation into drunken misbehaviour with a woman, get more influence in the Opposition ranks!     [Sarcasm, of course.]

I see in the SMH that Barnaby had been making brave predictions about the result on the election day:

Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce started the night in a bullish mood, telling Channel 7 shortly after voting closed that the polls published during the campaign had missed a groundswell of support for the conservative side of politics.

“I think you’re going to be in for a big surprise. I think that the pollsters have got it wrong again,” Mr Joyce said.

“I think there were two different elections on here, the regional Australia election and urban Australia election and urban Australia election. I think in regional Australia there is a sense of anger.”

And now the question on every reader's mind:  does the election result mean I still see a need for a Reverse Pol Pot policy to de-populate the rural areas, as the only hope to actually crush stupid Right wing ideas?   Well, yeah, but sorry: if the people of New England can't see their way to vote out Barnaby, I don't see much alternative... 

Update:   a tweet summary of a Bernard Keane article at Crikey:

From the article itself:

Even a moment’s glance at the election results shows that Antic, Canavan, Credlin and Bolt are either incapable of simple maths or deliberately misrepresenting the outcome.

Australia shifted towards climate action, integrity and respect for women, dramatically. The Liberals lost seats to the teals, to Labor, to the Greens. Labor lost seats to the Greens, too. On the results so far, no one, anywhere, lost a seat to a more right-wing candidate. But there are plenty of ex-Liberals who lost seats to a more progressive one.

There was no shift to the right. Credlin’s claim that “one-time Coalition supporters … moved in droves to splinter parties on the right” is simply wrong. One Nation lost votes compared to 2019, despite fielding candidates in far more seats, and Hanson may lose her Senate spot. The main beneficiary of the fall in the LNP vote in Queensland was the Greens, who will take Ryan.

This Australian version of the Big Lie is the first stage of a war for the future of the federal Liberal Party, with the far-right unable to resist the opportunity to exploit the removal of so many more moderate MPs to drive the federal party away from climate action and towards culture wars, division and attacks on women and minorities.

At the centre of it will be the foreign political party News Corp. Despite its irrelevance to mainstream Australia being demonstrated by the election result, the Murdochs will continue to wield significant influence within a purged Coalition, and the company will seize on its status as an opposition party. From yesterday, the Murdoch campaign of regime change in Australia began — it’s just that the campaign extends to the Coalition as well as a Labor government.

 

A bunch of election tweets of which I approve

A good post on Carlson and Great Replacement Theory

Here's the link.

I liked the historical context given. 

Murdoch loses election!

Some highlights of the night:

*  the sight of Tim Wilson getting really upset that his imagined  path to the  Lodge has been ended by a former ABC journalist.  Yay.

*  The permanently scowly face of Matt Canavan on Channel 9 while he argued (pretty much) that the Coalition lost by acknowledging climate change is real and needs real action.  

*  I haven't seen Morrison concede yet, but I'm confident it will the last time we, as a nation, have to cringe at his "Jen and the girls" references.   The main debate about his historical legacy will be whether he or Abbott was the worst PM in this era of stunningly incompetent Liberal leadership.

*  Biggest disappointment: that Dutton didn't lose, apparently.

I will update later....

Information for my "reverse Pol Pot" plans

From the ABC:

• Eight of the top 10 most left-leaning electorates are in capital cities, excluding Cunningham and Newcastle in New South Wales
• Five of the 10 most left-leaning electorates are in Melbourne
• Six of the top 10 most right-leaning electorates are in rural areas, excluding Mitchell in New South Wales, Moncrieff and Fadden in Queensland and Curtin in Western Australia
• The most right-leaning state is Queensland, which accounts for half of the right-leaning seats

and:

the sprawling Queensland electorate Maranoa is the country's most conservative, according to Vote Compass.

It is the fourth consecutive election where Maranoa — which covers 42 per cent of Queensland and takes in Charleville, Cunnamulla, Dalby, Roma, Kingaroy, Stanthorpe, Winton and Warwick — has been named Australia's most right-leaning seat.

It is held by Liberal-National Party MP David Littleproud on a margin of more than 25 per cent.

If I were retired and playing in the shed, I would have a large map spread out with the aerial bombing targets worked out.   

 Update:   Hmm.  The task is going to take a lot more munitions that I realised.  I think this is a colour coded map for how the electorates looked after the 2019 election:

 

Shopping centre memories washed away

I grew up on the north side of Brisbane, and in 1967 the big local news was the opening of Toombul Shopping Centre, one of the very first large scale suburban shopping malls in Brisbane.   (I thought Westfield Indooroopilly may have opened first, but now that I check, it followed a few years after.)

A few things I remember about Toombul when it opened:   

*  the big T out the front:

* A water feature inside which was like droplets flowing slowly down multiple strands of fishing line - you don't see that style of water feature anymore, and I still don't quite know how it worked.  Can't find a photo of that...

* And in the smallish outside play area there was a metal cage rocket ship with (I think) 3 levels to climb up.  This is apparently it:

I recall a milkbar making very nice thickshakes, too.  And donuts - I would say that I probably ate my first cinnamon and sugar fried donut, made by an automated machine, from there.

My Mum was very fond of the place, and quickly abandoned the old (what the English would call) "high street" supermarket at Nundah and drove the short distance further for the convenience of "all under one roof" shopping.  She went there almost daily - a shopping habit from a time of smaller refrigerators and larger families requiring constant re-stocking.

I haven't been inside it for many, many years (in fact, I'm not sure I have ever been back since I returned to live in Brisbane in 1995, settling on a different side of the city.)   But looking at the internet, I see that over the years, it had cinemas added, and the sort of mid range eating areas you get around mall cinemas these days.   Although high end retailer David Jones had left years ago, I presume it was still the central shopping district for the surrounding suburbs.  (Westfield Chermside is bigger, and more up market, but it's still quite a drive away.)  Not sure when this photo was taken, but it gives an idea of its not inconsiderable size:

 

 

But, this is what it looked like a couple of months ago:

I hadn't even realised that this had happened and that it's been closed since then!   I mean, it always used to be prone to having a "lower car park" beside the canal flood, but I don't think that in 2011, when Brisbane had more extensive river flooding than this year, the waters made it into the shopping centre at all. 

This has only come to my attention because of the news yesterday that Mirvac, the current owner of the centre, has decided to not re-open it.  They say the damage is too extensive, and they are considering what to do with the site.  All leases have been terminated (about 140, I think I heard.)

This is pretty extensive and remarkable damage, and I would presume that something grander will  arise from the flood plain.  But it just goes to show the extent of urban damage that is going to be caused by increased flooding under climate change.

A dangerous man

Elon Musk is in the news, promoting a Trumpist wingnut meme that Biden is so mentally deficient, he doesn't know what he's doing:

Musk, who said he has voted "overwhelmingly for Democrats," slammed the Democratic Party and Biden in particular. He suggested that Biden is something of an empty suit. 

"The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter," the Tesla CEO said. "The path to power is the path to the teleprompter."

"I do feel like if somebody were to accidentally lean on the teleprompter, it's going to be like Anchorman," the CEO added, referencing the 2004 film in which Ron Burgundy reads whatever is written on the teleprompter, even if it would ruin his career.

"This administration doesn't seem to get a lot done," Musk said. "The Trump administration, leaving Trump aside, there were a lot of people in the administration who were effective at getting things done."

As with his naive view that "more free speech on Twitter will cure misinformation and propaganda" line, this just shows he is an intellectual lightweight of the dangerous rich libertarian kind.   (Ultimately, only interested in his own pet projects, and willing to aid the return of dangerously authoritarian political leadership if it will indulge him.)

Update:  About Musk and his honesty, a post at Hot Air discusses the Twitter purchase (and notes that Musk has announced he is voting for the party that's infected with Trumpist authoritarianism and denial of reality) -

Ed wrote earlier about Musk’s latest complaint, that Twitter supposedly hasn’t been forthcoming about the number of spam bots on the site. Bloomberg’s Matt Levine makes a compelling case that that’s the purest of BS, beginning with the fact that one of the reasons Musk gave when he announced his offer for Twitter was that the site supposedly needed new leadership to … clean up all the spam bots. Levine thinks he’s trying to welsh on the deal. His offer price of $54.20 per share seems too high now that various tech stocks, including Twitter and Tesla, have tanked over the past month. Musk’s alleged concern about bots reeks of a nonfinancial excuse to walk away now that he’s overextended. And there are no good remedies for Twitter if he does, Levine writes. 

 

High temperature energy storage

I reckon (just as many people say in the comments following) that this idea has a distinct air of "too good to be true" about its claimed cost and efficiency, but it's pretty interesting nonetheless:

 

 One thing I am curious about:it is very reliant on components being surrounded by argon.  How rare is argon?   [Answer - not very - "Argon is the third-most abundant gas in the Earth's atmosphere, at 0.934% (9340 ppmv)"]   I assume it's relatively cheap, then.

But what happens if the argon gas escapes and you get normal O2 around the super hot elements of this plant?   At least there's no radioactivity involved, even if there is some kind of explosion.

"Manifesto" discussed

By far the best article I have read about the "manifesto" of the Buffalo shooter is by Jeff Sharlet at Vanity Fair:

The Terrifying Familiarity of the Buffalo Shooting Suspect's Extremist Creed

Worth clearing your cookies to read it, if you have to.

Update:   worth reading the Slate article on the Tucker Carlson attempt at deflection from blame for his promulgating the same racist theory that inspired the shooter (even allowing that the shooting never cites Carlson or Fox News as a source or inspiration):

Since taking over Bill O’Reilly’s old primetime slot in 2017, Carlson has come to embrace “Trumpism without Trump,” as the Times put it. That ideology,  in Carlson’s interpretation, means a steady diet of paranoid nativism modulated by seething contempt for anyone who is not a paranoid nativist. In the world of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the terms “racist” and “racism” are almost only ever bestowed in bad faith by leftists hoping to chill public discourse and cow conservatives out of expressing and/or acting on their beliefs. And so it was both depressing and predictable that during Monday night’s show—his first show since the shootings in Buffalo—Carlson heaped scorn on those pundits and observers who had dared to suggest that the mass murderer who openly announced his own racism was, first and foremost, a racist.

In his monologue, Carlson argued that the top-line takeaway about Gendron should not be that he was racist, but that he was insane—and, implicitly, that the unsung villains of the Buffalo attack were the liberal pundits who had had the gall to connect two very obvious and proximate dots. “The truth about Payton Gendron does tell you a lot about the ruthlessness and dishonesty of our political leadership,” said Carlson. “Within minutes of Saturday’s shooting, before all of the bodies of those 10 murdered Americans had even been identified by their loved ones, professional Democrats had begun a coordinated campaign to blame those murders on their political opponents. ‘They did it!’ they said, immediately. ‘Payton Gendron was the heir to Donald Trump,’ they told us.”

A quick Google search for the term “Payton Gendron was the heir to Donald Trump” indicates that no one other than Tucker Carlson himself is actually saying those specific words or anything particularly like it. Likewise, no one credible is saying that anyone other than Gendron is directly responsible for the attack. Carlson surely knows this, just as he surely knows that his viewers do not particularly care whether or not the things he says are fair, accurate, or logical. What his viewers want is to be made to feel like they are the true victims of every real or imaginary outrage that makes the news.

On Fox News, and especially on Tucker Carlson Tonight, the scariest attacks are always those being systemically waged by liberals on conservative values. Even in the immediate wake of a definitional racist massacre, committed by a person whose stated ideology was not entirely dissimilar from ideas that are routinely voiced on its own airwaves, Carlson could not help implying that the real victims here are, perhaps, the conservatives whose speech might be trammeled by liberals hoping to capitalize on the shooting for their own political end

“So, what is hate speech? Well, it’s speech that our leaders hate,” Carlson said on Monday night. “So because a mentally ill teenager murdered strangers, you cannot be allowed to express your political views out loud. That’s what they’re telling you. That’s what they’ve wanted to tell you for a long time.” Implicit in this response is the argument that while Gendron’s views and Carlson’s views share a lot of overlap, it would be unfair to criticize Carlson for holding and professing those viewpoints, because, in this construction, the racist opinions and the racist violence are not directly linked. (This sidestep ignores that white supremacist ideology is inherently violent.) While the host, in part, was deflecting, the deflection was also a force of habit. The meta stories that Fox News has always liked to tell when the actual news is inconvenient or unpleasant for the right have, over time, become virtually the only stories that the network is able to tell in an era when the Republican Party is at its moral nadir.

It ends:

In a humane and functional polity, our top political leaders and opinion-makers would want to promote a responsible, fact-based discourse; would see nothing controversial in acknowledging hard truths about American history and in condemning racism in the past, present, and future; and would generally try to avoid voicing and normalizing the sorts of spurious cultural grievances that might ever motivate some crackpot to go shoot up a supermarket. This is not the polity we have today. Instead, we’ve got one where spurious cultural grievances are the only grievances worth nurturing, a world where the only people worth directly condemning are those who dare to call racism by its name. The dead, like the truth, are merely collateral damage.

Because I can....

The Right wing threat - Part 2

Oh, it seems as a subscriber to the Washington Post, I can "gift" 10 articles a month, including by linking.  I should do that more.

Here's a column about the rise of "Christian Nationalism" in Pennsylvania, and the GOP generally.  An extract:

With his motto “Free indeed!” — an excerpt from scripture that says freedom from sin is found in Jesus — Mastriano is a hero to some in this swing state who say they are fed up with church leaders as well as political parties they perceive as weak-willed, and with debates about religious liberty and the advantages of a diverse democracy. Fueled by a generation of religious leaders arguing that Christianity is persecuted in America, the new movement wants to see a more explicit, constitutionally approved dominance of “Christianity” — which to them means conservative politically, theologically and socially. They see themselves in a spiritual battle with Satan.

“The forces of darkness are hitting us really hard right now,” Mastriano told a few hundred people last month at a church parking lot rally in Pennsburg. “We’re going to bring the state back to righteousness, this is our day, our hour to take our state back and renew the blessings of America.”

His wife, Rebbie, then told the crowd that her husband’s opponents are not just challenging another candidate but God. “When you’re against God’s plan, there is nothing that will stop it, and they are very worried right now that there is nothing that’s going to stop this.”

Other speakers emphasized to the crowd, which included a man in a Minuteman costume holding a flag, that this Christian vision is what the Founders intended. “The Constitution prevents the government from imposing on the church. It doesn’t say anything about religion imposing itself on the state,” Rick Crump, a Christian branding expert and community organizer, told the rally.

This ethos is very different from earlier iterations of the Religious Right who were looking to engage with — even win at — mainstream politics, some experts say.

I think called it "Christian Nationalism" is too soft - calling it Christofascism gives a more accurate name.