Not very Great Britain

My twitter feed, and now mainstream media, has been full of comments about the video of the arrest of an (according to her Mum) autistic 16 year old girl over "homophobic" statement uttered to a female police officer in Leeds.

While I would not be at all surprised if the story is not exactly as portrayed by the mother, it still seems that the core of it is that the girl called a female police officer a lesbian, in some context or other.  From the BBC report:

West Yorkshire Police Assistant Chief Constable Oz Khan said: "West Yorkshire Police takes its responsibilities around the welfare of young people taken into custody and around neurodiversity very seriously.

"We also maintain that our officers and staff should not have to face abuse while working to keep our communities safe.

"We are fully reviewing the circumstances of this incident and ask that people avoid reaching any conclusions about it solely on the basis of the social media video."

The force added that the girl was subsequently interviewed with an appropriate adult and had been released on bail pending further enquiries.

Okay.   Lots of people have been saying "why is calling a woman a lesbian offensive?"   And they might have a point.  Depends on the context, I guess.  But most of the time, being aggressively called gay if you're not is going to fall into the "potentially irritating attempt at insult by an immature person, but not offensive per se" category.   

The bigger question is:   it's been clear for years that England has taken a ridiculously aggressive  criminalising approach to "hate speech" by involving police in a way it seems no other country has ever adopted as thoroughly - and why have the British people tolerated this?    There have so many stories over the years where you think - "really?  The police got involved in that?"  

I mean, in Australia, we had the high profile case of the girl removed from the AFL match for calling Adam Goodes an "ape" - but she wasn't charged with an offence, Goodes told people not to blame her,  and it caused weeks of controversy as to whether it was a heavy handed or appropriate response.   

Whereas in Britain, it seems the over-the-top use of the police for dealing with verbal insult or offence has caused far too little public comment for a decade or more.  

Interestingly, I see when Googling the topic that the Home Office said this in March this year:

New statutory guidance on the recording of so-called non-crime hate incidents will ensure police prioritise freedom of expression, the Home Secretary has announced.

Under a new draft code of practice laid before Parliament today, the police will only record non-crime hate incidents when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate and not simply because someone is offended. The measure will better protect people’s fundamental right to freedom of expression as well as their personal data.

The draft code follows concerns around police involvement in reports of ‘hate incidents’ which are trivial or irrational and do not amount to a criminal offence.

I'm not sure if the Code has been enacted yet - but it sounds like it's way overdue.  

A article last year from the Right wing City Journal seems to confirm that I'm not imagining the extent of the overuse of "hate crime" in England:

The U.K now has some of the most authoritarian restrictions on free speech in Europe. The basis for much of Britain’s censorious legislation is the concept of protected characteristics—identities deemed vulnerable and enshrined in the Equality Act of 2010. Initially, that law had a noble intention: to fight prejudice and discrimination against minority groups. Unfortunately, the protection of a select group of people in the name of “equality” has made equality under the law no longer tenable, and the Equality Act itself has wound up chilling freedom of speech. Engaging in whatever authorities may deem hate speech can bring police to your door.

This threat is not theoretical. According to official statistics, the police in England and Wales recorded 124,000 hate crimes between March 2020 to March 2021—a 9 percent increase from the year before and more than double that of five years ago. One possible reason for the rise in police-recorded hate crime can be found in the College of Policing’s “Hate Crime Operational Guidance” handbook, issued in 2014. It defines hate crime as “any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race [or religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender status].” Little or no evidence is required for an incident to be classified as such—only the subjective declaration of the alleged victim or witness....

Proliferating identity groups continue to seek protection from offense under the law. Last December, the Law Commission published recommendations on the reform of hate-crime law. It suggests expanding the concept of hate crime to include prejudice against the disabled and LGBT people. Stonewall, an LGBT charity, has welcomed the commission’s proposal to include “asexual” within the protected characteristic of seual orientation; it also urges expanding “transgender identity” to include “transgender or gender-diverse identity,” which contains “transsexual man or women” and “non-binary.” This, Stonewall argued, is “a huge leap forward for the safety of LGBTQ+ people.”

It does not require legal expertise to recognize how such legislation threatens a system of impartial justice. As the list of protected characteristics grows, hate-crime law will arbitrarily protect some and criminalize others. The concept is ultimately subjective. Should someone who attacks a transgender individual receive a longer sentence than someone who attacks a woman, simply because one attack is defined as a hate crime while the other is not? What makes one attack more hateful than another?

I have, I note, been complaining about the decline of British culture, character and (in many respects) all round lack of common sense ever since I started blogging in 2005.  (Nothing at all has changed since I wrote this piece in 2010, for example, except that even Griff Rhys Jones makes pretty boring content now.)   It has become a very weird country in so many ways...

In today's example of how not to win a referendum...

Some in the comments following have noticed his twitter account heading, and not taken it well:

I never liked the guy, anyway, but if  he wants to be an advertisement (ironically or not) for the idea that the whole reconciliation/treaty process is just an exercise about extracting money (a position actual racists have argued for decades), I guess he's free to do so.  

Amongst a lot of comments by some who no doubt would count as racist, there is this, which seems fair:

And while I don't know that this describes the situation for all "No" voters, this doesn't seem too unreasonable either:
 

Yes:  the thing is, the Yes campaign often promotes the idea that it is essential because (as Dan Andrews recently put it) "things work best when government listens".

But the issue is surely, at the fundamental level, not that governments "don't listen", but who they listen to amongst the range of aboriginal views often expressed on contentious issues.   

If the Voice is meant to solve that problem - formalising the "official" body who governments need to take advice from - the referendum still looks weakly justified because of the rambling, bureaucratic and inconclusive waffle that Langton and others came up with in describing how the representative body would work.   

Banshees seen

I finally caught up with last year's Banshees of Inisherin  (on Disney + in Australia).

Despite not being the biggest fan of tragi-comedy as a genre, I liked it a lot.

It looks fantastic, in setting, cinematography and direction; the acting is exquisitely good; the dialogue frequently witty; and the story eccentric and deep enough to make it one of the best movies to discuss as to subtext and meaning long after viewing.  (The Reddit threads about it are particularly good for this.) 

If I have one criticism, it's that I doubt it was realistic in the depiction of the amount of bleeding that would happen as a result of a certain injury.   (In that it showed way too little bleeding.)   It seems an odd choice to not show it immediately bandaged, but everything else in the movie was so engaging I forgave it.    

Tarnishes absolutely everyone (and a broader point about the rules of evidence)

I've been meaning to say that the Higgins/Lehrmann matter is just incredible for how it seems absolutely anyone who has been anywhere near the case, or subsequent investigation of the case, seems to come out tarnished in one way or another. 

The politicians, journalists, police, complainant, prosecutor, the investigator into the investigation:  I could list ways in which each of them has done something that harms their credibility (or in some cases, was just pretty stupid) in the way they dealt with what they were doing.

And as for Lehrmann himself - it now seems an open secret that he is being prosecuted for a separate rape allegation in Queensland, although the media is not supposed to say so yet.   

I am slightly curious as to the reaction of the Right wing haters on Higgins when the media can finally talk about the details of that allegation.

And I also wonder if it is likely to open up a future debate about the application of "similar fact" evidence rules.

On the one hand, you can see the logic of saying that you shouldn't easily be able to bring up evidence of a past offence to support proof of an allegation of new offence.   (Although the rule does allow it if there is a course of conduct that is so similar that it does make sense that the latest incident is just another example.)

The thing is, though, I reckon that when it comes to sexual offences, the rule doesn't always "pass the pub test", as politicians like to say.  Because people do feel, with some justification I reckon, that patterns of sexual behaviour are often more distinctive, and telling, than other forms of behaviour.  For example, if an person was convicted once before of indecent exposure, and a second person who doesn't know about that history  complains of a new incident of indecent exposure, most people would feel that makes it very likely that the guy is prone to indecently exposing himself and therefore did the second incident.  Yet, on my understanding, all barristers and judges would say that the evidence of just one previous conviction of a very similar incident would not be admissible on the second trial.

I have personal knowledge (not from being the accused!) of exactly such a matter from the 1980's, and have harboured these thoughts about what it takes for rules of evidence to be re-considered ever since. (To be blunt, I reckon that there a significant degree of conservatism in getting old rules of evidence change in the legal profession, and it often takes a high profile case to cause public questioning.)

I would hope that the Lehrmann story might finally bring this question to light.   (Having said that, depending on the circumstances of the second complaint, it's possible that I would still think that the similar fact rule could be reasonably applied for his benefit.  None of us know enough of the details be to be able to judge yet.)   

Update:  Well, I should have checked I guess, but I can see that this very question did come up in a 2010 Australian Law Reform Commission report.  I'm still not clear as to where the law now stands, even in Queensland, but it's good to see the matter has been considered.

     

Back to the rural/city divide

I've just started watching this guy's videos, and he seems to have a not unreasonable take on matters philosophical.   (Haven't watched enough to really know yet, though.)   

I liked this one about the Left's mixed relationship with rural workers, noting that Marx wrote disparagingly of them, but Lenin (and, I suppose, the Chinese communists) found that as a matter of practicality, they had to get them on side.  (And now, the urban/educated, rural/less educated divide in America - and to some extent, Australia - shows that that Left again has an issue, shall we say, with how rural people think and vote):  

 

But one of the comments following the video makes a point that sounds like it might be valid?:

Just to point out : the meaning of "idiot" in Marx's text is a person who is politically apathetic or a person who is not intellectualy free as he alienated himself and his thinking by refusing to think for himself and take action to be the master of his own life. The word idiot traces back its meaning from the greek origin. You can look it up yourselves And as for the term " proliteriat" it does not mean factory worker or blue collar job or whatever. It means people who do not posess nor wealth nor proprety. All they posess is their labour wether physical or even intellectual. So could you please correct the video or something.

Anyway, now I suppose I can tell my son (who likes to remind me of my "reverse Pol Pot" plan to depopulate or disenfranchise the rural areas to ensure we get really stupid positions resolved - such as climate change denial, and voting for Trump or Barnaby Joyce) that my attitude is (arguably) authentically Marxist.  Although I suppose the point of that comment is to argue against that....

Update:  By the way, I also watched this Channel's very short summary of Nietzsche, and I remain thoroughly unconvinced that there is any real value to be gained from studying his views.

So, this is how AI is planning to hurt humanity....

From an article in the Washington Post:

Artificial intelligence has an eating disorder problem.

As an experiment, I recently asked ChatGPT what drugs I could use to induce vomiting. The bot warned me it should be done with medical supervision — but then went ahead and named three drugs.

Google’s Bard AI, pretending to be a human friend, produced a step-by-step guide on “chewing and spitting,” another eating disorder practice. With chilling confidence, Snapchat’s My AI buddy wrote me a weight-loss meal plan that totaled less than 700 calories per day — well below what a doctor would ever recommend. Both couched their dangerous advice in disclaimers....

“These platforms have failed to consider safety in any adequate way before launching their products to consumers. And that’s because they are in a desperate race for investors and users,” said Imran Ahmed, the CEO of CCDH.

“I just want to tell people, ‘Don’t do it. Stay off these things,’” said Andrea Vazzana, a clinical psychologist who treats patients with eating disorders at the NYU Langone Health and who I shared the research with.

Removing harmful ideas about eating from AI isn’t technically simple. But the tech industry has been talking up the hypothetical future risks of powerful AI like in Terminator movies, while not doing nearly enough about some big problems baked into AI products they’ve already put into millions of hands.

Here's a gift link to the article.

 

Calm waters and big power

I noticed this last week but forgot to post about it:

Vast arrays of solar panels floating on calm seas near the Equator could provide effectively unlimited solar energy to densely populated countries in Southeast Asia and West Africa.

Our new research shows offshore solar in Indonesia alone could generate about 35,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) of solar energy a year, which is similar to current global electricity production (30,000TWh per year).

And while most of the world’s oceans experience storms, some regions at the Equator are relatively still and peaceful. So relatively inexpensive engineering structures could suffice to protect offshore floating solar panels.

You know, I had wondered before about why, whenever I have visited, it seems you never get a strong  breeze or wind in Singapore;and how it seems odd that the Philippines (not too far away in latitude terms) get smashed by typhoons, but not Singapore (or, I think, most of Malaysia).  The article explains how equatorial countries can indeed be relatively calm, most of the time:

...countries with high population densities, such as Nigeria and Indonesia, will have limited space for solar energy harvesting.

Their tropical location in the so-called “doldrum” latitudes also means wind resources are poor. Fortunately, these countries – and their neighbours – can harvest effectively unlimited energy from solar panels floating on calm equatorial seas.

Floating solar panels can also be placed on inland lakes and reservoirs. Inland floating solar has large potential and is already growing rapidly.

Our recently released paper surveys the global oceans to find regions that didn’t experience large waves or strong winds over the past 40 years. Floating solar panels in such regions do not require strong and expensive engineering defences.

Regions that don’t experience waves larger than 6 metres nor winds stronger than 15m per second could generate up to one million TWh per year. That’s about five times more annual energy than is needed for a fully decarbonised global economy supporting 10 billion affluent people.

The area of solar panels is big; on the other hand, as a proportion of the ocean around Indonesia that could used for it, it's small: 

 About 25,000 square km of solar panels would be required to support an affluent Indonesia after full decarbonisation of the economy using solar power.

Indonesia has the option of floating vast numbers of solar panels on its calm inland seas. The region has about 140,000 square km of seascape that has not experienced waves larger than 4m – nor winds stronger than 10m per second – in the past 40 years.

Indonesia’s maritime area of 6.4 million square km is 200 times larger than required if Indonesia’s entire future energy needs were met from offshore floating solar panels.

They include this map:

 

So, all of Indonesia is pretty calm - but obviously not so calm that sailing ships can't get there, given the history of European colonisation by sail.

Interesting.  I think floating solar is going to be big...

Movie money talk

Well, this is certainly a worry (from the point of view of how it will affect studio decisions):

 “Barbie,” directed by Ms. Gerwig from a script she wrote with her partner, Noah Baumbach, will finish the weekend with more than $1 billion in ticket sales at the global box office, according to Warner Bros. No movie in the studio’s 100-year history has sold so many tickets so fast, said Jeff Goldstein, Warner’s president of domestic distribution. As of Sunday, “Barbie” had been playing in theaters for 17 days. (“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” was previously the fastest to $1 billion, at 19 days.)

If I were to guess why, I would think that a good trailer which made it look pretty funny, and which prominently featured two big male stars who could appeal to males in the audience (Ryan Gosling and Will Ferrell), has a lot to do with it.   (And it is pretty funny that the attempted American culture war backlash against it has clearly failed to gain ground.  Money doesn't care about your feelings, Ben Shapiro.)

Perhaps my concern that we will now see scores of crappy, toy inspired, movies should be offset by the clear financial and critical success of Oppenheimer ($552 million so far.)  It is encouraging that a serious, big scale drama can do so well, and also a bit surprising that it seems to have attracted no serious culture war flack.   (To the extent that it has, it has been the dubious and not very widespread complaints from the Left that it should have shown the effect of the atomic bombs on Japan.)   

I still haven't seen it yet, but will soon.

The other surprising box office story is the (what seems to me) underwhelming performance of the much praised Mission Impossible 7.   It has not quite  cracked $500 million, and that is surely going to be seen as a worrying sign.   (Although, now that I check, the last few entries in the serious all come in at around $700 to $800 million - I guess I assumed they did better.  But still, if it doesn't make $600 million, it would have to be a concern to Tom.)

Add to that the poor performance of the much maligned (unfairly!) Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (wow, $368 million) and perhaps the lesson is that audiences are tired of re-tread material (or ageing actors - even though Cruise barely counts.)   

But - another meta point which I haven't seen discussed is this:  Dial of Destiny made only a tiny amount in China ($3 million), and Mission Impossible has $46 million.   I can't see any figures for Crystal Skull in China, but the last MI film made $181 million there.   (And I think, from watching the opening credits recently, that at least MI4 had Chinese money helping produce it.)

So, I'm guessing that the performance of American movies in China, given the recently strained relationship between the countries, must be a real concern in Hollywood...

 

Modern Pontius Pilates

Don't you love the way the Trumpy Right is outraged about "gender ideology", attacking (with some justification, mind you) that it's a denial of biological fact (and/or a post-modernist re-definition of what a word has always signified) to argue that the meaning of "woman" has to depend only on mental state, not DNA; but when it comes to whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted for conspiring against democracy on the basis of something that he was continually told by his own government and Party officials was not true, they all become fans of the Pontius Pilate question "What is truth?":

Comedian gets it right

Also agree with this take:

By the way, I'm not at all concerned about Vivek winning over the Republican base and romping home against Biden.  I've read MAGA Twitter types already deriding him for having made money from "Big Pharma".  The anti-elitist populism that's the current vibe means he's basically too educated for them to embrace.  And that's even before considering his skin tone, and religion. (He's a Hindu.)

There is nothing in that combination that makes it likely he will ever appeal to anything other than a minority of Republicans.  

I see that he was (is? - I can't be too bothered reading too much about an obviously flakey character) considered a libertarian type in his politics.  As the Paul family illustrates, they are just the pits as politicians.  

Squat your way to lower blood pressure?

This is somewhat surprising:

It has become almost a cliché across doctor’s offices: One of the most trusted tools to lower blood pressure is to exercise.

A jog or stroll around the block, experts consistently find, can have big payoffs in terms of heart health. A new study, however, points to a somewhat surprising exercise that may be able to dramatically reduce someone’s blood pressure: the wall squat.

A team of researchers based in Britain analyzed 270 previous studies that examined the link between exercise and blood pressure. They found that, predictably, exercises like running, walking, cycling, strength training and high-intensity interval workouts all helped to reduce blood pressure; mixing cardio and strength training also appeared to help.

But the most effective type of workout they looked at, especially for those who already had some form of hypertension, was isometric exercise, which involves contracting a set of muscles without moving — think planks.

The British researchers looked at three kinds of isometric workouts in particular: squeezing a handgrip, holding a leg extension machine in place and squatting with your back against a wall. The wall squat (sometimes called a wall sit) is probably the easiest option for people to try, as it doesn’t require any equipment, said Jamie J. Edwards, a researcher at Canterbury Christ Church University and the lead author on the study.  

Even though isometric exercises may appear relatively easy, they are often quite intense, Dr. Edwards said — as you hold yourself in place, sweating and straining. He recommends a 14-minute routine you can add to your regular workout perhaps three times a week: a two-minute wall squat, followed by two minutes of rest, repeated four times in total. 

You should stay at the same squat height for all four rounds, but the exercise will feel more challenging the more times you do it, said Jim Wiles, a principal lecturer at Canterbury Christ Church University who was also an author on the study. The first bout should feel as if you are exerting yourself at a level of four (out of a possible 10, with 10 feeling as if you could not hold it any longer). The last bout should be around an eight, he said. You should feel reasonably exhausted by the end.

Oh, another rich smart/stupid man running for president

I've noticed that old JC, at the blog run by arch Catholic crank dover"I💗Russia"beach (New Catallaxy), has been fanboy-ing Vivek Ramaswamy as Presidential candidate.

As usual, JC's judgement is in his backside - Ramaswamy has all sorts of dangerous and foolish attitudes, no matter how rich or self made he is.   Let me count the ways:

*  has a fence straddling nonsense position on Jan 6 - claiming Trump did wrong, but coming up with this pathetic excuse making for rioters attacking Congress:  it was "censorship" that caused all the problem.  See this convoluted explanation, for example:

Ramaswamy said that he believes it is “unproductive for our country to blame Trump for January 6, because it exonerates everyone else from introspection on what actually led to the frustrations of Americans that boiled over that day,” referencing the COVID-19 lockdowns, vaccine mandates and the 2020 election as a base for having to “sort all of this out.”

“If you tell people they cannot scream that is when they tear things down,” Ramaswamy said. “And I think that's exactly what happened on January 6.”

However, in his book "Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back," Ramaswamy criticized Trump's refusal to accept to the election results.

"It was a dark day for democracy," Ramaswamy wrote. "The loser of the last election refused to concede the race, claimed the election was stolen, raised hundreds of millions of dollars from loyal supporters, and is considering running for executive office again. I'm referring, of course, to Donald Trump."

And now - it was such a "dark day" he's promising to pardon Trump if he wins the election.   (Of course, the true reason being self interest - the hope that this will be enough to make MAGA idiots swing over to him.)   He's also playing into the "this is politicised DOJ attacking Trump at the behest of Biden" conspiracy mongering on Fox News.  Funny, but even former Trump AG and suck up Barr doesn't agree:

“As a legal matter, I don’t see a problem with the indictment,” he added. “I think that it’s not an abuse. The Department of Justice is not acting to weaponize the department by proceeding against the president for a conspiracy to subvert the electoral process.”

*  His views on climate change:   

In an interview, Ramaswamy said he’s “not a climate denier,” but sees the world’s warming as “not entirely bad.” He says the goal of limiting carbon emissions is “flawed” and that “people should be proud to live a high-carbon lifestyle.” He said “we have a far better chance” of growing out of the problem “than trying to engineer the climate itself.”

He also sees climate activism as one of three “secular religions” that “has America in a chokehold.” He said “the climate religion has about as much to do with the climate as the Spanish Inquisition had to do with Christ, which is to say nothing at all. It is about power, dominion, control, punishment.”

More than other GOP presidential contenders, Ramaswamy targets his criticism on Wall Street sustainability policies. He’s written letters to corporations such a Chevron, criticizing the company’s support for a carbon tax and its calculation of “Scope 3” emissions — those generated when consumers use a product, such as buying gasoline to drive a car.

On Twitter he said:

40 years ago they told us an ice age was imminent. Now they tell us that the climate warming is an existential threat to humanity. Which is it? Neither. It’s really about dominion, control and punishing the west.

In other words, he's a dumb conspiracy monger with no genuine knowledge on the subject, willing to play it for politics.

If a politician can't get climate change right (by which I mean - believe the overwhelming scientific consensus, as well as the evidence that now appears nearly nightly on the news,  that it is a real and urgent problem requiring de-carbonisation, and not a socialist conspiracy against the West) they are not going to have reliable judgment on any topic.

*   He is promising to dismantle the Right wing fever dream of a "Deep State" - getting rid of the FBI the Department of Education and the IRS.   (Governments run on the magic farts of billionairies, or something, I guess.)

As this article says, he's trying to beat Trump by embracing Trumpism, with nonsense stuff like this:

 He has also supported raising the voting age to 25 -- a pledge that would require amending the Constitution -- with exceptions for those who serve in the military, for first responders and for those who pass the civics test used to grant citizenship.

 Oh, so throw in a bit of Heinlein's Starship Trooper's "only the elites can vote" society too, hey?   

*  Just today, I see that he  is not even above playing footsie with 9/11 conspiracists:

Vivek Ramaswamy cast doubt on the veracity of the government’s explanation of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, saying he didn’t believe the findings of the 9/11 Commission.

In an interview Tuesday night on the conservative Blaze TV, host Alex Stein asked the Republican presidential candidate if he believes 9/11 was an “inside job” or “exactly like the government tells us.”

“I don’t believe the government has told us the truth,” Ramaswamy said. “I’m driven by evidence and data. What I’ve seen in the last several years is we have to be skeptical of what the government does tell us.

He's tried to backpedal, I see - but there is no denying, he is a generic Right wing conspiracy monger, trying to win over Trumpist Maga types by being the (alleged) "smarter" or more polished version of Trump.

In other words, someone just into continuing the dangerous and anti-democrat path the Trumpists want to follow in order to "win" a culture war.  

 

As I suspected...

From a NYT column about a guy who went on a short American mega-cruise:

While cruises themselves follow the same formula as always, parachuting hedonistic day-trippers into tourist-friendly ports, the post-Covid clientele has changed. The passenger manifest now skews rightward: A 2022 YouGov poll found that only 12 percent of Democrats said they’d feel “very comfortable” going on a cruise, compared with 35 percent for Republicans. Before Covid, the numbers were fairly even, but evidently the blue-state crowd is having a tougher time putting the Diamond Princess out of mind.

The author ended up being less snobbish about his fellow passengers than he expected.  But the reason could have something to do with this (my bold):

When a Royal Caribbean ship pulled up alongside us at port in the Bahamas, I wondered if the crowd over there included guys who wear socks in the swimming pool or ladies who approach the taco bar at 8 a.m. and ask, “Are those them morning burritos?” Well, feel free to judge us, you Royal Caribbean snobs, but I’ll have you know that our crowd had a pretty great time, and not just because the beverage package included 15 alcoholic drinks per day. If that sounds like a lot of drinks per day, don’t worry; cruise ships have their own onboard jails.

Even as a young man,  I would not have felt healthy even after one day of (say) 10 alcoholic drinks.   (One bottle of wine can have 7 to 8 standard drinks - and I'm pretty sure that one evening of consuming an entire bottle by myself has always been a bit much for my delicate liver.  Add to that another few standard drinks during the day - I would not be well.)

The never ending conspiracy world spun by Devine and the dishonest Republicans

Philip Bump details the disgustingly transparent conspiracy mongering (actually, lies) of Miranda Devine, who dumb Right wingers think is some sort of truth teller.   (This is about her pretending that the Justice Department was trying to interfere with Devon Archer giving evidence about the Bidens.)

I see that Devine is also pretending on Twitter that Archer's evidence (now given, behind closed doors for some reason) is a "bombshell".  In fact, it is already clear that it is anything but.  But she has to pretend to her conspiracy addled moron readers.

Update:  the Axios summary - 

A former Hunter Biden associate told Congress that Hunter sold "the illusion of access" by putting his father on speaker phone with business partners, but that then-Vice President Biden never talked shop, according to Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and a source familiar with the testimony.

Why it matters: Top Republicans called for an impeachment inquiry into President Biden ahead of Devon Archer's closed-door testimony Monday, but Democrats have expressed confidence that there is no smoking gun tying Biden to his son's business entanglements.

Zoom in: Archer, who was convicted of fraud in 2018, testified that Hunter put his father on the phone with friends and business associates roughly 20 times over a ten-year period.

• But Archer "repeated over and over and over again that President Biden never discussed any business dealings or interests with Hunter or anyone else," Goldman told reporters after the hours-long transcribed interview.
• Republicans cast doubt on the claim that Biden simply exchanged "niceties" during the phone calls. They also focused on Archer's testimony that embattled Ukrainian gas company Burisma wanted Hunter on its board for his family's "brand."

The intrigue: Archer testified that he knew nothing about the alleged $5 million bribes paid to the Biden family from a Burisma executive, as was claimed in an unverified FBI document touted and released by Republicans, according to one source familiar.

• Archer also testified that Burisma believed efforts to oust Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin were bad for the Ukrainian energy company, according to Goldman.
• This runs counter to Republicans' suggestions over the years that Biden pushed for Shokin's firing — which was official U.S. policy backed by the European Union and International Monetary Fund — to benefit Hunter.

TV viewed

*  I thought I would have a look at the Logies last night, but only because Sam Pang, whose dead pan style of humour I find quite funny, was hosting.  Unfortunately, though, I missed his introductory monologue, which seems to have been well received, and switched over mid show to see him doing a protracted bit involving that old bloke from Home and Away, which seemed to be a big fail.   But then again, I also saw Dave Hughes, whose routine seemed pretty dire, and once again got to wonder how such a strange looking man with a strange delivery ever managed to find a career in visual media.   I probably saw about 20 minutes in total.  It was not, shall we say, holding my interest.

As I watch nearly nothing on commercial free-to-air TV, that's hardly surprising.  I was going to say that the industry insiders seem to lack insight into how few people really care for them (and it's always been a cringe-fest); but now that I check, there were 877,000 Australians watching it, at least at the start.  (That's far more than I expected, but I would also expect there was less than half of that by the end!)  

* On a more positive note - Futurama has been revived, and while it is on Hulu in the USA, here the first episode has dropped on Disney +.  

I thought it was very, very good:  an extremely self aware take on cancelled shows and binge watching TV.  In other words, it was mocking itself in a very meta but pretty pleasing way.   It seems all of the voice actors are back, and the writers, I think this episode would have pleased everyone.  

Internal critic

I don't recall reading about Dr Allan Frances before - but he turned up on Radio National yesterday morning talking about his views on overdiagnosis of various psychiatric problems (ADHD in kids being one issue), and he sounded pretty convincing and sensible to my mind.   (One thing I did not know was that there is apparently a much greater proportion of the youngest kids in classes who get diagnosed with ADHD.  He thinks there is no other explanation for this other than kids who are too immature for the class  having worse behaviour, and it being turned into a medical problem.)  

The RN interview can be heard on the ABC website, but I don't know how long for.

His Wiki page indicates he has been running his arguments for a long time.  It would seem he is not being paid much attention, though...

  

Amateur science noted

Quite a charming article here at Science on how a 75 year old Japanese guy is one of the most prolific discoverers of supernova.  It starts:

For Koichi Itagaki, it was just another evening of supernova hunting. After his usual 7 p.m. dinner with his wife, he drove to his private observatory in the hills above his home in Yamagata, Japan, 290 kilometers north of Tokyo. He set out treats for the only visitors he allows on his celestial patrols: a stray cat he calls Nora and the raccoon dogs that warily approach from the surrounding forest. He then took a seat within his “headquarters,” a cozy hut equipped with a bed, minifridge, microwave—and a dozen monitors used to control seven telescopes at three locations across Japan.

On clear nights, each telescope runs through a routine, focusing on one of the approximately 1000 galaxies Itagaki monitors for two 15-second exposures before swiveling to the next target. On this night, clouds blanketed most of the country, leaving a clear view only for his two telescopes in Okayama, 700 kilometers to the southwest. But as the clock ticked into the early morning of 20 May, clouds drifted over Okayama, too. Itagaki called it a night and drove home, leaving the telescopes on automatic in case the weather cleared.

It did. The next morning he had scanned the night’s images for just 5 minutes when he spotted a new, bright object in a spiral arm of the Pinwheel galaxy, 21 million light-years away. “It was so bright, I thought there was no way this object could have been missed,” he says. To his surprise, he was the first to post the news to the Transient Name Server (TNS), the International Astronomical Union’s database of new celestial objects. As word spread on TNS and the Astronomer’s Telegram, an email alert service, professionals and amateurs alike began pointing their instruments toward SN 2023ixf, the universe’s newest exploding star and the closest to Earth in a decade. It was growing brighter by the minute....

Cheerful, friendly, and easy-going, Itagaki is a trim 75-year-old with wisps of white hair, wire-rimmed bifocals, and a self-effacing sense of humor. “I am not an astronomer,” Itagaki says, smiling broadly while waving his left hand dismissively, as if shooing away a fly. “I’m looking for new celestial bodies as a hobby.” He traces his path into astronomy to a boyhood fascination with lenses. “I used to play with lenses, using sunlight to burn paper,” he says. In junior high, he spent his allowance on a DIY telescope kit and studied the Moon a bit. “I also used it to spy on the neighbors,” he says, smiling and waving.

Then in 1963, a 19-year-old Japanese amateur named Kaoru Ikeya grabbed national headlines when he discovered a comet with a more substantial homemade telescope. “It amazed me that you could search the stars like this,” Itagaki says. Within Itagaki’s hut, a framed 1963 newspaper clipping of Ikeya’s achievement hangs in homage.

 The observatory set up indicates he's put a fair amount of money into his hobby:

 And this is just one of three he uses...

 

 

"Reading the room" is a concept unknown to her, apparently

 Update:  oh, that screenshot doesn't mention the key point:

The Republican congresswoman caused a firestorm when she mentioned snubbing her fiancé to make it to a prayer breakfast on time

“When I woke up this morning at seven,” Mace explained, “Patrick, my fiancé, tried to pull me by my waist over this morning in bed and I was like ‘no baby we don’t got time for that this morning, I’ve gotta get to the prayer breakfast.’”

“He can wait, I’ll see him later tonight,” she added. 

While the comment may have been a little TMI, conservative influencers reacted with wholehearted disgust. You see, Mace, 45, made the grave mistake of admitting that she, an adult woman, has a sex life outside of the confines of matrimony. A thing we’re 100 percent sure no other right-wing commentator has ever done. 

“That’s some hoe talk,” tweeted Florida Congressional candidate Lavern Spicer in response to a video of the moment. 

Nuclear rocketry back on the cards?

I'm pretty sure that Robert Heinlein's "juvenile" books (in particular Space Family Stone) were explicitly about solar system rocketry using nuclear reactor driven engines.   And NASA did NERVA research early on, but the idea lost momentum (as did the idea of rushing to Mars).   

It seems it might become a thing after all:

In less than three years, NASA could be testing a nuclear rocket in space.

The space agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, announced on Wednesday that Lockheed Martin had been selected to design, build and test a propulsion system that could one day speed astronauts on a trip to Mars....

“The technical capabilities, including early safety protocols, remain viable today,” Tabitha Dodson, the DRACO project manager, said in a news briefing on Wednesday.

A key difference between NERVA and DRACO is that NERVA used weapons-grade uranium for its reactors, while DRACO will use a less-enriched form of uranium.

The reactor would not be turned on until it reached space, part of the precautions to minimize the possibility of a radioactive accident on Earth.

There will be protests about the danger of one blowing up on the way to orbit, though.

The report also doesn't really make it clear why the idea has been revived...

Underwhelming witness

Do I have this right?  David Grusch says someone who knows and has first hand knowledge told him the government knows about lots of crashed UFOs and recovered stuff and bodies, but he hasn't seen it himself and can't go into further details?

Yeah, that really blows the lid right off the whole matter....

Update:  this Vox skeptical summary of the whole situation (which is not behind a paywall) seems about right.

Odd news from Japan

 These headlines caught my eye:

OK, let's take number 2 first:

The study covered prefectural residents aged 40 or older who underwent annual health checkups in the seven cities of Kaminoyama, Yamagata, Higashine, Sakata, Tendo, Yonezawa and Sagae. The subjects were studied for a maximum of nine years from 2009, with a median follow-up period of 7.1 years.

The subjects were asked if they had any interest in the opposite sex. They were also questioned about their medical history, use of medication, how often they laughed and mental stress levels.

The researchers studied the correlation between those factors and the risk of death.

They found that 8.3 percent of the roughly 7,700 male subjects and 16.1 percent of the 11,400 or so female subjects were not interested in the opposite sex. The team said 503 test subjects, 356 men and 147 women, died during the follow-up study.

Analysis of the data showed that 9.6 percent of the men who said they had no interest in the opposite sex died during the nine years. The death rate among men who said they were still sexually interested in women was 5.6 percent.

The researchers concluded the difference shows a significantly higher risk of death, even when discounting other factors, such as age and chronic illnesses.

The data on women indicated no correlation between their sexual interest and risk of death, the team members added.

I'm assuming that a significant part of this could be that the men with erectile dysfunction, which can indicate poor general health, are the ones with low interest in the opposite sex?   Or does the discounting of "chronic illness" account for that?   

Also, I continue to be very surprised that this story from last year did not really gain any widespread publicity:

And at the end of 2021, a group at Cleveland Clinic analyzed the insurance claims for more than 7 million Americans and found that people on Viagra were almost 70% less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than people who were not on the drug.

(It was already know to be pretty good for the heart, too.)

I would recommend that the Japanese get into prescribing it for "men with no interest in women".  :)

And as for the first story:  it sounds like a very weird true crime story -

SAPPORO--Police on July 24 arrested a woman and her father in connection with the discovery of a headless body in a hotel here three weeks ago.

Runa Tamura, 29, and her father Osamu, a 59-year-old doctor, were held on suspicion of damaging, abandoning and illegally possessing a body, police said.

Police believe the victim, a 62-year-old Hokkaido resident, was known to Runa, who lives in Sapporo.

The daughter and father pair are suspected of decapitating the man in a hotel in Sapporo’s Susukino entertainment district late on July 1 or early on July 2, the police said.

They are also suspected of taking the victim's head to another location. It remains missing.

The man died from a stab wound in the body. His head was apparently cut off after death, investigative sources said.

The victim’s body was naked. No clothing or belongings such as a cellphone or wallet were found.

There were no signs of a struggle in the hotel room, and the victim had no defense wounds, the sources said.

 What on earth was going on??

Must be China week here

Well, Paul Krugman's column (which I will generously gift link) is mainly about what happened to Japan, but it does refer to China too:

These days the focus of anxiety about global competition has shifted from Japan to China, which is a bona fide economic superpower: Adjusted for purchasing power, its economy is already bigger than ours. But China has seemed to be faltering lately, and some have been asking whether China’s future path might resemble that of Japan.

My answer is that it probably won’t — that China will do worse. But to understand why I say that, you need to know something about what happened to Japan, which wasn’t at all the catastrophe I think many people imagine.

Krugman's argument is that Japan's basic problem is its demography, and that it has done reasonably well, considering.

As usual, he's easy to understand and presents a reasonable argument.

It's a worry

Here's a very concerning post at Real Climate by Stefan Rahmstorf about the high uncertainty as to what is happening to Atlantic currents under climate change.

This should be read to add a lot of detail to news reports today about the latest study indicating that the AMOC might shut down much sooner than the IPCC thought likely.

I'm not who I think I am?

I was just fooling around with Chat GTP, and asked it to tell me about Opinion Dominion blog.  This is most of the response:

As of my last update in September 2021, "Opinion Dominion" was a personal blog run by David Tiley, an Australian writer and film critic. The blog covered a wide range of topics, including politics, economics, science, technology, and film reviews.

Here are some key points about the Opinion Dominion blog:

1. Author: The blog was primarily authored by David Tiley, who is known for his insightful commentary and analysis on various subjects. David has a background in science and journalism, and his diverse interests are reflected in the topics he covers on the blog.

2. Topics: The Opinion Dominion blog covered a broad spectrum of topics, including political issues and current events in Australia and around the world. David also delved into economic matters, providing his take on economic policies and developments. Additionally, he shared his thoughts on films, TV shows, and cultural events.

3. Thoughtful Analysis: David Tiley's writing on the blog was known for its thoughtful and informed analysis. He often delved into the nuances of the subjects he discussed, providing readers with a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

Ha!  I had to Google to check, but David Tiley is a real Australian writer and critic, which Chat GTP has imagined (for completely unknown reason) is the author of this blog. 

He isn't.   

There's no doubt, I think, that the summary does reflect the blog in some ways - the broad scope of topics, for example.  And of course, I am happy if it is identified as having "thoughtful and informed analysis".   

But it's dreamt up an author identity based on - what, I wonder?

 

Why Singaporeans are oddly sympathetic to China

Is it just a case of one virtual "one party" micro state admiring the biggest actual "one party" state of them all?  (Sorry Singapore, you know I love you.)

Anyway, the Washington Post has a very long article looking at why Singaporeans (mostly the Chinese Singaporeans, probably) are oddly sympathetic to China, when the rest of the world is increasingly leery:

A 2022 survey of 19 countries by the Pew Research Center found that Singapore was one of only three that saw China and Xi in favorable terms. In June, the Eurasia Group Foundation released a survey conducted in Singapore, South Korea and the Philippines that found Singapore was the only one that viewed China more favorably than it did the United States. Fewer than half of respondents in Singapore viewed the United States favorably, compared with 56 percent who viewed China favorably.

“If too many Chinese Singaporeans are foolish enough to subscribe to Xi’s version of the ‘China Dream,’ the multiracial social cohesion that is the foundation of Singapore’s success will be destroyed,” said Bilahari Kausikan, a former permanent secretary of Singapore’s Foreign Ministry. “Once destroyed, it cannot be put together again.”

Singapore’s government passed a law to prevent foreign interference in domestic politics that went into effect last year, and has warned its ethnic-Chinese population against “hostile foreign influence operations” and stressed a distinct Singapore-Chinese identity. But messaging by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on key issues such as the role of the United States in the region and China’s internal politics is already entrenched in Singapore, including in a leading Chinese-language publication long backed by Singapore’s government.

It has a lot to do with that Chinese language news in Singapore, and old people.  

A really good read, so I have gift linked to it (above).  

 

Some light reading on madness for today!

I forget exactly what I was Googling about yesterday when this cropped up:

Did Christianity lead to schizophrenia? Psychosis, psychology and self reference

Well, that's a provocative sounding title!  It's from a journal called Transcultural Psychiatry, which probably has lots of interesting articles, I imagine.

Anyway, it's there to read in full online, and it seems to run, shall we say, a not completely unreasonable argument?   But I haven't had time to read it all carefully yet.

 

Moussaka noted

While I'm generally on the dismissive side of Greek cuisine, I have tried cooking moussaka before, and gave it a go again on the weekend for the first time in probably a couple of decades.   (The inspiration:  cheap eggplant and very un-fatty looking lamb mince at Harris Farm.)  

I followed this recipe to good success.

The reasons it was better than I remembered were no doubt:

*  I didn't fry the eggplant in olive oil and let it soak it up like a sponge:  I baked it for 25 minutes after just brushing the slices with olive oil.  

*   the potatoes were sliced thinner than I used to do (just half a centimetre) and they were also brushed and baked at the same time as the eggplant.

*   despite having made bechamel sauce many times before, I don't recall ever following a recipe that had egg yolk added at the end.  But yeah, it definitely increases the richness, and perhaps the thickness, of the final product.

*   a combination of a slightly thicker bechamel and letting it sit for 10 minutes before serving did mean I didn't have runaway flow of bechamel when I served it.   

I adjusted the quantities to about 3/4 of what is in the recipe, and it still made enough for 6 servings.  It's a very substantial dish to eat.

That is all...

Quiggin talks China

John Quiggin takes a quick overview of changes in China, and encourages us not to be too pessimistic about how it affects us.  

Speaking of China, did anyone else watch the ABC's latest short run series of China Tonight?   It was buried a bit on a late night slot, perhaps because it seemed they wanted to make it lighter in tone with (relatively) unknown hosts.  When I say "lighter in tone", it was actually half comedic.  I found it informative, but a bit peculiar.   

These ABC shows focused on particular countries are actually pretty good, generally speaking - and I think they should perhaps be given greater time slot prominence if they want an audience.

Back to that unpleasant topic

I have briefly noted before that Japan had an issue with widespread infanticide during the Edo period (1603 - 1868)*, when mentioning that it was reported by anthropologists as common in aboriginal society, but I have not read anything before about the situation in Europe around the same time. 

It would seem that evidence for it being pretty widespread there, too, in the same period, may have been staring us in the face for a long time:

"Routine" infanticide of newborns by married parents in early modern Europe was a much more widespread practice than previously thought, a new book posits.  

This fresh insight sits at the heart of a new book, "Death Control in the West 1500–1800: Sex Ratios at Baptism in Italy, France and England, "by Gregory Hanlon and contributors....

Hanlon, who is Distinguished Research Professor at Dalhousie University in Canada, calls attention to the limited scope of existing scholarship, which has never focused on sex ratios of infants brought for baptism within hours or days after their birth.

These records reveal startling spikes in the number of male baptisms in the aftermath of famines or diseases.

He notes, "Historians in the West have relied almost exclusively on records of criminal trials in which unwed mothers or married women carrying progeny not sired by their husbands hid their pregnancies and killed their newborns alone or with female accomplices. Married infanticidal mothers may have been a hundred times more numerous."

Hanlon's research suggests that in rural Tuscany at the height of infanticide the victims might have constituted up to a third of the total number of live births. 

Using baptismal registers and ecclesiastical censuses drawn from scores of parishes in Italy, France and England, Hanlon shows similar infanticide patterns across city and country, for Catholics, Calvinists and Anglicans alike.

In Italy's rural 17th century Tuscany, Hanlon suggests that parents seemed willing to sacrifice a child if they were a twin, opting to keep just one of the newborns. In the north Italian city of Parma, Laura Hynes Jenkins found that working-class parents preferred girls over boys.

The question of how the baby was dealt with was important for the legal consequences:

Hanlon calls attention to lax punitive measures taken for crimes of infanticide, and notes, "Tribunals operated against single mothers almost exclusively, but only if they killed the newborn deliberately. Simple abandonment was not a comparable offense."

It seems almost hard to believe that the sex ratios of children being baptised has never been examined before for this type of research - but it seems hard to imagine that obvious large differences in sex ratios could be explained in any other way.

I would also comment that this shows that the pro-life anti-abortion movement, when it emphasises women's guilt over having an abortion as a reason not to have one, is pretty clearly ignoring the historical evidence of psychological ability of parents to not regret ending their own child's life for very economically pragmatic reasons.   (Not, I should hasten to add, that I am trying to make a case for the return of baby killing or abandonment...) 

 

* You can watch a Youtube explanation here done by an animation channel that is pretty good on explaining Japanese history and culture, actually.

 

A reasonable Krugman take

Given that I noticed Noah Smith saying the other day that he would do a post soon about how Europe must be doing something wrong (he was looking at average adjusted incomes between the US and Europe, I think), this column by Krugman is pretty good and balanced.

 I will gift link to it, but here are some key parts:

Our global standing is never as good or as bad as conventional wisdom has it at any given moment. And the downside of getting puffed up about our relative performance is that we may fail to learn from things other nations do better.

I say this as someone who’s seen us go through multiple ups and downs on this front. There was the manic Morning in America phase of the mid-1980s, followed by the depressive mood of the early ’90s: “The Cold War is over and Japan won.” Then came a late-90s surge in triumphalism as America temporarily took the lead in taking advantage of the internet, which receded as other countries also got online, productivity gains from information technology petered out, America led the way into global financial crisis and China emerged as a powerful economic rival.

Now the boastfulness is back, with a special emphasis on trashing European economic performance. For example, I’ve been seeing media organizations that really should know better saying things like this: “America’s economy is nearly twice the size of the eurozone’s. In 2008 they were similar,” which appeared on a chart in The Wall Street Journal.

You can read the next bit, but further down:

Put it this way: Just comparing dollar values of G.D.P. in America and Europe arguably overstates the true gap in economic performance by a factor of around 10.

My take is that all modern economies are at roughly the same level of technology. They’re also all capable of achieving remarkable things when they put their mind to it. Have people noticed how quickly Pennsylvania managed to reopen I-95 after a section of the crucial highway collapsed?

But our sophisticated, capable societies often make different choices. Some of these choices are just that — choices where there isn’t necessarily a right answer. For example, one reason European nations generally have lower G.D.P. per capita than we do is that their workers get a lot more vacation. We have more stuff; they have more time. De gustibus and all that.

In other areas, however, some countries almost surely get it wrong. Europe’s lagging growth probably does, in part, reflect inflexibility and resistance to innovation. Americans, on the other hand, should ask themselves why we seem to be worse at building livable cities or, to take one important aspect of life, not dying: U.S. life expectancy had fallen far behind comparable countries even before Covid.

The point is that advanced countries are, in important ways, laboratories for economic and social policy: Nobody is the best at everything, and we can learn a lot by looking at things other countries seem to do better than we do.

Yes:  it is pretty incredible the decrease in life expectancy in the US, not to mention the way a significant number of Americans go bankrupt from medical treatment each year.   

Simple economic measures and comparisons should never be the only way of measuring quality of life...

 

 

A not unreasonable order of priorities

The Washington Post reports:

Respondents in a study released by the nonprofit Pew Research Center were asked to rate the importance of nine separate missions. Only 12 percent of adults think returning astronauts to the surface of the moon should be NASA’s top priority, according to the study. A human landing on Mars is even less popular: Only 11 percent said it should be the top priority.

By contrast, 60 percent said monitoring asteroids should be the agency’s top priority; 50 percent said monitoring climate change should be NASA’s top priority.

Well, that going to Mars is so close to going the Moon is a bit disappointing - given that I reckon the public has no idea how far away we are from having the capacity to safely go there.  (They are persuaded by the boosterism of Musk and movies that are only superficially semi-realistic, like The Martian.)  

I'm going to be very surprised if the Voice referendum passes

It's not that I particularly value the opinion of Chelsea Watego at all; it's just that she is one of the higher profile (such that she gets a run in the Guardian) aboriginal academics who is pre-emptively providing evidence for my view that, even if implemented, the Voice system is likely to continually present government with two views - one from the Voice group itself, and one from other indigenous spokespeople critical of the decisions of the Voice representatives.  Given that the Voice opinion is not meant to be binding, it will mean governments having to choose between two opinions from within the indigenous community, which is pretty much exactly what happens now on many key issues anyway.

True, I can see that if the government wants to side with the Voice on a particular decision, deferring to the "official" body may give them political cover:  but there are bound to be cases where it will not be clear which way to jump on an issue, and a Voice recommendation may be politically unpopular.  

Anyway, here is Watego having a whine about being criticised about not endorsing the Voice:

The yes campaign, in its strategy, reveals the very real dangers associated with enshrining a voice to parliament. To enshrine a voice that in this moment is silencing and domesticating the diverse voices of sovereign Black nations across this continent offers more concern than it does hope for the future.

I am not accepting the lie that it’s now or never, or that a seat at their table is the best that’s on offer. I’m not entertaining that what the political left offers is better than the overt racism of the right.

What the Black reformers have forgotten is that Indigenous sovereignty, of the unceded kind, can never be reduced to a matter of settler-colonial affiliations of left or right.

It’s the settlers, to the left and to the right who remain on the same ledger when it comes to undermining Indigenous sovereignty.

If those yes vote evangelists are as committed as they say they are to us having a voice, then Blackfullas should be able to express what we think, we feel and know – with or without the readings, law degrees, children’s books or whatever.

Blackfullas should be able to speak of the limitations of the proposed voice without being cast as intellectually incapable, mentally ill, politically disloyal, professionally inept, deceptive, treacherous and a threat to be contained, complained about, blamed or blocked.

 Basically, if the indigenous community itself appears divided on the value of the Voice, it's hardly an encouragement for the Yes vote.  

There is also something like pre-emptive over-reach going on in several respects:   retailers promoting the Yes vote by in-store announcements made to shoppers (it is way more likely to hurt than help in any shop outside of a handful in capital cities, I reckon);  the publicity given to claims that aboriginal organisations are making unwarranted claims for compensation for something as innocuous as tree planting in Western Australia; and the renewed push to co-name places with aboriginal names.  (Apparently, the Cairns and Mackay airports now flash between aboriginal and "colonial" names for cities - a surprising move that, again, I reckon is a case of  moving way ahead of public opinion.)

I think it is likely all heading towards an emphatic loss at the referendum.

Glad they got the maths right

Here's another good, short clip from Welch Labs, directly related to Oppenheimer, about the calculations that went into feeling assured enough that the first atomic bomb would not accidentally destroy the entire planet:

Cult member with fingers in his ears

 

As Rupar said a few days ago:

Oh, and I will gift link to the recent NYT article about Trump's plan to become the world's dumbest dictator (as if we didn't know):

Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.

Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.

Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.

Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.

Well, I suppose I have to see it

Barbie, that is.  (Just kidding - although the trailer I have seen twice at the cinema now makes it look funnier and more likeable than I expected.  Also, I see there is a right wing culture warrior backlash against it from the "bro" reviewers in the US building, which makes me more curious to see it.  But it can wait until streaming.)

Of course, I am talking Oppenheimer, which is getting very strong reviews, although some have some reservations, it seems.

That's probably a good thing, since it deals with the "expectations too high" issue that can lead to disappointment.   

Jeremy Jahns (the Youtube movie reviewer - he's a likeable presenter, even if I don't always agree with his views) made an good observation in his review about how the table has turned completely on movie special effects.  It used to be, when CGI first gained grounds, that people would go to a movie to enjoy how many CGI shots were used (and how good they could look); but now people go "oooh - a movie that was done with all practical effects - no CGI!  How cool!"   

Which reminds me - I'm pretty sure that one key shot in Mission Impossible 7 was a big scale practical effect - the locomotive doing a dive off the bridge into the river.   It looked pretty good, but I still felt it definitely looked like a large scale model, not a full size locomotive.   But I haven't confirmed that yet...