No pun intended in that post heading: it really is surprising, isn't it?, this outpouring of people prepared to speak out now about the bad, unwanted, sexual conduct of Hollywood and media stars, the most recent being a high profile comedian and a Senate candidate. (I have never seen Louis CK apart from briefly on some chat shows - I have no idea whether his comedy would appeal to me or not, although I have always suspected the latter - and now I feel I don't have to spend time checking.)
I trust Steven Spielberg never gets caught up in this.
Speaking of possibly the last nice guy in Hollywood who never put the hard word on a starlet (I'm hoping!), the trailer is out for his new, hurriedly made movie. I haven't watched it with the sound on yet, so I don't know what I think:
Friday, November 10, 2017
Thursday, November 09, 2017
This man teaches at a tertiary institution..
I see that Steve Kates says he gave a "presentation" on the first anniversary of Trump's election. Not sure where, but I presume it looked something like this:
And here's a pic Steve's wife took of him before he left to go give his little talk:
He's put his speaking notes up at you-know-where, and I'll extract some highlights:
Anyway, here's more of his insights:
And finally:
And here's a pic Steve's wife took of him before he left to go give his little talk:
He's put his speaking notes up at you-know-where, and I'll extract some highlights:
Who are the enemies he is dealing with and what are the central issues?
fanatical and ignorant oppositionI wonder if he was stocking up on canned beans and bottled water for the collapse of civilisation last weekend went Antifa brought down the United States?
• SJW are far left anti-capitalist, anti-free institutions
• the left in the US and across the world is no longer about provisioning the welfare state but is out and out communist and totalitarian
• Antifa is representative of the mindset
Anyway, here's more of his insights:
far-far left mediaYes, Kates genuinely believes Trump tweeting is a clever thing for him to do to "outflank" the malevolent, ignorant, media. Paranoid much.
• malevolent, ignorant and totalitarian at heart
• utterly oppositional in everything they say or write
• stand for nothing other than a series of empty clichés
• tweet-storms is Trump’s modern means to outflank the media
And finally:
personal qualitiesI keep saying he's an out and out cultist - and a nasty one who thinks those who disagree with him on politics are e-vil.
• tough minded and clear headed
• understands business and the operation of a market economy
• a strong believer in education and learning
• has a high regard for the study of history
Aren't they just a tad embarrassed?
I see that via Hot Air that there was much right wing mocking of USA Today putting up an infographic about the AR15 showing that, amongst other various modifications (a 100 round drum magazine, for God's sake), there were also other rare ones, such as a chainsaw bayonet.
Allahpundit himself thought this was all very funny. But he then ends the post with the realisation (and a Youtube video that confirms it) - the chainsaw bayonet really exists.
Allahpundit himself thought this was all very funny. But he then ends the post with the realisation (and a Youtube video that confirms it) - the chainsaw bayonet really exists.
Kingdom revisited
I think this is a scene from Helen Dale's Kingdom of the Wicked:
[Actually, I saw that movie, with my father, surprisingly, at the cinema when it came out in 1973. He didn't mind it, too, despite its somewhat hippy vibe.]
[Actually, I saw that movie, with my father, surprisingly, at the cinema when it came out in 1973. He didn't mind it, too, despite its somewhat hippy vibe.]
More taxes
Robert J Samuelson in the Washington Post:
The truth is that we can’t afford any tax reduction. We need higher, not lower, taxes. What we should be debating is the nature of new taxes (my choice: a carbon tax), how quickly (or slowly) they should be introduced and how much prudent spending cuts could shrink the magnitude of tax increases.
To put this slightly differently: Americans are under-taxed. We are under-taxed not in some principled and philosophical sense that there is an ideal level of taxation that we haven’t yet reached. We are under-taxed in a pragmatic and expedient way. For half a century, we haven’t covered our spending with revenue from taxes.
Of course, there are times when borrowing (that is, budget deficits) is unavoidable and desirable. Wars. Economic downturns. National emergencies. But our addiction to debt extends well beyond these exceptions. We have run deficits with strong economies and weak, with low inflation and high, and with favorable and unfavorable productivity gains.
Since 1961 — and I admit to having reported this fact before — federal budgets have been in surplus in only five years. And these surpluses have invariably coincided with long economic booms that swelled government tax revenue: 1969, following the long boom of the 1960s; and 1998 through 2001, reflecting the “tech boom” of the 1990s.
We resist the discipline of balancing the budget, which is inherently unpopular. It’s what Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute calls “take-away politics.” Some programs would be cut; some taxes would be raised. Americans like big government. They just don’t like paying for it.
Borrowing is easier. It’s largely invisible to most Americans, creating the illusion of “something for nothing.” This liberates Republicans to peddle more tax cuts. Their tax cut would add $1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years. A more realistic figure is $2.1 trillion, claims the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Democrats are little better. They advocate more entitlement spending, despite CBO’s estimate of $10 trillion in deficits under existing policies over the next decade.
This blog needs a photo
Seems to me there are too many words without enough graphic relief here lately.
So here, found via Reddit's Earth Porn thread, an unusual landscape in Peru:
There's an article in Forbes about this place.
Makes the "coloured sands" on the beach north of Noosa in Queensland look inadequate...
Update: I see from this travel site that these mountains have become a tourist destination only in the last couple of years, and the guy writing the post says to be very aware of photoshoped photos, and that it is a terrible place to visit. He sounds traumatised by his experience, just about.
So here, found via Reddit's Earth Porn thread, an unusual landscape in Peru:
There's an article in Forbes about this place.
Makes the "coloured sands" on the beach north of Noosa in Queensland look inadequate...
Update: I see from this travel site that these mountains have become a tourist destination only in the last couple of years, and the guy writing the post says to be very aware of photoshoped photos, and that it is a terrible place to visit. He sounds traumatised by his experience, just about.
Wednesday, November 08, 2017
Not all gun nuts...
This thing about assault weapon bans in the US: regardless of how functionally it may be difficult to define an assault weapon, I reckon if it were any country other than America, no one would complain about a government that took a completely visual, somewhat arbitrary approach and had a committee that looked at photos of semi automatics and said "yes, that one looks so much like a military weapon - it's banned from future sale. This one - functionally the same, but looks like a hunting rifle - can be sold with max magazine of 10". Or for that matter, had the ability to ban gun makers from advertising weapons in such a way that their look appears military.
Oh boo hoo, it would interfere with gun manufacturers right to make money by selling guns on the basis that they'll let the owner look like a pretend soldier. I mean, look at some of the advertising, it's absurd.
And it's good to be reminded that some Americans with a military background think so too:
Oh boo hoo, it would interfere with gun manufacturers right to make money by selling guns on the basis that they'll let the owner look like a pretend soldier. I mean, look at some of the advertising, it's absurd.
And it's good to be reminded that some Americans with a military background think so too:
One of President Donald Trump’s nominees for a top Pentagon job just said he thinks it’s “insane” that civilians can buy assault rifles — just like the shooter in Sutherland Springs, Texas, was able to do.“I’d also like to, and I may get in trouble with other members of the committee, just say how insane it is that in the United States of America a civilian can go out and buy a semiautomatic assault rifle like an AR-15,” Dr. Dean Winslow, the nominee for the Department of Defense’s top health affairs job, said during his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee today....Trump’s feelings go against those of some senior retired generals. In 2013, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal — who commanded America’s elite troops worldwide and troops in Afghanistan — came out in support of gun control. "I think serious action is necessary," he told MSNBC’s Morning Joe in 2013."Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don't think that's enough,” he continued. “The number of people in America killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. And I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty culture, and so I think we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”
Kingdom not come?
I have been trying to follow the success or otherwise of Helen Dale's recently published alternative history (Jesus as terrorist in technologically advanced Roman world) novel "Kingdom of the Wicked". Must be about a month since her Australian book tour, duly attended by her libertarian, and not so libertarian, pals (Mark Barnisch seems to be under her spell, when he's not busy tweeting like a teenager about having meals and drinks on his returns to Brisbane); and she got some free publicity in the media too.
I have not yet been able to find any mainstream media review, which I find a little curious. But maybe they have a backlog of reviews to get done and it's coming.
On Amazon, there was an initial review by someone who said he read it quickly, and liked it, but it did contain qualifications, such as it being very lewd in parts (a nice, old fashioned word that makes me think the reviewer is over 60), and this:
It's a wonder Sinclair Davidson hasn't gushed about the novel yet, given he seems to consider Dale to be a literary goddess and all round genius. A David Leyonhjelm piece at Catallaxy in which he spoke about the book went over like a lead balloon in that conservative dungeon (Jesus as terrorist doesn't play well with them - not that I can really blame them for their skepticism about that). But at least it gave forum to some anti Dale visitors, one of whom obviously doesn't follow the recent career path of her and Leyonhjelm closely:
I have not yet been able to find any mainstream media review, which I find a little curious. But maybe they have a backlog of reviews to get done and it's coming.
On Amazon, there was an initial review by someone who said he read it quickly, and liked it, but it did contain qualifications, such as it being very lewd in parts (a nice, old fashioned word that makes me think the reviewer is over 60), and this:
The names and titles are also a bit cumbersome to someone not especially familiar with the language. That said, even without the glossary, most meanings are evident from context. Finally, the story is quite complex, and readers with attention issues will probably have trouble enjoying the story if they are unable to follow it.That was the only review for the first few weeks, but now one has appeared by Katy Barnett - the legal academic, long term friend and co-blogger of Dale. Unsurprisingly, it also gives the book 5 stars, and while it does admit that she was a "beta reader" of the book from the start, her review contains some curious qualifications too:
It follows that this is not an *easy* read, although it is compelling. If you are likely to be offended by the idea that Jesus could be arrested as a terrorist, or by sexually explicit or violent scenes, this is probably not the book for you. However, if you are interested in law, history, questions of morality and in being challenged, you will enjoy this book. My husband found the names and concepts confusing, but I did not have any problems as I am a lawyer and a history graduate.Look, I think it's telling if the two 5 star reviews - one by an enthusiastic friend who has encouraged the author from day one - both have to warn people that it's not an easy story to follow, and having two degrees is an advantage to understand it! This does not augur well for the general reception of the book, it you ask me.
It's a wonder Sinclair Davidson hasn't gushed about the novel yet, given he seems to consider Dale to be a literary goddess and all round genius. A David Leyonhjelm piece at Catallaxy in which he spoke about the book went over like a lead balloon in that conservative dungeon (Jesus as terrorist doesn't play well with them - not that I can really blame them for their skepticism about that). But at least it gave forum to some anti Dale visitors, one of whom obviously doesn't follow the recent career path of her and Leyonhjelm closely:
The hypocrisy
Yeah, so Trump (and a bunch of Republicans) want to talk about mental health being the problem, not the country being full of semi automatic guns available for the mentally unwell to buy (background checks from private sellers are not necessary in more than half of the States).
What was that early thing Trump did that eased up on the mentally unwell not getting onto the national system? This:
What was that early thing Trump did that eased up on the mentally unwell not getting onto the national system? This:
President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.
The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.
Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database.
President Barack Obama recommended the now-nullified regulation in a 2013 memo following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which left 20 first graders and six others dead. The measure sought to block some people with severe mental health problems from buying guns....
Trump signed the bill into law without a photo op or fanfare. The president welcomed cameras into the oval office Tuesday for the signing of other executive orders and bills. News that the president signed the bill was tucked at the bottom of a White House email alerting press to other legislation signed by the president.
The National Rifle Association “applauded” Trump’s action. Chris Cox, NRA-ILA executive director, said the move “marks a new era for law-abiding gun owners, as we now have a president who respects and supports our arms.”
Just one random thought today
You know how awesome I think smartphones are? No?, well, they are incredible pieces of technology and everyone should say that aloud to their family over dinner at least once a week - I try to. (I don't like incredible technology going unappreciated.)
On a "not quite as stunning as a mobile phone, but why don't more people think about this" note: why aren't people more amazed at how far the remote garage door opener on their keyring can send a signal to the opener? I mean, gosh, look at the tiny battery that's powering the thing, but when I'm walking the dog I am often approaching the house from the front from quite a distance (there's a park there), and it's very surprising how far the tiny, tiny energy of the radio "ping" can be picked up at the garage. I've just checked using Google Maps (right click where you want to measure from, and chose "measure distance"): 70 m!
And it does this heaps of times before the battery dies, and you pick up a new one that comes from China on Ebay for 9 bucks or something.
All amazing...
On a "not quite as stunning as a mobile phone, but why don't more people think about this" note: why aren't people more amazed at how far the remote garage door opener on their keyring can send a signal to the opener? I mean, gosh, look at the tiny battery that's powering the thing, but when I'm walking the dog I am often approaching the house from the front from quite a distance (there's a park there), and it's very surprising how far the tiny, tiny energy of the radio "ping" can be picked up at the garage. I've just checked using Google Maps (right click where you want to measure from, and chose "measure distance"): 70 m!
And it does this heaps of times before the battery dies, and you pick up a new one that comes from China on Ebay for 9 bucks or something.
All amazing...
Tuesday, November 07, 2017
Cat amongst the physicists
Oh - Backreaction has a post up about Popper and particle physics and how it's all gone wrong.
Good read, even if she has an unreasonable dislike of phys.org as a website!
Good read, even if she has an unreasonable dislike of phys.org as a website!
More thoughts random
* I'm pretty busy this week, but I get the impression from Twitter and scanning the press that the Texas church shooting is not causing as much national grief in the US as from other mass shootings because:
a. American Conservatives have the idea that it's sort of holy to be shot during Church, and
b.American Progressives have the idea that it was probably a bunch of white folk who all supported the gun accessibility that led to their deaths, so meh.
I could be wrong...
* The Atlantic notes how Google publicises fake news and hoaxes after mass shootings. Yes, finally, the world realises after the election of Trump, we have a misinformation problem.
Honestly, I'm starting to feel at least half sympathetic to the Chinese solution to misuse of the internet. And if Alex Jones were locked up in jail until he promised to stop making absurd inflammatory claims - I for one would not shed a tear.
* I see that poor old Tom at Catallaxy thought it was a dead cert that the Texas killer was antifa. Yet he thinks he knows so much more than the "leftard" media. Gullible means never having to say you're stupid.
* I also see some pretty strong snark from Sinclair Davidson in a comment to a Steve Kates post about free trade and Trump. It's time the whole blog was shut down, really.
* Oh, Tom at Catallaxy writes:
a. American Conservatives have the idea that it's sort of holy to be shot during Church, and
b.American Progressives have the idea that it was probably a bunch of white folk who all supported the gun accessibility that led to their deaths, so meh.
I could be wrong...
* The Atlantic notes how Google publicises fake news and hoaxes after mass shootings. Yes, finally, the world realises after the election of Trump, we have a misinformation problem.
Honestly, I'm starting to feel at least half sympathetic to the Chinese solution to misuse of the internet. And if Alex Jones were locked up in jail until he promised to stop making absurd inflammatory claims - I for one would not shed a tear.
* I see that poor old Tom at Catallaxy thought it was a dead cert that the Texas killer was antifa. Yet he thinks he knows so much more than the "leftard" media. Gullible means never having to say you're stupid.
* I also see some pretty strong snark from Sinclair Davidson in a comment to a Steve Kates post about free trade and Trump. It's time the whole blog was shut down, really.
* Oh, Tom at Catallaxy writes:
JC, big slabs of the FBI are still Deep State never-Trumpers appointed under Obambi. FFS, Mueller as FBI director was the Clinton bagman who buried the investigation of Uranium One.Uhuh. Internet, paranoia, wingnuts. It's a dangerous combination. Good thing Tom keeps himself locked away in a shed and gets up at 3 am every day to find right wing cartoons for his fanclub. What a life...
Everything I’ve seen in the past month tells me the FBI’s investigation of the Las Vegas shooter is a sham.
Monday, November 06, 2017
Random thoughts
* Who invented crispbread, and it is old or new? This crossed my mind as I enjoyed some from Germany on the weekend. Wikipedia indicates that it's a Nordic thing, either 500 or 1500 years old (the article is confusing), but the oddest thing is this:
* Steven Kates is like the perfect example of my rule of thumb: do not trust anyone's judgement if they used to be a rabid Left/Right winger and subsequently became a rabid Right/Left winger. His cult membership of the Church of Trump now leads him to see nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all, with a President insisting that his Justice Department must prosecute his former political opponent (the chants of "lock her up" during the campaign - and after - presumably don't bother him at all). He is completely gullible to anything he hears via Fox News or Breitbart, clearly does not look deeply into issues, and has no qualms if the US ends up a tinpot dictatorship, as long as it is Trump's.
* Slate runs an opinion piece by someone arguing that the gay community condemning Spacey for using his "gay" disclosure when he apologised for what might have happened (OK - what almost certainly did happen) many years ago to the 14 years old who (unwisely) went alone to his party are actually feeding an unwarranted "gay pedophile" panic that used to just be confined to the heterosexual side. That's a brave opinion, but I suspect it is more or less right, although complicated by the fact that further disclosures have indicated that Kevin has had appalling workplace gay sexual harassment history anyway, so he is far from deserving sympathy for anything. But in the big picture, while there are probably figures out there somewhere, as I have said before, I suspect that the normalisation of the gay lifestyle in the West has probably lessened the amount of predatory behaviour towards youth, not increased it. But, who knows, it could be a wrong guess. (I mean, it sure could be argued that the sexual revolution obviously did nothing to decrease workplace sexual harassment in at least Hollywood through the 70's, 80's and 90's. But is media a business especially prone to power plays in sex?)
* Texas would probably be the State most likely to resist gun law changes regardless of the number of mass shootings that happen there. It's sad and tragic, but I am sure there will be some sentiment around to the effect "well, what did you expect?" And wingnuts will freak out about how insensitive it is to say such a thing. The NRA will come out with a proposal for a new scheme for no sales tax for Churches buying guns for self protection, or some such thing...
Update: what did I say about Texas?:
It was made as round wafers with a hole in the middle so the bread could be stored on sticks under the roof.[4]Why under the roof??
* Steven Kates is like the perfect example of my rule of thumb: do not trust anyone's judgement if they used to be a rabid Left/Right winger and subsequently became a rabid Right/Left winger. His cult membership of the Church of Trump now leads him to see nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all, with a President insisting that his Justice Department must prosecute his former political opponent (the chants of "lock her up" during the campaign - and after - presumably don't bother him at all). He is completely gullible to anything he hears via Fox News or Breitbart, clearly does not look deeply into issues, and has no qualms if the US ends up a tinpot dictatorship, as long as it is Trump's.
* Slate runs an opinion piece by someone arguing that the gay community condemning Spacey for using his "gay" disclosure when he apologised for what might have happened (OK - what almost certainly did happen) many years ago to the 14 years old who (unwisely) went alone to his party are actually feeding an unwarranted "gay pedophile" panic that used to just be confined to the heterosexual side. That's a brave opinion, but I suspect it is more or less right, although complicated by the fact that further disclosures have indicated that Kevin has had appalling workplace gay sexual harassment history anyway, so he is far from deserving sympathy for anything. But in the big picture, while there are probably figures out there somewhere, as I have said before, I suspect that the normalisation of the gay lifestyle in the West has probably lessened the amount of predatory behaviour towards youth, not increased it. But, who knows, it could be a wrong guess. (I mean, it sure could be argued that the sexual revolution obviously did nothing to decrease workplace sexual harassment in at least Hollywood through the 70's, 80's and 90's. But is media a business especially prone to power plays in sex?)
* Texas would probably be the State most likely to resist gun law changes regardless of the number of mass shootings that happen there. It's sad and tragic, but I am sure there will be some sentiment around to the effect "well, what did you expect?" And wingnuts will freak out about how insensitive it is to say such a thing. The NRA will come out with a proposal for a new scheme for no sales tax for Churches buying guns for self protection, or some such thing...
Update: what did I say about Texas?:
Asked by Fox News what can be done to stop the insanity and carnage that is happening time and time again in multiple shootings, Paxton [Texas Attorney General] replied:I see that it is reported that a local armed resident did fire at the guy - after he walked out of the Church leaving bodies everywhere. Yeah, that helps:
“This is going to happen again.”
I wish some law would fix all of this.”
“All I can say is in Texas at least we have the opportunity to have conceal carry,” he explained. “And so … there’s always the opportunity that gunman will be taken out before he has the opportunity to kill very many people.”
Texas officials just held a press conference about the deadliest mass shooting in the state, and revealed that a local resident fired back at the shooter who killed 26 people at a small town church ... and then gave chase before the gunman was found dead.
A rep for the Texas Department of Public Safety gave a blow-by-blow account of what went down Sunday morning in Sutherland Springs, TX where a gunman opened fire at the First Baptist Church.
He says the gunman, reportedly ID'd as Devin Kelley, was dressed in all black tactical gear when he opened fire on the church -- using an AR assault-style rifle -- from the outside and then continued inside. When he walked out again, a local resident engaged him with his own rifle, causing the gunman to flee.
Sunday, November 05, 2017
Thor viewed
Not being a fan of the more serious Marvel movies, I haven't seen the first two Thor movies. (Well, I once caught a bit of the first one on TV, and it seemed dull to me.) But Marvel comedy can be a lot of fun, and so it was off to see Thor: Ragnarok yesterday with my son.
We both liked it a lot.
The most surprising thing, really, is that the studio let director Taika Waititi have his way so completely in the use of his very distinctive voice, accent and humour in the character Korg. I see from this article that Korg didn't actually have that much to do in the original script, but his role kept getting larger. He is, without doubt, the funniest single thing in the movie. (Funnier than the Goldblum role, actually.)
I liked the movie's visual style too. It's not that I'm a fan of trippy fantasy art of the type sometimes found on surfer dudes vans in the 1970's (I think more than one review has referenced that style), but when it's done well in cinema, as it is here, it can be distinctive and memorable. (The dreamy, short remembrance of the Valkyries on flying horses fighting Hela is perhaps a highlight of impressive CGI.) And for all of the comedy, it did have some heart towards the end, rather in the same way the first Guardians of the Galaxy felt surprisingly serious in its opening with the death of Peter's mother.
So yes, a pleasing film that will be a major hit for all of the right reasons.
It also goes to show that you can film CGI heavy films anywhere - in this case, the Gold Coast and Brisbane. It is remarkable how little physical set needs to get built (see this article), but I also wonder at the end of these movies about how much each special effects artist gets paid - hundreds scroll by, and even with a one or two hundred million dollar budget, it must get split up into pretty small fractions.
As for the way Marvel has been not afraid to go into comedy, whereas DC Comics movies have such a dark reputation, I was amused by this in Christopher Orr's review:
We both liked it a lot.
The most surprising thing, really, is that the studio let director Taika Waititi have his way so completely in the use of his very distinctive voice, accent and humour in the character Korg. I see from this article that Korg didn't actually have that much to do in the original script, but his role kept getting larger. He is, without doubt, the funniest single thing in the movie. (Funnier than the Goldblum role, actually.)
I liked the movie's visual style too. It's not that I'm a fan of trippy fantasy art of the type sometimes found on surfer dudes vans in the 1970's (I think more than one review has referenced that style), but when it's done well in cinema, as it is here, it can be distinctive and memorable. (The dreamy, short remembrance of the Valkyries on flying horses fighting Hela is perhaps a highlight of impressive CGI.) And for all of the comedy, it did have some heart towards the end, rather in the same way the first Guardians of the Galaxy felt surprisingly serious in its opening with the death of Peter's mother.
So yes, a pleasing film that will be a major hit for all of the right reasons.
It also goes to show that you can film CGI heavy films anywhere - in this case, the Gold Coast and Brisbane. It is remarkable how little physical set needs to get built (see this article), but I also wonder at the end of these movies about how much each special effects artist gets paid - hundreds scroll by, and even with a one or two hundred million dollar budget, it must get split up into pretty small fractions.
As for the way Marvel has been not afraid to go into comedy, whereas DC Comics movies have such a dark reputation, I was amused by this in Christopher Orr's review:
...we now have Thor: Ragnarok, which is perfectly acceptable as an action movie but moderately inspired as a comedy. (This may well be the future of the entire superhero genre—see also: Spider-Man: Homecoming—which means that DC Comics and Warner Bros. will probably catch on in about five years.)Having seen the shorts yesterday for the coming Justice League movie, it looks dour and only with the slightest laughs, as usual. I have no interest in seeing it at all...
Friday, November 03, 2017
Trolleys and embryos
I see via And Then There's Physics, which led me to Michael Tobis's blog, which linked to another blog called Scary Mommy, which noted in a series of tweets in October by a science fiction writer called Patrick Tomlinson, that he had posed a trolley problem scenario with the alternatives being saving a 5 year old child or a vat of 1,000 frozen embryos. (It's not exactly the same as the classic "trolley", since it just a question of which you save from the burning fertility clinic, given that you can't carry both. It removes the issue of taking a positive action - throwing someone off the bridge, or hitting the switch to divert the train from one track to another - that will lead to the sure killing.) The point is to show anti-abortionists that, at heart, they surely can't perceive embryos as every bit as worthy of "life" preservation as a person already living as an independent human.
I just mention this because I first thought "hey I came up with that idea maybe 4 or 5 years ago." I noted here in 2015 that I had put the argument up at Catallaxy perhaps a couple of years previously.
But then I went back and noted that Tomlinson said he has been using the argument for about 10 years. Oh well. Another case of originality fail.
I still think it's a great argument.
I don't like abortion, instinctively. But I can clearly see that the religious argument that it is a case of life from fertilization that warrants the same protection as all human life makes no intuitive sense, too.
I just mention this because I first thought "hey I came up with that idea maybe 4 or 5 years ago." I noted here in 2015 that I had put the argument up at Catallaxy perhaps a couple of years previously.
But then I went back and noted that Tomlinson said he has been using the argument for about 10 years. Oh well. Another case of originality fail.
I still think it's a great argument.
I don't like abortion, instinctively. But I can clearly see that the religious argument that it is a case of life from fertilization that warrants the same protection as all human life makes no intuitive sense, too.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Update: just after I post that, I notice that young economist Mark Koyama has said the book is "highly recommended". We'll see...