I saw most of the Leigh Sales interview of James Comey on 7.30 last night. I thought it was a good interview - both performed well. Apparently, Helen Razer doesn't think so, but fortunately her verbiage is mostly behind a paywall.
You know, she works as a strong disincentive for me to consider subscribing to Crikey. I would like to be able to read Bernard Keane and even Guy Rundle in full when I want to, even though I get the impression the former's output has lessened in recent months. (Is he well? I always worry he might be verging on actual depression). But I feel can't indirectly support Razer.
Friday, April 20, 2018
Hilarious
According to Axios:
President Trump told former FBI Director James Comey at their private dinner in January 2017 that then-national security adviser Michael Flynn "has serious judgement issues," according to the Associated Press which obtained Comey's memos.That would have to be the blackest pot calling out of a kettle in the history of kitchenware.
The shallowest of shallow analysis
While I'm in an anti Tim Blair mood, he today claims that California is "broke", linking to a LA Times story to show it.
What's this?, I thought - I recently linked to stories showing that tax increases under Jerry Brown had paid off $32 billion of debt, leaving it debt free for the moment.
And indeed, that is still true, as the LA Times article shows.
It goes on to note, however, that long term commitments - payments to retired public servants is the biggest one mentioned - means that there is a lot of future projected debt. But the article shows it is Jerry Brown himself who has been warning of this future problem, which certainly indicates he is not avoiding it as an issue. And it's a long term thing - the article does not specify over what period the projected $242 billion relates to.
If that's Blair shallow definition of "broke" - governments that have large future projected budget debts but haven't yet worked out how it will be funded - then he may as well be talking about the entire US government being broke and being made far more broke by Trump and the Republicans. Oh, but they're part of his tribe, so he'll just talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome instead.
He's pretty dumb, let's face it.
What's this?, I thought - I recently linked to stories showing that tax increases under Jerry Brown had paid off $32 billion of debt, leaving it debt free for the moment.
And indeed, that is still true, as the LA Times article shows.
It goes on to note, however, that long term commitments - payments to retired public servants is the biggest one mentioned - means that there is a lot of future projected debt. But the article shows it is Jerry Brown himself who has been warning of this future problem, which certainly indicates he is not avoiding it as an issue. And it's a long term thing - the article does not specify over what period the projected $242 billion relates to.
If that's Blair shallow definition of "broke" - governments that have large future projected budget debts but haven't yet worked out how it will be funded - then he may as well be talking about the entire US government being broke and being made far more broke by Trump and the Republicans. Oh, but they're part of his tribe, so he'll just talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome instead.
He's pretty dumb, let's face it.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Bit of an oddball, really
This TLS article, about theatrical productions based on Charles Dickens novels, starts by noting how Dickens as a young man was very attracted to the idea of being a professional actor. But he missed an audition and gave up on the idea, even though his behaviour when alone could still be very "theatrical":
...the fact that Dickens could imagine such different outcomes with equal conviction indicates that he did not simply abandon his theatrical ambitions when he became a full-time writer. Instead he absorbed them into his daily routine. His daughter Mamie once observed him in the process of composition:
. . . my father wrote busily and rapidly at his desk, when he suddenly jumped up from his chair and rushed to a mirror which hung near, and in which I could see the reflection of some extraordinary facial contortions which he was making. He returned rapidly to his desk, wrote furiously for a few moments, and then went again to the mirror. The facial pantomime was resumed, and then turning toward, but evidently not seeing, me, he began talking rapidly in a low voice.It was like a private version of the “monopolylogues” Dickens had enjoyed watching as a young man, farces at Covent Garden and the Adelphi Theatre in which the virtuoso actor Charles Mathews took on all the parts himself, swapping facial expressions and voices like a series of hats. For Dickens the blank page had become a stage on which he could perform his own inimitable one-man show.
Makes me think of boxing, for some reason...
A single concussion may increase risk of Parkinson's disease
People who have been diagnosed with a mild concussion, or mild traumatic brain injury, may have a 56 percent increased risk of developing Parkinson's disease, according to a study published in the April 18, 2018, online issue of Neurology®, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.Article may be read here.
"Previous research has shown a strong link between moderate to severe traumatic brain injury and an increased risk of developing Parkinson's disease but the research on mild traumatic brain injury has not been conclusive," said senior study author Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and a member of the American Academy of Neurology. "Our research looked a very large population of U.S. veterans who had experienced either mild, moderate or severe traumatic brain injury in an effort to find an answer to whether a mild traumatic brain injury can put someone at risk."
Moderate to severe traumatic brain injury was defined as a loss of consciousness for more than 30 minutes, alteration of consciousness of more than 24 hours or amnesia for more than 24 hours. Mild traumatic brain injury was defined as loss of consciousness for zero to 30 minutes, alteration of consciousness of a moment to 24 hours or amnesia for zero to 24 hours.
Tim Blair and suicide
Recently, Tim Blair posted about the 60 year old American lawyer who committed suicide by self immolation and left a note making it clear it was a "lack of action on climate change" political protest.
Blair made light of it in a ironic "solar proponent needed fossil fuel to kill himself properly" way, which I thought in poor taste; but somewhat worse was that the photo at the top of the post was captioned "Brooklyn lawyer David Buckel died hilariously". Given the odd ways you never quite know who in a newspaper is responsible for captions or headlines, I let it pass. But seriously - since when does anyone consider suicides "hilarious" regardless of motivation? Especially the patently gruesome style of suicide that is self immolation - which all normal people just think are awful for onlookers and emergency services to deal with and wish would not happen - and about as far from hilarious as it is possible to get.
So, object of Blair's obsession, Jonathan Green, then tweeted that this was a "new low" for Blair.
Personally, I think his utterly unwarranted ridicule/attack on a Labor politician for having a husband who has completely rehabilitated himself after being a heroin user and serving time for some dealing was worse, as it had obvious potential to be read by said politician and her children, and made no moral sense whatsoever.
Blair now posts that he has received a polite note from some mental health advocate asking that he edit or delete his original post. Blair has declined, arguing as follows:
But is Blair not bright enough to understand that the appropriate counter-reaction to "overly solemnise" does not have to be "finding hilarious" actual gruesome suicides?
It occurs to me about twice a week that Tim is not very bright - given that he swallows and repeats all climate change denialist claims completely uncritically - obviously not caring to look up the wealth of material on the net about what is actually happening; preferring to be a mini Delingpole going "ha ha ha - as if". The faults and errors in his ignorant attempts to defeat science by laughing at it like an idiot laughs at something he doesn't understand are so obvious that critics have largely stopped engaging with him on that point. Similarly with Bolt. They are not serious; yet the consequences of their position is serious.
So when it comes to suicide in a far away country and one by a Greenie, it's all worth a "hilarious" reaction too. It's letting dumb-ass culture warrioring make him think and sound like a minor psychopath.
And he can't see that. But as I say, not very bright.
Blair made light of it in a ironic "solar proponent needed fossil fuel to kill himself properly" way, which I thought in poor taste; but somewhat worse was that the photo at the top of the post was captioned "Brooklyn lawyer David Buckel died hilariously". Given the odd ways you never quite know who in a newspaper is responsible for captions or headlines, I let it pass. But seriously - since when does anyone consider suicides "hilarious" regardless of motivation? Especially the patently gruesome style of suicide that is self immolation - which all normal people just think are awful for onlookers and emergency services to deal with and wish would not happen - and about as far from hilarious as it is possible to get.
So, object of Blair's obsession, Jonathan Green, then tweeted that this was a "new low" for Blair.
Personally, I think his utterly unwarranted ridicule/attack on a Labor politician for having a husband who has completely rehabilitated himself after being a heroin user and serving time for some dealing was worse, as it had obvious potential to be read by said politician and her children, and made no moral sense whatsoever.
Blair now posts that he has received a polite note from some mental health advocate asking that he edit or delete his original post. Blair has declined, arguing as follows:
You know, it just might be that the reverence and solemnity now surrounding suicide is adding to the problem. It just might be that socially-enforced solemnity over poor decisions actually helps validate those decisions, and may encourage others to follow similarly ruinous paths.He makes half a good point. The media reaction to, say, teenagers who have suicided claiming bullying as the motive does concern me as indeed inadvertently encouraging other teenagers who feel victimised to think that, at least in death, they will get the respect and a kind of revenge. This is legitimate concern, and is well discussed in recent years, such as the reaction to that Netflix show "13 Reasons Why".
But is Blair not bright enough to understand that the appropriate counter-reaction to "overly solemnise" does not have to be "finding hilarious" actual gruesome suicides?
It occurs to me about twice a week that Tim is not very bright - given that he swallows and repeats all climate change denialist claims completely uncritically - obviously not caring to look up the wealth of material on the net about what is actually happening; preferring to be a mini Delingpole going "ha ha ha - as if". The faults and errors in his ignorant attempts to defeat science by laughing at it like an idiot laughs at something he doesn't understand are so obvious that critics have largely stopped engaging with him on that point. Similarly with Bolt. They are not serious; yet the consequences of their position is serious.
So when it comes to suicide in a far away country and one by a Greenie, it's all worth a "hilarious" reaction too. It's letting dumb-ass culture warrioring make him think and sound like a minor psychopath.
And he can't see that. But as I say, not very bright.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
And now to quote Adam Gopnik
I liked Gopnik's article about the danger in Trump's appalling tweets, and it's worth reading it all. But I think these are the key paragraphs:
The trouble is that the damage done by Trump’s words is damage enough. In a contestatory democracy—where the core notion, however debased by overuse and however degraded by money and power, is that political differences are settled by debate—words have, of necessity, a quality not so much sacred as practical. They’re the currency of open societies, which rest on the primary foundation of having exchanged weapons for ideas. There’s a reason that the great crises of this democracy have been met by an efflorescence of language, a reason that we turn to Hamilton and Franklin and Lincoln and King not just for wisdom about crises past but for a vocabulary for crises present. Words are what governments with a liberal public face have to live by. We know tyrannies by their temples; we know democracies through their tongues.
Trump’s words don’t debate or even discredit. They degrade and delegitimize. They’re insults so crude that it’s difficult to believe that anyone could find them persuasive, but that are clearly intended to appeal to a part of what is called the “base”—an unintentional, if somewhat Shakespearean, pun. One miserable truth of humanity is that cruel impulses are easy to awaken in large numbers of people, if they’re told by those in power that those impulses are now acceptable, and the form that such permission takes is invariably a reawakening of the language of demonology.....
Trump, in maintaining that the opposition is not merely wrong but criminal, not mistaken but illegitimate, undermines not a norm or a manner or some stuffy curlicue of liberalism’s house rules; he assaults its essence. We are shocked by Trump’s language not because we’re prim but because we understand intuitively, instinctively, that the language is itself an assault on the rule of law, not merely a prologue or preface to it. It’s not a puff of air. It has real consequences. James Comey registered this shock just the other morning on NPR: “President Trump, I don’t follow him on Twitter, but I get to see his tweets tweeted, I don’t know how many, but some tweets this past couple of days that I should be in jail. The President of the United States just said that a private citizen should be jailed. And I think the reaction of most of us was, ‘Meh, that’s another one of those things.’ This is not normal. This is not O.K. There’s a danger that we will become numb to it, and we will stop noticing the threats to our norms.” To which one might add only that it isn’t norms but premises that are being undermined. Every time Trump calls his critics or political opponents “crooks” or “slime balls,” it poisons the possibility for open debate.
Rupert runs a propaganda network to troll his son?
Well ain't this grand news (assuming it is accurate)?
I have complained often about Rupert Murdoch's role in not moderating his pro-Trump propaganda network (Fox News.) According to Vanity Fair:
But even worse - Rupert finds it funny that Hannity winds up James??
As I have said before, he doesn't care as long as the network brings in cash by catering to conspiracy minded wingnts, and he's still getting invites to state dinners.
A pretty appalling man.
I have complained often about Rupert Murdoch's role in not moderating his pro-Trump propaganda network (Fox News.) According to Vanity Fair:
Good grief - the Laura Ingraham comments re Hogg were low and she deserved ridicule and an advertiser boycott.Rupert Murdoch has not been pleased with the current Fox leadership team’s crisis-management abilities, sources said. The 87-year-old mogul has been recovering from a severe back injury at his Bel Air estate after falling on his son Lachlan’s yacht shortly after the Christmas holiday. Earlier this month, Murdoch was upset that Fox didn’t forcefully defend Laura Ingraham, who faced an advertiser boycott for mocking Parkland survivor-turned-gun-control activist David Hogg.Now, Murdoch is back at work. According to a source, Murdoch returned to the office yesterday and appeared invigorated. “He looked taller,” the source said. In ultimately deciding how to handle the Hannity crisis, Murdoch is facing competing impulses. On the one hand, Hannity is a ratings machine and winds up liberals, including his son James, in a way that is entertaining to Murdoch. But Hannity is also Trump’s most unapologetic booster at a time when sources said Murdoch may be cooling on Trump. One person close to Murdoch told me Murdoch called Trump to complain about the trade tariffs. (A Murdoch spokesperson denies this.) Another source said Murdoch was not invited to the upcoming state dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron, and only was added to the list after calling the White House. (Murdoch’s spokesperson denies this.)
But even worse - Rupert finds it funny that Hannity winds up James??
As I have said before, he doesn't care as long as the network brings in cash by catering to conspiracy minded wingnts, and he's still getting invites to state dinners.
A pretty appalling man.
What's in a name
John Quiggin has decided to reclassify his political position as "socialist", rather than "social-democrat".
I tend to agree that this political classification stuff has become all rubbery and a tad pointless. I liked this line in JQ's post:
On the other side of the political spectrum, I suspect Australian would-be libertarians have embraced "classical liberal" instead with relish in recent years to avoid association with American Rand-ian inspired libertarianisn,* which still has something of an air of obsessive nuttiness about it. I've noticed that one defining thing about Australian "classical liberals": their complete policy indifference on climate change. Yeah, they fret a lot about whether bicycle helmets are really worth it, people's right to inhale lead and formaldehyde laced e-cigarette vapours, and Andrew Bolt claiming trauma by going to court over the Racial Discrimination Act; but something that is literally going to re-shape the face of the planet - well they have no interest, apart from whining about market distortion when governments support renewables. They're about the last people who should have political power at the moment.
And by the way: Graeme Bird is apparently commenting at JQ's post, and managing to sound eccentric, but not entirely mad. The medication must be helping...
* yeah, yeah, she denied she was one, but she was an unreliable nutter generally
I tend to agree that this political classification stuff has become all rubbery and a tad pointless. I liked this line in JQ's post:
As has been true for most of the history of the modern world, the only serious threat to democracy is now coming from the right.Not sure about the part before the comma, but agree with the second part while ever Trump is in the chair.
On the other side of the political spectrum, I suspect Australian would-be libertarians have embraced "classical liberal" instead with relish in recent years to avoid association with American Rand-ian inspired libertarianisn,* which still has something of an air of obsessive nuttiness about it. I've noticed that one defining thing about Australian "classical liberals": their complete policy indifference on climate change. Yeah, they fret a lot about whether bicycle helmets are really worth it, people's right to inhale lead and formaldehyde laced e-cigarette vapours, and Andrew Bolt claiming trauma by going to court over the Racial Discrimination Act; but something that is literally going to re-shape the face of the planet - well they have no interest, apart from whining about market distortion when governments support renewables. They're about the last people who should have political power at the moment.
And by the way: Graeme Bird is apparently commenting at JQ's post, and managing to sound eccentric, but not entirely mad. The medication must be helping...
* yeah, yeah, she denied she was one, but she was an unreliable nutter generally
The Entertainer : DEFINITELY NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST
More entertainment to be found from the dude who does RSL and pub gigs for a living (I'd love to know if he was playing near Brisbane: I would think of getting a triggering T Shirt made up to wear - "Make Australia Great - support UN Agenda 2030").
TV viewed
* Netflix's Lost in Space: only seen the first episode, and while not totally thrilled, it's promising enough to keep going. Oddly, though, I don't understand why people like to rubbish the movie version (which I am one of few people to defend - I really quite liked it) on the grounds that it made tension within the Robinson family a key part of the plot, when this update does something similar but is generally receiving kinder reviews. Netflix is promoting it very heavily, which I have read is a ploy to get more family friendly material, and I like that the company is doing that.
* Netflix's Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency: I was dubious on viewing the first episode: too many plot threads and I was finding Dirk a bit, I dunno, verging on camp fey? But I came back to it recently and watched a few more episodes, and it has grown on me considerably. Most episodes have a good few laughs, and a surprise or two, and the leads are good together. It takes a too violent turn every now and again, and the basic plot is as silly as a Doctor Who episode, but I'm glad I came back.
* Mr Robot Season 3: 3 episodes in and I think it's moving faster than some of the glacially paced talky episodes in Season 2. The weirdness of the writing of some characters continues. Got a good laugh when it incorporated the matter of how Trump got elected. He obviously hasn't seen the show, or he would be decrying it as fake news, even though it's not news. Given the key "Dark Army" out of China aspect, I can imagine Jason Soon getting a thrill from it...
* Netflix's Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency: I was dubious on viewing the first episode: too many plot threads and I was finding Dirk a bit, I dunno, verging on camp fey? But I came back to it recently and watched a few more episodes, and it has grown on me considerably. Most episodes have a good few laughs, and a surprise or two, and the leads are good together. It takes a too violent turn every now and again, and the basic plot is as silly as a Doctor Who episode, but I'm glad I came back.
* Mr Robot Season 3: 3 episodes in and I think it's moving faster than some of the glacially paced talky episodes in Season 2. The weirdness of the writing of some characters continues. Got a good laugh when it incorporated the matter of how Trump got elected. He obviously hasn't seen the show, or he would be decrying it as fake news, even though it's not news. Given the key "Dark Army" out of China aspect, I can imagine Jason Soon getting a thrill from it...
Tony was wrong? (Read as sarcasm)
Interesting:
Australia's renewable energy capacity is set to exceed a target the Federal Government said was impossible to reach by 2020, according to new research from Green Energy Markets.Mind you, it is so hard to understand disputes about energy policy in Australia that I wouldn't be surprised if someone turns up pointing to some misleading aspect of this perhaps overly positive report. I mean, you do get the feeling that each side exaggerates in their own self interest. And as for what the Liberal's National Energy Guarantee even means, let alone an objective assessment of it - well, I have yet to see a good, clear explanation.
In its quarterly Renewable Energy Index, GEM said the amount of renewable energy generated in 2020 was set to exceed the original 41,000 Gigawatt hour (GWh) Renewable Energy Target (RET) that was in place before being scrapped in 2015 by the federal government led by then prime minister Tony Abbott.
The original RET was put in place to help Australia meet its 2030 climate change commitment to cut emissions by 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 levels.
It was replaced by a less ambitious target of 33,000 GWh after the Abbott government characterised the original RET as impossible to achieve, while arguing there was already too much generating capacity.
The GEM study — funded by activist group GetUp — found estimated eligible generation would hit 41,381 GWh by 2020, not only exceeding the current RET, but the original RET as well.
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Must make Murdoch proud
I'm referring to Hannity failing to disclose during rants against the (judicially authorised) Cohen raid that he was a client of Cohen. How spectacularly self-interested and unethical was that?
What I don't understand is why the few allegedly neutral journalist/commentator types who work at the network don't all resign due to the network's overall design of being the ultimate pro-Trump/conspiracy network. Have some self respect, guys.
What I don't understand is why the few allegedly neutral journalist/commentator types who work at the network don't all resign due to the network's overall design of being the ultimate pro-Trump/conspiracy network. Have some self respect, guys.
Chait on the failure of moderates to moderate the GOP
Good article by Jonathan Chait on the problem of Republican "never Trumpers" just giving up.
Monday, April 16, 2018
A bad look for UQ
At the ABC, a rather surprising story:
The University of Queensland (UQ) and two international medical journals are investigating alleged ethical violations in research around Universal Medicine (UM), an organisation based in Lismore in New South Wales, which touts the healing power of "esoteric breast massage" and other unproven treatments.
Founded by Serge Benhayon — a former bankrupt tennis coach with no medical qualifications who claims to be the reincarnation of Leonardo Da Vinci — UM is a multi-million-dollar enterprise with 700 mostly women followers in 15 countries.
UM practitioners are also taught by Mr Benhayon to carry out esoteric ovary massage to "help women connect back to their body".
An ABC investigation can reveal three members of UQ's faculty of medicine have publicly advocated for the controversial group.
Eminent medical educator John Dwyer, the former head of immunology at Yale University, said the researchers had "an unbelievable conflict of interest" as "apostles for Universal Medicine, heavily involved in the organisation and the teachings of the group".
UM is linked to Mr Benhayon's Way of the Livingness religion, with UM followers urged to follow his strict lifestyle instructions from diet and sleep to sex.
Mr Benhayon's acolytes include Christoph Schnelle, a UQ faculty of medicine researcher who was the lead author of three articles on UM health practices.
He and eight co-authors are now under scrutiny for an alleged failure to declare their roles in what has been described as "a dangerous cult" by Professor Dwyer, who is now based at the University of New South Wales.
The ABC has obtained video of four of the researchers publicly advocating UM practices, including two doctors.How very odd...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)