Conservative judges a worry

I hope this article at Slate remains un-paywalled - it reads as a pretty damning indictment of the self interested partisanship of the conservative judges on the US Supreme Court.

Ha!

 

If you want some depressing reading, try this story!

Oh, good grief.

The New York Times has a story about its polling showing that, on most aspects, registered voters' opinions on Trump's time as president has improved!   

What I find particularly galling about this is that there is no analysis of how this could be - just a cursory "well, voters usually start rating presidents better after their presidency".

There's no mention of the incessant propaganda and lies of Fox News and social media, and how MSM such as the New York Times itself "two sides" and "horse races" itself into coverage that quasi normalises Trump and his gutless sycophant followers in the GOP.   I mean, you even get two sides-ing in this article itself:

“He’s horrific. He’s a narcissist. He’s dishonest. He’s a misogynist,” said Dodee Firestone, 74, a Biden supporter from Boca Raton, Fla. “I could never, ever, ever vote for Trump.”

But other voters said that while they disapproved of Mr. Trump’s inflammatory style, they wondered whether they had placed too much emphasis on his personality in past elections.

I think the article writers have chosen some quote deliberately to raise the blood pressure of the sensible reader:

Maya Garcia, 23, described herself as a former “Trump hater.” But now, she says, she has come to believe that Mr. Trump’s contentious style helped control crime and maintain order in the country.

“When he was first running, I was, like, what is this guy even yapping about? Like, what is he even saying? Like, he’s saying all the wrong things,” said Ms. Garcia, a restaurant worker from Canoga Park, Calif. “But to be honest, if you look deep into his personality, he actually cares about the country.” She added: “You know at first I didn’t like it. But sometimes we need that type of person in our lives.”

My eyes can't role far enough back into my head.

Or this one, another 23 year old female Hispanic:

Angie Leon, a 23-year-old Mexican American, said she never liked how Mr. Trump talked about Latinos. But looking back, she wonders whether Mr. Trump’s incendiary remarks about immigrants and building a border wall were just a political tactic to bolster his campaign. After backing Mr. Biden in 2020, she plans to switch her vote to Mr. Trump in November.

“I felt like it was just his marketing, in the way that he would get the attention of people,” said Ms. Leon, a human resources recruiter from Gilroy, Calif. “The country was better when he was running it, despite his comments toward the community.”

Anyhow, despite despairing here regularly of the Trump Cult, and being puzzled about why certain factors which are not being reflected in polls (the Republicans who supported the "never Trump"-ish Haley, the way some in the party are resigning rather than fight every day with the MAGA wing), I am still telling people he will not win.

He is being driven nuts by his litigation fights, and his (mostly) losing streak is likely to continue and put him under more and more pressure as the year progresses - psychological, financial, and keeping him from campaigning.    

 

"Trapped in a hopeless doom loop of misinformation" sums it up so well

A bunch of tweets of note about Trump's rally on the weekend:

 

Religion and politics/space and Elon

Another good video from Religion for Breakfast.  (Actually, they are all good - even if the title indicates its a topic you're not particularly interested in, if you start watching them they are engaging.)

 

And in other video viewing recommendations - who pays for this Freethink channel?  It's obviously got significant money behind it, as shown by the way this video is put together.   It's about the unresolved difficulties of space colonisation, and even though they don't mention him, Musk and his followers and anyone else who thinks we're flying off to Mars with a permanent colony sometime in the next 20 years need to pay attention:

Random photo

 I just thought this one looked good in black and white...

Oh no.  It looks OK on my laptop, but not my phone.  Must work on that...

A real professional

Sandy, by the way, promised recently that she was pretty much leaving Twitter because it had become too toxic.

What a nut

In other "MAGA people live in a fantasy world and are supported in that continually by Fox News and other Right wing media", I liked this summary of one issue by the Washington Post's Philip Bump.

Transgender pushback continues

I see that a major review into transgender policy with respect to children and teens has just been released in England, and confirms a major realignment towards a more conservative approach to "gender affirmation" of children and teens with puberty delaying drugs and hormones.    This means Twitter is going to be flooded with comments about this:  many of them from angry trans activists and their sympathisers, and the rest from the pro-Rowling group crowing about vindication.   

Also, I see that netball has the latest sporting governing body to go "yeah, nah" to ignoring transgenderism:

World Netball has relied on “robust” research to determine a ban on transgender players from international competition with immediate effect will form a key plank of a new participation and inclusion policy.

The global governing body made the ruling after a review and lengthy consultation as other sports around the world tighten their participation rules for transgender athletes in elite women’s competitions.

There are no transgender players in the Australian Super Netball competition and therefore none in line for promotion to the Diamonds in the immediate future.

But the ban means they won’t be allowed to represent their country should a transgender star emerge.

It really does puzzle me that some people who I would call in most other respects moderate Lefties have a complete blind spot when it comes to this:  taking a completely dismissive (and basically, politically tribal) attitude to any and all criticism or reassessment of trends and attitudes towards a issue that is obviously complex and obviously capable of trends and fashions getting ahead of evidence and, well, common sense.   I mean, treatment of conditions with a large mental health component has always been like that - "reasonable" people thought for a time that lobotomies were a pretty good idea too, to take an extreme, but I think still valid, example.

Update:  Seems to me that this New York Times article summarising the current "state of play", so to speak, is pretty balanced.

What is clear is that the US official medical position is now lagging behind the reassessments underway in most of Europe.   I wonder if the aggressive legislative, culture war, pushback approach in Republican states might be a little counterproductive by making the professional bodies dig their heals in and take longer to admit reassessment is warranted. (I also wish, though, that Biden would defuse this culture war issue by also taking a neutral stance on it, instead of being something of a an apparent captive of "gender ideology".)

The very likeable Palin

The Guardian has a lengthy interview up with the always affable and likeable Michael Palin.   I always get the impression he's never made an enemy, or lost a friendship, in his entire life.  And he would probably be modest enough to deny it.

The problem is, if you ignore him, he doesn't go away

What, I haven't posted today?  Let me go back to a New York Times article from last week, about the increasingly obvious Christofascist nature of his rallies:

Long known for his improvised and volatile stage performances, former President Donald J. Trump now tends to finish his rallies on a solemn note.

Soft, reflective music fills the venue as a hush falls over the crowd. Mr. Trump’s tone turns reverent and somber, prompting some supporters to bow their heads or close their eyes. Others raise open palms in the air or murmur as if in prayer.

In this moment, Mr. Trump’s audience is his congregation, and the former president their pastor as he delivers a roughly 15-minute finale that evokes an evangelical altar call, the emotional tradition that concludes some Christian services in which attendees come forward to commit to their savior.

“The great silent majority is rising like never before and under our leadership,” he recites from a teleprompter in a typical version of the script. “We will pray to God for our strength and for our liberty. We will pray for God and we will pray with God. We are one movement, one people, one family and one glorious nation under God.” 

Some, but not enough, Christians do call this out:

But some Christian conservatives are loath to join their brethren in clearing a direct path from the ornate doors of Mar-a-Lago to the pearly gates of Heaven.

Russell Moore, the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public-policy arm, said Mr. Trump’s rallies had veered into “dangerous territory” with the altar-call closing and opening prayers from preachers describing Mr. Trump as heaven-sent.

“Claiming godlike authority or an endorsement from God for a political candidate means that person cannot be questioned or opposed without also opposing God,” Mr. Moore said. “That’s a violation of the commandment to not take the Lord’s name in vain.”

There is precious little push back on the wild creepiness of this, not to mention the obvious comparisons that can be made to the tactics of 20th century fascists.   It just gets semi-normalised by media ignoring it (by and large).

Also, I tend to agree with most of what this guy says on Twitter:

 

An experiment leads to recriminalisation of hard drugs...

It seems that the Washington Post has taken a very active line in publicising research indicating that marijuana use can be harmful to health:  such that I wondered whether Bezos himself doesn't like its widespread use.  Yet now that I Google the topic, it seems that Amazon has been actively for decriminalisation, and no one seems to know whether Bezos indulges personally. 

Anyhoo, that's by way of background to this WAPO editorial that praises Oregon for changing its policies on use of hard drugs.  I mean, it does genuinely sound like it was a real disaster, and takes a line that sounds pretty sensible to me:

Oregon’s experience shows that compassion is important for addicts, but so are consequences. Responding to the social ills of drug abuse requires a mix of carrots and sticks. Just as many people with drinking problems won’t put down the bottle until they get prosecuted for driving under the influence, drug courts connect many users with help they need but might not otherwise seek.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the number of annual overdoses in Oregon rose 61 percent in the two years after decriminalization took effect, compared with 13 percent nationwide. Unintentional opioid overdose deaths in Oregon spiked from 280 in 2019 to 956 in 2022, according to the state health authority. A study published in the Journal of Health Economics concluded that the ballot measure caused 182 additional overdose deaths in 2021 alone. In Portland’s Multnomah County, more people died from overdoses than covid-19 during the pandemic.

Police could give people using drugs in public a $100 ticket, less than the fine for failing to signal a turn. The citation would be waived if the user called a hotline to get a referral for treatment. But more than 95 percent of people disregarded their tickets altogether, because there were no penalties for failing to pay. A state audit revealed last year that just 119 people called the 24-7 treatment referral hotline during its first 15 months. Given the price of running the hotline, that meant each phone call cost the state $7,000.

Oregon’s leaders deserve credit for reversing course — even if it required a taxpayer backlash and tragic stories of children dying from ingesting fentanyl. The new law, effective Sept. 1, will make possession of hard narcotics a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.

And this:

Many people didn’t seek treatment even when it was available and offered to them, because the architects of the law neglected how addiction alters brain chemistry. Drug addiction is that rare disease that the sufferer often does not wish to be cured from. Fentanyl and meth feel good to use in the short term; withdrawal hurts. The criminal justice system plays a vital role in applying external pressure to push addicts into detox.

 One might ask - why was decriminalisation widely considered a success in Portugal but not Oregon?  There will be multiple factors to point to (Oregon not providing the treatment beds, Portugal being able to force users into rehab, and even a degree of myth making about how successful Portugal really is), but as I have taken to noting lately - there just seems something about American society that leads to a complicated and problematic relationship with drug use and drug use policy*, such that approaches that do work in some countries can't easily be replicated in America.

Some of the comments following the editorial are interesting, too, for showing what a bitterly divided country culturally it has become: plenty of Right wingers saying "yay for the end of liberal madness", and liberals saying "the lack of compassion and support for drug users is appalling".  

Meanwhile, we wait for the unifying centrist leadership to reappear.  (Not that I am dissing Biden - he is pretty centrist on most things - but we need younger figures in cultural leadership.)

 

* And not just now:  did any other country even try alcohol prohibition in the way America did?

Just in case you are missing your Singaporean esoterica of the day...

I mentioned in my recent post about the Peranakan Museum in Singapore that I hadn't realised that betel chewing had been a big thing in Singapore - and that in fact you can still buy the betel leaf and nut (and, I presume, slaked lime) in Little India and indulge legally.  (I've often wondered about the slaked lime bit - it sounds a gritty, enamel wearing thing to be chewing on.   I also am a bit surprised that Singapore hasn't just outlawed this habit, given it's a real risk factor for getting terrible mouth cancers, and surely the spitting that the chewing leads to can't be done on a Singaporean footpath without risk of a good caning.)

Now that I Google the topic "where to buy betel leaf and nut in Singapore" I have learnt a lot more about this practice:

*    the "nut" is actually the seed of a berry off a palm tree - and that particular palm tree is on the flag for the Malaysian state of Penang.  (The "berry" looks like the seed off many different types of palms - I wonder if more than one palm tree berry seed has this effect?)

*   The leaf the nut (and lime) is wrapped in for chewing is actually from a completely different plant.

*   The slaked lime is typically made from ground sea shell.  (People who use Sensodyne tooth paste need not apply, I presume.)  

And look, here is the .pdf of an information dense, 4 page magazine article from 2020 all about the history of betel chewing in Singapore.   Some extracts:

In Singapore and Malaya during the 19th and early 20th centuries, the betel quid was enjoyed by a broad swathe of society,  often transcending class and gender. It was consumed throughout the day, especially after meals due to the quid’s digestive and breath freshening qualities....

 I had no idea it was, at least in Singapore, seen as a more feminine than masculine habit:

Perhaps the most fundamental role of the betel quid was in promoting and strengthening social ties.16 Betel chewing served as a social lubricant, like communal eating or drinking alcohol...

 As in much of the Malay world, betel chewing in Singapore tended to have  feminine overtones. According to a 1951 Singapore Free Press article, among ethnic Indians it was mostly women who“chewed a lot”, and the typical image of a Tamil grandmother in the 1950s was of her “sitting with her legs stretched out at ease and pounding away her chew of betel in her little mortar”. Even well into the 1980s, Peranakan Chinese bibik were popularly portrayed as deftly folding sirih during card games such as cherki.  The Malaya Tribune reported in 1949 that many Peranakan Chinese women (known as nonya) were so attached to their chews that “wherever the nonya goes, the sireh set is sure to go”. Peranakan Chinese men (baba) who indulged in betel chewing were said to be quite rare, and those who did were perceived to be effeminate.

As for the practice today (remember, this article is only a few years old):

The betel quid trade in Singapore today is largely supported by migrants and visitors from countries like Bangladesh, India and Myanmar, where betel chewing remains widespread. A handful of vendors still operate in areas frequented by migrants, such as Little India and Peninsula Plaza. One may also encounter the betel quid in Indian restaurants. Green bundles are strategically placed on trays located near the cashier so that patrons can grab one for a post-meal chew while paying their bill.

Huh.

I have no particular urge to try it, and I see that betel nut cannot be legally imported into Australia.

(Actually, now that I check,  I have posted before about the black market trade in betel nut here - I had forgotten.)

So yeah, I have turned up the rarest of things  - something that is legal to do in Singapore that is illegal in Australia!  Quite an achievement.

 

Nice sarcasm

Frank Bruni, writing in the New York Times, has so many amusing zingers in his column on RFK Jnr running for President, it's hard to pick the best.  But here are some:

The hubris. The narcissism. The convenient and fraudulent anti-elitism. The out-of-his-mind theories presented as out-of-the-box thinking.

Many of us have noted how these fetching traits and tics connect Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is in some ways Trump with better manners, fewer lawyers and discernible pecs. 

Ha!  To continue:

But we underplay another commonality. Like Trump when he made his 2016 presidential bid, Kennedy has zero experience — none at all — in elected office, a fact made comically clear in his interview last summer with the New Yorker editor David Remnick, who did focus on Kennedy’s lack of preparation for the presidency, asking the candidate about his credentials.

“I’ve been around government and studying government since I was a little boy,” Kennedy said, not so subtly stressing his bloodline — he’s a septuagenarian nepo baby — and casting proximity as seasoning. It’s not. I’ve been “around” many physicians in my life. You do not want me performing your appendectomy.

Kennedy added that he has attended most of the Democratic Party’s conventions since 1960, that he has visited every country in Latin America and that he “began writing about foreign policy” as a teenager. I began writing about movies as an adolescent. You do not want me directing another “Manchurian Candidate” remake.

And more:

Kennedy’s naming of a running mate makes him potentially eligible for the ballot in states that require a two-person ticket, and that running mate — the fantastically wealthy tech entrepreneur Nicole Shanahan — promises to be the kind of cash spigot and fund-raiser that’s hugely helpful to signature collection.Her riches are her credential, though perhaps — I don’t know — she wrote a paper about vice presidents in the fifth grade.

Here's a gift link to the whole thing.

Dune Part Two: a lot of hot air (haha)

I posted here that I quite liked Dune Part One when I finally got around to seeing it at home, and I think most reviewers thought Part Two was better.   But I saw it on the weekend and had a somewhat cooler reaction.

It's not that I would say that it is bad in any particular way, and I'm happy to have seen it. It's just that, despite the spectacle, it felt oddly un-involving, and (to my taste) too relentless in its serious tone. 

You could say the same about the tone of the first film, I suppose - although I think there was more emotional connection between characters in that one.  Which is odd, given that Paul gets his love interest in this one.  

I think also that a big part of why I liked the first one was that, from a visual world building point of view,  it looked exactly as I thought the Dune universe should look, and sometimes that carries a lot of the appeal of a movie.  But in the second one, the novelty factor of the world building has worn off.   And, to be honest, I think some of the visuals in this one were too CGI looking.  (I refer in particular to the crowd in that gladiatorial scene - they seemed to me to be moving in too similar a way.)    But overall, that is a very minor quibble.

I did read a review that said it was strangely emotionally cold for what was basically a revenge story.  I agree.  And I hate to say it, because  I feel guilty about dissing one of the few directors who likes making a genre I like to see made (serious science fiction), but I feel the film has sent me back to my old criticism of Denis Villeneuve - he does spectacle very well, and isn't scared to make movies about big ideas: but somehow he just doesn't manage to make me care enough about the story or characters.   Here's what I wrote before:

In fact, having watched  three of director Denis Villeneuve's films now, I recognise this as a constant theme in my reaction to his work - he's visually stylish, but always leaves me cold in any emotional connection to the material.   I'm not entirely sure how he achieves that, but despite liking visually what I saw on screen for much of Sicario, Arrival and now this one, by the end of all I felt I had not really been convinced by the human story in any of them.

By the way, I know there is an interview out there that he did recently with Steven Spielberg, who apparently gagged over how great he thought the movie was.  But Spielberg's a nice guy who is always praising other director's work.   For me, Spielberg's science fiction has exactly what I find missing in Villeneuve's - an emotional and empathetic connection to character.    

Anyone agree?