* Andrew Norton over at Catallaxy has a good series of posts over the weekend about Clive Hamilton's views on affluence, labor etc. See here, here and here.
* JF Beck, by co-incidence, gives a fine example of what he calls "edu-babble" (same thing as "academic english" I referred to a few posts back.) Be sure to read the comments too.
* A considerable amount of heat has been gernerated over the issue of DDT bans (or non bans, or near bans, or whatever it was.) I haven't read too much about it, so I don't really know were the truth lies. However, the ever grumpy Tim Lambert is definitely of the view that it is all a stupid right wing beat up. JF Beck is on the other side. Readers will have to work this one out for themselves, and then let me know.
* Man of Lettuce is an interesting personal blog, and I meant to link to this post about "ice". I also heard on Radio National's breakfast last week a doctor talking about the increasing problem of admissions for drug related mental illness in Sydney, but no transcript is available.
Adrian's post on the "risks" involved when a cabbie has gay passengers is amusing.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Morality Wars in Indonesia
Islamic moral drive spreads fear in Indonesia - World - smh.com.au
Have a look at the above article for an interesting story on where new morality laws are taking parts of Indonesia.
Have a look at the above article for an interesting story on where new morality laws are taking parts of Indonesia.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Where is the water coming from?
Now this is rather odd. A new NASA survey of both Greenland and Antartic ice confirms that, despite increased snow in parts of (I think) both places, overall there is a net loss of ice. One article says:
When the scientists added up the overall gains and loses of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, there was a net loss of ice to the sea. The amount of water added to the oceans (20 billion tons) is equivalent to the total amount of freshwater used in homes, businesses and farming in New York, New Jersey and Virginia each year.
Sounds a lot. But then again, what is happening to sea levels because of this? From the BBC version:
If ice is on balance being lost to the oceans, it could be contributing to global sea-level rise; and according to Jay Zwally's research, it is, but by less than expected.
"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year," he said.
"Current estimates of the other major sources of sea-level rise - expansion of the ocean by warming temperatures and runoff from low-latitude glaciers - do not make up the difference, so we have a mystery on our hands as to where the water is coming from."
Only 2 % of the current increase is coming from Antartic and Greenland ice? Maybe we have a while before we all drown. Or someone's figures are a bit screwy somewhere.
Also - if you want to see an example of why the media reporting of global warming irritates me, have a look at this recent Newsbusters story, and the "grab" at the bottom of the TV screen shot. It is not outright false, but still it is designed to give the impression of crisis.
When the scientists added up the overall gains and loses of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, there was a net loss of ice to the sea. The amount of water added to the oceans (20 billion tons) is equivalent to the total amount of freshwater used in homes, businesses and farming in New York, New Jersey and Virginia each year.
Sounds a lot. But then again, what is happening to sea levels because of this? From the BBC version:
If ice is on balance being lost to the oceans, it could be contributing to global sea-level rise; and according to Jay Zwally's research, it is, but by less than expected.
"The study indicates that the contribution of the ice sheets to sea-level rise during the decade studied was much smaller than expected, just two percent of the recent increase of nearly three millimeters a year," he said.
"Current estimates of the other major sources of sea-level rise - expansion of the ocean by warming temperatures and runoff from low-latitude glaciers - do not make up the difference, so we have a mystery on our hands as to where the water is coming from."
Only 2 % of the current increase is coming from Antartic and Greenland ice? Maybe we have a while before we all drown. Or someone's figures are a bit screwy somewhere.
Also - if you want to see an example of why the media reporting of global warming irritates me, have a look at this recent Newsbusters story, and the "grab" at the bottom of the TV screen shot. It is not outright false, but still it is designed to give the impression of crisis.
Psycho history
Guardian Unlimited Film | Features | A stab in the dark
Here's something I didn't know about Hitchcock and the making of "Psycho":
With Psycho, Herrmann not only broke with Hollywood tradition by scoring it for strings alone (saying he wanted to find a sonic equivalent of black-and-white film), but also rescued the film. Having completed filming without a score, Hitchcock was in despair at what he felt had ended up as a mediocre pot-boiler, and was seriously considering cutting the film to an hour and selling it to TV. Herrmann persuaded him to let him score it before doing so, and despite the director's insistence that the first murder scene remain silent, defied him. The end result left Hitchcock no room for argument.
What a great example of how accidental a successful movie can be. Even great directors can't see the woods for the trees sometimes.
Here's something I didn't know about Hitchcock and the making of "Psycho":
With Psycho, Herrmann not only broke with Hollywood tradition by scoring it for strings alone (saying he wanted to find a sonic equivalent of black-and-white film), but also rescued the film. Having completed filming without a score, Hitchcock was in despair at what he felt had ended up as a mediocre pot-boiler, and was seriously considering cutting the film to an hour and selling it to TV. Herrmann persuaded him to let him score it before doing so, and despite the director's insistence that the first murder scene remain silent, defied him. The end result left Hitchcock no room for argument.
What a great example of how accidental a successful movie can be. Even great directors can't see the woods for the trees sometimes.
Saletan debates "bad" and "responsibility"
My Secret Burden - The abortion-rights movement grapples with repression. By William Saletan
I have previously referred to "pro-choice" William Saletan's daring suggestion that the pro-choice movement admit that abortion is bad.
His latest article above is about how he was received at a pro-choice debate. ("Not well" is the short answer: "It was like preaching to the choir, except that my preaching was Sunni, and the choir was Shiite.") The whole piece is well worth reading, because it covers many bothersome aspects that the movement shares with the Left generally. For example:
Then I have this hangup about relativism. Like most people, I'm open to relativism. If you accept that the rightness or wrongness of abortion depends to some extent on circumstance, or that as a general rule, the woman in question is more entitled to weigh the moral factors than Rick Santorum is, that makes you a bit of a relativist. But it was clear at Friday's meeting that many pro-choice activists go further. They're absolutists about relativism. They argue that abortion is good because it's what a woman wants, and that the goodness or badness of abortion depends entirely on her choice. They insist all choices must be "respected" and "free from stigma." I don't get it. If everything has to be respected, what's the value of respect? If every exercise of liberty has to be free from stigma, how secure is liberty?
And this:
Right away, I got in trouble for calling abortion "bad." I like such words because they're blunt: They express a nearly universal gut reaction and make it clear which direction you'd like to go. The absolute relativists in the room found these words unacceptable, since they "stigmatize" and "pass judgment" on women and doctors.... To my relief, cooler heads pointed out how judgmental the absolute relativists are about gender equality and human rights. Liberals treat judgment the way conservatives treat sex: forbid it, except when you're doing it.
Nicely put...
I have previously referred to "pro-choice" William Saletan's daring suggestion that the pro-choice movement admit that abortion is bad.
His latest article above is about how he was received at a pro-choice debate. ("Not well" is the short answer: "It was like preaching to the choir, except that my preaching was Sunni, and the choir was Shiite.") The whole piece is well worth reading, because it covers many bothersome aspects that the movement shares with the Left generally. For example:
Then I have this hangup about relativism. Like most people, I'm open to relativism. If you accept that the rightness or wrongness of abortion depends to some extent on circumstance, or that as a general rule, the woman in question is more entitled to weigh the moral factors than Rick Santorum is, that makes you a bit of a relativist. But it was clear at Friday's meeting that many pro-choice activists go further. They're absolutists about relativism. They argue that abortion is good because it's what a woman wants, and that the goodness or badness of abortion depends entirely on her choice. They insist all choices must be "respected" and "free from stigma." I don't get it. If everything has to be respected, what's the value of respect? If every exercise of liberty has to be free from stigma, how secure is liberty?
And this:
Right away, I got in trouble for calling abortion "bad." I like such words because they're blunt: They express a nearly universal gut reaction and make it clear which direction you'd like to go. The absolute relativists in the room found these words unacceptable, since they "stigmatize" and "pass judgment" on women and doctors.... To my relief, cooler heads pointed out how judgmental the absolute relativists are about gender equality and human rights. Liberals treat judgment the way conservatives treat sex: forbid it, except when you're doing it.
Nicely put...
Test tubes to the rescue
TCS Daily - Old Europe Fades Away
The above article suggests that an increased push to use measures such as IVF and surrogacy to help older mothers have babies would help Europe reverse its declining population. Talk about calling in technology inappropriately. Why not just develop social policies that encourage younger motherhood?
Anyway, the article makes some other points of interest, such as an apparently fairly high rate of intermarriage between Muslims and non Muslims in France (one third.)
The above article suggests that an increased push to use measures such as IVF and surrogacy to help older mothers have babies would help Europe reverse its declining population. Talk about calling in technology inappropriately. Why not just develop social policies that encourage younger motherhood?
Anyway, the article makes some other points of interest, such as an apparently fairly high rate of intermarriage between Muslims and non Muslims in France (one third.)
Interesting ideas on energy
The Energizer - Discover Magazine - science news articles online technology magazine articles The Energizer
The above article is in the Discover magazine that is currently being sold in newsagents in Australia.
It sets out some of the ideas of Amory Lovins, who I can't recall having heard of before. Some of his ideas on saving energy make quite a bit of sense, and this section on cars is interesting:
A modern car, after 120 years of devoted engineering effort since Gottlieb Daimler built the first gasoline-powered vehicle, uses less than 1 percent of its fuel to move the driver. How does that happen?
Well, only an eighth of the fuel energy reaches the wheels. The rest of it is lost in the engine, drivetrain, and accessories, or wasted while the car is idling. Of the one-eighth that reaches the wheels, over half heats the tires on the road or the air that the car pushes aside. So only 6 percent of the original fuel energy accelerates the car. But remember, about 95 percent of the mass being accelerated is the car—not the driver. Hence, less than 1 percent of the fuel energy moves the driver. This is not very gratifying.
Well, the solution is equally inherent in the basic physics I just described. Three-quarters of the fuel usage is caused by the car's weight. Every unit of energy you save at the wheels by making the car a lot lighter will save an additional seven units of fuel that you don't need to waste getting it to the wheels.
So you can get this roughly eightfold leverage (three- to fourfold in the case of a hybrid) from the wheels back to the fuel tank by starting with the physics of the car, making it lighter and with lower drag. And indeed you can make the car radically lighter. We've figured out a cost-effective way to do that so you can end up with a 66-mile-per-gallon uncompromised SUV that has half the normal weight, has a third the normal fuel use, is safer, and repays the extra cost that comes with being a hybrid in less than two years.
His idea is to makes cars mostly from carbon fibre. He points out that super light cars also make use of hydrogen as a fuel more attractive too.
His ideas on electricity generation are less radical, emphasising conservation a lot. He also likes wind power, about which I remain somewhat of a skeptic. Still, he ideas sound well worth taking seriously.
The above article is in the Discover magazine that is currently being sold in newsagents in Australia.
It sets out some of the ideas of Amory Lovins, who I can't recall having heard of before. Some of his ideas on saving energy make quite a bit of sense, and this section on cars is interesting:
A modern car, after 120 years of devoted engineering effort since Gottlieb Daimler built the first gasoline-powered vehicle, uses less than 1 percent of its fuel to move the driver. How does that happen?
Well, only an eighth of the fuel energy reaches the wheels. The rest of it is lost in the engine, drivetrain, and accessories, or wasted while the car is idling. Of the one-eighth that reaches the wheels, over half heats the tires on the road or the air that the car pushes aside. So only 6 percent of the original fuel energy accelerates the car. But remember, about 95 percent of the mass being accelerated is the car—not the driver. Hence, less than 1 percent of the fuel energy moves the driver. This is not very gratifying.
Well, the solution is equally inherent in the basic physics I just described. Three-quarters of the fuel usage is caused by the car's weight. Every unit of energy you save at the wheels by making the car a lot lighter will save an additional seven units of fuel that you don't need to waste getting it to the wheels.
So you can get this roughly eightfold leverage (three- to fourfold in the case of a hybrid) from the wheels back to the fuel tank by starting with the physics of the car, making it lighter and with lower drag. And indeed you can make the car radically lighter. We've figured out a cost-effective way to do that so you can end up with a 66-mile-per-gallon uncompromised SUV that has half the normal weight, has a third the normal fuel use, is safer, and repays the extra cost that comes with being a hybrid in less than two years.
His idea is to makes cars mostly from carbon fibre. He points out that super light cars also make use of hydrogen as a fuel more attractive too.
His ideas on electricity generation are less radical, emphasising conservation a lot. He also likes wind power, about which I remain somewhat of a skeptic. Still, he ideas sound well worth taking seriously.
No hope for hot fusion?
New Scientist No future for fusion power, says top scientist - Breaking News
The article is talking about "hot" fusion research. Any energy research project that is estimating 50 years more work before it will be practical does seem a highly dubious use of the money.
The article is talking about "hot" fusion research. Any energy research project that is estimating 50 years more work before it will be practical does seem a highly dubious use of the money.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Do black holes exist at all?
Three cosmic enigmas, one answer
Follow the link above to a New Scientist story about a new proposal to replace black holes.
I have been reading arxiv.org and Wikipedia articles about black holes, and this is not the first time it has been suggested that there may be something else that is causing similar effects in the centre of the galaxy. I had always wondered about this prediction for black holes:
Another problem is that light from an object falling into a black hole is stretched so dramatically by the immense gravity there that observers outside will see time freeze: the object will appear to sit at the event horizon for ever. This freezing of time also violates quantum mechanics. "People have been vaguely uncomfortable about these problems for a while, but they figured they'd get solved someday," says Chapline. "But that hasn't happened and I'm sure when historians look back, they'll wonder why people didn't question these contradictions."
I also wonder if this proposed replacement for black holes (called a dark energy star) has any implications for the possible creation of micro black holes in particle accelerators or the atmosphere. It sounds from the article that they would not have the same type of Hawking Radiation as black holes are predicted to; but then again, it seems they would spit out some of the matter they absorb.
Follow the link above to a New Scientist story about a new proposal to replace black holes.
I have been reading arxiv.org and Wikipedia articles about black holes, and this is not the first time it has been suggested that there may be something else that is causing similar effects in the centre of the galaxy. I had always wondered about this prediction for black holes:
Another problem is that light from an object falling into a black hole is stretched so dramatically by the immense gravity there that observers outside will see time freeze: the object will appear to sit at the event horizon for ever. This freezing of time also violates quantum mechanics. "People have been vaguely uncomfortable about these problems for a while, but they figured they'd get solved someday," says Chapline. "But that hasn't happened and I'm sure when historians look back, they'll wonder why people didn't question these contradictions."
I also wonder if this proposed replacement for black holes (called a dark energy star) has any implications for the possible creation of micro black holes in particle accelerators or the atmosphere. It sounds from the article that they would not have the same type of Hawking Radiation as black holes are predicted to; but then again, it seems they would spit out some of the matter they absorb.
Humongous Screen
LG.Philips LCD develops 100-inch LCD panel
Have a look at this absolutely gigantic LCD screen from LG Phillips. I thought they use to say there was an upper limit on the size of LCD screens. Seems technology marches on.
Have a look at this absolutely gigantic LCD screen from LG Phillips. I thought they use to say there was an upper limit on the size of LCD screens. Seems technology marches on.
University language
Humbug! Online
See the story above for an example of "academic English" at Griffiths University. Maybe its not the worst example ever, but its bad enough.
Do academics like this who have spent their lives creating or working in "academic English" (which is seemingly designed only to help promulgate work for academics) ever wake up at night with the sudden realisation "oh my God, all my work has been pointless. Worse than pointless - it has detracted from the advance of knowledge"? I hope it happens at least once in a while...
See the story above for an example of "academic English" at Griffiths University. Maybe its not the worst example ever, but its bad enough.
Do academics like this who have spent their lives creating or working in "academic English" (which is seemingly designed only to help promulgate work for academics) ever wake up at night with the sudden realisation "oh my God, all my work has been pointless. Worse than pointless - it has detracted from the advance of knowledge"? I hope it happens at least once in a while...
Bubble fusion - yes or no?
news @ nature.com-Bubble fusion: silencing the hype -Nature reveals serious doubts over claims for fusion in collapsing bubbles.
It seems that an almighty cat fight has broken out between scientists, and Nature and Science magazines, over the apparent confirmation of "bubble fusion" earlier this year, is correct after all.
Seems a little like the "cold fusion" fight, which is still contains some mystery, as far as I can make out. What is it about fusion research that seems to heighten the emotions?
It seems that an almighty cat fight has broken out between scientists, and Nature and Science magazines, over the apparent confirmation of "bubble fusion" earlier this year, is correct after all.
Seems a little like the "cold fusion" fight, which is still contains some mystery, as far as I can make out. What is it about fusion research that seems to heighten the emotions?
People get paid for coming up with ideas like this?
New Scientist Long-distance lovers can still drink together - Technology
An extract:
Jackie Lee and Hyemin Chung, experts in human-computer interaction, say that communal drinking is an important social interaction that helps bind friendships and relationships, but this is of course denied to people separated by geography. To give such lovebirds a chance to recreate some of the intimacy of sharing a drink, Lee and Chung have incorporated a variety of coloured LEDs, liquid sensors and wireless (GPRS or Wi-Fi) links into a pair of glass tumblers.
When either person picks up a glass, red LEDs on their partner's glass glow gently. And when either puts the glass to their lips, sensors make white LEDs on the rim of the other glass glow brightly, so you can tell when your other half takes a sip.
An extract:
Jackie Lee and Hyemin Chung, experts in human-computer interaction, say that communal drinking is an important social interaction that helps bind friendships and relationships, but this is of course denied to people separated by geography. To give such lovebirds a chance to recreate some of the intimacy of sharing a drink, Lee and Chung have incorporated a variety of coloured LEDs, liquid sensors and wireless (GPRS or Wi-Fi) links into a pair of glass tumblers.
When either person picks up a glass, red LEDs on their partner's glass glow gently. And when either puts the glass to their lips, sensors make white LEDs on the rim of the other glass glow brightly, so you can tell when your other half takes a sip.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
A study to irritate women on International women's' Day
Desperate Feminist Wives - Why wanting equality makes women unhappy. By Meghan O'Rourke
From the above Slate article on a recent sociological study:
Stay-at-home wives, according to the authors, are more content than their working counterparts. And happiness, they found, has less to do with division of labor than with the level of commitment and "emotional work" men contribute (or are perceived to contribute). But the most interesting data may be that the women who strongly identify as progressive - —the 15 percent who agree most with feminist ideals - —have a harder time being happy than their peers, according to an analysis that has been provided exclusively to Slate. Feminist ideals, not domestic duties, seem to be what make wives morose.
Before any feminist reader (in the unlikely event I have any) throws their latte at the screen, the article goes on to give the figures and qualify this conclusion in such a way that it makes it hardly worth either side trying to get much ideological mileage out of the study. Still, if I have briefly annoyed some Labor voting feminist out there, it was worth it.
From the above Slate article on a recent sociological study:
Stay-at-home wives, according to the authors, are more content than their working counterparts. And happiness, they found, has less to do with division of labor than with the level of commitment and "emotional work" men contribute (or are perceived to contribute). But the most interesting data may be that the women who strongly identify as progressive - —the 15 percent who agree most with feminist ideals - —have a harder time being happy than their peers, according to an analysis that has been provided exclusively to Slate. Feminist ideals, not domestic duties, seem to be what make wives morose.
Before any feminist reader (in the unlikely event I have any) throws their latte at the screen, the article goes on to give the figures and qualify this conclusion in such a way that it makes it hardly worth either side trying to get much ideological mileage out of the study. Still, if I have briefly annoyed some Labor voting feminist out there, it was worth it.
No trade
Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World
From the above story:
Despite a promise made to Washington last November to drop its economic boycott of Israel, Saudi Arabia plans to host a major international conference next week aimed at promoting a continued trade embargo on the Jewish state, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
The Post also found that the kingdom continues to prohibit entry to products made in Israel or to foreign-made goods containing Israeli components, in violation of pledges made by senior Saudi officials to the Bush administration last year.
"Next week, we will hold the ninth annual meeting for the boycott of Israel here in Jidda," Ambassador Salem el-Honi, high commissioner of the Organization for the Islamic Conference's (OIC) Islamic Office for the Boycott of Israel, said in a telephone interview.
"All 57 OIC member states will attend, and we will discuss coordination among the various offices to strengthen the boycott," he said, noting that the meeting is held every March.
One would think that those urging the West to keep funding Palestine should show more good will than this. What a terrible accident of history it is that the Middle East has so much oil.
From the above story:
Despite a promise made to Washington last November to drop its economic boycott of Israel, Saudi Arabia plans to host a major international conference next week aimed at promoting a continued trade embargo on the Jewish state, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
The Post also found that the kingdom continues to prohibit entry to products made in Israel or to foreign-made goods containing Israeli components, in violation of pledges made by senior Saudi officials to the Bush administration last year.
"Next week, we will hold the ninth annual meeting for the boycott of Israel here in Jidda," Ambassador Salem el-Honi, high commissioner of the Organization for the Islamic Conference's (OIC) Islamic Office for the Boycott of Israel, said in a telephone interview.
"All 57 OIC member states will attend, and we will discuss coordination among the various offices to strengthen the boycott," he said, noting that the meeting is held every March.
One would think that those urging the West to keep funding Palestine should show more good will than this. What a terrible accident of history it is that the Middle East has so much oil.
Israel's bad timing?
Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World
How does Israel track the terrorists that they target from jets? I have never heard an explanation of this.
The media images of kids hurt in this latest attack were not good, and it does seem to me to be particularly ill timed given the uncertainties and uproar over Hamas forming government and whether it should be funded etc. Such an attack, unless justfied by a relatively recent fatal rocket attack on Israel, would seem to be counterproductive at this time to Israel's bigger interests.
How does Israel track the terrorists that they target from jets? I have never heard an explanation of this.
The media images of kids hurt in this latest attack were not good, and it does seem to me to be particularly ill timed given the uncertainties and uproar over Hamas forming government and whether it should be funded etc. Such an attack, unless justfied by a relatively recent fatal rocket attack on Israel, would seem to be counterproductive at this time to Israel's bigger interests.
Mad Democrat
WorldNetDaily: Democrat for Senate: Kill practicing 'gays'
From the above funny story:
A Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio wants to make homosexual behavior a capital crime punishable by the death penalty.
Merrill Keiser Jr. is a trucker with no political experience, but he hopes to beat fellow Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown in the May primary....
Liberal blogger Deborah White was less than thrilled with Keiser's candidacy and the media's response to it...
White speculated Keiser was planted by the GOP.
"He must be a Republican plant," she wrote. "Please ... someone tell me I'm correct."
From the above funny story:
A Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Ohio wants to make homosexual behavior a capital crime punishable by the death penalty.
Merrill Keiser Jr. is a trucker with no political experience, but he hopes to beat fellow Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown in the May primary....
Liberal blogger Deborah White was less than thrilled with Keiser's candidacy and the media's response to it...
White speculated Keiser was planted by the GOP.
"He must be a Republican plant," she wrote. "Please ... someone tell me I'm correct."
Is parenthood held in contempt?
Guardian Unlimited | Columnists | Madeline Bunting: Our culture of contempt for parenthood
Madeline Bunting's column above is interesting, and the reasons she gives for low birthrates in Britain (essentially, that having children now goes against the cultural "values" of independence and consumerism) sounds somewhat plausible in the context of, say, the US and Australia as well as Britain.
However, as I noted in an earlier post, birth rates across all of Europe vary wildly, with Italy, Spain, Greece and Germany having substantially lower rates than Britain (which has about Australia's rate of 1.75 children per women.) The arguments that Bunting makes would, to my mind, make less sense in the more "macho" European countries, where one imagines that the independence of women is not emphasised quite so much. (I am just guessing here, remember.) Yet their rates are even lower than Britains.
Also, what accounts for the relatively high rates in France and Ireland? Both of these countries would seem to be as consumer orientated as Britain, but their birth rates are at 1.9 and 1.99 respectively. Maybe Muslims account for Frances high rate, but surely that can't apply to Ireland?
I guess each country can have their own particular reasons for their rates, but it is curious phenomena that there is such a variation across Europe. Discussions of cultural factors affecting the rate seem to me to usually be speculation without subtantial evidence behind them.
Madeline Bunting's column above is interesting, and the reasons she gives for low birthrates in Britain (essentially, that having children now goes against the cultural "values" of independence and consumerism) sounds somewhat plausible in the context of, say, the US and Australia as well as Britain.
However, as I noted in an earlier post, birth rates across all of Europe vary wildly, with Italy, Spain, Greece and Germany having substantially lower rates than Britain (which has about Australia's rate of 1.75 children per women.) The arguments that Bunting makes would, to my mind, make less sense in the more "macho" European countries, where one imagines that the independence of women is not emphasised quite so much. (I am just guessing here, remember.) Yet their rates are even lower than Britains.
Also, what accounts for the relatively high rates in France and Ireland? Both of these countries would seem to be as consumer orientated as Britain, but their birth rates are at 1.9 and 1.99 respectively. Maybe Muslims account for Frances high rate, but surely that can't apply to Ireland?
I guess each country can have their own particular reasons for their rates, but it is curious phenomena that there is such a variation across Europe. Discussions of cultural factors affecting the rate seem to me to usually be speculation without subtantial evidence behind them.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
On the Oscars
I was tired and didn't even see it all last night, but I have the following observations to make:
* Jon Stewart: not too bad as a host. Vast improvement on Chris Rock, whose failure was even worse than David Letterman's ill fated outing. (And I generally like Letterman, although his recent defence of Cindy Sheehan makes you wonder about how sensible he really is.)
* Ben Stiller is always prepared to look stupid, and of what I saw he had the funniest scripted bit last night. (Particularly funny was the line "this is blowing Spielberg's mind", with a cutaway shot of Spielberg in the audience mouthing "no it's not".)
* So Brokeback Mountain lost best picture. Seems fair enough; while not seeing it, I strongly suspect there was a "bandwagon" effect going on in the body of reviews. (When the praise is too universal and too similar in its terms, one often suspects the critics are not bringing an independent mind to their work.) But I like this line:
Larry McMurtry, 69, who won Best Adapted Screenplay for Brokeback Mountain, said afterwards: "“Perhaps the truth really is Americans don'’t want cowboys to be gay."”
Did something give him the impression that there was a significant body of Americans just hanging out for cowboy sexual revisionism?
* The current crop of Hollywood stars are generally a pretty uncharismatic lot. It is not that they are bad actors; it's just that there are so few that are personally appealing enough that it makes you want to see their next project. Contrast this with, say, even the 1980's. (As I age, I am increasingly nostalgic for that period.) You had the likes of Kevin Costner, Harrison Ford, Meg Ryan, (for some) Julia Roberts (I am afraid that all I can notice when she is on screen is her enormous mouth,) Tom Hanks, John Hughes films with their generally appealing young casts, etc. I never took to Meryl Streep, but I can see she how she had star appeal to some.
Now, many of these actors are still working, but it seems that their most appealing and successful work is well behind them. The current crop of 20's to 30-ish stars just don't seem to have the same pulling power.
And their personal lives seem screwed up in ways that detract from their screen appeal. Although Hollywood has always been full of divorce and remarriage, the weird or scandalous behaviour or comments of some stars now - think Angelina Jolie, Anne Heche or Robert Downey Jr - would have been kept from the public in past years.) Now we know too much about the star's private lives, and it does affect the way you feel about the roles they are playing on screen.
The psychology of watching gay playing straight and straight playing gay is particularly interesting. I don't know that it is just prejudice that makes it easier for audiences to accept straight playing gay rather than vice versa; I think it is something deeper. But in any event, everyone was better off when the sexual preferences of the stars was not so openly discussed, and their drug habits kept quiet too.
Enough of that for now.
Update: I have corrected some mistakes from my first rushed version.
* Jon Stewart: not too bad as a host. Vast improvement on Chris Rock, whose failure was even worse than David Letterman's ill fated outing. (And I generally like Letterman, although his recent defence of Cindy Sheehan makes you wonder about how sensible he really is.)
* Ben Stiller is always prepared to look stupid, and of what I saw he had the funniest scripted bit last night. (Particularly funny was the line "this is blowing Spielberg's mind", with a cutaway shot of Spielberg in the audience mouthing "no it's not".)
* So Brokeback Mountain lost best picture. Seems fair enough; while not seeing it, I strongly suspect there was a "bandwagon" effect going on in the body of reviews. (When the praise is too universal and too similar in its terms, one often suspects the critics are not bringing an independent mind to their work.) But I like this line:
Larry McMurtry, 69, who won Best Adapted Screenplay for Brokeback Mountain, said afterwards: "“Perhaps the truth really is Americans don'’t want cowboys to be gay."”
Did something give him the impression that there was a significant body of Americans just hanging out for cowboy sexual revisionism?
* The current crop of Hollywood stars are generally a pretty uncharismatic lot. It is not that they are bad actors; it's just that there are so few that are personally appealing enough that it makes you want to see their next project. Contrast this with, say, even the 1980's. (As I age, I am increasingly nostalgic for that period.) You had the likes of Kevin Costner, Harrison Ford, Meg Ryan, (for some) Julia Roberts (I am afraid that all I can notice when she is on screen is her enormous mouth,) Tom Hanks, John Hughes films with their generally appealing young casts, etc. I never took to Meryl Streep, but I can see she how she had star appeal to some.
Now, many of these actors are still working, but it seems that their most appealing and successful work is well behind them. The current crop of 20's to 30-ish stars just don't seem to have the same pulling power.
And their personal lives seem screwed up in ways that detract from their screen appeal. Although Hollywood has always been full of divorce and remarriage, the weird or scandalous behaviour or comments of some stars now - think Angelina Jolie, Anne Heche or Robert Downey Jr - would have been kept from the public in past years.) Now we know too much about the star's private lives, and it does affect the way you feel about the roles they are playing on screen.
The psychology of watching gay playing straight and straight playing gay is particularly interesting. I don't know that it is just prejudice that makes it easier for audiences to accept straight playing gay rather than vice versa; I think it is something deeper. But in any event, everyone was better off when the sexual preferences of the stars was not so openly discussed, and their drug habits kept quiet too.
Enough of that for now.
Update: I have corrected some mistakes from my first rushed version.
The Kiss of Death
The Australian: Mothball this tired Bomber [March 07, 2006]
Phillip Adams nominates Kevin Rudd as his preferred Labor leader. This won't last. Surely Rudd is too far right for Adams?
Phillip Adams nominates Kevin Rudd as his preferred Labor leader. This won't last. Surely Rudd is too far right for Adams?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)