Why We're All Jesus' Children - Go back a few millenniums, and we've all got the same ancestors. By Steve Olson
Don't worry about the title, the above article is an interesting explanation about how you don't have to go back too far to get to a point where everyone on earth was your ancestor.
This is a little hard to follow, but as the authors have published in Nature, I assume they know their maths :
Say you go back 120 generations, to about the year 1000 B.C. According to the results presented in our Nature paper, your ancestors then included everyone in the world who has descendants living today. And if you compared a list of your ancestors with a list of anyone else's ancestors, the names on the two lists would be identical.
This is a very bizarre result (the math behind it is solid, though—here's a brief, semitechnical explanation of our findings). It means that you and I are descended from all of the Africans, Australians, Native Americans, and Europeans who were alive three millenniums ago and still have descendants living today. That's also why so many people living today could be descended from Jesus. If Jesus had children (a big if, of course) and if those children had children so that Jesus' lineage survived, then Jesus is today the ancestor of almost everyone living on Earth. True, Jesus lived two rather than three millenniums ago, but a person's descendants spread quickly from well-connected parts of the world like the Middle East.
This concluding paragraph is of interest:
People may like to think that they're descended from some ancient group while other people are not. But human ancestry doesn't work that way, since we all share the same ancestors just a few millenniums ago. As that idea becomes more widely accepted, arguments over who's descended from Jesus won't result in lawsuits. And maybe, just maybe, people will have one less reason to feel animosity toward other branches of the human family.
Well, yes, but can it also be used in a quasi-political way to argue against the special "racial" rights that the West now gives to the present descendants of the original indigenous populations?
(I originally had "ownership" instead of "racial".)
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Burn that cancer out
Reuters AlertNet - Hot pepper kills prostate cancer cells in study
Interesting story on work indicating that eating hot chilli may help stop prostate cancer from progressing.
The obvious question to ask from this is: do men from countries where a lot of chilli is eaten show a lower rate of prostate cancer than countries with a blander diet? (Countries to pick, if they have reliable figures, might be Thailand - or even Singapore - and Ireland on the other side.)
Interesting story on work indicating that eating hot chilli may help stop prostate cancer from progressing.
The obvious question to ask from this is: do men from countries where a lot of chilli is eaten show a lower rate of prostate cancer than countries with a blander diet? (Countries to pick, if they have reliable figures, might be Thailand - or even Singapore - and Ireland on the other side.)
On the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games
* Am I the only person to think that overall it seemed to have a much "gay-er" sensibility than the Sydney Olympics opening or closing? Which is odd given Sydney's reputation.
* Flying boy, duck and koalas. Did that bit intentionally run on so long without any clear ending, and no apparent point? (Also no humour; just kitch.)
* Fireworks looked nice. I wonder what it felt like for the roller bladers/skaters to have such an amount of stuff going off on their backpacks...
* Flying boy, duck and koalas. Did that bit intentionally run on so long without any clear ending, and no apparent point? (Also no humour; just kitch.)
* Fireworks looked nice. I wonder what it felt like for the roller bladers/skaters to have such an amount of stuff going off on their backpacks...
The ultimate in ghost writing
The Australian: Clooney in a Huff over blog [March 16, 2006]
When a celebrity uses a ghost writer to pass off a book as if it were their own, at least the celebrity knows that it is happening. In the case of George Clooney's recent short post at Huffington Post, he didn't know until after it was published:
OSCAR-winner George Clooney took a prominent US political commentator to task today for posting on her website a blog made to look like it was written by the superstar.
Clooney denied writing the blog on Arianna Huffington's www.HuffingtonPost.com, which includes commentaries from celebrities, politicians and experts.
The blog turned out to be a compilation of remarks Clooney made in media interviews. The actor, a liberal, said he had given Huffington permission to use the quotes, but complained that they were made to look like his own blog.
Arianna has an explanation of sorts (Clooney's publicist is supposed to have OK'ed the post) but it seems doubtful George's head shot will be appearing there again any time soon.
When a celebrity uses a ghost writer to pass off a book as if it were their own, at least the celebrity knows that it is happening. In the case of George Clooney's recent short post at Huffington Post, he didn't know until after it was published:
OSCAR-winner George Clooney took a prominent US political commentator to task today for posting on her website a blog made to look like it was written by the superstar.
Clooney denied writing the blog on Arianna Huffington's www.HuffingtonPost.com, which includes commentaries from celebrities, politicians and experts.
The blog turned out to be a compilation of remarks Clooney made in media interviews. The actor, a liberal, said he had given Huffington permission to use the quotes, but complained that they were made to look like his own blog.
Arianna has an explanation of sorts (Clooney's publicist is supposed to have OK'ed the post) but it seems doubtful George's head shot will be appearing there again any time soon.
Put a krill on the barbie
Antarctic researchers get a surprise and a thrill after moving in for the krill
From the above article: it seems there are more krill out there than they thought:
Scientists aboard the research ship Aurora Australis have found aggregations of the shrimp-like krill up to hundreds of kilometres in extent in little-explored seas of eastern Antarctica...
The slowly expanding Antarctic krill fishery last year took 118,000 tonnes from the far South Atlantic, the only area where it is fished. This is a fraction of the 4 million-tonne catch limit for the area set by the 24-nation Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.
And something I would not have thought of:
Antarctic krill is the most abundant and successful animal species on the planet.
Try to slip that snippet of information into a conversation today.
From the above article: it seems there are more krill out there than they thought:
Scientists aboard the research ship Aurora Australis have found aggregations of the shrimp-like krill up to hundreds of kilometres in extent in little-explored seas of eastern Antarctica...
The slowly expanding Antarctic krill fishery last year took 118,000 tonnes from the far South Atlantic, the only area where it is fished. This is a fraction of the 4 million-tonne catch limit for the area set by the 24-nation Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.
And something I would not have thought of:
Antarctic krill is the most abundant and successful animal species on the planet.
Try to slip that snippet of information into a conversation today.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Artic warming and ozone
Science News Article | Reuters.com
It seems every day you can find some new idea as to what is going on with global warming. The link above notes this from a NASA researcher:
Globally, ozone accounts for perhaps one-seventh of the global warming and climate change that carbon dioxide does, Shindell said. However, a new study of climate change over the past 100 years indicates that ozone may be responsible for as much as 50 percent of the warming in the Arctic zone.
This is because many of the world's most highly industrialized nations are in the Northern Hemisphere, and at relatively high latitudes. For most of the year, that means the ozone produced in these countries is blown by prevailing winds north and east, toward the Arctic Circle.
"Instead of being this tiny player, (ozone) can be more like 30 or 40 or even 50 percent of the cause of warming that we're seeing in the Arctic now," Shindell said. "It's very dramatic."
One of the major points that some Kyoto skeptics make is that atmospheric science is not well enough understood for there to be meaningful commitments as to how to cure the apparent global warming. (If it is capable of cure at all.)
Stories like this help confirm this attitude.
It seems every day you can find some new idea as to what is going on with global warming. The link above notes this from a NASA researcher:
Globally, ozone accounts for perhaps one-seventh of the global warming and climate change that carbon dioxide does, Shindell said. However, a new study of climate change over the past 100 years indicates that ozone may be responsible for as much as 50 percent of the warming in the Arctic zone.
This is because many of the world's most highly industrialized nations are in the Northern Hemisphere, and at relatively high latitudes. For most of the year, that means the ozone produced in these countries is blown by prevailing winds north and east, toward the Arctic Circle.
"Instead of being this tiny player, (ozone) can be more like 30 or 40 or even 50 percent of the cause of warming that we're seeing in the Arctic now," Shindell said. "It's very dramatic."
One of the major points that some Kyoto skeptics make is that atmospheric science is not well enough understood for there to be meaningful commitments as to how to cure the apparent global warming. (If it is capable of cure at all.)
Stories like this help confirm this attitude.
Why I stick to Wordperfect
Reuters Business Channel | Reuters.com
"Microsoft warns of "critical" Office security flaw" is the headline.
"Microsoft warns of "critical" Office security flaw" is the headline.
Interesting stuff on WMD in Iraq
TigerHawk
Pajamas Media links to the post by Tigerhawk (above) about confusion over WMD within the Iraqi military itself. (Details coming in soon to be published book by New York Times reporters.) All very interesting.
UPDATE: Slate's article on this is well worth a read. It deals specifically with the interception of conversations about "nerve gas" that Powell played during the famous UN briefing. The conversation is now thought to have had an innocent explanation, but it is easy to see why this would not have been thought of, when until 2002 Saddam himself encouraged his military leaders to believe he did have WMD. Slate then ends with this summary:
And so not only is the mystery of the intercepts solved, we're left with a ragged tale of crossed signals and multiple misunderstandings that may help explain why this war happened. Saddam Hussein had accumulated a vast record of deceptions; George W. Bush, by this time, was firmly intent on regime change through invasion. Almost everyone in the U.S. national-security establishment was predisposed to view all intelligence materials through both prisms—Saddam's deception and Bush's intentions—and the rays converged on toppling Baghdad.
Pajamas Media links to the post by Tigerhawk (above) about confusion over WMD within the Iraqi military itself. (Details coming in soon to be published book by New York Times reporters.) All very interesting.
UPDATE: Slate's article on this is well worth a read. It deals specifically with the interception of conversations about "nerve gas" that Powell played during the famous UN briefing. The conversation is now thought to have had an innocent explanation, but it is easy to see why this would not have been thought of, when until 2002 Saddam himself encouraged his military leaders to believe he did have WMD. Slate then ends with this summary:
And so not only is the mystery of the intercepts solved, we're left with a ragged tale of crossed signals and multiple misunderstandings that may help explain why this war happened. Saddam Hussein had accumulated a vast record of deceptions; George W. Bush, by this time, was firmly intent on regime change through invasion. Almost everyone in the U.S. national-security establishment was predisposed to view all intelligence materials through both prisms—Saddam's deception and Bush's intentions—and the rays converged on toppling Baghdad.
Something vaguely good in the Baghdad deaths
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Scores of bodies found in Baghdad
From the above:
On Monday, radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr appealed for calm, saying he would order his Mehdi Army militia not to respond to attacks despite his belief Iraq was now in civil war.
From the above:
On Monday, radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr appealed for calm, saying he would order his Mehdi Army militia not to respond to attacks despite his belief Iraq was now in civil war.
Yep
The Australian: Janet Albrechtsen: Why Julia Gillard will never be PM [March 15, 2006]
Janet gives more detail than I did on why Julia Gillard would not be electable as PM. (I didn't know her right wing immigration policy had been forced on her.)
Also, Janet doesn't mention about how fast Julia has run to distance herself from the Tasmanian forest policy which she seems to blame for much of Latham's loss. She the additional interview material on the Australian Story site.
However, it would be a very interesting time if she were running for PM. Us conservatives should really just keep quiet.
Update: Currency Lad's post on the same topic is good, and (as usual) better written than my post. I like his bit about Beazley too:
And yet it is precisely his unsaleable political nature that somehow recommends him - at least to those who believe that the people who actually yearn to be prime minister are, at some level, dysfunctional egomaniacs.
Janet gives more detail than I did on why Julia Gillard would not be electable as PM. (I didn't know her right wing immigration policy had been forced on her.)
Also, Janet doesn't mention about how fast Julia has run to distance herself from the Tasmanian forest policy which she seems to blame for much of Latham's loss. She the additional interview material on the Australian Story site.
However, it would be a very interesting time if she were running for PM. Us conservatives should really just keep quiet.
Update: Currency Lad's post on the same topic is good, and (as usual) better written than my post. I like his bit about Beazley too:
And yet it is precisely his unsaleable political nature that somehow recommends him - at least to those who believe that the people who actually yearn to be prime minister are, at some level, dysfunctional egomaniacs.
Something to look forward to...
ALP image could get worse: MP - National - theage.com.au
...frontbencher Stephen Smith lashed out at internal critics of the Opposition Leader, suggesting the damage they had inflicted was not yet over.
"I won't be surprised in two weeks' time if it is just as bad or even worse," he said.
Further down in the article:
His comments came as party figures reacted warily to Mr Beazley's proposal for Labor's front bench to be chosen by a free vote of the caucus, not by the factions.
Sounds sensible, but for that matter I don't really understand the Labor fear of having the PM chose his own ministers. I guess that undermines factional power, and power is what its all about after all.
...frontbencher Stephen Smith lashed out at internal critics of the Opposition Leader, suggesting the damage they had inflicted was not yet over.
"I won't be surprised in two weeks' time if it is just as bad or even worse," he said.
Further down in the article:
His comments came as party figures reacted warily to Mr Beazley's proposal for Labor's front bench to be chosen by a free vote of the caucus, not by the factions.
Sounds sensible, but for that matter I don't really understand the Labor fear of having the PM chose his own ministers. I guess that undermines factional power, and power is what its all about after all.
Tunguska and global warming?
ScienceDaily: Greenhouse Theory Smashed By Biggest Stone; Is Global-warming Down To Humanity? Or Are Other Factors At Work?
See the link above for a tentative idea from a Russian scientist about the possible connection between the rather large meteorite hit that was the Tunguska event in 1908 and global warming.
Many loopy ideas come out of Russian science, but if you read the arxiv link to the preprint of his paper, this guy does not sound too bad. Still, somehow I expect that they will be scientists rushing to argue against this.
UPDATE: over at Real Climate, they explain why they think there is nothing much to this idea.
See the link above for a tentative idea from a Russian scientist about the possible connection between the rather large meteorite hit that was the Tunguska event in 1908 and global warming.
Many loopy ideas come out of Russian science, but if you read the arxiv link to the preprint of his paper, this guy does not sound too bad. Still, somehow I expect that they will be scientists rushing to argue against this.
UPDATE: over at Real Climate, they explain why they think there is nothing much to this idea.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Anti-virus choices narrow
Anti-virus bungle devours files - Breaking - Technology - smh.com.au
So, McAfee's reputation will take a beating over this.
From what I have read, many people also dislike Norton's antivirus in its latest incarnation.
I have gone over to using AVG at work. It's cheaper and seems to work quite well.
What's more, for home use you can get by on their free version.
So, McAfee's reputation will take a beating over this.
From what I have read, many people also dislike Norton's antivirus in its latest incarnation.
I have gone over to using AVG at work. It's cheaper and seems to work quite well.
What's more, for home use you can get by on their free version.
Who would have guessed?
New Scientist Long-term marijuana use may fog the brain - Breaking News
From the above article:
“Long-term users found it very difficult to learn through new information given verbally,” says Messinis. “It’s not to do with lack of attention but more the encoding process of memory.”
From the above article:
“Long-term users found it very difficult to learn through new information given verbally,” says Messinis. “It’s not to do with lack of attention but more the encoding process of memory.”
It would be good for lawyers
Stanley Kurtz on Big Love & Polygamy on National Review Online
Interesting article above on the forthcoming debate about legal recognition of polygamy. As I think I have said before, if you thought child custody and matrimonial property cases were hard now - just wait for this.
I am curious if there are good figures out there (presumably, from America) about the stability of polygamous marriages. I presume they would be less stable in the long run, but then again I suppose those who enter into it may be over sexual jealously. I would guess that the conflicts are more likely to be between a wife over dislike of, or other forms of competition with, the other wives.
The topic of current views of sexual morality is dealt with by Andrew Norton at Catallaxy today too. Adultery is still seen as a big issue, even more so amongst the young. That doesn't sound good for the prospects of polygamy here.
Of course, there is the point that what much of the West practices now is serial monogamy on a scale never seen before, which is bad in its own way, so I don't want to sound too precious about polygamy. Just that I see that it would be a case of going from bad to worse.
Interesting article above on the forthcoming debate about legal recognition of polygamy. As I think I have said before, if you thought child custody and matrimonial property cases were hard now - just wait for this.
I am curious if there are good figures out there (presumably, from America) about the stability of polygamous marriages. I presume they would be less stable in the long run, but then again I suppose those who enter into it may be over sexual jealously. I would guess that the conflicts are more likely to be between a wife over dislike of, or other forms of competition with, the other wives.
The topic of current views of sexual morality is dealt with by Andrew Norton at Catallaxy today too. Adultery is still seen as a big issue, even more so amongst the young. That doesn't sound good for the prospects of polygamy here.
Of course, there is the point that what much of the West practices now is serial monogamy on a scale never seen before, which is bad in its own way, so I don't want to sound too precious about polygamy. Just that I see that it would be a case of going from bad to worse.
So you thought Annie Proulx would be above this?
Very angry Annie - Film - Entertainment - smh.com.au
The Sydney Morning Herald reprints a Guardian article by Brokeback Mountain author Annie Proulx about her night at the Oscars.
One would expect a fairly high brow author to take such an award process all in her stride. Of course it is basically silly fun to be comparing one genre of film with another, and trying to pick the best actor out of dozens of films that put up at least competent acting each year.
But no, she is as bitter as hell about Brokeback only getting 3 Oscars. As Annie says:
Roughly 6000 film industry voters, most in the Los Angeles area, many living cloistered lives behind wrought-iron gates or in deluxe rest homes, out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city, decide which films are good. And rumour has it that Lions Gate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash - excuse me - Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline. Next year we can look to the awards for controversial themes on the punishment of adulterers with a branding iron in the shape of the letter A, runaway slaves, and the debate over free silver.
How deliciously petty! I assume she plans on never "doing lunch" in Hollywood again.
The Sydney Morning Herald reprints a Guardian article by Brokeback Mountain author Annie Proulx about her night at the Oscars.
One would expect a fairly high brow author to take such an award process all in her stride. Of course it is basically silly fun to be comparing one genre of film with another, and trying to pick the best actor out of dozens of films that put up at least competent acting each year.
But no, she is as bitter as hell about Brokeback only getting 3 Oscars. As Annie says:
Roughly 6000 film industry voters, most in the Los Angeles area, many living cloistered lives behind wrought-iron gates or in deluxe rest homes, out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city, decide which films are good. And rumour has it that Lions Gate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash - excuse me - Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline. Next year we can look to the awards for controversial themes on the punishment of adulterers with a branding iron in the shape of the letter A, runaway slaves, and the debate over free silver.
How deliciously petty! I assume she plans on never "doing lunch" in Hollywood again.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Physics and sex
Seed: Getting Physical
Interesting article that (I assume) has its historical anecdotes correct. For example:
Remarkably, some physicists’ trysts seem to have actually led to physical insight: While once floundering on a problem, Erwin Schrödinger shacked up in an alpine villa for an extended holiday with “an old girlfriend” and, in the “late erotic outburst” that followed, produced the eponymous equation that would net him the Nobel.
Interesting article that (I assume) has its historical anecdotes correct. For example:
Remarkably, some physicists’ trysts seem to have actually led to physical insight: While once floundering on a problem, Erwin Schrödinger shacked up in an alpine villa for an extended holiday with “an old girlfriend” and, in the “late erotic outburst” that followed, produced the eponymous equation that would net him the Nobel.
Valerie Plame - undercover in any meaningful sense?
Ace of Spades HQ
See above for a detailed post (found via Pajamas Media) on Valerie Plame's "cover". So far undercover she drove to to the CIA to work, and had other cover that was so tissue thin you could see through it.
See above for a detailed post (found via Pajamas Media) on Valerie Plame's "cover". So far undercover she drove to to the CIA to work, and had other cover that was so tissue thin you could see through it.
Mainly on Labor's leadership vacuum
Time to comment on the Labor leadership woes.
Over at Crikey.com they have an interesting internet poll result on preferred leaders for both the Coalition and the Labor Party. There are many things to note here:
1. Look at how big the readership of Crikey.com appears to be skewed to the Left generally. Looks like a margin of 3 to 1 would vote Labor or Green over the Coalition. This surely this can't represent the Crikey readership overall, can it?
2. On the conservative side, the big surprise is the strong showing of Malcolm Turnbull as alternative leader (well over the likes of Tony Abbott and Alexander Downer) and on a par with Peter Costello. Why is Turnbull so popular with intended Labor and Green voters? Does this indicate that the poll means nothing much at all?
3. On the Labor side, Julia Gillard wins as preferred leader. For Labor voters, she is miles ahead of the rest; for conservative voters, it seems equally split between her and Kevin Rudd.
4. Maybe Lindsay Tanner is not completely out of the race too. I must admit, he comes across as quite likeable and sincere, and I think more than one conservative commentator thinks well of him too.
As for my opinion of the other Labor contenders:
a. Kim Beazley: No doubt he is basically a nice guy. Several things about him as a person appeal to me: he's Christian; had a divorce but one in which he remained on good terms with his ex (contrast Latham); as right wing as they come on defence and (I think) foreign affairs; Phillip Adams hates him. It would be no disaster if he were PM. But his basic problem is that he all too often has to puff himself up into outrage in a manner which strikes as insincere. As everyone knows, he's still too verbose, which also gives the impression of possible indecisiveness. It's doubtful he can manage the factional issues. If he suffers a repeat of his recent serious illness, it would at least give him an excuse to exit with no loss of face.
b. Kevin Rudd: again, he is a relatively rare thing in that he is a serious Christian in the Parliamentary Labor Party. (I don't want to give the impression that religious belief is the most important thing I consider, but as a general rule I like some type of it in a political leader. ) Again, seems likeable as a person; the rapport he and Joe Hockey share on their segments on breakfast TV seems genuine. But - seems too smart for his own good. Maybe knows how to win arguments on an intellectual level, but not an emotional one. Cannot imagine him being an effective or overly popular leader within the party. Also gives the impression of having personal interests in too narrow a field.
c. Julia Gillard: current popularity seems mainly based on novelty factor (as was Latham's). Christopher Pearson's article in the Australian this weekend was a bit cruel in parts, but makes the basic valid point that she has been seen as too far to the right on immigration, and too far to the left on health. Does anyone know where she stands on foreign affairs and defence issues? Who knows where future policies under her leadership would end up. On a personal level, seems too opportunistic, giving the impression of being there more for personal advancement than for social concerns. (A problem shared by the majority of Labor parliamentarians today, given their backgrounds.)
Apparently decided at 18 that she was not going to have children. I have a personal bias on this that is difficult to justify when pressed, but as a rule I do not entirely trust people who have made that sort of decision at a young age, unless of course it is for health or genetic reasons. I think most people over 30 with children might share that suspicion. She (or more correctly, her mother) should never mention it again. You can read her Australian Story transcript and make your own mind up about this.
I predict she will never be Prime Minister. More likely some sort of meltdown.
Over at Crikey.com they have an interesting internet poll result on preferred leaders for both the Coalition and the Labor Party. There are many things to note here:
1. Look at how big the readership of Crikey.com appears to be skewed to the Left generally. Looks like a margin of 3 to 1 would vote Labor or Green over the Coalition. This surely this can't represent the Crikey readership overall, can it?
2. On the conservative side, the big surprise is the strong showing of Malcolm Turnbull as alternative leader (well over the likes of Tony Abbott and Alexander Downer) and on a par with Peter Costello. Why is Turnbull so popular with intended Labor and Green voters? Does this indicate that the poll means nothing much at all?
3. On the Labor side, Julia Gillard wins as preferred leader. For Labor voters, she is miles ahead of the rest; for conservative voters, it seems equally split between her and Kevin Rudd.
4. Maybe Lindsay Tanner is not completely out of the race too. I must admit, he comes across as quite likeable and sincere, and I think more than one conservative commentator thinks well of him too.
As for my opinion of the other Labor contenders:
a. Kim Beazley: No doubt he is basically a nice guy. Several things about him as a person appeal to me: he's Christian; had a divorce but one in which he remained on good terms with his ex (contrast Latham); as right wing as they come on defence and (I think) foreign affairs; Phillip Adams hates him. It would be no disaster if he were PM. But his basic problem is that he all too often has to puff himself up into outrage in a manner which strikes as insincere. As everyone knows, he's still too verbose, which also gives the impression of possible indecisiveness. It's doubtful he can manage the factional issues. If he suffers a repeat of his recent serious illness, it would at least give him an excuse to exit with no loss of face.
b. Kevin Rudd: again, he is a relatively rare thing in that he is a serious Christian in the Parliamentary Labor Party. (I don't want to give the impression that religious belief is the most important thing I consider, but as a general rule I like some type of it in a political leader. ) Again, seems likeable as a person; the rapport he and Joe Hockey share on their segments on breakfast TV seems genuine. But - seems too smart for his own good. Maybe knows how to win arguments on an intellectual level, but not an emotional one. Cannot imagine him being an effective or overly popular leader within the party. Also gives the impression of having personal interests in too narrow a field.
c. Julia Gillard: current popularity seems mainly based on novelty factor (as was Latham's). Christopher Pearson's article in the Australian this weekend was a bit cruel in parts, but makes the basic valid point that she has been seen as too far to the right on immigration, and too far to the left on health. Does anyone know where she stands on foreign affairs and defence issues? Who knows where future policies under her leadership would end up. On a personal level, seems too opportunistic, giving the impression of being there more for personal advancement than for social concerns. (A problem shared by the majority of Labor parliamentarians today, given their backgrounds.)
Apparently decided at 18 that she was not going to have children. I have a personal bias on this that is difficult to justify when pressed, but as a rule I do not entirely trust people who have made that sort of decision at a young age, unless of course it is for health or genetic reasons. I think most people over 30 with children might share that suspicion. She (or more correctly, her mother) should never mention it again. You can read her Australian Story transcript and make your own mind up about this.
I predict she will never be Prime Minister. More likely some sort of meltdown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)