Rudd's secret put to the test

As I more or less expected, the Mrs Kevin incident appears to have no detrimental effect on Kevin's popularity; quite the opposite it would appear.

One reason for this is, I suspect, that people are thinking that any criticism of Rudd's family is not nice, and they decide to punish the Liberals for it, despite the fact that it is the media coming up with the stories, not the government.

Secondly, surely everyone has noticed that when Rudd says "we'll take a battering in the polls" or "this is embarrassing", it doesn't hurt his polling at all. I think he has recognised and will keep using the magic formula. Maybe it is some sort of Jedi mind trick, or a pact with the devil, and the way for the public to be reassured that it isn't supernatural forces at work is to see it deliberately put to the test.

My challenge to Kevin is therefore to demonstrate that he can be unpopular by doing something really wrong. How about being caught on camera having sex one night with Julia Gillard on the grass under the flagpole on top of Parliament House? If all he does, while brushing grass off his suit, is to look sheepish and say "well I have to acknowledge this is very embarrassing, it will put a strain on my marriage and I expect to take a battering in the polls" and next week there's another 5% increase, then we will know there is something sinister about him.

Update: I wrote this before I read Matt Price in The Australian this morning. He makes a similar point:

At this rate, Rudd could be captured on video wearing leather bondage gear while snorting ice - and the punters would still find some excuse to look kindly on the Labor leader.

I bet in his heart Price wanted to use sex with Gillard as an example, but he has to get on with Rudd and his minders.

Waking up to a surprise

Man catches leopard in his bedroom | Jerusalem Post

A resident of the Ben Gurion Field School in the Negev caught a leopard on Monday morning after he woke up to find it chasing after his pet cat in his bedroom.

The man, Arthur Du Mosch, pounced on the leopard, holding it in a head lock before it was taken away.

Clad only in underwear and a T-shirt, he lunged at the leopard, grabbed it around the neck, then pinned it down for 20 minutes - until park rangers arrived on the scene.

Some points:

1. I didn't know they had leopards in Israel.

2. I didn't know they had people called "Arthur" in Israel.

3. Why would you bother pinning down an errant leopard in your bedroom for 20 minutes?

4. Who rang the park rangers, and didn't that person say to Arthur "Man, what are you doing, put it outside and let it go"? Or was Arthur clever enough to hold a leopard in a headlock and make a phone call at the same time?

Deep

Alex Byrne: Knowing Right and Wrong

Found via Arts & Letters Daily, above is a lengthy but (mostly) comprehensible discussion of meta-ethics. It's quite good, if that's the type of thing that interests you.

While I would like there to be a clearly logical and unassailable way to argue that all humans have an obligation to observe the application of a basic morality to their behaviour, I can't see that there is any way to get there via rationality alone, without the leap of faith into the belief that one's actions in life have consequences after life.

Jolly good news

ScienceDaily: Red Wine Protects The Prostate, Research Suggests

From the article:

Researchers have found that men who drink an average of four to seven glasses of red wine per week are only 52% as likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer as those who do not drink red wine...

...wine drinking was linked to a reduced risk of prostate cancer. And when white wine was compared with red, red had the most benefit. Even low amounts seemed to help, and for every additional glass of red wine per week, the relative risk declined by 6%.

I do drink much more white than red; but a conscious effort will be made this winter to redress that balance. (I think I pretty much hit the age where doctors start to have an unusual degree of interest in the prostate.)

Exit conseqences

Strife Foreseen in Iraq Exit, but Experts Split on Degree - New York Times

The New York Times asks lots of people within and outside of Iraq about how bad they think it would become if the US withdrew quickly. The answer seems to uniformly be: very bad indeed.

The only people who seem to be quoted as doubting this are Democrats.

As to the recent petition by the Parliament to get the US to set a deadline to leave is mentioned as follows:

A bare majority of Iraq’s 275-member Parliament recently signed a petition promoted by Mr. Sadr that called for a timetable for American troops to depart. Even so, the petition said the Americans should not leave until Iraqi security forces were ready to take over the job. “Pulling back to bases maybe makes sense,” said Mansour Abdul Mohsin Abboud, 66, a Shiite tribal sheik who lives in Najaf. “But leaving, withdrawing completely from Iraq, that means erasing Iraq from the map.”

Ken L at Road to Surfdom and his followers should read it: they scoff at any suggestion that you can trust what any journalist or American says about the situation in Iraq if forces withdraw.

Blue tongues

According to The Observer, Tony Blair "swears like the proverbial trooper", which is definitely not the image he has liked to portray to the public.

This made me think of Rudd, about whom there has been mention from time to time of his vigorous language in private.

But the perverse way the electorate is at the moment, he could appear on the 6 o'clock news with a string of expletives about the trouble Therese has caused him, and the public would say he's got the common man's touch after all, let's boost his approval ratings.

The saintly Rudds of The Age

The Age goes out of its way to put the best possible spin on Mrs Kevin's decision to pre-emptively sell the Australian arm of her business. From yesterday's story:

Taking full responsibility for the embarrassment she said her business interests had caused Mr Rudd, and emphasising that the decision to sell was entirely her own...,

Sure, Therese, sure. (And I can't really blame the reporter for that line, it will be in every report). But surely the journalist has to take full credit for this paragraph:

Admitting to feeling humbled by the dignity her work colleagues had demonstrated in the face of intense political pressure, Ms Rein repeated that she "fully accepted personal responsibility for any errors made by my company in handling the details of the employment arrangements for staff. I have also accepted full responsibility for rectifying any errors".

"Admitting" to feeling humbled? Did a journalist ask the question: "Don't you feel humbled by the dignity of your work colleagues?" Nope, surely this is just bad journalism.

For the touching human side of the decision, try this:

The couple sat together on the flight to Brisbane, their heads touching as they discussed the political dilemma before greeting the waiting media throng.

Then the drama of does she or doesn't she really want to do this:

Asked if her job or her husband came first, Ms Rein replied: "I am prepared to put Kevin first and my country first." However, at that stage she showed signs of wanting to fight to keep the business she started from scratch 18 years ago and built into an international enterprise. "I don't think that I have to make a decision between my husband and my career," she said. "I am immensely proud of what I have been doing for the last 18 years. I have loved doing that and I still love doing that. "But I think the Australian people may be concerned that there might be a conflict of interest. I don't want that to get in the way for them."

But to remove any doubt at all that it was her sole decision after all, the report ends with:

Last night neither Mr Rudd nor the Prime Minister were commenting on Ms Rein's decision.

I've seen ...[readers please insert own humourous analogy here - all I can come up with is nuclear centrifuges] with less spin than this.

More Humour

The Best Place in the Universe New Mexico, Earth

Have a look at these couple of short tourism ads for New Mexico. Quite amusing.

Humour

Chad Vader: Day Shift Manager

I see these date from 2006, but I seem to have missed the adventures of Darth Vader's loser brother Chad, who works in a supermarket. (I've only watched the first couple of episodes, but they are pretty good.)

Not rushing to comment

I like the way that when something embarrassing for Kevin Rudd comes up, the left leaning blogs certainly take their time to make any comment. Despite it dominating the news and ABC current affairs shows last night, nothing yet on LP, Road to Surfdom, or Blogocracy as at 10 am this morning. "Rapid fire commentary" indeed, Tim Dunlop. (While I am at it, I reckon Blogocracy would benefit from less bloat in each individual post. His non-corporate blog had a bit more life to it than this incarnation, and I still don't see what benefit it is to News Ltd to run it.)

The contrast is with anything of embarrassment to John Howard. That never gets left alone for long. I can see the questions from the blog commentators if the shoe was on the other foot: so it took 6 months for her company to realise the mistake? Shows how careless she is in running her company, and what little disregard it has for the workers...

Also, although the SMH website this morning gave the story a "headline" near the top, you really had to look much harder to spot it on The Age website, down under the "National" section.

As I understand it, Kevin Rudd's wife's fortune has effectively been made (or at least greatly enhanced?) from the Liberal government's change in policy on employment placement services, which was (if I recall correctly) strongly opposed by Labor at the time. The irony of this seems to have attracted remarkably little comment since the Rudd ascendancy.

Unusual brain chemistry

Endogenous cannabinoids linked to fetal brain damage imposed by maternal cannabis use

From the article:

A critical step in brain development is governed by endogenous cannabinoids, ‘the brain’s own marijuana’. ..... these endogenous molecules regulate how certain nerve cells recognize each other and form connections.

But this is not good news for babies with mothers that smoke:

Earlier studies have already found that children of marijuana-smoking mothers more frequently suffer from permanent cognitive deficits, concentration disorders, hyperactivity, and impaired social interactions than non-exposed children of the same age and social background.

On Palestinian victimhood

neo-neocon The Palestinians: when does a victim stop being a victim?

This is a good read from Neo-neocon. I found it particularly interesting how a journalist from 1961 was already pointing out how Palestinian refugees were being used as a pawn - by other Arabs.

It's a boy thing, and water for nuclear power

The Guardian reports that the British government is going to "push ahead with proposals to build a new generation of commerically built nuclear power stations". There's an interesting snippet at the end of the story:

When the Guardian last asked voters their opinion on the issue, in late 2005, 45% backed nuclear energy and 48% opposed it. The poll also shows that 62% of men think more nuclear power stations should be built against 27% of women.

That's a big difference. In Australia, the recent Newspoll, which mentioned nuclear power in the context of greenhouse gases, still showed a significant difference between the genders, as does this Morgan poll. Interestingly, both of these polls show that the strongest opposition by far is from women aged 35 to 49. What do these women have against nuclear power? Are they better informed than men, or just more easily scared? Is being a mother something to do with this?

As for nuclear power for Australia, one point I have been meaning to make is that the lack of water for convention coal power stations in South East Queensland is currently a serious issue. In discussions of nuclear power here, there has been frequent mention of a need for access to water, with the main suggestion being that they would need to be beside the sea.

However, it would seem to me that pebble bed reactors, which are occasionally mentioned as a potential new generation design for Australia, are unlikely to be very thristy. They are proposed to use helium turbine systems, not steam. They are also intended to run at high temperatures, which has the benefit of making them good for hydrogen production. (A detailed explanation of pebble bed is given in this paper.) I could be wrong, but this sounds to me like they won't need anywhere near as much water for cooling as steam based turbine systems. Some engineer type reader might care to confirm or correct this for me.

If pebble bed designs are not very thirsty, I would have thought that this feature would make them very attractive to our drought prone land. It would also mean that they can simply be located on current inland power station sites, regardless of current or projected future dam levels. This would surely help defuse the "not in my backyard" scare campaign that Labor has already started.

Saving water Japanese style

Brisbane's water supply dams are now at 18.62% capacity, and it's the start of winter when substantial rains are virtually unheard of until spring. Looking at the graph at that link, it would seem very likely that we will hit 10% before the end of the year. No one knows how the water quality is going to be as it gets lower. Already, if I leave the kid's bath water in the tub overnight (before pouring it down a grey water hose that is hanging out the window to a big tub below, for later bucketing over the garden,) there is a very brown residue left on the bath which never used to be there.

The government is aiming for an average daily consumption of 140 litres per person. My family is close to that, but none the less it does feel as if the city is on the verge of crisis, with many substantial sized garden plants dying all over the place, so one does feel the need to do more. We had a rainwater tank installed in January. It has not had more than about 15 cm of water in the bottom since then.

If the letters to the Courier Mail are anything to go by, many people are starting to take pride in how little water they can get away with using in a day.

Here's my boast. I think that even "low flow" shower heads use up to 9 litres of water a minute. They are urging people to limit showers to 4 minutes, so that's about 36 litres all up. But that doesn't count the litres wasted while waiting for the hot water to reach the shower, and this is an unavoidable problem in winter. I have used a bucket to check this, and it takes about 5-6 litres in my house to get the temperature right.

(You can save the cold water in a bucket for the garden, but frankly, we are finding that the greywater from the Top Loading Washing Machine That Refuses to Die and kid's bath is enough for keeping the garden alive.)

My solution is to adopt Japanese style bathing in the shower recess. This involves a 10 litre round plastic basin, a smaller bowl as a ladle, a plastic stool and a sponge, costing around $12 in total from Big W.

Typical Japanese bathing, either in the house or a public onsen, is done while sitting on a little stool and either using a little hand held shower or ladling water over the body. The bathrooms are designed as areas able to get completely wet, with drains in the floor. There are some good photos of a typical Japanese apartment bathroom here. In Brisbane, I have to do it in the shower recess, but I find I can fit in OK.

The advantages: in my house, for the first 10 litre basin fill, the combination of the first 4 litres of cold water and the next 6 of scalding water works out just right. You can stay clothed while this is done. Ten litres is plenty for the body. I then use another 10 litres for hair and final body rinse, and really I find that plenty. There is no water wastage at all. The only disadvantage: no nice steamy bathroom in which to dry yourself.

Anyway, I know that I am definitely using only 20 litres per day for bathing.

Send me a medal, someone?

Appreciating Disney

James Lileks' series on his recent family holiday to Disney World (the first part is here) is very enjoyable. His genuine, non-ironic, postive response to the place also feels very close to how I felt during my couple of visits there (without child or partner) in the 1980's. (He is perhaps a little underwhelmed by EPCOT, but he barely touched that park, by the sounds.)

As it happens, my childrens' first experience of Disneyland will likely be in Tokyo. I am not entirely sure how much I will enjoy it, but I have faith!

In other Disney posts, Boing Boing recently linked to an Orlando resident's post about the underground tunnel that encircles Disney World. I knew about its existence, but had not heard about how it works in detail before. Good reading.

Doctor Yes

Top sex change doctor faces damages claim | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

This is a story of special interest to Zoe Brain, I assume.

The overall story is that:

The General Medical Council (GMC) today declared that the UK's top expert on transsexualism inappropriately rushed patients into sex changing treatments.

Its inquiry into the consultant psychiatrist Dr Russell Reid found that he gave five patients hormones too soon and referred them for genital surgery without an adequate assessment of their health or proof that they were transsexuals.

This particular example of what Dr Reid did is remarkable, to say the least:

Dr Reid was found to have prescribed Patient D male hormones against the advice in a second opinion provided by another psychiatrist. The patient, who wanted to change sex in order to fulfil a delusion that she was turning into Jesus, only avoided surgery to remove both her breasts because she was sectioned and diagnosed with manic depression. She told the inquiry she was never transsexual and claimed she had been misdiagnosed by Dr Reid.

Dr Reid evidently thought the patient was always right, no matter how mad.

Antony goes to Cuba

Comment is free: Getting connected

What's Antony Lowenstein doing visiting and writing about Cuba? And why meet someone there at the Iranian embassy? He is our International Man of Mystery.

Anyway, I suppose it's nice to see him critical of a government other than Israel's.

How soft are our obstetricians?

Sarah Buckley: Mothers not just too posh to push | Opinion | The Australian

The article above disputes the idea that it is women wanting unwarranted caesareans which is pushing up the rates of such deliveries in Australia. Her figures indicate that there are few mothers asking for it without good reason.

However, last week, two obstetricians discussed the issue on Radio National (audio available here), and I was surprised to hear both of them say that there are cases where, despite explaining all of the risks and disadvantages in detail, some patients will still insist on a caesarean birth, and they felt that they had no choice but to provide that service.

This seems very strange to me. Why should any obstetrician comply with a request to provide an unwarranted medical procedure which is known to have worse health outcomes for both the mother (who at least can give her consent) and also the baby (who obviously can't.)

Isn't there some risk that, if the baby suffers a complication typically arising from caesarean birth, the father could sue the doctor on behalf of the baby for providing an unwarranted and more dangerous procedure? I could see this as a scenario especially where the father and mother are estranged either before or after the birth. Or do the doctors also seek the father binding waiver before the procedure?

I know that lots of people have unnecessary cosmetic surgery despite its risks, but as I say, there is only the need to consider one person's interests in those cases.

In the multiverse version of Earth where I am benevolent and wise ruler of Australia, obstetricians are just ordered to refuse the request for unnecessary caesareans, and doctors doing cosmetic surgery are sent to work on remote aboriginal outposts. (Oh, hang on, I have closed most of them too.) The producers of Big Brother were fed to the crocodiles long ago.

New meteor idea

Diamonds tell tale of comet that killed off the cavemen | Science | Guardian Unlimited

This is interesting:

Scientists will outline dramatic evidence this week that suggests a comet exploded over the Earth nearly 13,000 years ago, creating a hail of fireballs that set fire to most of the northern hemisphere.

Primitive Stone Age cultures were destroyed and populations of mammoths and other large land animals, such as the mastodon, were wiped out. The blast also caused a major bout of climatic cooling that lasted 1,000 years and seriously disrupted the development of the early human civilisations that were emerging in Europe and Asia.

'This comet set off a shock wave that changed Earth profoundly,' said Arizona geophysicist Allen West. 'It was about 2km-3km in diameter and broke up just before impact, setting off a series of explosions, each the equivalent of an atomic bomb blast. The result would have been hell on Earth. Most of the northern hemisphere would have been left on fire.'

And politicians can be hard to convince that spending money on spotting dangerous objects in space is worthwhile.

Science and religion at work

Focus | Cosmic Variance

This is a couple of weeks old, but worth reading if you are interested in the culture wars.