Verily, the chicken will lie with the pig..and eat it

Food safety fears over animals fed to animals-Life & Style-Health-TimesOnline

The outbreak of mad cow disease convinced most people that it is not a good idea to grind up one normally vegetarian animal to feed it to another, but the Europeans are wanting to try it again, it seems:

Tests to allow the remains of animals to be reintroduced into farm feed for the first time since the BSE crisis are being carried out by European scientists, The Times has learnt.

The EU is spending €1.7 million (£1.15 million) on research which would allow the remains of pigs and chickens to be used as fodder...

The proposal comes from the European Economic and Social Committee, a statutory advisory committee to the EU. It follows pressure from farmers and food manufacturers concerned at the high cost of disposing of carcasses.

A minute from the committee says that pig meal should be allowed for chickens and that chicken remains should be fed to pigs.

Seems to me the problem could be solved by Europe having more carnivores to eat the carcasses. To buy a steak, a German should have to prove ownership of a dog, cat or (even better,) a lion.

China's problems, continued

Will Hutton: Calm down, the rise of China's power is being exaggerated

It's been a bit of a slow week for interesting stuff to post about.

This morning's article in The Australian gives some more reasons to worry about China.

I get the impression that there is one group of economists who are a bullish about China being able to handle its problems, and a smaller group who are much more pessimistic. The pessimists' case sound much more convincing to me.

Sex lives of the young and religious

Slate has an interesting article on a new book looking in detail on how religious belief affects sexual behaviour in young Americans.

Evangelical teenagers like to talk celibacy, but aren't good at doing it:

Teenagers who identify as "evangelical" or "born again" are highly likely to sound like the girl at the bar; 80 percent think sex should be saved for marriage. But thinking is not the same as doing. Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics. They tend to lose their virginity at a slightly younger age—16.3, compared with 16.7 for the other two faiths. And they are much more likely to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17: Regnerus reports that 13.7 percent of evangelicals have, compared with 8.9 percent for mainline Protestants.

One of the reasons that this group has more sex is given as this:

It also includes African-American Protestant teenagers, who are vastly more likely to be sexually active.

In the Economist article I mentioned yesterday, the incredibly high rate of children to black single mothers was discussed in some detail. I meant to mention then that this is something I don't really understand in light of the quasi-religiosity of the black community. (Even the single black mother with several children to different fathers quoted in The Economist mentioned how she hoped God would give her a partner. Maybe he would help more if she didn't sleep with every boyfriend she met.)

I just find the question of how black American culture got to where it is today very puzzling. (Not just on the issue of sex, but the whole hip hop and drug scene, and the attitude the men take towards women generally. I guess the Italian mafia were good at going to Catholic Church too, and that was another example of hypocritical behaviour I have never understood.)

But back to generic teenagers and sex. I don't really see what is wrong with pointing out from a very early age that if you have enough sex, even while trying to use contraception, the chances are that (sooner or later) you will end up with a baby. (Or at least a pregnancy to ruin your day.) If you don't want a baby yet, don't have sex. At least not with another person.

I should have been a sex education nun.

Marriage in America

Marriage in America | The frayed knot | Economist.com

This is a really interesting article about modern American marriage. Here's a key section that surprised me:

There is a widening gulf between how the best- and least-educated Americans approach marriage and child-rearing. Among the elite (excluding film stars), the nuclear family is holding up quite well. Only 4% of the children of mothers with college degrees are born out of wedlock. And the divorce rate among college-educated women has plummeted. Of those who first tied the knot between 1975 and 1979, 29% were divorced within ten years. Among those who first married between 1990 and 1994, only 16.5% were.

At the bottom of the education scale, the picture is reversed. Among high-school dropouts, the divorce rate rose from 38% for those who first married in 1975-79 to 46% for those who first married in 1990-94. Among those with a high school diploma but no college, it rose from 35% to 38%. And these figures are only part of the story. Many mothers avoid divorce by never marrying in the first place. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among women who drop out of high school is 15%. Among African-Americans, it is a staggering 67%.

I for one did not realise that middle class divorce had gone down so much. The article also mentions this:

...those who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce.

Many people will find this surprising. A survey of teenagers by the University of Michigan found that 64% of boys and 57% of girls agreed that “it is usually a good idea for a couple to live together before getting married in order to find out whether they really get along.” Research suggests otherwise. Two-thirds of American children born to co-habiting parents who later marry will see their parents split up by the time they are ten. Those born within wedlock face only half that risk.

I think that the higher divorce rate for couples who live together before marriage is also not well known in Australia. I strongly suspect you would get similar survey results in Australia, with most younger people seeing it as a worthwhile step to see if the couple really is "compatible". Sounds like a plausible theory; it's just that reality goes and does its own thing.

All of the article is well worth reading.

Bye bye Cindy

Sheehan 'resigns' as protest leader

I like this line:

She said the most devastating conclusion she had reached "was that Casey did indeed die for nothing ... killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think."

Err, yes, time to retire with tin foil hat firmly in place, Cindy.

She does have her followers though. The SFGate site asked a bunch of people what they thought of Sheehan's leadership. From Oakland, one woman responds:

Sheehan inspired people by speaking straight from the heart. Unfortunately, speaking truth to power didn't work against power gained and maintained through calculated deceit, aided by a spineless press. America's redemption, like 1930-40s Germany, may now require counter-propoganda as adept as the Bushies', or intervention from outside powers.

Wow. There are people so against against wars that they would prefer to, um, see one being fought on their own soil. Just nuts.

I also see that one Michael Ponce of Oakland says this about Cindy:

She brought the issue to our coward president. It's disgusting how the president of this country never met with her, especially when her son died for his war.

I assume he believes the plastic turkey too, as he clearly believes the hype over the reality. From Wikipedia (such a hard source to find):

Sheehan and other military families met with President George W. Bush in June of 2004 at Fort Lewis, near Tacoma, Washington, nearly three months after her son's death. In a June 24, 2004 interview with the Vacaville Reporter published soon after the meeting, she stated, "We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled. The President has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached." She also stated that President Bush was ". . .sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis … I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."^[4]

Yes, Cindy ran a 3 year campaign complaining how unfair it was that she couldn't meet the President....again.

Sounds fun, as long as it doesn't kill you

New Attraction Simulates Shuttle Launch at 17,500 MPH

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?