Later...

Yes, Father's Day was nice, thanks.

I've found the app called Comics for the iPad, which will let me prepare my talentless "comics" easier than before.  This pleases me.

As with all people interested in politics, I am very curious as to what Newspoll will come up with for Labor tomorrow.

I am going to spend today meditating in preparation. 

Update:   could've been worse.  Primary dropping to 25% or below would have been psychologically very  bad, but Gillard can point to no drop in primary of 27%.  But what would have caused a 2% drop in Green vote?  

Odd film alert

A Dangerous Method: 'And out of the spanking comes psychoanalysis' - video | Film | guardian.co.uk

My more regulars readers will recall that I find Jung pretty interesting, and what happened between him and Freud is just about the most fascinating aspect of his life.

Now, it seems that a movie on the topic has finally been made, with David Cronenberg (or all people) the director. I see that it is based on a play, but I hadn't heard of it before.

The link above is a video report on the film's reception at the Venice Film Festival. It sounds like an interesting movie, but perhaps not one to see when tired.

Born into the job

Sex hormones impact career choices

This interesting study looked at job preferences of females with a congenital condition (CAH) that sees them exposed to abnormal levels of male sex hormone while in the womb:

The researchers report in the current issue of Hormones and Behavior that females with CAH were significantly more interested than females without CAH in careers related to things compared to careers related to people. The researchers also found that career interests directly corresponded to the amount of androgen exposure the females with CAH experienced -- those exposed to the most androgen in the uterus showed the most interest in things versus people.

"We took advantage of a natural experiment," said Berenbaum. "We're suggesting that these interests are pretty early developing."

Females without CAH had less interest than males in occupations related to things, such as engineer or surgeon, and more interest in careers focused on interactingwith people, such as social worker or teacher. There was no significant difference reported between males with CAH and males without the condition.

Political punditry

Amongst all the cries of "this is the end of Julia Gillard" and general despair and gnashing of teeth that the "Malaysia solution" was knocked over by the High Court, I would make the following observations:

a.   One of the best comments I saw came from Mumbles blog at The Australian:

....such is the low esteem in which the Gillard government is held it can’t even win a public opinion stoush against a bunch of do-gooding lawyers.

A visitor to this country today would be baffled. This is the most important issue facing Australia?

Only in Australia does the latest development in asylum seeker policy scream across the headlines and lead the evening news. It’s an issue that most of the technocratic class would agree is second order, but it’s a political hot potato because voters feel strongly about it.
Which is well and good, but it’s not as if many Australians could care less about the Malaysia, Pacific or Timbuktu solutions. What they do reckon is that John Howard was tough on border protection and stopped the boats and the Rudd and Gillard governments softened and made a mess of it.

 It was my feeling at the time Howard lost government that the public did have a feeling that it was appropriate to soften the approach to asylum seekers - certainly, Rudd promoted himself as dealing with it more "humanely".   Just goes to show what a fickle bunch Australians are on this topic.

The only right wing commentator in the land who has any sympathy to the Gillard government on the issue is Gerard Henderson.  He seems to always consider it a virtually intractable problem politically, and he's right.

The issues are complicated.  A softening of the approach has the unintended consequence of more drownings at sea.   Some idiot commentators in the blogosphere make this out to be a matter of moral responsibility of the Australian government, which is clearly absurd;  but people can still reasonably have concerns about unintended consequences.  

So, the solution?  I don't know.  Putting them in the Howard era detention centres in the middle of nowhere seems unpalatable in the extreme; but is it worth causing that human suffering if it saves a couple of hundred drownings a year?  (And let's face it, this High Court decision is going to lead to the unintended consequence of lot of boats leaving soon.)  Frankly, the Malaysian solution looked better (see next paragraph).

As for Nauru - maybe it is the best option.   But here's the thing - given the legal uncertainty, the only way I think Labor should agree to it would be if Abbott promised openly that he would not seek to make political points if either the High Court struck it down too, or if it fails to stem new boat arrivals.   There is reason to suspect that, given this judicial climate, re-opening Nauru would not stop the boats cold in any event.

b.   I actually didn't pay too much attention to the detail of how the Malaysian solution was going to work, but I had heard previously on Radio National a regional spokesman for UNHRC talking about how the deal was actually pretty useful for them, in that they thought that a successful arrangement over these people was helping set a better benchmark for the treatment of all refugees in the region.   And you know what - he was on RN Breakfast this morning pretty much making the same point.  They were not a party to the deal, but had been heavily involved in negotiations anyway.   This aspect of the deal seemed to get very little attention.   You can listen to the interview here; I think it starts after the sports report.

Or if you don't want to listen, I see now that the UNHRC website has a statement up that summarises their position:

UNHCR hopes that the Arrangement will in time deliver protection dividends in both countries and the broader region.  It also welcomes the fact that an additional 4000 refugees from Malaysia will obtain a durable solution through resettlement to Australia. The potential to work towards safe and humane options for people other than to use dangerous sea journeys are also positive features of this Arrangement. In addition, the Malaysian Government is in discussions with UNHCR on the registration of refugees and asylum-seekers under the planned Government programme announced in June on the registration of all migrant workers.

The Arrangement and its implementing guidelines contain important protection safeguards, including respect for the principle of non-refoulement; the right to asylum; the principle of family unity and best interests of the child; humane reception conditions including protection against arbitrary detention; lawful status to remain in Malaysia until a durable solution is found; and the ability to receive education, access to health care, and a right to employment.

The critical test of this Arrangement will now be in its implementation both in Australia and Malaysia, particularly the protection and vulnerability assessment procedures under which asylum-seekers will be assessed in Australia prior to any transfer taking place.

UNHCR will continue to monitor and review progress, remaining engaged with the parties to ensure the protection safeguards are implemented in practice as the two governments bring this Arrangement into effect.

 This is hardly the statement of a body that is feeling this was a terrible approach to the issue.



c.  For all this muttering about Gillard now being under threat of being replaced and maybe even Kevin Rudd returning, people are forgetting the key reason I reckon Rudd  was replaced:  people couldn't stand working for him or his office.    There was plenty of evidence around that Rudd had been a very unpopular boss right from the time he had a job in the Queensland government; and that he staffed his PM office with young turks who took every opportunity to throw their weight around and keep people from even getting to talk to Rudd until Rudd deemed he had a minute to spare.   I find it impossible to believe that enough Labor would think that there was sufficient sincerity in a Rudd mea culpa, and promises of "no, I really won't run my office like that again".  

There has also been no comparable complaint about how Parliamentarians have found working with Julia Gillard. 

I think she has to tough it out.  If I were her, I would be hiring the best speech writer she knows, and make an address to the nation within the next fortnight.   She is needs to counter the continual claim that there is complete dysfunction in the government at the moment; sell the mining tax as a reasonable step, re-emphasise that the carbon price is not going to kill the economy, and remind people about how difficult the asylum seeker problem is.

And Bee, for one, welcomes our new AI overlords

Backreaction: Will AI cause the extinction of humans?

Physicist Bee muses a bit about whether we should be scared of AI more intelligent than us. This last point is of note:

Thing is, I don’t really understand why I should be bothered about the extinction of humans if there’s some more intelligent species taking over. Clearly, I don’t want anybody to suffer in the transition and I do hope the AI will preserve elements of human culture. But that I believe is what an intelligent species would do anyway.

Gee. I thought a human/robot war was worth fighting. Bee will have to be rounded up, as she sounds like she may belong to the robot underground.

Rust in space

What would happen to the International Space Station if the astronauts were to leave? - Slate Magazine

According to this article, if NASA has to abandon the ISS, it should still last a few years and be capable of re-use.

One point they make about it I had not heard before:

Assuming the station didn't come careening out of orbit, its interior would stay in pretty good shape for quite some time. Rust is occasionally a problem up there—corroded wiring briefly disabled the orientation system in 2007—but that's only a risk when there is moisture emanating from the humans and animals onboard. NASA could easily dehumidify the station before withdrawing, preventing significant rust.

Actually, now that I think of it, does that make sense? Electrical wiring doesn't normally have much (or any?) iron in it, does it?

Will Google that later...

Productivity talk

There's been a lot of talk of a productivity crisis in Australia lately.  We aren't getting more productive any more, so it seems.

This is not a topic I know anything much about, but I thought the discussion of it by a some prominent Australian economists on Radio National this morning was quite interesting.   (John Quiggin and Saul Eslake feature.)

Can someone give the Prime Minister a hug?

Well, the newspapers are full of condemnation of the Gillard government for having tried a novel approach to the refugee issue and getting it knocked down by the High Court yesterday. Even columnists who the Right (unfairly, for the most part) normally consider to be too sympathetic to Labor are putting the boot in.

This morning on Sunrise, the normally Labor friendly David Koch has got ex Labor senator Graham Richardson on to help condemn the Gillard leadership. Richardson's new media career annoys me, because it trades on whatever Labor connections he still has and lets him continue his previous "career" of attacking his perceived enemies and boosting his political friends. Just as I think it is unseemly for a journalist with close connections to politicians to run for office (like Maxine McKew), I don't care for ex-politicians who want to be on TV every night still trying to play the game from afar.

(A good post by Ken Parish about Richardson's evident enthusiasm to see Gillard replaced as leader is here.)

It's true, as Annabel Crabb writes, the whole problem for Labor has been that it has been trying to find a way to differentiate itself from the Coalition approach, but has always given the impression it was coming up with ideas in a completely haphazard way.

Still, I can't help but feel sorry for a Labor PM (well, any PM other than Rudd) who is stuck on the horns of this dilemma.

One of the more radical suggestions gets a mention in The Age this morning - Labor could just withdraw from the Refugee Convention. It doesn't necessarily mean we don't take the same number of refugees, it would just be that we can deal with those who arrive in a way free of many of the current legal restrictions. But we could still pretty much follow the same assessment process that we use now.

As the article notes, this is likely to appeal to a large part of the population, but it would be anathema to a significant chunk of the Left.

I'm not sure where I stand on the question. To do it would be a triumph for Labor being able to show it is pragmatic, and if they continue taking higher numbers of refugees than before, that it has no great practical effect apart from freeing up the hands of government as to the way in which they can deal with a difficult problem.

The debate could still swirl as to where processing takes place, and be changed from off shore to on shore depending as circumstances change and the political mood at the time.

I guess there might be some downside that I am missing here, but my impression is that it might be worthwhile. But it almost certainly has no chance of happening. Labor is too attached to symbolism.

UPDATE:  gee, even Ken Parish thinks this seals Julia Gillard's fate, and she may as well go down with dignity by allowing on shore processing.

What he fails to address is the humanitarian aspect of not wanting to see hundreds of refugees drown every year on the dangerous trip from Indonesia.  I mean, it is this aspect that really makes the issue morally complicated. 

Big progress

Japan's life expectancy 'down to equality and public health measures' The Guardian

I didn't realise that the Japanese advance in life expectancy had happened over such a short space of time. Maybe I am forgetting what the comparative figures are for the West, but this still seems remarkable:

A baby girl born in Japan today can expect to live to 86 and a boy to nearly 80. But it has not always been so.

According to a paper in a Lancet series on healthcare in Japan, this is a rise of 30 years from the expected lifespan in 1947. While Japanese diet has contributed, it is far from the only factor.

The remarkable improvement in Japanese health began with the rapid economic growth of the late 1950s and 1960s. The government invested heavily in public health, introducing universal health insurance in 1961, free treatment for tuberculosis and cutting childhood deaths through vaccination and treatment of intestinal and respiratory infections.

Following the control of infectious diseases, Japan tackled its high death rate from stroke with salt reduction campaigns and the use of drugs to control blood pressure.

The cultural things that the article notes as significant to good Japanese health are attention to hygiene, and a high degree of health consciousness that means regular check ups. The downside, though, is pretty big (especially for a country that is forgetting to have babies):

The downside of Japan's success in keeping its people healthy is that the population is unbalanced and becoming more so. At the moment, 23% of the population is over 65 but by 2050, that will rise to 40% in a population shrinking from 127 million to 95 million. Other problems include drinking and smoking among overworking business people and a high suicide rate partly attributable to rising unemployment. Unless these issues are tackled, the paper suggests, Japan could lose its position at the top of the longevity table.

An amusing line

Just noted this while reading a Washington Post column about Rick Perry:

If Perry’s style resembles anybody’s in George W. Bush’s White House, in fact, it is that of former vice president Dick Cheney, whose just-published memoir, “In My Time,” might as well have been titled “Right Every Time (Even Though I Was Surrounded by Idiots).” Think of Perry as Bush without the charm.

As noted at another blog

Probably, re-reading this in 5 years time will make no sense at all, but I just want to preserve it as a comment I made at Andrew Bolt's blog. Maybe I should add background links later:

Andrew, your acknowledgement towards the end of the column that maybe some people think it was “mean” of you to be asking people to judge her character based on an old relationship from nearly 20 years ago.

This indicates to me you know it was sleazy - done in tandem with Michael Smith in a manner to maximise the drama (and ratings) about how revelations to come would bring down Gillard - when in fact all of the time the bulk of the story had been known and reported for years.

You would also know of other politicians with ex partners who have done wrong - if you want every politician to be judged by their past relationships you know the gossip would never end.

Then, when Milne’s carelessness (or whatever it was, I still don’t understand) gave the PM reason to blast the paper for a detail that was defamatory - you carried on like a drama queen about how her getting upset about this was like suppression of free speech.

She was upset at your foreshadowed sleaze, Andrew, and she had every right to be.

She called the paper out for actual defamation, which you repeated in your column with the attempted arse covering line “I’m not sure that’s right.”

Your behaviour in this matter has been disgraceful, and you’ve let your efforts at “kingmaking” go to your head since you had success with getting Turnbull chucked out.

A real shellacking

Mediawatch last night really showed up Alan Jones for his errors, bullying demeanour, and attempt to clear himself later, as a result of the Canberra truck rally last week.

An asteroid of our own

Apparently, some Chinese scientists think it would not be so hard to put some nearby asteroid into Earth orbit.

If they picked one full of minerals, it might be worth doing.

Nuclear for the Moon

The first nuclear power plant for settlements on Moon, Mars

It's light on details, but it appears thought is going into the design of small, molten salt nuclear reactors to power manned outposts on the Moon or Mars.

Then, all we would need is a rocket to get there...

Arsegate

So, the big political news over the weekend was all to do with what Tony Abbott said to Tony Windsor about his (Tony's) bottom 12 months ago.

Apparently, some people think he would not make a slightly crass joke about (considering) selling his arse to get the Prime Ministership, but I know that somewhere, on the internet, there is a very similar arse related comment that he is supposed to have said to someone (I think while visiting an aboriginal community?) given in explanation as to why he left the seminary (which he found far too "gay".) I haven't been able to find the quote via Google yet, but I know it is out there somewhere. Readers who find it are welcome to put the link in comments!*

Meanwhile, people have to remember even former Liberal staffer Niki Savva wrote:

In private, Abbott talks openly about sex to almost anybody who will listen, and usually at great length. And the conversation continues in public. Journalists persist in asking Abbott for his views on sex and he keeps answering their questions. Even though women resent it when he tries to tell them what they should do with their bodies, he refuses to shut up.

He thinks about it too much. Sex, I mean. Certainly he talks about it too much.

I don't think the Abbott quote sounds out of character at all, and I thought it hardly worth his while denying it. (Unless, of course, he didn't say it, I suppose....) Of course, it may be the fact that the quote indicates he'd do anything policy wise to get the leadership is the thing he objects to, but still the suggestion that he doesn't talk "like that" sounded to me like a denial that he has a "colourful", sometimes arse-related, turn of phrase.

Anyway, the biggest problem with the current union scandal within the Labor side is that is preventing people from remembering what a pillock Tony Abbott can be!

* Update: quote found, from the Sydney Morning Herald, no less:

The teaching staff members at the seminary were influenced by the reforms of Vatican II, and not at all to Abbott's liking. Some of the young seminarians were practising homosexuals. When many years later Abbott and Quarmby met Noel Pearson on business, Abbott jokingly said, according to Quarmby: "Peter and I were the only seminarians who didn't get f---ed."

Yeah, I find the reported quip to Windsor very unlikely (not).

Mungo is right this time

A political crisis like '75? Tell 'em they're dreamin'

I don't normally find much to agree with in Mungo McCallum's political commentary (he was one of the worst Howard haters around, if I recall), but he is right in his comparison of the 1975 Whitlam crisis and the fake crisis the Right is trying to promote today:

And this brings us to the second difference: the crisis of 1975 was actually about something. The government had attempted to bypass both the states and the Treasury to raise an overseas loan of $4 billion and the whole process had gone horribly wrong. A cast of weirdos in white shoes and green sunglasses had emerged making improbable promises and brandishing carpet bags. Whitlam had been forced to sack two of his most senior ministers for deliberately misleading parliament over their own roles in the affair.

This gave Malcolm Fraser the "unusual and reprehensible circumstance" he need to justify the blocking of supply, a move only made possible by an unprecedented breach of convention: on the death of a Queensland Labor senator, the state premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen had appointed as his replacement not another Labor member, as was accepted practice, but an anti-Labor stooge. With the numbers in the senate Fraser committed his own breach of convention, confident that it would force Whitlam to an election.

Whitlam fought back, attempting to find alternative means to pay the civil and military public service. Lawyers, up to and including the chief justice became involved, both openly and covertly and there was talk of both a general strike and of military intervention. This really was a political crisis; no wonder the place went apeshit.

But today... well, what crisis? The polls are against the Government, as are the shock jocks and sections of the media, but for the administration, it's pretty much business as usual. By international standards the place is in good shape, and although there are plenty of dissatisfied voters, there are no signs of a genuine people's revolt – the streets are largely empty of marchers. And as for the Parliament – it's noisy, but no more so than it has been in other times in its history. In the uproar after the crisis of 1909 the speaker dropped dead in his chair; Harry Jenkins remains robust.

Compared to 1975, it's pretty Mickey Mouse stuff. Whitlam had to sack cabinet ministers; Julia Gillard is having problems with a single backbencher. Fraser responded by blocking supply; all Tony Abbott can block is parliamentary pairings. Fraser's lust for power at least produced drama on a grand scale; Abbott's manifests itself in stunts and spite. Wacky and frantic it may be, but 1975 it's not. Trust me; I was there.

He is spot on.

The Right divided

Evolution, Climate Change Could Divide the Republican Party - Ronald Brownstein - Politics - The Atlantic

Have a read of this article and be amazed at, amongst other things, the polling that indicates the science attitude of the Right in America.

In a 2010 Pew survey, only about one in six Republicans said they believed human activity was changing the climate. In a Gallup survey this March that phrased the question differently, 36 percent of Republicans said they believed pollution from human activities had contributed to "increases in the Earth's temperature over the last century," while 62 percent of Republicans attributed those changes to natural changes in the environment. Rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change has become an article of faith for virtually all elements of the GOP coalition. Even in a secular, well-educated state such as New Hampshire, for instance, University of New Hampshire surveys since April 2010 have found that only about one-fourth of Republicans believe human activity is changing the climate. National figures provided to National Journal by Gallup combining surveys from 2011 and 2010 show that college-educated Republicans are even more likely than their non-college counterparts to reject the notion that human activity is changing the climate.

This is driven by the confluence of religious beliefs (see the article's summary of polling on evolution) and the free market/ libertarian small-government-and-all-taxes-are-evil ideology.

It is ideology playing games with the future.

Troublesome algae

Algae that turned toxic stumps scientists

This article talks about a type of ocean algae that sometimes makes people sick, but it's hard working it all out:

The study of harmful algal blooms is complex. Dinophysis, in particular, are difficult organisms. Experts around the globe hadn't been able even to grow them in laboratories until South Korean researchers figured that out in 2006.

Plus, they are weird little critters. Some, but not all, individual species create toxins. Some are only poisonous sometimes. And it's not at all clear what determines when they change.

"I have books from back in the 1930s that show pictures of this same organism," said Rita Horner, a research scientist and algae specialist at the University of Washington.

"I personally have knowledge of it being here since the 1960s. The algae isn't new. Just the toxin is new. But we don't know enough about the biology of the organism itself to know what caused it to change."

Said Bill Cochlan, an oceanographer and phytoplankton expert at San Francisco State University: "You can have blooms and it's not a problem, or you can have blooms that are a real problem. The Number One question is when and why are they toxic?"

Let's hope ocean acidification and CO2 fertilization does not have something to do with it.

Which reminds me, I haven't posted anything about ocean acidification for a long time. There have been some interesting studies, so I will post about it again soon.

Overstepping the mark?

Of course, we all know that the apparent evidence coming out relating to the way Craig Thomson’s credit card was used does not look good for him, but I am surprised that no one has come out yet to say that some journalists are surely overstepping the line in declaring already that he has committed crimes.

In particular, Michael Smith, who has played a big role in this, said directly yesterday “Craig Thomson stole money from the Union,” and invited Thomson to sue him if that wasn’t true. (There is no transcript, but you can listen to what he said at the second recording at the link.) Now, given that Thomson did cease his high profile defamation case against Fairfax, Smith knows that he is at little risk of facing a fresh one.

But as a right wing radio talkback jock who has clearly always hated the Gillard government, Smith clearly hopes that Thomson is charged with offences and that this will bring down the government if Thomson loses his seat.

But surely he realises that statements like that can be, at the very least, problematic for getting a fair trial? Is it only because there is no actual charge yet (and may not be for some weeks or months) that he feels he can talk about the situation like this? Certainly, this site indicates that sub judice rules apply from the time someone is charged, arrested or a warrant is issued.

Still, I am interested to see if anyone else comes out and criticises Smith for coming out directly with this statement.

UPDATE: Andrew Bolt refers to the "illegal use" of union funds, and indeed the current head of the union assumes a crime has been committed. Paul Sheehan also says "crimes have been committed", but in all cases they do not say specifically by who. It may be that Smith is the only journalist who has come out and said Thomson has stolen money. What will Alan Jones say about it today, though? Andrew Robb has also said Thomson is a thief, but under parliamentary privilege. Talking outside of parliament, I think George Brandis has been more careful to couch it terms of possible crimes that may have been committed.

The best commentary on the matter I found this morning in The Age by Shaun Carney, which includes this:

But the niceties of the law do not really interest the Coalition; they are merely vehicles by which they can continue their assault on Thomson's state of mind and Gillard's political authority. Any legal case against Thomson for misappropriation of union funds would take years to be mounted, listed and heard.

Even then, a conviction might not meet the relevant section of the constitution, which deems a person unfit to sit as an MP if he or she has been ''convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer''.

Yesterday, opposition leader Tony Abbott veered close to over-reach, with his extraordinary claim that the issue was stopping the government from dealing with more serious problems.

He told the ABC in the morning that ''while the government is completely distracted by the Craig Thomson matter it's not properly able to attend to the pressing problems the country faces''. He made the same claim later in the day while arguing that normal parliamentary business cease in order for Gillard to make a statement about the matter. The ''distraction'' has been generated all along by Abbott. The Thomson affair merely adds to the semi-permanent state of crisis that continues to engulf the Gillard government. Its opponents, both inside and outside the Parliament, are trying everything to blast the government from office. Last week, around 3000 protesters gathered outside Parliament House to voice their opposition to the government and its carbon pricing policy. On Monday, a few hundred more turned up, most of them by truck, calling for a new election.

I'm not sure he's right that it will take "years"to get to trial, but he's certainly right that the "distraction" claim by Abbott is a silly bit of political game playing.

Meanwhile, the business of government continued, with plain packaging for cigarettes legislation passing through parliament.

As I have said before, there is no actual crisis relating to economic management, or any persistent failure of this government to get its legislative intentions through parliament. It is pure political spin by those who oppose the Gillard government (and, admittedly, that includes a lot of the general public) that there is an actual governance crisis happening.

Red Potatoes

Rice is nice but spuds are new top banana

Facing more frequent droughts, falling water tables and widespread soil erosion, the government has designated the potato as a ''strategic'' crop in the latest five-year plan and is investing millions of dollars in researching new varieties.

This northern spring Beijing hosted its second international potato expo, hoping to cash in on China's new-found love for the spud. The potato is proving attractive both to Chinese consumers and to government officials charged with achieving China's target of being 95 per cent self-sufficient in food.

Advertisement: Story continues below

With 20 per cent of the world's population, and just 7 per cent of its arable land, China is also hoping that the potato - which produces three or four times more calories per acre than rice or corn - can alleviate poverty by boosting farmers' outputs and incomes.

Probably some Chinese geneticist is working right now on the stir fry-able potato.