A harder rain is gonna fall...

Increases in extreme rainfall linked to global warming

In the most comprehensive review of changes to extreme rainfall ever undertaken, researchers evaluated the association between extreme rainfall and atmospheric temperatures at more than 8000 weather gauging stations around the world.

Lead author Dr Seth Westra said, "The results are that rainfall extremes are increasing on average globally. They show that there is a 7% increase in extreme rainfall intensity for every degree increase in global atmospheric temperature. "Assuming an increase in global average temperature by 3 to 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century, this could mean very substantial increases in rainfall intensity as a result of climate change."

Dr Westra, a Senior Lecturer with the University of Adelaide's School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering" and member of the Environment Institute, said trends in rainfall extremes were examined over the period from 1900 to 2009 to determine whether they were becoming more intense or occurring more frequently. "The results show that rainfall extremes were increasing over this period, and appear to be linked to the increase in global temperature of nearly a degree which also took place over this time.

So, it seems the impression I've been getting from recent media accounts of rainfall extremes is correct.

Good to know.

Ross explains

Why voters believe the economy is in trouble

I think Ross Gittins' explanation here of the difference between perceptions and reality regarding the Australian economy is accurate.

The other huge perception issue that Labor faces is that the Gillard government has been in continual crisis due to its narrow numbers in Parliament.  In fact, it seems to me that it is only on the asylum seeker issue that it has not been able to achieve what it wanted to legislatively.

Of course, the one perception issue on which people are right is that New South Wales Labor had been rotten for years.  I don't really see why Federal Labor should be punished for that*, but everyone expects they will.

*  just as I don't see that the Federal Liberal Party necessarily deserves to suffer for the Queensland LNP being a dysfunctional wreck for much of the last 10 years, although admittedly not in a way which has financially profited members... 

Dramatic irony and the pro gun lobbyists

OK, I'll admit it:  I'm one of those who is aware that people are supposed to use "irony" incorrectly all the time, but have trouble remembering its proper meaning.  Checking on the web, though, I see this sub-category for its use:

dramatic irony

noun

irony that is inherent in speeches or a situation of a drama and is understood by the audience but not grasped by the characters in the play.

and that seems a good description for what is going on in the gun control debate every time I read about a perfectly law abiding gun owner who is killed by someone in their family (or of their acquaintance) with a legal gun.

The Sandy Hook killings - Mom killed by her son using her rifles, before going on his school shooting spree.  The family in New Mexico killed by their 15 year old son/brother, all with the weapons his parents legally owned.  (And it seems he had intentions of a bigger killing spree, as with Sandy Hook.)  The latest news on the weekend:  relatively famous military sniper Chris Kyle shot on a rifle range by someone he obviously trusted enough to be handling a rifle near him.

Now, not all ex-military figures are against tighter civilian gun control.  But what were Chris Kyle's views?  As shown on this recent interview, it seems he pretty much accepted the right wing/NRA meme machine on gun control right down the line, even to the point of talking about how much more crime is in Australia because of the John Howard gun laws (yeah, sure) and suggesting that everyone having a 30 round magazine is quite reasonable and if they seek to stop that, well, that's just the slippery slope and soon they'll be disarming Americans entirely.  He may have done his military job well, but when it comes to civilian policy, he had no insights of value.

Here's the thing:  the pro-gun lobby in the US up on the stage just don't seem to "get" the fact that the audience (well, the sensible part of it at least) is in on:  when it comes to the big picture, they are actually making their lives more dangerous by being around guns all the time.   This seems to be so well established in the US and yet is completely ignored every time the NRA and gun loving right wing blogs run some story of how a brave law abiding citizen blew away a home intruder.  Never - and I mean never - do they go on to mention the other side of the ledger:  the number of law abiding citizens who were killed or threatened by someone in the family when a dispute escalated because of the availability of guns.  Nor the amount of accidental shootings in homes and suicides.

Mother Jones  has been collecting some counterpoints to the NRA arguments, and I'll copy some of them here: 

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer. Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer. Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer. Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Now, if it was only the gun loving folk who were getting killed by virtue of their being unaware of this (or, more likely, having heard of such studies but refusing to believe them), well that would simply be a case of shaking one's head at their foolishness.

The trouble is, of course, that legal guns go on to kill other people too.  People who don't have a choice.  Like at Sandy Hook.

UPDATE:   Slates notes that maybe - just maybe - the NRA is starting to lose ground when its creepy leader is getting hostile interviews on Fox News:

If the National Rifle Association can’t even count on Fox News for a friendly interview, does that mean there's been a shift in the debate? On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace interviewed National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre and wasn’t shy about calling him out on his arguments. The interview got particularly heated when Wallace brought up the controversial advertisement that criticized President Obama for providing armed security for his daughters but opposing armed guards in all schools, reports Talking Points Memo. (Video after the jump.)

"They also face a threat that most children do not face," Wallace said of Obama's daughters.

"Tell that to the people in Newtown," LaPierre responded.

"You really think that the president's children are the same kind of target as every other school child in America?" Wallace said. "That's ridiculous and you know it, sir."

Hope for some of my readers yet...maybe

The Tablet - Review: The Salvation of Atheists and Catholic Dogmatic Theology

There's quite a good summary of the controversy within the modern Catholic Church regarding its view of the potential for salvation for those outside of the faith.  It starts:

For most of history, Christians thought that the vast majority of people would go to hell. The gate of Heaven is narrow. In the twentieth century, hell fell into disrepute. Christians, including many Catholics, began to think that most people will be saved. God is merciful and loving. Dante would have turned in his grave. He knew who was going to hell and even to which region in hell.

Vatican II does not contain a single reference to hell even when speaking of eschatology. Karl Rahner claimed that the most significant teaching of the council was its “salvation optimism”. Lumen Gentium (LG), the council’s decree on the Church, was the key. It overturned centuries of salvation pessimism: all non-Catholics (which included other Christians, religious non-Christians and non-religious groups such as atheists) could be saved if they were ignorant of the Gospel and they sought God, or the truth, in their conscience. This was a dramatic development of doctrine. Some protested that it was actually discontinuous with previous teachings – and a minority claimed the council invalid. Others have sought to balance this emphasis with what critics have called a neo-Augustinian theology, foreign to the council. The debate continues.  

 This line further down caught my eye:

Bullivant, who teaches theology at St Mary’s University College, Twickenham, London, charts atheism’s complexities and types. He claims that the doctrine of invincible ignorance came into full play at the council and finally allowed the Church positively to appraise certain forms of atheism, when before it could only condemn them.

 Heh.  I didn't realise the Church had developed a special doctrine to describe the Catallaxy blog.

One of the books reviewed in the post argues that the LG decree has been read too often without its qualifications:

They ignore the first chapter of Romans, which is pessimistic. They ignore the footnote referring to Aquinas, which indicates that this salvation is only a “possibility”, not a reality. LG 16 ends with the necessity of missionary work and paragraph 17 develops that theme as an introduction to the decree on missionary activity, Ad Gentes.

That “rather often” suggests a salvation pessimism that was accepted by the Fathers and is not part of a neo-Augustinian plot after the council. 

 It seems to me that a large part of the problem here is that (as far as I know) the Catholic Church has no detailed position regarding what goes after death.   (With good reason, too, given the paucity of detail on the matter in all of the Bible.)  If you assume that most people go to Purgatory, and from there retain the possibility of changing and accepting things they have rejected in life, then that allows a way for ultimate salvation of nearly everyone, doesn't it?   I wonder what atheists would do in Purgatory:  keep interpreting the apparent evidence of their after-death survival in a science fiction way, perhaps?

Old stories and new ideas

Time flies, doesn't it?  I see now that it was back in June 2010 that I first mentioned my wife bringing home some Twilight Zone (the original TV series) DVDs from the Council library on the hunch that I liked the show.  I did, and watched a few episodes with my kids (my son in particular.)

Well, my wife recently repeated the exercise, with a different set of DVDs, and my son remains quite keen on watching it with me.  It pleases me that he likes it, given that I think it still stands up as intelligent entertainment with a substantially more literary aspect to it than what passes for most family friendly TV entertainment today.  Reading the Wikipedia article about the franchise,  I see how important Rod Serling was, not just as producer, but as a writer for the show.   Apparently Warner Brothers still has the rights to 92 episodes written by him, and Leonardo DiCaprio has expressed interest in making a full length movie from one or other of them. By co-incidence, my son also recently saw for the first time the original Planet of the Apes movie, and I spotted Rod Serling as a co-writer of it.  The Wikipedia account of his life indicates he was a pretty interesting character. 

(By the way, another old show, of a decidedly different character, which my son and I have been watching together over summer are the repeats of Red Dwarf on ABC2.  I had not realised how old the original series is - it started in 1988.  I always thought the show was pretty good in a cheerfully low brow science fiction comedy way, and I was annoyed that the new series shown by the ABC just before Christmas seemed to arrive with no fanfare at all, so I missed some of it.  Anyway, happily, my son finds the old series very entertaining.)

But back to the main point:  I have nearly always enjoyed anthology TV series.  I am not sure when TZ was shown on Australian TV; as the first series was made in 1959, it is possible they aired before I was a TV viewer.  In fact, there may not even have been a TV in the house at the time.  (Talk about making me feel old, telling you this!)  Broadcasts in magnificent black and white only started in Brisbane in about 1959,  and my mother has told me that my father resisted getting a TV initially.   Her ordering one without prior approval from the (now long defunct) Waltons Department store caused a bit of a scene at home, with Dad telling her that he would tell the delivery man to take it back.   He didn't live up to the threat, however; the delivery went smoothly, quickly followed by my father becoming the most dedicated television viewer in the household. 

So, the first anthology series I can recall is The Outer Limits, which had a more consistently science fiction bent than TZ.  While I remember it creeping me out quite a bit, no particular story sticks in my mind from my childhood viewing.

Fast forward to the 1980's TV revival of Twilight Zone, which I see now followed the movie (which itself was really only worth watching for the brilliant remake of Nightmare at 20,000 Feet.)   But I remember enjoying much of the revived TV series.  The 1980's then also brought us Steven Spielberg's Amazing Stories, some of which really were excellent, even if the series had a tendency to indulge too often in whimsy.

All in all, I miss such series, and presume that it is a combination of expense and the difficulty of coming up with consistently good and novel stories which prevents them from ever lasting more than a few seasons at a time.

Speaking of story ideas, I recently stumbled across Writepop, which claims it has more than 1,000 story ideas for science fiction which anyone is welcome to use.   While there are only one or two lines that explain the premise, if I were a student who had a fiction writing assignment, I think I would find this a very useful starting point. (A recent half baked idea of mine featuring time travel and the Bible does not seem to have been covered before, I am happy to say.  Now I only need another 91 ideas to match Serling.)

I see that the site io9, which I think I have only ever briefly seen before, has many articles on writing science fiction, and seems to be a generally interesting place to spend time.   It's good to find new corners of the web for a change.

The (very) late review of Brave (and animation talk generally)

The kids and I never got around to seeing Brave at the cinema, but we watched it at home last night on DVD.

What a seriously flawed movie for Pixar.

The first problem is a technical one:  it could just be our LCD TV is a particularly bad one for low light, but a movie like this which takes place about 2/3 at night (and then often inside a gloomy castle) is hard to enjoy at home without a lot of attempts at re-adjusting contrast and brightness. In fact, I never achieved a satisfactory adjustment.    I suspect a lot of people trying to watch it at home would find this.  The one thing that is really visually eye-catching, though, (when you can see it) is the main character's red hair.  It moves and bounces so realistically that it almost gives the impression of a doll being filmed rather than watching a purely animated effect.

But the big problem is the story.  To my mind, it makes no emotional sense at all.  To summarise:  a well intentioned Queen does the usual thing:  wants to find a husband for her strong headed daughter via an arranged marriage from competing clans.  Mother and daughter argue; daughter is led by magic lights to witch who gives her a magic pie to "change her mother".  Said pie turns mother into a bear.  (?  Why a bear in a fake medieval Scotland?)  Mother and daughter spend a night learning how to get to know each other better - as daughter and bear.  Mother (still as a bear) communicates that she was wrong; daughter makes speech about breaking tradition and everyone "writes their own story".  A bit more to do about the King not realising his wife is a bear, and then bear turns back into mother. Daughter and parents continue living together.

There's a little more to it than that, which I won't bother explaining, but really, this story just doesn't work.  In Brother Bear (a much better Disney film involving people transforming into animals) the "victim" of the transformation had a lesson to learn, and the whole idea of people being able to change into an animal had some resonance in the Inuit tribal setting.   It just doesn't seem to fit into any traditions of Scottish folklore that I've heard about (not that I'm any expert on that, and maybe someone will prove me wrong.)  But what's more - it just didn't seem fair that it was the mother alone who had to undergo the trial in order to learn a lesson.  

Of course it's not the first time that Disney animation has been thematically about a strong daughter finding her own way in life; but this daughter never struck me as a particularly sympathetic character.  Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian probably summed it up well:

Now, in some respects, it is interesting and unusual not to have a conventional love interest, but what we are offered instead is something oddly regressive, binding Merida into the family unit just when she was making that bid for independent adulthood, and we don't learn anything very interesting about Merida or her mum. There was a time when Pixar movies worked gloriously for adults, teens, tweens, small kids, everyone; this one is unsatisfying for all ages.

Interestingly, the Guardian also had a historian briefly talk about the film.  From this, I learnt that some aspects of design in it were more realistic than I expected, but also that bears were not around in Scotland since prehistoric times. 

Now that I've finished complaining about that bit of animation, I saw Rise of the Guardians with the kids over the holidays, and it was a much better experience.   Although it was odd in parts (why the Easter rabbit should be furry version of Crocodile Dundee is beyond me), but there were sequences in the film that did have that emotional effect that was missing in Brave - the explanation of the origin of Jack Frost in particular.   Overall, the movie worked a treat with the audience I was with, even though it is probably fair to call it a more kids-centric film than many others made by Pixar or Dreamworks films.   I see that it only made $100,000,000 in the US (although twice that amount overseas.)  This really counts as under-performing for its quality, and if you are in the market for buying a DVD for some kid you know, I can guarantee this one would please them.  (Not that it is out yet, I expect.)  

It is amazing in its own way, isn't it, when moving illustrations (together with the musical cues, I suppose) can move us emotionally.  As I have said before,  I would be very thrilled to be part of a team that made a successful animated film.

And finally, quite a few places have been putting up this Disney Oscar nominated short Paperman and praising it.  I think it is pretty good, and again shows the sort of magical realism story that is done so well by the medium:

In Utah news

Well, that's kinda amusing.  When following someone's link to the Salt Lake Tribunal on an unrelated matter, I found that it must be one of the few news websites in the world that has a permanent story category heading for "Polygamy". 

A slight improvement for witches

More curbs on Saudi religious police powers | GulfNews.com

Riyadh: Saudi Arabia has set new limitations on the powers of its notorious religious police, charged with ensuring compliance with Islamic morality but often accused of abuses, its chief said on Tuesday.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice “once had much expanded powers, but with the new system... some of these powers, such as interrogating suspects and pressing charges,” will be restricted to the police and public prosecution, Shaikh Abdul Latif Abdel Aziz Al Shaikh told AFP.

The religious police may still arrest those carrying out “flagrant offences such as harassing women, consuming alcohol and drugs, blackmail and the practice of witchcraft,” Shaikh said of the new law approved by the cabinet.

However, the cases of such people will be referred to the police and brought to justice, as the religious police will no longer have the right to determine charges against them, he said.

Looking back at 50's science fiction movies

Nuclear monster movies: Sci-fi films in the 1950s were terrifying escapism. - Slate Magazine

Not a bad review of the themes within the genre here.   A pity they don't mention Earth Versus the Flying Saucers - one of my favourites.

I like the section headed "That women are scary" in particular.   (It reminds me of one of the best laughs in Monsters Vs Aliens.)

It was probably carrying kimchi and a Samsung smart phone

South Korea launches satellite to join global space club : Nature News Blog

Bedrooms and penicillin

Syphilis and the Sexual Revolution � First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Hadn't heard this theory before:

It may have been penicillin, not the Pill, that triggered the sexual revolution, a new study indicates. Hypothesizing that “a decrease in the cost of syphilis due to penicillin [which, in 1943, was found to treat syphilis effectively] spurred an increase in risky non-traditional sex,” the Emory University economist Andrew Francis discovered evidence that “the era of modern sexuality originated in the mid to late 1950s,” prior to the debut of oral contraceptive pills in 1960. (Full PDF here.)

How much do we really know with any accuracy about sexual behaviour on the big scale in previous centuries, though?   I mean, we know there were a heap of prostitutes in Victorian London, but who was their typical customer, and what was happening in the rural areas in the meantime?   You can say the same about any similar period, really:  we may know from both fiction and non fiction written at the time that certain societies may have been more libertine about certain things for certain periods, but without modern methods of crunching numbers,  it's surely always very hard to be certain about population wide behaviours.

More about marriage and kids

Don't mention the M-word - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Jeremy Sammut suspects that academics in Australia are too devoted to supporting "family diversity" to come out and admit that marriage has the best outcome for kids, and single parenthood the worst.

I suspect that he may be right.

I have complained about this before:  if governments want to promote good outcomes for kids, they should really be promoting marriage.  Not de facto relationships.  Unfortunately, as the government saves money by treating welfare recipients living together as if they were a married couple, it seems hard to find a way for the government to encourage people into marriage via how benefits work.

And of course, if they did find a way to do this, we would go through the same boring "but why are you discriminating against us just because we don't have a piece of paper:  are you doubting we love each other?" arguments that we got in the 1970's when recognition of de facto relationships really got a kick along.  

I wonder if anyone really has come up with plausible ways government can encourage marriage.

The Prime Minister getting married to her long term partner would, of course, be a good first step!

Update:  someone in the Atlantic warns against promoting marriage by painting too rosy a picture about it.  Fair enough too.

Simplified forecasts for global temperature

Global Temperature Anomaly Forecasts, January 2013 | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog

Last year, climatologist John Nielson-Gammon came up with a sort of simplified graphical way of looking at the global temperature trends, and made some predictions from it.

It only works if there is an underlying global warming, and he's expanded it now to update his predictions.

The method looks pretty convincing, and (so far) works.

I meant to post about it back then when he came up with this, but I don't think I did.  It is well worth looking at.

David Byrne admiration post (again)

I see that David Byrne was in Australia a couple of weeks ago for a few shows with St Vincent, a nice young woman with whom he did his most recent musical collaboration.  They didn't come to Brisbane, and I didn't care too much for a couple of the songs I briefly heard on the 'net, but I see they still got good reviews.  Actually, as long as he throws a few Talking Heads songs into any show, I think he will always get admiring reviews:  there just seems to be an enormous well of public affection towards that back catalogue from everyone in the age range of 25 to 65.  (With good reason, I might add.)

But the main reason for the post is to link to the great series of posts he has put up on his journal following his visit.

I've recommended this before:  he is a great writer with eclectic interests, and whether he's covering his visit to MONA in Hobart, watching Spanish experimental theatre doing Verdi at the Sydney Opera House, eating a Moreton Bay bug and (in particular) his long account of the eccentric interests of  Percy Grainger, he is always a great pleasure to read.  

I think I read he is 60 now, but that charisma and strong voice is still there.   I shouldn't be embarrassed about finding him so appealing - just read the comments after nearly any Youtube video and you can tell how much people like him.   

So, to end my annual renewal of devotion to Mr Byrne, a couple of videos.   First, a video of one of the songs he did with St Vincent which I only found tonight and don't mind at all.  It shows him making the odd moves which people like (even though black and white makes him look older):



And secondly, just a short interview where he talks a bit about Talking Heads and how he views collaboration:



And finally - no, seriously, this time - his book published last year "How Music Works" sounds interesting and had some enthusiastic reviews too.

So much for self defence and guns

I haven't looked at the links provided, but I expect this is quite right:

IWF's Gayle Trotter testified at today's Senate hearing on gun safety, and unsurprisingly claimed that guns make women safer. She apparently seems to believe most violence against women resembles Buffy the Vampire Slayer facing down a gang of vampires: 

“Guns make women safer,” Trotter argued, because they eliminate the advantage violent criminals might have in size and strength. “Using a firearm with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, a woman would have a fighting chance even against multiple attackers.”

The conservative claim, made by Trotter, that guns are an "equalizer" is about as serious a misrepresentation as you can muster when it comes to violence against women. Most violence against women is perpetrated by men the victim knows in situations that are intimate or social, where guns aren't usually out. If someone during a domestic violence incident scrambles for the gun, it's rarely going to be the person who doesn't want this situation to get more violent....

The fact of the matter is that more guns put women in danger. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center has found that states with more guns have more female violent deaths. Their research also found that batterers who owned guns liked to use them to scare and control their victims, and would often use the gun to threaten the victim, threaten her pets or loved ones, clean them menacingly during arguments, or even fire them to scare her. The Violence Policy Center's research showed that in 1998, the year they studied, 83 women were killed by an intimate partner for every woman who used a gun in self-defense. Futures Without Violence compiled the statistics and found that guns generally make domestic violence worse, both by increasing the likelihood of murder and also by creating situations where abuse is more violent, controlling, and traumatic.

People convicted of domestic violence aren't allowed to buy guns, a sensible reaction to the realities of domestic violence and guns. Unfortunately, the private sale loophole makes it easy enough for a man who wants to stalk or control a woman to get the weapon to do so. If Trotter were truly concerned about preventing violence against women, she would be demanding an immediate closure of this loophole that allows batterers to avoid background checks when trying to buy guns. But she's too busy imagining that women might have to fend off the zombie apocalypse to worry about the real dangers that ordinary women face in this country every day. 

As seen on Baden-Powell's bookshelf

This refers back to a 2004 Christopher Hitchens article on the "mildly Fascist" Baden-Powell.  If I had read it before, I had forgotten this bit:

If Baden-Powell had had his way, the Boy Scouts might have formed close ties with the Hitler Youth. In 1937, he told the Scouts' international commissioner that the Nazis were "most anxious that the Scouts should come into closer touch with the youth movement in Germany." Baden-Powell met with the German ambassador in London and was invited to meet the Führer himself, though the war prevented him from visiting the Third Reich. But he continued to admire Hitler's values, writing in a 1939 diary entry that Mein Kampf was "a wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organisation etc."

As Hitchens reports, Baden-Powell also seemed to tacitly approve of the Nazi attitude toward homosexuality. When the head of his international bureau told him that a German scout leader had been sent to a concentration camp, Baden-Powell dismissed it by saying the scoutmaster had been taken away for "homosexual tendencies."

I know that the scout movement still contains some learning about their founder's life and good deeds.  They seem to skip over what was on his bookshelf, though.

A sudden bit of optimism

How Obama will deliver his climate promise - environment - 30 January 2013 - New Scientist

BARACK OBAMA is certainly talking the talk on climate change - promising to put the fight against global warming at the heart of his second term. What's more surprising is that the US - historically, the world's biggest emitter - actually seems to be walking the walk. It is on track to meet Obama's 2009 pledge to cut US emissions by 17 per cent, from 2005 levels, by 2020. The target could even be exceeded, which may give a boost to the long-stalled international climate talks.

Right wing commentary run amuck

Sinclair Davidson seems to have written a piece for the Conversation about the announcement of the Federal election date in a hurry and with nothing of importance to say.

The silliest thing it contains is this:

The date of the election is known, but the government is not in caretaker mode. Given the expectation that the government will lose the coming election, should it be in caretaker mode? Reasonable people can disagree on this point. After all, having the government in caretaker mode for eight months is a bit too long.

No, reasonable people cannot disagree on this point:  no one can credibly even attempt to argue that knowing an election date in advance (as in Parliaments with a fixed term) is relevant to "caretaker mode"; nor has bad polling  8 months from an election ever been suggested before as a reason for a government to stop governing.

Another thing I want to note is this:   I used to get really annoyed with Tim Dunlop when he was a paid blogger for News Ltd putting on the "voice of reason" approach in that forum, and then sneaking off to his own personal blog to make snarky, nasty and personal attacks on John Howard.

Sinclair Davidson is exactly the same on the Right side.   For the Conversation, the voice is Mr Reasonable.  Or when he turns up on Andrew Bolt's show to warn of "stagflation" more than a year ago.   (No sign of that yet, by the way.)  But at the blog he runs, particularly in comments threads, it's the abusive, over the top, voice: 

There is no role for “civility” in a free speech debate. Those who would steal our birthright are scum who deserve all the contempt they have earned. There can be no surrender, no compromise, and no meeting of minds.

Or in the gun control issue:

 Gab – don’t be nice about it. Steve and his ilk are happy to have children murdered to make political points about gun ownership.

And of course, he lets the blog threads run that way too.  Where else on the Right side of politics can we find such witticisms such as suggesting that the way to "deal with" Leigh Sales is to "kick her in the s__ts?"   Or people can tell hilarious [/sarc] jokes about the PM sleeping with her dog.  And Michelle Obama - she's so ug-ly (a theme repeated at various times by nice old conservative Catholics CL, nilk and the most annoying commentator in the world Mk50.)  I see that only today there's yet another reference to Obama as the "Magic Negro"; and who can forget Steve Kates, an economist with an absolute obsession with (what he says is) everyone else in the world not understanding Say's Law (and Keynesian economics being the root of all evil), blaming the Romney loss on "damaged women"?   (OK, that link is to his Quadrant article where the term appeared, but I'm pretty sure he linked to it from Catallaxy.)

Bizarrely, conservative Catholicism gets special protection from Davidson, and in fact the blog seems to be a special haven for them; absolutely rabid sweeping generalisations about Muslims on the other hand - well, they're OK.

I've noticed the blog - train wreck that it is - has been attracting more women commenters lately.  And, of course, Judith Sloan contributes posts, often blithely dismissive of things like climate change and matters in which I have my doubts she has any particular expertise.  (Yes, it's the branch of the right that most resembles the Tea Party.)    Ever a comment from her about how the threads deal with women on the Left of politics?  Not that I've ever seen.   Same with Quadrant writer (and conservative Catholic) Phillipa Martyr.  The threads were absolutely full of foul "slut calling" of Sandra Fluke last year; Rush Limbaugh was the voice of reason, according to them.

The only thing good about this is that it seems to me that Sinclair Davidson can't really have any friends or be influential on the Liberal Party, can he? given that he is so dismissive of them if they don't follow the line on matters he is over the top about, such as free speech.

But what is more annoying is the way that Andrew Bolt, Catallaxy and the opinion pages of The Australian have all become dominated by the same characters who cross reference each other continuously.  It's a mini version of what has gone on in the US with the right wing blogosphere and the Wall Street Journal (and Andrew Bolt's TV show counts as a mini Fox News too.)

What has happened to moderate and sensible right wing commentary in this country?  And why does a large part of the Right have to proudly display the same  (actually, worse) ugliness in discourse that those on the rabid left used to show under (say) John Howard?  

Just can't understand how it lost

National Review post-election summit: Conservatives descend on the magazine’s conference. - Slate Magazine

David Weigel opens his article on attending the National Review post-election "what went wrong?" summit with this:

Early on Friday evening hundreds of conservatives pack the room, stepping in and out of line depending on whether they’re thirsty or whether they’d rather talk to one of the available icons—Mark Steyn! Jonah Goldberg! Rich Lowry!

I get stuck between Steyn, a ring of his fans, and a bar, where I meet an Orlando dermatologist named Darrin. He’d volunteered for Mitt Romney’s campaign, “making calls from my office” when he wasn’t working or raising his kids, and he wasn’t surprised when Romney lost, because he doesn’t put any graft past Barack Obama. “I’m worried about a dictatorship,” he says—really, we have been talking for maybe three minutes before he lays this on me. “I mean, it happened in history. History repeats. Why couldn’t it? How about all the Muslim Brotherhood czars? He’s got like eight different guys in the administration who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

When I start to sound skeptical, Darrin pulls out his iPhone and forwards me an infographic. It’s titled “Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration,” and it shows six Muslims who work in the administration and “enjoy strong influence.” Another way of putting it: Six mid- and low-level staffers in the administration have, in the past, appeared on panels staged by frightening-sounding organizations. But the evidence worries Darrin. “If I have to go to a freakin’ island to save my kids,” he says. “I’ll do it. I’ll leave the country.”

But, to be fair, over at MediaMatters, Eric Boehlert notes that some voices at the conference did acknowledge that the Fox News led perpetual outrage machine of the last 3 years had been counterproductive.

Baby steps back towards reality, I guess.

Update:  on the third hand, the Salon commentary on the summit thinks that too many Republicans still think the problem was just with the messaging, not their ideas.

About that election date

So, last Sunday Tony Abbott had an event that everyone acknowledged as being exactly like an election campaign launch.  Everyone knows an election has to be held by November at the latest.

This week, Julia Gillard announces the election date, and she's the one some commentators are saying has started the election campaign?

This was certainly the line Chris Uhlmann took, with questions like these in last night's interview with Wayne Swan:

CHRIS UHLMANN: Why you have decided to run the longest election campaign in Australia political history?

CHRIS UHLMANN: Treasurer, this is now a campaign, no matter what you say.

I still say Uhlmann is not very bright and routinely gives soft interviews to Coalition figures and aggressive interviews to Labor figures.  His interview technique rarely adjusts questions much according to the responses.  

I cannot see what the drama is about announcing the election date.   Journalists and political commentators probably find it annoying because it cuts down by about a quarter the normal content of their annual writing in an election year.

It is disturbing that Rudd supporters within Labor are still backgrounding journalists like Uhlmann with their dissatisfaction with virtually anything Gillard done.  Uhlmann noted last night:

So is this a stroke of political genius, or in the words of one disgruntled Labor MP, an "unmitigated disaster of historic proportions".

There is no doubt at all that, in the event of a Labor loss, they will have to take a large amount of the credit.