For future reference

Sunday night eggs Recipe | Good Food

My version goes over well with the family, and fortunately the kids of are of an age where mild to medium chilli heat is quite acceptable.

Take some eggs out of the fridge and let them come to room temperature. 

Chop red capsicum and 2 red onions.  Fry in a deep sided frying pan in olive oil til softened, adding some garlic to taste in the last few minutes and a bit of salt.

Put in bowl, and use same frying pan to fry one substantial sized chorizo cut into slices.  When cooked both sides, throw in one can of chopped tomatoes (and support Ardmona and use "Rich and Thick" Classic, which already has tomato paste added to chopped tomatoes - it is good).  Add a few  few chopped fresh tomatoes.  Don't worry about de-seeding.

Sprinkle in at least half a teaspoon of dried chilli flakes.

Add back in the cooked onion, capsicum and garlic, and a drained can of butter beans. Throw in a generous amount of fresh oregano or basil, or whatever green herb you like with tomato.

Stir and cover and cook over low heat for 5 to 10 minutes, til some of the fresh tomato starts to release its liquid.

Make four "wells" in the mix and crack in an egg in each well, cover again and take a guess as to how long before the eggs are cooked to your satisfaction.  That is the hard part.  I'm going to have to start timing it to make sure the yolk is not completely hard.

Put the frying pan on the table and serve everyone an egg and generous amount of the tomato/bean/chorizo/capsicum/onion mix.   Put out lots of crusty bread, and encourage diners to use it to the clean the plates well enough that they don't need rinsing before going in the dishwasher.

Video watch

So, what did I see on Rage this morning that I liked?   This:



I know she's worked with David Byrne, and this video is very Byrne-esque, I reckon.  But in a good way.

Weight formula

I read somewhere on a forum this week that an old Dutch rule of thumb for your ideal weight is your height in metric less one metre.   Never heard of that before, but it works for my height, at least...

But I'd like my own planet....

Mormons clarify talk of personal planets | The Japan Times

Ridiculously unnecessary

BBC News - Three-person baby details announced

So some medical researchers with nothing better to do other than to try to find a find a way a whole 10 or so women a year in England can have a baby without mitochondrial disease have got some "draft regulations" which might allow them to do it.

I like this quote [/sarc]

Prof Doug Turnbull, who has pioneered research in mitochondrial
donation at Newcastle University, said: "I am delighted that the
government has published the draft regulations.

"This is very good news for patients with mitochondrial DNA
disease and an important step in the prevention of transmission of
serious mitochondrial disease."

Hey, Prof Doug:  here's an even easier step that we already know is guaranteed not to transmit the disease - don't have children.  Adopt one instead.

It's a ridiculously complicated bit of fiddling, with completely unforeseeable consequences for the health of children, that is only needed for a tiny number of couples.

These researchers need to be forced into something more useful.

A strange story of crank science from Eygpt

Egypt army 'AIDS detector' instead finds ridicule

As noted elsewhere, the "detector" looks an awful lot like the fake bomb detectors sold by a fraudster in England (now in jail) to Iraq.

I don't mean to sound rude, but is there something about desert nations and the heat that makes them particularly gullible?

So, someone else has noticed

Manly men v wimps: what's behind the macho language in Australian politics? | Ed Butler | Comment is free | 

So, someone else has noticed the nauseating way that right wing politics (including in News Ltd) has latched onto macho language to sell itself.  It's ridiculous.

Hawking considered

Hawking: Is He Really That Great? | TIME.com

A realistic, but sympathetic, look at the question of how significant a physicist Stephen Hawking really is.

Gosh, who do I believe?

Who do I believe:

a.  the 2011 "stagflation" flag waving economist who regularly shills for donations to his* prominent anti climate science "think tank" (even though its financials indicate it has a retained surplus of $1.5 million) who rubbishes climate scientists and gets a thrill every time he reads something about the "pause" in global average temperatures.  (The IPA's latest brilliant idea is for numbskulls to donate $400 to get their name on the back of a book about climate change with contributions by the sharpest scientific minds in the world:  Andrew Bolt, Delingpole, Monckton, Roskam, Watts, etc.   As someone says in comments "Can’t see much point in this. Looks too much like preaching to the choir."   Is the IPA finally reaching the limits of separating fools from their money?  The true scandal about this is that donations are tax deductible.)

You see, what really annoys me about Davidson is his disingenuousness - he is running the line now that people are only being reasonable in being reluctant to take economic action like carbons taxes or ETS's when they see that scientists are saying that there is a "pause" the causes of which are still being investigated.

He completely fails to mention in posts like that that he personally is actively involved in promoting in the public the complete disbelief  that climate change is a real and serious problem that deserves a politic response now.    And the people he helps promotes to the public (see his shilling of the IPA book) are not scientifically credible at all.  They aren't even scientists in most cases.

He is essentially, involved a vain project of arguing that because he thinks he's being reasonable, despite not believing a clear scientific consensus, everyone else who agrees with him is also being reasonable.

He claims "success" because he (and his buddies) manage to convince some fools to join him in his ideologically motivated foolishness.   That just intensifies the degree of foolishness on display.

or:

b.       Actual scientists:

US and British scientific academies said Wednesday there was a clear consensus that climate change is real and will have serious disruptive effects on the planet.

The US National Academy of Sciences and Britain's Royal Society said they were making the joint declaration in hopes of moving the public debate forward—to the question of how the world responds, instead of whether climate change is happening.

"It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate," the joint publication said.

"The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes."

The academies cautioned that science inherently cannot settle every detail and that debate remained on some specifics, including how much climate change is linked to extreme weather events.

But it said scientists were "very confident" that the world will warm further in the next century and that a rise by just a few degrees Celsius would have "serious impacts" that are expected to include threats to coasts and food production.

I also note that scientists and others are making an increasingly clear case that "the pause" is in fact rather illusory.

Have a look at David Appell's post in which he takes all the graphs from Tamino's recent post looking at how you can graph the recent temperature record.

Then note that the number of extremely hot days over land is still on the way up, regardless of what the global average has been doing for the last 10 to 20 years:

Extremely hot temperatures over land have dramatically and unequivocally increased in number and area despite claims that the rise in global average temperatures has slowed over the past 10 to 20 years.
Scientists from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and international colleagues made the finding when they focused their research on the rise of temperatures at the extreme end of the spectrum where impacts are felt the most.
"It quickly became clear, the so-called "hiatus" in global average temperatures did not stop the rise in the number, intensity and area of extremely hot days" said one of the paper's authors Dr Lisa Alexander.
"Our research has found a steep upward tendency in the temperatures and number of extremely hot days over land and the area they impact, despite the complete absence of a strong El Niño since 1998."

The slow down in the global average surface rise seems to be increasingly well understood in terms of ocean winds and their effect on heat transfer in the oceans (which are warming) and the under-appreciation of the effects of volcanoes.  Neither of which can anyone really expect to be permanent features of the next century.

I just hope for the next El Nino to come sooner rather than later, for the sake of getting denialists further scientifically marginalised than they already are.

*  in the sense that he is a "senior fellow" of it - not that he personally runs or controls it

Cats and old folk don't mix so well

New Study: 'Remarkable' Deterioration in Memory Functions of Seniors Infected by Common Parasite Found in Free-roaming Cats

The person who wrote this story really, really doesn't seem to like cats, but the study he or she refers to really does show surprisingly serious results for old folk with toxoplasma gondi.

American defamation

Truth emerges after lies about Hoffman death

A pretty amazing story here of how easily the National Enquirer is duped.  Also - why did the fake guy do it?  Does the paper pay well for such stories, or was he just a nutter?

A look back at confession

Catholic confession’s steep price - Ideas - The Boston Globe

John Cornwall has written a book about the changing nature of the Catholic sacrament  of confession penance/reconciliation, and this article provides quite a few important details about confession of which I was unaware.  (Even though I don't know that Cornwall is always to be trusted, I take it he is not making up the basic historical points here.)

It is certainly true that confession is ignored by most Catholics these days.  It is a dramatic change from what it meant to be Catholic even in the 1960's.  And you know what - the parish priests seem hardly concerned at all.   I have rarely heard this dramatic change in practice as the subject of a sermon, for example.

I tend to blame its downfall on the widespread rejection of the Church's teaching on the Pill, but the societal changes in the views of sexuality more generally no doubt played a role too. 

Seeing this in orbit would creep you out...

I'm not sure if I read about this at the time or not:  an unneeded spacesuit (two actually) being kitted out with a radio and sent out from the International Space Station as "suitsats" in 2006 and again in 2011.

I certainly don't remember the short clip you can see at the link showing a suit leaving the station in what looks very much like a scene from Gravity.

What fun science.

A lovely farewell

Harold Ramis: Stephen Tobolowsky remembers the Groundhog Day director.

The actor who played the annoying insurance salesman in Groundhog Day writes a really lovely piece about what it was like making Groundhog Day (one of my favourite movies) with Harold Ramis.

Well, actually, it is a political cover up

I'll go out on a limb here.

First:  Stephen Conroy has a well deserved reputation for having a big mouth but looking and acting like a goose. (A minor point, but his sartorial inelegance yesterday with a saggy pullover while doing politically sensitive work on national TV didn't help his public image.)  His performance before the Senate committee with Angus Campbell has not been endorsed by any journalist or commentator that I have read, and it is unfortunate that his mode of attack has blunted the message.

But here's the thing:  it appears that while over the top restrictions on disclosure to the Australian public about operations to turn back boats might be called a Government decision, it seems that it is one which is indeed based on the advice of Lt General Campbell.  Here he is quoted in the ABC:

Lt Gen Campbell repeated his decision was based on "dealing with avoiding advantage to people smugglers, manipulation of potential clientele of people smugglers, the safety of our people and the management of regional and bilateral relationships and their sensitivities".

As Conroy suggested, not as clearly as he should have, if a General is basing advice (even partially) on concerns about "management" of the "sensitivities" of a relationship with neighbouring country,  he is taking "politics" into account.   And critics are entitled to point out that he is, via his advice, enabling a government to let concerns about relationships with Indonesia cast an internally politically convenient withholding of information to voters over matters of genuine public interest and concern.

Campbell may want to deny political partisanship - but he can't credibly deny that this is an operation with political aspects both internationally and domestically.  If he is freely admitting that political sensitivities are a matter he takes into account in his advice - why should he be free from questions about his judgement in that area?

Campbell can claim offence as much as he likes:   his dubious judgement is already shown by how he let himself be used jointly at media conferences for as long as he did.  His Army boss, now defending him, should have done something about that earlier than he apparently did.

The Defence leadership is not covering itself with glory in the way it has let itself be politically used by this awful government.  

And Conroy just had to "nuance" his questioning a bit to get the message across.

Update:  a Michael Brissenden commentary illustrates the ridiculous background of secrecy that Conroy was facing, and plenty of people in comments agree with my take, too.  

The General is giving advice that is helping enable a political cover up of a non military operation.

Yet another graph

OK, so I just happen to be stumbling across a lot of charts of interest lately.

Here's one from The Independent, in its article on the Ugandan tabloid which published the names of the (alleged) top 200 homosexuals in that country.  All the better to track them down and beat them up, I suppose.

Anyhow, here's the graphic:

By the way:    I'm not sure if I agree or not, but here is a guy who argues that gay marriage is actually the end result of Christianity's emphasis on equality.    (But, I would note - when you read Karen Armstrong's take on Islam, she emphasises its success as being based on innovative ideas of social justice and equality for its time.   So why does it still treat homosexuality as death worthy, after all these years - and despite its weird little corners such as Afghani's rural fondness for dancing boys?  And yet when you compare Muslim teaching on sex within marriage, and things such as contraception, it takes a more pragmatic and sensible line than Catholics.   Sex and religion and culture and science - it's all very complicated!)  

Catholics not exactly on the same wavelength

Last week, I noted some international polling on attitudes to homosexuality, and made some comment about how Catholic dominated countries generally seemed to have higher rates of acceptance.

I see now that Time reported on a pretty large scale international poll of Catholic attitudes to various sensitive issues earlier this month.  The results are pretty interesting, and on issue after issue, the really outstanding conservative Catholic attitudes are shown in the results from Africa and the Philippines.

On gay marriage (a more specific issue than mere acceptance of gay relationships) look at the results:





Well, there's not going to be any movement on that issue if the Africans have their way!

(And I see that while the Pew poll indicated the Philippines accepted gay relationships, they apparently don't go as far as accepting gay marriage.)

But look at the other issues on which the Pope is trying to hold a firm line.   On contraception, the results are pretty clear that the Church has lost everyone (except, oddly, a lot of Filipinos):

 

I think the figures for those opposed to contraception in the US are also unusually high, but perhaps  the political argument over the contraception mandate in Obama's health plan has heightened feelings against it.

But even on abortion, clearly, Catholics pretty much do not follow the straight-down-the-line teaching by a pretty big margin:

 

Mind you, that question is a pretty broad brush one and allows for some confusion.

In any event, the main point I take from this is that Catholicism has the same issues as the Anglican Church:  it is pretty fractured on some key teachings on matters of sexuality.  

Update:  William Saletan talks about the same polling, and notes that it reveals big age differences on matters such as gay marriage, indicating that the Church's position on sexuality generally is going to face continuing strains.

Mark Steyn, National Review - pay attention

See, Andrew Bolt's brief kerfuffle with Michael Mann shows how sensible people deal with a claim of defamation.

They realise they could well have overstepped the line, and offer an apology, even if grudgingly.  (And how can Bolt complain about that - he ends his post by snidely asking how he can get Mann to apologise for the hockey stick.)

How did National Review respond to Mann after publishing Steyn's column using "fraudulent" to describe Mann's work?  By publicly telling him to "get lost", and having a giddy laugh about how suing would hurt Mann more than it will hurt them:

My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else. If he doesn’t have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country.

He’s going to go to great trouble and expense to embark on a losing cause that will expose more of his methods and maneuverings to the world. In short, he risks making an ass of himself. But that hasn’t stopped him before.

Not at all a sensible approach.   And for Steyn personally - well, as I noted earlier today, even conservative lawyers can't really fathom why he thinks it a good idea to keep talking about the case and about Mann with derision. 

But then again, Steyn and National Review don't believe scientist's warnings about climate change.   Why should I expect them to have common sense about anything?

A sign of a crook government

If this report of what was said in the Coalition party room meeting this morning is true, it's a bad, bad sign for the way this government perceives itself:

12:00pm: The PM also congratulated Scott Morrison's handling of the immigration portfolio.
We understand that MPs then applauded.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said that Labor was treating the death of one asylum seeker (last week) as more important than the more than 1,000 people who have died at sea.
"The hypocrisy on the left on this issue is breathtaking."

Says the women who is asking Cambodia if they will take some asylum seekers.  (Because, you know, Malaysia was just too risky.)

And also:  to think that the government is backslapping itself on a day Newspoll shows it substantially down on Labor.  Reality challenged in more than one way, this government.

Conservatives agree

I assume from its blogroll that Popehat is a conservative legal blog.  And the writer of this post thinks Michael Mann will, and should, lose his defamation case against Mark Steyn.

Yet he still thinks very strongly that Mark Steyn has a Fool for a Client.

He explains in some detail why Steyn's self written counter claim is a joke that will go over like a lead balloon in court.

Good.