Thursday, May 01, 2014

Complaining again about a show I won't watch? Hey, it's my blog...

I am no fan of the fantasy genre, so there was never much chance I would want to watch Game of Thrones.  When I heard that it was relentlessly violent (especially with beheadings - I've always felt queasy contemplating those), had a fair bit of swearing, and was full of gratuitously explicit porn-like sex scenes, the chances of my watching it, ever, even if someone sent me a set of boxed DVDs, approached zero.  Call me old fashioned (I do point out a conservative inclination in the title, you know) but the dark moral atmosphere which some fiction generates is a matter of concern to me, and I think it is problematic that it is not a matter of concern for so many people in Western society now.

Hence, it is with a sense of some schadenfreude that I read about the controversy that a recent rape scene had swept through the show's fans.

There seems to be a bit of a push back over the initial outrage many felt at a scene which involves (as I understand) the incredibly-dangerous-for-men-to-really-believe old trope of a rape that starts as a rape but is supposed to not be rape by the end.* It's not real life, complains the (routinely sweary herself) Helen Razerstop talking about it.  Oddly, she does acknowledge that the controversy was really kicked along by the director's attempt to justify the scene as not really being rape, yet she still thinks it is not worth talking about.  And what's more, since Razer wrote her post, the actress involved has also made comments indicating that she agrees with the director.  I really don't agree with Razor's argument that incredibly popular fiction that deals with rape in a highly dubious moral manner doesn't matter. 

It has always seemed to me to be a "traditionally" Left wing thing to downplay the influence of fiction on real life, and hence not to care, or really think about, the message either consciously or subliminally conveyed by a story.  These days, after much reading of a certain blog over the years, it seems to me that the libertarian right has adopted much the same attitude.  Come to think of it, the cultural grandmother of much of what passes for  libertarianism in the US, Ayn Rand, had a recurring thing about forced sex in her novels which makes most modern women feel queasy.  George RR Martin, on the other hand, is a life long Democrat, supporting my initial claim.

In any event, I was happy enough with this post about the issue of depictions of rape in fiction by a male author and blogger unknown to me, and whose work I may not even like:
The discussion then must be: well, why is this a problem? Rape exists in fiction. And it has to be allowed to exist in fiction. It’s a rough, tough, terrible topic, but to ignore it is all the more sickening — to sweep it under the rug and not shine a line in that dark space is basically to deny it in reality, as well. One of fiction’s chiefmost strengths is that it allows us to bring up these things  and make us feel something about them — it’s addressing them, making us deal with it, and it’s being real about it.

That said, as storytellers, it’s vital to think about what we’re putting out there. There exists a mode of thought that says authors have zero social responsibility, and I’d argue that’s technically true in the same way that nobody anywhere has any social responsibility to anyone. We’re all basically just animals in a zoo, but what makes us human is thinking about the ramifications of our actions. And what makes us smart storytellers and capable authors is thinking about the ramifications of our stories. That doesn’t necessarily mean not putting scary stuff on the page (or on the screen). It just means being mindful of consequence.
He then makes it clear that the main consequence he is concerned about is how women who have been victims of rape or sexual assault will feel when they watch the show.   Well, that's a valid enough point, although I would have thought that (as he makes clear in a paragraph I quote below) as the show features an awful lot of rape, women who have a problem with that would probably have given up watching long ago.

But his point becomes more general about the use of rape in fiction and in the show more generally:
The problem, as I see it, with the rape scene in GoT, is many-fold.

First, it’s done in a world where rape is basically as common as horses. It’s referenced damn near every episode. Women are victims. Men are rapists. It’s practically becoming a thesis of the world. The worst thing done to women is rape. Rape, rape, rape. The show is getting rapey as shit. (More notable perhaps because the books aren’t quite so?) At this point, that’s drifting toward fetishistic and gratuitous — in part because it seems to revel in its statement.

Second, it’s more a trope than it is an actual thing. It’s lazy, cheap, short-shrifted. It’s code meant to again invoke that grayness of the characters — “Oh, look, even the most powerful can be laid low, and even those characters you like are basically pieces of shit.” The rapist-and-victim message, again. Really, we can’t do any better?

Third, it feels out of character and is a change from the book — a change that makes these characters worse and weaker than they have demonstrated in the past (at least, I’d argue).

Fourth, the rape was soft, weak, almost as ineluctable as gravity — the strong woman just sort of gives into it (and here you’ll want to discuss the was she really raped? question again but once more please be aware of the persistent lack of consent given) and makes rape look less like a violent act and more like a fact-of-life. (And it really is a fact-of-life in the GoT world, which is troubling in how it reinforces that “women = victims, men = rapists” vibe.)

The point I’m making is, if you’re going to deal with rape in your fiction, please give it weight and consequence. Do not let it drift toward being a lazy, cheap trope.
That sounds pretty reasonable to me, and one not based on what people will call my nanny-ish inclination to tell people to stop watching dark stories on TV or movies, or an excessively feminist viewpoint.

Its not as if I suspect that the show is going to lead to incestuous rapes that would otherwise not have happened; but it does sound awfully like it is yet another modern, much praised show, in which main protagonists act very badly indeed, and yet they are played as engaging characters.  And not just for 2 hours of moral bleakness in the cinema, but for scores of hours to dwell with them.

I don't see that as something to celebrate.   If the rape scene has led to people dropping the show, that a happy consequence, I reckon.

Update:   good to see a story in the New York Times that notes that many people are starting to make the same disgruntled observations about the use of rape in the show and books as outlined by Chuck Wendig above.  I expect nothing much will be done, however, as long as people keep watching it in large numbers.


* I am reminded of the controversy a few decades back that Robert Heinlein, who got more and more eccentric in his fictional dealings with sexuality, faced when a female character in one of his books (if I remember it correctly) dealt with rape by deciding to get what enjoyment out of it she could, while simultaneously vowing to kill the rapist.  

My $3 clean skin shopping appears safe (and a fast food complaint)

Minimum alcohol price not in the public interest, says health agency | World news | theguardian.com

By the way, according to one calculation, Australia is the fourth most expensive country to live in.  It would seem to me they are giving inadequate weighting to the cost of cheap wine. 

But, by way of cost of living related complaint:   I have become unhappy with McDonalds.

A price increase at my local one maybe 6 months ago seems to have made it significantly more expensive, and I have become really tired of the stuffing around with the menu.   The higher quality items taken as a meal now are all over $10, even for the "small" version.   The price differential between a small meal set and a medium one is tiny (about 50c?) which is typical of the obesity inducing pricing structure of fast food outlets generally, I guess.

The only "good" value there now is in the cruddy end of the menu - "burgers" which are only meat, bacon and sauce, for example.

Sure, they have introduced chicken salads which are better than they were before, but after their introductory lower price, their regular price just doesn't seem particularly good value. 

And basically, they just keep moving menu items around too fast.   The burger with beetroot, for example, will reappear for a mere 6 weeks (or so it seems) and disappear again.   And some items appear once and never re-appear again.  (My wife and I both liked a "mexican" burger on a corn bun with avocado some years ago - it has never come back to my knowledge.)

I admired the way the company re-branded itself a good few years ago now with the store upgrades to include the coffee shop sections, but with the main menu being mucked around the way it is, and the expense that now makes it hard to get away with an under $10 meal, it has lost its appeal.

I suspect I can't be the only person feeling this way.  I would be curious to see how their profit is going.

Serious pteropod effects already found (and how Conservative American pundits don't have a clue)

It was only recently that I referred to pteropods as the "canary in the coal mine" for ocean acidification.

Well, they have started to suffer already in one part of the world's ocean:
A NOAA-led research team has found the first evidence that acidity of continental shelf waters off the West Coast is dissolving the shells of tiny free-swimming marine snails, called pteropods, which provide food for pink salmon, mackerel and herring, according to a new paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B 
Even though these waters are naturally more acidic from local upwelling, it does not augur well for the future: 
"We did not expect to see pteropods being affected to this extent in our coastal region for several decades," said William Peterson, Ph.D., an oceanographer at NOAA's Northwest Fisheries Science Center and one of the paper's co-authors. "This study will help us as we compare these results with future observations to analyze how the chemical and physical processes of ocean acidification are affecting marine organisms."

Richard Feely, senior scientist from NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Lab and co-author of the research article, said that more research is needed to study how corrosive waters may be affecting other species in the ecosystem. "We do know that organisms like oyster larvae and pteropods are affected by water enriched with CO2. The impacts on other species, such as other shellfish and larval or juvenile fish that have economic significance, are not yet fully understood."
 While we're speaking ocean acidification, I was surprised to read recently that conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg had said Republicans should take some environmental issues more seriously, such as ocean acidification.   Many people pointed out that you address both climate change and acidification the same way - by tough action to cut back on fossil fuels - but that is something  about which he is not keen.

Goldberg has had to clarify that he was talking more about geoengineering - such as grinding up mountains of limestone and throwing into the ocean.

Of course, Goldberg has probably not read this recent paper which did not dismiss entirely the possibility of geoengineering, but noted:
The use of ocean-based enhanced weathering [128] could more directly counter ocean acidification, increasing atmospheric CO2 drawdown through the addition to the ocean of either bicarbonate [129], carbonate minerals [130], calcium hydroxide [131] or combining the addition of liquid CO2 to the ocean with pulverized limestone [154]. All these approaches, however, involve the transport and processing of considerable bulk of materials, with associated energy costs, in order to achieve globally significant climate benefits. The land-based production of Ca(OH)2 would also require additional CO2 sequestration effort (to avoid additional CO2 release), while the various processes proposed for ‘liming the ocean’ could themselves cause large-scale ecosystem damage, by locally raising pH beyond organisms’ tolerance limits and/or decreasing light penetration, through precipitation effects. 
They also consider ocean fertilization and note its likely problems and limited prospect of large scale CO2 sequestration.

Their conclusion:
The potential for some CDR techniques would seem to warrant further consideration. Nevertheless, strong and rapid mitigation measures, to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at near-current levels, would provide the policy action most likely to limit ocean acidification and its associated impacts.
The lesson:  even when Republican pundits start trying to sound more open to environmentally friendly policies, they actually have no idea.

Floods increasing, at least in some places

Analysis of the recent rainfall and floods in England indicate that increased warming has increased flooding risk there somewhat.   (A one in a 100 year flood down to one in 80 years, but that's only with .8 of a degree rise and likely at least another 1.2 degrees to go - if not more.) 

As I have noted before, this attribution work is really difficult, and takes a lot of computer crunching, but I don't see much reason to doubt its conclusions.

The other caution in the article is this:
Dr Schaller notes that the results must be understood in context, and are specific to the UK in winter. "It all depends on the region and season considered. Climate change might increase, decrease or have no effect at all on flood events," she told the BBC.

"Hirabayashi and co-workers, for example, showed that floods are expected to decrease with climate change in Central Europe. So our results are only valid for the southern UK and for winter months."

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Sorcerers don't have human rights, apparently

In something approaching a whole metaphorical forest being in the eye of a critic, The Independent notes the hide of Saudi Arabia criticizing Norway for its human rights record.

Meanwhile, back in the desert country, sorcerers are beheaded, government internet critics are arrested, and a fierce argument continues over whether women should be allowed to drive. 

Mini black holes under review

For those interested, here's a paper looking at mini black holes, noting that:

a. there is no evidence that they have been produced at the LHC thus far (mind you, its next run is - I think - at about double the previous energy);

b. searches for them from cosmic ray collisions in the atmosphere might have a better chance;

c. there are a lot of reasons why they might never be found - there are a lot of things not understood at that scale.

The IPA convenes emergency meeting to discuss push back to Abbott's increased tax plan

I'm pretty sure that's Sinclair Davidson in the middle. He hasn't been posting much lately.

What I learnt from My Kitchen Rules

*  Presumably, "deconstructed" (by which I mean "easier to make") versions of classic dishes are all the rage at high class restaurants (none of which I have been to for at least 12 months);

*  Presumably, the other half of the menu at such restaurants comprises "confit" items;

*  No one with a family would ever bother wasting an entire tin of olive oil on a confit dish, and who can be bothered standing there for 20 minutes with a thermometer anyway?;

*  even snooty women with disturbing mouths that keep reminding you of the Joker (once this has been pointed out to you) are capable of reproduction;

Ben Pobjie can be very, very funny

Mixed Spielberg news

I've been getting depressed waiting on Steven Spielberg to decide on his next movie project.  It's been a long time since he was filming Lincoln.

Of course, I was rather underwhelmed to read that he has committed to making a live action version of Dahl's BFG, which I have never read but assume to be rather slight. 

There has also been news that he may make a Cold War era film with Tom Hanks - that sounds a bit more promising, but I have grown fairly cool on Hanks, despite a pretty good turn he did as Captain Phillips.

Most promising of all, however, is that there is a script being developed by Tony Kushner for a recent book about the fascinating Egardo Mortara kidnapping case from Italy in the 1800's.  Now that's potential meaty material for a good Spielberg film.   I thought Kushner did a really good job on the Lincoln film, so here's hoping Spielberg takes this on.

As an aside, I don't really know what is coming up for the American summer movie season that is only weeks away.  Now that I check a list - wow, there is really little to be excited about.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Poor little rich country

BBC News - Has wealth made Qatar happy?

From the link:
Local media report that 40% of Qatari marriages now end in divorce.
More than two-thirds of Qataris, adults and children, are obese.


Qataris benefit from free education, free healthcare, job
guarantees, grants for housing, even free water and electricity, but
abundance has created its own problems.


"It's bewildering for students to graduate and be faced with
20 job offers," one academic at an American university campus in Qatar
tells me. "People feel an overwhelming pressure to make the right
decision."


In a society where Qataris are outnumbered roughly seven-to-one by
expatriates, long-term residents speak of a growing frustration among
graduates that they are being fobbed off with sinecures while the most
satisfying jobs go to foreigners.

Hugh White on defence spending

Defence challenge: reconciling Australia's warfare shopping list with reality

I knew it was probably all pie in the sky - the Abbott promise to increase Defence spending up to 2% of GDP.  Hugh White explains why:
Abbott has promised toincrease the defence budget, setting a target of 2 per cent of GDP by2024. That would be enough to cover all the current plans, but defence spending would have to grow at almost 5 per cent in real terms everyyear for a decade.

This would be unprecedented in peacetime. For example it is much faster than when the Howard government grew defence spending from 2000-2007, when fiscal and economic conditions were much rosier and the ADF was heavily committed to the war on terror. One wonders whether the Abbott government is really willing for Defence spending to grow so fast when it is cutting so hard everywhere else.

If not, then big savings will have to be found. And though efficiency campaigns and personnel cuts can deliver small savings, big savings only come from cutting big investment projects.

That puts the spotlight on four big new capabilities planned for the next decade. They are the new submarines, a new class of warships, a new fleet of armoured fighting vehicles for Army, and the F-35s. Without massive defence budget increases, at least one of these
projects will need to be scrapped or drastically scaled back if the government is to produce a financially credible defence policy.
 I say we keep the Army at home for a change, and put the money into the submarine program.

Getting both wetter and drier in India

Extremes in wet, dry spells increasing for South Asian monsoons

Ah, that old topic that climate change deniers can't get their brain around.  Yes, climate can get both wetter and drier (that is, more extremes of both can happen.)  It is apparently happening in parts of India, connected with the monsoon.  Is climate change the cause?  It's left as an open question, but you wouldn't be betting against a connection there.

But I use a deodorant...

The scent of a man: Mice and rats stressed by male experimenters

A rather surprising finding - just the smell of male experimenters causes a stress reaction in mice and rats in labs.  

Peter's list

I see that Peter Martin's list of hints as to what the Abbott could do regarding the Budget contains what I said in my post of a few weeks ago (keep the carbon tax, mining tax and raise the GST next election.)    He also notes that leaving the current carbon scheme in place is estimated to save the Budget $6 billion over four years.  That's pretty close to the money to be raised by the mooted "deficit levy", isn't it? 

I don't understand enough about superannuation and its tax treatment to follow the continual suggestions made to reform it.  It does seem there's significant room for movement there. 

Red alert at the IPA

Even while I have my doubts that the "deficit levy" is necessary or wise (as a lead up to a serious proposal to expand GST somewhat, and review some tax benefits which need cutting, it may be a reasonable step, I guess), it amuses me greatly to imagine the panic button being hit at the IPA that their hoped for pet government is even considering a new tax. Many phone calls are being made, I presume, although the attitude to the proposal by their major donors would be good to know. I mean, is reflexive opposition to all taxes written into the IPA's constitution, or does it depend on what their current major donor thinks? The first IPA attempt at pushback appears at the AFR this morning, apparently. It's boring and predictable.

Postscript:   why aren't any economics commentators making the point about the pain to the budget bottom line that abolishing the carbon tax and replacing it with Direct Action  involves?  I bet some people at least would prefer to have no levy and a carbon price.

Also - it is completely unpredictable what will happen with populist, but ignorant, crazy man Clive controlling the Senate.  You never know - sometimes you end up with compromises that are better than the government's original deal - but I sure don't feel confident with Clive (and anyone who would follow him) in effective control the Senate.

The sooner the Palmer Party fractures, the better.  Not that it will improve certainty in the short term, but it would make them unelectable next election.

Update:  much amusement to be had watching the rending of clothes happening at Catallaxy threads like this one, too.  Boys and girls, you conned yourselves into thinking the carbon pricing scheme and mining tax were ruining the country, despite no convincing evidence.   You wanted a populist PM who would promise to remove them, forgetting perhaps that this was leaving a multi billion dollar hole in the coming budgets at a time a deficit needed to be addressed, hey?  Your IPA inspired list of things the government should stop paying for is a just a dream people will not vote for - witness the 1.8% of the vote the party most committed to small government got in the WA election.  So reap what you sow in terms of increased taxes from elsewhere, buddies.

Update 2:   Ahah - here comes the media release, this time from Julie Novak arguing that:
 ... the proposed deficit levy sends the signal the government wants to punish people who work hard to improve the living standards of themselves and their families....

Those on higher incomes in the PAYG system already bear the brunt of the income tax burden, with more than 60% of net income tax paid by individuals earning over $80,000 each year.
 Ah, so it will hurt the "aspirational".  Funnily enough, remember just a couple of weeks ago Julie was complaining about increasing the GST would disproportionately hurt the poor.

It would simplify things greatly if the IPA would just release press releases saying "new taxes? - of course we always oppose them, for whatever reason strikes our fancy at the time."

Monday, April 28, 2014

It's all rather complicated..

Orthodox, celibate, gay and that's OK | David Benkof | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel

Gee.  Via First Things, I found this long column by a gay, celibate Orthodox Jew all about how he disagrees with some opinion within Orthodox circles that celibacy is not really a reasonable option to expect of gay men.

The variety of opinion within Judaism appears quite vast, including within the Orthodox branch.

Here's a particularly unusual part of the column (with frum meaning traditionally observant, as explained near the start of the article):
So what should a frum gay man who simply cannot achieve celibacy do? Actually, our tradition has addressed such questions. In the Gemara (Masechet Moed Katan 17a), Rabbi Il’ai states that if a man’s urges to see a prostitute overcome him, he should wear black, go to a place where he’s anonymous, and do what he must – so there’s no chilul Hashem (desecration of God’s name). That teaching shouldn’t be taken as a literal prescription for gay men looking for a legitimate sexual outlet. But it shows that the Torah doesn’t consider sexual behavior to be “all or nothing,” and that Jews should seek to attenuate sexual transgressions.

Indeed, there are vastly more possibilities than the three choices many Orthodox gay men describe: promiscuity, partnered sex, and total celibacy. Every frum gay man should
seek rabbinic counsel before determining his approach to private behavior. But here’s an example of something for which a gay man might request a heter: hiring a professional, straight, non-erotic massage therapist in order to experience occasional male touch. It’s not ideal because it could lead to arousal, but it’s definitely better than actual sexual encounters – whether with a life partner or a stranger.

Speaking of which, should a gay guy who feels he cannot remain celibate choose a private, exclusive bond with one man over occasional, discreet hookups with strangers? It probably depends on what “a private, exclusive bond” and “occasional, discreet hookups” mean. Such topics are precisely why Orthodox Jews go to their rabbis for
halachic advice.
Catholic reasoning gets exceptionally detailed in terms of what straight sex can involve (people don't realise this, I am sure, because nearly all priests have given up as a lost cause any attempt to actually try to spell out the details.  Given nearly all of the laity think Catholic teaching on contraception makes no sense, they have good reason not to discuss the other details of married sex.)   But what Catholic reasoning tends not to get into is the preferable ways to sin sexually if you really have to.  That's what makes these paragraphs sound odd.

Actually, it has also just occurred to me that the entire column doesn't mention masturbation, which seems a bit of an oversight if one is considering in nitty gritty detail what gay men can be (more or less) excused for doing.  Are rabbis just too queasy about that topic?  (Well, it's not as if there is much Christian discussion of that topic either - and it is probably fair to say that if want a religion where you'll find someone who'll excuse it for men, Islam is probably number one.  Of course, some Islamic analysis even allows for temporary marriages for travelling husbands too, which is perhaps the most flexible religious attitude for men wanting sex "legitimately" that has ever been devised.)

Anyhow, it shows again the extensive reconsideration going on across many religions about how to view homosexuality.

Update: it has also occurred to me that this sort of topic used to be the favourite one of conservative but gay Catholic blogger John Heard at his Dreadnought blog.  He always used to argue that Catholic insistence on celibacy for gay folk was not cruel.   Googling him this morning, I see that he has changed his mind on legal gay civil marriage - he now supports it. As I say, changes are happening across the board.

Camille really knows how to praise alcohol

Camille Paglia has an opinion piece in Time arguing that the US drinking age of 21 needs to be dropped to 18, and in the course of the argument, makes many points I have when comparing drinking to marijuana:
Alcohol relaxes, facilitates interaction, inspires ideas and promotes humor and hilarity. Used in moderation, it is quickly flushed from the system, with excess punished by a hangover. But deadening pills, such as today’s massively overprescribed antidepressants, linger in body and brain and may have unrecognized long-term side effects. Those toxic chemicals, often manufactured by shadowy firms abroad, have been worrisomely present in a recent uptick of unexplained suicides and massacres. Half of the urban professional class in the U.S. seems doped on meds these days.

As a libertarian, I support the decriminalization of marijuana, but there are many problems with pot. From my observation, pot may be great for jazz musicians and Beat poets, but it saps energy and willpower and can produce physiological feminization in men. Also, it is difficult to measure the potency of plant-derived substances like pot. With brand-name beer or liquor, however, purchased doses have exactly the same strength and purity from one continent to another, with no fear of contamination by dangerous street additives like PCP.

Exhilaration, ecstasy and communal vision are the gifts of Dionysus, god of wine. Alcohol’s enhancement of direct face-to-face dialogue is precisely what is needed by today’s technologically agile generation, magically interconnected yet strangely isolated by social media. Clumsy hardcore sexting has sadly supplanted simple hanging out over a beer at a buzzing dive. By undermining the art of conversation, the age-21 law has also had a disastrous effect on our arts and letters, with their increasing dullness and mediocrity. This tyrannical infantilizing of young Americans must stop!
 Maybe she goes a bit over the top, but I generally agree.  (Except with the decriminalising bit!)

Can't get enough Piketty

Piketty's "Capital," in a Lot Less than 696 Pages - Justin Fox - Harvard Business Review

I like this summary of the book.  In particular, it makes the same point that this article in Slate did - Piketty's approach is refreshingly evidence driven. (Apparently.)

So, being No 1 on the ticket wasn't why people voted LDP, hey?

I've been meaning to rub this in for a while.

The Liberal Democrat Party got a Senator (and one with a fairly high profile, as small party candidates go) in New South Wales when it got 9.5% of the vote.

Anyone inclined to argue that it was because people are warming to "small government" policies, and not because it ended up as effectively "first" on the ballot paper and had "Liberal" in its name never really had any credibility if one cared to look at the vote in the other States.

But given Leyonhjelm has had a fair bit of media exposure since his surprise win, how did the party fare in the Western Australian election?   Here we go:  1.82% of the vote, just beating the Australian Christians at 1.54%.

I think we can safely say there is no inherent electoral fondness for this party in Australia.

Just plain nuts

A journalist/writer for Esquire was at the Bundy ranch noting what the nutters (including Bundy himself) were saying, even before he gave the world his negro analysis. 

I see looking around the net that there is in fact an anti Hannity/Fox backlash who are upset at the way Bundy was dumped by the network.   The right wing nut-o-sphere is going to be very active this week in attacking Fox (and even Glenn Beck, who never thought Bundy's cause was just in the first place.)