Men's shorts are getting shorter and should be worn with pride
Apparently, men will be wearing short shorts again, everywhere, soon.
It puts me in mind of how short Stubbies were in the 70's and into the 80's. It's funny how what looks normal in fashion at the time looks weird and embarrassing 20 years later.
What next? Women to deem chest carpet sexy again?
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Would love to know if this is true
TRUSTED SOURCES have stated to me that Wilson was actually promised the presidency several years ago as an inducement to leave his role as a director of the Institute of Public Affairs, often described as a conservative think tank by some, a non-think tank by others.
That promise was also allegedly more recently affirmed in secret discussions held at the behest of the Attorney General George Brandis, himself acting on direct instruction from besieged Prime Minister Tony Abbott.Problem is, I certainly don't trust Independent Australia as being the most reliable publication for matters like this.
Still, I do note that Abbott has not answered the question in Parliament as to whether he knew the offer was being made to Triggs. I think it certainly likely it was discussed with Brandis, in which case the role of Wilson may well have come up.
Some commentary on "inducement"
Gillian Triggs 'inducement'? George Brandis, Chris Moraitis probe
I think Moraitis should simply have refused to pass on such a legally dangerous message in the absence of his boss.
As for the commentator in the article who says that Brandis will now ignore everything that comes from Triggs: what difference will that make? The government is completely ignoring everything from Tim Wilson too.
I think Moraitis should simply have refused to pass on such a legally dangerous message in the absence of his boss.
As for the commentator in the article who says that Brandis will now ignore everything that comes from Triggs: what difference will that make? The government is completely ignoring everything from Tim Wilson too.
A very good Last Dog
Last Dog on the Moon's take on the Triggs matter is particularly funny. I like the accurate depiction of Peter Dutton:
The asterisks besides "No need to call the police" lead to "Call the police" at the bottom of the cartoon.
On a more serious note: the Abbott government attack on Triggs in Senate Committee and under parliamentary privilege is a truly sickening act of a shockingly bad Prime Minister. He genuinely has become repulsive.
The asterisks besides "No need to call the police" lead to "Call the police" at the bottom of the cartoon.
On a more serious note: the Abbott government attack on Triggs in Senate Committee and under parliamentary privilege is a truly sickening act of a shockingly bad Prime Minister. He genuinely has become repulsive.
Last chance to nude up
Well, looks like if I go mad and want to turn this into a exhibitionist's porn blog, I only have a month in which to do it. Although, it does seems I could still appear if tastefully nude.
I think a certain other blogging style service starting with T has cornered the market for pornography anyway, hasn't it? This is good - stopping pornography on certain domains helps with filtering. If you ask me, the world should all agree to shove adult, explicit pornography off to a special .xxx domain. Both the porn industry and Stephen Conroy (Labor's most gormless Minister in the last government) oppose it, so it is almost certainly a good idea.
As I have said before - people would take a dim view of Adult shop style porn magazines being on open display at the newsagent or supermarket checkout next to New Idea. The internet is now just as an essential service as the local supermarket, even for kids, and just as you don't want them stumbling across copulating couples at Coles, the internet should be set up to make it easy to filter it such material too. Nothing to do with preventing adults seeing it - just a sensible bit of organisation.
I think a certain other blogging style service starting with T has cornered the market for pornography anyway, hasn't it? This is good - stopping pornography on certain domains helps with filtering. If you ask me, the world should all agree to shove adult, explicit pornography off to a special .xxx domain. Both the porn industry and Stephen Conroy (Labor's most gormless Minister in the last government) oppose it, so it is almost certainly a good idea.
As I have said before - people would take a dim view of Adult shop style porn magazines being on open display at the newsagent or supermarket checkout next to New Idea. The internet is now just as an essential service as the local supermarket, even for kids, and just as you don't want them stumbling across copulating couples at Coles, the internet should be set up to make it easy to filter it such material too. Nothing to do with preventing adults seeing it - just a sensible bit of organisation.
Some history to remember
Exxon-Mobil, Bush, and global warming.
Just a reminder to anyone who thinks the IPCC Pachauri scandal is all a Lefty affair (so to speak): Pachauri was the favoured pick of George W Bush for the job, with some suspecting at the time that it was because Exxon thought he would not be effective.
Just a reminder to anyone who thinks the IPCC Pachauri scandal is all a Lefty affair (so to speak): Pachauri was the favoured pick of George W Bush for the job, with some suspecting at the time that it was because Exxon thought he would not be effective.
In other "libertarians who fail to impress" news
I don't think it is really worth anyone's effort to watch Helen Dale's video of a speech she gave to the recent, widely ignored, LDP conference (from which I gathered that the party's plan is to ensure that all married "queers"* who want to carry a gun for self protection can do so), but if you do, I defy anyone to claim she made a legitimate point about gun control and suicide.
She made a ridiculous connection between those who want gun control (partly) out of concern of an increased suicide rate from guns with a desire to made suicide illegal.
A patently absurd suggestion. People do not want to see gun suicide because, nearly all of the time, suicide is an act (often implusive) by people who are depressed or falsely believe there is no alternative, and which devastates the deceased's family and friends. Guns provide a particularly easy way to act on an impulse. I have linked before (although I cannot find it now) to articles about how research shows that reducing people's ability to act impulsively on suicidal thoughts reduces suicide. Indeed, Helen says that there is "some" evidence that tight gun control does have an effect on suicide rates.
It's common sense - and it obviously has nothing at all to do with any thought that it would be a good idea to make suicide a criminal act.
* Incidentally, I note that Helen self identifies as such now. Not entirely sure what that means in practice, but whatever.
She made a ridiculous connection between those who want gun control (partly) out of concern of an increased suicide rate from guns with a desire to made suicide illegal.
A patently absurd suggestion. People do not want to see gun suicide because, nearly all of the time, suicide is an act (often implusive) by people who are depressed or falsely believe there is no alternative, and which devastates the deceased's family and friends. Guns provide a particularly easy way to act on an impulse. I have linked before (although I cannot find it now) to articles about how research shows that reducing people's ability to act impulsively on suicidal thoughts reduces suicide. Indeed, Helen says that there is "some" evidence that tight gun control does have an effect on suicide rates.
It's common sense - and it obviously has nothing at all to do with any thought that it would be a good idea to make suicide a criminal act.
* Incidentally, I note that Helen self identifies as such now. Not entirely sure what that means in practice, but whatever.
Nomination for one of those "You had one job" posters
Here's the start of a report in The Australian:
HUMAN Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson is “seriously concerned” Australia is going backwards in its support of free speechSeems clear to everyone, doesn't it, that Wilson is having no effect on the government at all in terms of a "freedom agenda".
If anyone should resign from the HRC for general uselessness, it's him.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Another great IPA pick
I see the IPA is bringing out another person to tell them what they already think they know. Normally, it's "climate change - rubbish", this time, it's "taxes - who needs taxes!" from Arthur Laffer, of Laffer curve fame.
Funny thing is, the latest Laffer inspired experiment is going spectacularly poorly:
It's rather peculiar that Laffer is said to be influential amongst Republicans again, when the Kansas experiment isn't working. All a matter of ideology not caring about evidence, just like in climate change. (Although it appears Laffer may be somewhat more sensible about a carbon tax than most Republicans.)
Funny thing is, the latest Laffer inspired experiment is going spectacularly poorly:
Back in August 2012, Laffer told a crowd at the Johnson County Community College, if Kansas would slash its income tax rates, it would result in “enormous prosperity.”
He told a reporter at the time that he had not produced an economic model on when Kansas will notice meaningful economic growth.
Two-and-a-half years later, Kansas is staring at a budget crisis, with more than a billion dollar gap between revenues and expenses projected in the current and next budget years. The state is also experiencing a low private job growth rate, as well as a slow-growing economy.
In a 45-minute phone interview, Laffer said while he is “not surprised,” he didn’t know why the deficits have occurred. He still believes adamantly in his supply-side economic theory: If you reduce income taxes, you will raise more revenue, not less.
Just when the revenue starts to rise is another matter.
“You have to view this over 10 years,” Laffer said. “It will work in Kansas.”10 years! Looks like his experiment is going to have to be terminated before then.
It's rather peculiar that Laffer is said to be influential amongst Republicans again, when the Kansas experiment isn't working. All a matter of ideology not caring about evidence, just like in climate change. (Although it appears Laffer may be somewhat more sensible about a carbon tax than most Republicans.)
Blowhard-ing a gale
Holy heck: Andrew Bolt's blowhardery (to coin a term) is at Cat 5 cyclonic strength lately, even if it turns out Marcia might have been a Cat 4. (What sort of idiot does a song and dance about whether a cyclone was really a Cat 5 or 4? Of course it's not a totally precise assessment at the time. Jennifer Marohasy and Jonova are climate change denying clowns.)
Question time should be interesting today...
I assume that Labor will ask the PM if he was aware of the Attorney General's attempt to get Triggs to resign, and authorised it.
Update: plot thickening - Secretary says Triggs called the meeting to ask about Brandis' view of her.
Brandis says he had heard from "others in the HRC" that she was considering her position.
My hunch about the involvement of blatant political appointee and Brandis friend "Freedom Boy" Wilson looks like it might have some legs....
Update 2: Triggs' counter explanation of the meetings went pretty well.
Abbott refused to answer question in Parliament as to whether he knew Brandis was going to offer her another job. Not a good look, to put it mildly.
The government is leaking like a sieve, and from Cabinet too.
It made for a very glum looking lot on the government benches in Parliament during question time today, particularly when listening to what Abbott was going to say about the Triggs affair. They then sat in unhappy silence while a string of questions quoting leaks consumed the rest of the session.
Triggs is telling the committee the secretary of AGD suggested to her a new position would be found if she’d vacate her spot at the Human Rights Commission.
Triggs:
It was definitely said to me that an offer would be made for me to provide work for the government in areas of my expertise in international law.
(This is amazing. Truly.)I cannot see how this extraordinary episode cannot hurt the government...
Update: plot thickening - Secretary says Triggs called the meeting to ask about Brandis' view of her.
Brandis says he had heard from "others in the HRC" that she was considering her position.
My hunch about the involvement of blatant political appointee and Brandis friend "Freedom Boy" Wilson looks like it might have some legs....
Update 2: Triggs' counter explanation of the meetings went pretty well.
Abbott refused to answer question in Parliament as to whether he knew Brandis was going to offer her another job. Not a good look, to put it mildly.
The government is leaking like a sieve, and from Cabinet too.
It made for a very glum looking lot on the government benches in Parliament during question time today, particularly when listening to what Abbott was going to say about the Triggs affair. They then sat in unhappy silence while a string of questions quoting leaks consumed the rest of the session.
Hiatus that's not much of a hiatus might continue for a while yet
Quantifying the likelihood of a continued hiatus in global warming : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group
Interesting sounding paper here, and I'll just cut and paste the abstract:
Interesting sounding paper here, and I'll just cut and paste the abstract:
Since the end of the twentieth century, global mean surface temperature
has not risen as rapidly as predicted by global climate models1, 2, 3 (GCMs). This discrepancy has become known as the global warming ‘hiatus’ and a variety of mechanisms1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
have been proposed to explain the observed slowdown in warming.
Focusing on internally generated variability, we use pre-industrial
control simulations from an observationally constrained ensemble of GCMs
and a statistical approach to evaluate the expected frequency and
characteristics of variability-driven hiatus periods and their
likelihood of future continuation. Given an expected forced warming
trend of ~0.2 K per decade, our constrained ensemble of GCMs implies
that the probability of a variability-driven 10-year hiatus is ~10%, but
less than 1% for a 20-year hiatus. Although the absolute probability of
a 20-year hiatus is small, the probability that an existing 15-year
hiatus will continue another five years is much higher (up to 25%).
Therefore, given the recognized contribution of internal climate
variability to the reduced rate of global warming during the past 15
years, we should not be surprised if the current hiatus continues until
the end of the decade. Following the termination of a variability-driven
hiatus, we also show that there is an increased likelihood of
accelerated global warming associated with release of heat from the
sub-surface ocean and a reversal of the phase of decadal variability in
the Pacific Ocean.
Rat empathy
This Rat Experiment Will Haunt You, But Not For The Reason You Think
Have a read of the comments too, where lots of people note that rats are much nicer than mice...
Have a read of the comments too, where lots of people note that rats are much nicer than mice...
National security noted
Some pretty reasonable commentary here on Abbott's national security speech yesterday. This paragraph puts terrorism numbers in perspective:
Let's focus on the 'abroad' part of the claim. According to the Global Terrorism Index, '17,958 people were killed in terrorist attacks last year, that’s 61% more than the previous year.' Which is horrific, of course, but 82% of those deaths occurred in just five countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria. As you can see in the graph, deaths from terrorism in the rest of the world have been pretty stable since the peak in 2001:
Monday, February 23, 2015
Movie talk
I usually write something about the Oscars each year, and usually end up watching a fair slab of it, as you never know, I might get to see Steven Spielberg in the audience, and that makes it all worthwhile.
Not that I have seen more than about 20 minutes of this year's show yet, but here are some quick comments:
* It seems Neil Patrick Harris' job as host has had distinctly lukewarm reviews. Good - I really don't care for the guy. On the other hand, how many years has it been since anyone said - "gee, he/she did a great job hosting that show last night"? I have no idea - but it seems like decades. I remember finding Steve Martin funny one year, and then I think he hosted again and was flat. Chevy Chase was funny once too, if I recall correctly. But the show just seems to defeat everyone now, alternating each year between "flat" and "awful".
* The only big nominated movie I have seen this year was The Grand Budapest Hotel - and I didn't care for it. Birdman, the best movie winner, I see has made all of $38 million in the US, and as an eccentric black comedy, it was likely destined to not do well commercially. They really don't go out of their way to reward box office success these days, do they?
* By far the most critically praised movie of the year - Boyhood - came away with just one actor award. I saw a funny tweet about that (remembering that it was a film made over 12 years):
Heh. Haven't seen it, but I heard it has reappeared at the cinema. Perhaps I should make the trip.
* Hey, if weren't convinced before that tattoos are a terrible distraction from everything else about a nicely presented woman, didn't Lady Gaga's inside arm tatts make for a change of mind?
* Clint Eastwood's movie won a gong for sound editing only? Lots of liberal critics liked it, so I am a bit surprised. Maybe it was the fake baby that put them off...
* That screen writer for The Imitation Game looked awfully young. Yeah, he's 34, and a very young looking 34 at that. It sounded like he was going to say he was gay like Turing, but apparently he's not. Well, he seemed a nice enough guy, I guess, except it is precisely because of his screenplay's inventions that I don't want to pay to see the movie. Sorry.
Not that I have seen more than about 20 minutes of this year's show yet, but here are some quick comments:
* It seems Neil Patrick Harris' job as host has had distinctly lukewarm reviews. Good - I really don't care for the guy. On the other hand, how many years has it been since anyone said - "gee, he/she did a great job hosting that show last night"? I have no idea - but it seems like decades. I remember finding Steve Martin funny one year, and then I think he hosted again and was flat. Chevy Chase was funny once too, if I recall correctly. But the show just seems to defeat everyone now, alternating each year between "flat" and "awful".
* The only big nominated movie I have seen this year was The Grand Budapest Hotel - and I didn't care for it. Birdman, the best movie winner, I see has made all of $38 million in the US, and as an eccentric black comedy, it was likely destined to not do well commercially. They really don't go out of their way to reward box office success these days, do they?
* By far the most critically praised movie of the year - Boyhood - came away with just one actor award. I saw a funny tweet about that (remembering that it was a film made over 12 years):
Heh. Haven't seen it, but I heard it has reappeared at the cinema. Perhaps I should make the trip.
* Hey, if weren't convinced before that tattoos are a terrible distraction from everything else about a nicely presented woman, didn't Lady Gaga's inside arm tatts make for a change of mind?
* Clint Eastwood's movie won a gong for sound editing only? Lots of liberal critics liked it, so I am a bit surprised. Maybe it was the fake baby that put them off...
* That screen writer for The Imitation Game looked awfully young. Yeah, he's 34, and a very young looking 34 at that. It sounded like he was going to say he was gay like Turing, but apparently he's not. Well, he seemed a nice enough guy, I guess, except it is precisely because of his screenplay's inventions that I don't want to pay to see the movie. Sorry.
ADL (Abbott Desperation Level) has been raised to "6"
It's a handy measure based on the number of Australian flags he appears with during media events.
Abbott's lunge to paint himself as the "The Best Protector of the Nation During its Greatest Crisis, Ever" is just way too transparent to do him any good, isn't it?
Abbott's lunge to paint himself as the "The Best Protector of the Nation During its Greatest Crisis, Ever" is just way too transparent to do him any good, isn't it?
Seriously?
The story itself is behind a paywall, and so far, I only see Latika referring to it:
Update: Latika later notes that this was reported at the time - I had forgotten....
Freeman Dyson on spies he has known
Scientist, Spy, Genius: Who Was Bruno Pontecorvo? by Freeman Dyson | The New York Review of Books
What a fascinating insider take here by Freeman Dyson about spies in physics....
What a fascinating insider take here by Freeman Dyson about spies in physics....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)