Does anyone but the IPA want to hoist the Union Jack over our history again? | Jason Wilson | Comment is free | The Guardian
I started a post along similar lines a few days but never finished it: it's rather rich of the IPA, as the alleged champion of academic freedom and competition in education to be complaining when universities exercise the discretion they already have to market towards more "pop" history than "traditional" history. (And I say that as one who is somewhat skeptical of the value of modern pop history.)
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Down
Let's see. Jeremy Clarkson is still making high school boy sniggers about "fudge" and anal sex; Bronwyn's hair hasn't resigned yet (I suspect investigative journalists need to check whether any parliamentary allowances have gone into hairspray purchases - I don't know that the amount used would be covered by a mere Speaker's salary); a never ending round and round again GST discussion is going on somewhere; oh look, Helen Dale has tweeted that Bronwyn bus/copter joke but seems not to have acknowledged who came up with it first days ago; The Australian is devoting thousands of words to how Bill Shorten is supposedly in trouble and not how Abbott would lose an election now, just as he would have for the last 18 months or so; Andrew Bolt still thinks John Cristy is the only climate scientist who is right, and reads nothing from the thousands of other scientists who explain why he is wrong; Slate has become paywalled after too few articles; so has the New Yorker, grrr....
All in all, things on the net seem a bit repetitious and boring recently.
All in all, things on the net seem a bit repetitious and boring recently.
Monday, July 20, 2015
The Trump Effect: "What? Our base are idiots?"
As a person who's been complaining for years about the the American Right's move away from common sense and evidence based policy in favour of culture war and ideology, it's an entertaining, if not particularly edifying, thing to watch the part of the Right wing commentairiate that is (just) reality based enough to see that Trump is an idiot grinding their teeth over his popularity.
But of course, even those commentators could not fault him on his approach to climate change:
But of course, even those commentators could not fault him on his approach to climate change:
Though he will often tweet links to articles that cast doubt on the reality of climate change, and call it a hoax himself, the lion’s share of his tweets that mention global warming have to do with snow and cold weather.
Since he began tweeting about the topic in November 2011, a comprehensive count reveals Trump has used complaints about cold weather to doubt or attempt to refute climate change 31 times. He has used cold weather and unexpected (or unwanted) snowfall to do so eight times, and tweeted five times solely about snow to refute mainstream climate science. In total, the business magnate tweeted 44 times, mostly in the winter, about how mainstream climate science was a joke because it was cold and/or snowy....
Trump actually has blamed the Chinese for the “concept of global warming,” which is patently false.And does this sound familiar to Australians?:
Trump has had a vendetta against wind energy going back to when he began to fight the planned construction of an offshore wind array in Scotland he said would impact the views from a golf course he was building. In 2012, he said that Scotland would go broke if they built the array while losing tourism to Ireland. “I am a world class expert in tourism,” he said.I'm sorry, Right wingers dismayed with Trump, your one with the idiot on this, and your first step back towards mainstream rationality is to start believing scientists on climate change....
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Fly away Bronnie
If only I didn't have to work....
Friday, July 17, 2015
Senator who got there via "stupid" questions stupidity of voters
Voters are adults and don't need a nanny state to make choices for them
The Senator who will be chairing a self promoting enquiry on matters which his level of government doesn't control anyway has this to say:
The Senator who will be chairing a self promoting enquiry on matters which his level of government doesn't control anyway has this to say:
If we persist in thinking people cannot make simple decisions about whatOh, the irony of this question being raised by a Senator who got there only via the position on the ballot paper and a name deceptive to those who don't pay attention to politics.
to eat, when to drink or what games to play, why then do we think they
can do something as complicated as choosing between different political
visions? If people are so stupid, should they even be allowed to vote?
Rat Catcher to the Queen
Jack Black, the royally endorsed Rat Catcher of Victorian England, had a mention in this blog before. (Back in 2007!)
But here's another interesting article about him, with additional details of what people did for entertainment before there was TV:
But here's another interesting article about him, with additional details of what people did for entertainment before there was TV:
By the age of ten, Black was getting commissions to catch rats for cash, but his real money came from selling rats for gaming. Rat-baiting was a popular London tavern pastime in which dog owners would set their dogs in a pit and bet on their dog’s ability to catch a set number of rats, sometimes by the dozen, in a matter of minutes. Enthusiasts bet on the speed of a dog’s rat-killing abilities (one famous contender, Billy, tore apart a couple dozen rats in a minute and a half). The “sport” was so popular that the government wanted a cut, and put a tax on rat-killing dogs. Jimmy Shaw, the proprietor of a pub that held one of the most popular rat-matches in town, had hundreds of caged rats at the ready culled from suppliers across the country, including Jack Black.As for the reputation for rats generally, it was all bad:
The rat’s reputation for having an insatiable sexual appetite, coupled with their supposed predilection for cannibalism, made them the perfect Victorian enemy of lawlessness and sexual deviance. James Rodwell wrote in 1850: “[Rats] have no laws, either civil or religious, to govern them, so to call them Socialists, Communists, or Rats, to me ‘tis equal; for, in my mind, Communism, Socialism, and Ratism are terms synonymous.” Rodwell’s passion for exposing rats as an apocalyptic force while obsessively chronicling their behavior puts him somewhere between early anthropologist and crank. Chapter headings of his second book “The rat: its history and destructive character”, include Thievish Propensity of Rats, How the Rats of Scotland Can Carry Eggs, Rats Standing on Their Heads, Three Cannibal Rats Swallowing Nine Others, The Unreasonable Fear of Rats, and A Rat and a Ferret Snuggling Together in the Author's Bosom.
Medicines and morals
Common drugs can affect our minds and morals – but should we be worried about it?
Some interesting stuff mentioned in this article, and I should looking further into it...
Some interesting stuff mentioned in this article, and I should looking further into it...
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Knowledge gap filled
How Today's Anti-Vaccination Movement Traces Back to Victorian England - The Atlantic
Well, who else didn't know there was an anti-vaccination movement back then? (And also - vaccination started earlier than I knew.)
Well, who else didn't know there was an anti-vaccination movement back then? (And also - vaccination started earlier than I knew.)
Fly, conservative poster "girl"; fly, be free
I see that Bronwyn Bishop's $5000 helicopter flight to save a mere 50 minute drive down the freeway to a fundraiser is enough to cause Joe Hockey to doubt her wisdom. (I wonder if he had clearance from the PM's office to do that? I suspect not, and perhaps he's had a phone call from Peta already?)
Amongst the Righties of the blogosphere, though, it's barely worth noting.
OK, well, Andrew Bolt does have a short post about it - but oddly, no comments by readers at all.
Tim Blair would rather target "frightbats" and doesn't mention it at all, that I can see.
And in the Wednesday Open Thread at Catallaxy, last I saw there were two comments whinging about Bill Shorten complaining about it.
She's their poster "girl", and about the same age as the average Catallaxy thread-ster now, so it's no wonder...
Amongst the Righties of the blogosphere, though, it's barely worth noting.
OK, well, Andrew Bolt does have a short post about it - but oddly, no comments by readers at all.
Tim Blair would rather target "frightbats" and doesn't mention it at all, that I can see.
And in the Wednesday Open Thread at Catallaxy, last I saw there were two comments whinging about Bill Shorten complaining about it.
She's their poster "girl", and about the same age as the average Catallaxy thread-ster now, so it's no wonder...
I've been thinking...
...about negative gearing and its effect on the property and rental market.
Apparently, it was a bit of a myth that the Labor experiment with cutting it out caused rents to soar. Rents did go up in Sydney and Perth, but perhaps for other reasons too. (I seem to recall the rent increase was the widely cited reason for the reversal at the time.)
But if you are going to revise its use, I wonder if there is a case for it to decrease during the life of an investment. So that, for example, you can claim all interest as a deduction for the first 2 years, then claim (say) half of it for the next two years, or something like that. I guess it would encourage investment in properties that are to thought to have potential for quick capital gain, and perhaps for the turning over of properties at regular intervals. At least when properties are being turned over, they are available for home buyers too.
Of course, there are probably some unintended consequences to this, but seems to have some benefits, no?
Apparently, it was a bit of a myth that the Labor experiment with cutting it out caused rents to soar. Rents did go up in Sydney and Perth, but perhaps for other reasons too. (I seem to recall the rent increase was the widely cited reason for the reversal at the time.)
But if you are going to revise its use, I wonder if there is a case for it to decrease during the life of an investment. So that, for example, you can claim all interest as a deduction for the first 2 years, then claim (say) half of it for the next two years, or something like that. I guess it would encourage investment in properties that are to thought to have potential for quick capital gain, and perhaps for the turning over of properties at regular intervals. At least when properties are being turned over, they are available for home buyers too.
Of course, there are probably some unintended consequences to this, but seems to have some benefits, no?
Cocaine, Popes and black America
The question of whether or not Pope Francis would partake of coca leaves (he didn't, apparently) led to the Mindhacks blog noting that at least one past Pope was not at all reticent about drinking cocaine laced wine.
This wine was discussed at The Atlantic in 2013, where it was noted that the American version had a claim that might put off a Pope from consuming it:
Actually, I see from an article from the BBC that in England, there was a panic over the Chinese in the country promoting both opium and cocaine recreationally. But it also makes the point that the main concern in the 19th/early 20th century was really over excessive drinking, particularly during World War 1.
All rather interesting.
This wine was discussed at The Atlantic in 2013, where it was noted that the American version had a claim that might put off a Pope from consuming it:Seeing this commercial success, Dr. John Stith Pemberton in Atlanta -- himself a morphine addict following an injury in the Civil War -- set out to make his own version. He called it Pemberton's French Wine Coca and marketed it as a panacea. Among many fantastic claims, he called it "a most wonderful invigorator of sexual organs."I see from various sources that there was a strong racial element in the campaign to prohibit cocaine, with great concern that it had become particularly popular with the black population and had led to rape and general criminal mayhem. However, one other link said that there was also concern about the large number of deaths from cocaine abuse. One suspects that the racial aspect is emphasised heavily these days by drug reformers to downplay legitimate concern on the drugs health effects back in 1900. Anyhow, this extract from The Nation is interesting:
Around this time, Congress was debating whether to pass the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, one of the country’s first forays into national drug legislation. This unprecedented law sought to tax and regulate the production, importation and distribution of opium and coca products. Proponents of the law saw it as a strategy to improve strained trade relations with China by demonstrating a commitment to controlling the opium trade. Opponents, mostly from Southern states, viewed it as an intrusion into states’ rights and had prevented passage of previous versions.
By 1914, however, the law’s proponents had found an important ally in their quest to get it passed: the mythical “negro cocaine fiend,” which prominent newspapers, physicians and politicians readily exploited. Indeed, at congressional hearings, “experts” testified that “most of the attacks upon white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain.” When the Harrison Act became law, proponents could thank the South’s fear of blacks for easing its passage.It would be interesting to see what the history of its prohibition in Britain is like, seeing in that country there presumably no basis to worry about it being abused by a black underclass.
Actually, I see from an article from the BBC that in England, there was a panic over the Chinese in the country promoting both opium and cocaine recreationally. But it also makes the point that the main concern in the 19th/early 20th century was really over excessive drinking, particularly during World War 1.
All rather interesting.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Oh Canada
Canada's Conservatives may face unexpected hazard as economy cools | Reuters
Well, seems to me Canada may be displaying the weakness of current conservative economic ideology:
Diversity in an economy helps: seems to me that governments that wipe their hands completely of having policies to encourage diversity are asking for trouble.
Well, seems to me Canada may be displaying the weakness of current conservative economic ideology:
Canada's economic woes, including a struggling manufacturing
sector, tepid jobs and wage growth and weak oil prices, have
been compounded by slowing growth in key trading partners like
the United States and China.
After reveling in Canada's escape from the global financial
crisis, Harper suddenly has less to boast about. But the party
is not likely to back away from campaigning on the economy
nonetheless....
"When someone says: 'Are you better off today than four
years ago when this government got its majority mandate?' There
are not many people that are going to answer that question as a
yes," said Jim Stanford, economist at Unifor, Canada's largest
private sector union.
"Whatever sector of the economy you're in, there's a prettyA lot of the blame is put on falling oil prices. Guess we can see the same happening here eventually with falling coal and iron prices.
pervasive sense of insecurity."
Pollster Nanos said research shows the Conservatives are
seen to be good at controlling spending, but they do not have as
strong of a lead on promoting economic growth, which may be
closer to voter hearts than fiscal restraint.
And while Harper is among few Western leaders who can boast
of a balanced budget forecast for 2015-2016 after years of
deficit, union economist Stanford said balanced books may not
pay off at the polls.
"If they had balanced the budget and things were looking up
for the average household, then maybe this claim would have a
bit more credibility but I think it's a pretty hollow victory."
Diversity in an economy helps: seems to me that governments that wipe their hands completely of having policies to encourage diversity are asking for trouble.
Europe and the migrants
There was a great Foreign Correspondent last night set on the Greek island of Kos, inconveniently close to Turkey and the scene of many, many escapees from Syria, Pakistan and other countries.
This is ABC content at its best: informative, humane, and not done by any commercial network (or certainly not with the same depth or finesse.) Also, causes me to have contempt for anyone who wants to privatise it, especially if they say they don't watch it.
Update: here's the Lowy Institute blog talking about the problem for Greece:
Puts our problem in perspective.
This is ABC content at its best: informative, humane, and not done by any commercial network (or certainly not with the same depth or finesse.) Also, causes me to have contempt for anyone who wants to privatise it, especially if they say they don't watch it.
Update: here's the Lowy Institute blog talking about the problem for Greece:
The number of boat arrivals is staggering and continues to grow rapidly, much like Greece's debt. During my recent discussions on irregular migration in Athens with think tank analysts, commentators and academics, the numbers quoted have climbed dramatically and currently hover at around 80,000 arrivals so far in 2015. About a month ago, the number was 30,000. Greece has now received more maritime migrants than Italy this year. Some estimate that arrivals to Greece may top 200,000 by year's end.The number of arrivals Australia was freaking out about during the Rudd and Gillard governments: at its peak, about 30,000 over a year and a half. The Libs press release was saying 50,000 over the total Rudd/Gillard years.
Puts our problem in perspective.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Sounds entirely likely
Peak body lashes Abbott government: Our business interests in Indonesia harmed by bad diplomacy: Australia's "megaphone" diplomacy and lack of consultation with Indonesia over policies like boat turnbacks has caused widespread unhappiness in Jakarta and harmed relations, the head of the peak body representing Australian businesses operating there says.
All in a day's work for a social worker
Do we Always Practice What we Preach? Real Vampires’ Fears of Coming out of the Coffin to Social Workers and Helping Professionals | Critical Social Work - University of Windsor
I may be sounding increasingly left wing lately, but social workers always have been, and remain, a bit of a worry.
I may be sounding increasingly left wing lately, but social workers always have been, and remain, a bit of a worry.
Gina re-visited
Really, as her children asked, why did Australian Story bother with a two parter on Gina Rinehart, as it seemed to add nothing to what we didn't already know about her family history? It certainly was used by Gina for an attempt at some better PR, but whose idea was it to do such a lightweight update on her lifestory at this particular time?
Anyway, the show did amuse me for a few reasons:
* I had forgotten about her father's crackpot hope that H bombs could be used to help develop Northern Australia even faster, and it was funny to watch the ever soft voiced Gina talking to family friend Ed Teller about this idea from an aircraft full of the white shoe brigade.
* the show also mentioned her Dad's involvement with the deadly blue asbestos mine at Wittenoom. It didn't mention this:
In short, despite the attempted gloss, the show reminded the careful viewer that nutty Right wingers bent on making money can be freaking dangerous.
Thanks ABC, I guess...
Update: In answer to Tim's question in comments - he definitely thought they were good for creating instant deep water harbours, but really, what didn't Lang think H bombs were good for?:
Anyway, the show did amuse me for a few reasons:
* I had forgotten about her father's crackpot hope that H bombs could be used to help develop Northern Australia even faster, and it was funny to watch the ever soft voiced Gina talking to family friend Ed Teller about this idea from an aircraft full of the white shoe brigade.
* the show also mentioned her Dad's involvement with the deadly blue asbestos mine at Wittenoom. It didn't mention this:
...according to his friend John Singleton, had a party trick of spreading asbestos on his Weet-Bix to prove the point that asbestos wasn't deadly.* it did make a brief mention of Gina opposing the Labor carbon "tax", although it made no mention of her actively funding climate change fake skepticism.
Lang had discovered asbestos in the Pilbara in the 1950s and went to his grave swearing that asbestos wasn't dangerous.
In short, despite the attempted gloss, the show reminded the careful viewer that nutty Right wingers bent on making money can be freaking dangerous.
Thanks ABC, I guess...
Update: In answer to Tim's question in comments - he definitely thought they were good for creating instant deep water harbours, but really, what didn't Lang think H bombs were good for?:
Some interesting answers
Reddit, Why DON'T you smoke weed? : AskReddit
I don't look around Reddit often, but I was Googling for some links about rats on cannabis (being inspired by the previous post about meth rats) when I found a link to this recent Reddit thread.
Given that Reddit is not exactly a forum where you are likely to get too many overly judgemental contributors, it was interesting to see how many readers complain about how cannabis has never agreed with them (usually due to it increasing anxiety, causing paranoia, and/or panic attacks) yet their smoking friends keep on trying to convince them to smoke their way through those problems. Yes, that would be annoying.
This is the reason why I am always leery about the too simple comparison between cannabis and alcohol. Cannabis seems to have a very sudden and strong unpleasant psychoactive effect on some people in a way that (as far as I am aware) is simply not comparable to the effect of a moderate consumption of alcohol. (What's a fair comparison here? I would guess at, say, two standard drinks in one hour as being somewhat akin to one mid strength joint? Not that I know how much cannabis users typically use in one session: just my guesswork here.)
It just seems to me a qualitatively different thing if it can have a paranoia increasing effect even in modest quantities; that sensation is never desired and indicates something serious going on in the brain in a way that I can't imagine is the same for anyone having a modest hit of alcohol. Sure, some people get drunk quicker than others, but even then the sensation of moderate drunkenness per se is rarely distressing. "Two pot screamers" are said to exist; I can't remember ever knowing one.
I know what many will say - the proportion of people who are very sensitive to distressing feelings from cannabis is small, and why punish the majority by criminalisation of something that most adults can handle and desire.
All true, but don't come back to me with the "alcohol causes more harm across society" line. That's an apple and oranges comparison that I've never found compelling. Sure, on a population basis, the overuse of one drug may make it a societal problem; but if you want a fair comparison as between drugs, then the true test would be more like "what is a society with cannabis use as widespread and frequent as alcohol like, compared to one where alcohol is the only abused drug." Both drugs are capable of abuse; having one legal allows for the human desire to have mood altered pleasantly by a drug potentially dangerous and life damaging in overuse; having more than one potentially dangerous drug available for that purpose is indulgent. (Very un-libertarian of me, but then libertarians with any brains are presumably conflicted about how far Russia should go in dealing with a chronic alcohol problem that clearly has economic effects on the entire country. We each draw our lines in different places.)
As for the ultimate effect of the legal cannabis experiment in the US on a society scale - I still say we will have to wait many years to be sure of that.
Certainly, countries known for their high cannabis use don't exactly seem to be the economic powerhouses you would want to emulate. (Here's a story about Uruguay's legalisation experiment, by the way.)
I don't look around Reddit often, but I was Googling for some links about rats on cannabis (being inspired by the previous post about meth rats) when I found a link to this recent Reddit thread.
Given that Reddit is not exactly a forum where you are likely to get too many overly judgemental contributors, it was interesting to see how many readers complain about how cannabis has never agreed with them (usually due to it increasing anxiety, causing paranoia, and/or panic attacks) yet their smoking friends keep on trying to convince them to smoke their way through those problems. Yes, that would be annoying.
This is the reason why I am always leery about the too simple comparison between cannabis and alcohol. Cannabis seems to have a very sudden and strong unpleasant psychoactive effect on some people in a way that (as far as I am aware) is simply not comparable to the effect of a moderate consumption of alcohol. (What's a fair comparison here? I would guess at, say, two standard drinks in one hour as being somewhat akin to one mid strength joint? Not that I know how much cannabis users typically use in one session: just my guesswork here.)
It just seems to me a qualitatively different thing if it can have a paranoia increasing effect even in modest quantities; that sensation is never desired and indicates something serious going on in the brain in a way that I can't imagine is the same for anyone having a modest hit of alcohol. Sure, some people get drunk quicker than others, but even then the sensation of moderate drunkenness per se is rarely distressing. "Two pot screamers" are said to exist; I can't remember ever knowing one.
I know what many will say - the proportion of people who are very sensitive to distressing feelings from cannabis is small, and why punish the majority by criminalisation of something that most adults can handle and desire.
All true, but don't come back to me with the "alcohol causes more harm across society" line. That's an apple and oranges comparison that I've never found compelling. Sure, on a population basis, the overuse of one drug may make it a societal problem; but if you want a fair comparison as between drugs, then the true test would be more like "what is a society with cannabis use as widespread and frequent as alcohol like, compared to one where alcohol is the only abused drug." Both drugs are capable of abuse; having one legal allows for the human desire to have mood altered pleasantly by a drug potentially dangerous and life damaging in overuse; having more than one potentially dangerous drug available for that purpose is indulgent. (Very un-libertarian of me, but then libertarians with any brains are presumably conflicted about how far Russia should go in dealing with a chronic alcohol problem that clearly has economic effects on the entire country. We each draw our lines in different places.)
As for the ultimate effect of the legal cannabis experiment in the US on a society scale - I still say we will have to wait many years to be sure of that.
Certainly, countries known for their high cannabis use don't exactly seem to be the economic powerhouses you would want to emulate. (Here's a story about Uruguay's legalisation experiment, by the way.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)