Dangerous drinking

It's a little hard to credit that the person handing over this drink did not realise it was dangerous to consume:

It was an 18th-birthday celebration - and the birthday girl was given a free cocktail to celebrate.

But just seconds after Gaby Scanlon, now 20, drank the Nitro-Jägermeister shot, smoke started billowing from her nose and mouth.

"Immediately she was taken violently ill, retching and vomiting and smoking from her nose and mouth," prosecutor Barry Berlin told an English court.

The liquid nitrogen in the drink, which was used to create a smoking effect, pierced her stomach and killed internal tissue.

The court heard that Ms Scanlon experienced "agonising pain" and required surgery to have her stomach removed and her oesophagus connected to her small bowel...

The bar's director Andrew Dunn had seen cocktails containing liquid nitrogen being served a hotel in London and decided to introduce a range at his newly opened bistro, the court heard.

I think the topic for discussion with the children over dinner this weekend will be "Using your own common sense when at a bar or nightclub". 

Marr on Abbott

Vale, Tony Abbott – both a unique man and a unique failure | David Marr | Australia news | The Guardian

It may be a bit flowery in the Marr fashion, but I don't think he treats Abbott unfairly.

Their base is nuts 'cos they're led by nuts

I've been enjoying the Trump angst sweeping through Republican establishment circles, who can't understand how their "base" can be applauding some politically ridiculous lines coming out of an egotistical, shallow, dill.

But now it's producing something even better - the potential start of a realisation that the base is nuts because the entire party has been led by anti-science dills, more interested in ideology than evidence, for the last decade or so.

As Jonathan Chait writes in his summary entitled At Second Presidential Debate, Republicans Try to Out-Crazy Trump, and Succeed:

The most revealing pair of exchanges came at the end. First, Jake Tapper asked Rubio about former Reagan secretary of State George Shultz’s argument that it would be prudent to take out an insurance policy against the effects of carbon emissions in case scientists are right. The question was designed to cut off every possible escape route. Tapper did not ask Rubio to accept climate science, merely the possibility that it might not be wrong. Nor did he ask him to endorse a specific program. Rubio swatted away the premise of the question, insisting, “We’re not going to destroy our economy.” It was telling that Rubio defined literally any policy response to the theory of anthropogenic global warming as economy-destroying.

Tapper then asked Trump about his statements linking vaccine use to autism, a dangerous conspiracy theory that has been conclusively debunked. Trump cited anecdotal evidence to support his crackpot beliefs. Worse, the two doctors on the stage, Ben Carson and Rand Paul, had chances to correct Trump, and both instead gave him tepid support. It is depressing that a presidential field with two doctors cannot even produce sensible views on medicine, let alone anything else. The party’s decades-long flight from empiricism and reason shows no sign of abating. Alas, from Trump to Rubio to Carly Fiorina, it is filled with talented demagogues well suited to pitch America on nonsense.

What a hide!

Spotted in Gulf News:

Green leafy goodness

Take that kale! Watercress is number one powerhouse vegetable - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Avert your eyes, Jason Soon - an article all about the good things in green leafy vegetables.

I see that kale is said not to be that great a "superfood" anyway.  I'm relieved to hear it - there are few vegetables I actually ask my wife not to buy, but kale is one of them.   Its tough, rough leaves have never impressed me in the slightest - in fact, I positively dislike it - and I always suspected its popularity was a passing fad.

This report talks up watercress, which is one of my favourite bases for a salad.  It can be bought cheaply from some street markets around Brisbane, at some times of the year, but seems to rarely appear in mainstream fruit and vegetable shops.   There should be more of it.

Maybe cold water is the key?

BBC - Future - The secrets of living to 200 years old

I didn't know bowhead whales are believed to live somewhere between 150 and 210 years.

Update:  I just remembered to check again on the lifespan of the orange roughy (what a great bit of PR it was to rename it from "slimehead") that lives in the deep, cold ocean - 150 years!

Disturbing

Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit: China’s laws have encouraged the hit to kill phenomenon.

I meant to earlier link to this disturbing article about Chinese society and the (to say the least) problematic way they deal with compensation.

I can only assume there is no compulsory third party insurance as there is Australia (and, I presume, nearly all Western countries?)   Certainly shows the value of it.  

Real men used to cry

Is there anything wrong with men who cry? – Sandra Newman – Aeon

A fun article here looking at the way it seems there used to be no shame in men crying, in most societies at least (Scandinavia excepted, it seems.)   But then something changed, and the reasons proposed are curious:

The most obvious possibility is that this shift is the result of changes
that took place as we moved from a feudal, agrarian society to one that
was urban and industrial. In the Middle Ages, most people spent their
lives among those they had known since birth. A typical village had only
50-300 inhabitants, most of them related by blood or marriage; a
situation like an extended family stuck in an eternal reunion in the
middle of nowhere. Medieval courts were also environments of extreme
intimacy, where courtiers spent entire days in each other’s company,
year after year. Kings routinely conducted business from their beds, at
the foot of which their favourite servants slept at night. We can see
this familiarity also in odd details of royal life, such as the nobleman
in the courts of many European kings whose coveted privilege it was to
assist the king in defecation.

But from the 18th through the 20th centuries, the population became
increasingly urbanised; soon, people were living in the midst of
thousands of strangers. Furthermore, changes in the economy required men
to work together in factories and offices where emotional expression
and even private conversation were discouraged as time-wasting. As Tom
Lutz writes in Crying: The Natural and Cultural History of Tears
(1999), factory managers deliberately trained their workers to suppress
emotion with the aim of boosting productivity: ‘You don’t want emotions
interfering with the smooth running of things.’

Hard to believe...

...that Ridley Scott has made a good science fiction film again.   But it appears he has.  

I guess I'll miss doing things like this....

Standard hypocrisy from a politician, I guess

I can't say I recall Tony Abbott ever complaining about the media's hand in publishing anonymous and self serving leaks when they were doing it in the Rudd/Gillard years.  Did he not use them as the basis for attack in Parliament?

But now, suffering the same fate, he can see the problem...

Update:  oh, and then there is this point too -

I had no idea...

Saudi Arabia squandered its groundwater and agriculture collapsed. California, take note. - Vox

I was just speculating the other day that the Arabian peninsula countries must grow next to nothing of the food they need.  I had no idea that Saudia Arabia in fact had gone on a ridiculous exercise in my lifetime:

Over at Reveal News, Nathan Halverson has a terrific piece
on how Saudi Arabia squandered its groundwater supplies in just a few
short decades. Back in the 1970s, the government allowed landowners to
dig as many wells as they desired, in order to transform the desert into
lush farmland. An agricultural boom followed, and Saudi Arabia
improbably became the world's sixth-largest exporter of wheat.

"By the 1990s, farmers were pumping an average of 5 trillion gallons a
year," Halverson writes. "At that rate, it would take just 25 years to
completely drain Lake Erie." The problem was that Saudi Arabia doesn't
get nearly enough annual rainfall to replace those withdrawals. Its
aquifers had built up over tens of thousands of years and were now being
drained all at once.

Not surprisingly, the party didn't last. By the 2000s, the aquifers
had become dangerously depleted. Wells dried up. Oases that had
persisted since biblical times were now gone. The country will need to
build costly desalination plants for drinking water. Most important,
Saudi Arabia's agricultural output declined sharply, with the amount of
farmland now less than half of what it was in the 1990s. In an attempt
to conserve what water remains, the country has announced that the 2016 wheat harvest will be its last. An entire industry, gone.

 Why do I get the feeling that libertarian types at the time would have been ridiculing environmentalist's warnings that this was a bad idea.  Let the market decide, etc.

Very witty

A few more post Abbott observations...

*  I am somewhat in agreement with those saying that Abbott not making a statement to the media yet makes it look like he's not "manning up" to his loss, in contrast to Gillard.   But is that too sexist in its own way? :)  Does it mean he is white hot angry about it all?   Would make me laugh if he is.   It would be all very karmic in it's own way, no?

*  It must be hurting the egos of Bolt and Jones that they can't convince their side of politics to follow their direction on leadership.   Particularly when they were instrumental on getting Abbott the leadership based on their promotion of climate change denial, which was always utterly foolish.  The tide's turning, guys.   Are you capable of admitting error?

[Update:  I had forgotten this:

Just over a year ago, Jones, the Sydney broadcaster, told Malcolm Turnbull he “had no hope of ever being the leader, you have got to get that into your head”.]

*  I like Turnbull - intelligent, articulate, humane - but he has a very difficult job dealing with those in his Party (and the Nationals) poisoned by too much influence from the American Right (and the likes of the IPA.)  I would like him to be ruthless in his approach to climate denialists in the party - tell them straight up that they have always been wrong and have been conned by populist fools in the media, and ideological driven economists who don't understand a thing about what actual science and scientific bodies all agree on. Someone has to tell them someday, it will do them good.

[Update:  even better, Turnbull could go on Bolt's show and tell him the same thing to his face - that he's been completed fooled and conned by non-scientists and it's about time he grew up and recognised facts.]

*  Has Steve Kates had to up his blood pressure medication yet?   This nuttily obsessed economist hates Turnbull irrationally and with the same vigour with which he thinks Obama and "damaged women" are causing the end of civilisation:

Malcolm is almost the perfect reflection of media opinion. He is like blotting paper, soaking up every conventional opinion without any actual apparent ability to think for himself. He is a non-entity in the Barack Obama mould, filled with vapid thoughts and a high opinion of his own abilities and intellect that is never at any stage reflected in anything he says or any action he takes.

He apparently won on the promise that he would not change any of the more contentious compromises Abbott had been able to meld, which is to say, he won promising not to do the very things that he wants to do, and which the media will look to him to do. The Great Communicator he is not. He is a shallow and pompous blowhard.

 *  I'll be livid if a few, persistent and potentially damaging rumours about Abbott's private life are only now exposed as true by journalists.

Bird love

Birds reveal the evolutionary importance of love

Sort of a cute study here.  

Was Abbott too ideologically driven, or not ideologically driven enough?

For those on the libertarian/small government right, such as Chris Berg, Abbott was not ideological enough.   And I think it is true that Abbott's ideas seemed to not follow any consistent line.  His overly generous parental leave plan, for example, won applause only from a handful of feminists who would normally align with Labor; his approach to climate change attempted (unsuccessfully) to straddle the divide between those who accept and those who reject science in his party; similarly, he seemed awkwardly positioned on manufacturing policy - not willing to completely abandon shipbuilding in Australia as a rigorously "dry" economic approach may suggest, but not doing enough to make the current industry feel viable, either.

But from my point of view, over allegiance to ideology is bad in politics anyway.  Successful government  responds to situations in a practical matter, without getting too concerned as to whether it fits in with preconceived theories or world views.

The problem with Abbott came down to the opportunism and the lack of practical sense in the contradictory nature of so many of his policies.  

Not being consistently ideologically driven can indeed lead to good, sensible government.  It didn't work that way for Abbott, though.   He needed a set of policies that made sense in a practical and global sense, but not necessarily from a purely ideologically consistent sense.  He failed.

An under-reported effect of an El Nino

I  hadn't even realised, until some recent reports out of the mainstream news media came to my attention, that New Guinea suffered a severe drought in 1997, and is in the midst of El Nino related drought again.

And recall that only last year, a paper predicted a doubling of severe El Nino as a result of global warming.

In light of the dire effect these have on our poor neighbours, you'd think the media might report the tropical droughts more prominently....

Worst PM gone

Quite a few people are noting that Abbott was PM for less time than either Rudd or Gillard.  Couldn't happen to more deserving embodiment of the Peter Principle. 

Let's not forget, Abbott got his party's leadership by waving his finger in the breeze and going with the climate change denying populists of the Right:  Bolt, Jones and a host of Murdoch writers.   He in fact had never been particularly interested in science, or economics, and his sloganeering tactics ever since he took the top job discredits the idea that he's more than a political opportunist with no idea who to take advice from.   He has spent his Prime Ministership with no sense of consistency or principle - the "say anything" PM adjusting his message according to the audience in front of him.  

What's worse, he sought legitimacy through the creepy upscaling  of the role of the military and paramilitary in day to day government.   He shows no remorse or misgivings over the plainly cruel permanent warehousing of men, women and children to deter others from attempting sea entry into Australia; his refusal to support Gillard in attempting the relatively humane Malaysian solution, while now seeking to send people to dirt poor Cambodia, is a stunning case of cynical political opportunism that deserves condemnation.   The swathe of secrecy that he has legislated, or co-opted from pliant military figures, regarding the tactics being deployed on the high seas and in his detention centres  is an absolute low for open, democratic government in this country.  His highly personal attacks on Gillian Triggs and the ABC also showed a somewhat eccentric  political thin skin that wasn't so  obvious until he became PM.

Going back further in time, don't forget his hidden role in funding action that lead to the jailing of a political problem, Pauline Hanson.   People seem too willing to overlook how dirty he has been prepared to get as a political operative.

He may have done some worthy work when a Minister under Howard, but his elevation to leadership has proved to be the long term disaster that even half of his party suspected it may be when he got the job.

I can only say that there was one good thing resulting from his election as PM - the resignation of Kevin Rudd from politics and his poisonous destructive role within Labor.   Yeah, thanks for that, Tony.  Pity you then had to hang around to prove yourself to be the PM with the least worthy legacy of any in my lifetime.  

Seems I may as well be writing this now

Gillard legacies:    some serious education reform (NAPLAN, widespread acknowledgement  of increased funding needed), wide-ranging and permanent change to improve disability services;  world leading public health measures (plain packaging); a carbon pricing scheme that showed it could work. 

Abbott's legacies of value:   [insert cricket sounds]

Spill

While I was thinking about the future of sex in cars, I see that a challenge to Abbott's leadership by Turnbull is definitely on.



Good news - I think.

I actually wonder whether much of the incentive for this was Abbott's disastrously poor interview on 7.30 last week.  The thing that struck me most about it was his apparent genuineness when he was claiming that  he was leading a good government that had achieved a lot.  I can just imagine cabinet members rolling their eyes and thinking "He really doesn't have a clue.  It's time..."