Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Stupid man halves his readership
One odd outcome of the Orlando shootings is that Jim Hoft, (the "stupidest man on the internet", as Little Green Footballs like to call him, with good justification) has come out as a gay Republican. On Breitbart, no less, with several thousands of comments following. (Can't be bothered fighting my way through them, although I'm sure some must be interesting reading.)
Nutty conservative Catholic CL over at Catallaxy has been linking to Hoft's Gateway Pundit posts for years. CL's startling contribution to Catallaxy reaction to the shootings was this:
Nutty conservative Catholic CL over at Catallaxy has been linking to Hoft's Gateway Pundit posts for years. CL's startling contribution to Catallaxy reaction to the shootings was this:
Let us not forget that Islam is 100 percent correct about such things as gay ‘marriage’ and adoption. 100 percent correct. The gay lobby poses a far bigger threat to civilisation than ISIS.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Leyonhjelm can't resist
So, (hopefully soon to be ex-) Senator Leyonhjelm couldn't hold it back any longer - tweeting the solution to gun massacres in gay nightclubs is for gays to be armed. Because, yeah, a flurry of bullets from pistols as well as the spray from a rapidly firing AR15 in a semi dark nightclub full of a few hundred dancers is a better solution than - not letting nutters (Islamic or otherwise) getting their hands on a AR15. Not to mention the fact that Florida already has concealed weapon licences, although bars are apparently "gun free zones" by law.*
What a "guns cure everything" moron.
* Of course, the appalling gun nutters believe this is unfair. If Leyonhjelm thinks people going out to a bar or nightclub would feel safer by knowing some patrons are probably carrying a concealed carry pistol, then he should say so; and the rest of Australia can laugh at his face.
What a "guns cure everything" moron.
* Of course, the appalling gun nutters believe this is unfair. If Leyonhjelm thinks people going out to a bar or nightclub would feel safer by knowing some patrons are probably carrying a concealed carry pistol, then he should say so; and the rest of Australia can laugh at his face.
Trump and terrorism
Without taking away from the personal tragedies in Orlando, the bigger picture everyone will be thinking about is the extent to which Trump may benefit out of Islamic inspired terrorism (whether or not the killer appears - like in Sydney's Lindt cafe siege - to be a generic violent nutter from way back, as well as an IS fanboy.)
While Trump fans will think he has already benefited (there is a line already popular with the gormless Right at Catallaxy that "Trump was right",) and there will probably be a hundred pieces of panicky commentary about this is how America slides into becoming a Trumpian fascist nation, I think that in all likelihood, Trump will overreach; and when pressed for details, will not come up with a response that is legally, or even morally, credible. In fact, with his statement, sensible people (I know: that's not Trump supporters) will already see overreach.
This is what those who are appalled with Trump need to do - demand he get specific with Constitutional responses that make sense. Not let him waffle on with his generic loudmouth demands and thought bubbles.
Update: when will someone ask Trump about his position on this story from 2015? :
While Trump fans will think he has already benefited (there is a line already popular with the gormless Right at Catallaxy that "Trump was right",) and there will probably be a hundred pieces of panicky commentary about this is how America slides into becoming a Trumpian fascist nation, I think that in all likelihood, Trump will overreach; and when pressed for details, will not come up with a response that is legally, or even morally, credible. In fact, with his statement, sensible people (I know: that's not Trump supporters) will already see overreach.
This is what those who are appalled with Trump need to do - demand he get specific with Constitutional responses that make sense. Not let him waffle on with his generic loudmouth demands and thought bubbles.
Update: when will someone ask Trump about his position on this story from 2015? :
Senate Republicans rejected a bill that aims to stop suspected terrorists from legally buying guns, on Thursday. The vote came a day after at least 14 people were killed during the San Bernardino massacre in California by two suspects, including a woman said to have pledged allegiance to ISIS.Update 2: more on the general nuttiness of the killer. Still able to buy an assault rifle, though.
Forty-five senators voted for the bill and 54 voted against it. One Democrat, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, crossed party lines.
The measure would have denied people on the terrorist watch list the ability to buy guns.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the legislation, argued that former President George W. Bush initially proposed the legislation in 2007, and the Obama administration also supports it.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Madness loves company
United States of Paranoia: They See Gangs of Stalkers - The New York Times
A fascinating article here about how the internet is letting the paranoid find and support each other - and reinforce their mad theories. (I have never heard of the "T.I." - Targetted Individuals - community before. It's pretty sad.)
A fascinating article here about how the internet is letting the paranoid find and support each other - and reinforce their mad theories. (I have never heard of the "T.I." - Targetted Individuals - community before. It's pretty sad.)
Friday, June 10, 2016
Another in the series - Untopical Movie Reviews
After recently buying a cheap Blu-ray of the Coen brothers' 2010 version of True Grit, I watched it last weekend.
It was well reviewed when released, and there is much to like about it. First and foremost - it's a fantastic looking film. Just gorgeous on Blu-ray, and the town where it starts looks extremely authentic in a way most Western settings struggle to. [It turns out there's a good reason for that - in the fascinating short Extra feature about the film's production design*, the setting is shown as a street in a real Texas town that had facades built in front of some buildings that were too modern, some period alterations to others, and truckloads of dirt emptied on the paving to make it look like the right era. It's really awesome, sometimes, to see the effort large scale movie making can go to. And it was great to realise that my perception of authenticity was justified, and that I hadn't been fooled by a green screened background.]
Secondly, the Coens are great with loquacious characters in period pieces. We know, from Ken Burn's The Civil War how eloquent even working class men and women from this period could be, and the Coens showed a similar flare for such dialogue in Oh Brother Where Art Thou?** Mind you, I am not at all sure how much of the dialogue is lifted from the novel. I take it from another extra feature that this movie is probably closer to the novel than the John Wayne version.
Thirdly - well, actually, there is no thirdly. Here I have to move on to a couple of issues I had with it.
Number 1 on the downside: Jeff Bridges being allowed to growl his way through scores of pages of dialogue. I've never been a huge fan of his; he always strikes me as a bit of a B actor who has been out of his league in A movies. But really, in this film, his line delivery was too often too much of a challenge to follow: it was rough and gravely to the point of being hard to understand. And it makes the plot of the film (in terms of his background story) too difficult to follow.
I also think the film has a bit of a structural problem. Look, I can barely remember the John Wayne version (I probably saw it on TV in the late 1970's), and certainly was never a Wayne fan; but I do remember thinking that the climatic scene (the horseback confrontation with the four outlaws) was effective, and felt iconic as soon as you saw it.
But the same scene in this re-make plays flat, for some reason. Perhaps because the preamble is poorly set up - there's some "past" between the two main antagonists, but it was lost in the thickly accented shouting at each other before the charge begins. I also think it may be that the scene just seems to spring up too suddenly. I would have to watch the movie again (and I almost certainly will) to work out why this climax seems poorly handled, compared to the cheesier John Wayne version, but I think it is.
That said, there are other sequences and images that do work very well (for example, it's an extremely realistic looking hanging sequence that startles by not pulling back from the actual violence of the act). And apart from Bridges, the actors are all quite fine. (Even Matt Damon, who I often find oddly unconvincing.)
So I enjoyed it very much as a "nearly great, but flawed in interesting ways" sort of experience. Recommended.
* You can see a shorter version of it on Youtube.
** Production design was great in that one too - along with Spielberg, they seem to care about production design to an extremely pleasing degree.
It was well reviewed when released, and there is much to like about it. First and foremost - it's a fantastic looking film. Just gorgeous on Blu-ray, and the town where it starts looks extremely authentic in a way most Western settings struggle to. [It turns out there's a good reason for that - in the fascinating short Extra feature about the film's production design*, the setting is shown as a street in a real Texas town that had facades built in front of some buildings that were too modern, some period alterations to others, and truckloads of dirt emptied on the paving to make it look like the right era. It's really awesome, sometimes, to see the effort large scale movie making can go to. And it was great to realise that my perception of authenticity was justified, and that I hadn't been fooled by a green screened background.]
Secondly, the Coens are great with loquacious characters in period pieces. We know, from Ken Burn's The Civil War how eloquent even working class men and women from this period could be, and the Coens showed a similar flare for such dialogue in Oh Brother Where Art Thou?** Mind you, I am not at all sure how much of the dialogue is lifted from the novel. I take it from another extra feature that this movie is probably closer to the novel than the John Wayne version.
Thirdly - well, actually, there is no thirdly. Here I have to move on to a couple of issues I had with it.
Number 1 on the downside: Jeff Bridges being allowed to growl his way through scores of pages of dialogue. I've never been a huge fan of his; he always strikes me as a bit of a B actor who has been out of his league in A movies. But really, in this film, his line delivery was too often too much of a challenge to follow: it was rough and gravely to the point of being hard to understand. And it makes the plot of the film (in terms of his background story) too difficult to follow.
I also think the film has a bit of a structural problem. Look, I can barely remember the John Wayne version (I probably saw it on TV in the late 1970's), and certainly was never a Wayne fan; but I do remember thinking that the climatic scene (the horseback confrontation with the four outlaws) was effective, and felt iconic as soon as you saw it.
But the same scene in this re-make plays flat, for some reason. Perhaps because the preamble is poorly set up - there's some "past" between the two main antagonists, but it was lost in the thickly accented shouting at each other before the charge begins. I also think it may be that the scene just seems to spring up too suddenly. I would have to watch the movie again (and I almost certainly will) to work out why this climax seems poorly handled, compared to the cheesier John Wayne version, but I think it is.
That said, there are other sequences and images that do work very well (for example, it's an extremely realistic looking hanging sequence that startles by not pulling back from the actual violence of the act). And apart from Bridges, the actors are all quite fine. (Even Matt Damon, who I often find oddly unconvincing.)
So I enjoyed it very much as a "nearly great, but flawed in interesting ways" sort of experience. Recommended.
* You can see a shorter version of it on Youtube.
** Production design was great in that one too - along with Spielberg, they seem to care about production design to an extremely pleasing degree.
Remembering a parody
How the Gremlins 2 Creators Feel About Their Donald Trump Parody Now | WIRED
Yes, I was wondering if anyone recalled the Trump like character in Gremlins 2 - which I thought was a much better (and much funnier) movie than the original.
Yes, I was wondering if anyone recalled the Trump like character in Gremlins 2 - which I thought was a much better (and much funnier) movie than the original.
Trump gets the Roseanne Barr endorsement he so richly deserves
It's probably not worth reading, but here you go.
Amanda on Adams
Dilbert has gone fascist: The strange unrequited love Scott Adams seems to have for Donald Trump - Salon.com
I haven't fully followed the weird Scott Adams hearts (but does not endorse) Trump saga, but Amanda Marcotte seems to have. And I suspect her analysis may be close to the truth. (Although she doesn't consider my theory - that Adams will later claim that he managed to fool everyone with his own powerful mind control techniques.)
I haven't fully followed the weird Scott Adams hearts (but does not endorse) Trump saga, but Amanda Marcotte seems to have. And I suspect her analysis may be close to the truth. (Although she doesn't consider my theory - that Adams will later claim that he managed to fool everyone with his own powerful mind control techniques.)
This never works
Public servants told it's Armidale or find new jobs
It could be that the audience at Q&A this week was not representative of the electorate (of course it wasn't, some will say), but I did get the impression from it that Barnaby Joyce could be in real trouble. It would be a very bad look for a narrowly returned Turnbull government to have lost its Deputy PM.
In fact, this whole election campaign is a bit weird. It seems we keep hearing mainly about Liberal seats that are in trouble for various reasons; the Greens are probably more electable than ever before with their relatively moderate sounding leader; and Malcolm came across to me as a bit desperate to change his image with his "me and my Dad" video - which I haven't yet watched; yet the betting market (based, presumably, on some internal polling stuff we don't know) seems thoroughly convinced of a comfortable Coalition win.
It could be that the audience at Q&A this week was not representative of the electorate (of course it wasn't, some will say), but I did get the impression from it that Barnaby Joyce could be in real trouble. It would be a very bad look for a narrowly returned Turnbull government to have lost its Deputy PM.
In fact, this whole election campaign is a bit weird. It seems we keep hearing mainly about Liberal seats that are in trouble for various reasons; the Greens are probably more electable than ever before with their relatively moderate sounding leader; and Malcolm came across to me as a bit desperate to change his image with his "me and my Dad" video - which I haven't yet watched; yet the betting market (based, presumably, on some internal polling stuff we don't know) seems thoroughly convinced of a comfortable Coalition win.
A documentary getting strong reviews
De Palma Reviews - Metacritic
I guess it'll be on SBS soon enough.
I like quite a few De Palma films, but his peak must surely be The Untouchables. (And, hey, I just Googled the movie, and up came a link to a 3/5 star review by Ebert, who apparently complained about de Palma's "curiously lead-footed direction" (!!) I knew there was a reason I never could trust Ebert's reviews - he was sometimes right, but at other times so off the mark I didn't really bother regularly following him.)
I guess it'll be on SBS soon enough.
I like quite a few De Palma films, but his peak must surely be The Untouchables. (And, hey, I just Googled the movie, and up came a link to a 3/5 star review by Ebert, who apparently complained about de Palma's "curiously lead-footed direction" (!!) I knew there was a reason I never could trust Ebert's reviews - he was sometimes right, but at other times so off the mark I didn't really bother regularly following him.)
Thursday, June 09, 2016
Sequel-itis discussed
Hollywood Has a Big Millennial Problem - The Atlantic
Not sure I've learnt much new from this article, but sure, everyone recognises there is too much money going into too many sequels. Even if I did like the Star Wars, Bond, Mission Impossible and Jurassic movies of last year. Sorry...
Not sure I've learnt much new from this article, but sure, everyone recognises there is too much money going into too many sequels. Even if I did like the Star Wars, Bond, Mission Impossible and Jurassic movies of last year. Sorry...
The political problem of climate change
It would be funny if it were not worrying, but this post at Real Climate shows how the American Right (and a large slab of ours) likes to "double down" when their beliefs on climate change are challenged:
It's the current leadership, pandering to their nutty support base, that prevents any movement. But why should I expect any different? It is a party full of people ideologically devoted to cutting taxes, no matter what the circumstances, as the economic cure all, listening to just one set of evidence resistant economists.
When will the Party come back to its senses?
My study asked the question: “how do Republican individuals perceive persuasive information on climate change action, and what types of information are more or less effective?” To answer this question, I conducted a survey experiment wherein respondents in the treatment conditions were asked to read a paragraph about climate change. Each paragraph linked climate change to a prominent concept in American politics (either free markets, national security, poverty alleviation, or natural disaster preparation), attributed the message to a fictional but realistic-sounding source (either a Republican former Congressman or Democrat), and ended with a call for public action on the issue. These passages were rigorously pretested to ensure realism and impact.If you ask me, a large part of the problem is due to Republican leadership: if you had the leaders of the party actually prepared to tell their supporters that, sorry, they are wrong on this, in the same way that anti-vaxxers are wrong and hold beliefs supported by only a handful of contrarians whose policy views are against the public interest, you may start to get some marginalisation of the denialists at least underway. Who is going to be the first high profile Republican leader to take such a position?
The experiment, conducted in March 2014, used a nationally representative sample of 478 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, who were randomly sorted into one of the eight treatment groups or the control group, where respondents were asked in a single sentence to consider climate change as a political issue. Afterwards, all respondents were asked a series of questions to assess their support for or opposition to governmental action against climate change, their likelihood of taking personal action on the issue, and how sure they felt about their climate change opinions.
What I found was that every single treatment condition failed to convince respondents. In fact, treating Republicans with persuasive information made them more resistant to climate action regardless of the content or sourcing of that information. Overall, simply being exposed to pro-climate action communication appeared to polarize Republicans even further; they became more opposed to governmental action and less likely to take personal action compared to the control group. They also became more certain of their negative opinions on the issue, displaying significantly lower attitudinal ambivalence compared to the control group. What’s more, all of these treatment effects doubled to tripled in size for respondents who reported high personal interest in politics, all statistically significant outcomes. These highly politically interested individuals make up roughly one-third of Republicans in the sample and in the United States.
It's the current leadership, pandering to their nutty support base, that prevents any movement. But why should I expect any different? It is a party full of people ideologically devoted to cutting taxes, no matter what the circumstances, as the economic cure all, listening to just one set of evidence resistant economists.
When will the Party come back to its senses?
Wednesday, June 08, 2016
Kristina arguing reasonably
Labor has not backflipped on corporate tax cuts. Here are the facts | Kristina Keneally | Opinion | The Guardian
I suspect she is right - the benefits of corporate tax cuts are being oversold by many economists, particularly in the context of the Federal government's current need to not be giving away revenue. Small government fans, of course, think it's a great idea, because lower revenue is never a problem for them - it means smaller government.
I suspect she is right - the benefits of corporate tax cuts are being oversold by many economists, particularly in the context of the Federal government's current need to not be giving away revenue. Small government fans, of course, think it's a great idea, because lower revenue is never a problem for them - it means smaller government.
Trump secures the Australian comb-over vote
That's Maurice Newman, of course. Completely un-expected - not.
Tuesday, June 07, 2016
Look at meeeeeeeee
Just a minor observation, but for a person such as Tim "Freedomboy" Wilson, who has always self promoted (and posted selfies) with an intensity that suggests a mental teenager, becoming the Liberal candidate for a safe seat has been like entering Seventh Heaven. It's his perfect excuse for a zillion photos of his beaming face to be printed. Some examples from his twitter feed:
That last one features another young person who always strikes me as a bit of a self promoting right wing lightweight - Grace Collier.
And how much of a swing would be needed for Labor to unseat the Coalition? According to Wikipedia - 11%.
Tim, you can ease up a bit now. No, seriously. Your over-promotion is probably doing you more harm than good. On second thoughts - just keep it up: there's no way an electorate could ever get sick of seeing your face and start thinking you're a vain try hard. Have you tried sky-writing yet?
And how much of a swing would be needed for Labor to unseat the Coalition? According to Wikipedia - 11%.
Tim, you can ease up a bit now. No, seriously. Your over-promotion is probably doing you more harm than good. On second thoughts - just keep it up: there's no way an electorate could ever get sick of seeing your face and start thinking you're a vain try hard. Have you tried sky-writing yet?
Tuesday links
Work's still distracting me from the important job of blogging, but here are a few recent links of note:
* anyone who was taking Dilbert writer Scott Adams even half seriously on his "Trump as Master Persuader" meme should perhaps read his latest post in which he endorses Hilary Clinton for the obvious reason [/sarc] that she's now sounding persuasive and may well trigger a race war in which he [Adams] would be a target for assassination.
I wouldn't be surprised if he later reveals that anyone who believed him is a victim of his own persuasive powers. The guy's just a tad nutty, and an attention seeker.
* The Boston Globe has set up a very good looking site called STAT - Reporting from the Frontiers of Health and Medicine. (I don't think it's a great name though - Googling it comes up with lots of alternatives.) And it's from there that you find an article that raises a good point relevant to recent transplant news: How do you ask grieving parents to donate their son's penis.
* The Conversation looks at the question of whether East Coast lows that caused much flooding and wave damage the last few days are expected to become less or more frequent under global warming. The answer: modelling suggests they may become fewer, but those that do come could be stronger. I don't think that's an encouraging answer. Here's a screen shot from The Guardian yesterday of the before and after situation at that Sydney beach:
Update: I think Slate is probably taking the right mocking tone in its Trump Apocalypse Watch, and this entry about his ridiculous comments on judges is good.
It's annoying, but I have to keep re-assuring my kids that Trump is not going to become President.
* anyone who was taking Dilbert writer Scott Adams even half seriously on his "Trump as Master Persuader" meme should perhaps read his latest post in which he endorses Hilary Clinton for the obvious reason [/sarc] that she's now sounding persuasive and may well trigger a race war in which he [Adams] would be a target for assassination.
I wouldn't be surprised if he later reveals that anyone who believed him is a victim of his own persuasive powers. The guy's just a tad nutty, and an attention seeker.
* The Boston Globe has set up a very good looking site called STAT - Reporting from the Frontiers of Health and Medicine. (I don't think it's a great name though - Googling it comes up with lots of alternatives.) And it's from there that you find an article that raises a good point relevant to recent transplant news: How do you ask grieving parents to donate their son's penis.
* The Conversation looks at the question of whether East Coast lows that caused much flooding and wave damage the last few days are expected to become less or more frequent under global warming. The answer: modelling suggests they may become fewer, but those that do come could be stronger. I don't think that's an encouraging answer. Here's a screen shot from The Guardian yesterday of the before and after situation at that Sydney beach:
Update: I think Slate is probably taking the right mocking tone in its Trump Apocalypse Watch, and this entry about his ridiculous comments on judges is good.It's annoying, but I have to keep re-assuring my kids that Trump is not going to become President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)