Thursday, July 14, 2016
About apartments
Rent report: Units play catch up to houses in housing-short Sydney, Domain says | afr.com
Not sure if it's entirely reliable, but this article indicates Sydney is not oversupplied with residential units, but Brisbane very soon will be.
Not sure if it's entirely reliable, but this article indicates Sydney is not oversupplied with residential units, but Brisbane very soon will be.
The picture was different in Brisbane, where decade-low levels of
migration into southeast Queensland and the recent state budget boost
for first home buyers were weakening the rental market. Rents of units
fell to $375 from March's record $380 and houses slipped to $400 from
$410. While prices are still up, or equal to, their level of a year ago,
vacancy rates for both dwelling types have increased, suggesting rents
will fall further - especially given the large numbers of new apartments
due to settle in the Queensland capital, Dr Wilson said.
"The signs are all there for more supply than demand," he said. "It means downward pressure on rents in Brisbane."
IS prepares for the end (of holding territory)
Islamic State readies for fall of 'caliphate'
It's pretty much gone as I expected. They'll be dangerous for some time yet, of course, due to "off shore" terrorism. (And within Iraq, of course. Can you imagine the nightmare of policing a re-captured IS controlled city with a huge underground resistance?) But a couple of other observations:
a. the ABC has recently run a story with interviews of captured IS fighters in northern Iraq (all de-bearded and not looking like crazed killers at the moment) in which they complain that they were (and remain) motivated by their bad former treatment at the hands of the Iraqi Shiite controlled army. This makes it all the more plain that with the overthrow of Saddam and the major revival within Iraq of the old internal Islamic sectarian conflict, the ultimate effects of the war were not containable within Iraq. A reasonable sounding summary of the effect of the war appears today at Gulf News, actually:
b. How's the cyberwar against IS on line propaganda going? Both the US military and private hacker groups said they would be fighting them in cyberspace, but we hear very little about how that's gone.
It's pretty much gone as I expected. They'll be dangerous for some time yet, of course, due to "off shore" terrorism. (And within Iraq, of course. Can you imagine the nightmare of policing a re-captured IS controlled city with a huge underground resistance?) But a couple of other observations:
a. the ABC has recently run a story with interviews of captured IS fighters in northern Iraq (all de-bearded and not looking like crazed killers at the moment) in which they complain that they were (and remain) motivated by their bad former treatment at the hands of the Iraqi Shiite controlled army. This makes it all the more plain that with the overthrow of Saddam and the major revival within Iraq of the old internal Islamic sectarian conflict, the ultimate effects of the war were not containable within Iraq. A reasonable sounding summary of the effect of the war appears today at Gulf News, actually:
Likewise, before they started the war, many policymakers believed that democracy would emerge quickly once Saddam was gone. Ensuring that such fundamental and consequential assumptions are tested by “red teams” — those not supporting the associated policy — should be standard operating procedure.
There is also the reality that removing governments, as difficult as that can be, is not nearly as difficult as creating the security that a new government needs to consolidate its authority and earn legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Creating anything like a democracy in a society lacking many of its most basic prerequisites is a task of decades, not months.
The report said little about the legacy of the Iraq War, but it is important to consider. First and foremost, the war disrupted the regional balance of power. No longer in a position to distract and balance Iran, Iraq instead came under Iranian influence. Iran was free not just to develop a
meaningful nuclear programme, but also to intervene directly and via proxies in several countries. Sectarian fighting poisoned relations between Sunnis and Shiites throughout the region. The alienation felt by soldiers and officers of Saddam’s disbanded army fuelled Sunni
insurgency and, ultimately, led to the rise of Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).
b. How's the cyberwar against IS on line propaganda going? Both the US military and private hacker groups said they would be fighting them in cyberspace, but we hear very little about how that's gone.
Flicking the switch to vaudeville
Oh my. The state of British politics seems to have become a comedy script instead of something serious, with David Cameron starting a jolly jape that backfired on him, and ultimately resulting in a clown becoming Foreign Secretary. If such comedy themes continue to spread globally, he'll have another clown in the White House in November with whom he can exchange hair styling tips.
However, I half expect he'll have resigned for impregnating some young European foreign office staffer before then; and Trump: it's not going to happen.
Update: has there been any support from any media outlet for the appointment of Johnson? Can't say I've seen any anywhere: the reaction seems to be universal disbelief.
However, I half expect he'll have resigned for impregnating some young European foreign office staffer before then; and Trump: it's not going to happen.
Update: has there been any support from any media outlet for the appointment of Johnson? Can't say I've seen any anywhere: the reaction seems to be universal disbelief.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
The religious (sexual) imagination and radical Islam
The most remarkable thing about the chilling Four Corners' episode "Soldiers of Allah" on Monday night, in which a French Muslim undercover reporter secretly filmed conversations with radicalised Islamic wannabe terrorists and IS soldiers, was how much the young men were inspired by a specific, and very carnal, vision of the rewards of Heaven for a young male martyr. Yes, we're talking about the expectation of scores of beautiful houris, the young virginal women of Islamic fame, living in a grand palace, waiting to attend to all the needs (nudge nudge, wink wink) of a recently arrived martyr, not to mention the winged horse which will be the expected mode of heavenly transport.
It was weird listening to the conversation in which a guy in his mid twenties was painting this picture to his youngest recruit, a mere 16 year old, who seemed to be revelling in the promises with an almost masturbatory intensity.
Which made me think: one of the great practical advantages of Christianity is surely the Biblical lack of a clear and detailed explanation of the experience of Heaven. God knows, over-certainty of His* intentions has caused problem enough in the history of the religion, but I don't know that anyone can accuse it of causing horny young men to kill in the expectation that the sex they've missed out on on Earth will be on tap in the afterlife. If anything, I've always considered the message of both Jesus and Paul (whichever you might consider the "true" creator of Christianity) to be along the lines of "yes, Heaven is definitely there and is the just reward of the deserving, and it'll be great; but exactly how it works? - trust me, you don't need to understand the details and I'm not going to try to explain."
It's a peculiar thing, that I've surely noted before, but holding too much certainly on the nature of both this life, and the afterlife, can be a terribly, terribly dangerous thing. Even from the non-theistic point of view, the firm belief that you're just a meat robot acting out on decisions made subconsciously and without your real control is hardly conducive to moral behaviour. And at the other extreme, of course, is thinking that Heaven is about a fantastic sex life, at least if you are a martyr.
It's odd how the lesson seems to be "it's best for all concerned to be somewhat uncertain about the metaphysics of life".
* I don't really consider God is gendered, but I'm comfortable sticking with the male imagery.
It was weird listening to the conversation in which a guy in his mid twenties was painting this picture to his youngest recruit, a mere 16 year old, who seemed to be revelling in the promises with an almost masturbatory intensity.
Which made me think: one of the great practical advantages of Christianity is surely the Biblical lack of a clear and detailed explanation of the experience of Heaven. God knows, over-certainty of His* intentions has caused problem enough in the history of the religion, but I don't know that anyone can accuse it of causing horny young men to kill in the expectation that the sex they've missed out on on Earth will be on tap in the afterlife. If anything, I've always considered the message of both Jesus and Paul (whichever you might consider the "true" creator of Christianity) to be along the lines of "yes, Heaven is definitely there and is the just reward of the deserving, and it'll be great; but exactly how it works? - trust me, you don't need to understand the details and I'm not going to try to explain."
It's a peculiar thing, that I've surely noted before, but holding too much certainly on the nature of both this life, and the afterlife, can be a terribly, terribly dangerous thing. Even from the non-theistic point of view, the firm belief that you're just a meat robot acting out on decisions made subconsciously and without your real control is hardly conducive to moral behaviour. And at the other extreme, of course, is thinking that Heaven is about a fantastic sex life, at least if you are a martyr.
It's odd how the lesson seems to be "it's best for all concerned to be somewhat uncertain about the metaphysics of life".
* I don't really consider God is gendered, but I'm comfortable sticking with the male imagery.
Pokemoned
It's gained so much publicity so quickly, I feel I should have an opinion on the curious matter of Pokemon Go, the adult uptake of it, and the financial resurgence of a Japanese company on its back.
I dunno, just seems like innocent fun to me, actually. Perhaps it's just that I am still under the influence of recent time in Japan, where the line between kids' iconography and adult use of it is non-existent, but I find it hard to feel any indignation or annoyance at adult uptake of a somewhat silly kid's competitive game which does incorporate player co-operation and (gosh) outdoor physical activity.
Compared to some other things adults get interested in (violent video games, cage fighting, degrading porn, beheading infidels) how can I regret this?
I dunno, just seems like innocent fun to me, actually. Perhaps it's just that I am still under the influence of recent time in Japan, where the line between kids' iconography and adult use of it is non-existent, but I find it hard to feel any indignation or annoyance at adult uptake of a somewhat silly kid's competitive game which does incorporate player co-operation and (gosh) outdoor physical activity.
Compared to some other things adults get interested in (violent video games, cage fighting, degrading porn, beheading infidels) how can I regret this?
More curious images from Japan
This is now a common sign on Japanese train stations. People must have longer selfie sticks than I realised:
And one day, near a train station, we noticed this novelty in a kids' vending machine:
It appears to be underwear (dare I say "panties"?) for drinks bottles. My daughter was tempted to buy one the next day, but the vending machines had been reconfigured, and they were gone. I pointed out that if it weren't for the photo, this is something that, 20 years later, you might be uncertain whether it was real or part of a dream....
Update: I see that "panties for drink bottles" were noted on the internet last year. I now understand the condensation catching utility of them, and regret not having purchased one. Strictly the plaid design for me, though: I do have some boxers in similar colour.
And one day, near a train station, we noticed this novelty in a kids' vending machine:
It appears to be underwear (dare I say "panties"?) for drinks bottles. My daughter was tempted to buy one the next day, but the vending machines had been reconfigured, and they were gone. I pointed out that if it weren't for the photo, this is something that, 20 years later, you might be uncertain whether it was real or part of a dream....
Update: I see that "panties for drink bottles" were noted on the internet last year. I now understand the condensation catching utility of them, and regret not having purchased one. Strictly the plaid design for me, though: I do have some boxers in similar colour.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Election comments
* As I'm pretty sure I suggested a few months ago, the problem with a narrow win by the Coalition is that no one within it (or the broader public) will be entirely sure of the reason why, enabling both conservatives and the, um, not conservatives to blame each other. This is particularly the case given the wildly divergent swings across different seats, which seems to be the odd characteristic of this election.
* It seems that Queensland was much more "in play" for Labor than polling or punditry had predicted. But by voting in large numbers for Pauline Hanson, the embarrassing low level of serious political thought in the State was, unfortunately, once again on display. (By the way, who can doubt that her regular lightweight media exposure on Sunrise - as it was with Kevin Rudd - was largely responsible for her political re-emergence. The producers of that show have a lot to answer for, come the revolution!)
* I really wasn't paying that much close attention to interviews and such in this campaign, given I was trying to get enough work off my desk to go on a holiday. But yeah, it did seem Turnbull was underwhelming as a campaigner. Shorten was better than expected.
* As for the "Mediscare" campaign: I think it counted as an election campaign exaggeration, not a lie as such, and it is ridiculous for the Coalition to carry on as if they are above such tactics. (Joyce and his $100 lamb leg roasts of campaigns past, to note one oft repeated example.) The Coalition's "Labor's War on Business" was a pretty good example of silly campaign exaggeration from the other direction, too.
* Speaking of scare campaigns, why on earth was no one in Labor running legitimate ads about "Remember the surprise the Coalition sprung on you about Tertiary fees after the last election?" Especially given that no one knows what the ultimate policy on tertiary fees from the Coalition will be this term. Maybe they decided no one under 25 was going to vote Coalition, anyway?
* I think the Coalition's policy platform is disappointing, for the following reasons:
a. the soundest economic view seems to be that the distortions in investment caused by negative gearing on residential property does indeed need to be addressed for the long term health of the economy, and the Labor approach to that was responsible and reasonable. That the Coalition should reject any changes to it shows them to still be the captives of the modern equivalent of the "white shoe brigade", with the construction industry eventually paying the price for short term gain. There is already plenty of concern being expressed about a large oversupply in unit construction in the 3 major cities, and there deserves to be a serious winding back on that.
b. As often happens, I know someone who voted against self interest, in that he works in the financial/retirement advice business and was bemoaning that the Coalition's superannuation changes were unfair and bad for his clients, and he even admitted that Labor's approach to reforming it was simpler and better in principle. He still would not vote Labor, though, because - Labor. Again, Labor, I think, had a better policy on something important for the long term.
c. Labor, of course, I can criticise for refusing to contemplate even a small increase in the GST as being "regressive", when I think it is an obvious helpful and fast contribution to budgetary issues.
* Despite that last point, overall, I think Labor did act pretty responsibly and transparently in detailing its economic policy and plans, and I was satisfied that the scheme (short term slightly higher deficits pulled in by the ongoing effect of its longer term policy changes) was plausible. Of course, it might have got blown out of the water by a second global financial crisis within the next couple of years of some similar magnitude to the last; but then again, it's not as if the Liberals are going to be substantially better off responding under their policies.
* It's also disappointing that climate change was a "no go" area for both major parties in this campaign. With the Nationals feeling good after their performance, who knows what this will mean? They worry about coal mines for the "wrong" reason, but at least they still worry about coal mines. And then you have Katter, the Mad Hatter who seems all over the shop on climate change (in that he has been known to fret about the barrier reef and acidification) apparently trying to get government help for coal mining rail in Queensland. The best we can hope for is that a Clinton win in the US, and possible aggressive climate change policies by her, will re-focus attention on what we're actually not doing fast enough.
So yeah, I voted Labor and am happy to explain why. I think it's an entirely justifiable thing to do for a centrist voter at the moment, as its policy instincts are, on the whole, still sounder than that being displayed within the fractious Coalition.
* It seems that Queensland was much more "in play" for Labor than polling or punditry had predicted. But by voting in large numbers for Pauline Hanson, the embarrassing low level of serious political thought in the State was, unfortunately, once again on display. (By the way, who can doubt that her regular lightweight media exposure on Sunrise - as it was with Kevin Rudd - was largely responsible for her political re-emergence. The producers of that show have a lot to answer for, come the revolution!)
* I really wasn't paying that much close attention to interviews and such in this campaign, given I was trying to get enough work off my desk to go on a holiday. But yeah, it did seem Turnbull was underwhelming as a campaigner. Shorten was better than expected.
* As for the "Mediscare" campaign: I think it counted as an election campaign exaggeration, not a lie as such, and it is ridiculous for the Coalition to carry on as if they are above such tactics. (Joyce and his $100 lamb leg roasts of campaigns past, to note one oft repeated example.) The Coalition's "Labor's War on Business" was a pretty good example of silly campaign exaggeration from the other direction, too.
* Speaking of scare campaigns, why on earth was no one in Labor running legitimate ads about "Remember the surprise the Coalition sprung on you about Tertiary fees after the last election?" Especially given that no one knows what the ultimate policy on tertiary fees from the Coalition will be this term. Maybe they decided no one under 25 was going to vote Coalition, anyway?
* I think the Coalition's policy platform is disappointing, for the following reasons:
a. the soundest economic view seems to be that the distortions in investment caused by negative gearing on residential property does indeed need to be addressed for the long term health of the economy, and the Labor approach to that was responsible and reasonable. That the Coalition should reject any changes to it shows them to still be the captives of the modern equivalent of the "white shoe brigade", with the construction industry eventually paying the price for short term gain. There is already plenty of concern being expressed about a large oversupply in unit construction in the 3 major cities, and there deserves to be a serious winding back on that.
b. As often happens, I know someone who voted against self interest, in that he works in the financial/retirement advice business and was bemoaning that the Coalition's superannuation changes were unfair and bad for his clients, and he even admitted that Labor's approach to reforming it was simpler and better in principle. He still would not vote Labor, though, because - Labor. Again, Labor, I think, had a better policy on something important for the long term.
c. Labor, of course, I can criticise for refusing to contemplate even a small increase in the GST as being "regressive", when I think it is an obvious helpful and fast contribution to budgetary issues.
* Despite that last point, overall, I think Labor did act pretty responsibly and transparently in detailing its economic policy and plans, and I was satisfied that the scheme (short term slightly higher deficits pulled in by the ongoing effect of its longer term policy changes) was plausible. Of course, it might have got blown out of the water by a second global financial crisis within the next couple of years of some similar magnitude to the last; but then again, it's not as if the Liberals are going to be substantially better off responding under their policies.
* It's also disappointing that climate change was a "no go" area for both major parties in this campaign. With the Nationals feeling good after their performance, who knows what this will mean? They worry about coal mines for the "wrong" reason, but at least they still worry about coal mines. And then you have Katter, the Mad Hatter who seems all over the shop on climate change (in that he has been known to fret about the barrier reef and acidification) apparently trying to get government help for coal mining rail in Queensland. The best we can hope for is that a Clinton win in the US, and possible aggressive climate change policies by her, will re-focus attention on what we're actually not doing fast enough.
So yeah, I voted Labor and am happy to explain why. I think it's an entirely justifiable thing to do for a centrist voter at the moment, as its policy instincts are, on the whole, still sounder than that being displayed within the fractious Coalition.
Japanese products you didn't know you needed
When catching the Shinkansen in Japan, you should always check the seat pocket in front of you for the rail shopping catalogue that's likely to be there. It's a bit reminiscent of the old Sharper Image catalogues from the US (younger readers may not even know about them, I guess); perhaps less techy, but with added Japanese idiosyncrasy:
Here are three products, for example:
For the 28 year old man who can't wait to get to 68, there's Silver Ash instant grey hair goop. The ladies love the older, distinguished Japanese Steve Martin look, apparently.
Here's one for a problem I sometimes find, especially if I have lost a couple of kilos on a diet and can't decide which notch my pants belt should now go to. Yes, that can make it tricky to keep your shirt tucked in neatly. What I never realised was that I could solve that with another belt, this one just for my shirt:
At current exchange rates, that comes in at about $75, though. Neatness comes at a price.
And what about that long held regret that you can't see inside your own ear hole? Well, do I have the probe for you:
She seems either surprised, amazed, or happy. Not entirely sure what my reaction would be...
Here are three products, for example:
For the 28 year old man who can't wait to get to 68, there's Silver Ash instant grey hair goop. The ladies love the older, distinguished Japanese Steve Martin look, apparently.
Here's one for a problem I sometimes find, especially if I have lost a couple of kilos on a diet and can't decide which notch my pants belt should now go to. Yes, that can make it tricky to keep your shirt tucked in neatly. What I never realised was that I could solve that with another belt, this one just for my shirt:
And what about that long held regret that you can't see inside your own ear hole? Well, do I have the probe for you:
She seems either surprised, amazed, or happy. Not entirely sure what my reaction would be...
Monday, July 11, 2016
Andrew Bolt crosses the line
I'm sure it's not just me. I'm sure that Andrew Bolt has become way, way less sensible as he has aged. Is this what happens when you become a multi-media right wing "star" and need to pump up the output to justify (what I assume is) a very substantial income?
These days, I find him positively offensive when it comes to his taunting dog-whistles about refugees and any crime they may be involved in. He takes one semi-valid point (that the media can be overly politically correct about protecting racial identity when it comes to talking about crimes committed by recent immigrants) but continually headlines posts with "Who let them in?" Why he doesn't just outright call for a renewed White Australia policy, I don't know.
This is lazy, bigoted commentary that is up there with the intellectual gravitas of Pauline Hanson. Is he saying that there are no deserving African or Islamic refugees? Is he suggesting that Immigration screening can plausibly include a foolproof method for predicting whether refugees (or their teenage children) will get involved in gang related, or other, crime? Does he forget Vietnamese involvement in drug crime in the 1980's that caused consternation at the time but is something that (as far as I know) has passed with increased societal integration?
Because he clearly can't credibly argue these points, he avoids the specifics. Just as he avoids the matter of the Iraq invasion being ultimately behind the current massive problem of Islamic refugee movement into Europe. As I have said before, surely someone like him should feel at least a bit sheepish and accept that his former positions have not had great outcomes and that the West is paying for it now?
I don't call for him or John Howard to recant and apologise on Iraq - given that I also thought at the time that the invasion was justifiable and might have had good outcomes. And we can never know what would have happened in an alternative history scenario. But I'm not going to do what Bolt does and act as if the Right is always right and look for someone else to blame. He now just follows the tropes of the nutty Fox News and other Right wing commentary in the US, where everything is Obama's fault.
His latest racially tinged bit of nonsense is his completely over the top reaction to the Dallas shootings - that this was the "first skirmish" in a full blown "race war" that had just ignited.
He subsequently spends time on figures noting comparative figures of black on white and white on black crime - while not noting (not that I have seen) how Trump in the US had tweeted 8 months ago a completely wrong figure about white victim-hood that was out by a factor of at least 5. (And I have seen that figure repeated in a recent thread at Breitbart. Trump followers will never get that dangerously wrong figure out their heads.) Having said that, bizarrely, Trump's short response to the Dallas shootings was, compared to Bolt, full of restraint. And even some conservative commentators in America have been starting to note concern about American policing.
Instead, Bolt goes with "End this racist war on whites"(!!)
The best response to this panicky commentary of Bolt's type was by Ross Douthat's column "Are We Unravelling", in which he echoes Obama's point that despite the current problems, the current American situation is really no where near as bad in terms of social and political upheaval as it was in the 1960's. But this doesn't suit the "it's always the Left's fault" meme of Fox News, Breitbart and Andrew Bolt. So historical perspective matters nothing to them.
Clearly, Bolt has been unreliable and swayed by all the wrong people on many, many issues for a long time now: climate change, of course, where amateur backyard and eccentric scientists have always been more convincing to him than scientific professional bodies; his help in publicising the disgraceful 20 year old rumour campaign run by the thoroughly discredited Michael Smith and Larry Pickering against Julia Gillard; the self pitying martyrdom (encouraged by the IPA and, I would guess, Murdoch's Australian minions for PR purposes) of his defence of s.18C action bought against him instead of just correcting errors about individuals and apologising; his endorsement of the gormless Tony Abbott and utter loathing of Turnbull; his acting as if ugly internet comments are solely the purview of the Left, while ignoring the blatant ugly misogyny and racist undercurrent in many Right wing commentary threads since Obama took office, such as at Breitbart, Fox and Catallaxy.
I have thought him foolish and annoying in the extreme in his advocacy on those issues, but his race and immigration commentary is now just so silly, and offensive, that it completely crosses the line of what I find acceptable (or forgiveable?) in political punditry.
He's become a caricature of sensible political and cultural analysis, thoroughly devoid of any common sense he once had.
No one should read anything into the fact he is on my blogroll - if he stays on it, perhaps I should just list him under a new category "Gone Stupid and Offensive"?
These days, I find him positively offensive when it comes to his taunting dog-whistles about refugees and any crime they may be involved in. He takes one semi-valid point (that the media can be overly politically correct about protecting racial identity when it comes to talking about crimes committed by recent immigrants) but continually headlines posts with "Who let them in?" Why he doesn't just outright call for a renewed White Australia policy, I don't know.
This is lazy, bigoted commentary that is up there with the intellectual gravitas of Pauline Hanson. Is he saying that there are no deserving African or Islamic refugees? Is he suggesting that Immigration screening can plausibly include a foolproof method for predicting whether refugees (or their teenage children) will get involved in gang related, or other, crime? Does he forget Vietnamese involvement in drug crime in the 1980's that caused consternation at the time but is something that (as far as I know) has passed with increased societal integration?
Because he clearly can't credibly argue these points, he avoids the specifics. Just as he avoids the matter of the Iraq invasion being ultimately behind the current massive problem of Islamic refugee movement into Europe. As I have said before, surely someone like him should feel at least a bit sheepish and accept that his former positions have not had great outcomes and that the West is paying for it now?
I don't call for him or John Howard to recant and apologise on Iraq - given that I also thought at the time that the invasion was justifiable and might have had good outcomes. And we can never know what would have happened in an alternative history scenario. But I'm not going to do what Bolt does and act as if the Right is always right and look for someone else to blame. He now just follows the tropes of the nutty Fox News and other Right wing commentary in the US, where everything is Obama's fault.
His latest racially tinged bit of nonsense is his completely over the top reaction to the Dallas shootings - that this was the "first skirmish" in a full blown "race war" that had just ignited.
He subsequently spends time on figures noting comparative figures of black on white and white on black crime - while not noting (not that I have seen) how Trump in the US had tweeted 8 months ago a completely wrong figure about white victim-hood that was out by a factor of at least 5. (And I have seen that figure repeated in a recent thread at Breitbart. Trump followers will never get that dangerously wrong figure out their heads.) Having said that, bizarrely, Trump's short response to the Dallas shootings was, compared to Bolt, full of restraint. And even some conservative commentators in America have been starting to note concern about American policing.
Instead, Bolt goes with "End this racist war on whites"(!!)
The best response to this panicky commentary of Bolt's type was by Ross Douthat's column "Are We Unravelling", in which he echoes Obama's point that despite the current problems, the current American situation is really no where near as bad in terms of social and political upheaval as it was in the 1960's. But this doesn't suit the "it's always the Left's fault" meme of Fox News, Breitbart and Andrew Bolt. So historical perspective matters nothing to them.
Clearly, Bolt has been unreliable and swayed by all the wrong people on many, many issues for a long time now: climate change, of course, where amateur backyard and eccentric scientists have always been more convincing to him than scientific professional bodies; his help in publicising the disgraceful 20 year old rumour campaign run by the thoroughly discredited Michael Smith and Larry Pickering against Julia Gillard; the self pitying martyrdom (encouraged by the IPA and, I would guess, Murdoch's Australian minions for PR purposes) of his defence of s.18C action bought against him instead of just correcting errors about individuals and apologising; his endorsement of the gormless Tony Abbott and utter loathing of Turnbull; his acting as if ugly internet comments are solely the purview of the Left, while ignoring the blatant ugly misogyny and racist undercurrent in many Right wing commentary threads since Obama took office, such as at Breitbart, Fox and Catallaxy.
I have thought him foolish and annoying in the extreme in his advocacy on those issues, but his race and immigration commentary is now just so silly, and offensive, that it completely crosses the line of what I find acceptable (or forgiveable?) in political punditry.
He's become a caricature of sensible political and cultural analysis, thoroughly devoid of any common sense he once had.
No one should read anything into the fact he is on my blogroll - if he stays on it, perhaps I should just list him under a new category "Gone Stupid and Offensive"?
The complicated world of Abenomics
Here's a few posts about the difficult matter of the Japanese economy:
Follow the Money: Meanwhile, in Japan, Household Consumption Continues to Fall
(Indicating that adjusting the tax burden away from companies and more onto consumers is not always a good idea.)
Halfway Around The World, Brexit Hits Japan's Already Soft Economy
Thanks, Cameron!
And is the whole world "Turning Japanese"?
I really think so...
As an aside: I was a bit surprised to hear from someone with a bit of local knowledge that one part of Japan I'm somewhat familiar with (the North East Iwate prefecture) is doing better than it used to, due to some businesses relocating factories to the area which was formerly known as a relative poor part of Japan due to it having little industry. And it's true, the capital of the prefecture, Morioka, seemed more youthful and busier to me that it had when I first visited it 18 years ago. For a country with a demographic problem, the shopping centre seemed full of kids on a Sunday.
Follow the Money: Meanwhile, in Japan, Household Consumption Continues to Fall
(Indicating that adjusting the tax burden away from companies and more onto consumers is not always a good idea.)
Halfway Around The World, Brexit Hits Japan's Already Soft Economy
Thanks, Cameron!
And is the whole world "Turning Japanese"?
I really think so...
As an aside: I was a bit surprised to hear from someone with a bit of local knowledge that one part of Japan I'm somewhat familiar with (the North East Iwate prefecture) is doing better than it used to, due to some businesses relocating factories to the area which was formerly known as a relative poor part of Japan due to it having little industry. And it's true, the capital of the prefecture, Morioka, seemed more youthful and busier to me that it had when I first visited it 18 years ago. For a country with a demographic problem, the shopping centre seemed full of kids on a Sunday.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Some somewhat amusing Japanese material
I think Clive James, with his clips of silly Japanese "challenge" game shows when he was at his height of TV popularity back in the 1980's and 90's, gave people a misleading impression of the country's supposedly "wild and crazy", if not cruel, sense of humour. (I am told those shows were more or less just a passing fad - so it would be a bit like the Japanese thinking they understood Australians by watching re-runs of "It's a Knockout".)
Having said that, it's OK to find amusement at some Japanese images which are, well, unusual from a Western perspective.
For example, I took from the Japan Times:
This sums up the odd juxtapositions in Japan so well - the formality of the traditionally dressed and classically pretty "Miss Sake" at one end (in Australia, I think we would only end up with a somewhat tattooed "Miss Beer" wearing ugg boots and tracky pants), and at the other end of the line, after the serious officials, a really silly looking mascot - despite the Japanese Sake Fair presumably not really needing any attempt at "kawaii" to attract attendees. (Although it's true, I suppose you could make the same argument about mascot superfluousness of the Olympics.)
Anyway, I just love the photo.
Later, in a book shop, I found this in the kid's section:
Yes, I do believe I stumbled across a relatively recent Japanese children's character, the "Bum Detective".
Now again, I know we've had our very own series of silly "bum" inspired novels for kids (The Day My Bum Went Psycho, for one), but I doubt they were illustrated, and I find the Japanese concept amusingly peculiar in its own right, as per this explanation:
That's all I have time for, right now...
Having said that, it's OK to find amusement at some Japanese images which are, well, unusual from a Western perspective.
For example, I took from the Japan Times:
This sums up the odd juxtapositions in Japan so well - the formality of the traditionally dressed and classically pretty "Miss Sake" at one end (in Australia, I think we would only end up with a somewhat tattooed "Miss Beer" wearing ugg boots and tracky pants), and at the other end of the line, after the serious officials, a really silly looking mascot - despite the Japanese Sake Fair presumably not really needing any attempt at "kawaii" to attract attendees. (Although it's true, I suppose you could make the same argument about mascot superfluousness of the Olympics.)
Anyway, I just love the photo.
Later, in a book shop, I found this in the kid's section:
Yes, I do believe I stumbled across a relatively recent Japanese children's character, the "Bum Detective".
Now again, I know we've had our very own series of silly "bum" inspired novels for kids (The Day My Bum Went Psycho, for one), but I doubt they were illustrated, and I find the Japanese concept amusingly peculiar in its own right, as per this explanation:
The Bum Detective behaves like a perfect English gentleman, except that his face looks like a butt, and he blows farts from his face! He is very kind to ladies and likes tea and sweet-potato cakes. He often says, “I smell trouble,” and solves it. In this first title of the series, the Bum Detective tries to find a thief who stole all of the sweets at a shop. Young readers can enjoy labyrinths and quizzes as well as the story, which has them trying to figure out the truth together with the Bum Detective.
That's all I have time for, right now...
Friday, July 08, 2016
An armed society's a polite society, hey? (And see update below)
Actually, it's one where the police fear of anyone carrying a pistol, especially if they're black, makes them ridiculously trigger happy; and protests can turn into revenge shoot ups which "good guys with guns" have not a chance in hell of stopping.
(And if it turns out this is actually IS inspired terrorism - it will scarcely make a difference to my points. It's legal to walk around carrying rifles in Texas - how much of an easier run can you give to a wannabe sniper?)
Updates: you can read the same points, made at greater length, and more eloquence, in a piece by Adam Gopnik at the New Yorker, entitled "The Horrific, Predictable Results of an Armed Citizenry".
Also, it's hard to comprehend how "open carry" advocates cannot understand (or will deny the obvious) that their turning up at demonstrations in an urban environment creates a obvious problem. As explained in a Dallas paper:
As if it couldn't cause enormous diversionary confusion.
And how's this for a pathetic and "dumb as" response from an Open Carry advocate in the same article:
We can at least be thankful that similar gun fetishists in Australia do not wield significant political power.
(And if it turns out this is actually IS inspired terrorism - it will scarcely make a difference to my points. It's legal to walk around carrying rifles in Texas - how much of an easier run can you give to a wannabe sniper?)
Updates: you can read the same points, made at greater length, and more eloquence, in a piece by Adam Gopnik at the New Yorker, entitled "The Horrific, Predictable Results of an Armed Citizenry".
Also, it's hard to comprehend how "open carry" advocates cannot understand (or will deny the obvious) that their turning up at demonstrations in an urban environment creates a obvious problem. As explained in a Dallas paper:
He said Friday that about 20 people in "ammo gear and protective equipment and rifles slung over their shoulder" participated in the Black Lives Matter rally downtown on Thursday night.Earlier in the report, it says:
"When the shooting started, at different angles, they started running," he said. "We started catching."
Then police interviewed them.
Rawlings said open carry brings confusion to a shooting scene.
"What I would do is look for the people with guns," he said.
Max Geron, a Dallas police major, talked about the confusion during the shooting in a post on a law enforcement website.
"There was also the challenge of sorting out witnesses from potential suspects," Geron said. "Texas is an open carry state, and there were a number of armed demonstrators taking part. There was confusion on the radio about the description of the suspects and whether or not one or more was in custody."
It was not immediately clear Saturday whether any of those who were legally armed delayed or hampered the police response to the shooter, Micah Xavier Johnson, 25, of Mesquite. Dallas police did not respond to questions.
As if it couldn't cause enormous diversionary confusion.
And how's this for a pathetic and "dumb as" response from an Open Carry advocate in the same article:
But C.J. Grisham, president of Open Carry Texas, said police should be able to separate the good guys from the bad guys in such a scenario because "the bad guys are the ones shooting."According to all reports, the Dallas police force has a good reputation in the country, a black chief, and it sounds as if there was never any prospect it would do anything to aggravate a peaceful demonstration. In a saner country, civilians turning up to it with long rifles would be told by police to get out of there; there is no good cause to be carrying a rifle in an inner city.
"If you can't identify a threat, you shouldn't be wearing a uniform," he said.
Grisham said some in law enforcement look at law-abiding gun owners as a threat.
"It's not that difficult to tell the difference between a bad actor and a good actor," he said. "The good guys are going to obey commands, the bad guys are not."
We can at least be thankful that similar gun fetishists in Australia do not wield significant political power.
The aging American priest
Revealing the 'taboo' of retirement for Catholic priests; declining population, burnout
The figures are pretty dire:
The figures are pretty dire:
In 1965, there were 58,632 priests in the U.S. with 94 percent of them(By the way, odd that this story was found in the medical section of phys.org!)
in active ministry; in 2014, there were 38,275 priests with only 68
percent in active ministry. In 2009, the average age of a priest was 63,
whereas the average age in 1970 was 35. By 2019, half of all active
priests will be at the minimum retirement age of 70.
Anti-Semitism and climate change denialism
Hey Jason - I think it's a very silly suggestion in your tweet that Clive Hamilton "comes close" to tarring all climate change denialists with anti-Semitism when in his article he specifically details how Bolt openly repudiated Robert's Jewish banker conspiracy mongering. (Sure, Hamilton doesn't "give credit" to Bolt for that, for reasons he explains, but Bolt's stance is still a large part of the article.)
You may not like Hamilton, but an article reminding us of the conspiracy nuttiness of a new Senator (and that of prominent denialists Jonova and her husband) is a good public service, if you ask me.
You may not like Hamilton, but an article reminding us of the conspiracy nuttiness of a new Senator (and that of prominent denialists Jonova and her husband) is a good public service, if you ask me.
Climate sensitivity estimates back where they were
Is it time to freak out about the climate sensitivity estimates from energy budget models?
As was half expected at the time they came out, the lower climate sensitivity estimates based on energy budget models look to be biased low. The IPCC's lowering of the bottom end for the range of possible sensitivity was probably premature.
As was half expected at the time they came out, the lower climate sensitivity estimates based on energy budget models look to be biased low. The IPCC's lowering of the bottom end for the range of possible sensitivity was probably premature.
Japan in summer
Have you noticed the weather in Tokyo this week? Last Sunday (my last day there), it was 35 degrees; yesterday - 36!
This is the first time I have spent much time in Japan in summer, and yes, it can indeed be very humid and hot. I also suspect that sprawling Tokyo would have one of the hottest "urban heat island" effects around, and I wonder how much of that is reflected in the temperatures.
Googling the topic: hey, my hunch that there is a huge UHI effect in that city is right:
The good news: I was surprised at how well airconditioned the Tokyo metro trains and stations were. I'm not sure whether the above ground parts of Toyko Station are as good, though: certainly, on one previous day we were there, when it wasn't as hot as later in the week, it seemed there was inadequate airconditioning in large sections, and it was quite unpleasant. But perhaps it was just that day?
Outside of Tokyo, the humid heat (in the high 20's and low 30's quite a few days) was still fairly unpleasant for the on-foot tourist. But we did only have one day with some interference from rain, so perhaps we were lucky in that regard.
As for dressing for the hot weather: you will read that shorts are mainly for the younger male in Japan, but I think it fair to say that the willingness of middle aged Japanese men to wear them must have increased in recent years. (There were certainly many on sale at Uniqlo, too.) I regretted that I had only brought one pair with me.
And as for long, slim legged trousers: given that I have only recently acquired some relatively slim leg chinos myself (look, they may have been in fashion for 5 to 10 years already, but cotton chinos can last nearly a decade if you can control your weight - OK?) I had not realised until this trip how they make for such hot and sweaty legs in hot and humid weather.
Honestly, men (and women) who wear them outdoors in summer are fashion victims, if you ask me.
In any event, if you have a choice, I would say it is obvious that the height of summer is not the preferred time to be in Japan. Autumn and (especially) spring would have to be the pick of the seasons.
This is the first time I have spent much time in Japan in summer, and yes, it can indeed be very humid and hot. I also suspect that sprawling Tokyo would have one of the hottest "urban heat island" effects around, and I wonder how much of that is reflected in the temperatures.
Googling the topic: hey, my hunch that there is a huge UHI effect in that city is right:
Over the past 100 years, Tokyo's average temperature has increased by about three degrees Celsius, and that of Osaka has increased by two degrees Celsius (C). Since it is said that global warming has raised the Japan's average temperature by about one degree C, the temperature increase due to the UHI effect is probably about two degrees in Tokyo and about one degree in Osaka.
Along with the UHI effect, an increasing number of patients suffering from heat stroke and other heat disorders have recently been admitted to emergency rooms. In Tokyo, the number of such patients brought to hospitals by ambulances increased to 1,300 persons in 2007 from 200 in 1996. Some studies show a correlation between deaths from heat stroke and the heat experienced during extremely hot days and sweltering summer nights.(There are lots more articles about UHI in Japan if you care to Google it.)
The good news: I was surprised at how well airconditioned the Tokyo metro trains and stations were. I'm not sure whether the above ground parts of Toyko Station are as good, though: certainly, on one previous day we were there, when it wasn't as hot as later in the week, it seemed there was inadequate airconditioning in large sections, and it was quite unpleasant. But perhaps it was just that day?
Outside of Tokyo, the humid heat (in the high 20's and low 30's quite a few days) was still fairly unpleasant for the on-foot tourist. But we did only have one day with some interference from rain, so perhaps we were lucky in that regard.
As for dressing for the hot weather: you will read that shorts are mainly for the younger male in Japan, but I think it fair to say that the willingness of middle aged Japanese men to wear them must have increased in recent years. (There were certainly many on sale at Uniqlo, too.) I regretted that I had only brought one pair with me.
And as for long, slim legged trousers: given that I have only recently acquired some relatively slim leg chinos myself (look, they may have been in fashion for 5 to 10 years already, but cotton chinos can last nearly a decade if you can control your weight - OK?) I had not realised until this trip how they make for such hot and sweaty legs in hot and humid weather.
Honestly, men (and women) who wear them outdoors in summer are fashion victims, if you ask me.
In any event, if you have a choice, I would say it is obvious that the height of summer is not the preferred time to be in Japan. Autumn and (especially) spring would have to be the pick of the seasons.
Flying to Japan - via Jetstar Dreamliner
One great thing about living in Brisbane is the frequent cheap airfares on sale for Japan (assuming you want to holiday there - and you should) via Jetstar from the Gold Coast.
This recent trip, the first one I've been on for 6 years was on a new-ish plane - the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
First observation: I had forgotten about how this plane was made with really flexible carbon fibre wings, so I was surprised to see how high they flex upwards just in normal cruising, level flight:
OK, so it's hard to give the correct impression from photographing it, but that is a "level" shot out of the window, and believe me, the tip of that wing is riding high.
As for the interior: I thought the seats were nice (we're talking economy, by the way), with the flexible headrest part (with "wings" you can tilt up to form a bit of a cradle while trying to sleep) a particularly nice feature. Even the legroom seems quite adequate to me, and overhead lockers were large. The "mood lighting", which I remember reading about when it was being built, is nice enough, but not all that noticeable. The windows with the electronic frosting were large and good for someone (like me) who likes to spend a lot of time peering outside.
But on the downside, and it is quite a downside: who on earth designed the toilets? Is the lid which will not sit back properly a deliberate thing to stop attempts at squatting on the toilet seat (there was a "no squatting" diagram on the wall, so I assume this can be an issue). Why is how to flush the toilet not made more obvious? Why did the toilet on the trip over flush unexpectedly all the time? Has any other airliner every had twin toilets with such a lightweight wall between the two stalls?
The stalls themselves are really noticeably small, and on the daytime flight over, I also doubted the aircraft had been designed with enough of them. (Yes, I know, line up for toilets can be common on all long haul flights on any aircraft, but these ones were really overused.) The overnight flight back was much better in that regard, though.
As for Jetstar service: well, they are a pretty "no nonsense" sort of airline, so you don't expect to get a lot of attention from cabin staff. I thought they were OK overall. (They could afford to get a bit of a better look with their uniforms, though, surely - especially with the men wearing pretty much just a polo shirt.)
So the Dreamliner: a good aircraft, marred (at least in Jetstar's case) by terrible toilet arrangements.
Thursday, July 07, 2016
Two Brexit views
First, I see from James Annan's blog that it had an immediate bad effect on academics in England, whose working life was, it seems, already uncertain enough.
But today in The Guardian, a bit of a surprising defence of Brexit from Simon Jenkins, although I do find his analogy here somewhat amusing:
But today in The Guardian, a bit of a surprising defence of Brexit from Simon Jenkins, although I do find his analogy here somewhat amusing:
Brexit is starting to deliver. British politics was constipated and has now overdosed on laxative. It is experiencing a great evacuation. It has got rid of a prime minister and is about to get rid of a leader of the opposition. It will soon be rid of a chancellor of the exchequer and a lord chancellor. It is also rid of two, if not four, Tory heirs apparent. Across the spectrum the left is on the brink of upheaval and perhaps historic realignment, if only the Liberal Democrats have the guts to engineer it. The Greens and Ukip have both lost their leaders. An entire political class is on the way out. As Oscar Wilde said of the death of Little Nell, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh.It seems to me that Jenkins' welcoming attitude, even though he voted to stay, is from a Left wing perspective. But he paints such a positive picture of its good effects, you have to question his voting judgement in the first place.
A Krugman review
Money: The Brave New Uncertainty of Mervyn King by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books
Here's another readable and intelligent review by Paul Krugman of a significant economics book.
Here's another readable and intelligent review by Paul Krugman of a significant economics book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)