‘You think this is easy?’: Trump questions Clinton’s health at Ohio rally | US news | The Guardian: “You think this is easy?” Trump asked. “In this beautiful room that’s 122 degrees. It is hot, and it is always hot when I perform because the crowds are so big. The rooms were not designed for this kind of crowd. I don’t know, folks. You think Hillary Clinton would be able to stand up here and do this for an hour? I don’t know.”He didn't "question" her health, he taunted her about it.
The Republican nominee later went on to add of his Democratic rival, “Now she’s lying in bed, getting better and we want her better, we want her back on the trail, right?”
Thursday, September 15, 2016
What a jerk
The reviews are in
Just noticed a comment by CL at Catallaxy regarding Pauline Hanson's speech in the Senate yesterday (the one where she rails against Muslims, immigration generally, Halal food, foreign investment, free trade, the Family Court, and welfare bludgers) that reads:
It is funny, warm and just plain real. The stand-out oration of the new Parliament.Of course he likes it. He's a sad refugee from the 1950's, longing for a return to that decade, as is Hanson. (Although I note the irony that twice divorced Pauline may well have found herself stuck in one of her unhappy marriages were we to emulate the 1950's divorce system today.)
Good, but just a tad late
Hillary Clinton’s new doctor’s letter, annotated - The Washington Post
Unlike Trump's ridiculous doctor's letter, the Clinton one today released about her health is detailed, reads well, and explains a lot. Pity it wasn't done, say, last Saturday; and that there wasn't then special provision made for Hillary to sit down during the ceremony, under shade.
There has been some very ridiculous media coverage of this matter - even by the liberal press - but there remains no doubt that a pre-faint disclosure of mild pneumonia would have prevented some of it. (Of course, there would also have been a downside to this too - Trumpkin nutters, who will never believe she isn't on her death bed, would have said she's a Typhoid Mary by going out in public, regardless of what her doctor says.)
Unlike Trump's ridiculous doctor's letter, the Clinton one today released about her health is detailed, reads well, and explains a lot. Pity it wasn't done, say, last Saturday; and that there wasn't then special provision made for Hillary to sit down during the ceremony, under shade.
There has been some very ridiculous media coverage of this matter - even by the liberal press - but there remains no doubt that a pre-faint disclosure of mild pneumonia would have prevented some of it. (Of course, there would also have been a downside to this too - Trumpkin nutters, who will never believe she isn't on her death bed, would have said she's a Typhoid Mary by going out in public, regardless of what her doctor says.)
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
The Shriver incident
Lefty identity politics and emphasis on victimhood can obviously be a silly pain, especially at Universities, and it seems there is finally some mainstream push back against "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" in the US. (And perhaps here, given the complete lack of the media defence of the s.18C aboriginal claimant in the QUT case.) I tend not to dwell on this a very serious matter - I suspect that most students can get by happily enough by ignoring the activists on campus, just as I used to ignore whatever the socialist students called themselves back in the late 70's and early 80's when I did my degree for free. (I lucked out during that window of opportunity.)
But I'm a bit surprised to not see more publicity given to the recent kerfuffle at the Brisbane Writers Festival, when Lionel Shriver got stuck into the silliness of recent complaints about cultural appropriation.
It apparently did not go over well with many in the audience, and an account of the talk and its aftermath made it into the New York Times.
Now, I've dissed Shriver a bit before: she is on the eccentric side (although I think she freely admits that), and I thought her complaint that people treat libertarians (as she claims to be) as kooks was wrongheaded, given that many of her stated positions in the same article were not actually typically libertarian. But The Guardian printed her entire Festival speech, and really, it is extremely hard to see what's objectionable in it. (I suspect that she might pay to be a bit more skeptical of the details of some of the reports of "cultural appropriation" incidents on US universities; but that's just my hunch that the media sometimes exaggerates the degree of seriousness of individual incidents. But this is a minor quibble to what is basically a well argued case.)
And, let me say, that the readers of The Guardian do themselves much credit by also (as far as I can see) agreeing with her by a substantial majority.
What I think is lacking is enough admission by writers and literary figures who are Left inclined (and gee, probably 90% of them are) that some of their fellow authors and commentators have just gone too far, and need to come back to something approaching common sense. But can't say I'm noticing much of that...
But I'm a bit surprised to not see more publicity given to the recent kerfuffle at the Brisbane Writers Festival, when Lionel Shriver got stuck into the silliness of recent complaints about cultural appropriation.
It apparently did not go over well with many in the audience, and an account of the talk and its aftermath made it into the New York Times.
Now, I've dissed Shriver a bit before: she is on the eccentric side (although I think she freely admits that), and I thought her complaint that people treat libertarians (as she claims to be) as kooks was wrongheaded, given that many of her stated positions in the same article were not actually typically libertarian. But The Guardian printed her entire Festival speech, and really, it is extremely hard to see what's objectionable in it. (I suspect that she might pay to be a bit more skeptical of the details of some of the reports of "cultural appropriation" incidents on US universities; but that's just my hunch that the media sometimes exaggerates the degree of seriousness of individual incidents. But this is a minor quibble to what is basically a well argued case.)
And, let me say, that the readers of The Guardian do themselves much credit by also (as far as I can see) agreeing with her by a substantial majority.
What I think is lacking is enough admission by writers and literary figures who are Left inclined (and gee, probably 90% of them are) that some of their fellow authors and commentators have just gone too far, and need to come back to something approaching common sense. But can't say I'm noticing much of that...
Message to J Soon
Jason, took you a while to notice that Megan McArdle article, but it was discussed at several places at the time, with scientists noting that the comparison between economic models and climate models is not really valid, and she doesn't understand climate feedbacks either.
I suggest you read ATTP's post on it, and this, and the comments following.
As he says, the "lukewarmer gambit", being the last refuge of people who don't want action taken (usually for purely ideological reasons), is a still a "rejection of evidence" position, tarted up as if it's "just being reasonable here":
I would argue with you on twitter, but I'm not keen on the word limits...
Update: another bit of blog commentary on the McArdle shrug shoulder attitude of "sure, I don't dismiss it could be a major problem, but it might not be too, and no one will go for a carbon tax; so what can you do?
I suggest you read ATTP's post on it, and this, and the comments following.
As he says, the "lukewarmer gambit", being the last refuge of people who don't want action taken (usually for purely ideological reasons), is a still a "rejection of evidence" position, tarted up as if it's "just being reasonable here":
This is wrong on many levels. Firstly climate models don’t assume large positive feedbacks; the level of positive feedbacks is an emergent property of the models. It’s one of the things these models are trying to determine. Secondly, climate models are not the only reason why we think that feedbacks could be positive and large. Palaeoclimate estimates of climate sensitivity are also in line with estimates from climate models.As with your false equivalence attempt on the doctor who came up with his own oddball Hillary health conspiracy: stop doing that (false equivalence). The Right wing conspiracy stuff about Hillary's health has been massive, relentless (and ridiculous) and given a high profile on Fox News for many months, convincing large numbers of dimwits. They haven't been "concerned" about Hillary's health - they've been exploiting everything out of context, from a photo after a slip on stairs to a joke head movement slowed down on video with scary music to argue she has everything from dementia to Parkinson's to HIV. It has, truly, been "tinfoil hat" material. And as for the doctor and his poisoning tweet - he's only getting attention because he is famous for other high profile work, the article is brief, and I don't think the paper is doing much to suggest it should be taken seriously.
Finally, even the energy-balance models preferred by Lukewarmers do not rule out high climate sensitivity, and this seems to be the main problem; anyone who says “warming is likely to be mild” is essentially dismissing evidence that suggests otherwise. The discussion that we should be having is what we should do if climate sensitivity is high enough that our continued emission of CO2 could lead to substantial changes in temperature, the hydrological cycle, and extreme events. If one group has already decided that this is unlikely, and that we shouldn’t base policy on this possibility, what else is there to discuss?
I would argue with you on twitter, but I'm not keen on the word limits...
Update: another bit of blog commentary on the McArdle shrug shoulder attitude of "sure, I don't dismiss it could be a major problem, but it might not be too, and no one will go for a carbon tax; so what can you do?
Chemicals under their skin
One in five tattoo inks in Australia contain carcinogenic chemicals
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. But I would say that, wouldn't I...
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. But I would say that, wouldn't I...
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Employment in Japan
Japan is so crazy about mascots that ‘fluffy toilet character’ is a real job - The Washington Post
Amongst the many amusing facts in this story:
Amongst the many amusing facts in this story:
The mascot industrial complex is so huge in Japan that the Finance
Ministry launched a campaign last year to cut the number of mascots to
save unnecessary spending.
There are no official figures, but
Masafumi Hagiwara, a researcher at Mitsubishi UFJ Research and
Consulting, estimates that there are about 4,000 local
government-related mascots in Japan. The prefecture of Osaka alone had
about 92 mascots, but it gave pink slips to 20 of them during the
Finance Ministry’s campaign.
An additional 6,000 characters are probably at central government agencies, companies and other organizations, Hagiwara said.
That makes “mascot” a viable career choice in Japan. The day rate for a mascot is about $100.
Monday, September 12, 2016
A timing issue
Babies Take Longer To Come Out Than They Did In Grandma's Day : Shots - Health News : NPR
The typical first-time mother takes 6 1/2 hours to give birth theseWell I didn't know that. Possible reasons are included in the article.
days. Her counterpart 50 years ago labored for barely four hours.
That's the striking conclusion of a new federal study that compared nearly 140,000 births from two time periods.
Why continue?
I hope there is someone in the media tonight who can explain why it is that the Senate couldn't just adjourn for the day (or until the afternoon) if it had no business to deal with. It would seem that this is simply not an option, as it would be for any other organisation holding a meeting where the participants unexpectedly had nothing ready to discuss or vote on, but why is that so?
Sex and death - topics of abiding interest
A brief history of the afterlife | History Extra
This article from August summarises a new book from a Queensland academic about a topic that has been mentioned here a few times recently. Good reading.
At the bottom of this History Extra page, there were links including to one article on sex, which lead to another, etc. They make for some entertaining reading, and I learnt a few things on the way:
A brief history of sex and sexuality in ancient Greece
A brief history of sex and sexuality in Ancient Rome
(Can't say I had heard of the rumours of Julius Caesar "living as a girl" in the court of King Nicomedes when he was a young man. There's a good, fairly detailed explanation of this rumour - which seems more just about him being the "passive" partner of the King, in a .pdf at this link.)
Georgian Britain - sex in high places
I think I should be spending more on the History Extra site.
This article from August summarises a new book from a Queensland academic about a topic that has been mentioned here a few times recently. Good reading.
At the bottom of this History Extra page, there were links including to one article on sex, which lead to another, etc. They make for some entertaining reading, and I learnt a few things on the way:
A brief history of sex and sexuality in ancient Greece
A brief history of sex and sexuality in Ancient Rome
(Can't say I had heard of the rumours of Julius Caesar "living as a girl" in the court of King Nicomedes when he was a young man. There's a good, fairly detailed explanation of this rumour - which seems more just about him being the "passive" partner of the King, in a .pdf at this link.)
Georgian Britain - sex in high places
I think I should be spending more on the History Extra site.
Joseph Stiglitz writes
Joseph Stiglitz Says Standard Economics Is Wrong. Inequality and Unearned Income Kills the Economy - Evonomics
It's pretty long, and I haven't read it all yet, but he does write clearly and sounds very reasonable.
Judith Sloan will hate it.
It's pretty long, and I haven't read it all yet, but he does write clearly and sounds very reasonable.
Judith Sloan will hate it.
Despite the title, this is a good article
Is It Really Possible To Faint From Heat, As Clinton Claims?
Is it really possible that Right wing conspiracists are so dumb that they don't believe fainting from protracted standing in even mild warmth is not only possible, but not un-common to see happen in any large crowd of any age? Obviously, they haven't witnessed many military parades or guards of honour...
I would also assume that the pneumonia diagnosis is a case of so-called "walking pneumonia".
She has enough time to rest before the first Presidential debate. I predict Trump won't be so lucky as to have her pull out before that.
Is it really possible that Right wing conspiracists are so dumb that they don't believe fainting from protracted standing in even mild warmth is not only possible, but not un-common to see happen in any large crowd of any age? Obviously, they haven't witnessed many military parades or guards of honour...
I would also assume that the pneumonia diagnosis is a case of so-called "walking pneumonia".
She has enough time to rest before the first Presidential debate. I predict Trump won't be so lucky as to have her pull out before that.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Yes, we'll take the lying, shallow, narcisstic, short attention span, draft dodging man boy who we don't trust to do anything he promises and whose man-crush on Putin we find rather disturbing because - Hillary
I think the heading fairly summaries the view of Instapundit's Glenn Harlan Reynolds, whose list of Hillary misdemeanours includes:
* the email issue (even when it became clearer than ever last week that she did indeed have encouragement from Colin Powell to do what she did),
* the fact that contributors to the Clinton charity meant people asked for favours, yet no actual serious scandal of someone getting something they clearly shouldn't have has been shown; and
* a reference to the IRS targeting conservatives (because, argues Reynolds, the civil service is totally in the tank for the Democrats.)
That last point (and by the way, has anyone actually shown corruption in the American tax investigations?) reminds me of Australian political conservatives complaining about how the institutions are against them - be it the public service, the ABC, or the Churches. Funny thing is, it never seems to occur to them that facing widespread organisational opposition might be a sign of a self created problem - some examples being denying climate change (boo hoo, the ABC doesn't feature the backyard scientists who don't believe NASA scientists); believing that cutting taxes always helps an economy (why won't Treasury just get, like, totally on board with that?); and pretending that keeping a couple of thousand people - including children - in indefinite detention in third world countries because they attempted to arrive in a boat is not a morally compromised position (Churches, stop being namby pamby wimps).
The only explanation for this pathetic justification of Trump support is that the American Right (and its Australian fan base) has become so self deluded by its Right wing media echo chamber about the Evils of Hillary and the outrages of Obama that they would prefer to vote for anyone but her. Yes, some of them think Trump is a hopeless, lying, changeable, windbag with worrying connections to Russia; but he's not Hillary, the woman who clearly deserves to be in jail because (despite detailed and repeat investigations that never can pin anything on her) the Right wing media just can't believe that prosecutions of her would fail.
As for the fate of the Nation under Clinton, there is nothing to really suggest that the path of American policy would take a large detour from what it has been under Obama, who, for a President in charge of an alleged hell hole nation, has a pretty good approval rating. Can't they face the fact that the American economy has not tanked?
Reynolds has outed himself, as has large slabs of the American Right, as having become simply unable to accept and process evidence with anything even faintly resembling objectivity. Turn off the Fox news, read something other than the WSJ, fellows, and get a grip after all these years.
* the email issue (even when it became clearer than ever last week that she did indeed have encouragement from Colin Powell to do what she did),
* the fact that contributors to the Clinton charity meant people asked for favours, yet no actual serious scandal of someone getting something they clearly shouldn't have has been shown; and
* a reference to the IRS targeting conservatives (because, argues Reynolds, the civil service is totally in the tank for the Democrats.)
That last point (and by the way, has anyone actually shown corruption in the American tax investigations?) reminds me of Australian political conservatives complaining about how the institutions are against them - be it the public service, the ABC, or the Churches. Funny thing is, it never seems to occur to them that facing widespread organisational opposition might be a sign of a self created problem - some examples being denying climate change (boo hoo, the ABC doesn't feature the backyard scientists who don't believe NASA scientists); believing that cutting taxes always helps an economy (why won't Treasury just get, like, totally on board with that?); and pretending that keeping a couple of thousand people - including children - in indefinite detention in third world countries because they attempted to arrive in a boat is not a morally compromised position (Churches, stop being namby pamby wimps).
The only explanation for this pathetic justification of Trump support is that the American Right (and its Australian fan base) has become so self deluded by its Right wing media echo chamber about the Evils of Hillary and the outrages of Obama that they would prefer to vote for anyone but her. Yes, some of them think Trump is a hopeless, lying, changeable, windbag with worrying connections to Russia; but he's not Hillary, the woman who clearly deserves to be in jail because (despite detailed and repeat investigations that never can pin anything on her) the Right wing media just can't believe that prosecutions of her would fail.
As for the fate of the Nation under Clinton, there is nothing to really suggest that the path of American policy would take a large detour from what it has been under Obama, who, for a President in charge of an alleged hell hole nation, has a pretty good approval rating. Can't they face the fact that the American economy has not tanked?
Reynolds has outed himself, as has large slabs of the American Right, as having become simply unable to accept and process evidence with anything even faintly resembling objectivity. Turn off the Fox news, read something other than the WSJ, fellows, and get a grip after all these years.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Historical blender films
I'm only 16 years late to the party, but last night I watched the Cate Blanchett 1998 movie Elizabeth for the first time, in pleasing High Definition on SBS.
I'm always of two minds about these movies, given that you can always safely assume that to one degree or another they will not be historically accurate. Does that really matter, particularly if it inspires viewers checking up on the true story to learn some real history; or is it a puzzling insult to veracity that so many screenwriters can't make an entertaining movie without grossly misleading, or lying to, the audience?
I guess I am more forgiving if a movie opens with "inspired by true events" as a warning to the audience; but how often does that happen? (And, incidentally, I missed the first couple of minutes of Elizabeth, so I don't know if any such disclaimer last night.)
Anyhow, I remember at the time the movie came out there were many articles talking about its inaccuracies, and having refreshed my memory about them now, the movie really is like an experiment to see what happens if you put into a blender a list of historical true characters, a separate list of their ages, some notes about events over an entire life (even if you're only supposed to be covering the first half), some soft erotica, and a few kilometers of fine fabrics. Hit the button and see how it all tumbles out.
At the end of the day, we can all agree it looked fantasitc, and with her features and good acting, it was the role Blanchett was born to play. But even on its own terms as a movie story, it was a bit of a mess; and when you read up on the true facts, I think the historical liberties were just too extreme to forgive. (I , mean, seriously: the young transvestite French suitor never even made it to England, let alone being interrupted mid-orgy by the queen. The major dramatic revelation - that her lover was already married - is also pure invention, given that the real Liz was at his wedding.)
A few links about the inaccuracies, for anyone who cares: here, here, here and here.
I'm always of two minds about these movies, given that you can always safely assume that to one degree or another they will not be historically accurate. Does that really matter, particularly if it inspires viewers checking up on the true story to learn some real history; or is it a puzzling insult to veracity that so many screenwriters can't make an entertaining movie without grossly misleading, or lying to, the audience?
I guess I am more forgiving if a movie opens with "inspired by true events" as a warning to the audience; but how often does that happen? (And, incidentally, I missed the first couple of minutes of Elizabeth, so I don't know if any such disclaimer last night.)
Anyhow, I remember at the time the movie came out there were many articles talking about its inaccuracies, and having refreshed my memory about them now, the movie really is like an experiment to see what happens if you put into a blender a list of historical true characters, a separate list of their ages, some notes about events over an entire life (even if you're only supposed to be covering the first half), some soft erotica, and a few kilometers of fine fabrics. Hit the button and see how it all tumbles out.
At the end of the day, we can all agree it looked fantasitc, and with her features and good acting, it was the role Blanchett was born to play. But even on its own terms as a movie story, it was a bit of a mess; and when you read up on the true facts, I think the historical liberties were just too extreme to forgive. (I , mean, seriously: the young transvestite French suitor never even made it to England, let alone being interrupted mid-orgy by the queen. The major dramatic revelation - that her lover was already married - is also pure invention, given that the real Liz was at his wedding.)
A few links about the inaccuracies, for anyone who cares: here, here, here and here.
Friday, September 09, 2016
The American floods and climate change
Flooding, Extreme Weather, and Record Temperatures: How Global Warming Puts it All Together - The Equation
I haven't posted anything about the recent American floods and climate change, even though I saw the occasional report referring to that question. This article, though, does confirm that the rainfall intensity that lead to them was exceptionally intense, and a climate change link seems obvious.
Unless, of course, you're a Right wing, science and evidence rejecting twit from America, or Australia, who can write things like this (Hinderaker, from Powerline blog):
Sad that the Right has become so self deluded on this matter.
I haven't posted anything about the recent American floods and climate change, even though I saw the occasional report referring to that question. This article, though, does confirm that the rainfall intensity that lead to them was exceptionally intense, and a climate change link seems obvious.
Unless, of course, you're a Right wing, science and evidence rejecting twit from America, or Australia, who can write things like this (Hinderaker, from Powerline blog):
Is the debate over catastrophic anthropogenic global warming over? In one sense, it is. One thing we know for sure is that the models that are the sole support for alarmism are wrong. The substantial heating they projected has failed to materialize. Having been falsified by observation, we know that they are no good. The alarmists will have to come up with something better than these discredited models if they want to convince the rest of us.Yet, again, this is the chart he is evidently unaware of (or refuses to believe over what climate non-scientist Anthony Watt and his man-shed "scientists" publish):
It's a (ultra-Orthodox) man's life
The ultra-Orthodox Jews combining tech and the Torah - BBC News
I didn't know that this was how some Orthodox Jewish life worked (or "didn't work"):
I didn't know that this was how some Orthodox Jewish life worked (or "didn't work"):
Like many of his friends, Slaven grew up expecting a life of quiet
learning. Haredi men are expected to spend most of their time studying
the Torah and Talmud, Judaism's sacred texts, leaving their wives to go
out and work. About half of Israel's Haredi men live this way.
But while the cost of living has risen in recent years, child benefit has
been cut - bad news for Haredi families, which often have eight-to-10
children and rely on benefits to make ends meet.
Guns and suicide
When a Smaller Military Means Fewer Suicides - The Atlantic
Some strong evidence given here that if you decrease access to guns, you decrease the suicide rate. A nice, clear, article.
Some strong evidence given here that if you decrease access to guns, you decrease the suicide rate. A nice, clear, article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)