Russians are odd

Inspired by Jason's recent stated sympathy to a "Russian pivot" under Trump, I read this article in New Statesmen about Russian democracy. 

The first point is that it's pretty clear most Russians still don't think they are a fully fledged democracy at all:

 I suppose you could argue the trend there is positive, though.

The odder thing is the ease with which it appears you can find Russians who still yearn for the hard master:

Most people I spoke to have indeed picked the “distinct form of democracy”, arguing that “an American model is unsuitable” for Russia. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no one could elaborate on the specifics of the desired model. One woman volunteered that “the ideal ruler for Russia would be someone like Peter the Great.” Once we have cleared that Russia under Peter was absolute monarchy, my respondent explained her reasoning: “Russia needs a strong leader, a disciplinarian. Russians cannot be ruled with a carrot, they understand only the stick.” In her view, Russians are too emotional and if they are granted too much freedom, they turn into loose cannons. She has a point. When Yeltsin, the most liberal head of state Russia has ever known, finally fuelled economic reforms, initialised by Gorbachev, the unprecedented market freedom has resulted in chaos, which culminated with Russia’s financial default in 1998.

The idea of a “strong ruler with wider powers” than would be implied by a Western constitution was echoed by others. “Russia needs a master,” said a mother of two who lives in Britain. “Russian people need clear directions and control, otherwise they’d just sit there like Brits on benefits, watching TV and complaining all the time.”

 And as to why Russians don't generally blame the top dog for their problems:

The special feature of the Russian mentality is that anyone but the tsar is to blame. Corruption, lawlessness, lack of social infrastructure and inequality are evident to all, but these are the problems associated with the “local imbeciles” and oligarchs, not the person presiding on the throne.

Which is, when you think about it, probably a 100% turnaround from the way most Australians think.  They are usually determined to blame everything on the current Prime Minister, regardless of the degree of control over certain events they may actually have.

The writer sums up how he thinks Russia got to where it is in this matter, and it sounds pretty convincing:

It is, of course, not at all surprising that no one could come up with an eloquent description of an ideal model of democracy, especially moulded for Russian mentality. Quite simply, Russia has no experience of it. From the absolute monarchy, Russia barely had a chance to get used to having a parliament (or Duma), when the Bolshevik revolution had erased all traces of it and kept it under locks for 70years. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia did the best it could to draw a new constitution, draft new laws and declare individual freedoms. Inevitably, there were teething issues, but instead of nurturing the nascent democracy, Russia’s current governing elite has been busy using its power over media to feed people an old tale about Russia’s unique path. “The Western model won’t work here”, the emphasised values of integrity, orthodoxy and “the national spirit” have once again conquered the Russian minds just like these ideas had been advocated by the tsar Nikolai I in the nineteenth century. New terms, such as a “governed democracy” and “sovereign democracy” have popped up to entertain the inquisitive minds. Other minds probably don’t even care. 
 

Don't get too excited

So, "repeal Section 18C" crowd are thrilled that some Japanese community group has apparently made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission about a statue on church land commemorating the "comfort women" of World War 2.

Given that the statue looks innocent enough, and commemorates suffering that no doubt happened, on some scale or other, the free speech culture warriors seem to think this is some proof that the law is an ass.

Which, really, doesn't make much sense.  Do they rush out to claim that defamation law is obviously stupid and wrong and needs to be repealed every time someone takes out a defamation action that most people feel is ill founded, and which subsequently fails?

They might also question who it is that is bringing the action.

Because, if one cares to look at their little used website, it appears pretty clear that the far from well known "Australia-Japan Community Network " seems to spend nearly all of its time complaining about how Koreans and Chinese keep unfairly going on and on about the comfort women issue and Japanese militaristic behaviour in the 20th century.

In fact, there is even a post suggesting that the Nanjing massacre was vastly exaggerated.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that this group (of very indeterminate size) is used as a vehicle for some Japanese who push a  nationalist pro-Japan line, of the kind you hear about as still trying to have some political influence in Japan.

Most of us in the West consider that branch of the political scene in Japan as pretty disreputable, for their failure to acknowledge history.

So, that gives a bit of context into the matter of why the complaint is being made at all.  Just because some grandstanding person attempts to make what I would call mischievous use of law (look at Leyonhjelm's silly recent complaint, too) doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad law: what it mainly suggests is that the HRC procedures need to be able to dismiss them quickly, unlike the situation with the recent QUT case.

So I'm on side with the Australian Council of Jewry on this.

Besides, all the nervous energy libertarians like Davidson, Wilson, Leyonhjelm and the whole IPA crew put into this issue helps keep them looking like the nutty obsessives they are.  Let's keep it that way.

Trump facing extinction

Cheery news for Christmas!

Earth is due for an “extinction-level” event from the sky, and even if we see it coming, we won’t be able to do anything about it, a NASA scientist said Monday.
Speaking at a meeting in San Francisco, Dr. Joseph Nuth of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center said large asteroids and comets, the type that could wipe out civilization, are extremely rare, but tend to hit “50 to 60 million years apart.” Given that a comet wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, one could argue that we’re slightly past “due.”
“The biggest problem, basically, is there’s not a hell of a lot we can do about it at the moment,” he added.

What's worse, can you imagine Donald Trump as President announcing an asteroid was about to hit the planet?   None of the gravitas of movie Presidents.   It would be something like this (read it in your mind in Trump voice):

"They tell me it's serious.  Very, very serious, folks....  [muffled aside]   What's that?..oh, OK

 Well, gotta run, it's every man for himself..."

Old magazines for you

I would be extremely surprised if my mentioning this here led to any success, but I need to get rid of my old magazines from the 1980's to 1990's that I can no longer plausibly justify to my wife that I need to keep.

The star attractions:

*  Lots of Omni
*  A fair few Fortean Times
*  Quite a lot of Discover
*  Some Premiere 
*  Some other bits and pieces.

Anyone want them?   Free to a good home...

The Syria mess

I don't know why current events in Syria wouldn't give you at least pause to consider the wisdom of a "Russian pivot" by Trump, Jason.   Clearly, there were no great options when the Obama administration was working out how to respond to the Syria situation a couple of years ago. 

Dead on Arrival

That's a bit of a harsh pun for a title, but it seems sorta apt.

Went and saw the serious, adult type, science fiction movie Arrival last night; and I had deliberately not read any full reviews of it, just in case I came across a spoiler or two.

My verdict:  worth seeing, but underwhelming.  It looks pretty good, and the acting is fine; a very chilly sort of atmosphere pervades the whole film.

The key reveal towards the end, though, seems to be a silly extension of a reasonable idea re the effect of language, as far as I could tell.  There is room for debate, though, I suppose, over what exactly caused the crucial change in our lead character, and whether this was destined to happen to others, too.  While I don't demand that all films involving aliens explain all plot elements with crystal clarity, I think this one could have done with just a tad more exposition.

[Then again, any film that revolves around the importance of languages conceptually is perhaps not one for me:  I've always been a skeptic of the idea that preserving all language is extremely important because our cognitive and cultural horizons are always skrinking when a language is lost.  All arguments along those lines strike me as quasi scientific "just so" stories;  some languages may make some concepts easier to explain than others, but I just find it hard to believe that with any well developed language you can't find a way to get close enough to the meaning expressed in alternative human languages.   And, of course, I'm not talking about fondness any individual may have for preserving a language they grew up with; that's perfectly understandable.  Or people who want to be able to understand something from the past.   I'm talking about the more high minded arguments that seem to me to make a fetish out of  variety in languages.  It is, now that I think of it, perhaps a branch of identity politics - certainly, it is usually those on the Left of the politics who are most convinced about it. ]

But back to the movie.   My other complaints:  looks too often too much like the visual style of Tree of Life (and, thematically, you could also argue the films are pretty similar.)   And the script could have afforded some lightening in tone, just occasionally.   Yes, the unannounced arrival of aliens would be initially mind blowing; but once the planet hadn't been blown up after a few months, some people would surely start to make jokes about it.

As it happens, it was only after I got home that I realised the director was the same guy,  Denis Villeneuve, who made Sicario, the generally well received Mexican drug war film from a few years ago that I watched on Stan a couple of weeks ago.

For me, both films suffer very similar problems:   I thought Sicario was very well directed, looked great, and (like Arrival) does a good job at building up tension.  [And, as a minor observation, both films feature lovely shots of flight.  Villeneuve really seems to like filming flying things.]   But by the end of film, the script had never completely convinced me.   My major complaint - why did the female protagonist stay working for the cobbled together multi agency group so long after she had been convinced in the very first operation that they were really acting like cowboys, above the law?   That just seemed never to be plausibly explained in the script.

Anyway, this post is sounding more negative than I really intended.   Like I said at the start, it's worth seeing, and one of those films which are good at provoking discussion about its merits and faults.   But I don't think it's in any way a classic of science fiction. 
   

Message to Jason

Well, gee, Jason:  maybe the Guardian thinks it's newsworthy that a President-elect who broadcasts every damn thought that crosses his mind on Twitter is having share market consequences that he probably isn't even thinking about, and which can certainly annoy share market investors.

You do like to go on with this "leftie hypocrisy" line to a silly extent at times....

Update:  and besides, we all know that Trump will probably have a meeting with Defence, or someone from Lockheed, and then completely reverse his position - again.  The Guardian already says he has not previously criticised the F35 specifically, and even sounded vaguely supportive:

Trump has previously commented on the F-35, but never to criticize. In 2014 he quoted a follower’s criticism of the Affordable Care Act website, saying the US “could have bought 50 F35 fighters or 5 Aircraft Carriers but we got a worthless website”.  

The news is about the unpredictability of this fool President-elect, and the effects it is having.  

Krugman's right, again

I liked this Krugman column, which started by noting the theory (certainly correct, I reckon) that Trump gets "cred" with his working class voters because he likes fast food, and generally has dubious taste*:

What I see a lot, both in general political discourse and in my own inbox, is a tremendous sense of resentment against people like Hillary Clinton or, well, me, that isn’t about policy. It boils down, instead, to something along the lines of “You people think you’re better than us.” And it has a lot to do with the way people live.

If populism were simply about income inequality, someone like Trump should be deeply resented by the working class. He has gold toilets! But he gets a pass, partly — I think — because his tastes seem in line with those of non-college-educated whites. That is, he lives the way they imagine they would if they had a lot of money.

Compare that with affluent liberals — say, my neighbors on the Upper West Side. They aren’t nearly as rich as the plutocrats that will stuff the Trump cabinet. What’s more, they vote for things that will raise their taxes and cost of living, while improving the lives of the very people who disdain them. Objectively, they’re on white workers’ side.

But they don’t eat much fast food, because they believe it’s unhealthy and they’re watching their weight. They don’t watch much reality TV, and do listen to a lot of books on tape — or even read books the old-fashioned way. if they’re rich enough to have a second home, it’s a shabby-chic country place, not Mar-a-Lago. 

So there is a sense in which there’s a bigger cultural gulf between affluent liberals and the white working class than there is between Trumpkins and the WWC. Do the liberals sneer at the Joe Sixpacks? Actually, I’ve never heard it — the people I hang out with do understand that living the way they do takes a lot more money and time than hard-pressed Americans have, and aren’t especially judgmental about lifestyles. But it’s easy to see how the sense that liberals look down on regular folks might arise, and be fanned by right-wing media.

The question is, what do you do? Again, objectively those liberals are very much on workers’ side, while the characters who play on this perceived disdain are set to betray the white working class on a massive scale. Is there no way to get this across other than eating lots of burgers with fries?

* Not referring to fast food here - I like it once or twice a week as much as any Westie.

Skeptical Science on Trump and climate change

A good summary here of the weird things going on in Team Trump - how it seems his daughter is the key reason he met with Gore and DiCaprio, yet it is very clear from actual appointments that Trump is in no way backing down from dismantling the EPA as an effective force to battling greenhouse gases.  (Ivanka is friends with Chelsea Clinton too, isn't she?  which is probably the reason there was never any real chance Trump was serious about pursuing Hillary after the election.)

I get a bit tired of this, because, as many have noted, it seems Trumps just likes the showmanship of all this -  he gets a thrill out of running his current life as a reality TV show.   That cringe inducing photo of dinner with Romney;  the weird, incredibly self indulgent "thank you" tour; the tweeting; the "only I know the winners" quip.

The more the media laps it up, the more he probably likes it.  So once again, I kind of wish the media didn't follow him quite so closely. 

The Republicans and Russia

There's a very clear and understandable account by Peter Beinart at The Atlantic on how the Republicans came to be split on the matter of Russia.   How Trump and his pals react to the Republicans in the Senate who have approved an enquiry into Russian interference in the election will be interesting to watch.

Heisenberg and the Bomb

Quite a good discussion here of the question of why Germany did not get far in its development of an atomic bomb in World War 2.   In particular, did Heisenberg and his German physicist buddies deliberately prevent it by telling Speer that (to paraphrase), sure, they'd love to do it, but it's just too big a job for Germany.  (Mind you, considering the incredible scale of the Manhattan Project, perhaps this was no great stretch of the truth at the time.)

English school horrors - girls' own version

From an otherwise not very interesting TLS review of a book about life in girls' boarding schools in the mid 20th century (I don't exactly expect it to fly off the shelf), I was amused by this particular paragraph:

The louche prize, however, goes to Caroline (Lady) Cranbrook’s 1940s memories of a place called Wings: a grand house, and a drunken headmistress with a fag and crème de menthe ever at hand, encouraging the school sport of rugby (“Jump on me, girls, jump on me!”). She made them dance with her armless, First World War veteran father, whose stumps without prostheses they had to cling to. Biology in the old kitchen involved dissecting an aborted foal. So many teachers left that Cranbrook at fifteen taught two subjects herself and put the five-year-old boarders to bed. When inspectors came she was given make-up so that they would think she was a teacher. Eventually, with difficulty, she smuggled out a letter “betraying” the school. After Wings closed, rumours spread – one had the headmistress knocking out a girl’s tooth in assembly “because she didn’t like the way she was looking at her”.

The similarities are clear

Somethings are very obvious about the current state of the conservative/culture warrior Right when it gets government in Australia or the US:

*  they love surrounding themselves with the military.  I complained constantly about Tony Abbott and his ministers doing this, and now, of course, we see Trump actually embedding the recently retired/sacked military into key positions in government.  Funnily enough, both Abbott and Trump are a conservative's idea of "men's men", yet neither have performed any military service at all.   A bit of psychological over-compensation going on, perhaps?   Or just a love of appearing "tough" by surrounding themselves with professional fighters.

* Their prime rule of thumb for accepting advice:  "if it's inconvenient, don't believe it:  ignore it."   Look, Trump's been upset for 30 odd years that his hairspray changed in response to scientific advice (fully confirmed, of course) that different propellants were needed for the benefit of the ozone layer.  He still can't accept that this was correct advice.   (Yes, there is actually a fact check devoted to a 30 year hunch that his hairspray couldn't possibly affect the ozone layer.)

If this fact alone doesn't give you cause to worry about the judgement of the President elect, there's something wrong with your own judgement.

Trump has just re-affirmed that he can't, of course, accept that climate change is real.  No one believes that Tony Abbott was ever convinced either.

When it comes to economics, I see that the Turnbull government is carrying on the same Abbott initiated political re-alignment of Treasury to get the advice it wants.

As for energy policy, they choose to doubt the chief scientist rather than deal with the issue in detail.    
It is a great worry...

Vaping taken seriously

I had no idea that, in America at least, vaping nicotine "E-cigarettes" had become so popular with the young:

The report released Thursday by the U.S. surgeon general focuses on Americans under the age of 25, the cohort that has embraced e-cigarettes with the most enthusiasm. Teens and young adults are more likely to be using the vaping devices than people in any other age group. Indeed, among middle and high school students, e-cigarettes have become more popular than traditional cigarettes.

These trends are alarming to public health officials for several reasons. Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been warning for years that e-cigarettes have the potential to get kids hooked on nicotine, paving the way for them to “graduate” to regular smoking and setting themselves up for a lifetime of addiction. About 90% of adult smokers say they started smoking as teens.

Plus, mounting scientific evidence suggests the adolescent brain is uniquely vulnerable to the harmful effects of nicotine. Among other problems, nicotine exposure can lead to “reduced impulse control, deficits in attention and cognition, and mood disorders,” Dr. Vivek Murthy, the surgeon general, wrote in a preface to the report.

And as for that age bracket using them to quite smoking actual cigarettes - seems not to be the case:

Among young adults 18 to 25, 55% of electronic cigarette users also smoke regular cigarettes, according to CDC data from 2013 and 2014. Although older smokers often use e-cigarettes to help them kick the habit, this is not a common practice for young adults, the report says.

Some heavy regulation, at the very least, would be well deserved.

What with the young brains of American growing up in a country where both marijuana and nicotine are sold, and promoted in capitalist fashion, I don't think this augurs well for the future of the country socially or economically.

The unreality bubble

Bill Maher said back on October 16 something which had been pretty obvious for a long time:

Maher said Trump voters live in "a reality of their own choosing."

"It's not even a race between ideologies anymore. It's not Republican and Democrat or conservative and liberal. It's reality versus alternative reality," he said.

It's this mindset that leads to unerring loyalty, Maher said, despite what he called Trump's predilection for "bold-faced, caught-on-tape lying."

"They don't care. They know, or they don't know, it doesn't matter to them. He's their guy," Maher said.

Hence, Russian involvement in aiding his election either won't be believed by them, or even if believed, won't matter.  Because the culture warrior conservative Right currently has the hots for "strongman"  quasi-dictatorial government, and an enormous crush on Putin.  (Seems their reasoning is a combination of "he knows what he wants and he gets his way; America used to be like that*", and "he don't put up with any nonsense from gays".)

Anyway, back to the objective evidence that Maher is absolutely correct.  Talking about a recent survey, Rachel Maddow went through the details: 

Rachel started the segment by pointing out that President Obama's overall approval rating is at 50%. However, while his favorability with Republicans is 9%, it is only 5% of Trump voters.

Rachel then pivoted to issue after issue where a large percentage of Trump voters were severely misinformed. They live in a virtually fact-free or made-up-fact environment.

The stock market under President Obama soared. The Dow Jones Industrial average went from 7,949.09 to 19,614.91, again, up 11,665.72. In other words, it more than doubled. 39% of Trump voters think the stock market went down under Obama.

Unemployment dropped from 7.8% to 4.6% during the Obama administration. Clinton, Johnson, Stein and other voters are well aware of that fact.

But not Donald Trump voters; 67% of them believe unemployment rose under President Obama.

Rachel continued.

• 40% of Trump voters believe that Donald Trump won the popular vote.
• 60% of Trump voters believe that millions voted illegally for Clinton.
• 73% of Trump voters believe that George Soros paid Trump protesters.
• 29% of Trump voters believe California vote should not be included in the popular vote.

Rachel's statement near the end of the segment was prescient.

"I think it shows that even after the election, what Trump voters believe about the world is distinctively different from what the rest of the country believe," Rachel said. "And from what is true. And this is an alternate reality that they are in, -- it is weird enough and specific enough that you can't say it just springs from broader a misunderstandings or from a broader ignorance on issues that afflicts the country. And this is a specific alternate reality that was created by the Trump movement for a political purpose. And it worked for that political purpose. And now as the Trump administration takes shape, they have to know that they are in power thanks to their voter base that has these false beliefs about the country. False beliefs about the country, false beliefs about the economy, false beliefs about the outgoing president, false beliefs about what California is. In terms of what happens next in our country, it seems important to know this incoming president basically created this fantasy life for his supporters."

* when actually, the runs on the board for "getting its way" have been decidedly mixed since 1945. 

Summing up 2016

I don't even like using the key word here*, but if it's to be taken as a wry way of summing up how so many of us feel about 2016 (and I think it is), this New Yorker cartoon is pretty funny:

* not that I think it's too crude, especially; but it falls into the category of words I just don't like the sound of, for unclear reasons - lesbian is another one.

Violence in (English) history

There are many remarkable things to note from this great TLS review of a book by one James Sharpe about violence in England.  For example:

He refers to a study of the court records of five counties and two cities (London and Bristol) for the period 1201–76, for example, which has produced a homicide rate of 20 per 100,000 population. The equivalent figure today is 1.15 per 100,000. On this reckoning, the southern counties of medieval England were more dangerous than Mexico today – and four times as dangerous as the United States.

One of the many virtues of Sharpe’s book is that he doesn’t leave it there. He looks into the likely victims of England’s murdering classes, which turns up another contrast with modernity (the murder rate dropped to about its present level around 200 years ago). This is that you were much more likely to be killed by a stranger in medieval England than by someone you knew, including a member of your own family. In fact, Sharpe quotes the results of research showing that “murders within the family occurred at about the same level as they do today in the UK and USA”. Perhaps the most dangerous place to bump into a stranger was Oxford. Going to university in the fourteenth century sounds like undertaking a tour of duty in a particularly hot war zone. In the 1340s, the homicide rate was apparently up around 120 – higher than Caracas or San Pedro, Honduras, currently the two most violent cities in the world not officially at war.

....Oxford was just a very volatile place, where around 6,000 inhabitants, among them about 1,500 undergraduates, didn’t get along very well. An armed population didn’t help either. Most men seem to have carried knives, with stabbing the cause of the majority of deaths. But as well as being much, much more violent than today’s Oxonians, the medieval version made use of the sort of weapons that few citizens keep now. Sharpe describes a riot in the High Street in 1298, where students and university servants fought. Edward of Hales, a shopkeeper, went to an upstairs window of his premises and shot an arrow into the crowd, fatally wounding a student, Fulk Nermit.  

Wait - "Fulk Nermit"?   What an odd name.  Anyway, back to the story:

Students themselves appear to have discovered new ways to fight each other, dividing “along geographical lines” between North and South Oxford. Having no affiliation, however, was no guarantee of safety. Sharpe mentions one student who was killed when he stepped into the street – and into the middle of a brawl – “to pass water at the wrong moment”.

The "popularity" of infanticide gets attention, too, in the Tudor to the Victorian period:

These centuries were clearly the high tide of the crime of infanticide, when rigid public morality over illegitimacy combined with a lack of contraception to make it an all too common last resort for some women. The absence of fathers from the stories Sharpe tells is in itself instructive: by allowing the mothers to bear illegitimately, they avoided culpability only in a technical sense. The result was that, even towards the end of this period, “young children were the most vulnerable of all groups in Victorian England”, with 20 per cent of victims of homicide being aged under twelve months.

 There's lots more of interest.  Go read it.

A good quote for the Christmas season

From the TLS:

....the fact that wine can bring great pleasure – and that it can cultivate a sense of community – has been something of a theme in Western philosophy. Plato argued that those over forty should get drunk “to renew their youth, and that, through forgetfulness of care, the temper of their souls may lose its hardness and become softer and more ductile”. Kant thought that when drunk “we forget and overlook the weaknesses of others . . .  people who are otherwise hard-hearted become, through intoxication, good-humoured, communicative and benign”.

For those who want to read a little bit more about Kant on drinking, you can read a short .pdf from a 1941 journal here.   

Rash of the day

Look at the distinctive rash a certain South Pacific fungus can cause.   Unusual...

Seriously?

Spotted on Twitter:

 Greg Jericho Retweeted

George Megalogenis ‏@GMegalogenis  1h1 hour ago

George Megalogenis Retweeted Lenore Taylor

A tale of two media empires: Fairfax pays 25.4% tax on taxable income of $91,856,465 News pays 0% tax on taxable income of $70,847,581

George Megalogenis added,

Lenore Taylor @lenoretaylor

Tax transparency: which companies paid the most and least tax in Australia? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2016/dec/09/tax-transparency-which-companies-paid-the-most-and-least-tax-in-australia?CMP=share_btn_tw …

7 replies .101 retweets41 likes

And guess which one it is whose newspapers run grossly oversimplified Right wing beat up stories about there being too many "leaners" when it comes to tax paid versus benefits received......