Hey, I missed this article in The Atlantic in January:
What Happens If You Stick Your Head in a Particle Accelerator?
Interestingly, we have a good idea that it's not going to be good for your health - a Soviet scientist did get his head accidentally zapped by a proton beam of very high strength in 1978, and although it didn't kill him, he was painlessly injured.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Message to monty
Telling you nothing new, but the CL approach to history follows some simple, immutable, rules:
a. no Labor (or in America, Democrat) politician ever did anything great, ever. Or, if pressed, deserves credit for anything great.
b. the Catholic Church was the greatest, most heroic, institute for the advancement of humanity, ever;
c. all figures in history have to pass the purity test of their attitude to abortion and contraception before anything positive can be said about them.
a. no Labor (or in America, Democrat) politician ever did anything great, ever. Or, if pressed, deserves credit for anything great.
b. the Catholic Church was the greatest, most heroic, institute for the advancement of humanity, ever;
c. all figures in history have to pass the purity test of their attitude to abortion and contraception before anything positive can be said about them.
When markets don't work as you want
A good article looking at the complexities of the Australian electricity system and why it is having trouble coping with the necessary change to clean energy.
No, it only sounds like an autocrat who fearmongers about, and scapegoats, ethnic groups for shoring up his appeal to his gullible base
Trump administration seeks to prevent ‘panic’ over new immigration enforcement policies
From the report:
From the report:
Kelly’s new DHS policies considerably broaden the pool of those who are prioritized for deportations, including undocumented immigrants who have been charged with crimes but not convicted, those who commit acts that constitute a “chargeable criminal offense,” and those who an immigration officer concludes pose “a risk to public safety or national security.”But don't panic!:
The Trump administration “is using the specter of crime to create fear . . . in the American community about immigrants in order to create an opening to advance the indiscriminate persecution of immigrants,” said Clarissa MartÃnez-de-Castro, deputy vice president at the National Council of La Raza. “This administration is saying, ‘Now, everybody is going to be a priority,’ and the devil may care.”
“We do not need a sense of panic in the communities,” a DHS official said in a conference call with reporters to formally release the memos to the public.
“We do not have the personnel, time or resources to go into communities and round up people and do all kinds of mass throwing folks on buses. That’s entirely a figment of folks’ imagination,” said the official, who was joined on the call by two others, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to answer questions. “This is not intended to produce mass roundups, mass deportations.”
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
That Milo matter
I'd already criticised Bolt's judgement for playing footsie with the obnoxious internet character Milo Yiannopoulos just because he criticises the Left, so Andrew doesn't really get much credit for having dropped him now. And Tim Blair, a frequent Milo promoter, is conveniently away at the moment, so the fate of his former endorsements is yet to be seen.
I watched bits and pieces of (one of the) interviews that got MY into trouble, and there's no doubt from it that, despite protestations made now (designed to try to save his lucrative book deal, presumably), he expressed no great moral concern about pederasty with consent, given the way he was talking about his enthusiastic participation in it as a 14 year old, and his reluctance to criticise the man (a priest, even) he claims it was with. His statement today that he was the victim of the priest is just completely at odds with how he conducted himself in the interview, where he was happy to paint himself as the knowing instigator of enjoyable sexual encounters as a precocious young (gay) teenager. He explained this as part of his then rebelliousness, but expressed no shame or regret.
He may genuinely despise paedophiles, for all I know, and he's hardly the first* gay man** to make the distinction between paedophilia and pederasty, and grant some sympathy to the latter. But I would bet he's the first openly gay man making money on the American wingnut media circuit to muse along those lines and not realise it was going to go over like a lead balloon.
I said before his writing seemed like that of an intellectual lightweight; the abrupt (possible?) ending of his career this way helps confirm he's a bit short on the smarts.
So, no great loss to society that he's lost his book deal, and (I would hope) a job at Breitbart.
About time he got a real job, preferably one completely out of the public eye. It's not good for his soul.***
* As Gerard Henderson likes to go on and on about, pederasts were seeking understanding, if not sympathy, via public appearances back in the 1970's in the media, including - gasp! - the ABC
** I was tempted to say "public intellectual", but that would be extremely generous, if not sarcastic
*** Which, evidently, he believes in, given that he claims at heart to still be a Catholic
Update: I see from a Spectator piece on this that Jason Soon linked to, this comment about the people on the Right who are still supporting Milo despite his pederasty comments:
I watched bits and pieces of (one of the) interviews that got MY into trouble, and there's no doubt from it that, despite protestations made now (designed to try to save his lucrative book deal, presumably), he expressed no great moral concern about pederasty with consent, given the way he was talking about his enthusiastic participation in it as a 14 year old, and his reluctance to criticise the man (a priest, even) he claims it was with. His statement today that he was the victim of the priest is just completely at odds with how he conducted himself in the interview, where he was happy to paint himself as the knowing instigator of enjoyable sexual encounters as a precocious young (gay) teenager. He explained this as part of his then rebelliousness, but expressed no shame or regret.
He may genuinely despise paedophiles, for all I know, and he's hardly the first* gay man** to make the distinction between paedophilia and pederasty, and grant some sympathy to the latter. But I would bet he's the first openly gay man making money on the American wingnut media circuit to muse along those lines and not realise it was going to go over like a lead balloon.
I said before his writing seemed like that of an intellectual lightweight; the abrupt (possible?) ending of his career this way helps confirm he's a bit short on the smarts.
So, no great loss to society that he's lost his book deal, and (I would hope) a job at Breitbart.
About time he got a real job, preferably one completely out of the public eye. It's not good for his soul.***
* As Gerard Henderson likes to go on and on about, pederasts were seeking understanding, if not sympathy, via public appearances back in the 1970's in the media, including - gasp! - the ABC
** I was tempted to say "public intellectual", but that would be extremely generous, if not sarcastic
*** Which, evidently, he believes in, given that he claims at heart to still be a Catholic
Update: I see from a Spectator piece on this that Jason Soon linked to, this comment about the people on the Right who are still supporting Milo despite his pederasty comments:
Those people – and I think they’re a tiny minority – are either childishly innocent or hopelessly stupid. There’s no kinder way to say it. Either way, their opinion doesn’t matter.Can you guess which choice I go for? [Lots of support for MY still in the Catallaxy threads.]
Conspiracy time
I can't be bothered checking right now, but I presume that the wingnut conspiracy Right must have claimed within minutes of its announcement that the Russian UN Ambassador's sudden death was at the hands of the Deep State trying to oust Trump, or at least start a war with Russia, or something?
On the upside
I'm a bit worried that I sounded too critical of the Catholic Church; some may think I'm starting to endorse "progressive" Christianity of the Spong variety.
So, as a corrective to that, let me make a few comments.
The Church on social teaching in the modern era is pretty sound - in terms of its views on economics and the role of government, it largely strikes a sensible balance in its support of capitalism, while acknowledging an important role for government intervention and even unions (as long as they're not outright supporting communism) in making for a fair society. Libertarians views for minimal government find no significant support there, and those from the Acton Institute are pushing a marginal view with no real credibility.
In terms of international aid, charity work, and the provision of health services in the West, too, it does great work with the only issue being the knots it ties itself in regarding women's reproduction, all due to it's view on abortion and contraception. (The latter does deserve some revision, but let's not go there right now while I'm trying to look on the bright side.)
The Church also has taken the "right" side of science on climate change and pollution, and shames the Evangelicals of American who are foolishly prepared to go with the idea that God just won't let the Earth overheat no matter how much humans try.
As for theology and doctrine and where its future lies: I remain completely unconvinced that the future for Christianity lies in redefining it so that the matter of the reality of God or a supernatural realm becomes unimportant, or irrelevant. Yet this is the danger that skeptical examinations of theology and religion always face; it seems almost an inevitable path that progressive theology leads down, and it's why conservative Catholics refuse to allow the first step to be taken.
But my point is that denial of a problem of how theology and doctrine is to take into account dramatic changes in understanding of the nature of the Universe (and human biology) is no answer either. And the reason for my previous post was to argue that the Church's institutional response has in some key respects made the matter harder to deal with, not easier.
So, as a corrective to that, let me make a few comments.
The Church on social teaching in the modern era is pretty sound - in terms of its views on economics and the role of government, it largely strikes a sensible balance in its support of capitalism, while acknowledging an important role for government intervention and even unions (as long as they're not outright supporting communism) in making for a fair society. Libertarians views for minimal government find no significant support there, and those from the Acton Institute are pushing a marginal view with no real credibility.
In terms of international aid, charity work, and the provision of health services in the West, too, it does great work with the only issue being the knots it ties itself in regarding women's reproduction, all due to it's view on abortion and contraception. (The latter does deserve some revision, but let's not go there right now while I'm trying to look on the bright side.)
The Church also has taken the "right" side of science on climate change and pollution, and shames the Evangelicals of American who are foolishly prepared to go with the idea that God just won't let the Earth overheat no matter how much humans try.
As for theology and doctrine and where its future lies: I remain completely unconvinced that the future for Christianity lies in redefining it so that the matter of the reality of God or a supernatural realm becomes unimportant, or irrelevant. Yet this is the danger that skeptical examinations of theology and religion always face; it seems almost an inevitable path that progressive theology leads down, and it's why conservative Catholics refuse to allow the first step to be taken.
But my point is that denial of a problem of how theology and doctrine is to take into account dramatic changes in understanding of the nature of the Universe (and human biology) is no answer either. And the reason for my previous post was to argue that the Church's institutional response has in some key respects made the matter harder to deal with, not easier.
Lead poisoning by bullet
It does seem odd that it has taken doctors a long time to fully take into account that leaving bullet fragments in the body (something recommended a surprising amount of times, apparently) can lead to long term lead poisoning. This article at The Atlantic explains why, though, and it makes for a good read.
Monday, February 20, 2017
Internal conflicts
An article at the Catholic Herald takes the line that the Church is now in a "full blown" doctrinal crisis.
I must admit, the article makes a pretty strong case.
There are two issues relevant here: on the one hand, there's the matter of who can access the sacraments; but the bigger issue is that so much of that question is tied to the matters of sex and marriage.
But I tend to think this is all part and parcel of a slowly evolving crisis of Catholicism hitting modernity - the debatable point being when do we say "modernity" began.
Although it can be argued that it goes back much further, I'm inclined to think the really serious challenge starts with Darwin. (And don't forget, the other big change in understanding humanity comes with knowledge of the true, vast extent of the universe, which only dates from about 1925.) Catholicism, to its credit, somehow never got caught up in denying evolution, and it can even claim a hand in the idea of the Big Bang; but that doesn't mean that both don't present challenges to the concept of Original Sin. Close on Darwin's heal, Freud may have been nuttily obsessed with some of his pet ideas, but he and Jung successfully set the groundwork for people assuming they have to dig deep into their unconscious to understand their "true" self, which is then perceived as essentially immutable. By the end of the 20th century, the ubiquity of computers and the rise of the idea that everyone is a meat robot, with no free will but only the trick perception of free will, has become more pervasive and only exacerbates the role of the unconscious, and as such it's (of course) extremely corrosive to the idea of a Church, or God's Grace, having any significant role in life.
These forces, combined with the Church's over-reach in push back against modernity with it formalising the Pope's infallibility, followed up by using it in the mid 20th century for a doctrine that seems, to put it mildly, esoteric to the modern mind (I'm talking the Assumption of Mary); and then the rejection of contraception even if it's of a kind that prevents conception (yes, even a condom used by a married couple renders the sex "wrong"); the Church has been losing doctrinal credibility at a slow but steady pace over about 150 years.
The Church's attempt to get cool with modernity, via Vatican 2, brought up its own logical difficulties, with the insistence on a "properly informed conscience" being paramount in assessing moral behaviour, while denying that any Catholic could reject the Church's teaching on what is moral. And it was all undercut by the lack of compelling logic in the blanket rejection of contraception in the same decade.
The result is that in a very large part of the globe, the congregations have taken doctrine, and the use of the sacraments, into their own hands, effectively: confession and the power it implied in the local priest has almost vanished; the concept of sexual sin has been greatly diminished; in fact the whole definitive categorisation of the seriousness of different sins is seen as improbable now; and people with failed marriages (especially if the fault is all their partner's) resent the idea that they cannot participate in communion if they re-partner. (Annulments are possible, but seen as an unnecessarily complicated de facto acceptance of divorce.) Those who are living outside of the Church's teaching on sexuality will often just partake in communion anyway - they are very unlikely to hear a condemnation of their behaviour from the pulpit, and unless they want to grandstand, the priest handing out communion is not to know what they do in the bedroom. For those in gay relationships, there has been the startling turnaround in sympathy for them amongst the laity, and many clergy. The Church's behaviour in the child abuse scandals in many nations, as well as its less than stellar role in confronting European fascism in the mid 20th century, have further hurt the perception of the Church's moral authority.
So yes, I think the Church is facing a very difficult future. Intellectually, I am inclined to think that some sort of schism may be the only way of resolving it, but it's not as if the Church's assets can be easily divided up between the conservatives and the more liberal elements. So the Henry VIII approach can't be repeated. Which perhaps means that it is really is going to continue dragging out for years yet.
I must admit, the article makes a pretty strong case.
There are two issues relevant here: on the one hand, there's the matter of who can access the sacraments; but the bigger issue is that so much of that question is tied to the matters of sex and marriage.
But I tend to think this is all part and parcel of a slowly evolving crisis of Catholicism hitting modernity - the debatable point being when do we say "modernity" began.
Although it can be argued that it goes back much further, I'm inclined to think the really serious challenge starts with Darwin. (And don't forget, the other big change in understanding humanity comes with knowledge of the true, vast extent of the universe, which only dates from about 1925.) Catholicism, to its credit, somehow never got caught up in denying evolution, and it can even claim a hand in the idea of the Big Bang; but that doesn't mean that both don't present challenges to the concept of Original Sin. Close on Darwin's heal, Freud may have been nuttily obsessed with some of his pet ideas, but he and Jung successfully set the groundwork for people assuming they have to dig deep into their unconscious to understand their "true" self, which is then perceived as essentially immutable. By the end of the 20th century, the ubiquity of computers and the rise of the idea that everyone is a meat robot, with no free will but only the trick perception of free will, has become more pervasive and only exacerbates the role of the unconscious, and as such it's (of course) extremely corrosive to the idea of a Church, or God's Grace, having any significant role in life.
These forces, combined with the Church's over-reach in push back against modernity with it formalising the Pope's infallibility, followed up by using it in the mid 20th century for a doctrine that seems, to put it mildly, esoteric to the modern mind (I'm talking the Assumption of Mary); and then the rejection of contraception even if it's of a kind that prevents conception (yes, even a condom used by a married couple renders the sex "wrong"); the Church has been losing doctrinal credibility at a slow but steady pace over about 150 years.
The Church's attempt to get cool with modernity, via Vatican 2, brought up its own logical difficulties, with the insistence on a "properly informed conscience" being paramount in assessing moral behaviour, while denying that any Catholic could reject the Church's teaching on what is moral. And it was all undercut by the lack of compelling logic in the blanket rejection of contraception in the same decade.
The result is that in a very large part of the globe, the congregations have taken doctrine, and the use of the sacraments, into their own hands, effectively: confession and the power it implied in the local priest has almost vanished; the concept of sexual sin has been greatly diminished; in fact the whole definitive categorisation of the seriousness of different sins is seen as improbable now; and people with failed marriages (especially if the fault is all their partner's) resent the idea that they cannot participate in communion if they re-partner. (Annulments are possible, but seen as an unnecessarily complicated de facto acceptance of divorce.) Those who are living outside of the Church's teaching on sexuality will often just partake in communion anyway - they are very unlikely to hear a condemnation of their behaviour from the pulpit, and unless they want to grandstand, the priest handing out communion is not to know what they do in the bedroom. For those in gay relationships, there has been the startling turnaround in sympathy for them amongst the laity, and many clergy. The Church's behaviour in the child abuse scandals in many nations, as well as its less than stellar role in confronting European fascism in the mid 20th century, have further hurt the perception of the Church's moral authority.
So yes, I think the Church is facing a very difficult future. Intellectually, I am inclined to think that some sort of schism may be the only way of resolving it, but it's not as if the Church's assets can be easily divided up between the conservatives and the more liberal elements. So the Henry VIII approach can't be repeated. Which perhaps means that it is really is going to continue dragging out for years yet.
Monday bits and pieces of interest
* Mission Impossible 6 starts filming in Paris in April. Same director as last time, although he says it will be a very different Ethan Hunt. Sounds a bit like a revisit to the family drama stuff in M:I3, which was OK but I don't think I've ever re-watched. Anyway, can almost guarantee I will see it.
* A case of a brain tumour causing "hyper-religiosity" and visions of talking with the Virgin Mary. Rather reminiscent of Joan of Arc.
* I finally see how to link to a particular Axios story - this one about how Republicans, with supreme hypocrisy and with no proper justification from the past (didn't Reagan have to increase some taxes to make up revenue short fall after his first cuts?), are now prepared to cut taxes and let the deficit grow. Stephen Moore is for this: Krugman derides him continually, so he'll be impressed. In fact, Krugman has already a post up explaining that for demographic and other reasons, no one should be planning on very high growth in the next few years.
* I watched Snowpiercer on Stan on Saturday. As I say, it's remarkable how it seems Stan is exclusively for only B grade movies. This one has a very silly premise, but I knew that going in. It's worth watching for the scenery chewing performance of Tilda Swinton alone. As I have said before, she just sucks all attention to herself (in a good way - she's really remarkable.)
* When even Fox News hosts start complaining that Trump is going too far in his "the media is the enemy of the people" line, you know he really is going too far. The drumming up of fear that seems crucial to Trump's appeal to his base is increasingly ridiculous, with his and his staff's allusions to attacks that never happened, but still apparently works with his dimwitted fans. Speaking of which, it is a wonder that Triumph the Comedy Insult Dog escaped with his life after his interactions with Trumpkins at the inauguration. Pretty funny, though:
* A case of a brain tumour causing "hyper-religiosity" and visions of talking with the Virgin Mary. Rather reminiscent of Joan of Arc.
* I finally see how to link to a particular Axios story - this one about how Republicans, with supreme hypocrisy and with no proper justification from the past (didn't Reagan have to increase some taxes to make up revenue short fall after his first cuts?), are now prepared to cut taxes and let the deficit grow. Stephen Moore is for this: Krugman derides him continually, so he'll be impressed. In fact, Krugman has already a post up explaining that for demographic and other reasons, no one should be planning on very high growth in the next few years.
* I watched Snowpiercer on Stan on Saturday. As I say, it's remarkable how it seems Stan is exclusively for only B grade movies. This one has a very silly premise, but I knew that going in. It's worth watching for the scenery chewing performance of Tilda Swinton alone. As I have said before, she just sucks all attention to herself (in a good way - she's really remarkable.)
* When even Fox News hosts start complaining that Trump is going too far in his "the media is the enemy of the people" line, you know he really is going too far. The drumming up of fear that seems crucial to Trump's appeal to his base is increasingly ridiculous, with his and his staff's allusions to attacks that never happened, but still apparently works with his dimwitted fans. Speaking of which, it is a wonder that Triumph the Comedy Insult Dog escaped with his life after his interactions with Trumpkins at the inauguration. Pretty funny, though:
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Churchill: friend of science
Did you know that Winston Churchill was quite interested in science and did his own bits of popular science writing in his day? No, nor did I.
This Nature article, written because of the recent re-discovery of an essay he wrote "Are we alone in the Universe?" in 1939, is a great read. Here are some extracts:
This Nature article, written because of the recent re-discovery of an essay he wrote "Are we alone in the Universe?" in 1939, is a great read. Here are some extracts:
Winston Churchill is best known as a wartime leader, one of the most influential politicians of the twentieth century, a clear-eyed historian and an eloquent orator. He was also passionate about science and technology.Once again, evidence that conservatism in the modern political world (especially in America) has undergone a worrying change.
Aged 22, while stationed with the British Army in India in 1896, he read Darwin's On the Origin of Species and a primer on physics. In the 1920s and 1930s, he wrote popular-science essays on topics such as evolution and cells in newspapers and magazines. In a 1931 article in The Strand Magazine entitled 'Fifty Years Hence'1, he described fusion power: “If the hydrogen atoms in a pound of water could be prevailed upon to combine together and form helium, they would suffice to drive a thousand-horsepower engine for a whole year.” His writing was likely to have been informed by conversations with his friend and later adviser, the physicist Frederick Lindemann.
During the Second World War, Churchill supported the development of radar and Britain's nuclear programme. He met regularly with scientists such as Bernard Lovell, the father of radio astronomy. An exchange about the use of statistics to fight German U-boats captures his attitude. Air Chief Marshal Arthur 'Bomber' Harris complained, “Are we fighting this war with weapons or slide rules?” Churchill replied, “Let's try the slide rule.”2
Friday, February 17, 2017
But look - the public I have conned don't want it
The continuing hide of Professor Stagflation of Catallaxy, um, continues.
Sinclair Davidson today:
Davidson gets some credit from me for not swallowing Trumpism whole - but this line he runs is very much like the massive hypocrisy in the Trump declaration that he, once and for all, was ending the rumours that Obama was not born in the US.
If he's going to comment on the public's reticence on carbon pricing, he should acknowledge his side's role in it. And while he's at it, update us on the "no statistically significant global temperature increase since 1995 line" too.
Sinclair Davidson today:
One small problem: the electorate are somewhere else. It seems to me that the electorate do not want a tax, a price, a scheme, a what-ever-you-want-to-call-it that increases electricity prices. People want cheap and reliable electricity.Yes, and why (at least in significant part) would that be? Because you and your IPA and Catallaxy economist mates (including Rupert's national paper) have waged a PR campaign for years, based on deceptive and dishonest non-scientist charlatans (and the global handful of climate contrarian scientists) that no carbon pricing is in any way necessary, as climate change is a bunch of bollocks.
Davidson gets some credit from me for not swallowing Trumpism whole - but this line he runs is very much like the massive hypocrisy in the Trump declaration that he, once and for all, was ending the rumours that Obama was not born in the US.
If he's going to comment on the public's reticence on carbon pricing, he should acknowledge his side's role in it. And while he's at it, update us on the "no statistically significant global temperature increase since 1995 line" too.
It's very hard to fathom...
....how anyone can listen to the rambling, disjointed (rather ADHD sounding, actually) self-pitying and narcissistic style of a Trump press conference and not be highly concerned about the fact that he is President of a fantastically powerful, nuclear armed nation. I've seen 10 year olds with better and more sustained coherence when speaking.
What's more, I reckon there's good reason to speculate that it is this very concern - about his mental suitability for the role - that is behind the leaking against him. Can you imagine the frustration a competent intelligence adviser must feel in having to boil down a complicated, multi-party issue into one page of highlights, and even then not being sure if he's absorbed it?
Yet Trump will still have his supporters, and it leaves the rest of us puzzling about the dire effects of everything from the use of the internet as the ultimate propaganda tool for outright liars, the corrupting effect of reality TV, and how the culture wars can overpower everything from science to the perception of reality.
I also hadn't realised how truly awful the apparently highly influential (and very young) Stephen Miller had come across in his media appearances last Sunday until I saw clips of them on Colbert last night. He truly has the creepy, dead eyed look of an android with mental health and anger issues, and yes, Trump praised his performance. Have a look at this, which wasn't even his worst performance:
These are very strange and disturbing times...
Update: I liked John Cassidy's take on the Trump press conference in the New Yorker.
What's more, I reckon there's good reason to speculate that it is this very concern - about his mental suitability for the role - that is behind the leaking against him. Can you imagine the frustration a competent intelligence adviser must feel in having to boil down a complicated, multi-party issue into one page of highlights, and even then not being sure if he's absorbed it?
Yet Trump will still have his supporters, and it leaves the rest of us puzzling about the dire effects of everything from the use of the internet as the ultimate propaganda tool for outright liars, the corrupting effect of reality TV, and how the culture wars can overpower everything from science to the perception of reality.
I also hadn't realised how truly awful the apparently highly influential (and very young) Stephen Miller had come across in his media appearances last Sunday until I saw clips of them on Colbert last night. He truly has the creepy, dead eyed look of an android with mental health and anger issues, and yes, Trump praised his performance. Have a look at this, which wasn't even his worst performance:
These are very strange and disturbing times...
Update: I liked John Cassidy's take on the Trump press conference in the New Yorker.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Spank me, doctor?
Good post title for a review of A Dangerous Method, no?
I had intended seeing it at the cinema, but never got around to it. But it is currently on SBS on Demand, for those in Australia, at least.
For those who don't know - the movie is about the early career of Carl Jung and his interaction with Freud and a patient/lover Sabina Spielrein. Yes, it is basically a true life story, and having read a bit of Jung in my time, there were key scenes that were recognizably drawn from Jung's memoirs.
How did it work as a film? I would say it's good without being great. Its best feature was the terrific acting of Keira Knightley, yet I see she received no nominations for any award. Michael Fassbender was OK as Jung, but I thought Viggo Mortensen was pretty forgettable as Freud, yet they got all the award nominations. Odd.
The movie looks good and the subject matter was always interesting, but being (largely - see below) based on real life that wasn't bent too far out of shape, the story doesn't really have a dramatic structure that's very satisfying. I felt the movie particularly failed to explain the origin of Jung's interest in the occult and paranormal. The famous scene (if you know anything about them) in which Jung argues with Freud that there should be more to psychoanalysis than sex, and feels vindicated by sudden bangs coming from the bookcase, seems to come out of nowhere. But anyone who had read much about him knows better: I think I have on the bookshelf a (largely unread) copy of Jung's 1903 doctoral dissertation "On the Psychology and Pathology of So-Called Occult Phenomena": he had been interested in the subject for a long time, and it seems to me the movie might somehow have shown evidence of that before he started to complain to Freud.
Apart from that complaint, here's where I get to mull over the matter of where lines should be drawn in purportedly historical movies that invent key scenes for dramatic purposes. I am surprised to read that there is considerable dispute over whether Jung and Sabina ever actually became physical lovers - let alone the kinky, spanky kind of lovers featured as the most memorably odd thing about their relationship in the film.
Sure, they had a romantic relationship of some kind (well known from their letters and diaries) but their exchanges never amount to a 100% clear evidence of sex. Here's an article in Psychology Today discussing this:
As the writer of the Psychology Article says, Jungian professionals tended to like the film, but at the same recognised that it could harm the public's regard for Jungian analysis. Oh well.
So, my feeling on whether this breached the line of acceptable invention: yes, but I guess I don't feel too worked up about it. It was only an incrementally crossed line - and it was not really dramatically unforgiveable. (Unlike, say, the ridiculous inventions in Elizabeth that I complained about last year.)
One final bit of trivia: I was interested in this comment by the director in the Psychology Today article (my bold):
I had intended seeing it at the cinema, but never got around to it. But it is currently on SBS on Demand, for those in Australia, at least.
For those who don't know - the movie is about the early career of Carl Jung and his interaction with Freud and a patient/lover Sabina Spielrein. Yes, it is basically a true life story, and having read a bit of Jung in my time, there were key scenes that were recognizably drawn from Jung's memoirs.
How did it work as a film? I would say it's good without being great. Its best feature was the terrific acting of Keira Knightley, yet I see she received no nominations for any award. Michael Fassbender was OK as Jung, but I thought Viggo Mortensen was pretty forgettable as Freud, yet they got all the award nominations. Odd.
The movie looks good and the subject matter was always interesting, but being (largely - see below) based on real life that wasn't bent too far out of shape, the story doesn't really have a dramatic structure that's very satisfying. I felt the movie particularly failed to explain the origin of Jung's interest in the occult and paranormal. The famous scene (if you know anything about them) in which Jung argues with Freud that there should be more to psychoanalysis than sex, and feels vindicated by sudden bangs coming from the bookcase, seems to come out of nowhere. But anyone who had read much about him knows better: I think I have on the bookshelf a (largely unread) copy of Jung's 1903 doctoral dissertation "On the Psychology and Pathology of So-Called Occult Phenomena": he had been interested in the subject for a long time, and it seems to me the movie might somehow have shown evidence of that before he started to complain to Freud.
Apart from that complaint, here's where I get to mull over the matter of where lines should be drawn in purportedly historical movies that invent key scenes for dramatic purposes. I am surprised to read that there is considerable dispute over whether Jung and Sabina ever actually became physical lovers - let alone the kinky, spanky kind of lovers featured as the most memorably odd thing about their relationship in the film.
Sure, they had a romantic relationship of some kind (well known from their letters and diaries) but their exchanges never amount to a 100% clear evidence of sex. Here's an article in Psychology Today discussing this:
However, much of the film turns around the dramatic invention that Jung and Sabina had a sexual affair, characterized by bondage and sadomasochistic practices. These lurid scenes are likely to be the ones that most people who see the film will take away with them. There is no concrete evidence of their having had an affair, let alone the sadomasochistic elements so vividly portrayed in the movie.I think it fair to say from this that the movie could entirely justify portraying them as lovers. What's far less justifiable is the sadomasochism as a key element in their sexual relationship.
A Huffington Post interviewer confronts Cronenberg directly on this point, to which he replies: "An invention with justification. I was taken to task by a young woman who had seen the trailer. She was trying to convince me that Sabina and Jung never had sex. In her letters Sabina wrote about Jung in poetic terms, this woman claimed. You could have sexual poetry, I wanted to point out to her. But in her diary and letters to Freud, Sabina wrote, ‘I gave Jung my maidenhood, my innocence.' In the Victorian era that could only mean one thing. They had a sexual affair. We coupled that with how she talked about her father and being beaten, how that turned her on sexually..."
I think it may be a stretch when he says, Sabina's written statement that she gave Jung her "maidenhood," her "innocence," could only mean one thing. After all, so much of their discourse had to do with symbols and it's possible that she was speaking metaphorically. At the same time, I think it's quite well-established that Jung later had a long-term mistress, Toni Wolff. So, I'm not trying to whitewash his character. In fact, the Wikipedia entry on Sabina Spielrein reports, "The historian and psychoanalyst Peter Loewenberg argues that this was a sexual relationship, in breach of professional ethics, and that it ‘jeopardized his [Jung's] position at the Burghölzli and led to his rupture with Bleuler and his departure from the University of Zurich.'" In an interview about the film, Jungian analyst, Dr. Thomas Kirsch says, "I have no idea whether Jung had a sexual affair with Sabina Spielrein. This is a subject which has been written about extensively. Zvi Lothane, a psychoanalyst and historian, wrote of his conviction that they had a sexual affair in his earlier papers. In a later paper he reversed his opinion..."
As the writer of the Psychology Article says, Jungian professionals tended to like the film, but at the same recognised that it could harm the public's regard for Jungian analysis. Oh well.
So, my feeling on whether this breached the line of acceptable invention: yes, but I guess I don't feel too worked up about it. It was only an incrementally crossed line - and it was not really dramatically unforgiveable. (Unlike, say, the ridiculous inventions in Elizabeth that I complained about last year.)
One final bit of trivia: I was interested in this comment by the director in the Psychology Today article (my bold):
In an interview, Cronenberg says: "What's in the movie is perfectly accurate because it was from a letter-writing period. At that time in Vienna, there were between five and eight mail deliveries per day. If you wrote a letter in the morning, you expected to get an answer by the afternoon. It was their internet. So there were many, many letters. These people were very obsessive about detail and the minutiae of their lives (what their dreams were and what they ate) and what that signifies. We had lots of info. I can back up almost every line of dialogue with quotes from letters."Huh. Five to eight deliveries a day? Postmen must have been busy...
Get a grip, fools
There's a bit of problem here with the Wingnut reaction to Flynn's resignation: if their hero Trump was to meet their expectations, he could have tried to ride it out. He could have taken their line that this was "the Deep State" trying to interfere with legitimate government elected by a landslide and he wasn't going to fall for it.
But he didn't.
So what can Wingnuts do about that? Nothing.
Except get a grip and take a look in the mirror at the paranoid, conspiracy believing nutters they've become.
Update: speaking of nutty, conspiracy believing Rightwingers on the Australian front: just how proud is Sinclair Davidson that the blog he runs hosts his paranoid and gullible co-worker Steve Kates, who fears the US is having a "potential" constitutional crisis because Obama is behind the Flynn resignation? "Police state" mutterings are in his posts too.
To what level of paranoia and Trump love does Kates have to rise before SD says "mate, enough: you can't run your paranoid theories here any more."
But he didn't.
So what can Wingnuts do about that? Nothing.
Except get a grip and take a look in the mirror at the paranoid, conspiracy believing nutters they've become.
Update: speaking of nutty, conspiracy believing Rightwingers on the Australian front: just how proud is Sinclair Davidson that the blog he runs hosts his paranoid and gullible co-worker Steve Kates, who fears the US is having a "potential" constitutional crisis because Obama is behind the Flynn resignation? "Police state" mutterings are in his posts too.
To what level of paranoia and Trump love does Kates have to rise before SD says "mate, enough: you can't run your paranoid theories here any more."
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Go Colbert
I'm pleasantly surprised to read that Colbert's late show is actually rating well, now that Trump is President.
But I think the Slate article explaining this is pretty wrong when it says " He doesn’t convey anger so much as he does bemusement..." To the contrary, I've already commented here a few times about how genuinely upset, and angry, he's appeared to be since the Trump win. I think the audience is coming back because he is so passionately appalled by the Trump presidency.
He is not above the cheap, but very funny joke, though. You have to watch this clip right to end to see what I mean:
But I think the Slate article explaining this is pretty wrong when it says " He doesn’t convey anger so much as he does bemusement..." To the contrary, I've already commented here a few times about how genuinely upset, and angry, he's appeared to be since the Trump win. I think the audience is coming back because he is so passionately appalled by the Trump presidency.
He is not above the cheap, but very funny joke, though. You have to watch this clip right to end to see what I mean:
I trust it's labelled as "Extra Short" size...
Noted from AP:
SHANGHAI (AP) -- There's a Trump toilet, a Trump condom, a Trump pacemaker and even a Trump International Hotel among hundreds of trademarks in China that don't belong to Donald Trump. But after a decade of grinding battle in China's courts, the president was expected to get an unlikely win this week: the rights to his own name.
One White House loony gone, probably only 30 or so more to go...
So, Trump knows that all the leaking is a problem, tweeting:
Vox has an interesting article about the warring camps within the White House.
Update: another Vox article, explaining how Flynn was all Trump's fault - for hiring him in the first place. But Trump loves sycophants - it's his narcissism at play.
The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?What's the bet that he thinks leaking per se is the problem, not the vast conflicts within the White House and Republicans which is its root cause, and that with many of the latter thinking that Trump himself is a mentally unstable danger, it's going to be really hard to stop.
Vox has an interesting article about the warring camps within the White House.
Update: another Vox article, explaining how Flynn was all Trump's fault - for hiring him in the first place. But Trump loves sycophants - it's his narcissism at play.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Not for Valentine's Day
Mob Kills Eloped Lovers After Storming Afghan Police Station
In a horror romance story out of Afghanistan:
In a horror romance story out of Afghanistan:
The authorities said there were only 30 police officers at the station facing a mob of 250 to 300 heavily armed men. “If police had fired bullets at the people, a massacre could have happened,” said Hafiz Abdul Qayoom, the governor of Nuristan, claiming the police had no option but to surrender the couple to the mob, especially after three officers had suffered gunshot wounds from the angry crowd.Enayatullah, the district governor in Wama, who like many Afghans uses only one name, said the couple were apparently killed soon after they had been taken out of the police station.“We asked for additional police, but the road to the district was closed due to snow,” he said. “If the police had resisted more, a disaster would have taken place.”Salam Khan, 22, a witness from Fatiha’s village, Sar-i-Pul, said he saw what had happened to the couple after the police surrendered them. “Some of Fatiha’s relatives, her cousins, were beating her with their fists and saying, ‘Why did you do this?’ Then her older brother got angry and shot her with a hunting rifle and her younger brother shot her with an AK-47. I don’t know how many bullets they fired,” Mr. Khan said, speaking by telephone from the remote village.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)