Politicians' affairs and the culture wars

The strange situation with Barnaby Joyce (Murdoch tabloids - and today the Australian - giving publicity to his political enemy Tony Windsor spreading via Twitter rumours about some kind of sexual misbehaviour causing marriage stress)  has me thinking about the media and politician's personal lives.

I see that on Twitter, a lot of people have been attacking Katharine Murphy of The Guardian for maintaining the line that politician's private relationships (such as marriage break ups or affairs) are not something Australian reporters report on in principle, as it's largely not relevant to their jobs.   A lot of same sex marriage supporters argue that, no, it is relevant if it shows hypocrisy in their policy attitudes. 

Insiders on the ABC didn't touch the issue as well yesterday, even though it was front page news on the Telegraph the day before.

While I certainly don't want to see Australia go the way of American salacious interest in affairs, it does seem to me that the Australian left-ish media has become too precious about this.

There is no doubt that Australian political discussion has been infected with culture war issues in a similar, though perhaps slightly less extreme, way as in America.

And it is 100% clear that to the culture war obsessed Right, the sexual behaviour and attitudes of those on the Left is of great interest and alleged importance.   Basically, they think the Left is full of sexual depravity and lack of self control.   Hence, at the likes of Catallaxy, the circumstances in which any Labor politician split with their spouse is routinely a matter of criticism and ridicule - both Paul Keating and Bill Shorten have been frequently on the receiving end of such comments.    And in the Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott wars - who can deny that Tony went out of his way to use his daughters and "family man" image to maximum PR use in his campaign, whereas Gillard was the subject to continual rumour in Right wing blogs about her relationship with her partner being fake. 

Of course, the conservative wingnut Right, being as stupid as they have become with culture war obsessions, are not so fussed about politicians on their side having divorces or affairs - look at the forgiveness of Trump as an obvious case, or in Australia, how ex liberal and now one of the Fox News wannabes Ross Cameron's past private life is ignored.

So it seems to me that things have changed somewhat since (say) the 70's and 80's, when (for example) Liberal voters may not have cared for Bob Hawke much, but they also didn't spend all day on the internet talking talking to each other about his rumoured affairs.   There are those on the Left who like to spread rumour of right wingers too - but the context is usually one of hypocrisy, not general moral depravity. 

The internet has hyped up the rumour mill and the trash talk, and the culture wars have given the Right a narrative that the Left are all sexual libertines ready to have affairs at the drop a hat.   In those circumstances, it seems to me that the left-ish journalist's squeamishness about ever mentioning rumour is largely working to the advantage of the Right.

Does that mean I think Piers Akerman should have gotten away with saying on Insiders that it was a common rumour around Canberra that Gillard's de facto was gay?    Well, no, I don't think so, because it appears clear that this was actually just an internet rumour not believed by journalists due to it having no evidence behind it at all, nor (even if it was true) any relevance on the matter of hypocrisy in attitudes on the part of Gillard.

But in this case, where one big media outlet has already front paged an ex-politician spreading rumours against a current one who is likely to go to a by-election soon?    It's also pretty obvious that Windsor would be leaving himself open to serious defamation action if it is completely unfounded, and the response of Murphy indicates that they do know something factual about Joyce's woes, it's just they are choosing not to discuss it.   But if they did, it would be Windsor who made it news, not journalists being salacious.

In these circumstances, I just don't see the justification for not mentioning this on the ABC or in The Guardian.

What a joke

This long term Catallaxy resident occasionally comments here:

I will allow for one thing:   there is behaviour which is sometimes borderline or unclear as to its intent and whether it should properly be called sexual harassment.  

But the idea that women should just get up and move on due to crystal clear harassment - way to keep them in their place, hey JC. 

Yes, John Kelly is creepily elitist in a Starship Troopers kind of way

I think it's pretty clear what happened in the Trump telephone call to the mother of the deceased soldier:  Trump asked John Kelly what he should say; Kelly gave him an outline of what had worked for him (so to speak) when his own son had been killed,  involving in part something like "he knew what he was signing up for".  But Trump delivered that line in a ham-fisted way that made it sound insensitive (and it is, frankly, no mater what Kelly may think, a line that is readily capable of coming out sounding wrong, and he might have thought more carefully how it could go wrong in delivery from his far from eloquent boss.)

So was Kelly right to be upset with the Congresswoman for her criticising the line?   Maybe, to some extent, but as many in the American media has noted, it was Trump himself who started politicising the whole matter of Presidential contact with "Gold Star" families, so it seems a bit rich to be weighing in on how outrageous it was for Wilson to say what she did.

And let's face it, a more presidential President might have reacted to the news with an apology to the mother if his meaning had been misunderstood, and then expanding on exactly what he had intended - reading off a card to make sure he gets it right, if necessary.  Instead, what did we get - a typical Trumpian "I am always right" line of denial that he had said it at all!   (Which was, essentially, contradicted by John Kelly in his appearance.)

But the more important aspect of this now is the creepily elitist militaristic line that John Kelly took in his press appearance.

Some might think that Masha Gessen at the New Yorker went too far with her assessment in "John Kelly and the Language of Military Coup, but I think she was basically right.   I liked how she pointed out that Kelly actually exaggerates the numbers, as if the nation barely knows anyone who has ever done military service (an argument I found odd, given the amount of fawning of the military you see as part of certain sporting events there):

Fallen soldiers, Kelly said, join “the best one per cent this country produces.” Here, the chief of staff again reminded his audience of its ignorance: “Most of you, as Americans, don’t know them. Many of you don’t know anyone who knows any of them. But they are the very best this country produces.

”The one-per-cent figure is puzzling. The number of people currently serving in the military, both on active duty and in the reserves, is not even one per cent of all Americans. The number of veterans in the population is far higher: more than seven per cent. But, later in the speech, when Kelly described his own distress after hearing the criticism of Trump’s phone call, the general said that he had gone to “walk among the finest men and women on this earth. And you can always find them because they’re in Arlington National Cemetery.” So, by “the best” Americans, Kelly had meant dead Americans—specifically, fallen soldiers.

To anyone sensible, this should be starting to ring authoritarian elitist alarm bells.

And it elevates the moral importance of what the military does in ways that are not really justifiable.   Sure, we can all agree that all fighters who died in a "good war" as clear as World War II died in an entirely morally justified enterprise.   We can also all agree that, even in times of relative peace, each individual soldier deserves respect for doing their government's bidding to the point of risking their life. 

But because the use of the military for much of the time is in enterprises that involve various shades of grey, we should reject any suggestion that military service per se is a morally elevating thing that makes you a "finer person" that the rest of society.

An article in Slate notes that Kelly being a Marine is probably part of the problem here.  Of all the services, they are most inclined to believe their own PR:

It’s striking that Kelly feels comfortable highlighting the civil-military divide, and even emphasizing its virtues, from the lectern of the White House briefing room. Kelly’s remarks break with the popular view among many of his contemporaries that the divide is a bad thing and that the military has grown too far apart from the nation during the 44 years of the all-volunteer force. Indeed, Defense Secretary James Mattis (Kelly’s former comrade from the Marine Corps) edited a book on the topic last year before joining the Trump administration. But perhaps Kelly’s views should not be surprising given his pedigree as a retired Marine (the Marines have always stood apart from the other services with respect to their martial virtues) and his own record of service and family sacrifice. Kelly reflects a slice of military sentiment that exists in barracks and team rooms across the globe but rarely appears in public.

Nonetheless, the implications of Kelly’s performance should worry us. If there’s no role for civilians to play other than to salute the military and give them resources, that would seem to invert the relationship between the military and the nation it’s supposed to serve.

 And at Vox, an article is accurately summed up in its subheading:

The chief of staff divides America into those who “serve” in uniform — at home and abroad — and those who should shut up.

 From the body of the piece:

In Kelly’s eyes, those who serve America understand it and those who do not simply don’t. The latter, in fact, can’t really be trusted to preserve America’s goodness.

“We don't look down upon those who haven't served,” Kelly said at the end of the presser. “In a way we're a bit sorry because you'll never experience the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kind of things our service men and women do.” 

In fact, he said at another point, they “volunteer to protect our country when there's nothing in our country anymore that seems to suggest that self-service to the nation is not only appropriate but required. That's all right” (emphasis added).

So when Kelly waxed nostalgic about the days when certain things were “sacred” — women, religion, and battlefield sacrifice — he wasn’t just echoing the complaints of so many who support Donald Trump because they too feel America is no longer great. He was saying that there are Americans who have kept the flame of American greatness alive — those who serve the country for a living — and that the best thing the rest of America can do is keep a respectful distance.

It all puts me in mind of the military elitism apparently promoted by Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers, and I'd be surprised if I am the first to write that.  

Oh yeah, as usual, I'm not:

 So, Kelly won't event take questions from people who aren't sufficiently close to the military.  It's a step towards Starship Troopers.

The thing to remember about Kelly, too, is that no matter how good his reputation as a military leader may be, anyone willing to work for a person like Trump has to be suspect in judgement.  

Weekend observations

*   When did the frequent use of the word "bespoke" become a thing?   I noticed it on (I think) Radio National this week, and then realised how it's appearing everywhere in the media, the same way viral catchphrases get used by teens.  I also realised I didn't even clearly understand what it meant, and now that I've looked it up, I'm not even sure that everyone is using appropriately.   I don't approve.

*   I thought that it had become almost impossible to find the original cut of Blade Runner on DVD, and (as I have explained before) I am apparently one of the few people who prefer it with the voice over narration.  So I was pleasantly surprised to find last night that the version on Stan (from which I haven't yet got around to un-subscribing) is the original, and I re-watched it in full.   Yeah, it's still pretty good.  I never thought it was the greatest movie, but it is very Philip K Dick thematically, and sure, you have to admire the production design.   Would be funny (not the right word) if due to a Trumpian nuclear holocaust, LA really does end up under a perpetual cloud of yellow smog by 2019.   I haven't yet gone to see the sequel, but will soon.

*  I'm very much enjoying the current springtime season of cheap Australian asparagus.  Last night it made an appearance in my Spanish style omelette/fritatta, which is a really easy by tasty light dinner.   It's so simple it seems hardly necessary to record the recipe, but I will anyway:

Roughly cube enough potato to cover frying pan.   If they are clean, just leave the skin on.  Start cooking on low heat in about 1 cm of olive oil.  After a few minutes, add in a rough diced onion, and about five minutes later some red capsicum and chopped up chorizo.  Stir them around every now and then.  The potato should be soft at about the 15 minute mark, then drain off most of the oil.  Push the cooked mix to the side and fry briefly some chopped asparagus, then spread the contents around so that you have an even mix across the fry pan. Spinkle on some salt and pepper, and pour in 5 or 6 beaten eggs over the top and shake the pan to make sure it is reaching the bottom.   Cook under low heat til you can see the mix harden, but it will need to be placed under a griller to get the top firmly set and a bit browned too.  I usually sprinkle on a bit of cheese on top before grilling, although I expect that is not a Spanish thing.   Eat with bread and a side vegetable like beans.  Delicious, especially if using a good quality chorizo.

6 dimensional chess?

What is going on in Australian political reporting?

The Murdoch tabloid press has decided to run prominently the fact that Barnaby Joyce is the subject of pretty clear Twitter suggestions from his enemy Tony Windsor that he's been sexually harassing a young staffer who has since departed the scene.   (Seems the Weinstein publicity has been used as reason to bring it up now.)   Right wing bloggers Bolt and Blair are happy to draw attention to it too.

But Fairfax and the Guardian are steering clear of it (so far - I think.)

What interest does the Murdoch tabloid press - apparent friend to the Nationals - have in promoting such rumour?  Do they think a pre-emptive airing of the issue helps Joyce in the long run, rather than letting it slip at the start of a likely by-election campaign?   I've seen someone on Twitter suggest that it was actually part of a plot to discredit both Turnbull and Joyce so as to let Team Abbott (precise membership - about 3 as far as I can tell) make a leadership move and start all over again!  Surely that can't be right.  But look at the reaction of Bolt - saying that if its true (even though we have such scant detail) - then Joyce is a goner.   Seems a premature assessment to me. 

The news in any event does make some sense, in that Joyce seemed exceptionally glum after the citizenship issue came to light.   Sure, that was embarrassing for him, but it did always seem to me that his appearance of having slipped into depression over it was a bit of an overreaction.  

Euthanasia arrives in Australia, soon?

This Victorian push for euthanasia laws seemed to arrive pretty much out of no where, didn't it?

Oddly, I notice that opponents have included some unusual bed fellows, such as Paul Keating, and Sinclair Davidson.   (They wake up screaming in the morning.)   The former thinks it's a case of "sending the wrong message", and the latter says he doesn't like slippery slope arguments, but it's a slippery slope.  The state will be coming to encourage him to drink the hemlock soon, apparently.

 In any event, I am pleased that some notably non religious people have, for once, made an argument that aligns with religious views, but using secular arguments.   I find it surprising that (as far as I know) not one prominent non religious person has made a similar approach on same sex marriage.  I find that rather irritating, because I actually think my lack of support* for SSM is not particularly religiously motivated.   (In fact, I think that Catholicism is in the throes of coming to terms with a modern understanding of sexuality whereby homosexuality as a practice is not going to be viewed as inherently sinful.)

As for the Victorian law, it does seem from this description of how it would work to be relatively conservative, as far as these types of laws go.   It doesn't appear to enough to allow relatives wanting the suffering of an uncommunicative loved one ended early by euthanasia if said patient has not already asked for it:  even though I guess that is actually probably the circumstance in which most people would like to see it able to be deployed.  

It's a bit like SSM  - I don't support the law myself, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it being introduced in as "safe" a form as possible.   Certainly, the type of "anyone should be allowed to top themselves with help whenever they want" nuttiness of Philip Nitschke should be rejected thoroughly.  His involvement with the movement probably set it back politically a decade, at least.


* I am simply not voting in the current flawed exercise.

In other religion news..

The good reviews for Thor: Ragnarok, which indicate it's pretty much a comedy, make me inclined to see it.   (Many reviews note that Jeff Goldblum is at his peak of Goldblum-anity in it, and perhaps that alone may make it worthwhile.)  

This led me to Google the topic of modern Thor worship, and to a slew of articles from 2015/16 about an Icelandic religious group about to build a modern Norse temple in Reyjkavik.  It would appear that it is was supposed to be finished this year, but isn't yet.   In fact, I can't even see what it is meant to look like, although one of the links notes:

The temple will be circular and will be dug 13 feet down into a hill overlooking the Icelandic capital Reykjavik, with a dome on top to let in the sunlight. It will host weddings and funerals.

It goes on:

Iceland's neo-pagans still celebrate the ancient sacrificial ritual of 'Blot' with music, reading, eating and drinking, but nowadays leave out the slaughter of animals.  

Can't they make mock sacrificial animals out of tofu, with beetroot juice standing in for blood?  (Just trying to be helpful).

Anyway, perhaps these guys, who appear to like to dress in quaint fashion, didn't have enough money to get the temple up as fast as they would have liked. 

100 years ago in Portugal

Non Catholics may have missed the fact that this month marks the 100th anniversary of the Marian apparition at Fatima, but Catholic media has been reminding its readers.

I have written before that it is rather odd (or just a sign of advancing age) that in my own lifetime, the diminution of devotion to Mary has been such a clear evolutionary change in the Catholic Church:  at least in Australia, and, I suspect all English speaking countries.     All tied up with feminism as a broad movement, I guess.

The events at Fatima remain about the strangest Marian event of all.  The prophesies have sort of lost their mystery and significance, but the "Miracle of the Sun" is one of the oddest cases of an alleged multiple witness miracle ever recorded.   I was creeped out in my teen years by reading a book that noted that many accounts of it sounded like a UFO disk obscuring the sun, and suggesting that the whole event was a case of trickster aliens messing with poor Portuguese kids minds.   (Readers with long memories may recall I mentioned this 8 years ago.)

In any event, here's a post which sets out some more background information to the events in Portugal which I don't recall reading about before.  Apparently, a spiritualist circle in Portugal was predicting the day of the first Marian apparition (in May) as one of great significance.   Peculiar, or pure coincidence?

A lot of killing

NPR has an interesting story up:

Declassified Files Lay Bare U.S. Knowledge Of Mass Murders In Indonesia

which is all about the ruthless killing in the mid 60's of communists/ communist supporters by the Indonesian Army under Sukarno (and then Suharto?):

At the time these memos were sent, from the closing months of 1965 through the opening months of 1966, the Indonesian military was engaged in a brutal crackdown on its communist party and suspected supporters. Prompted by an alleged coup attempt, the military collaborated with Muslim militias in the systematic murder of at least 500,000 people and the imprisonment of even more.

I wonder which side the modern wingnut wants to take, given the choice between Muslim militia and communists.   Anyway, more detail:

The CIA would later describe the atrocities as "one of the worst mass murders of the twentieth century, along with the Soviet purges of the 1930s, the Nazi mass murders during the Second World War, and the Maoist bloodbath of the early 1950s."

And while it's been known for some time the U.S. was aware — and was reportedly at times even an active supporter — of the crackdown as it unfolded, scholar Brad Simpson tells NPR the newly available documents "show in even greater detail how the U.S. Embassy was receiving a stream of updates and intelligence information about the scope and extent of the killing from the very start."

Simpson, director of the National Security Archive's Indonesia/East Timor Documentation Project, says the U.S. maintained a policy of public silence, even as he says Washington quietly began supporting Indonesia "in the form of financial assets and communications equipment" in late October 1965. This was around the same time one Indonesian official told embassy staff "that the Army had already executed many communists but that this fact must be very closely held."

One month later, another declassified consular dispatch from the city of Surabaya reported the scene there: 25 bodies spotted floating in a river by a missionary, 29 more spotted in the river by another, at least five railway stations closed, with employees afraid to come to work "since some of them have been murdered."

One of the missionaries "heard largest slaughter had taken place at Tulungagung where reportedly 15000 Communists killed," according to the cable.

Late in December, less than a month later, the embassy told the State Department of the "striking Army success" in consolidating power: Despite Indonesian President Sukarno's protests against the military's "jolts" against the PKI, those jolts had continued, resulting "in an estimated 100,000 deaths."

At least the killings were being carried out "evidently on lesser scale and in more discreet manner," the U.S. consul in Surabaya observed at the end of the month. "Generally victims are taken out of populous areas before being killed and bodies are being buried rather than thrown into river."

 It's easy to forget how much mayhem there was in South East Asia in that period, even without considering Cambodia and Vietnam...

Kiwi Labour's turn

I don't think many people were expecting Winston Peters to side with Labour forming the government in New Zealand.   

A case of the writing on the wall for Malcolm Turnbull, I'm afraid.

Malcolm is in such a long run of  bad Newspolls, legislative failures in the Senate, and sniping from Abbott, that it really feels like Australia has already been treading water for a long time while waiting for a change of government that is still so far away.

But then again, I suppose in theory, if one B Joyce has to go to a by-election, we could see an earlier than expected change of government.  Not holding my breath, though.

Fusion woes

Would be sort of funny for any libertarian techno-optimist who supported Brexit ("these regulations, they're just holding back our glorious techno future utopia") if this comes to pass:

Europe’s largest fusion reactor, the Joint European Torus, could be shut down in the wake of Brexit.

(Mind you, I'm a fusion skeptic, myself.  Still....)

Just an observation...

Tim Blair does go on, and on, and on, about how much TV and radio stars make, doesn't he?  Or rather, about how much TV and radio stars that appear to be of Left-ish persuasion make.

I don't know that I have ever seen much interest expressed in how much Bolt makes, nor the other Sky News mini Fox News wannabe hosts.  

I think it sufficient to say - all media stars get paid what seem to nearly everyone to be ridiculous amounts of money.   Fights over who gets paid what, and the fairness of it, have been around for many years.  

The current Wilkinson wars are pretty uninteresting, if you ask me.

More on China and its international loans system

The Atlantic notes that China finances poor countries' development projects in a way that America has a problem with.   America probably has a point - but I can't see that the protectionist mood of Trump will in any way help change it.

A lava tube called home

Hey, I only recently mentioned lava tubes on the Moon as the obvious place for a future Moon base, and here's one that's been identified. 

What cheering news ....

Vox notes that Young Adult dystopia fiction is "out" (which is a bit of a pity for that long delayed final movie in the Mazerunner series), but it's been replaced by something worse - teen suicide:

In the early 2010s, young adult dystopias were so prevalent as to be a cliché. They were major best-sellers, and the basis of major film franchises. The Hunger Games made Jennifer Lawrence a household name. 

Those are not the stories that are making waves now. After the election of Donald Trump, as 1984 and The Handmaid’s Tale climbed the best-seller lists, the emerging consensus was that the American people craved fiction about the destruction of the world to help them express the terror and uncertainty they felt about the future. But YA dystopias — the books that just a few years ago appeared to grant publishers a license to print money — have not experienced the same sort of sales bump. And no new YA dystopias have emerged to take the place of old stalwarts like Divergent and The Hunger Games.

Instead, a new kind of story is filling the niche in pop culture that YA dystopias used to occupy: the teen suicide story. Throughout this year, a new obsession has formed around books and TV shows like 13 Reasons Why, and stories about the spread of the (likely fictional) Russian game Blue Whale. The fatalism and self-destructive fantasies that our culture once expressed in teen dystopias have begun to come out in teen suicide narratives.

It's a pretty good article, if rather depressing.

Lots of adults of my vintage have been complaining for decades that most young adult fiction published (and studied in high school English) is depressing - concentrating on broken families and relationship crises of one kind or another.   I suppose, though, that most of it was meant to be ultimately about surviving it.

I don't really understand why there isn't some concerted pushback by authors or publishers to try and deliberately revive optimism and adventure in YA fiction.   (As young adult science fiction used to be in the 50's and 60's.)   But fantasy should be given a break - it doesn't teach realistic optimism for the world as it is.

Rather ironically, the way to be optimistic now regarding the future of the planet is to actually hope that the social conservatives who complain about fictional pessimism are defeated in their stupid, stupid conspiracy fantasy that the world isn't heating.   It's an odd situation - the way to be optimistic is to kill off those who claim to be anti-pessimists.   (Not literally, of course.  Kill off their ideas.   Gulags may or may not be necessary.)

Update:  just thought of another irony -  there seems to be a good case that it's the ageing white social conservatives who are disproportionately dying in the US from the opioid epidemic, and that it is their psychic pain of being left behind that makes them willing users of the drugs that often kill them.  So young people are dying because they are pessimistic about the world the oldies are leaving them (well, that and the damaging effect of social media);  older people are dying because the world is changing too much for them in other ways.   It's like a perfect storm of national discontent.  

A clean energy question

Given that it seems you can now get solar panels and battery storage at useful levels for around $12,000 to $15,000 (perhaps cheaper, if you don't use the Tesla powerwall), and that the cost of an average-ish house build here is (I would guess) around $250,000*, why doesn't it make sense for government to mandate it in house construction?    I mean, it's like a 5% increase in the cost of building, but with the money paid up front coming back in saved power costs to the owner-occupier anyway.

And while we are at it, what about compulsory solar hot water too?

There might be some locations and house positions where it would not work - but I suspect if you are putting it in from the start, you can make it work well enough in most cases. 

*  Update:  actually one site puts it at $300,000, which only helps my argument

In some optimistic, "we can do it" clean energy news...

*  NPR has an article about how Alaska actually has a lot of experience at running successful mini grids to buffer power outages (not always with clean energy, but still.)   One thing I was surprised to read in it was the successful use of flywheel technology to buffer demand:

In 2007, the utility set a goal of 95 percent renewable power. It built a handful of wind turbines, plus a bank of batteries to supplement the community's hydro power. That worked for a while. But then came a new challenge: the Kodiak port wanted to replace its old diesel-powered crane with a giant electric one.

The 340-foot tall shipping crane would be a massive power hog. Demand would spike every time it lifted a container off a cargo ship. When Rick Kniaziowski, the terminal manager for the shipping company Matson, first asked about getting it, the head of the local utility said no.

"His eyes got really big," Kniaziowski says. He was told, "Everyone's TVs are going to brown out, and they're either going to hate you or they're going to hate us.'"

But the utility looked around for a solution, and it found a European company, ABB, that offered a new kind of energy storage: flywheels.

There are two here now. From the outside, they look like a couple of white trailers behind a chain-link fence. But inside, they're cutting edge sci fi. In the corner of each trailer is a "six and a half ton of spinning mass," says KEA's Richcreek. "It's in a frictionless vacuum chamber hovered by magnets."

Here's how it works: When there's excess power on the grid, it spins the flywheel. The flywheel stores that energy as motion, and then pumps it back out the second a big surge is needed. When the crane isn't operating, the flywheels respond to fluctuations in wind power, working with the batteries to stabilize the grid. Kodiak is one of the first places in the world to use flywheels this way.

 *  The BBC has a short video up about the benefits of floating solar power.   I want someone to push my idea that part of the Snowy Hydro 2 project be powered by floating solar panels on the upper dams, powering the pumps that will bring water uphill for later release.   Send me the money now for this great idea!

*  Over at MIT, they are working on very high temperature ceramic pump components, with the idea being that super heated metals (rather than lower temperature molten salts) can be used to store excess renewable energy.

*  In the US, they are finding that improvements in wind turbine efficiency are so good it makes sense to refurbish some wind farms well ahead of their original estimated 30 year life.

It's all too complicated

I have a confession to make:   I feel I don't understand Australian energy issues enough to be able to write about them.

I didn't really get my brain around the Finkel proposal for a Clean Energy Target and how it was meant to work.   The main sign that it probably wasn't a bad idea was the fact that Tony Abbott, Alan Moran, Judith Sloan - all ideologically motivated climate science deniers - didn't like it.   But the problem is, the well intentioned environmentalists have come up with not great ideas before (emissions trading schemes instead of simpler and transparent carbon taxes), so energy policy just has this aspect that you can't always trust anyone to have the best idea.

Even today, with a vague sounding Turnbull energy plan, we have the mismatched pairing of Tony Abbott (poisonous shallow policy windvane) thinking it a win, as well as Peter Martin (moderate relatively reliable economics journalist).  But Greg Jericho - who I think would agree with Martin's takes about 90% of the time, tweets with apparent approval a Renew Economy post that is scathing of the policy.

I need more time for more commentary before I feel I can have a strong opinion.

In other TV viewing

I watched the first episode of the ABC's new attempt at a movie (and now TV) review show - Screen Time.

I have issues with it.

The main one is that, while I know any review/arts show on ABC or SBS is not going to have any reviewer who is  not of the left/liberal persuasion,  you at least had the feeling with Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton that they did not always see eye to eye on certain things such as acceptable levels of violence in film, and sometimes on feminist or other issues too. 

But this panel, perhaps because they are all so close in age, give no real sign at all of ever disagreeing seriously on anything.  There was perfect unanimity, for example, that shows depicting women talking frankly about sex (going back to Sex and the City, but also as reflected in Girls, and a recent show I haven't seen) were all great, groundbreaking stuff that was always refreshing and so well written, etc etc.  No one tried to slip in the (truthful and common) critique that Sex and the City was produced by a gay man and routinely felt more like listening to a circle of gay men talking sex than realistic mature women.  Sure they have the Pakistani male comedian on too, but he appears as liberal as they come.  Sort of a version of Waleed Aly - someone who viewers might ostensibly think by virtue of cultural background might occasionally express a conservative-ish view, but who can be safely relied upon never to do so and upset the happy panel vibe.   

Benjamin Law is on the panel too - a guy who can talk intelligently when he's not continuing his tweets about poo and gay sex, but whose own talent as a sitcom writer is, in my opinion, vastly overrated in a similar way as is virtually all comedy done by gay people working at the ABC and SBS.  The problem is, I think his views are going to be forever predictable.

I also really had a problem with the clips they showed from TV and movies in a time slot between 8 and 8.30 pm.   One from Girls in which a guy masturbating was made exceptionally clear, with the organ itself just barely out of shot?   A ridiculous pool sex scene from Showgirls?    Why did this think this was a good time slot to be showing these?

So, yeah, I did have a problem with the format, the people involved, and the selection of clips used.   

I don't think it is going to work.

Uh oh

I was half watching the Australian Story on Monday night about boxer Jeff Horn and his hard won fight with Pacquiao in Brisbane a few months back.  

First, I didn't realise until I saw more video of the fight that Horn did look so close to collapsing in whatever round it was.  Didn't realise there was so much blood flowing either.

But - the main thing of note was the concern his wife and family has that he doesn't cause himself brain damage by sticking around the ring for too long.   And then, Horn himself said something like "some nights I find I can't remember what I did during the day, and I worry is it just because I am so busy?"   He said he has "had himself checked out" and he is fine,  but really, it seemed to me that he and his family do indeed have something to worry about. 

It was not disclosed how much he made from the fight, but really, I think it would be a good idea if he went back to teaching...