Man child strikes again

Trump's (dangerously?) bad mood seems partly/primarily to do with Jeff Sessions refusing to resign, and in fact starting to push back on his boss's childish insults:

Last Thursday, Mr. Trump began a meeting attended by Mr. Sessions by saying, “I also want to thank a really tremendous attorney general.” He turned to the person seated next to him and added: “That’s Pam Bondi, from Florida.” Ms. Bondi is Florida’s state attorney general.

Trump problems

Jonathan Swan from Axios, who seems very well connected with the White House, is tweeting that Trump is in a completely foul mood at the moment - to an exceptional degree.

The Entertainer, Part 3 (I think)

Ah, I enjoy reading some of the predictions of this 50-something year old Right wing catastrophist  who sings at RSL clubs and outback venues.    (Management really should do him a favour and start slipping anti-depressants into the water he sips between songs.)

When will the walk back begin

Everyone expects that there'll be phones calls made and Trump will walk back from his Democrat friendly ramble about guns made at this meeting:

In 2016, NRA-endorsed Republican candidate Donald Trump won the presidency after many months of insisting that his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton was going to grab your guns.
In February 2018, President Trump publicly called for a subversion of due process, and for the government to “take the guns first.”

During a televised meeting with lawmakers at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, the president and assembled legislators spent the hour riffing on ideas for securing schools and curtailing gun violence in America. Trump ping-ponged between various policy positions and postures, invariably making unforced interjections that would make his staunchest pro-gun supporters cringe.

When Vice President Mike Pence talked about how those who are a “danger to themselves or others” should have their firearms taken away, but also afforded due process, the president jumped in to one-up Pence.

“Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,” Trump said, breaking with his own vice president on live TV. “Because that's another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures.”

The president continued, sounding like the gun-grabbing Democrats he’d once warned against: “I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida… To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Would love to hear some of the NRA calls being made to Republicans (or to Trump direct) to get him back under control.

Tiny thing makes big discovery

I was listening to Fran Kelly on Radio National this morning talking to the CSIRO guy who designed the tiny radio telescope that made this big discovery.   (It made up for having to listen to a full ten minutes an hour earlier on the wonders of women's team sports - Fran Kelly's personal interests surely results in the most disproportionate coverage of that topic on any radio station in the world.)   

Anyway, this is the story:

Astronomers have for the first time spotted long-sought signals of light from the earliest stars ever to form in the Universe — around 180 million years after the Big Bang.

The signal is a fingerprint left on background radiation by hydrogen that absorbed some of this primordial light. The evidence hints that the gas that made up the early Universe was colder than predicted. This, physicists say, is a possible sign of dark matter’s influence. If confirmed, the discovery could mark the first time that dark matter has been detected through anything other than its gravitational effects.

“This is the first time we’ve seen any signal from this early in the Universe, aside from the afterglow of the Big Bang,” says Judd Bowman, an astronomer at Arizona State University in Tempe who led the work, which is published in Nature¹ on 28 February. “If it’s true, this is major news,” says Saleem Zaroubi, a cosmologist at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Other teams will need to confirm the signal but, so far, the finding seems to be robust, he says. “It’s very exciting stuff. This is a period in the Universe’s history we know very little about.”

And this is the tiny telescope:

Expect more of this

Just as Republicans in Florida started legislation for this:

The goal: 10 marshals (teachers trained to carry a gun) in every school, which would equate to 37,000 statewide. The state would cover the costs of background checks, drug testing, psychological exams and 132 hours of training. The bill does provide a one-time $500 stipend for those who volunteer to have a gun.

The bill also calls for spending $400 million to put a school resource officer in every school, improve mental health counseling and make public school buildings safer.

....over in Georgia,  this happened:

A social studies teacher barricaded himself inside a classroom at a Georgia high school on Wednesday and fired a handgun once in what may have been a warning shot, authorities said.
No students were in the classroom at the time, and the only injury reported was a student who hurt her ankle running when Dalton High School was evacuated.
The teacher, Jesse Randal Davidson, was taken into custody without incident after a 30- to 45-minute standoff with officers, Dalton police spokesman Bruce Frazier said. Davidson, 53, serves as the play-by-play announcer for the high school’s football team, police said in a tweet .

Actually, there is much skepticism on Twitter about the Florida plan because of the increase in teacher's liability cover it would guarantee.   Yes, covering a school/teacher for accidentally shooting a student is likely to increase premiums, I would expect...

Who knew that dating a politician could be so lucrative?

I think this is not going to go over well with the general public;  except that presumably Labor figures have done the same thing and so will not be inclined to promote outrage:

Julie Bishop has claimed $32,000 in taxpayer-funded family travel for her long-term boyfriend but says she is not obliged to disclose his financial interests on the parliamentary register because he is not her "spouse" or de facto partner.

Apparently, they live in separate cities, and have been an item since 2014.

But since when does any job, private or public, carry such side benefits for a (for want of a better term) boyfriend or girlfriend who hasn't reached the heights of "de facto partner" yet?:

Ms Bishop has claimed $32,000 in taxpayer-funded travel for him between 2015 and 2017. Ms Bishop nominated him as her designated family member in 2015 which entitles him to free domestic airfares and Comcar rides under the allowance granted to MPs for family reunification. These benefits can be bestowed by an MP on almost anyone and are disclosed in Department of Finance records.

Ms Bishop has previously said she began dating Mr Panton in early 2014. Photographs of the pair published since then show they regularly attend social events such as the Melbourne Cup, Portsea Polo and sporting grand finals, and meet with celebrities abroad.In the first six months of 2015, Mr Panton claimed nearly $10,000 in flights and car rides, including more than $3000 in flights to and from Perth on the same weekend Ms Bishop declared on her pecuniary interests that she had received free tickets to the Leeuwin Estate Concert in Margaret River. The pair were photographed attending the event together.

Nothing a year's sleep wouldn't help

Gee, the head of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, looks like he hasn't slept a wink since Trump became President.  Here he is, telling a Senate committee that his Manchurian candidate President hasn't told him to do anything in particular about Russian cyberattacks:

Apart from the incredible bags under the eyes, he looks relatively young - he's a year older than me but not a sign of grey hair at the temples?   

Why sacrifice?

The Atlantic has an article looking at the matter of human sacrifice; why it was a "thing", and why it stopped.

A pretty interesting topic, with no clear answers.  Seems that some anthropologists argue that it only worked as a social control factor for a society that stayed relatively small - under 100,000 people, say.  Above that, it became de-stablising.

Others argue it went out of fashion as religion improved, so to speak:

But though sheer military might may have been the underlying cause of the disappearance of human sacrifice, the members of the victorious societies likely didn’t see it that way. They probably saw the rejection of human sacrifice as a logical extension of the golden rule, or as a religious imperative. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker has argued that societies became less violent as they became better at abstract reasoning. In other words, people spurned violence against others on the grounds that they wouldn’t want it done to them. Turchin and colleagues disagree: With staggering frequency, they argue, it was religion rather than reason that turned people away from ritualized brutality. But a different kind of religion—one that deified not a mortal god-king, but a supernatural “big god.” These were the forerunners of today’s major world religions, and those who spread them railed against human sacrifice. “They basically said, God is repelled by this,” says Turchin.

These new religions—such as Judaism and Zoroastrianism—were born roughly during the first millennium B.C., and though they have yet to prove it, the Seshat group suspects that they provided the social glue that allowed societies to reach newly intricate heights. Without these religions, the researchers think, the complexifying process would have stalled long before it produced the nation-states and multistate federations of today.

Staying classy

In today's list of classy politicians in the news -  Michaella Cash:

Innovation and Jobs Minister Michaelia Cash has repeatedly threatened to name "every young woman" in Bill Shorten's office that she has heard rumours about in an extraordinary row at Senate estimates.

Responding to repeated demands by Labor Senator Doug Cameron to name her new chief of staff, Senator Cash shot back that that was a "dangerous road" he was walking.

"If you want to start discussing staff matters be very, very careful. Because I'm happy to sit here and name every young woman in Mr Shorten's office about which rumours in this place abound.

Update:  I see that Tim Blair, who my blog roll is about to move to the "gone completely stupid and offensive" category along with Bolt, seems to think it was a good bit of "calling out" of Labor's "moral grandstanding".   An idiotic take on the matter, given the way Labor was careful to chase Joyce on entitlements only.  (Has Blair noted that even Abbott this afternoon said it was a brain snap that shouldn't have happened?  Has any Coalition member defended it?)

And David Leyonhjelm - retweeting a crap wingnut meme from Prison Planet:

Leyonhjelm apparently doesn't believe in Googling wingnut memes before passing them on - this one  was debunked at Snopes.

Zero pity felt

Have you heard about this?   Poisonous radio conspiracist nutjob Alex Jones (who has long promoted "false flag" and "crisis actor" conspiracies after major shootings) is pleading for student activist David Hogg (whose face, by the way, keeps reminding me of a young Christian Bale) to help him not be banned by Youtube.

The twitter reactions are pretty funny.

That troublesome Chinese belief

I complained once before that one of the worst things to come out of China (or Asia more generally?) is the belief that certain animal parts carry certain health benefits.   (I keep thinking there must be a single word for that, but what is it?)  Nature reports:

The jaguar was found floating in a drainage canal in Belize City, Belize, on the day after Christmas last year. Its body was mostly intact, but the head was missing its fangs. On 10 January, a second cat — this time, an ocelot that may have been mistaken for a young jaguar — turned up headless in the same channel.

The killings point to a growing illicit trade in jaguars (Panthera onca) that disturbs wildlife experts. The cats’ fangs, skulls and hides have long been trophies for Latin American collectors who flout international prohibitions against trading in jaguar parts. But in recent years, a trafficking route has emerged to China, where the market for jaguars could be increasing because of crackdowns on the smuggling of tiger parts used in Chinese traditional medicine.

Wildlife trafficking often follows Chinese construction projects in other countries, because Chinese workers can send or take objects home, says ecologist Vincent Nijman of Oxford Brookes University in Oxford, UK. “If there’s a demand [in China] for large-cat parts, and that demand can be fulfilled by people living in parts of Africa, other parts of Asia or South America, then someone will step in to fill that demand,” he says. “It’s often Chinese-to-Chinese trade, but it’s turning global.”

Does no one at the top of Chinese government (hello, dictator elect Xi) think that it might be useful to have a government backed campaign to stop the population believing in quasi magical "traditional medicine", at least if it involves animal parts?

Not just piety on their mind

Well, at least it's good to see it's not just Catholics with problems about how the apparently pious carry on sexually:

#MosqueMeToo Gives Muslim Women A Voice About Sexual Misconduct At Mecca

Dressed in a hijab and covered from head to toe, she felt something. Someone — a man — had grabbed onto her butt and would not let go.

The Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, called hajj, was supposed to be the holiest moment of Mona Eltahawy's life. When she was 15, she journeyed there with her family. The magnificence of the Great Mosque had taken her breath away. But that man turned the trip into a nightmare.

If I ruled the world....

....I would  ban the internet advertising companies "Taboola" and "Outbrain" and any other that fills up websites with crappy photo links to fake news and stupid ads.  

I'm thoroughly sick of them.

A bad look

Just what the Church needs right now - monsignors in Rome with child porn and on the prowl in the public squares:

A judge on a top Vatican tribunal was given a 14-month suspended sentence by an Italian court for possessing child pornography and sexual molestation. He then resigned his position on the Roman Rota, the tribunal.

According to the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Mgr Pietro Amenta, a judge on the Rota, a court that deals mainly with marriage cases, accepted the terms of plea bargain on February 14....

Mgr Amenta was detained by police in March 2017 after he was accused of fondling an 18-year-old man in a public square in Rome. The young man followed him and called the police, who subsequently took Mgr Amenta into custody, Italian newspapers reported.

And there's another one under investigation:

The other is presumed to be that of Mgr Carlo Capella, a former Vatican diplomat recalled from service in Washington in 2017 shortly after the Vatican was notified by the U.S. Department of State “of a possible violation of laws relating to child pornography images by a member of the diplomatic corps of the Holy See accredited to Washington.”

An arrest warrant was also issued in Canada for Mgr Capella one month later for accessing, possessing and distributing child pornography.

Modern "conservatism"

I see that Max Boot is divorcing himself from the description "conservative", and with excellent reason:

Principled conservativism continues to exist, primarily at small journals of opinion, but it is increasingly disconnected from the stuff that thrills the masses. I remember as a high school student in the 1980s attending a lecture at UCLA by William F. Buckley Jr. I was dazzled by his erudition, wit and oratorical skill. Today, young conservatives flock to the boorish and racist performance art of Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter. The Conservative Political Action Conference couldn’t find room for critics of Trump, save for the brave and booed Mona Charen, but it did showcase French fascist scion Marion Maréchal-Le Pen.

The career of Dinesh D’Souza is indicative of the downward trajectory of conservatism. He made his name with a well-regarded 1991 book denouncing political correctness and championing liberal education. Then he wrote a widely panned 1995 book claiming that racism was no more, and it was all downhill from there. In 2014 he pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws. Now, as the Daily Beast notes, he has become a conspiratorial crank who has suggested that the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was staged by liberals, that Barack Obama is a “gay Muslim” and Michelle Obama is a man and that Adolf Hitler, who sent 50,000 homosexuals to prison, “was NOT anti-gay.” He managed to sink even lower last week by mocking stunned Parkland school-shooting survivors after the Florida legislature defeated a bill to ban assault weapons: “Worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs.”

It is hard to imagine anything more cruel and heartless, but for a bottom-feeder like D’Souza it’s all in a day’s work. As he wrote in his 2002 book “Letters to a Young Conservative,” “One way to be effective as a conservative is to figure out what annoys and disturbs liberals the most, and then keep doing it.” (Thanks to Windsor Mann for the quote.) That, in a nutshell, is the credo of today’s high-profile conservatives: Say anything to “trigger” the “libtards” and “snowflakes.” The dumber and more offensive, the better. Whatever it takes to get on (and stay on) Fox News and land the next book contract!

Naturally, just as drug addicts need bigger doses over time, these outrage artists must be ever more transgressive to get the attention they crave. Coulter’s book titles have gone from accusing Bill Clinton of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” to accusing all liberals of “Treason,” of being “Godless” and even “Demonic.” Her latest assault on the public’s intelligence was called “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!”

That's a pretty good explanation of the situation.

Violence re-visited

Trump recently mentioned violent media after the Florida shooting (yes, I know, more as a diversion from taking action on gun control), but the topic did cross my mind again this weekend when I tried watching two things on Netflix. 

First, the (generally) critically well received Mindhunter.   [Spoiler follows].   The first episode starts with a hostage situation, and a very sudden and violent gun suicide.   It is quick, but done in a way you would never have envisaged as acceptable for TV violence, say, 20 years ago.    (Head pretty much blown off like a watermelon.)   The rest of the episode was, I thought, strangely bad in other ways.   The acting and dialogue seemed remarkably stilted and unnatural - no one seemed quite real.   I won't be watching it again.

Then my son was watching The Punisher - first episode perhaps?   I came in late, and was skeptical - I am finding I don't like any Marvel TV or streaming shows that I have sampled.

Well, near the end, the hero goes berserk with a construction hammer, killing or maiming I don't know who (baddies, generically, I assume).   The scene was graphic and unpleasantly violent in a way that, again, I think media representation just would not have contemplated a relatively short time ago.   I see that some people on Reddit and elsewhere have raised questions about the amount of physical violence in the show, so I know I am not alone.   There's something about the idea of a hammer to the head, or watching legs being broken,  that I find particularly grotesque. 

Now, I know - you can carry on about squeamishness about media depiction of violence in many different ways,  pointing to a myriad of psychological studies on its effects and their uncertain results, and get into bigger discussions about how civilised society used to consider actual violence (public executions) as public spectacle.

But I just cannot get over the feeling that certain things make common sense:

a.    if military training had to evolve to overcome the ordinary soldier's reluctance to kill, surely it's not unreasonable to think that modern, graphic first person shooter games are doing the same job on the minds of at least the mentally unstable, aggressive male who has thoughts about shooting up his school or workplace.   (In fact, I would be curious to know whether modern military training finds it's a lot easier to get their new recruits into no guilt shooting these days, given gaming and media depictions of blood and gore.)

b.   psychology has hit a crisis of experimental credibility, yet it would seem that it certainly hasn't spread to skepticism about some of the experiments to do with media violence.    And when you read what some of the studies do (for example, look at whether players of Grand Theft Auto are just as likely to pick up someone's dropped pen), you really do have to wonder about their value.

c.   the relationship between media and gaming violence and real life violence is obviously not simple, otherwise the rate of crime generally would be going up in the US and Australia, rather than downwards as it has been in the last couple of decades.   But does that mean there is no relationship between its increase and potential for negative effects on society or individuals?   No, I don't think.

d.  the depiction of graphic violence is undoubtedly desensitising to the viewing of violence, and how can that be a good thing?    To the contrary, isn't it a positive thing that we now find the idea of watching someone's neck being broken in an hanging as a somewhat grotesque interest in watching death; and if so, why shouldn't I be disturbed that some people have no reservation from watching a realistic depiction of a head being blown off by a shot gun?   Surely the desensitising to the viewing of a violent act make it easier for a person of the "right" mind frame to imagine carrying it out themselves?   The effect may be so marginal as to not reflect in general crime rates, but gee, there are lot of mass shootings happening in the US at the moment.

My negative feelings are intuitive but impossible to shake; and it is so obvious that the graphic depiction of violence is completely unnecessary for a scene to have emotional impact.    And emotional impact is different from desensitising.   Why risk desensitising someone who should not be desensitised to an act they can contemplate doing themselves, be it a shooting, stabbing or hammer blow to the head?    

Why has it become a non issue to Hollywood, gaming and media producers to contemplate the potential effect of their depiction of violence?    It is a strangely non-political issue, too - the Left used to deride movies from (say) the 1980's that seemed to espouse Right wing viewpoints as being too violent;  but then with the likes of Tarantino and the generally liberal bias of 95% of Hollywood and movie reviewers, and  you would have to say that the Left has given up having any moral concerns at all about violence of any kind.  

I think reasonable people should be debating why graphic violence is portrayed so readily and frequently these days, and urging creative types to think seriously about it.

Update:  I think my last lengthy post about movie violence was this one, from 2012, and I stand by what I said then.   I am bothered that the same things now need to be said about Marvel associated Netflix content.

Blame the "therapists"

I've always thought that allowing an "emotional support animal" on a plane is a peculiarly American fad, and one that's so silly that it was going to stop soon of its own accord.  Hence I haven't really paid it much attention.

I didn't realise that it's become a money making internet thing, too:

How is it legal to bring your duck on the plane? Under the federal Air Carrier Access Act, passengers are allowed to bring animals aboard by showing a letter from a mental health clinician or doctor asserting that the pet is part of their therapy. But the law is surprisingly vague about which species can come on board and gives airlines significant discretion. “You are never required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as service animals in the cabin,” it reads.

Yet as a quick Google search will show, it’s possible to obtain these letters online for a small fee. Some passengers may very well be exploiting the law to bring pets on planes. And stories about peacocks and ducks in booties on planes are increasingly leading ESAs (and their handlers) to be treated as a punchline. In the New York Times, columnist David Leonhardt called the animals a “scam” and “one of the downsides of a modern culture that too often fetishizes individual preference and expression over communal well-being.”

The rest of the article is an interview with a psychology researcher who says its not even well established that they are good idea.   

Barely beating not a good sign?

Not sure if I had heard of this before.  From a BBC article on body conditions  and how they may relate to personality:

Meanwhile, although a low-resting heartbeat is usually considered a sign of good physical health, when it comes to personality, the implications are darker. Several studies have found that a lower resting heart rate correlates with higher psychopathy scores. People who match this description show superficial charm, fearlessness and impulsivity. This is not too surprising considering studies already link low-resting heart rate with aggressive and criminal behaviour. The two main explanations are that low heart rate is a sign of fearlessness and that it can reflect an unpleasant state of being “under aroused”, prompting some psychopathic people to seek relief through violence and conflict. As ever, more research is needed to test these ideas.

I'm guessing that there might be a difference between those who have a very low heart rate through dedication to an exercise regime, and those who just have a low rate regardless of exercise.

For example, I thought Donald Trump's reported heart rate for his age (and with no exercise to speak of) was pretty low:  68bpm.   But apparently Obama and (especially) George W Bush had much lower heart rates:   56 and 43 respectively.    See this link for the comparisons between them.

Tim Blair, get a life, and grow up

This might seem an odd thing for me to lose my temper over,  but Tim Blair has become a snide gormless twerp whose shtick is now almost entirely restricted to name calling and attempted take downs of anyone to the Left of him, just for being to the Left of him.

Why should he care that there's an art exhibition of paintings by an executed heroin trafficker?   The guy's dead;  he sounded (unlike Blair) to have become morally serious before he died.   As for his mother:

 The mother of executed Bali Nine drug smuggler Myuran Sukumaran wants her son's artwork to travel the world as a powerful anti-death penalty message.

Speaking to 7.30 for the first time since Sukumaran's death in Indonesia in 2015, Raji Sukumaran said her once staunch-faith in God had been shaken by the execution of her son.

She recalled trying to enjoy her time with him as she watched him painting in prison, first in Bali then on the execution island of Nusakambangan.

Seems a bizarrely inappropriate thing for art critic Blair to be paying any heed to.

Or was it just to bring in another (I'm sure he would have referenced this before) snide attack on a Labor politician for being married to a reformed heroin offender?  Well, given its Tanya Plibersek's face plastered on the post, with the "hilarious" (sarc) title "An Injection of Culture", yes, that seems to be what this post is about. 

What it the Tim Blair take on this?   Once a heroin dealer/user, you deserve to either be shot or never employed ever again?   Is that the Right line to take on the matter of redemption, or rehabilitation?  That it's impossible?   And that a woman who marries one, well after his rehabilitation, and goes on to have a family with him, is to be derided for that?    Derided for what, for God's sake?  

I actually see that he's getting some blowback in comments.  And so he should.  He should take the post down, the creep.

Update:   Just how thoroughly the Plibersek story has been told before is well illustrated in this article from 2015, when she made (I had forgotten) a speech in Parliament decrying the execution of Sukumaran.  

That Plibersek, given her life story, should make such a speech is entirely understandable.

That she should still be supporting the cause of the anti-death penalty is entirely understandable.

That Blair should be continuing to deride a drugs rehabilitation success story and his wife is completely absurd, offensive and stupid.