An unexpected way for climate change to kill (in India, at least)

I hadn't heard this before, from an interview about India suffering under climate change:

Now let’s come to violence. What is really startling was the dowry deaths. The study I’ve quoted found that many people treat dowry deaths as income smoothing, and that’s a very provocative way of putting it…you kill your wife and marry a new wife and have an income when crop income goes down because of the drought. But they’ve seen that correlation. It’s something to keep in mind.

Meanwhile, I hadn't even noticed that parts of India have been having a heatwave:

Northern India, like neighbouring Pakistan, is in the grip of a heatwave, with temperatures reaching 47C. A blanket of hot air has settled on Delhi clearing pavements across the usually busy capital. India is particularly vulnerable to temperature increases associated with climate change. Since 1992, about 25,000 Indians are estimated to have died because of heatwaves. Yet the country is quietly optimistic that it can prevent at least some of those deaths.

The problems of Europe

Found via Peter Whiteford's tweets, an interesting blog post by Branko Milanovic about why Europe is having problems caused by its wealth, and how they are not likely to just go away.

Speaking of Europe, another example of how Brexiters just tried to wing their way through the enormous practical problems of their scheme:

Brexit nightmare: The 27km traffic jams at the Dover border

The three new drivers of the Australian economy

*  craft beer
*  burger joints (other than the fast food chains)
*  salmon (farming and eating)

As it happens, I pretty much approve of all three (with a reservation about the number of burger joints).  

PS:  my daughter observed last weekend that she could live purely on salmon (pan fried with crispy skin), mashed potato, and garlic beans.   I then cooked that for dinner.   [My wife is a fantastic cook, but I do make the best mashed potato.] 

Whiteford on progressive tax

A good article here by Peter Whiteford, looking at the question of how much tax the rich pay.

I liked this part in particular (my bold):

The most obvious reason why the top 1 per cent or 10 per cent pay a higher share of tax is that they receive a much higher share of taxable income. Tax Office figures show that in 2015–16 the highest 1 per cent of income taxpayers — just over 100,000 people earning $330,000 or more per year, which adds up to about $72 billion of taxable income, or an average of roughly $720,000 per taxpayer — paid 16.9 per cent of net tax but received 9.6 per cent of all taxable income. (After their income taxes, that 1 per cent of taxpayers still netted about 7.2 per cent of all after-tax income.)

So even if Australia had a completely flat tax — a single rate with no tax-free threshold — very high–income earners would still pay close to 10 per cent of all income taxes. They pay 16.0 per cent rather than 9.6 per cent because Australia has a progressive income tax scale: the rate of tax paid increases as the taxpayer’s income increases.

Puts all of the "but the rich pay too much tax" whiners into perspective.

Whiteford is like the perfect antidote to Sinclair Davidson, Adam Creighton, and David Leyonhjelm:  knowledgeable, fair, reasonable and always polite.

Wondering about American employment

Recently, I was talking to an Australian businessman (a high level corporate manager type in supermarket retail) who had taken on a job for a (I think Southern State based) US supermarket chain for a few years.   He was based in Florida, but had travelled a lot with the job.

You may well think that Australia goes too far with its workers' rights (I do, having recently only realised that a worker can have unpaid sick leave of up to 3 months before they can be fired for, well,  never being at work) - but it is pretty incredible to hear about how draconian the work conditions in a Red state in the US can be.   Absolutely minimal leave (I think, 5 days p.a. for any reason?) for the first few years (with consequences such as a mother being at work the afternoon after her son's funeral);  the low, low, low minimum wage (with no chance of top up from customers, as with tipping in the hospitality industry);  a significant number of workers aged over 80 simply to keep health insurance cover; and 18 year old shelf stackers wearing pistols at work, which makes an Australian feel a touch nervous given the number of times you read of workers who "go postal".

Given this, it does make me wonder whether "full employment" in the US is all that it's cracked up to be compared to a country with strong work and pay standards such as Australia.  I mean, surely a significant percentage of those in the US could be the working poor.

But, I was surprised to read this column a couple of days ago in the WAPO by Robert Samuelson:  Why the economy is roaring.

He makes the obvious point - things were headed this way under Obama, and it's ridiculous and partisan blindness to claim Trump is solely responsible.

But what was more interesting was survey results regarding satisfaction with their lot:

“Nearly three-quarters of adults say they are either living comfortably (33 percent) or doing OK (40 percent), when asked to describe how they are managing financially,” the report says. The share “doing OK” has risen more than 10 percentage points since 2013. Similarly, in 2013, 13 percent of Americans found it “difficult to get by”; by 2017, the comparable figure was only 7 percent.

Labor markets are tighter. In 2017, 52 percent of workers received a wage increase, up from 46 percent in 2016. Gains were especially large for workers with a high school degree or less; 49 percent of these workers got a raise, up from 38 percent in 2016. Although many indicators of economic well-being were lower for blacks and Hispanics compared with whites, they were much higher than in 2013.

I am really curious about the 40% figure for "doing OK".   Does this reflect innate US optimism about their lot in life and/or potential for upwards social mobility, or is it more a case of substantial ignorance about how good the social safety net is in more centrist political countries like Australia, Canada, and most of Europe?

I mean, other parts of the survey indicate there is something a bit odd about the "doing OK" category:

About 40 percent of adults say they would have trouble meeting a $400 emergency expense; however, the share was 50 percent in 2013.   

So, about 25% are not financially "comfortable" or "doing OK", but a further 15% who are presumably in the "doing OK" category would have trouble finding a spare $400 for an emergency?

This points to somewhat lower standards to what "doing OK" might mean, surely.

Americans might be feeling pretty good about the economy for the moment, but to an outsider, their judgement about such matters seems peculiarly, well, American.

Striking similarities

Let's see:

*     widely understood to only have power due to the support of a foreign nation [tick]

*     considers himself an autocrat completely above the law [tick]

*     fires underlings on a whim  [tick]

*     has a weight problem, and is generally weird looking [tick]

*    maintains position due to 

       a.    cowardice of other national politicians [tick] and

       b.    a large element of brainwashed population who only view his approved propaganda [tick]

*     thinks meeting other autocrats is cool [tick]

*     is rarely seen with his wife [tick]

I'll probably think of more during the day....

Conspiracy talk is only fair in one direction, apparently

Ha.  Karen Townsend at Hot Air complains about the "conspiracy theories" surrounding Melania Trump not being seen for the last three weeks (after spending a week in hospital for a minor procedure - something which apparently itself was unusual.)

This is all a case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, according to Townsend. 

If you ask me, the mainstream media has actually downplayed the peculiar circumstances of her absence - last week, they noted her having tweeted that she is busy working while out of the public eye, without expressing any doubt (as far as I could see) as to whether the tweet was genuinely written by her.

This absence is genuinely suspicious, if you ask me.   If I had to take a guess, it would be more about workshopping with someone representing Donaldas to how she can get out of this marriage during the presidency with minimal damaging optics for him. 

And how ludicrous is it for anyone even half supportive of Trump, who thrives on conspiracy theories that are as nutty and illfounded as hell, complaining about a moderate bit of speculation from the Left? 

Something worth seeing in Dubai

I have always felt ambivalent about visiting Dubai - I'm pretty sure it would be impossible not to be impressed by some of the structures and facilities, but the history of imported, poorly treated labour that built it is somewhat off-putting.   (I'm also disinclined to visit any nation where sorcery is still a crime.)
 
Anyway, the Burj Khalifa is something that I'm sure I would spend a lot of time looking at, both during the day and at night.   They use it for some pretty remarkable light show displays:



Got that via Gulf News.

The Enlightenment and all that

I noticed an interesting thread on Ross Douthat's twitter feed about the matter of the Enlightenment and racism.    I think he's basically supporting Jamelle Bouie on the matter, but to be honest, I haven't read Bouie's threat to get to the bottom of the argument.

But - it is basically about saying that the Enlightenment was not all sweetness and light, to the extent that it lead to scientific arguments to justify racism.  The arguments against racism essentially came from enlightened religion more than from a scientific view of the matter.

This seems a fair summary, from someone else on twitter involved in the debate:

Yzaguirre says elsewhere that he thinks it's wrong to "fetishise" the Enlighenment.

Which brings me partly to the reason I wanted to blog about this.  

Libertarians tend to be big on promoting the Enlightenment and science - yet as a political movement, they have been at the forefront of funding and promoting anti-science denial of climate change, simply because they don't like the obvious policy prescription (a tax on carbon).

How hypocritical is that?   Extremely, and with dangerous consequences for the entire planet.  

A mystery

The ABC has been heavily promoting Mystery Road, and it received some good reviews by Left-ish reviewers, so I gave it a go last night. 

I was underwhelmed.    Very, very thin character writing if you ask me, and an outback atmosphere that felt cleaned up for inner city audiences.   (Well, I have to admit I am not expert at knowing the atmospherics of remote Australian towns, but then, I've never been to a lot of European countries either but can still get a sense of authenticity from a crime show.)  

Very, very little about it (actually, nothing) felt convincing to me, and its only benefit might be as an advertisement for sunscreen to prevent premature ageing.   (That's mean, but it's either that or really, really unlucky genetics that account for Judy Davis's extraordinary appearance.) 

From my camera today

Yes, it's the wood frame office block, the construction of which I've been following:

You're all fascinated I'm sure!

Yet more wood:

And here's an older pic, just to continue the theme:

Once a jerk, always a jerk

I had the impression that the (now pardoned) Dinesh D'Souza had become an unhinged jerk only later in life.   Remember this quote from Max Boot?:

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.”

But I see from this Mother Jones article from 2014, being widely tweeted today, that he was well and truly a jerk even in college:

Remember How Dinesh D’Souza Outed Gay Classmates—and Thought It Was Awesome?

As to Trump's decision to use his pardon power, David Roberts' comment sounds right:

More about Babylon Berlin

Gee, this Netflix show (watched episode 5 last night) continues to impress, for the following reasons:

*  the cinematic scale and direction is obvious in every episode - so many extras costumed up;  streetscapes, nightclubs and subway stations that are completely convincingly art directed (if that's the word) for the era.   No doubt, some of it is digitally created (I have read that one recurring street setting is), but it is very hard to tell where it begins and ends, and most of the settings look satisfyingly large and real.   No wonder it was so expensive to make.

*  I don't know if this will continue for the whole series, but it's pleasantly different to find that the main character, an out of town police detective trying to investigate something in Berlin, seems to be so hapless in so many ways.    It's not played for laughs, but he just seems so unlucky all the time, and it's starting to amuse me.

*  If you ignore the sordid sex aspects, it does make nightclubbing in the era look a hell of a lot more fun than nightclubbing seems to have ever been in my lifetime.   No chemically induced party drugs or electronic doof doof music for them to have a good time - just champagne or spirits and live music.

*  It makes you want to know more about the actual history.   That's not a bad thing at all...

Some links of interest:

The Truth About Babylon Berlin, featuring this take: 

There is some gratuitous sex and violence in Babylon Berlin, which at first had me thinking the show would be just another titillating TV sensation. But the attention paid to costumes, architecture, historic events and other details kept me watching, and it paid off. Aside from being an over the top noir thriller with a labyrinthine plot, the series also serves as a basic primer on the Weimar years.

Heh:  Salon praising it for showing that some women of the time did not shave their armpits.

A professor of German studies has a slightly different take on the aim of the show.  Not entirely sure if he is right, but worth reading.

Spygate is failing

Trump's died in the wool "base" may soon have a problem on their hands - support for Trump's cynical and stupid "branding" of "spygate" is not getting support from Republican congressmen, or even some key Trump supporters on Fox News.    Has Rupert had enough??  (I doubt it, but this is an odd turn of events in the propaganda network):

Asked to respond to Gowdy’s remarks, a Fox News commentator known for defending the president also cast doubt on Trump’s claims. Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano (better known and often quoted by Trump as Judge Napolitano) said claims that the FBI placed an undercover spy on Trump’s campaign “seem to be baseless.”

“There is no evidence for that whatsoever,” Napolitano said. The fact that the FBI source spoke with “people on the periphery of the campaign,” he said, “is standard operating procedure in intelligence gathering and in criminal investigations.”

Update:  Politico has a story to the same effect, noting this:

Late Wednesday, Fox News host Sean Hannity hosted a lengthy segment on the matter featuring appearances by two Trump campaign aides who alleged came into contact with the informant — Carter Page and Sam Clovis. But despite Hannity’s protestations, neither affirmatively said a spy had infiltrated the campaign.

"Were you spied upon. Did a spy approach you?" Hannity asked Page.
“I’m not sure, Sean,” Page replied.

Clovis, who oversaw the campaign’s foreign policy team, told Hannity that the informant contacted him, but didn’t pump him for information.

And this:

Dershowitz joined in Wednesday morning by conceding that he was “on the way to being persuaded” that the FBI’s use of an informant was proper.

The most clueless and ridiculous political commentator in Australia

It's a wonder RMIT isn't looking for ways to sack Steve Kates, given that his political commentary on Donald Trump and the e-vil Left (by which he means anyone who does not see Trump as the masterful saviour of the world just as he does) is so deeply, deeply embarrassing he must surely be putting off some people from studying there:

Political derangement is a mental disease for which the left is highly susceptible. PDT is demonstrating that every principle they have lived by is wrong, but rather than being willing to learn, they have become even more worm-eaten than ever. It is not just sickening to watch, of course, but frightening. 

Climate denialist will be forever in denial

Another good column by Graham Readfearn showed the dishonesty and ignorance of "Jonova", who claims that the old "carbon rise lags temperature rise" argument was what set her off on her life of climate change denial, despite the fact the explanation for it was always well known.

Note the conspiracy ideation she shows too:

  She was asked if there had been a “Road to Damascus” moment for her on climate change.  She said it was in February 2007 when her husband had told her that in the Earth’s geological past, there had been a 700 year lag between a rise in temperatures and a rise in CO2.

This led JoNova to Google for a bit. While this didn’t shoot down the argument that CO2 causes climate change, it did make her think that “the media is hiding something.”  According to Jo, all the scientists know this fact, but they don’t want to debate it.

It is obvious:  to deny AGW and climate change is caused by our CO2 emissions requires strong belief in conspiracies.  

The very definition of ...

...clueless white privilege:

[And look, I'm as cynical as anyone of the overuse by the Left of "white privilege", but you really only have to visit Catallaxy to see confirmation that as a concept, it certainly exists.]

Update:  a funny-cos-it's-true tweet spotted:

As I have been saying for some years now....

Heavy Rain, Not Sea Level Rise, Is the More Immediate Climate Change Threat Now

But don't worry, the sea level rise problem will be here soon enough.

Sack Jonathan Swan

I keep complaining about how Axios, a good site with generally objective judgment, employs Jonathan Swan, whose twitter feed keeps confirming he dislikes the cultural Left and is too sympathetic to Trump because of it.

Latest evidence - he "liked" another NRO column endorsing the "Obama and the FBI were spying on the Trump campaign, this is just wrong".

Sack him!

Didn't take long

As I wrote only two months ago, regarding the revived Roseanne, it's a wonder that all of her co-stars and (I think) some of her old writers and producers agreed to go back to the show, given her history of ludicrous and offensive tweets, nutty interviews and famous fighting with her production staff in the later years of her first show.  They must have known it would be like working with a ticking bomb.   I hope John Goodman, a great character actor, didn't knock back too many movie roles for it.

I see that Breitbart has the best, wingnutty outrage comments about the cancellation, ranging from "they're shutting down free speech!" to "it is not racist to call a black woman a monkey!  have you seen her photo?"