My son and I (more at my insistence and facing his reluctance) have been ploughing through Netflix's Lost in Space. Just one more episode to go.
I still like its looks, and the actors are fine, all with the possible exception of the regularly grimacing face of Parker Posey as Dr Smith. (I'm still not convinced by her acting, or the role as written - it has taken far, far too long to get to the bottom of what's going on with her, and I find it hard to credit how Maureen could feel a friendship with her in the early stages.) The show has moved too slowly, generally speaking.
But the main, screaming out problem with it is the obvious lack of any attempt at all to make key parts of it even vaguely scientifically plausible. I mean, the Jupiter spaceships run on methane, which seems to be in liquid form but doesn't seem to be pressurised or cold in one episode? And which they can cook up from alien dried poop in a waste converter in sufficient quantity within a few hours to get off the planet???
Not to mention the misuse of Hawking Radiation as a dangerous thing in and of itself.
I know, in my first post on the show (in comments following) I defended the loose use of science as not being important - but as the series has gone on, and sciencey/technological aspects have become more important to the plot, yes it has started to bug me more and more. It's like the writers have a little knowledge of science (they know that black holes make Hawking radiation, for example), but then use the concept in completely unscientific way. Same with the methane - it's a potential fuel for a rocket engine, but there's no talk of LOX as a oxidiser (as all spacefaring rocketships need), and you have alien creatures that eat and swim in it, with no obvious place on their planet where they would have developed their love of it. And yes, the writers obviously know that you can get methane from a sewerage system, but the idea that concentrated alien poo will make thousands of gallons of the liquidified gas in a "waste converter" within a few hours - that's ridiculous.
They just keep doing this - taking a tiny bit of real science, then blowing it up in an completely unrealistic way.
I see that the show has been renewed for a second season. Please, I beg of you writers: start using science consultants, and give them power to demand changes to make it at least vaguely more accurate.
Update: Actually, I'm wondering if what happens is something like this:
Writers to science consultant: well, we want the planet or its sun to be in danger and they have to leave quickly. What's a good scenario for that?
Science consultant: maybe a black hole close to the sun - so close that the daylight brightness means they don't notice it with the naked eye
Writer: Cool. How might they detect it?
Science consultant: The right instruments could see the sun's gas swirling into the black hole - and maybe some subtle orbit changes?
Writer: don't black holes make Hawking radiation?
Science consultant: yes, but, I reckon that's not so -
I see there's a new Motorola phone out - Moto G6 - and it has a great review at CNET.
Readers who care, who really really care, about keeping track of my life, will remember that I bought a Moto G5 Plus last year, and I consider it extraordinarily good. (It counts as a "budget" phone, and as such I don't expect its camera to be as good as a high end Samsung or IPhone that may cost 3 times as much; but as a phone and internet device it is great. My wife also has one, and the only problem it has ever had - a sudden apparent battery drain problem - turned out to be the fault of the Hotmail app, and disappeared when that was deleted and she went back to using Gmail. I use the Yahoo app for mail, and I never have had a problem.)
Anyhow, here's the favourable words for the new phone:
How do you follow up last year's wonderful budget-friendly Moto G5 Plus?
Well, you could start with the outside. Add a second rear camera for
portrait mode photos. Trade that Micro-USB port for a USB-C. Get rid of
the 16:9 screen ratio and go tall with a trendy 18:9 display that shows
more vertically. Say bye to the metallic back side and hello to a glass
back with curved edges, specifically Gorilla Glass 3.
The
overall result would be a phone that looks decidedly 2018, but with
pretty much everything we loved about last year's Moto G5 Plus. And
that's exactly what the Moto G6 is.
Last year's Moto G5 Plus hit a
sweet spot between features, design, performance and price. The Moto G6
hits most of those, but just misses with a shorter battery life than
last year's Motos.
Honestly, Motorola has cornered the market for value for money in mobile phones, I reckon.
But - it is weird how the same model in different countries will have different features. (You have to be particularly careful with NFC it seems. I actually have NFC on my Moto G5 Plus, but I have been a bit too lazy to start using it for credit card payments. Must get around to that one day soon...)
China has warned citizens travelling to the US of “frequent”
shootings, expensive medical care, and the risks associated with
running into border patrol agents.
The Chinese Embassy in Washington issued a notice warning
travellers that “shootings, robberies, and theft are frequent,” and
urged citizens to remain calm and hold onto evidence if they feel they
are being discriminated against by border agents.
Last year the US saw a drop in foreign tourism, which at the time was dubbed the “Trump Slump.”
Well, surely there's an opening for the Australian tourism push in China then: a ad featuring our low "homicide by gun" rate, perhaps, and the inside of some our nicer public hospitals.
Pity that the (mainland) Chinese tourist does not have the best reputation for manners, though. (They are not that popular in Japan in particular, I believe, where the issue of manners really rubs the Politest Nation on Earth the wrong way.)
And speaking of manners, I recently went to a Japanese jazz/bosso nova singer's concert that featured a Chinese heavy audience. (At the concert hall in QPAC - so a formal, seated venue.) The young Chinese guy next to us kept pulling out his phone and doing something on it. (He wasn't taking photos or video, which was banned, but the continual fumbling for his phone and the dull glow of his screen was really distracting. At interval, I asked the attendants if we could possibly move, and they indicated better seats we could go to. The show starts up again, and I discover that the (caucasian) woman and her boyfriend/partner (they seemed to be late 20's, early 30's) next to me were talking to each other more or less continuously during the songs! I let it go for one or two songs, hoping they would shut up, then when they started up again I leaned over and said tersely "excuse me, you're not in your living room". They both apologised, with her saying (in a perfectly normal voice) "I'm sorry, it's because I'm deaf." ?? So, they stay relatively quiet during the next song, then the guy leans over and starts interrogating me as to how I came to be sitting in the seats. Turns out it was a corporate row, or something, and he had decided after initially apologising that he didn't like me telling him to shut up because (I guess) he considered it was his company's seat and how dare an interloper point out his rudeness. They then resumed talking during songs.
So, there you go. The mainland Chinese do not have the market cornered for public inconsideration.
Well, isn't this ironic (in the wrong sense of the word - which is well overdue for a populist change of meaning.)
Berg, Davidson and Potts, the trio of libertarian/IPA economists have been busy writing boring articles to give them something to talk about at the international blockchain conferences they've been attending, and all the time it would appear that Xi Jinping has decided that yeah, blockchain is a great idea for government control. From Axios:
China had a short, whirlwind
relationship with Bitcoin before unceremoniously dumping it last
September. Now, President Xi Jinping calls the underlying blockchain
technology a "breakthrough."
What's going on: Xi
is differentiating between cryptocurrencies and blockchain. In his
view, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies could fuel financial risk and
even jeopardize Communist Party authority. But in blockchain, he sees
something he cherishes — even greater government control.
How it works:
Blockchain technology
uses a network of computers to create a record of any string of events,
from financial transactions to the origin of an oyster. Every time the
thing being tracked changes hands, it's publicly recorded, so its
legitimacy can be verified while eliminating human intermediaries.
Cryptocurrencies — Bitcoin being the most prominent — are digital monies that live on the blockchain.
Those distrustful of governments are drawn to blockchain for its anonymity. But if only a few can enter transactions, blockchain could increase government power.
I've read stuff before about warnings that cryptocurrencies and blockchain may end up being quite attractive to authoritarian regimes: see this article in The Atlantic, which I may have posted about before:
In certain circles, the technology has been hailed for its potential to
usher in a new era of services that are less reliant on intermediaries
like businesses and nation-states. But its boosters often overlook that
the opposite is equally possible: Blockchain could further consolidate
the centralized power of corporations and governments instead.
Even without Xi taking away anonymity as a feature of blockchain, some were warning that Bitcoin wasn't exactly the anonymity dream of libertarians after all.
Or am I being unfair - are Berg and all writing stuff about how to defeat authoritarian applications of blockchain? I don't really see how it is possible anyway - can't governments just legislate their control of entries onto key blockchain uses? If so, what is the whole point of Berg, Potts and Davidson's excitement?
You all know I can't stand David Leyonhjelm - when it comes to women, he's a chronically immature throwback to the 1970's (see this evidence, as I think that was the decade I heard this "joke") and a one note politician who certainly never got into Parliament on the strength of his personality.
Amongst his other faults, it would seem that he doesn't take the advice of lawyers, unlike Sky News, which has been full of (late) apology for his appearance on the also chronically immature "Outsiders" program.
I have no idea why he thought it a good idea to go on 7.30 last night - is he that desperate for publicity that he doesn't care how big a loser he looks when he can't explain the exact words that prompted his stupid rejoinder?
I don't care for Sarah Hansen-Young as a politician either, but I do hope a defamation case comes out of this, because I suspect Leyonhjelm is silly and arrogant enough to either defend himself, or hire some jackass young law graduate whose only recommendation will be having joined the LDP and commented at Catallaxy.
I've always been of the view that Martin Scorsese is over rated, and while there's nothing wrong with his directorial style, I find it more workmanlike than particularly inspiring. (OK, there is usually a bit of noticeable flair here and there, but he doesn't give me the near constant pleasure that I find in the best works of Spielberg, Hitchcock or even Brian de Palma when he was at the top of his game.)
The point is, I don't rush to see any of his movies, although I often do see them eventually.
Hence, I only watched 2010's Shutter Island on Netflix on the weekend.
It's not a bad movie, but an oddly old fashioned one, particularly thematically in how it deals with psychiatry. The book it was based on is only from 2003, but it feels it could be much older. It reminded me a bit of Hitchcock's Spellbound, at least in terms of the way it treats "talking therapy" with a seriousness which we're not exactly used to seeing in the modern era of pharmo-psychology. (Actually, now that I re-read the plot of Hitchcock's movie, which I have only seen once perhaps 30 years ago, it has other similarities too.)
He stuffs the film with heavy-handed art direction and piles on a
ludicrously ominous soundtrack. The soundtrack is a constant reminder of
the movie's importance and only highlights its unimportance.
Yeah, there is one early sequence in which the score is just completely over the top. It's impossible not to notice it, and I can't understand why Scorsese let it stand. (Interestingly, I see that there was no original music used at all - it was all bits and pieces of existing works selected. And here I thought I could perhaps gives Hans Zimmer a blast for being overbearing again.)
The art direction bothered me too, in both extremes - the opulence of the psychiatrist's home in the mental asylum, and the dungeon like quality of the old asylum. I mean, the plot is essentially a bit B grade trashy (nothing wrong with that, per se), but having so much that seems OTT in art direction kept making me think that it's a bit ridiculous that they spent so much money on it.
As to final scene and what it means - my son, to his credit (unless he had already read this on line - I should double check) picked up on the intended meaning immediately, before I had thought of it. But this article, full of spoiler of course, indicates that he was correct.
My final verdict: I wouldn't say don't watch it, but go in with low expectations and you may end up satisfied enough.
Update: in retrospect, it could be argued that my complaint about the art direction is unfair, given the explanation of the entire situation that comes close to the end of the film. (This is hard to discuss without doing a big spoiler). But we are never shown the difference between reality and delusion, and it would not have been hard to do so. Physically, everything about the place looks the same, making the art direction problem still feel like a problem.
If my blog search bar is reliable (and it generally isn't, so don't blame me if this is wrong), the last time I mentioned the Hoodoo Gurus was in 2009. (!)
I've always had a soft spot for that band, despite my distinct lack of a general long haired rock sensibility. For guitar heavy rock, I always thought they were pretty tuneful, and often wittily eccentric with lyrics. In fact, they are one of the few classic Australian rock bands I have seen live in their heyday: in Newcastle circa 1986, I reckon. Yeah, they were loud.
All of this is by way of preamble to saying how much I liked Julia Zamiro's Home Delivery episode with Dave Faulkner on the ABC last night. I don't think I have ever heard him interviewed before, let alone talking in detail about his childhood. As I would have hoped, he presented as intelligent and hard working in developing his musical career. His father's story was interesting and touching too.
And I still have this conviction, despite making allowances for people sometimes just inexplicably taking a dislike to some TV personalities, that if a person doesn't find Julia a warm, empathetic, charming interviewer, there's something a bit wrong with them.
I've been meaning to write this for some years. Now with news that his very fancy and expensive looking Sydney restaurant Jade Temple, which I happened to walk past on a brief visit to Sydney last August, is closing, I am inspired to say it.
Neil Perry has become boring.
Not that I've eaten at any establishment that has anything to do with him. It's just from my reading his recipes.
It seems that he has had the recipe page in Fairfax's Good Weekend for many years, even decades?, and it has occurred to me, in the last couple of years, that his recipes just never sound interesting anymore. I used to find them interesting and enticing, even though I can't remember if I ever closely followed one. These days, a lot of them seem too simple to me, or contain an oddball ingredient that I would have to go searching for in some special shop. I no longer ever read one and think "that sounds nice, I'd like to give that a go."
He might be a nice guy in real life - I wouldn't know. I do know he has a terribly dull TV presence - he was on that disastrously short lived instant restaurant show on Channel 7 in 2015. But I am really not sure how he manages to still be considered a success.
I wonder whether I'm on my own in this feeling about him...
Here we report the detection, at 30σ significance, of
non-gravitational acceleration in the motion of ‘Oumuamua. We analyse
imaging data from extensive observations by ground-based and orbiting
facilities. This analysis rules out systematic biases and shows that all
astrometric data can be described once a non-gravitational component
representing a heliocentric radial acceleration proportional to r−2 or r−1 (where r
is the heliocentric distance) is included in the model. After ruling
out solar-radiation pressure, drag- and friction-like forces,
interaction with solar wind for a highly magnetized object, and
geometric effects originating from ‘Oumuamua potentially being composed
of several spatially separated bodies or having a pronounced offset
between its photocentre and centre of mass, we find comet-like
outgassing to be a physically viable explanation, provided that
‘Oumuamua has thermal properties similar to comets.
I know it's a long shot, but I guess it still leaves it open that it was an alien spaceship venting or trying to accelerate?
When I first saw the story on ABC's 7.30, I assumed that the reason no action had been taken to remove uranium out of bore water used in some remote aboriginal communities might have been because it's really hard to filter it out. (Would have to be a pretty fine filter, I figured.) In fact I thought that it sounds like a good reason to propose closing down certain remote settlements, if you can't even get reliable water at them.
And then I Googled the topic and found that getting uranium out of ground water is far from an uncommon problem in the West, and this, from an American local government health department:
Point of use devices are installed directly at the tap and are used to
reduce contaminants at that location. Several technologies are available
that are effective in removing uranium. For most households, a single
point of use treatment system on the drinking water tap will be
sufficient to provide safe water for drinking. Point of use reverse
osmosis (RO) and distillation treatment will remove many different
contaminants from your drinking water, including uranium and radium.
Reverse osmosis is a process that filters most impurities from water by
passing it through a fine membrane. Contaminants such as uranium are
left behind on the membrane while treated water passes through. You may
need to install a pre-filter before the reverse osmosis system. The
World Health Organization reports that reverse osmosis treatment will
remove 90-99 percent of uranium. Point of use RO systems are available
from a variety of different sources, and WUPHD recommends that you
purchase a unit which is “NSF certified for radium 226/228 reduction”.
(NSF does not offer a uranium certification.) For more information,
please visit the NSF website.
A reverse osmosis system typically costs around $300 and you can save
money by doing the installation yourself. A point of use RO system will
typically produce about 7 to 14 gallons a day of drinkable water. This
amount of production should meet the cooking and drinking needs of a
typical household. To fix a uranium or radium problem, it is necessary
only to treat the water you drink because uranium gets into the body
through ingestion. It is safe to take baths using untreated water
because uranium or radium is not absorbed through your skin.
Um, that doesn't sound like it's a difficult problem to fix at all.
What on earth is the reason Australian governments are saying it's years away before it can be done here?
I've explained before, but I've never been a fan of stand up comedy of the modern era. I don't mind Seinfeld, as most of what he does is not intensely about himself. But comedians who base their shtick on a sort of public self analysis - that's never held much appeal. Or put it this way - I can enjoy some of that from some comedians in small doses. For example, I've recently watched parts of Netflix specials by 3 female comedians I quite like: Kitty Flanergan, Judith Lucy and Chelsea Peretti (the awful Gina in Brooklyn Nine Nine - I didn't know she was a stand up comic as well as an actor until this special) All of them do a very similar style of self deprecation, with a fair amount of content about how awful a lot of their boyfriends or dates have been. I find I can take it for a while - maybe 45 minutes, before I start losing interest. And it's not because I think their jokes about men are bad. Kitty Flanergan, in particular, is about as cheery as you can expect a female comedian to be. And although she makes jokes about men, she's pretty even handed with her attitude towards women too.
Part of it is that I don't like the crudeness and language of much modern stand up, but even if I come across one with pretty clean language, I still usually can't help but feel a bit bored with the style.
Anyway, why am I talking about this? It's because of the international praise being heaped upon Hannah Gadsby's "Nanette" on Netflix. I started watching it, but apparently I stopped before it became more serious. I had a fair idea where it was going, but still, in fairness I should go back to finish it.
My reaction to the first 30 minutes or so that I did watch: I thought it was interesting that she, as a high profile lesbian, was complaining about the pressure other lesbians' identity politics has put upon her. (She says at one point that it's not like she spends much of each day doing things that are specifically lesbian. But having started with a lot of lesbian content early on, she had the problem of being accused of not being lesbian enough in her later shows.) I thought this was a refreshing thing to hear from a LGBT comic.
But the rest of the material - she makes the point early on that she is going to be giving up comedy because of the self deprecation involved, which she realised wasn't healthy. Again, I think this is pretty refreshing. But...I still have a bit of a sympathy problem for her taking 10 years to realise this.
Actually, in the Chelsea Peretti special I watched most of, she does some weird cut away stuff that seems to be about the same point - that's she's aware that the nature of this style of comedy is not great for self esteem. So it's not as if Gadsby is the first to realise it.
I have to admit, I have never found Gadsby's comic persona, such as on that Adam Hills' show, very likeable. I don't understand the popularity she has in certain circles. And yes, I guess while watching her I am often trying to self analyse why I don't like her, wondering how much of it is a reaction to her lesbianism. (I have to admit, I find difficulty feeling empathy with butch lesbianism at the best of times.) But I think there is more to it than that. I think maybe I have always had a bit of sense that she was too sensitive (or smart?) to be doing comedy.
Anyway, I guess I have to go watch the last part of it, but I have my doubts I am going to find it life changing as some people claim.
Does anyone with common sense really believe that people are going to be keeling over with salmonella due to their filthy, filthy re-useable carry bags?
If ever there was a study worth being sceptical about, it's the one Andrew Bolt and a bunch of no common sense Right wing plastic lovers are citing from the US about what happened when San Francisco moved away from disposable plastic bags. Here's a pretty thorough debunking of that study. (There are others around the place too.) Yes, if you thought it sounded suss, it was indeed, very very suss.
You know what this reminds me of? The ridiculously elaborate instructions that wingnuts used to circulate about how extremely careful to be when cleaning up a shattered compact fluoro bulbs. The elaborate instructions always read like urban myth material, and was faintly ridiculous when no wingnut used to be in a blind panic about what would happen if a full length fluoro tube broke. As it happens, the compact fluro was only an interim step to the LED,
which are pretty brilliant and save many people lots of money.
It's obvious what they do - when they don't like an environment protecting law due to the minor inconvenience it causes, they gullibly promote any alleged safety hazard of the law.
As for the grocery bag issue itself: I note that those sceptical of its benefits keep citing a Productivity Commission report from 2006 - 12 years ago, and presumably based on information from some years further back. And I think a guy involved in that still thinks the ban is ridiculous.
But hey, don't Right wing folk even take into account changing circumstances?
There's been a hell of lot of emphasis since 2006 on the problem of plastics in the oceans. There was even a Senate report about this in 2016, with submissions (which I haven't yet read) by the likes of the CSIRO.*
I strongly suspect that the decrease in use of super thin grocery bags is justifiable in the interests of ocean and river pollution, but not for land pollution. And if people start buying more bin liners and thicker plastic bags because of that, well, I suspect they will not end up on beaches and oceans at the same rate as thin grocery bags. I reckon most people already buy bin liners anyway, and that use of grocery bags for rubbish is just doubling up.
So, yes, I can live with it.
Maybe a few wingnuts will think they've caught the runs from reusing a bag, and that'll be a plus.
* Update: here's a 2017 report about plastics in the oceans, with some comments from Australian academics. Yes, we're far from the worst plastic polluting countries, but doing something with little inconvenience helps, I can't see the problem.
There's a more interesting than I expected article at The Guardian about those Men's Health "transform your body " covers, where former flabby dudes end up looking, what's the word?, "chung"? Well, that's how one guy puts it:
After a month spent learning muay thai in Thailand, Tom Usher, 30, felt
himself change. “I wasn’t scared of anyone,” he muses. “When you look
chung physically, you feel chung – and that confidence translates into
how you act around women, but also men.
I think I'll using that word around my kids, and see what reaction I get.
A very short post to note that whenever I am cooking pancakes, as I frequently do on Sunday mornings for breakfast, and flip them and watch it start to puff up, I always think about the expanding universe. This happens so routinely that perhaps my thoughts are now along the lines of "here we go again, I can't stop myself thinking about the expanding universe."
That is all.
Update: no it's not. Could it be that some novel scientific thought is trying to tunnel its way into my consciousness through this process? The only thing I can think of is this: the pancake is expanding due to the heat energy of the frying pan it's sitting on. Is our universe's expansion similarly powered by a dark energy seeping into it from an adjacent hot universe? Of course, someone else would already have thought of this: wait, yes, I see someone asked the question on Quora. At least I don't think it's been given much attention as a concept.
The Congressional Budget Office is out with its 2018 long-term budget outlook, and the bottom line is not pretty. CBO finds:
At
78 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), federal debt held by the
public is now at its highest level since shortly after World War II. If
current laws generally remained unchanged, CBO projects, growing budget
deficits would boost that debt sharply over the next 30 years; it would
approach 100 percent of GDP by the end of the next decade and 152
percent by 2048. That amount would be the highest in the nation’s
history by far. Moreover, if lawmakers changed current law to maintain
certain policies now in place—preventing a significant increase in
individual income taxes in 2026, for example—the result would be even
larger increases in debt. The prospect of large and growing debt poses
substantial risks for the nation and presents policymakers with
significant challenges.
We know why the debt is increasing — Congress is spending more on big
entitlement items while slashing revenue. Those Republicans who insisted
the tax cuts would pay for themselves should hang their heads in shame.
And as “as members of the baby-boom generation (people born between
1946 and 1964) age and as life expectancy continues to rise, the
percentage of the population age 65 or older will grow sharply, boosting
the number of beneficiaries of those programs,” the CBO says. Rising
health-care costs have increased spending on Medicare and other
health-care programs. Interest on the ever-growing debt is skyrocketing
while revenue is “roughly flat over the next few years relative to GDP,”
according to the report. Unless Congress is prepared to see massive tax
hikes in 2026, the gap between entitlements and revenue will continue
to grow.
And just a reminder as to how Australia compares, have a look at this from Statista:
I'm not sure if this factors in the recent tax cuts, or not. (I suspect not)
In any case, it seems we are in a much better overall public debt position that the US. Which makes you wonder (well, not really - he belongs to a cult and so is beyond reason) how Steve Kates and his Catallaxy homies whine about Australian debt all the time, but aren't in a panic about the forecast US debt.
Is he serious? Because, um, it's not like the next person to have the misfortune to use his cabin would mind the fact that after two days of illicit smoking it's going to stink like hell.
I'm of two minds about the matter of the Red Hen rejection of the awful Sarah Sanders' group.
I am sympathetic to the views of David Roberts and others that establishment media like the Washington Post editorialising that this is a unwarranted breakdown of civility is rich hypocrisy when she works for a President who not only trashed civility and the norms of American democracy during the campaign, but continues to encourage his cult base to an authoritarian mindset. The media has allowed the normalisation of Trump's mindset that is so obviously dangerous to nation's politics that getting uptight about a restaurant's rejection of one of the key Trump enablers is to have a distorted set of priorities.
Zack Beauchamp runs a similar argument, but based more on Trump's trashing of the very concept of truth as the danger. Here's his argument:
Incivility in the Trump era isn’t about rude tweets. It’s about lies.
To understand what Sanders’s defenders are getting wrong
about the dinner incident, let’s get straight on the difference between
“incivility” in politics and simple rudeness. Our guide here will be
John Rawls, by all accounts the greatest American political philosopher of the 20th century.
A major topic of Rawls’s work was the problem of
political disagreement: How is it possible to have a democracy, a
government allegedly for and by the people, when people disagree so much
among themselves? Rawls attempted to answer this question in one of his
major works, an extremely long tome titled Political Liberalism.
The core of his answer, to simplify it dramatically, is
that democracy depends on a certain set of principles that almost
everyone agrees with. These are principles that only “reasonable” people
(not Nazis, for example) can accept — ideas like “all citizens deserve
to be treated equally” and “it’s wrong to imprison people on the basis
of faith.”
For this system to work, Rawls argued, public debate must
be free and open for people to clearly explain how their policy
convictions can be justified according to the shared beliefs at the
heart of a democratic society. Rawls called the obligation to adhere to
these rules of discourse “the duty of civility”: If citizens in general,
and politicians especially, hide and obfuscate their arguments, then people’s ability to give their informed consent to the administration disappears.
Our foremost political philosopher, in short, didn’t see
“civility” in politics as identical to politeness in everyday
conversation. Rather, political civility is about treating members of
the opposition like reasonable people. It seems more “civil,” in this
view, to honestly state disagreements with individuals, even impolitely,
than to try to trick them.
Rawls never really engaged with the possibility that a
democratic government might make dishonesty one of its core political
principles. But as my colleague Matt Yglesias has argued at length,
that is what President Donald Trump has done — using a complete
disregard for the truth as a tactic for advancing his agenda and keeping
his base loyal.
The sheer breadth of this assault is jaw-dropping; according to the Toronto Star’s database of Trump lies, since becoming president Trump has made at least 1,726 verifiably false statements, a clip of more than three a day. The New York Times
compared Trump’s record to Obama’s, and found a huge discrepancy: “In
his first 10 months, Trump told nearly six times as many falsehoods as
Obama did during his entire presidency.”
Sarah Sanders’s job as White House press secretary makes her especially complicit in this agenda.
Because the president lies constantly, a major part of
her job is defending those lies — either covering for them, deflecting
them, or lying herself to cover for them. Merely doing her job makes
Sanders (because of her boss’s uniquely hostile approach to the truth)
uncivil according to Rawls’s terms.
The Trump administration is attacking the very heart of a
democratic political system. And Sanders, by aggressively repeating and
defending Trump’s lies, is a vital part of this machine.
On the other hand: it seems a given that in private, most Republican politicians know that Trump is an idiot and is terrible for the nation long term, but they are too cowered to argue with his base that they are wrong.
If the hope for the nation is for a Republican revolt against their nominal leader, encouraging a mass uprising of harassment of all Trump administration figures regardless of whether they are engaged in private life or not may well make dealing with the idiot base harder, not easier.
I mean, look - the base already thinks that the Left must be destroyed for the sake of civilisation - and that's just from watching the news, let alone seeing a protest on the street that inconveniences them.
It's a bit of a conundrum really - are Trump supporters so self deluded that telling them in public that they are offensive, self deluded nuts will make their condition worse? They are dangerous too, what with their love of guns and desire amongst a significant number to see actual civil war as a way of winning the culture war that they have really already lost.
I don't know. Certainly I don't want to see riots - they routinely play into the hands of the Right.
But I do hate the normalisation of Trump rhetoric too.
For those who follow climate science, you would already know that the dishonest Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue article in Murdoch's Wall Street Journal last week repeated a deception that Michaels had tried before regarding James Hansen's 1988 modelling, which turns out to have been pretty accurate.
A decent enough explanation appears now at The Guardian. But there are lots of others around, including at Real Climate, although I think The Guardian's article puts it nice and succinctly.
Once again, it is a case of lazy culture war climate change deniers not realising they are being conned, because they live in an information bubble. (I wouldn't be surprised if the WSJ does allow a rebuttal to appear in it sometime soon - but deniers won't read it even if it's there.)
There have been some good twitter threads about the topic from climate scientists. I don't know of this Ryan Maue, but he appears a real piece of work. One of the prominent people arguing with him is Jerry Taylor, who is president of the Niskanen Centre, the quasi-libertarians who actually believe in climate change as a serious issue. (I think I've argued before, they don't sound all that libertarian to me.) His twitter account is worth following. It contains entries like this:
There is nothing, really nothing, like the wrath of transgender people/advocates against reporting or commentary on people who once thought they were the other gender, but later changed their minds.
Last week I noted an article at The Altantic that reported sensitively on the matter of transgender kids and de-transitioners, and since then it has run not one, but two articles by transgender folk (and even a de-transitioner) unhappy with the original article.
I hate to say it (well, not really - it just seems an appropriately polite thing to say), but it's transparent what's going on here: it's crucial to most transgender folk's self understanding that they can't be wrong about their self understanding, and so no matter how carefully or sensitively or accurately it's reported, they cannot bear hearing about people who now count a past self understanding on their "true" gender identity as mistaken.
Yeah, well, sorry, but it happens, and it obviously presents a challenge to parents.
Is he serious? Because, um, it's not like the next person to have the misfortune to use his cabin would mind the fact that after two days of illicit smoking it's going to stink like hell.
