True, I reckon

Mescaline in proper perspective

I've mentioned before, I read Aldous Huxley's The Doors of Perception as a teenager and thought it pretty exciting (or at least, intriguing).   I could understand how it was so influential in the 60's counterculture.

However, I gather from this review in Nature of a new book Mescaline: A Global History of the First Psychedelic, that Huxley was way over-selling the drug's positives.

For one thing, I didn't realise (or perhaps had forgotten?) that (like ayahuasca in South America) it makes the average user pretty sick at first:

The powers of endurance needed to take the drug became more widely known: it induces hours of nausea and often vomiting before the hallucinations begin. (In contrast to alcohol, Jay notes, mescaline gives you the hangover first.)

But more importantly, while I seem to recall that Huxley gave the impression that the use of mescaline (outside of Native American culture) and exploring its effects was something pretty new, the book tells a story of experimentation with it going back much further:

In traditional ceremonial use, the hallucination phase has been reported as consistently transporting. But outside these cultures, those eager to experiment have had disconcertingly unpredictable experiences. In 1887, Texan physician John Raleigh Briggs was the first to describe in a medical journal his own, rather violent, symptoms — including a racing heart and difficulties breathing — after eating a small part of a ‘button’, or dried crown, of a peyote cactus. The pharmaceutical company Parke–Davis in Detroit, Michigan, which had been investigating botanical sources of potential drugs from South America and elsewhere, took note. The company was seeking an alternative to cocaine, whose addictive properties had become apparent; it began offering peyote tincture as a respiratory stimulant and heart tonic in 1893. 

A flurry of scientific trials began. There was scant regard for ethics and safety — for the scientists, who frequently tested the mescaline themselves, or for test subjects. In 1895, two reports demonstrating the drug’s unpredictability came out of what is now the George Washington University in Washington DC. In one, a young, unnamed chemist chewed peyote buttons and then noted down his symptoms: nausea followed by pleasant visions over which he had some control, then depression and insomnia for 18 hours. In the other, two scientists observed the drug’s effects on a 24-year-old man, who became deluded and paranoid.

In New York City, pharmacologists Alwyn Knauer and William Maloney carried out a more extensive trial, including 23 people, in 1913. They hoped that mescaline, as a hallucinogen, might provide insight into the psychotic phenomena associated with schizophrenia. It didn’t. The pair diligently recorded participants’ running commentaries on their hallucinations, but found no common characteristics. (In later studies, people with schizophrenia could easily tell the difference between their own hallucinations and those induced by the drug.)

 The pace of trials picked up after synthetic mescaline became available. Chemist Ernst Späth at the University of Vienna was first to synthesize it, in 1919, and the German pharmaceutical company Merck marketed it the following year. Yet trial outcomes did not become more reliable or illuminating. Over the next couple of decades, theories that mescaline might reveal the biological basis of schizophrenia or help to cure other psychological disorders were serially dashed.

This really puts Huxley's praise of the drug in a different light, doesn't it?  Again, I am going by memory here, but I think he gave the impression that his personal investigation of the effects of the drug were somewhat  ground breaking, but it had been very well investigated before and known to be very unreliable in effect.  (I recall he did acknowledge once having a trip which at least verged towards turning into a hellish one.  Perhaps his book was influential in promoting the dangerous idea that, if you start out in the right frame of mind, you can be pretty sure your trip will  be good.)

It's another lesson in not taking pretty sensationalist claims all that seriously until you know more of the background of the topic.   

Even the Washington Post disses San Francisco

Everyone, even the Washington Post, agrees that San Francisco has become a ridiculous, wildly over-priced city with serious problems.   According to WAPO, it's that being the hub of Tech and new money has caused hyper-gentrification and a white/asian, virtually childless, mono-culture, which nonetheless hasn't worked out how to deal with the homeless.

What's interesting, I think, is that this is a liberal take on the problems in the city;  Republicans hate it for completely different reasons, thinking it an example of how liberal loving voters just can't run a city properly.

But, apart from a likely valid point that a city deserves better regulation of poor street behaviour, don't Republicans ever think that the city sets an example of how (contrary to general Right wing expectations) money fixes everything?

Russian influence?

Given what's happened in (according to his site) 27 countries since 2004 where Russia has sought to influence elections in favour of Right wing parties, has anyone asked the question yet whether Russian disinformation interference happened in the Australian election? 

Just asking....

Looks completely normal

Even The Australian, it would seem, can't resist choosing a photo of Malcolm which makes him look  a tad less than sane:

Speaking of Twitter, this made me laugh:

But back to the Senate:  I'm not sure the headline is all that accurate - the article says it's likely the government will need the support of 5 out of 6 "conservative" Senator.  Not sure who counts in that group (Malcolm Roberts, and Cory Bernardi, sure) but it still sounds rubbery to me.

What a tosser

Mark Latham's feeling all culture war invigorated by the Morrison (narrow) win:

What exactly is he complaining about?  The performance of Sabra Lane at the debate drew no complaints from anyone - I don't think I even saw one at Catallaxy!   I similarly thought any interviews by Leigh Sales were quite OK.  Does he think the ABC shouldn't have shown footage of his Dear Leader's obnoxious party hacks promising the NRA that in exchange for financial support, they could change our voting system?   (I think that's what Dickson said in the meeting?)

The thing is, Morrison running a one man show where policies were pretty much limited to "don't trust Shorten, he'll tax you, I won't:  and how good is [insert location X]?" did not set up any mandate for the big culture war fight that is Latham's sole obsession these days.

What a sad, bitter, bag of bile he has become.

Something for the pro-nuclear techno optimists to read

I'm sure he's written a similar piece before (or maybe it was a review of his book on the topic?)  but I don't think I have posted about it.  

Gregory Jaczko headed the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 5 years under Obama, and now considers nuclear power is too dangerous to be deployed against climate change.

His views were changed, it seems, by a combination of witnessing the Fukushima nuclear accident and the extent of the problems it caused, together with fights with nuclear companies that resisted revision to nuclear safety.

True, he now works in clean energy, but he certainly show that smart, well qualified people with very direct knowledge of the nuclear industry can form the view that it is simply not practical from an economic and safety point of view to deal with climate change via expansion of nuclear power.

Go easy on the Lefty urban elites

A lot of Right wing commentators are ridiculing the catastrophism and "Australians are dumb and nasty and I am ashamed of them" style Tweets coming from some high profile Lefty commentators (like Philip Adams, Jane Caro, etc.)

I say this in response:

a.   I agree that dogged ideological Left wingers have always tended to complain this way, and it used to bother me a lot that it showed ill will and intellectual snobbery to those who do not share their views.

b.  However, let's be honest about what has happened to the Right over the last few decades - a significant section has itself become more ideological and abandoned evidence on matters both economic and scientific.  This has led to pretty much exactly the same condescension by many of the prominent commenters of the Right towards those who do not agree with them - you only have to read the bitchiness of Judith Sloan towards other economists; the "any company director who believes in climate change is an idiot" commentary of Maurice Newman and Andrew Bolt; and (at a lower level) the catastrophism of someone like Steve Kates, who sees a "the public just doesn't understand" global catastrophe to Western Civilisation around every corner; as well as the rest of those who comment in threads at Catallaxy with their extreme views about what a disaster it would be if Labor won, as well as their disdain of Labor or Green voters.   

c.  The short point:  ideological driven political catastrophism (and "the other side are two dumb to understand" finger pointing) has pretty much spread just as much into what passes for mainstream Right wing commentary (if you can call The Australian that!) as it exists (and has always existed) on the Left wing. 

d. For this reason, it's more than a tad hypocritical of Right wingers to be finger pointing at the Left and ignoring the same thing that happens on their side.

e.  Besides, come on:  you have to be a culture war, ideological twit to think populism is always right.   No - it's a reaction to perceptions, and perceptions are more easily led astray by deliberate mischief and misinformation campaigns when you have less education.    

Update:  or, as Jason Wilson puts it:

The other good thing about the election...

How's the senate vote for the LDP going?   NSW is their strongest state, with 1.8%:  just barely above Fred Nile's Christian Democrats on 1.7%.

In every other state, they haven't even cracked 1%!

So, off into electoral oblivion for you, LDP.   Good.

By the way, I liked the new Senate voting system - seemed a good balance of not too simple versus way too complicated.

Go Arthur

Yes, Arthur Sinodinos was on Radio National this morning sounding very (for a Liberal) pro climate change action - talking a lot about the inevitability of  the electricity generation system making a big transition, and how the Coalition will have to deal with that and take up opportunities it presents, etc.

Is it possible that the moderates have truly got the upper hand in the party all due to the symbolism of the defeat of Abbott?   It's a little hard to believe.

I think the problem might simply shift from "we don't know if it's real or not" to "of course it's real but we have to be economically sensible about this" (which was the other half of the Abbott formulation for relative inaction.) 

But we shall see.   

Frank Jotzo says similar things to Arthur in The Guardian this morning.

In another important question for Australians...

What is this guy wearing on his head in this photo of "All Purpose Sauce", from the Philippines:

Update:  further research tells me that it's a salakot - a round hat (sometimes decorated) from The Philippines  of which I was previously unaware.  Also: the sauce also contains crushed pig liver.  Not sure about that...

In other election watching news

*  I was trying to work out why the election coverage seemed so dull on the ABC, but also the other networks I sometimes flicked over to.  Sure, Wong and Sinodinos are smart and therefore a tad too reserved for lively commentary, but it seemed more than that.

The answer, I think, is the lack of the sound of background activity and the live audience that used to be around the broadcasts when they were from the tally room in Canberra.  Has any station tried running an election broadcast with a mixed audience that could clap, cheer or boo results as they deem fit (rather than just the boring cuts to electorate settings when you get some of that noise)?  Is that such a silly idea?  Maybe it has happened and I have forgotten...

*  I know the national Labor primary vote is way down - 33.3% as I write this - and you can paint the Greens (whose vote has held pretty solid at this election at 10.3%, despite their own internal ructions over the last couple of years) as hurting the Labor brand.   But I'm not sure the Left leaning side of the population sees it as a fundamental problem - preferences would surely flow tightly between the two parties and I don't know that all that many people would consider not voting for Labor for fear of Greens influence.   It's like an informal coalition that Labor has to deny in the interests of wanting to formulate its own policy, but I can't really see the embarrassment potential has that much effect in much the same way that moderate urban Liberal voters know they are also empowering a regional embarrassing hick like Barnaby Joyce.  Perhaps this is just taking a naive view of the importance of swing voters, but I can't get too excited by it. 

*  Apart from my favourite explanation that the heat affects Queenslanders in weird ways, I suppose the more likely explanation is just that they (I am excusing myself from membership of the group at the moment) are ridiculously parochial - look at the popularity of Pauline Hanson and Kevin Rudd as examples.   The latter is the type of nerdy swat politician who it would have been hard imagining being all that popular in Queensland, except he was from Nambour. And Hanson's party is showing 8.7% primary vote in Queensland at the moment, with the next closest state Tasmania at 2.7%.  NSW and Victoria are 1.3% and 1% respectively.   It's extremely likely, I think, that the "she's one of us and speaks like us" explains her success here, and it just doesn't translate to other States despite the ridiculous opportunity David Koch and Sunrise have given her over the years to try to build national appeal.

*  As for polling and its accuracy - it seems the advent of the mobile phone is behind it, and no one seems sure how to get around it.  At the same time, perhaps there is exaggeration about the inaccuracy - if you take into account margin of error, will they only be 1 to 2% out, and is that such a big deal?  It's not as if the end result is an electoral wipeout, after all, in terms of composition of the House.  I think its true that newpapers and parties should stop with the fixation on frequent polling outside of election periods.   That is in large part media generated, and a bad thing for many years.



  

Election like its 1993 (with added flim flam)

In 1993,  John Hewson should have won against a Labor government that had done a lot but run out of steam, just promising more of the same (which wasn't reflecting all that well in the economy) and having wasted too much time on a messy leadership transition.  But Paul Keating won by a negative campaign based entirely on fear of tax changes.  Of course it was disingenuous - a GST was never going to be a disaster in the tax mix, and a smart man like Keating would have known it - but such is the appeal of retaining government that we got another Labor term which no one thinks accomplished much, and bumbled along in  un-satisfactory fashion.

The parallels with 2019 are pretty clear - the tax changes of Shorten would not have killed the economy or done much other than force some superannuation retirees to cut back on government funded cruise holidays - except the Keating figure has been replaced by a shallower, flim flam of a politician whose government hasn't achieved anything of importance at all.    Keating's win came off a very low personal approval rating and was more the remarkable (even though not more admirable) for it.   With Morrison, though he is nominally more popular,  I just can't see that it is based on anything substantial. And politicians who win on negative campaigning do not get any lasting regard for having done so - Keating is remembered well for all of his reforming work pre 1993.  Morrison has no such pre-existing high regard for his former ministerial roles.

There is every reason to expect a Morrison government to be a bumbling one - on my favourite topic, it is still going to be beset by internal conflict between climate change denying twits (less the key one of Abbott, thank God) and the moderates who have enough sense to not deny science but are caught in a bind as to how to pretend to be taking adequate action.

Arthur Sinodinos on the ABC election coverage made a telling point to this effect last night.  While he continues to impress me as one of the sharper Liberal politicians, on climate change he appears to embody the attitude of the likely moderate majority of Liberals who know enough that climate change cannot be denied, but are prepared to not show convincing leadership on the issue while waiting for further public pressure to force them into more meaningful action. 

With electorates as dumb as those in Queensland (I certainly predicted correctly that Adani would cost Labor votes here) that is a deeply uninspiring attitude. 

Having said that, the conservatives such as those who live at Catallaxy are not going to be satisfied either - with the loss of Abbott as a key figure around whom denialism within the party can coalesce, it is hard to see how Morrison or his moderates could ever flip to the type of outright denialism that they want.  I mean, to do so will be to show them siding with nutter Malcolm Roberts who (thanks, stupid Queenslanders) will resume a Senate seat;  he at least serves the purpose of showing how old and eccentric you have to be to continue denying a clear scientific consensus.  (Almost certainly, I would say, he gets in by virtue of recognition of Hanson's name on the "above the line" section of the Senate ballet paper; not due to his negative level charisma.)

On the other  bright side - Clive Palmer's failure was pleasing enough.   He is a deeply weird man.

So, overall, it's a Coalition win, but hardly a convincing one for any mandate for a strong, comprehensive conservative agenda, because Morrison simply didn't run on one.  (I had to read an article this morning to remind me what they had promised, since it was so easy to miss it during the campaign.)

As for Labor:   Shorten's concession and immediate resignation had a lot of dignity about it.  For whatever reason, the Coalition voters who work around me all think highly of Anthony Albonese (and, as you would expect, given their treatment of Gillard) dislike Tanya Plibersek quite intensely.   I don't have strong feelings either way - but I can see Plibersek facing an uphill battle given her somewhat Keating-like air of condescension in interviews.   (I think she is smart and likely a very good operator when in power, though.)

I think that Albonese could do well against a bumbling Morrison government,  so let's see if he gets the job.  
 
Update:   I read Peter Brent after writing this post:

All those comparisons with 1993 are apt. A government widely expected to meet its maker, possibly in a landslide, instead lifts its vote and increases its seat tally. The opposition, laden with a big policy agenda and a leader with presentational problems — who snubs the traditional final-week National Press Club event and opts instead for direct engagement with voters at rallies — is nonetheless expected to prevail.

Why? Because the opinion polls say he will. The polls, published and internal, were even more spectacularly wrong this time than back then. Right up to election day, Labor was confident of a number in at least the high seventies. Liberals were sharing their pessimism with journos.

The lashings of eggs-on-face for the commentariat come from the polls....

During the campaign I spent a fair bit of time in this column obsessing about likely preference flows making the difference, but it turned out that what the pollsters got horribly wrong were the primary votes.
Queensland not only repeated its proud tradition of underperforming for Labor relative to survey-generated expectations, it also swung to the government by (on current figures) around 2 per cent. The big difference between surveyed and actual numbers in that fifth of the country alone would account for the pollsters’ national misfire.

Labor won two-party-preferred majorities in Tasmania, South Australia, Victoria and the two territories.

I think he's right on his take on over-analysis of Labor's failings, too:

The good news is that conservative commentators who were only days ago whingeing about the greed and irresponsibility of the voters have had their faith in humanity restored. But for the rest of us, now is the time to turn off the telly and newspapers and rediscover the joy of books, because the unending prognoses of Labor doom will be too much to bear.

The reheated stories of the blue-collar base, battlers, values, a moribund party structure, estrangement from the silent majority, and how the next Labor prime minister is not even in parliament. If you’re old enough, you’ve read and heard it — and its equivalent applied to the conservative side — a thousand times before.

The next polls should  register jumps in the prime minister’s and the Coalition’s fortunes, but in the longer term there is no reason to believe this government will be any more liked by the public than it was in the past.

 Update 2:  Samantha Maiden thinks Arthur Sinodinos was hinting at moderate Liberals getting a better go on climate change as a result of the election - 

Senator Sinodinos observed that “Morrison can’t sit still”.

“He wants to do things. And, in fact, if anything, one of the challenges when he was Treasurer, and Malcolm [Turnbull] was Prime Minister, is there was this debate about, you know, how quickly we do certain things because Scott was very keen to get on with certain things and Malcolm was more cautious and wanted to weigh them up more.

“Now, I think there’s still a case for being cautious when you’re doing big things, but my point is that he is a leader who will want to get on and do things. In fact, one of the things, I think, he will have to do is take some of the elements of the Labor campaign and look at them and say, ‘Well, where were the issues that motivated some people to vote Labor, and what can I do to and ameliorate – assuage those concerns?’.”

That is code for the Liberals doing more about climate change and energy policy.

The thing that he might want to do about climate policy, though, is support coal power stations. 

Election predictions

Surely the chances of Tony Abbott going off into the sunset of voluntary firefighting and lifeguarding at this local beach have increased significantly after last night?   (Honestly, what company would think he is an asset to their board?)   There will be a great shout of joy across the land (even from the conservatives I know who hate Bill Shorten) if this comes to pass.

The betting markets are confident of a Labor win;  the polling indicates it will may be closer than they expect, but the main likely losses to Labor may be in Queensland seats above Noosa where the heat addles brains and they think mining coal is going to provide long term jobs, instead of very temporary ones.

I strongly suspect this will be more than compensated for by convincing Labor wins in other states.   Victoria, being the former Liberal stronghold, apparently looks like the disaster to watch for the Coalition.

It promises to be one of the more entertaining and engaging election nights to be watching the coverage.

Bob Hawke and the Abbott non-legacy

While I cannot say that I ever especially warmed to Bob Hawke as a personality ("larrikinism" is hardly something I feel drawn to, and let's not mention my dislike of cricket and horse racing), there is no doubting the importance of his reforming government, and the attitude of principled and intelligent compromise which he brought to politics.   And he did show regret and a conscience regarding his failings in his personal life - Catholics especially have to give him credit for that, too.

Tony Abbott, by contrast, who is being thoroughly and rightly ridiculed and criticised for rushing in with comments demonstrating his complete and utter emotional tone deafness (shorter version:  "Bob was a great PM because, when you think about it, he was a lot like me") will go down in history as a completely unprincipled, opportunistic, empty vessel of a political operative whose only achievement will be a convincing demonstration of the truth of the Peter Principle:  the country is never likely to ever see a clearer example of a PM raised above their level of political and intellectual competence.
 

Tongue bathe your way to pardon

Conrad Black has been busy writing the most obsequious commentary possible of Trump and his presidency - right up there with Steve Kates material - for the last few years.  

So what a surprise that Trump should pardon him. 

The narcissism of Trump is so transparent that it is obvious to the world how he works.   All anyone has to do (Putin, Xi, Jong-un) is to be extremely complimentary to his face, and then go away from the meeting and continue doing what they want.   Trump's vanity will ensure he is unable to attack seriously someone who told him he's a terrific fellow.

Disney grandchild quite upset with the excesses of wealth and American capitalism

Abigail Disney, granddaughter of Walt and but no direct involvement with the Disney company, delivers quite a spray against wealth and salary inequality in America.

She makes many good points, although she seems to have it in for bidet toilets too, which is odd.  (Unless there is another form of rich persons' toilet that does more than a water spray?)  

The wage and work conditions within Disney itself have been pretty dismaying.  Mickey ought to be leading a socialist revolution.

Religion, eternity and socialism

There's a lot to unpack, as they say, in this lengthy New Yorker review of a book by Martin Hagglund.  The subheading to the article:

Martin Hägglund argues that rigorous secularism leads to socialism. 

I don't have time to finish reading it carefully enough right now, but Jason if you don't find it interesting, I'd be surprised. 

Increased rainfall intensity, as predicted

Heavy rainfall is in the news a lot recently.   A headline in the Washington Post: 

California is already drenched. Now three ‘atmospheric rivers’ may unload two months’ worth of rain.

The midwest is very wet too, and Texas.

And here's a new study on rainfall intensity spotted on twitter:

I see from comments following this Tweet that the denialists take the line "yeah, but it's not that big a problem."

As it's a topic I've been interested in some time, I think common sense suggests that it's in fact a problem for which it is extremely difficult to forecast the economic effects:   I would be very surprised if there is any accurate way to forecast the cost of engineering solutions to landslides, road washouts, and flash flood mitigation generally, both in advanced economies and less advanced ones.  (And some effects are just not going to be capable of being addressed.)

Swedenborg noted

Somewhat amusingly, the Catholic Herald has a column every week entitled "Heretic of the Week", in which they get to more-or-less ridicule various heretical folk from history, both distant and recent. 

One recent interesting one was Bishop James Pike - an American Episcopalian bishop in the 1960's who was on TV a fair bit and was an early advocate for the sort of church reforms which now don't sound so controversial, but were extremely so in his day.  (Ordination of women, abortion, acceptance of gays fully into the church, etc.)    I knew a little about him from his book The Other Side in which he claimed to have got in contact with his dead son via spiritualism.   I probably read that in the paranormal-loving 1970's, and remember thinking that it sounded quite convincing.   Little did I know, however, that the Bishop's personal life was a complete mess:  alcoholism, affairs, and he died in a strange way in the Israeli desert.  I'm pretty sure that he was fictionalised in a Philip K Dick novel too, but I forget which one.

Anyhow, I see that this week's heretic is Emanuel Swedenborg, another character I would have first read about in the 1970's, but one rarely mentioned these days.  As the brief account of his life in the article notes, he was a pretty smart man in his day who went deeply off the planet into visions of angels, the afterlife and alien planets, writing at great length about his experiences and theology. 

He was famous and influential in his day - Wikipedia has a lengthy article about him,  including how he came to Kant's critical attention.

The Catholic Herald notes that the Churches established in his name still have about 7,000 members:

Swedenborg’s vivid writings attracted much interest, providing one strand of the 19th-century occult revival. But in 1817 a denomination was founded on them: the Swedenborgian Church of North America – which suffered a schism in 1890, forming the General Church of the New Jerusalem. Although together the two bodies today have only about 7,000 members, two American folk heroes were Swedenborgians: Johnny Appleseed and Helen Keller.

 I am surprised that it would even have that many members.   Spiritualist and esoteric churches based on generic mysticism have never had longevity in the West - they seem too dependent on charismatic leaders holding it all together.   In a way, I find that a bit sad - it's a bit of a fun fantasy to imagine that there is one small group out there that has actually Worked it All Out with complete accuracy, and it's only a matter of tracking them down.