Update: Because Tim showed interest in comments - yes, the organ was played last night in one of the pieces, and it was great to hear. It was this pretty awesome piece of music, which I hadn't heard before (save for the pop song, as explained below):
The Youtube is just an audio, and is a few years old, but its description would indicate that it was still by the Queensland Youth Orchestra.
I did not know that this piece of music provided the melody to the one hit pop wonder "If I had words" from 1978. So, I learned something too...
It seemed apt, after watching the horrible horse abattoir video on 7.30 last week, that I should watch the Netflix anti-industrial meat movie Okja, which has been out for a year and two and was pretty well reviewed. So I finally did, last weekend.
Made by the well known Korean director Bong Joon-ho, it has a lot going for it:
* it looks a million bucks, as they say. The CGI for the title (giant, genetically modified, pig) character is nearly always completely convincing, and many action sequences look like they would have cost a lot to stage. It's a terrific looking, well directed, film:
* Tilda Swinton gets to act over the top in her usual scene stealing fashion. As I have written before, there is something so distinctive about her looks and acting that I can't get my eyes off her in any scene she's in. She also has a co-producer credit, which surprised me.
* the ending leaves mixed emotions, but at least it's not a complete downer like Bong'sTrain to Busan. [Sorry, I thought he directed it, but it was Yeon Sang-ho.]
On the other hand, as some critics noted, the changing tone of the film is pretty eccentric, and sort of puzzling.
The key point is that, for a film which seems for the most part to be intended to make the audience feel guilty about eating meat, the vegan activists are portrayed as well intentioned but both a bit dumb, and too extreme, not to mention capable of violence. They don't come out of the movie as bad as Big Meat, but their often unflattering portrayal leaves the film with somewhat confusing messaging.
I wondered whether Bong was a vegan or vegetarian and wrote the movie to promote that diet, but I have read that he only became a temporary vegan for a couple of months after visiting an abattoir for research. And he pointed out that the kindly girl lead (human) character is not a vegetarian either - she eats fish and chicken in the film. Fair enough: but the film is definitely meant to make us feel sorry for the pig like animals awaiting slaughter.
Speaking of which -
SPOILER ALERT FOR ENDING
given that I did know the terrible ending of Train to Busan, I had no confidence at all about the fate of Okja itself at the climax of the film. In fact, if it was meant to really hit people hard as a way of putting them off meat, it would have ended differently. But maybe Bong decided that would be a step too far - and audiences could react against the movie. I guess most viewers would feel like me: both somewhat relieved at the ending, but also that it undercut somewhat the apparent intention of the film. The final scenes do seem a bit flat, and Okja's friends did not get the release they also deserved.
As I say, pretty mixed messaging, but still well worth watching.
I'm sorry - I really, really do not wish to be showing any sympathy to the obnoxious Right in Australia huffing and puffing about Uluru being closed to climbing, but I do think it's reasonable to see the decision more motivated by an aboriginal rights power play, rather than to do with the question of respect for sacredness of the site to the local indigenous.
Generally speaking, I think humans should get over the belief that any natural formation is more inherently sacred than any other natural place; but you can't tell people they have to stop believing in local or ancient folklore relating to a site, so we have to live with that.
But let's be honest here - there might be lots of "sacred mountains" in the world, but my impression is that very, very few of them are rendered "unable to be climbed" because of that status. I've been on the side of Mt Fuji and watched some Japanese women do something like a bit of sun worship as it rose - but no one thinks Westerners should be banned from its side.
Similarly, can white liberals stop using such a trite comparison between cathedrals (oh, it's just the same as not allowing people to climb over a cathedral, because it's sacred) and Uluru? Because, let's face it, hundreds of thousands of non-Christian tourists have been allowed to ascend the domes or bell towers of the great cathedrals of Europe merely to admire the view, and that is actually the closest analogy to white folk ascending Uluru up a set path. Sure, they wouldn't allow tourists to climb up the outside of a cathedral by ropes, for reasons of both damage that could be caused and aesthetics. But similarly, no one has a problem with Uluru enforcing a one route ascent because they want the minimum of the rock damaged. In both cases, if there is one route to the top to accommodate tourists, it's a case of a "sacred" space being allowed to be accessed by people who may or may not think the spot is spiritual.
The other factor is, of course, that the rock has been climbed for a very long time, giving the impression that the sacredness being defiled was not such an important issue in the past as it is now.
And really, isn't it kind of obvious that claiming, or inflating, sacred importance is just the easiest way indigenous groups have for feeling they can exert power? Have liberals forgotten the Hindmarsh Island affair?
Having said all of this, I am not suggesting that there is any point in politically disputing the decision - I don't actually feel they should not have the right to ban climbing for whatever reason. (And actually, the safety issue is a fairly significant one, given the number who have died on the climb.)
But I don't think the populace has to feel guilty about assessing that the decision is not particularly well justified, or high-minded, even on the popularly claimed "must respect the sacredness" grounds. Hence, I won't join in the criticism of those tourists who have rushed to climb it (even though I don't really see why climbing it on a hot day has that much inherent attraction, either.) It reads more just an indigenous political power play.
The “directed energy” weapon uses an electro-optical/infrared sensor to
identify potential threats before using a laser to knock dangerous
drones out of the sky. The laser can be powered using a standard
220-volt outlet and when it’s hooked up to a generator it can provide a
“nearly infinite number of shots.”
Among some intellectuals and environmentalists, it’s an article of
faith that economic growth must be brought to a stop. If we fail to act,
we’ll use up the planet’s resources and growth will suffer a disastrous
collapse. For example, British writer George Monbiot has been advancing
this point of view for quite some time. In April, he declared:
Perpetual
growth on a finite planet leads inexorably to environmental calamity.
The absolute decoupling [of growth from resource use] needed to avert
environmental catastrophe…has never been achieved, and appears
impossible while economic growth continues. Green growth is an illusion.
Monbiot
is simply incorrect. There are good reasons, both theoretical and
empirical, to believe that economic growth can be decoupled from
resource use. For many resources, this is already becoming a reality.
He may be right, but it's no doubt complicated if the world were to go aggressively to reduce fossil fuel use.
Herr Trump's lawyer argues his boss could not be investigated if he shot someone in the street. Sure, 5 years later after he stops being President he could be. But no investigation while he's President.
That's the authoritarian ridiculousness that Trump Cultists shrug their shoulders about these days.
Look, Bolt has long been on my "gone completely stupid and offensive" category in my blogroll, and you can't read much of what he posts about anyway, but I still look sometimes to see what he is writing about.
Man, has he gone trash tabloid in his topics, or what?:
I was a bit confused about this - did the Parliament's passing of Boris Johnson's Brexit enabling legislation at a second reading stage mean that the ultimate approval of the deal was a forgone conclusion?
What does it mean? First, don’t fall for the hype that says that
parliament approved Johnson’s deal. It did not. MPs simply voted for it
to receive a second reading, some of them motivated by the desire not to
endorse it but to amend it. As Labour’s Gloria De Piero confessed, she
voted yes, “not because I support the deal but because I don’t”. That
30-vote majority will include MPs who wanted to propose UK membership of
a customs union, others keen on conditioning the deal on public support
in a confirmatory referendum. Screen out the Tory spin: those MPs
should not be counted as backers of the deal.
As for the defeat on the timetable, that is the result of what now
looks like a tactical misjudgment by the government. By making such a
fetish of the 31 October deadline – arbitrarily imposed by Emmanuel
Macron when Theresa May missed the last one – Johnson painted himself
into a corner whereby even a delay of a few days looked like a
humiliation. Both Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Clarke signalled that it might
not need much more than a few extra days to undertake the necessary
scrutiny – though Nikki da Costa, until recently Johnson’s head of
legislative affairs, had said it required at least four weeks
– which is hardly that long to wait. Instead of taking that pragmatic
course, Johnson felt compelled to call the whole thing to a halt.
Why? The obvious explanation is that this gives the PM a pretext to
grab what he really wants: an early election framed as a battle to get
Brexit done, with him as the people’s tribune pitted against those
wicked remainer saboteurs.
But
another explanation suggests itself, too. Any period of scrutiny is
unpalatable to Johnson, because he fears that the threadbare coalition
that might exist to back his deal will unravel once it engages in closer
examination of the withdrawal agreement. Its erosion of workers’
rights; its creation of a new no-deal cliff edge in 2020; its
entrenchment of a hard Brexit in law – all those dangers would only
become more visible under the spotlight of protracted (or even normal)
Commons scrutiny. Bits of his coalition – especially among those Labour
MPs who backed him on Tuesday – would begin to flake off.
Antibiotic-resistant E. coli is more likely to be spread through
poor toilet hygiene than undercooked chicken or other food, according to
new research from a consortium including the University of East Anglia.
There did genetic sequencing of the bacteria from several sources to work this out.
I feel a bit mean making this observation out loud, because it's possible he is a fragile character who Googles himself looking for affirmation.
Anyhow - I saw Josh Thomas on ABC Breakfast this morning, and I have to say that I find him more "mannered" than ever. Maybe he's naturally nervous all the time, but he sure didn't come across as natural - it feels like it's all a performance.
They played a clip from a series he has made in the US, which is apparently another comedy/drama like Please Like Me (the charms of which escaped me), and his acting in it seemed to be a severe case of trying too hard to look awkward. I wonder how the critics are going to take it.
Thomas is also about to embark on a stand up tour, and he seems to be indicating that it is going to be yet another case of a stand up comedy act that is an attempt at self confessional therapy after a "difficult period". (He's been single for a year or so, after having 3 different relationships in his 20's. Yeah, a real tragedy.) I don't know why this has to be the basis of so much comedy now - I don't think it's psychologically healthy, and I thought Hannah Gadsby had confirmed that for everyone who didn't already realise it as a matter of common sense.
In any case, I don't wish him failure - I just have trouble seeing what his fan base sees in him.
I haven't seen much of the content of the Youtube channel Asian Boss - but a lot of it does seem interesting.
I watched this one in full, and was really surprised at the terrible pay and conditions for the (I assume) thousands of animators upon which so much Japanese TV (and movie) content depends:
Clad in a dark orange robe only worn by emperors on special
occasions, Emperor Naruhito will proclaim his enthronement Tuesday at
the Imperial Palace, offering a speech atop a canopied throne followed
by banzai cheers from guests.
The 59-year-old monarch — who
ascended the throne on May 1 following the abdication of his father,
Emperor Emeritus Akihito, the previous day — will formally announce his
enthronement from an elevated dais within the palace in Tokyo. The event
will be attended by some 2,000 guests from Japan and about 180
countries and international organizations.
The Sokuirei Seiden no Gi enthronement ceremony at the Seiden
State Hall will start at 1 p.m. in the Pine Chamber (Matsu no Ma) state
room, with the emperor ascending to the 6.5-meter-high canopied takamikura throne. Empress Masako will be seated on the adjacent michōdai throne during the ceremony.
Hope we get to see it on TV.
The exact form of the ritual is still a little controversial:
The Imperial House Law only states that an enthronement ceremony is
held when an imperial succession takes place, and does not detail how to
stage the rite. The previous rite, held in November 1990 for Emperor
Akihito, followed the example of the enthronement ceremony of his
father, Emperor Hirohito, posthumously known as Emperor Showa. That was
based on Tokyokurei, a 1909 order on the formalities of the ceremony.
The directive was abolished after World War II.
The government has
decided to follow precedent despite criticism that doing so contravenes
the postwar constitutional separation of state and religion, as well as
the sovereignty of the people, by having the emperor proclaim his
enthronement from a high place as the prime minister stands below.
Yesterday, after making pumpkin scones for (possibly?) the first time*, I whipped some cream by hand - definitely for the first time.
It was not so hard. Sure, I wasn't sure if it was working at all, but then you get that satisfying sudden transition from thick liquid to stuff so thick it's standing up by itself. I only needed a small amount, so a small metal bowl and medium sized whisk did it fine.
* Not entirely sure they are worth the effort - it seems a common complaint, derived from the uncertain water content in mashed pumpkin, that recipes make for too sticky a dough to which a lot more flour has to be added. That happened to me, too; but then again, I did add more pumpkin than called for in the recipe I was sort of following.
I missed this rather good article at Slate last week that criticises Andrew Yang's automation unemployment apocalypse views as lazy and not well justified when you look at all studies on the topic.
Well, I did enjoy this Nick Cohen column on Boris Johnson, who reached a "new deal" Brexit by doing a complete turnaround on key one point within a fortnight. He paints a picture of him in the following context:
In his classic study On the Psychology of Military Incompetence,
Norman Dixon analysed British generals who had led their men to
pointless deaths from Crimea to Arnhem. How familiar his diagnosis
feels. Dixon identified “overweening ambition dedicated to one goal –
self-advancement” as a persistent fault; and that sounds familiar.
Catastrophic men equated “war with sport”, he continued, and one thinks
of Theresa May’s warning in 2016 that “politics isn’t a game.”
She surely had Johnson in mind. For him, it is a game and winning is
all. Last year, he told the Democratic Unionist party that a border in
the Irish Sea “would be damaging to the fabric of the union”. He jutted
out what passes for his jaw and with a Churchillian boom thundered: “I have to tell you that no British Conservative government could or should sign up to any such arrangement.”
Last week, he signed up to “such an arrangement” because betraying
his allies wins him the game of politics. Dixon noticed “an
underestimation, sometimes bordering on the arrogant, of the enemy”. And
one thinks of Dominic Cummings, so lost in his deluded machismo that he
told EU countries that they “will go to the bottom of the queue” if
they dared challenge the mighty Britain. A mere fortnight later, Johnson capitulated to Brussels
so thoroughly the EU will no longer has to worry about the Irish border
and can adopt the toughest of stances when and if trade negotiations
begin.
No one should be surprised. It is an essential part of the
catastrophic character that catastrophists do not learn from their
mistakes or realise they are making them.
On the small matters as well as the large, political incompetents
mirror military incompetents. Generals who display “a love of bull,
smartness, precision and strict preservation of the military pecking
order” are prone to lead regiments to disaster, Dixon wrote. Remember
Jacob Rees-Mogg’s semi-literate instruction
to his civil servants that they must address untitled men as “esq” when
the practice is archaic. Or his insistence that they never use
“hopefully” in his presence: even though the adverb has stood in for “I
hope” for centuries and no serious linguist has the smallest problem
with it.
There seems to be a feeling about that, despite this current (apparent) delay, Parliament will sooner or later pass this deal, in large part because they are utterly sick of having to deal with it as a problem. We'll see.
