Yet more "winning" by Ben Roberts-Smith

More gob-smacking "yes, this will help my reputation, airing this unnecessarily in public" material coming out of the Ben Roberts-Smith trial:

Person 16 said he heard a radio call that improvised explosive device components were discovered in the vehicle and handed the two detained Afghans to Mr Roberts-Smith's patrol for tactical questioning.

Person 16 said about 15 to 20 minutes later he heard Mr Roberts-Smith make a radio call stating: "Two EKIA (enemy killed in action)".

He said he crossed paths with Mr Roberts-Smith in the barracks a day or two later and asked what happened to "that young fella that was shaking like a leaf".

"He said to me 'I shot that c*** in the head'," Person 16 told the judge.

"And he said, 'Person 15 (another colleague) told me not to kill anyone on the last job, so I pulled out my 9mil, shot the c*** in the side of the head, blew his brains out, and it was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen'."

The more this trial goes on, the more this seems the perfect metaphor for how it's going for him: 

Not looking desperate, at all

Seriously, doesn't the party think it's worth a shot at changing the leader, even this close to an election?  Or is it fear that Dutton will win the leadership that's putting them off?  

Sharing my fondness for Singapore, again

I reckon if ever there's going to a be city enclosed in a gigantic dome for precise weather control in future, it would have to be Singapore.   I mean it's already got such a green techno future vibe, with the number of high rise buildings featuring plants and gardens, and the extraordinary enclosed gardens at Gardens by the Bay (and now, the airport, although I haven't been there since Jewel opened).  Mind you, it's a pity they haven't sorted out how to do clean energy in future - its small size presents serious problems.   I mean you might say nuclear, but it's too small to have its own nuclear fuel infrastructure, so it's still going to be dependent on overseas supply; and besides, if you do have a serious problem,  there is no where to evacuate to.  So I don't know.   Anyway, this is inspired by this mini tour of a new building there:

 

The other CNA story of note is this one about success in reducing recidivism rates of its prisoners.   I mean, I've seen other videos about the Spartan conditions that prisoners live in (if I recall correctly, they more or less sleep directly on the concrete floor), but it still appears that they care a lot about successful rehabilitation, and talk openly about how it's going in a way few other countries do.   Again, the impression from watching CNA is always that the place is run by pretty talented technocrats who prioritise social order - and given that I like high technology and have the residual Catholic desire to force people to be nice and lead lives of moderation, this is very appealing.

(Yeah, OK, why don't I love China then?   I think the difference is that their interest is in technology supporting the one Party rule, more than social order.)

Bosi watch

Forgot to mention yesterday:  military junta cosplayer Riccardo Bosi is on Twitter clips saying that his nut followers demand is for the Governor General to dismiss the Morrison government by this Saturday, appoint a commission that will have 3 months to "clean up" our corrupt electoral system, and then have new election.  (Which will be followed by lots of hangings of former politicians "if they deserve it" - this comes from some other clips around.)

We know he's a complete nut, who has imported with zero evidence Trumpian conspiracy belief about  elections (and QAnon crap about paedophilia), but it still surprises me that he seems to have no foresight for planning beyond about 72 hours.  

Because if you keep promising you're going to be leading millions to government shattering events in just a few days, and none of that happens, aren't you asking for trouble from within the tiny band of dimwits that do follow you?

 

By way of illustration of my "the Right's loss of contact with reality is much more serious than the Left's loss of contact with reality" theme....

In the Washington Post today:

*  An opinion piece by a famous female swimmer making the case that it's simply unfair for women to compete with women who used to be men (at least if they went through puberty).   The advantages are not reversed by the subsequent lack of testosterone.  An extract:

To be clear, trans women are women. Full stop. We must also be clear that trans women who have gone through male puberty acquire physical advantages female puberty does not provide: More red blood cells store and use oxygen more efficiently. Wider shoulders mean a leverage advantage, and narrower hips make for more efficient movement dynamics. Longer legs and arms, bigger hands and feet, can more easily handle a ball or cover a field.

A transgender woman who has transitioned from a testosterone-driven to an estrogen-driven system loses speed and muscle mass, yes, but puberty’s “legacy advantages” do not change with a new hormonal profile. Simply reaching an authority’s acceptable testosterone level should not qualify a trans woman to compete in the female category as currently designed. The physical disparity remains too great for true equal performance potential.

The comments following contains some of this ilk:

But by far the majority are actually on the author's side (she suggests there probably is no solution other than to have trans compete against trans - or men if they want.).   Many also have a problem with the line "trans women are women.  Full stop."   

So my point is - there is some identity politics nuttniness (no recognition of reality) on display in comments, by people who insist there is no problem.  But there's not that many, and do those who do think this way affect the country much?  No.

*  An article by Philip Bump noting the still extraordinarily high numbers of Republicans who are in the Trump fantasy land that he actually won the last election.  And this is by Pew Research polling, which I think has some credibility:

Pew found that only about 1 in 3 Republicans think Joe Biden won the 2020 election, and only about 14 percent of them say he definitely won, which he did. In other words, six out of every seven Republicans are unwilling to say that Biden definitely won. Instead, a third say Trump probably won — somehow — and almost another third say Trump definitely won. By now, this position is simply an act of faith, a rejection of all available evidence in deference to a feeling. It’s still remarkable in scale.

The polling also found that people whose views were furthest from reality on the results of the 2020 election were also those most eager to downplay what occurred at the Capitol. For example, 7 in 10 Republicans who say Trump probably won in 2020 think that too much attention has been paid to Jan. 6. That position was held by 9 in 10 of those who say Trump definitely won....

To believe that Trump won in 2020 is to reject concrete evidence that he didn’t. It’s to dismiss as unimportant or tainted any objective analysis to the contrary. Even allowing for the fact that members of the Jan. 6 committee would broadly be pleased to be able to implicate Trump more directly in the day’s events, it’s likely that any examination of the day would be treated with skepticism by a group that is defined by its skepticism about observable reality.

But then we factor in that original point: Most of those who think Trump probably won in 2020 also think he bears no responsibility for the violence and destruction on Jan. 6.  

Some of this is probably a function of partisan flag-waving, a rejection of the mainstream media’s (accurate) description of events in a way that casts Trump in a negative light. But some of it is also clearly true belief, a sincere insistence that Trump did win and that the violence wasn’t his fault. Millions of Americans want to believe that’s true, and so some do.

This is a rejection of reality by a very high proportion of the American electorate - and it's obviously serious in a functioning democracy when partisanship leads to fantasy beliefs that justify political violence.

 

 

 

COVID 19 origins discussed in detail

There's a long article in Technology Review (not paywalled) about the Wuhan lab's work and the question of the origin of COVID 19.

I have haven't read it all yet, but I take it from Twitter discussion that it presents a strong case for natural origin, and the Wuhan lab not hiding anything.

The amazing self-own of Ben Roberts-Smith seems to be escalating?

Is it just me, or is this an incredibly bad look?  [I'm sure it's not just me, although we haven't read if the other side admits any of this yet.]

A former soldier scheduled to give evidence against SAS veteran Ben Roberts-Smith is seeking to pull out, prompting claims in court that Roberts-Smith’s spoke with a senior lawyer who then contacted the secret witness.

In a dramatic turn in the case on Wednesday morning, lawyers for the newspapers defending a defamation claim from Roberts-Smith told the federal court two critical witnesses had been contacted by lawyers, allegedly after Roberts-Smith’s barrister Arthur Moses SC contacted another senior barrister to express concerns the witnesses’ interests were not being properly protected. The witnesses – former soldiers known in court documents as Person 56 and Person 66 – had agreed to give evidence for Nine newspapers.

Person 56 has an application before the court to be excused from a subpoena to give evidence, citing medical grounds.

Nicholas Owens SC, acting for Nine newspapers, on Wednesday said “through means unknown” the two SAS soldiers had been “placed in contact” with new lawyers after Moses contacted another Sydney lawyer.

Owens told the court: “We have become aware that recently Mr Moses has made contact with Mr Phillip Boulten … and we understand that Mr Moses expressed to Mr Boulten concerns that the interests of Person 56 and also 66 may not be being properly protected in relation to [them] being subpoenaed to give evidence in these proceedings.”

Owens raised the issue of how the witnesses’ identities became known to the new lawyers. He told the court “there is, of course, a prohibition on the true identity of Person 56 and Person 66 being made known to anyone” apart from authorised legal representatives. The new lawyers, Owens said, were not authorised representatives.

“There was an agreement by Person 56 to both speak to us and not oppose any application by us to call him to give evidence in the proceedings,” Owens said. But he said after contact from those lawyers “Person 56’s position has changed”.

 

 

The phone

This is very trivial, but after writing last week about using my phone with the Smart Launcher app, I thought I would join the ranks of the incredibly dull who like to share what their fiddled with home page looks like:

I do find this a very pleasing look, and layout. (I have blocked out the location on the weather widget, by the way.)

Update: Actually, I might prefer this configuration, after all:

(Smart search allows a quick search of all other apps, or an web search.)

 

What do you think, Homer?

About the Religious Discrimination Act

I haven't been paying much attention to it, but there are two main reasons why it seems to show weird political judgement:

a.  does the public have any sense at all that it was needed to fix a problem?  I don't.  Is it just because the Prime Minister, whose colleagues consider a liar and general psycho, is a member of Hillsong?

b.  why give it a priority now, in the dying days of an unpopular government?   The far Right conservatives in the electorate who see value in culture warring have already dumped the Liberals for their own stupid reasons - giving up on climate change and COVID mandates.  

Labels

While I can't see that Pinker deserves the label, I would say this, having just watched motor mouth Russell Brand whine about being labelled Right wing on Youtube:   if you're in the business of making excuses for Trump and the Republicans and their brand of proto-fascism, you're a useful idiot for the Right, regardless of what Lefty or moderate policies you claim to actually support. 

Gabbard and Russell are useful idiots.    

Update:  So is Taibbi, who I don't pay attention to, but thought I should after watching Brand praise him.  

Update 2:  I see from an article questioning the labelling in the list -

Rogan himself has never aligned with any political party, criticizing both Democrats and Republicans, though he’s described himself as a “progressive.” He has, however, endorsed and voted for Libertarian and Libertarian-leaning candidates in the past, such as former Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), and former Libertarian Party presidential nominees Gary Johnson and Jo Jorgensen.

OK, that would explain a lot - libertarians are essentially selfish and make terrible decisions because of that all of the time.  So instead of just, you know, not sounding like a racist, ugly sexist, or facilitator of the spread of vaccine scepticism or climate change denial, Rogan and his defenders would prefer to stand up for the "right" of people like him to not be subject to commercial pressure, which is all the fault of the Left, allegedly.

Some articles about Right wingers running amuck in Ottawa

This one in The Guardian links to this one in Politico.  Oh, and here's another piece in The Guardian.  And an explainer piece from the ABC.

Appalling. 

And thanks for explaining, journalists.  

(I see that Tim Blair, whose brain has been eaten by wingnuttery, apparently has no problem with it.  At least according to a header on a blog post, which is as much as I look at of his now.)

Since when did Australian wingnut threats to kill politicians become unremarkable?

Maybe this was covered in Australian media that I haven't read, but it's surprising that I only found out via a Washington Post article on the anti mandate moron protests in Canberra that some of the idiot "sovereign citizen" mob just openly go on social media talking about hanging politicians and bombing buildings, etc:

On Monday, one protest organizer ended a video with an allusion to hanging the prime minister, while in another clip, a protester warned a far-right lawmaker to stay away from Parliament, adding that if he had his way he would call in “bombers” to wipe it out.

In an interview later, the lawmaker, Sen. Malcolm Roberts from the One Nation Party, said the protests had been peaceful and respectful, aside from a small group.

“They were trying to hijack [things], and they had no, no success whatever. They were set aside,” he said. “I don’t see the very violent in the crowd that I addressed yesterday.”

 

Call out to Sinclair Davidson and Chris Berg - the least successful lobbyists for Liberal policy on the ABC, ever?

In the news yesterday: 

The federal government will end a highly contentious decision to freeze millions of dollars of ABC funding as it pours billions of dollars into the national broadcaster over the next three years.....

From July, the ABC will receive almost $3.3 billion over three years, while SBS will receive more than $950 million.

As part of that funding, the government has decided to end its controversial decision to impose an indexation freeze on the ABC's annual funding in 2018 which ultimately meant the broadcaster's funding did not keep pace with inflation.

Davidson and Berg wrote the book (literally) on creative ways to have the government stop funding the ABC, written (I always half suspected) in response to being dropped from the invitation list to The Drum (or any other show, ever.)   

They might argue they had some success - didn't some Liberal body vote in favour of ABC privatisation?  Oh yeah, here's Sinclair bleating about it a year ago in AFR:

This, of course, represents a governance problem within the Liberal party itself. In 2018 the Liberal Federal Council voted to privatise the ABC – a policy position the government has chosen to ignore. If elected politicians are able to ignore their constituents, it should be no surprise that apparently independent government agencies do so too. It is not just the ABC that is out of touch.

Hehe.   So they're persuasive to some dedicated crank culture war conservatives in the party - the same group who will continue to deny AGW and whine endlessly about clean energy - but the saner heads can the writing on the wall.    

Oddly, I've snuck over to Sinclair's Twitter feed, and can't see any tweet about it.   He's just resigned to be forever promoting bad libertarian policies that his own side of politics wisely ignore, I guess.   Meanwhile, Chris Berg's rather dull twitter feed doesn't seem to mention the news either.

Come on, boys.  Own your failure.

 

Roll out the comically large diplomatic table

Is there an explanation for this?

Is it the table always used in the Kremlin for high level diplomacy, regardless of how many are in attendance?  Or is it just the one used when Putin wants to send the message that they are (literally) far apart on the issue being discussed?

Just a tad self indulgent

Of course it would be The Guardian, writing about English "sex clubs" re-opening, but not your "traditional" type:

Between them all lies Crossbreed, a night where underground stars such as Shanti Celeste and Tama Sumo DJ to a room full of techno fans who can partake in everything from exhibitionist orgies to solo cups of tea in a dancefloor-adjacent wellness sanctuary. “The [queer fetish] community has long been dominated by gay men, who have rightly claimed and taken up space,” explains Alex Warren, who founded the event in 2019. “But that has left bisexuals, pansexuals, lesbians, trans and non-binary people with fewer non masc-dominated spaces to call home.”

I don't think it's my age - I've always been leery of normalising fetishism - but it's hard not to mutter something like "nothing that a good war with Europe wouldn't fix." OK, maybe I have to update that to "zombie invasion" or "meteor hitting the Atlantic":  the point is annoyance that people have too much time on their hands to engage in the silliest types of self indulgence.

The old "it's funny - because it's not funny" routine

I have to say that my long standing dislike of Jimmy Carr is feeling pretty vindicated by the strong pushback to him trying to make some kind of joke about the Holocaust and its victims.   But is it a case of unfair, out of context, criticism?

At this link is a Youtube video of the joke and his subsequent discussion of it.  It would seem that the entire special (called "His Dark Material") is some sort of meta show about dark or offensive humour.  Here is an extract of a mixed review:

The fundamental difference between a comedian such as Carr, compared to say, Dave Chappelle or Ricky Gervais, is that you never wonder about Carr’s sincerity. He’s not trying to troll you or confuse you about his intentions. He may enjoy writing jokes about offensive subjects. “But these are just jokes. They’re not the terrible things.” He even tells a story toward the end about a charitable gig he has performed at for multiple years through Montreal’s Just For Laughs festival, performing for patients dying from cancer, and how exploring the darkest subject matter can free them and us from the most tragic of emotions.

“I feel sorry for the people that get offended. I feel sorry for the people that can’t laugh at dark s–t. Because when their life is terrible, they’ve just got to f—ing white-knuckle it.”

Now, the bit about the cathartic nature of jokes about death is understandable - but that's a case of the willing participation of the audience facing their own mortality.   

And I allow that dark humour has a "proximity" issue (in both time and place) that is sometimes a fine line that can be accidentally crossed - in Australia, perhaps even England, you might get away with a joke about a cannibal murderer in Germany in the news last year; but I doubt you're going to find any Australians yet willing to sit through a set on the Port Arthur massacre, whether you're in North Queensland or Tasmania.   And there's the example of Mel Brooks and The Producers, of course.   

People will say, in justifying Carr, that he is telling the joke because the shock value is what makes it funny: same as "Springtime for Hitler", really.

But there's a key difference here, and why it's a weak excuse for this particular joke:   everyone knows that Roma people are still seen as "a problem" to be solved in England and other parts of Europe.   Why could Brooks make an entire movie finding humour in the shock value of a modern neo-Nazi still loving Hitler?    I think it was because it both didn't reference the Holocaust itself, and at the time it was made, Jewish discrimination was a pretty much over in America - they were seen an essential and talented part of the American landscape. 

But, honestly, I find it hard to believe that a portion of the audience reaction to Carr's "joke" was not tinged with dislike of Roma people and the way they live today.   And Carr, in his post joke explanation, doesn't even seem to me give a genuine attempt at explaining that it is only ironically funny - he does say it's a "good" joke because it has educational value, but this is pretty pathetic and weak.   A significant part of his audience would know that the Nazi extermination policies extended well beyond the Jews, and even if they didn't, how does the educational aspect excuse the invitation to laugh at the group as the victims?

And let's face it, there's long been a lot of dis-ingenuousness about the ironic use of "edgy" humour - it's a good and mature thing to recognise that it has can work as a convenient cover to allow a significant part of the audience to feel their actual racism (or sexism, or insensitivity to disability) is endorsed.   (And how else can you possibly read obnoxious Joe Rogan's recently revived old clip in which he was clapping his hands in delight at a creep explaining how he forced women to give him oral sex in order to get a stand up gig.  How can you possibly interpret that as not his endorsement of the view that such obnoxious sexual politics is nothing serious?)

Yes, the "woke police" can go too far - and readers know that I find the trans community tiresomely hypersensitive on this issue.  Of course it's not even as if I believe Carr (or Chappelle) are personally anti-Roma, or anti-trans, respectively.   But that doesn't mean that making jokes that are clearly capable of being read by the audience as endorsing their worst impulses are excuseable on the basis that it's knowingly offensive, and therefore an innocent case of "funny because it's not funny".      

I note, by the way, that all of the comments I can see after the Youtube clip I linked to above are actually supportive of Carr.   David Mitchell's wife also supported him.   I put this down to an over-reaction to the alleged tyranny of "cancel culture".   But seriously, people - put some thought into what you - and the person next to you - find funny, or acceptable, in humour or entertainment. 

 

David Mitchell on religion

Oh, this is the first time in quite a while that I've noticed David Mitchell writing in The Guardian.  Here I find out that he counts himself as agnostic, not atheist, in the context of talking about a recent comedy event he participated in at a cathedral:

So was it “offensive to everyone who thinks a cathedral is a holy space”? I’m not very religious, but neither am I an atheist. I’m a “don’t know”. I hope there’s a nice big God, and I hope I find myself believing in one when I expire, but I don’t reckon thinking about it a lot is going to give me the answer. I like churches, though – I find them both calming and moving, a combination rarely achieved by TV drama. During the event, I was extremely pleased to be in a cathedral.

I would have judged him as more likely to just be an out and out atheist, so I am pleasantly surprised.  

Bossy Bosi

Wannabe military junta cosplayer Riccardo Bosi has made a big splash on social media this weekend with his speech at the moron gathering in Canberra during which he called for 5 million Australians to join the protest (a target I expect will be undershot by about 4,998,000, give or take), failing which he warned the crowd that their fate would be in the "vaccination camps" which, he assured them, have "gas pipes" connected.   

He is an extraordinarily paranoid conspiracy nut, but is it appropriate that the mainstream media largely ignore him?   I mean, surely his followers have to cotton on sooner or later that he's a bullshit artist of the highest order who cannot whip up the public support that he claims is essential.  But wouldn't that be assisted by mainstream media showing his nuttiness for everyone but his deluded followers to laugh at?

 

A question to my tiny, tiny band of regular readers

Should I just delete every single comment of Graeme?   I mean, my policy for a long time has been to delete anything that makes reference to Jews, directly or covertly, as I won't allow anti-Semitic conspiracy rubbish here.  I have been leaving his other rubbish comments up, without engaging with them, including the ones where he happily calls me (and any other commenter) dumb for not agreeing with his esoteric views.   Apart from a conspiracy addled brain, he has no manners.

I was watching some of the documentaries on the Holocaust on SBS last week, and it reinforced my view that anyone who aligns with the centuries old conspiracy mongering against the Jews really doesn't deserve engaging with on any topic.   I feel that allowing Graeme's comments to remain here, on any topic, is a form of engagement.

So, what do you think I should do?  Automatic deletion when I see them?

  

Tweets liked