Some decent takes

Update: William Saletan's well deserved attack on Tucker Carlson is worth reading.

Update 2: Rupert must be so proud:

Oh to be a fly on the wall during the breaks in the trial

I'm talking about the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial, and imagining the sort of discussions that might be being had between his barristers and him during breaks.

Because, really, it's impossible to believe they would not be wanting to say to any other normal client "this is a disaster, you need to cut your losses now".   Instead, what are they saying?  

Waiting for how they'll factor this in

It's pretty hilarious, really.

Pro-Trumpy conservatives:  of course Putin wouldn't have tried this under Trump; he wouldn't have dared.

Next day:

Trump:  Hey, brilliant move on behalf of Putin.  Really smart, a lot to be admired there.   

(Of course Trump then claims Putin wouldn't have done it if he was President - that is just his basic incoherence and lack of self awareness kicking in.)

As noted on Twitter:

True.

I note in the Australian Christofascist Right, the shell of a former conservative who years ago could write well and cohesively confirms his descent into wingnut madness.   Currency Lad and his admirers cannot be debated or reasoned with, because facts stopped mattering to them years ago* - and when democracy gives effect to cultural changes they don't like, the problem they perceive is with democracy itself.  Hence he's decided the whole of Western Europe is "not my friend".   I get the distinct impression he thinks Putin rolling in on tanks over the entire continent would be only mildly regrettable, and overall a good thing for their culture war objectives: after all, like them, he doesn't like the gays, is not keen on abortion, promotes conservative Christianity, doesn't think vaccination in any sector should be compulsory; and and is highly motivated to burn every last bit of fossil fuel. 

The only amusing thing about this is that their extremism means they are left without any political party to follow - everyone has failed them - and they can't see that the problem is that they're the ones who have created the problem by moving into a their own fantasy world.   

 

 *  the list of false or risible factual claims in that post is just so long - and it doesn't matter to any of his admirers.

 

Can we change the law to allow deportation for being "an embarrassment to journalism"?

James Morrow, being pathetic, again:

Yeah, sure, sure.  Nothing speaks louder in terms of support for Ukraine than getting on the phone to them and saying you need a personal favour against a political rival before you'll release money for security.

And here's a longer article about Trump trying to reduce the effect of congressional sanctions on Russia.   Here's one from 2017.  And this article indicates the number of Russian sanctions went down under Trump. 

 

Of course he's not concerned

It is of no surprise to me that Dover Beach, the pro-Christofascist who runs the nuthouse support group New Catallaxy, is into excuse making for Putin:

[I will add further that this is an example of the classic, morally empty, "whataboutism" that is so beloved of the Australia pro-fascist conservative Catholic bloggers.]

More pathetic

I don't follow the intricacies of international politics as closely as some do, but I reckon I follow it enough to know that anyone who takes the line that Biden is the cause of the current situation is an absolute clown.  The strawman-ing of the USA (or its media) wanting war is also ludicrous.   As is the "under Trump this wouldn't have happened, he kept Russia in its place".   

Yes, I must admit I am a little curious to see the Carlson spin on this.   How awful will it be?

Update:  This, on the other hand, I can agree with:

 

Here's the story about the "like it or not" quote.

Update:    Hugh Hewitt, uber Trump apologist, will end up with 2,500 tweets telling him why he's wrong.  And an idiot.

As for Tucker Carlson:   every bit as bad as you would expect - 

And hahahaha, Tulsi Gabbard joins in the wingnut "let's defend Putin" line:

Yeah, apparently Hannity has set himself up in opposition to Carlson on the Ukraine question.  As I think someone on MSNBC was saying, it's part of Fox being able to claim they have a range of views - just with all of them anti Biden in different ways.

Bad Douthat

Yes, this Ross Douthat analysis of the Ottawa blockade as a new kind of "class warfare" is really bad.   He starts:

A great and mostly unknown prophet of our time is Michael Young, whose book “The Rise of the Meritocracy,” published way back in 1958, both coined the term in its title and predicted, in its fictional vision of the 21st century, meritocracy’s unhappy destination: not the serene rule of the deserving and talented, but a society where a ruling class selected for intelligence but defined by arrogance and insularity faces a roiling populism whose grievances shift but whose anger at the new class order is a constant.

This year it’s Canada’s turn to live inside Young’s somewhat dystopian scenario, set in the 2030s but here ahead of schedule....

And throws in:

This last division was not precisely anticipated in Young’s book, writing as he did before the true rise of the computer, but it has ended up being a key expression of the meritocracy-populist divide. To quote the pseudonymous writer N.S. Lyons, the trucker protests have sharpened a division between “Virtuals” and “Practicals” — meaning the people whose professional lives are lived increasingly in the realm of the “digital and the abstract,” and the people who work in the “mundane physical reality” upon which the virtual society still depends.

This completely ignores the role of the digital in promoting conspiracy and crank science amongst the "Practicals" - which is surely the key dynamic driving the anti-mandate motives.  

He finally does get around to acknowledging this in the second last paragraph....

And the conflicts are also more complex, inevitably, than any binary can capture: The resilience of reality creates fissures inside the meritocracy (as lately between parents and educational bureaucrats, say), while the populist side has its own virtual dream palaces (the world of QAnon and related conspiracies is not exactly a practical dimension).

...but I reckon with inadequate acknowledgement that this makes a mockery of his whole earlier analysis.   

And then this pathetic last paragraph:

Still, once you recognize the divisions that Young prophesied, you see them in some form all over, as a novel class war that constantly raises the old question: Which side are you on?

I guess it's too much for Douthat to just come out on the side of those who live in scientific reality and don't see everything through the Right wing culture war perspective.

Isn't he pathetic?

Many laughs being had on the 'net at the rank desperation of James Morrow today:

Given Rupert's usual personal interest in who should be the next PM, the only question is whether this is in anticipation of the boss wanting Morrison to return, or actual telegraphing from afar that this is the desired outcome?   Because, to be honest, unless he's got the start of dementia, it's hard to imagine Murdoch thinking Morrison has performed well; and as such, it would not be entirely surprising to see News Corp tabloids editorially wind back support for him. 
 

Updating the count

I see that Gallup has come out with it's annual "who's identifying as what" sexuality survey (for Americans).  

Here's my post last year about the last update.

This year, the headline news is that LGBT identification is up to 7.1%, but (as might be expected from watching pop culture), the growth is mostly from younger people - especially women - identifying as bisexual.  Here's the two key tables from 2020, and last year:

So "transgender" is pretty steady, and only slow growth in "gay".   But "bisexual" is up a whole percentage point (nearly).  As for the gender break up between men and women, this table shows the details:

 

Isn't that split between men and women curious, summarised again in this line:  

Women (6.0%) are much more likely than men (2.0%) to say they are bisexual. Men are more likely to identify as gay (2.5%) than as bisexual, while women are much more likely to identify as bisexual than as lesbian (1.9%).

One other thing of note is this:

In addition to the 7.1% of U.S. adults who consider themselves to be an LGBT identity, 86.3% say they are straight or heterosexual, and 6.6% do not offer an opinion.

I would suspect that a higher than usual proportion of that group should be in one of the LGBT categories.

Anyway, the results still seem to back the guesstimate I made in my 2013 post that, at least amongst men, the gay and bisexual percentage is probably around 4 to 5%.   The article also ends with this:

Given the large disparities in LGBT identification between younger and older generations of Americans, the proportion of all Americans who identify as LGBT can be expected to grow in the future as younger generations will constitute a larger share of the total U.S. adult population. With one in 10 millennials and one in five Gen Z members identifying as LGBT, the proportion of LGBT Americans should exceed 10% in the near future.

However, a large number of bisexual claiming women behind that figure are going to end up in marriages with men, and overall, the growth in alternative sexual identities is not going to be reflected to the same degree in the number of gay marriages (or gay relationships).

Update: a tweet about this noticed:

Democracy has become just a side interest for many "conservatives"

Is Gray Connolly, who I consider an eccentric pompous windbag, re-tweeting this with approval?:

Pretty typical Trump-ian excuse making here:  everything is supposed to be so bad in the West, who are we to complain about Putin?   It's pathetic.  Yet Connolly thinks everything was going fine under Trump:

And Gray ends up with this yearning for old world order:

He's really quite the nut, I think.

Finally getting attention

I see that violent fantacist Riccardo Bosi is getting paid more attention by mainstream media, Twitter and (hopefully) the Federal Police. 

I know what he will say if charged with something:  "I've always called for peaceful replacement of the government, then a fair trial, and then the public hangings of politicians, media stars, nurses, doctors, etc.  What's wrong with calling for a fair process like that?"

 

Count me as amused

I forgot to mention in my comments on Insiders yesterday, that the Huw Parkinson contribution was very funny this week:

Victorian magicians and The Prestige

I finally got around to watching the 2006 Christopher Nolan movie The Prestige on the weekend - about warring stage magicians of Victorian England.

I found it quite entertaining, and would recommend it, but after reading a bit more about it, it's one of those movies where the plot definitely does not bear thinking about.   

SPOILER ALERTS:

The main issue is the involvement of Tesla - as the initial reaction (certainly my son thought so) was that the Christian Bale character had taken advantage of Tesla's clone machine first.   But no, apparently if you pay closer attention, he always had a twin brother, and the Tesla thing was just to send his rival off on a wild goose chase.  Seems a little crazy, then, doesn't it, that Tesla should be able to whip up a clone machine in short order?  

Wouldn't it have made more sense the Bale really had been cloned?

Secondly:  there has been a fair bit written on the net about the vanishing bird cage trick.   It would seem it was never done as portrayed in the movie, and although the trick was hazardous to the bird, it was not necessarily fatal.   I guess I would count this as fictionalisation that is (more or less) justified.  

In any event, here's a lengthy article that appeared in The Conversation last year about the history of magician-ship in Victorian England.

 

Olives appreciated

I wrote some years ago about liking green Sicilian olives. I still do, but they tend to be pretty expensive.

I'm now recording for posterity the fact that I probably like just as much  the small olives called Ligurian olives. 

I didn't know that was a place (the Italian Riviera), and the actual cultivar of olive is noted at one website:

Liguria has been renowned for the production of Taggiasche olives for more than 600 years. Benedictine monks from the town of Taggia developed the species many centuries ago. 

(Sicilian olives are apparently Castelvetrano olives.)  

 

There's a continental deli at West End in Brisbane that sells Ligurian olives and they seem pretty cheap.  I never notice them in supermarkets.  I don't know why they aren't better known, because the flavour is, I reckon, pretty distinctive and pleasing.

Bald men problem

With the absolutely pathetic alternative reality performance of Murdoch editor James Campbell on Insiders this morning, I realised that middle aged, chonky men who like to shave their head bald is a bad sign for political reliability.  Either that, or low intelligence!  (I can think of a couple of other examples.  And no, I don't think Peter Garrett is a good counter example.  First: not chonky.  And besides, I never trusted him much either. "Every song's a whinge", as someone said to me in the 1980's.)

Harder

I've not mentioned before that I have joined in with the Wordle playing crowd, and today sealed it for me:  I am definitely in the "it's become harder since the NYT took it over" camp.  

Quite the cycle, there

I've had posts before about the idea of toilets collecting urine separately so it can be turned into something useful.  In Nature, this description of a scheme planned for a Swedish island is bound to be easy material for joke writers:

 Starting in 2021, a team of researchers began collaborating with a local company that rents out portable toilets. The goal is to collect more than 70,000 litres of urine over 3 years from waterless urinals and specialized toilets at several locations during the booming summer tourist season. The team is from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) in Uppsala, which has spun off a company called Sanitation360. Using a process that the researchers developed, they are drying the urine into concrete-like chunks that they hammer into a powder and press into fertilizer pellets that fit into standard farming equipment. A local farmer uses the fertilizer to grow barley that will go to a brewery to make ale — which, after consumption, could enter the cycle all over again.

The researchers aim to take urine reuse “beyond concept and into practice” on a large scale, says Prithvi Simha, a chemical-process engineer at the SLU and Sanitation360’s chief technology officer. The aim is to provide a model that regions around the world could follow. “The ambition is that everyone, everywhere, does this practice.”

What's wrong with people?

An unusual mistreatment of wildlife story out of Thailand:

BANGKOK: Dozens of live monkeys tied up in small sacks have been found in an abandoned building in central Thailand, national media reported on Thursday (Feb 17), in what authorities believe was a failed operation by illicit wildlife traffickers.

Footage from broadcaster Nation TV showed police and wildlife protection officers in the building in Saraburi province inspecting plastic crates containing sealed blue mesh bags with monkeys in each of them.

The video shows some monkeys trying to scamper away while still inside bags that were secured with string and plastic zip ties.

Wirom Wanalee, a resident, told Nation TV she and neighbours heard the monkeys' cries and found nearly 100 of them in the building.....

Thailand and the wider Southeast Asia is home to some of the world's most diverse flora and fauna, but the region has suffered from rampant poaching and trafficking of wildlife.

The pandemic halted much of the lucrative trade, but it is now picking back up as countries lift border restrictions, according to the United Nations.

Who is wanting poached monkeys from Thailand??

 

 

The self serving dishonesty of Republicans

We saw the same tactic deployed in the past on climate change:  after actively promoting the mere handful of contrarians, you would see them pointing to polls and saying "but the public just isn't convinced enough that climate change is real or serious or deserves government action, it would be wrong for us to move on this now."

Now it's used by Republicans regarding the completely unjustified claims of widespread voter fraud in the Trump election, and pointing to polls as to the number of Republicans who believe it meaning that voter laws just have to be reformed.

While fighting off professional sanctions for her legal career, Powell noted in a filing, “Millions of Americans believe the central contentions of the complaint to be true.” Then the filing added — tellingly when it comes to Powell’s lack of actual proof — “and perhaps they are.”

The same filing also alludes to another arena in which this widespread belief has been used to justify certain actions. It states that “dozens of laws have been enacted by state legislatures in response to concerns similar to those raised in the complaint.”

And it’s right. GOP leaders in key swing states across the country have repeatedly cited the perception of fraud — rather than actual widespread fraud — as legitimizing their efforts to add new voting restrictions. One Iowa state senator went so far as to say, “The ultimate voter suppression is a very large swath of the electorate not having faith in our election systems.”....

It’s not difficult to see where this kind of justification can go awry. It incentivizes creating a pretext for something you already wanted to do, as long as you can find enough people to embrace it.

Powell wanted to overturn the election, so she cited all kinds of dodgy supposed evidence for that, and she earned credulous media coverage from others who wanted to believe (or at least allow other people to believe) the election had been stolen from their side. Likewise, Republicans writ large haven’t generally subscribed to Trump’s most far-reaching claims of fraud, but they’ve done virtually nothing to rebut them, allowing the situation to fester.

What results is a bunch of legislators and extreme actors in the effort to overturn the election citing the very perception they’ve fomented as somehow legitimizing their original argument — and justifying the particular bandage they had already wanted to apply to the perceived wound. If a lie makes its way into the mainstream, is it really a lie? Or just a difference of valid opinions? Who can know? And how can you impose sanctions on someone or block a voting restriction if both were predicated on a sincere belief held by so many people?

 

Catholic technicalities

God's quite the stickler for precise words, it turns out:

Thousands of baptisms at a Catholic church in Arizona have been invalidated because a priest used the wrong words in performing the ceremony.

Father Andres Arango resigned from the St Gregory parish church in Phoenix earlier this month after diocese leaders discovered he had mistakenly used the phrase “we baptize you” instead of “I baptize you” for years.

His error means that countless baptisms – an irrevocable requirement for salvation in Catholic theology – will have to be performed again. And some churchgoers could find their marriages are not recognized....

The fount of knowledge on the matter is the Vatican’s 2020 congregation for the doctrine of the faith, which along with declaring Covid-19 vaccines “morally acceptable” also spelled out the correct words that needed to be used during baptisms.

The congregation “affirms that baptisms administered with modified formulas are invalid, including: ‘We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’,” the Vatican announced.

The declaration was deemed necessary following questions over whether such phrasing meant that three separate holy entities were involved in the baptisms, or only one.

“The issue with using ‘We’ is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Him alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes,” Olmsted wrote in a message posted to the Diocese of Phoenix website.

I wonder if there is an Arizona lawyer looking at offering to sue for clerical negligence, citing emotional harm over concern that the client's deceased child didn't make it into heaven because of this?