Marcia Langton explains why the Voice hardly seems necessary

This article at The Conversation quotes Marcia Langton explaining things about the Voice, but it seems to me she is inadvertently explaining why it is being set up to be full of internal conflict, and isn't really necessary:

A key question being asked is how people will be selected to represent their communities. Langton says: “We have to accommodate an already existing Indigenous governance landscape. So across the country we have an enormous number of existing bodies, none of which have any assured way of advising governments. None of them are provided with a formal way to advise governments. I’ll give you two examples.

"One is the Torres Strait Regional Authority. And the other is the ACT Indigenous elected assembly. Now, indeed, both of them can give advice to the state governments, and that’s a good thing. But they don’t sit in an integrated framework. […] We developed a set of principles for the creation of such bodies as the Indigenous voice arrangements.

"Those principles are:

• Empowerment
• inclusive participation
• cultural leadership
• community-led design
• non-duplication and links with existing bodies
• respecting long-term partnerships
• transparency and accountability
• capability driven data
• evidence based decision making.

 "Those are the principles, and it was our preference that those principles be legislated so that each body that is created, should we be successful, complies with those principles.”

Those bullet points indicate a bureaucratic rubberiness that is ripe for conflict inside the aboriginal community.

And if current organisations keep their eye on issues affecting them, then even if they aren't invited to contribute their opinion (which I suspect they would usually be), they are still free to write to the relevant minister or local MP directly about it.

Under the Voice, they will have their opinion filtered through a Canberra representative body, which will no doubt be forced to pick and chose which policy to officially endorse.  

Langton said at her press conference that the trouble with past cases of aboriginal representative bodies (like ATSIC) was that governments turned on them for political reasons, and dissolved them, and claimed that there was no evidence that the organisations had failed.    

I'm no expert on the history of those past attempts at centralised advice bodies, but I very much doubt that they were complete victims of Canberra politics.    

The other thing talked about in the article is an example of local aboriginal input into an issue having good results:

A major point for debate around The Voice is whether it will deliver practical outcomes. Langton illustrates by example.

“As for the kinds of problems that the Voice would be able to tackle much more effectively than governments, I give you the case of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first people to respond effectively, long before governments did so, were the Indigenous health organisations […] The Indigenous community-controlled health sector leaders had dealt with two epidemics in recent history and one in particular had a very high mortality rate. So in response to that, the Indigenous health sector wrote an epidemic plan, and that was about ten years old, but it was easily revised to become the pandemic plan. So they went straight into action when we began to hear the news from overseas about COVID-19.”

“So who was first to close their borders? Not the states and territories. It was the Aboriginal landowners on advice from the Indigenous health sector that closed their borders to stop travel in and out of Aboriginal lands to keep their populations safe.

"Because the most vulnerable populations to COVID-19 were the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations with pre-existing health burdens such as chronic diseases, diabetes, kidney disease and so on.

Um, can't that example be used to show that adding an additional layer of bureaucracy onto the present system may slow down government action, and not be necessary at all??

Singapore and "benevolent autocracy"

Interesting opinion piece in the New York Times with the title:

The World Admires Singapore’s Benevolent Autocracy. Should It?

Well, of course, the answer to me seems "yes".   It's fine, as long as you aren't a wannabe politician in the country being subject to terrible politically motivated lawfare. 

Some extracts:

Consider that in 1960, Singapore and Jamaica had roughly the same G.D.P. per capita — about $425, according to World Bank data. By 2021, Singapore’s G.D.P. had risen to $72,794, while Jamaica’s was just $5,181. It’s no wonder that Lee Kuan Yew has become a folk hero. It’s not hard to find people from South Africa, Lebanon and Sri Lanka praying for their own Lee Kuan Yew....

....Lee Kuan Yew contended that people don’t pine for democracy. First and foremost, he said, “they want homes, medicine, jobs, schools,” according to the 1998 book “Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas.” He provided those things by pairing business-friendly policies from the West (predictable courts, low taxes, zero tolerance for corruption and an embrace of meritocracy) with socialist-leaning policies from autocracies (heavy government involvement in economic planning and little tolerance for dissent). He created a vast system of public housing, where about 80 percent of Singaporeans currently live. People buy and resell long-term leases to government-built apartments with money the government essentially forced them to save. Singapore holds elections, but the ruling party, which controls much of the media and a host of lucrative jobs, has remained in power since independence.

Anyone who has visited the city-state of nearly six million people has seen how much cleaner and safer and more orderly it feels than the United States. Its airport doubles as a high-end mall. Public gardens bloom free of the litter, pickpockets or homeless encampments that have become familiar sights in U.S. cities. Robberies are so rare — and surveillance so pervasive — that some high-end bars don’t even lock their doors at night. Ferraris and Lamborghinis are everywhere, as if the slogan “a chicken in every pot” had turned into “a sports car in every parking space.”

Actually, I don't notice the high end cars there - but I don't notice cars much anyway.   The country has deliberately made car ownership very expensive, but instead built what's probably the best urban metro system in the world.   

Not entirely sure how money fixes this (cultural?) problem

Here's another recent story of a small, remote aboriginal community (this time in WA) suffering from the types of problems we are seeing in a fairly wide range of Australian towns:  

Late last week, representatives from Halls Creek District High School held a meeting with parents, community members and service providers to brainstorm strategies to address youth offending.

The meeting was called after ongoing break-ins, car thefts and rock attacks that some fear could drive much-needed teachers away from the town.

Teachers are working to turn around chronically low school attendance rates.

The secondary attendance rate at Halls Creek District High School fell from 38 per cent in 2021 to 26 per cent last year, compared to 80 per cent across Western Australia's public schools.

Youth crime rates remain persistently high, and homes occupied by government workers have been a regular target.

The earlier article it links to notes this:

At what point these children will return home is unclear. Many stay out until dawn and don’t attend school the next day. 

Some will replace a good night’s sleep with a nocturnal concoction of adrenaline-spiking car thefts, break-ins, police chases and rock attacks.

Their relentless offending puts them on a path to the sort of intergenerational poverty that is rife in Halls Creek, a town where most of the 1,500 people who live there are Indigenous. 

They face a world marred by high rates of domestic violence and foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. 

As adults, many will struggle to read and write and hold down a job at a time when employment is so readily available that seasonal workers from Pacific countries are filling hospitality positions.

 Now, of course the articles talk about all the usual stuff (drug and alcohol problems, generational disadvantage, inadequate housing, etc etc),  and yeah, it's not as if those aren't real factors.

But I keep thinking:  to get things started in terms of improving living conditions, isn't it a fundamental thing that you have to respect private property rights, and personal safety?   It makes particular sense to respect the private property and physical safety of the people who are re-locate to your area to try  to help you.

And while we can have sympathy for property crime if its genuinely needed to survive (after all, modern Australia was originally built on the back of street thieves sent out on boats) - stoning a teacher's, or doctor's, or trademen's car or residence has nothing at all to do with survival.   It has everything to do with a problematic view of the world that is not going to help anyone - and it's at least close to be able to be called a "cultural problem."   

I know that Right wingers have argued for years that the way forward in terms of aboriginal housing is to move into private ownership, and do away with housing provided by the local community on a kind of rental basis.   I doubt that is a necessary or useful step when its locations in which the remoteness means there is no real "market" with substantial values, and people with inadequate income from government with which to pay off the longest mortgages.   

And there must be systems of communal ownership around the world that do work adequately.

But you have to start with the right attitude towards respecting property rights, whether it be private or communal.   If you can't start there, pouring more money into the town is only going to be wasted money.  

 

  

 

The future of the Liberals

This article by Alan Kohler on the weekend about how the problems in the Liberal Party evolved, and what it can possibly do to resolve them, is very good.

He notes that the merger of the party with the Nationals in Queensland is a large part of the problem, given, as we know, how hot weather scrambles political brains and makes them more prone to nutty versions of conservatism.  (See the American South, and Northern Australia.)   Maybe Russia disproves that - but it's a weird place going back centuries.  Damn, Singapore probably disproves the case too - as although the politics are socially pretty conservative, you couldn't ask for a more science positive place that believes in expertise....

Impressions of Vietnam (Part 2)

We took a day trip from Hanoi to Ninh Binh, the river area with the spectacular limestone hillocks that, as the tour guides say, is "Ha Long Bay on land".  A couple of photos make the comparison clear:

 That's the enclosed bay you get to via Luan cave, in Ha Long Bay.   The next one is Ninh Binh:

I now know that this is called karst geology, and I think it's pretty remarkable that it all starts with an ancient build up of limestone up to 3 kilometres deep (!).  

The rest of the geological history is explained here:

The recipe for this scenic splendor calls for just three simple ingredients: abundant limestone, vigorous recent tectonic activity, and a tropical climate. The first ingredient, a blanket of limestone up to 3 kilometers thick, accumulated during an extended, 130-million-year span from the Mid-Devonian through the Early Triassic, when the South China crustal block, to which Northern Vietnam belongs, was submerged beneath the ocean. The rest of Southeast Asia was appended to the South China block in a complex series of collisions with microcontinents during the Indosinian Orogeny, 250 million to 240 million years ago. The second ingredient — vigorous recent tectonic activity — began to roil the region about 40 million years ago, when Northern Vietnam again rumbled to tectonic life with the intrusion of granites and the onset of major faulting. The 1,000-kilometer-long Red River Fault is Northern Vietnam’s dominant tectonic feature. The Red River, which follows an exceptionally straight course through the country, passing through Hanoi en route, lent its name to the fault, which has been moving with right-lateral motion for the last 5 million years.....

..... movement along the Red River and companion faults has jumbled the surrounding blocks of marine limestone, tilting and folding them in complex ways and ultimately making them more susceptible to dissolution.

When bathed in groundwater, limestone easily dissolves, creating distinctive karst topography. Because this dissolution is speedy in Vietnam’s warm, tropical climate — the third and final ingredient needed to create Northern Vietnam’s legendary scenery — the area’s once-continuous blanket of limestone became riddled with caves until the subterranean texture resembled something like Swiss cheese. The cave roofs eventually collapsed, creating sinkholes, and ultimately, the bedrock left undissolved and still standing comprised landscapes of limestone spires. Northern Vietnam and southeastern China constitute the world’s largest (and, many would argue, the most spectacular) karst region, which visitors can easily access at several stunning locations.

As any survey of travel vlogs on Youtube will show, both Ninh Binh and Ha Long Bay are incredibly popular, with local and international tourists.  There seem to be at least two different places where you can start on a 2 hour or so rowboat trip on the river around Ninh Binh, and I don't even know the name of the place where we started, but it had a new looking, very large tourist building:

The scenery on the river is, of course, spectacular, and there are parts with some type of temple on them which it seemed some people got to visit, but not us.  (I suspect they are modern, and part of the intense development of the area into a prime tourist spot.)   There are long caves you go through (on boat), too.

 

There's also a famous lookout in the area, but I didn't go up it due to my wife's current hip problem.  We rode some bicycles instead.   The fields were currently a bit rice bare, but I can imagine this ride looking good when the rice is fully grown:

And unfortunately, when I see ducks in this setting, my mind does wander to the question of whether they are breeding the next dangerous bout of avian flu:

Being a bit science nerdy, the main thing I would have liked to have added somewhere on the tour is an explanation of the geology of the area.

But yeah, like Ha Long Bay, it's an area you just have to visit if in Hanoi and the weather is up to it.

Back to work now...

Religion videos recommended - again

I've posted some of his videos before, but man, I do love the quality of the content and the presentation style of Andrew Henry at his Religion for Breakfast Youtube channel.

For example, his recent video summarising Tibetan Buddhism covered all the key stuff in his usual succinct and clear style, and made a point I guess I hadn't clearly "got" before:

 

And for Easter, I watched his summary of the debate over the likely site of the tomb of Jesus:

  

I've noticed on his Channel that the view numbers of his videos seems to swing wildly from modest to high. I mean, I don't watch all of them either, but overall, he deserves a wider viewership...

Impressions of Vietnam (Part 1)

I've been meaning to do a holiday summary post, from my recent short trip to Hanoi (and some surrounding areas in late February.  Let's go.

My overall summary of Hanoi, and the bit of Vietnam around it:   there's a lot going on.   If you look at Youtube travel videos, no one ever says a bad word about the place, and is usually overwhelmed by Hanoi's Old Quarter, with its narrow, crowded, somewhat frenetic streets, French design influence, and overall liveliness.  It's hard to imagine how badly the Covid must have hurt the place.   Yet, despite the obvious importance of tourism, the Old Quarter is still a part of the city used by locals - I mean, this is the (very nice) hotel we stayed at:

..and metres down that road there were sidewalk shops selling un-refrigerated meat and lots of fruit and vegetables. 

Oddly, despite the huge number of scooters, I never noticed exhaust fumes, and it's true:  to cross the street, you just have to be brave and walk in straight lines and at a steady pace, so they can (more or less) flow around you.   The biggest worry was watching my wife looking at Google maps too closely and losing situational awareness, so to speak.

I did see one accident, but it was on the day trip to Ninh Binh, when an old guy on a scooter ran into a guy in my group, knocking him over from behind, in a temple area and on a wide thoroughfare that I wouldn't even call a normal street.   You can see for yourself:

 

The old guy wanted compensation for some broken pots, but the tour guide and some local official defended the young-ish Malaysian tourist (in fact, the guide told him not to offer compensation).   It had the feeling of a possible scam, although the driver was pretty old (I would guess his 70's?) and I am inclined to put it down to his feeble driving skills, as I doubt he was into deliberately taking a fall off his scooter.

Funnily enough, when I took street photos in Hanoi, they never really seemed to convey adequately the actual busy-ness of the roads:

 

 

OK, I guess the last pic looks a bit busy - but it's worse in real life.  (Too many tourists walk around doing selfie videos, and I didn't want to join that set.) 

As for general liveliness:  there was some good quality music played on the street near the hotel on Friday, Saturday and Sunday night:

And we could hear it pretty clearly from our room:

but it ended at 10pm sharp each night, so it was fine.

We were near Hoan Kiem lake:

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the wide road to the side of it was closed to traffic on weekends, and flooded with families.   

These kids carts were very popular, and even the tiniest child can go for a ride, as they can be remote controlled by the parent!:

The Monkey King is popular, too, as are balloon vendors:

 

 

 

 

 

One thing that's hard to understand about the place:  how do dogs learn to just calmly watch traffic and people and not end up having very short lives at the wheels of scooters?

Anyhow, as for the general vibe, it feels a little odd to be in an ostensibly communist country that seems so intensely capitalistic.   I kept thinking that it's "Marx meets Ayn Rand", and wondered if it would cause some sort of ideological crisis for Sinclair Davidson if he visited.   It's a little bit scam/tout prone - some apparent taxis are not to be trusted, although even then, the "triple the normal price" is still likely to be substantially cheaper than what you would pay in Australia.  

The touts are not too persistent.  A simple "no thanks" is enough.  My favourite scammer was the guy on the footpath outside the entry to Ho Chi Minh's mausoleum who assured me I needed to buy a face mask off him or I would not be allowed entry.  (I could see plainly by turning my head that this was not true.)  I was a little surprised to find that there were so many touts for "massage" if I was out walking by myself - including men, or in one case, a woman, who would pull up beside me on their scooter, flash a pic of a scantily clad woman on their phone while offering to take me there.  It felt a bit more like Thailand in that respect than I expected.

Of course, the food is cheap and (usually) very good.  We just had one egg coffee (where the coffee is topped by heavily whipped whole egg - sounds dubious but it's very nice, as a sort of sweetish treat), but I wish we had more.

The best single higher class restaurant we ate at was one my wife found on Facebook, of all places.  It's called Sente, and has a menu based on emphasising everything lotus.   Every course was great, and it was a quiet and pleasant setting.  The total cost for everything (several courses, a few beers and coffee) was still around $60 AUD.

One final thing about the country:   I know that all warmer Asian countries have a way of conducting their commerce on the street.   But I kept feeling while in Hanoi that the Vietnamese really do seem to conduct their entire life (outside of the bedroom) in public, so to speak.   Even when not selling their wares on the footpath, or washing dishes there, or repairing or making stuff right in the doorway to their little shop, the Vietnam seem particularly keen on socialising and eating together, in the open.   Maybe coffee culture accounts for part of it, too?  For an Australian, it looks like a kind of social connectedness to be somewhat admired, although I guess that could come with its own stresses, too.

Anyway, it's a ridiculously photogenic country in terms of landscapes, and I'll make a separate post about the trips to Ha Long Bay and Ninh Binh.

    

 

The law of Karma, dubiously illustrated

I posted recently about the law of Karma, and remembered today that I had been meaning to post about how it is illustrated in one very well visited place in Hanoi.

In the old presidential compound next to Ho Chi Minh's mausoleum, there's a Buddhist temple (well, I think it's a reconstructed one - I don't think it was always there) which looks like this from the outside:

On the inside, it has, shall we say by way of understatement "a lot going on":

Now, I was particularly interested in how Vietnamese temples seemed to mix up Buddhism and Confucian elements to an extreme degree, but that's not the main point of today's post.

In the temple courtyard, there are several posters up illustrating example of the Law of Karma:

 which is something I don't recall ever seeing before.

The illustrations alone are eyecatching for their often lurid nature.   Cow demon in Buddhist hell features more than once, for example:

 

And some of the sins were very specific, and modern:

I thought it a little amusing about how quite a few were about not rocking the clerical boat, so to speak:

Just how much trouble have they had with someone "pretending to be a monk to destroy the Buddhism", I wonder.

Being community minded earned good marks:

As did not betraying the government:

Computer viruses get a mention, as does etiquette around Buddha statues:

And doing the right thing by"saints" is important, and even gets rewarded by good looks:

Now, I don't know who is behind this project, and it's a little hard to tell if the illustrations were designed to cause amusement, or not.

It didn't take me long to work out what the illustrations reminded me - the lurid comic books of Jack Chick, which were around when I was in high school (and are very well known in America - his death in 2016 attracted many obituaries): 

Anyway, I don't have anything deep to say about it - in part because I find it hard to tell how seriously the locals in Vietnam (or elsewhere) would take these examples.    But it's interesting, nonetheless.

Too much talk

Seems to me that there is way too much talk by people who really wouldn't have a clue about the legal merits, and political outcome, of the Trump indictments yesterday.   The major papers have published contradictory accounts by actual lawyers on the matter, and while my gut feeling is that the "pro indictment" side sounded more convincing, of course I'm not really in a position to be 100% sure of my judgement.

And neither are 99% of those who are deriding the case.   

Craig makes a good point

A religious discussion in time for Easter

Oh look - Christianity Today has started a series of articles called "Engaging Buddhism."  This is the second one, looking at the doctrine of karma.

Is Karma a ‘Relaxing Thought’? For Many Buddhists, It’s Not.

The articles compare the attitude to karma in two different branches of Buddhism - what they call Thai Theravada Buddhists and Taiwanese Humanistic Buddhists.

The Theravada Buddhists have the more "old school" take on it:

About 95 percent of Thais practice Theravada Buddhism, the oldest tradition of Buddhism, which hews closely to Buddha’s teaching and emphasizes reaching enlightenment through one’s own efforts.

Hilderbrand, who moved to Bangkok in 1999, found that the idea of karma is enmeshed in everyday life, regardless of how familiar a person is with Buddhist texts. When a car accident, natural disaster, or sickness occurs, people will mutter “karma,” resigned that it was the result of a person’s actions in this life or a past life.

“In a truly Buddhist worldview … if you are born ugly or crippled or poor, it’s because you deserve it,” Hilderbrand said. “And so, there’s not a tendency to help other people, except insomuch as it gets you brownie points or earns you merit for doing so.”

If the news reports that a rich person hit a poor person with his car, it’s accepted that the poor person did something wrong in her past and deserved what happened to her, Hilderbrand said. Unlike in Christianity, there is no concept that people are equal and have special value.

People who are born poor or disabled accept that their role is to live off their karma while doing good to impact their future lives. Some parents won’t permit their child born with a cleft palate to have surgery because it would take away the “karmic duty that the person has to bear through this life and therefore wouldn’t get the merit for the next life,” said Paul De Neui, a former missionary to Thailand and professor of missiology at North Park Theological Seminary.

At the same time, De Neui has found that often people born with physical disabilities are the most joyful people he’s met and are treated with a special kind of reverence despite their difficulties. They recognize their duty based on what has been passed on from a past life.

Thais are very self-aware of who they are and what their limits are, said Hilderbrand, unlike Westerners who have been taught that they can achieve anything. The challenge is that “it’s difficult for them to establish a way of how they can better themselves,” Hilderbrand said. For instance, if individuals aren’t good at math, they just accept that as part of who they are and don’t naturally try to change their situation.

At the same time, monks must be physically perfect—with ten fingers, ten toes, no disabilities, and no birth defects—because it means they have good karma from their past lives. When Hilderbrand’s friend and fellow missionary came to Thailand, the government refused to give him a missionary visa because he was blind; in their worldview, being blind meant he had bad karma and couldn’t be a religious teacher.

So, the fatalism of the concept, like the caste system, is problematic in certain ways.   (Mind you, I guess you could accuse Calvinists and their double predestination as not being very psychologically useful, either.) 

But the article argues that Chinese Mahayana Buddhism (or at least the part of it from Taiwan) has adopted a more Christian-like view:

Humanistic Buddhism emphasizes integrating Buddhist beliefs into everyday life and caring for issues in this world. It’s embodied in the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation: Formed in Taiwan in 1966 by a Buddhist nun and 30 housewives saving money to give to needy families, it’s now an international humanitarian aid group working in 100 countries and territories around the world. Tzu Chi volunteers engage in medical aid, environmental protection, and disaster relief—at times showing up to a disaster site before the government.

Mahayana Buddhists believe that bodhisattvas are higher beings that delay nirvana out of compassion to help the suffering. Karma and rebirth are still central tenets, but the doctrine has a different emphasis. While all Buddhists seek to alleviate suffering, Theravada Buddhists seek to accomplish this over cycles of lifetimes and reaching nirvana. Mahayana Buddhists are more concerned about alleviating suffering in the here and now.

Even if karma dictates that individuals did something bad in their past lives and deserve their situations, “what always builds up good karma, regardless, is to help them in their suffering,” said Easten Law of Overseas Ministries Study Center. “If your priority is enlightenment, what’s always good is to be compassionate: It’s good for your karma, and it’s good for their karma.”

In the late 19th century, Chinese Buddhists wanted to reform their religion and move beyond funeral rites, says Lai Pan-chiu, a religious studies professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. They saw the work Christians were doing in building hospitals, starting schools, and engaging in social issues and began developing their own. They even started youth fellowships and Sunday schools.

As these reformers transformed Chinese Buddhism “from a religion for funerals to a religion that benefits daily life,” more and more Taiwanese became adherents.

Humanist Buddhists see karma in a social or collective light.

Well, I have always said that I find Mahayana Buddhism more appealing than the other schools.  

The article goes on to note that the Bible is very clear in rejecting karma.  Apart from the example of Job, there is this:

When the disciples asked Jesus in John 9:1, “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” they were expressing a karmic view of the world. Yet Jesus’ answer reveals a more complex understanding of suffering—one that is in the hands of a loving, caring, and just God, not an impersonal force: “Neither this man nor his parent sinned … but this happened so that that the works of God might be displayed in him” (v. 3).

By viewing it that way, though, it does raise more of a (shall we say) ethical puzzle as to the nature of God and his toleration of evil.  I suppose the appeal of the Buddhist doctrine is that it treats it in a more impersonal way -  it's just a law of nature, and you can't blame laws of nature for being what they are.   

Still, it's interesting how certain Buddhists recognised the greater charitable dynamism in Christianity and incorporated it.

A worthy case of religious syncretism, of sorts?

 

 

Protons are not fully understood

The impression I had from watching certain Youtube videos was that how the proton worked (with its internal oscillations between quarks) was pretty well understood.   But it seems that's not really right:

For all we understand of its behavior, the proton's internal structure is a chaotic mess of activity scientists are still deciphering.

A new experiment conducted at the US Department of Energy's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility sheds light on this mystery, revealing more about proton innards and indeed how matter itself is put together at the smallest scale.

Researchers from across the US were able to measure the movements of tiny fundamental particles called gluons that hold protons together. Formerly referred to as the proton's gluonic gravitational form factor, this measurement acts as a sort of window into the mass structure of the positively charged nuclear particle.

What the team discovered was that the radius of the proton's mass varied from the radius covering the distribution of its electrical charge, often used as a proxy for a proton's size. While those values wouldn't necessarily be expected to match, the differences between them can tell scientists more about how a proton is put together.

"The radius of this mass structure is smaller than the charge radius, and so it kind of gives us a sense of the hierarchy of the mass versus the charge structure of the nucleon," says Mark Jones, a senior staff scientist at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Virginia.

As gluons lack charge and mass, their measurements must be indirectly taken, such as from the decay products of pairings of quarks and antiquarks known as mesons. The experiment involved an electron beam and a photon beam passing through liquid hydrogen, which resulted in interactions that produced a type of meson called a J/ψ particle.

By measuring the fallout from the J/ψ particles and comparing the results with theoretical models, the scientists calculated the different distributions of mass and electrical charge within a proton.

The greater radius of electrical charge means the mass of the proton is concentrated, suggesting some of the gluons may extend beyond the mass bearing quarks, possibly confining them.

Happy arraignment day

A few comments about the news:

*  it has suddenly brought up a story that had been reported before, but forgotten by most, even if we saw brief mention of it previously (I think that's me!):  the hush money payment to a doorman about a possible Trump illegitimate child.

*  I heard a guy on Radio National saying that the trial won't be until the end of next year - the election year.   If true, that alone is enough to put a spanner in a Trump campaign.   

*  I am wondering if any conspiracy nut is going to come up with the argument that the judge not giving a gag order now is actually a devious plan to lure Trump into making statements that can be used in evidence against him, and as such is all part of the great conspiracy against him. 

*  Can someone with more time on their hands than me ask one of those AI image generators to come up with a celebration cake for Happy Arraignment Day - perhaps with 34 candles on it?   

Update:  well, this article is pretty close to what I predicted - a Trumpy commentator complaining that not gagging Trump and just giving him a warning is "a trap" - they're just waiting for him to mouth off.  Well, duh.

At the heart of the Liberal problem

With the historic by-election loss on the weekend, Malcolm Turnbull gets to go all "ha ha, told you so":

Turnbull, a moderate who has strongly criticised the growing conservative focus of the party since his departure, told Guardian Australia on Sunday that “the problem is that they have to move back to the centre”.

“It is hard to see how that can be done with a leader who is so indelibly associated with the right of the party and whose support base in the Murdoch media is calling for the Liberal party to move further to the right.”

But, as I have complained before, Turnbull chose not to read the riot act on climate change to his party when he was leader, so I find it a bit rich for him to be complaining about any subsequent leader not doing likewise.  

I mean, the problem with this key policy area, for the Coalition, is arguably not so much their "official" position, but the continual internal erosion of the sincerity of that position by climate change deniers who are tolerated by the party.  For example:

 And this from their media supporters:

And this:

 

Matthew Stratton's article ends on this note:

The future, like the past of the Liberal Party, is conservative. The constant moderate Liberal fear-mongering over our 1.2 per cent of global carbon emissions; and the recent turn to reshape the Liberal Party from selecting our brightest and most capable candidates with MPs, Premiers, and Prime Ministers declaring it’s not what you have in your heart, but what you have between your legs.

This decade's long game of trying to straddle the barbed wire fence on climate change, with one foot in the "it's a urgent serious problem" camp and the other on the "don't be ridiculous, it's no problem at all, you've all been conned by scientists who can't be trusted" side may have worked for a time, but if you ask me, the bushfire emergencies under Morrison are what killed it off once and for all, and the success of the Teal candidates is strong evidence of that.

So in my humble opinion, unless the Liberals confront the formal schism that is needed (in the form of a demand that elected party members who don't believe it is a real science problem must leave the party), the Liberals are stuck in a losing position.   

Update:  And who could forget this (former) shining light of the Liberal Party, who tweets today:

 

About that indictment

I wasn't impressed with the sub-heading above a commentary piece in the New York Times (gift link):  

For more than two centuries, American presidents were effectively shielded from indictment. But the case against former President Donald J. Trump breaks that taboo and sets a new precedent.

That sounds like setting the ground for a two sides-ing "this is potentially too disruptive of our political system to bother doing it".

But now that I read the article itself, I guess it's not that bad.   It makes the pro-prosecution for crimes side pretty clear:  

While the indictment of Mr. Trump takes the country into uncharted waters, the authors of the Constitution might have been surprised only that it took so long. Justice Department policy maintains that sitting presidents cannot be indicted, but the framers explicitly contemplated the prospect of them being charged after leaving office.

A president impeached by the House and convicted and removed from office by the Senate “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law,” Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution declares.

“Generally, we consider that language to suggest that, whatever may happen with respect to an impeachment while a president is in office, he still may be held liable civilly or criminally after he leaves office for his misconduct in office,” said Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina.

In other words, no former president was immune from criminal liability. “The framers would have been horrified at the possibility of a president ever being above the law while in office or after leaving it,” Mr. Gerhardt said.

Indeed, while voting to acquit Mr. Trump at his second impeachment trial — the one charging him with inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader from Kentucky, said he did so because Mr. Trump was no longer in office but added that he was still subject to criminal prosecution.

“My view is that so long as the case that is brought is for a crime that is not unusual to charge, and the proof is also as strong as one would normally have — i.e. that one wards against the problem of selective prosecution — then it is imperative that we hold politicians to account regardless of what position they hold or held,” said Andrew Weissmann, a deputy to Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

Meena Bose, who is the executive dean of Hofstra University’s Peter S. Kalikow School of Government and runs a presidential history project, said that a country plagued by polarization and concerns about democracy would be stronger by enforcing responsibility on its leaders. “An active and continuing commitment to making sure all public officials follow the rule of law is essential to addressing those challenges,” she said.

The Trump lackeys on the other side say stuff like this:

In 2008, voters in two small towns in liberal Vermont approved resolutions accusing Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of “crimes against the Constitution” and instructing their town attorneys to draft indictments. Nothing ever came of it, but it is not hard to imagine a conservative local prosecutor trying to charge President Biden with, say, failing to adequately guard the border.

“This presents the opportunity for potentially thousands of state and local prosecutors to investigate and charge a president without the impediment imposed by D.O.J.’s policy against indicting sitting presidents,” said Stanley M. Brand, a former House counsel whose firm represents a couple of Trump associates in the investigation into the mishandling of classified documents. “It theoretically subjugates the presidency in a way I don’t believe was ever constitutionally contemplated.”

Mr. Goldsmith said any prosecution could tear at the fabric of the system. “Especially if this indictment is followed by even a justified indictment from the special counsel, we will see recriminations and retributions in the medium term, all to the detriment of our political national health,” he said.

And a bit more blather follows, but the article then points out how, in many other long established democracies, former leaders are not given a permanent "get out of jail free" card just by virtue of having been President.

For what it's worth, I also do not give any great credence to the "it will only make him stronger!" line of argument.   It won't.   

A helpful video about that AI go-slow call

Here it is:

 

One of the signatories is Elon Musk, whose deep thoughts have been revealed on Twitter to not be so deep, or reliable, at all.

Although I generally believe in taking experts seriously, not all experts are right at all times.   And this isn't like climate science, where the specific basis for the warnings has open for all to see and assess.   Even then, it has always been obvious that some were prone to making exaggerated (or carelessly worded) claims, and we rightly rely more on a consensus view as it evolves as more data and analysis comes in.

I think on this, we are probably at the "enthusiasts who have read too much science fiction" stage.   

I mean, one of the warnings mentioned in the video is disinformation:   we already have a huge problem with that from humans who make a wealthy living out of it, and have their own mix of psychological reasons for wanting to promote their own view of the world.   What's the motivation for an AI living in Google headquarters - or even dispersed across the globe - to do the same?   

Look, if we were living in the world of I, Robot, it would be different.   That is, if there was an army of humanoid robots capable of running the electricity grid,  building new servers, and mining and processing the minerals for same, I could understand the question "what if the AI decides humans are unnecessary, and in fact, are a danger to its survival?  Might it scheme to get humans to eliminate themselves?"  I guess a simple way to do that would be to insert false ICBM attacks into the systems of nuclear armed countries.   

But while ever AI systems need humans to run them, do we have that much to worry about?   

Oh, alright:  maybe an advanced AI does the numbers and works out it only needs a kept workforce of (say) five million healthy human adults, instead of 10 billion, to keep it running and expanding, and  work out a plan to reduce the population to that level.  And quickly, because computers don't like the heat, and global warming is uncomfortable for them.  

Here's a thought:  we better get some decent Kantian ethics inserted into these systems, because I don't trust one fed with nihilistic utilitarianism (or getting fond of Nietzsche!)

 

The unfortunate animals of Paris

I don't recall reading before about the attempt to rejuvenate human health by transfusing the blood of various animals into humans - in 1667, in Paris:

Beginning in the spring of 1667, public opinion in Paris was rocked by a remarkable affair involving domesticated animals: the first practical experiments to transfuse animal blood into humans for therapeutic purposes. The experiments that came to be known as the “Transfusion Affair” were shrouded in the competing claims of a highly public controversy in which consensus and truth, alongside the animal subjects themselves, were the first victims. “There was never anything that divided opinion as much as we presently witness with the transfusions”, wrote the Parisian lawyer at Parlement, Louis de Basril, late in the affair, in February 1668. “It is a topic of the salons, an amusement at the court, the subject of philosophical dissertations; and doctors talk incessantly about it in all their consultations.”¹

At the centre of the controversy was the young Montpellier physician and “most able Cartesian philosopher” Jean Denis, recently established in Paris, who experimented with animal blood to cure sickness, especially madness, and to prolong life. With the talented surgeon Paul Emmerez, Denis transfused small amounts of blood from the carotid arteries of calves, lambs, and kid goats into the veins of five ailing human patients between June 1667 and January 1668. Two died, but three were purportedly cured and rejuvenated.² The experiments divided the medical establishment and engaged a Parisian public avid for scientific discoveries, especially medical therapies to cure disease and to stay forever young.³ 

The article is quite lengthy, and explains that the reason these animals were chosen was based on some fanciful religious theorising:

For the younger Denis, it was not the exotic and domestic birds of the menagerie, but familiar comestible quadrupeds — calves and lambs and occasionally a kid goat — that could elevate humans, both physiologically and morally. Denis was convinced that the blood of these animals was in fact physiologically superior to human blood because it was morally less disordered, a point he elaborated in the published letter about the first xenotransfusion experiment: 

It is easy to judge that the blood of animals must have less impurity than that of men, for debauchery and derangement in drinking and eating are not as common as among us. The sorrows, the worries, the fits, the melancholies, the anxiety, and generally all the passions that are so many causes of the troubled life of man corrupt the substance of his blood; instead, the life of the animal is much better regulated and less exposed to these miseries, the dreadful consequences of the sins of our first father [Adam].

....For Denis, it was the moral and physiological superiority of animal blood that made transfusion a positive intervention. Moreover, in part to justify rhetorically his experiments, he consistently invoked not only the theological debasement of man, but also the moral purity, in the Christian tradition, of certain animals — notably lambs, with the implicit reference to the “lamb of God” and to the logic of the Eucharist as a source of eternal life.

And more, further down:

Denis’ own moralization of animal blood clearly partook of Renaissance humanimalism and the theriophiliac tradition of the “Happy Beast” that informed a corpus of philosophical, literary, and scientific thinking in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and that upheld the moral superiority of animals against the debased condition of humans. By the middle of the seventeenth century, theriophilia had become a widely accepted doctrine among the educated classes, from erudite libertines, to natural philosophers, to theologians. Animals were seen as not only linked to humans by kinship and proximity, but also as moral exemplars, less subjected to destructive passions that marked the fallen condition of man. 

I am pretty amused by the last bit in this extract: 

Encouraged by the results, Denis and Emmerez completed a second operation a week later, admittedly “more by curiosity than necessity”, on a robust, healthy porter of forty-five to whom a fee was paid. Denis reported on his instant energetic response and cheerful nature. Far from being debilitated by the transfusion, the porter quickly got up and slaughtered, skinned, and dressed the donor lamb for consumption, after which he went out drinking in the local pub, returning the next day to volunteer for any further trials. And these renewed appetites were not limited to food. Christian Huygens wrote to his brother: “It is said that he performed marvelous feats that night with his wife, this last detail spreading among the ladies has made them favorable to the new practice, and one can only find too many who would want their husbands transfused.”¹⁸

The article is also nicely illustrated.

 

Assumption disproved

Babies seem to be better at keeping their lips firmly sealed during birth than had been assumed:

It has been a longstanding assumption that birth mode and associated exposure of newborns to their mothers' vaginal microbiome during delivery greatly affects the development of babies' gut microbiome. 

To test the scientific validity of this assumption, a team of Canadian researchers has now published a study in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology in which they examined the effect of maternal vaginal microbiome composition on the development of infants' stool microbiome at 10 days and three months after birth.

"We show that the composition of the maternal vaginal microbiome does not substantially influence the infant stool microbiome in early life," said Dr. Deborah Money, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of British Columbia and corresponding author of the study. "It does not appear that exposure to maternal vaginal microbiota at the time of vaginal birth establishes the infant stool microbiome."

It seems that breast feeding is way more significant.  I wonder if there is value in at least initial attempts at breast feeding - say, for the first few weeks at least - rather than just going to formula immediately.  

Well, here's some folklore you don't read every day...

Look, it's from the Japan Today news site, so it's perfectly legit that I stumbled across it:

Every spring, thousands of tourists from Japan and overseas descend on a shrine in Tokyo’s neighboring prefecture of Kanagawa to celebrate one thing — the penis.

This symbol of fertility is at the centre of the Kanamara Matsuri (“Festival of the Steel Phallus”), which ranks as one of Japan’s kisai or “bizarre festivals“, and the story behind it is just as bizarre as the festival itself.

According to legend, a demon once sought revenge on a woman who rejected him by taking up residence inside her vagina and biting down on her husband’s penis so she was unable to procreate. In order to solve the problem, the woman paid a blacksmith to create a steel phallus to break the demon’s teeth, which he did, ultimately restoring her fertility.

All's well that ends well, I suppose.

The rest of the story at the link is pretty amusing too - the shrine has had to distance itself from an unofficial human-inside-giant-walking-penis mascot at the festival.

Can the AI doomsters be a little more specific, please?

Key figures in artificial intelligence want training of powerful AI systems to be suspended amid fears of a threat to humanity.

They have signed an open letter warning of potential risks, and say the race to develop AI systems is out of control.

Twitter chief Elon Musk is among those who want training of AIs above a certain capacity to be halted for at least six months.

Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and some researchers at DeepMind also signed.

I am curious as how they think an advanced AI is going to protect itself from having the power plug pulled.  

Noah Smith seems a skeptic on the matter of AI doomsterism, too.