One of history's greatest cringe moments

I'm pleased to see that people still talk about this, because it proves that I'm not just remembering a dream!  I saw it on TV back when it happened (well, in 1978 - it was probably shown in Australia weeks or months after it was on American TV):

Meet the Spartans

Oh look, that increasingly rare thing - an interesting and fully free article at Slate about something other than an odd sex kink/relationship.

It's about ancient Sparta, by the author of a new book about them.  It starts:

Many self-professed champions of freedom throughout the centuries have looked to ancient Sparta as an inspiration. The doomed stand of 300 Spartan warriors against the Persian Empire at Thermopylae in 480 B.C.E.—the subject of Zack Snyder’s 2006 film 300—has been particularly influential for figures ranging from Lord Byron rallying support for Greek independence from the Ottomans to Cold Warriors mythologizing the virtues of the “West” against the Soviet Union. It’s easy to ridicule such a simplistic view of history, and to point out that the Spartans might not have deserved their reputation as invincible warriors. But the blunders and brutalities of today’s champions of “Western civilization” follow Sparta’s example remarkably closely. This should give us pause.

Sparta’s famous militarism was inseparable from the all-consuming fear the Spartans had of their oppressed neighbors. Unlike other Greeks, who only took up the spear when their city went to war, the Spartans trained as soldiers full time. The skill acquired over years of drill and exercise made the Spartans unbeatable for centuries in any straightforward clash of infantry. This professional army, however, was possible only because the Spartans enslaved their neighbors, called the Helots, and forced them to take care of the farming and other necessary tasks to keep the community functioning while the Spartans honed their soldiering talents.

 

Today's news

I presume Haley will soon be out, and then we get to watch the pathetic line up of "yes, his attacks on me were humiliating and on the same level as a high school bully, but sure, I can work with him."

Update:  here's another bit of amusing Trump commentary -

 

Expansive thoughts for a Friday...

Over at Aeon, an essay on the likelihood of the universe (or at least, a large chunk of it) being taken over by self replicating spacecraft.

It starts with this provocative paragraph:

Some time late this century, someone will push a button, unleashing a life force on the cosmos. Within 1,000 years, every star you can see at night will host intelligent life. In less than a million years, that life will saturate the entire Milky Way; in 20 million years – the local group of galaxies. In the fullness of cosmic time, thousands of superclusters of galaxies will be saturated in a forever-expanding sphere of influence, centred on Earth.

I think that start date is definitely way too early, given the bumbling around it is taking to even get back to the Moon.   But still...

I'm old enough to remember when they went on about how a blurry shot of Hilary's mouth showed she had syphilis...

What goes around comes around, I guess:

 As to the Hilary has it story, here's a link.

Update:  By the way, of all the theories that have been swirling around what the hand injury is, I reckon a likely one is that he grabbed a frozen hand rail (while getting off his plane?) in Iowa and bits of his skin stuck to it.    Because that is a dumb mistake to make, he hasn't rushed to admitting it.   

Just a theory...

All so obviously true

Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post talks about how it is absolutely clear that Trump acts the way he does in court not to win the cases, but to play to his "base":

We know he views courtrooms as campaign appearances where appeals are made for their political value, not legal strength. Trump would rather be in courtrooms than on the campaign trail. In the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, he was in a Manhattan courtroom for closing arguments in the New York civil case. He was not required to be there. But he makes more headway with Republican voters by appearing as an aggrieved defendant than by staging and attending campaign events....

Though Trump does not necessarily want to lose, he does not maximize his chances of winning. Legal experts Norman Eisen, Joshua Kolb and Andrew Warren, for example, pointed out at the Daily Beast that he did not make cogent arguments, let alone the best ones, in the New York fraudulent evaluation case. “Looming over the arguments made by both parties was what could have actually been Trump’s best argument against the intent to defraud: that any mistakes were accidental,” the authors noted.

Why spend time arguing irrelevant points or rearguing rulings the judge already made (e.g., the disclaimer on the evaluations doesn’t absolve him of fraud)? “The undisciplined and unhinged defenses Trump propounded today reflect the approach he has taken in the criminal cases,” they suggested. “Given the weakness of his legal position, it looks like Trump is aiming his arguments not at the court but at a different audience: the public. But that won’t be successful, in either the civil case or the criminal prosecutions.”  ...

Trump eagerly creates chaos, looks for opportunities to disrupt and continues to threaten judges, court personnel and witnesses. Indeed, in advance of the current trial, Carroll’s lawyer implored the judge to consider his outburst in the New York civil case and take steps to prevent another attempt to “sow chaos.” Trump is prohibited from rearguing the facts of the sexual assault — although he might try anyway. Expect outbursts in his criminal trials, ludicrous arguments (even those the judge already ruled on) and other stunts that a normal defendant might fear would be off-putting to a jury. That has always been his style: delegitimize entities and defy the rules because he seems to consider himself above the law.

Chait on the current political situation in the US

Jonathon Chait can be a bit hit or miss in his analysis, and I see on Twitter some have immediately accused him of writing this to assist Trump.   But I don't think that is at all fair, and even a progressive like David Roberts (who was recently fighting with more centrist Noah Smith on Twitter) thinks it a good column.

It's a long read, but here it is.

A quite nice column on ageing

It's in the Washington Post, and starts with a quote I don't recall reading before.  (I hope it's not a myth quote!):

Every so often, even in heartbreaking times, the soul hears something so true out of the corner of its ear that it perks up, looking around like a meerkat for the source. Mine did this when, decades ago, I read a quote of Albert Einstein’s: “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as if nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”

By the way, not to go all Buddhist on you, but the importance of gratitude is an aspect of (at least Pure Land?) Buddhism which aligns nicely with the above attitude:

I visit a lot of Buddhist temples and groups in North America, and it’s pretty common for people to ask, “So, what’s your prac­tice?” It’s a sort of icebreaker in the Bud­dhist world. I think my answer tends to surprise some folks, though. As a Shin Buddhist, my primary practice isn’t meditation, sutra study, ritual, or precepts. All of these can be valuable, of course, but in Shin Buddhism our main focus is the practice of gratitude. This sets us apart from many other Buddhists. We don’t practice to achieve anything—not enlightenment, good karma, a favorable rebirth, or material rewards. We practice simply to give thanks for what we have received. It’s a small shift in one’s perspec­tive, but when pursued, it can be transformative.

From the point of view of the dharma, we can see that each being exists within an inconceivable network of support from all things. Whether it’s the attainment of buddhahood or the simple act of drawing a breath, our every action is assisted by forces beyond the ego-self. As we become aware of our interconnectedness, we gain some perspective of our karmic limitations. Accom­plishments we counted as our own successes turn out to be due to the myriad benefits received from others. Pulling on our bootstraps, we discover that someone else made the boots and the straps, and fed and nurtured us until we were ready to pull. Our own efforts are imperfect and cannot succeed unless countless others are involved. This awareness gives rise to a sense of humility about our limitations and patience in the face of others’ imperfections. It also cultivates a sense of humor about our shortcomings and those of others.

For Shin Buddhists, being aware of our interconnectedness involves being aware of how power-beyond-self is always nurturing and sup­porting us. Part of the Pure Land tradition, Shin Buddhists believe this power that comes from beyond the ego-self is provided by Amida Bud­dha, the limitless compassion and wisdom that benefits us all. Naturally, thankfulness wells up inside of us as we awaken to this ever-present gift.

With this awareness, Shin Buddhists say the nembutsu in gratitude. The nembutsu is a phrase, Namu Amida Butsu, that expresses our happiness and thankfulness. It isn’t a mantra or a prayer—it doesn’t accomplish anything other than letting out that bottled-up gratitude in a joyful utterance. When we say Namu Amida Butsu, we aren’t begging to get into the Pure Land or trying to win favors with the Buddha. We are saying, “How wonderful to receive so bountifully! Thank you very much!” I find that Buddhists in lineages other than the Pure Land schools often misunderstand this point.

 

I foresee a failed Apple product

I think I've only watched him on Youtube once or twice, but this guy's is big in the world of tech reviews, I believe:

 

Why does this seem to happen in Sydney, in particular?

Say this just now:

Almost 1,000 recently completed apartments in Sydney’s north are at risk of collapsing due to “serious damage” to concrete in the basements caused by defective workmanship, according to the New South Wales building watchdog.

The developer Greenland has been issued with urgent rectification orders over the four apartment buildings at the Lachlan’s Line development at 23 Halifax Street in Macquarie Park.

The Building Commission NSW found there was “serious damage and spalling of the concrete slab at the joint locations in basements and the ground floor caused by defective workmanship” after inspections last year.

“This is a defect in a building product or building element that causes or is likely to cause the basement slab to fail, namely, to fracture and collapse, leading to the destruction of the building or any part, or the threat of collapse of the building or any part,” the rectification order said.

This is another example over the last few years of relatively new high rise apartment blocks in Sydney being found to have structural issues making them dangerous.  It would seem, from the list noted in this article in 2019, to be the fourth block that it has happened to.

What puzzles me is why these disasters seem particularly centred on Sydney constructions.

There was an ABC (perhaps Four Corners) show about the high rise residential building industry a year or two ago, in which they seemed to indicate that Queensland and other states had a more rigorous independent inspection regime during construction than NSW.  But surely these faults are related to engineers and certifiers who are engaged by the builder to check the work, too?   

I mean, I don't really understand how they can risk their professional reputation over certifying shoddy work that will come to light in the near future...

Some details on the Trump Iowa win

From the Washington Post:

Republican front-runner Donald Trump added Iowa’s most religious regions to his strongholds in Monday’s caucuses. He combined religious areas with the state’s lower-income and less educated counties to pull a majority of all caucus voters, more than double what he earned eight years ago.

Trump dominated the caucuses in the style of other Republican winners of the past 20 years, a pattern that works in Iowa but did not propel them to win the nomination. Meanwhile, Trump’s weakest performance was in the parts of Iowa that more closely resemble the rest of the country, with fewer White evangelical Christians, fewer farmers and more people living in cities with higher education and more income.

It's the details like this (as well as his continuing court cases, and his dubious health) which convince me there is no need to sweat about Trump winning another term.

The perfect "Labor isn't Left enough" faux crisis

I reckon this story:

 

...is pretty much the perfect example of an issue that only excites political commentators who have no perspective at all of what really does, and should, interest the broader public.   

I find it very hard to get excited about it.  

Why no one should be panicking about US poll numbers at the moment

Here's a useful article at The Conversation on the above topic.

 

Homing dogs

A propos of nothing, as they say:  an article in the Guardian about the remarkable homing abilities (some) dogs have been able to display.

Mealy mouthed Trump analysis, continued

Once again, we seem to be witnessing editorial decisions at the major mainstream print media to not go out of their way to offend people who would vote for Trump. 

This has driven some online commentators nuts ever since Trump was campaigning in 2016.  As it should. But it's pretty appalling that it is still going on. 

I offer these examples.

From the Washington Post, an article headed ‘Ordained by God’: Trump’s legal problems galvanize Iowa evangelicals (gift linked), we get these lines:

In several ways, Trump is an unlikely hero for those who identify as deeply religious Christians given his history of committing adultery, promoting falsehoods, and uttering vulgar comments and insults about women and people who cross him. But many have overlooked these indiscretions and questionable morals.

Now, it's true, the next paragraph speaks more strongly - but it is using the words of a commentator, not the newspaper itself, which, I think it fair to say, takes a "two sides-ing approach":

“The support has gone from begrudging to enthusiastic. Many evangelicals now see Trump as their champion and defender — perhaps even savior,” said Barry Hankins, a history professor at Baylor University who is an expert in evangelicalism. “Unwittingly, in my view, many evangelicals are welcoming authoritarianism and courting blasphemy.”

More from the article:

Standing outside a commit-to-caucus rally in Clinton, Iowa, recently, Paul Figie, a pastor and a Trump caucus captain, said Trump is “ordained by God.” He pointed to how he has seen Trump as being mistreated by the justice system and Democrats, equating the former president to a martyr. He dismissed the viability of other candidates, saying he was convinced that a higher power would put Trump back in office.

“Trump is the guy to be in there, and amen,” he said.

Trump has accused the Biden administration of discriminating against people of faith, suggesting at a campaign event in Waterloo, Iowa, that “Christians and Americans of faith are being persecuted and government has been weaponized against religion like never before.” Fact-checkers, however, have debunked that claim. Experts on religious liberty, such as John Inazu from Washington University in St. Louis, cite multiple major religion-related Supreme Court cases and say religious freedom is perhaps more protected than ever.

Trump has leaned into biblical comparisons. He recently shared on Truth Social a nearly three-minute-long video depicting him as a messiah — and played it at a rally. A narrator intones that “on June 14, 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, ‘I need a caretaker,’ so God gave us Trump” as a baby picture of Trump fills the screen.

See what I mean about "two sides-ing"?   "Trump often claims X.  Factcheckers say it isn't true.  Evangelicals would prefer to believe Trump."   It ends:

On a recent Sunday outside Walnut Creek Church in downtown Des Moines, Mark McColley, 71, explained why he is backing Trump.

“I am very disappointed that this country has been so brutal on Donald Trump,” he said. “It’s really brutalized him for the last six to eight years. And I don’t think that that’s warranted. I think he cares about this country. And I think that’s an important thing that we need to have.”

Over at the New York Times, meanwhile, we are getting headlines like this:

Election 2024 On Eve of Caucuses, Trump Casts Iowa as a Battleground for Victory Over ‘Cheaters’

The former president assailed his rivals before a rally crowd that braved subzero temperatures to see him. Nikki Haley got a boost from Maryland’s former governor.

And beneath that:

Democrats Fret That Biden’s Power Players Are Not at His Campaign Base

And also on the on-line front page, more "let's try to understand Trump supporters" guff:

How College-Educated Republicans Learned to Love Trump Again

Blue-collar white voters make up Donald Trump’s base. But his political resurgence has been fueled largely by Republicans from the other end of the socioeconomic scale.

In which we read  more mealy mouthed stuff:

Their surge toward the former president appears to stem largely from a reaction to the current political climate rather than a sudden clamoring to join the red-capped citizenry of MAGA nation, according to interviews with nearly two dozen college-educated Republican voters.

Many were incredulous over what they described as excessive and unfair legal investigations targeting the former president. Others said they were underwhelmed by Mr. DeSantis and viewed Mr. Trump as more likely to win than former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina. Several saw Mr. Trump as a more palatable option because they wanted to prioritize domestic problems over foreign relations and were frustrated with high interest rates.

And look at some of the voters they quote!:

Ruth Ann Cherny, 65, a retired nurse from Urbandale, Iowa, said she was turning back to Mr. Trump after considering whether the party had “a younger, dynamic guy.”

She considered Mr. DeSantis, but decided she couldn’t support him because “dang, his campaign is such a mess.” She wanted to support Vivek Ramaswamy, the entrepreneur and political newcomer, but concluded he was too inexperienced and could not win.

“Trump has been in the White House once, and maybe he has a better lay of the land this time and will know who’s who and what’s what,” Ms. Cherny said.

Yolanda Gutierrez, 94, a retired real estate agent from Lakewood, Calif., whose state votes in the Super Tuesday primaries on March 5, expressed similar views.

“I know Trump’s got a lot of baggage,” she said. “But so much of it is make-believe.”

Ms. Gutierrez, who studied education in college, said she had voted twice for Mr. Trump but had been leaning toward Mr. DeSantis because she liked his record as governor of Florida and thought the party needed a younger leader.

“But now I prefer Trump because Democrats are trying to find any way they can to jail him,” she said.

Are the editors at these papers a bit thick??   As I said above, online commentators have been talking for years about how important "framing" an article is, and how treating supporters of authoritarianism as just "reasonable people who need to be understood" is completely useless when they are under the sway of a character who, to them, is effectively a cult leader for whom reality doesn't matter, and for whom a large sway of self serving media barons (both mainstream and smaller) have pledged allegiance.  

The New York Times has also graced us recently with a column by Brett Stephens along the lines of "hey, you know I don't support Trump, but today I'm going to try to paint the best possible picture of him to explain why he still appeals to people."    

And Ross Douthat offered his opinion to try to held the Supreme Court rule that no court can find that Jan 6 was an insurrection attempt - he wrote a piece for subscribers entitled Why Jan. 6 Wasn’t an Insurrection.

He's quite the fool at times. 

Douthat has had plenty of pushback, including from columns at Reason and The Atlantic.  And on Twitter:

 

But it's still terrible that his trademark "excusing the authoritarian I personally don't like" comes under the New York Times banner.

Finally, while I should say that I actually do not think it likely that Trump will win an election against Biden, and think it much, much more likely that Biden might lose against an alternative runner, I nonetheless find it frustrating that the key US media outlets are still just "trying to understand" Trump supporters when they should be attacking them and not giving default endorsement to them as worthy of serious consideration that "they might have a point". 

UPDATE:

Cult members, remember to die for your leader:

Can you imagine the Right wing media machine going off its collective brain if Biden said something like that?   And for Trump, to the MSM, it's just "Just Trump being Trump".

UPDATE 2

Here's a couple of tweets making the point I did in comments (pretty much).

UPDATE 3:

Heh.

Co-sleeping, considered

I'm not sure I've learnt much that I hadn't read before here, but it's still a somewhat amusing article on how, until modern times, "co-sleeping" was quite the norm.  Some extracts:

Sharing a bed did not have the same sexual connotations that it does today. In the medieval era, the Three Wise Men from the Christian bible were often depicted sleeping together – sometimes nude, or even spooning – and experts contend that any suggestion they were engaging in carnal acts would have been absurd.

Sociable sleeping was so desirable, it even transcended the usual barriers of social class. There are numerous historical accounts of people bunking down each night with their inferiors or superiors – such masters and their apprentices, domestic helpers and their employers, or royalty and their subjects. In 1784, a parson wrote in his diary that a visitor had specifically requested to sleep next to his servant. Night-time tussles over blankets and hours of strange bodily noises tended to afford a certain equality that didn't exist outside of the bedroom.

Well, I think it certainly a good idea that an employee no longer has "sleeping right beside your unpleasant boss" as a work condition!

The article goes on to mention Samuel Pepys's diaries:

In addition to the minutiae of daily life and frequent lewd descriptions of womanising, the diary records just how often he slept in the same bed as friends, colleagues, and perfect strangers. And they reveal the many nuances of successful – and unsuccessful – bedsharing.

On one occasion in Portsmouth, Pepys went to bed with a doctor who he worked with at the Royal Society in London. In addition to laying "very well and merrily" together, presumably talking late into the night, the doctor had the added advantage of being peculiarly delicious to fleas, who consequently left Pepys alone. (It's also been speculated that the pests didn't like his blood – and perhaps this helped him to avoid catching the plague.)

Tucked up under several layers of blankets, with their nightcaps resting on their heads, Ekirch explains that well-suited bedfellows might exchange stories well into the early morning – perhaps even waking to analyse their dreams between their first and second sleeps. (Learn more about the forgotten medieval habit of biphasic sleep.)

These hours spent chatting in the blackness of night helped to strengthen social bonds and provided a private space to exchange secrets. Handley cites the example of Sarah Hirst, a young gentlewoman and tailor's daughter, who had several favourite sleeping partners for whom she developed great affection. When one of her regular bed mates died, she wrote a poem expressing her grief.

Oh, I don't think I knew this:

Though she had many beds at her disposal, it's thought that Queen Elizabeth I never slept alone once during her 44-year reign. Each night, she retreated to her bedchamber with one of her trusted attendants, with whom she would unburden herself and dissect the day's activity at court. These women also provided her with protection.

 

I'm sure Boeing really appreciates this guide in the Washington Post...

 Update:

And this amused me: 

This is a very odd story

Here's the New York Times version:

Secret Synagogue Tunnel Sets Off Altercation That Leads to 9 Arrests

Videos showed a tumultuous scene as young Hasidic men clashed with the police in the global headquarters of the Chabad-Lubavitcher movement in Brooklyn.

Makes it seem like peoples from a certain part of the world share part ant genes, or something.  (I've been watching quite a few ant keeping videos on Youtube lately!)

Hiding in plain sight

Yeah, this a very appealing idea because it's both cool and kind of funny. (Not that the post mentions AI in particular, but I mean the idea that an AI could be hiding within a computer network used for other purposes.)

Made me laugh

Maybe this has been around for a while?  (Hope I haven't actually posted it before!)  But I think I only notice today: