A Jesuit for Pope? Takes the name "Francis"?

Well, well.  These two factors alone make the new Pope potentially interesting.

There is little commentary on this at the moment, but I see Stephen Hough has picked up on it:

S.J. Those two letters indicating that their holder is a member of the Society of Jesus might, in earlier times, have been the cause for fear or dismay at this time. But since the 2nd Vatican Council the Jesuits have been at the forefront of reform in the Catholic Church. They have forged new theological paths; they have explored new ways of mission as cooperation and friendship rather than coercion; they have embraced a clear option for the poor. In fact, they have recovered something of the charism of their founder Ignatius Loyola whilst leaving behind the baggage of many Jesuit generations in between.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has chosen a brand new name, Francis I. Francis Xavier certainly would have been in his mind, but also the Poverello of Assisi whose plan to rebuild the Church consisted of giving everything away. I have a feeling it's a name which that other Jesuit, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, might have chosen had he lived, had he been elected. It's a complete break with the Papal past at the same time as being a link of charity with all that has made Christianity of value over the centuries. Pope means 'father'. Let's hope that Francis I will be one in the fullest, warmest sense of the word, to Christians and those of every and no faith.

 Time wrote about the Jesuits in 2008 (when they elected a new Superior General):

 Though more recently established, more traditionalist movements and religious orders such as Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ have gotten more attention of late, the Jesuits are still far and away the largest clerical order in the Church. They too, however, have suffered from declining ordinations, down to fewer than 20,000 members from a peak of 36,000 in the 1960s.....

Indeed, the order was founded with a special mission to directly serve the Pontiff, and has been dubbed the "Pope's cavalry," engendering suspicion in the past of conspiracies and secret powers. Even Popes, including John Paul II, have criticized them for their apparent autonomy. "Yes, we are in the vanguard of the Church," says Jose de Vera, head spokesman for the order. "It is not our job to just repeat the catechism, but to do research. Sometimes looking for real truth, you can step over the line." Just last year, the Vatican's doctrinal office issued a "Notification" to Spanish Jesuit scholar Jon Sobrino, a proponent of Marxist-inspired liberation theology, for what they called "erroneous ... and even dangerous" writings. 

Most Jesuits steer clear of offending the Vatican hierarchy, focusing on frontline missionary work amongst the poor and oppressed. Noted in particular for their vast network of schools and universities, the Jesuits are widely considered the day-to-day educational and intellectual motor for Roman Catholicism. Pecklers, who teaches liturgy at the Gregorian University in Rome, has lately been working on an education project in the hinterlands of Mongolia. "Whereas a Benedictine is centered around his monastery, the Jesuit's life is the road. The way we've achieved our credibility is getting our hands dirty, getting involved in issues of countries." Still, the order is facing many of the same challenges that face the entire Church, including declining numbers of clergy, especially in Western Europe and North America, and the tricky balancing act between faith and politics.

Since the Second Vatican Council, many Jesuits have favored progressive reform in the Church, seeking to adapt Catholic traditions to modern life. Kolvenbach's request to Benedict to step down as he approached the age of 80, Vatican sources say, could have implications for the "white" papacy as well if a Pope were to consider retiring because of old age or ill health.

I also bet some nutty conspiracy sites will go into overdrive about this.  Just give them a day or two to get their deranged thoughts in order.

Pick-a-Pope

The Guardian has come up with the Pontifficator - a handy table of every Cardinal which lets me bring you my picks for the most unlikely outcomes:

Pope most likely to convert Jamaicans:

(Yes, OK, so he's Indian, but still it would be a bit like Samuel L Jackson making the cut.)

Pope most wanted by the International Association of Dentists:

(He's Cardinal Wako, from Khartoum.  Which makes me realise that I don't know enough geography. Someone also tried to kill him a couple of years ago, which makes my picking on his teeth very unfair.   Good luck, Cardinal Wako.)

Pope most likely to have had early career on a cruise ship:


 OK, so is stereotyping Filipinos a sin?

But seriously, Cardinal Tagle is apparently really in the running, and he's the smiliest, most photogenic candidate by far.  Who could stay mad at him while being condemned to Hell for going on the Pill after 6 kids and a serious case of prolapse when he has such a nice smile?

However, let's face it, his hair is only partially grey and he probably has 20 years of good health ahead of him yet.  That almost certainly puts him out of the running.


Instead, we'll probably end up with Pope who Looks Most Likely to Use the Mafia to Clean up the Curia:

(Actually, he's Spanish, but Martin Scorsese sprang to mind when I saw him.)

Anyway, soon we'll know...

Smart dogs

The genius of dogs: Brian Hare on friendliness, intelligence, and inference in dogs. - Slate Magazine

A good interview talking about the way in which dogs are smart. For example:

 Dogs are the only species that have been identified to date that learn words in the same way as human children—by using inferences. Show a child a red block and a green block, for example. If you then ask for "the chromium block, not the red block," most children will give you the green block, despite not knowing that "chromium" can refer to a shade of green. The child infers the name of the object. Dogs have been found to learn in the same way.

The second thing is that they make use of human gestures at a similar level of flexibility to young infants. Obviously older infants quickly outstrip what dogs can do, but the fact that there is any overlap at all is remarkable.

And this:

There are lots of flavors of intelligence. Researchers have looked at different animals and the contexts in which they are able to make inferences. Corvids, the family of birds that includes crows and ravens, make incredibly complicated inferences when it comes to using tools or outcompeting group members in hiding food, for example. What's special about dogs is that they have the ability to figure out what we want, to use humans as a tool in a way that other animals cannot.

The way that I would love for people to think about intelligence is to think of a tool box. If somebody asks you what's the smartest species or who's the smartest person, it's the equivalent of asking, what's the best tool, a hammer or a screwdriver? Well, what's the problem you're trying to solve? What is it that dogs need to solve to survive? They need to figure out how to use humans effectively.

Clive on climate

Nature v technology: climate 'belief' is politics, not science

I quite like this piece by Clive Hamilton, drawing similarities between how Einstein's theory of relativity was initially rejected by many on political ground, in the same way that much of the Right does with respect to climate change.

Yay, science fiction comedy

Douglas Adams is still the king of comic science fiction | Books | guardian.co.uk

The Guardian notes that Google is today celebrating the 61st birthday of the late Douglas Adams.

I am very keen on the genre of science fiction comedy, and have been enjoying watching a re-run of the entire set of Red Dwarf series on ABC2.  It's now nearing the end, though, I think.

If we are very lucky, I wonder if the ABC could follow this up with  a repeat of Hitchhiker's Guide?   It's been decades since I have seen it, and the movie did nothing for me.

11,000 years ago and now

Scientists Find an Abrupt Warm Jog After a Very Long Cooling - NYTimes.com

The Andy Revkin post on last week's science study seems to me to have given too much prevalence to the assessment of Robert Rhode, who suggested that the paper did not have fine enough time scale resolution to rule out past rapid temperature rises of similar magnitude to that of the 20th century that may have come and gone within the space of a few centuries.

Co-author Shukan gets to make a rebuttal in the comments thread that there is pretty good reason to not believe such changes happened, and he also makes the point in the video that, with the known effects of increased CO2, there is no reason to think the present rise is going to go down.  However, these responses are something you have to dig up in the thread, and (as others have claimed) Revkin's desire for balance sometimes ends up giving a false impression.

The Science article in question was pretty well summarised here.  The thing that surprised me was that warming periods over the past 11,000 years did match pretty well with orbital changes that would have increased sun in the north:

Marcott said that one of the natural factors affecting global temperatures over the past 11,300 years is gradual change in the distribution of solar insolation associated with Earth's position relative to the sun.

"During the warmest period of the Holocene, the Earth was positioned such that Northern Hemisphere summers warmed more," Marcott said. "As the Earth's orientation changed, Northern Hemisphere summers became cooler, and we should now be near the bottom of this long-term cooling trend -- but obviously, we are not."

 That's the biggest significance of the paper, it seems to me.

But I should note that Revkin's post on the matter does redeem itself by including this response by Richard Alley, which makes some very important points which climate change fake skeptics do not usually appreciate:

I think it is worth remembering a few things for how this fits into the bigger picture. Whether the past was naturally warmer or cooler than recently, and whether the changes were faster or slower than recently, are of great interest to climate scientists in learning how the climate system works, including the strength of feedbacks. But existence of a warmer climate in the past doesn’t mean that the current warming is natural, any more than the existence of natural fires rules out arson in some recent warehouse blaze. And, existence of a warmer climate in the past also doesn’t mean that we’ll like a warmer climate in the future. Nature has made places and times colder, and warmer, than most people like. Our high assessed confidence that the recent warming is mostly human-driven, and that the costs will become large if the warming becomes large, do not primarily rest on how much warmer or colder today is than some particular time in the past, or even on how fast the recent changes are relative to those in the past.

Furthermore, because the feedbacks in the climate system often respond similarly to warming with different causes (warmer air will tend to melt more snow and ice, and to pick up more greenhouse-gas water vapor from the vast ocean, whether the warmth came from rising CO2 or increasing solar output or alien ray guns or a giant hair dryer), data showing larger climate changes in the past in response to some estimated forcing actually increase the concerns about future warming. If, for example, scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between Medieval times and the Little Ice Age, or other natural climate changes, without corresponding errors in the estimated size of the causes of the changes, that would suggest stronger amplifying feedbacks and larger future warming from rising greenhouse gases than originally estimated. Any increase in our estimate of the natural climate responses to past forcings points to a more variable future path with larger average changes.

A similar point was made about the Schmitter paper last year - the paper suggested a lower range for climate sensitivity, but another result was that it meant that relatively small temperature changes can have huge impact on large parts of the Earth.

Wetter and drier

Increase in the range between wet and dry season precipitation : Nature Geoscience 

The abstract I'll reproduce in full, because this topic is something that climate change "skeptics" just continually can't seem to get their head around :

Global temperatures have risen over the past few decades. The water vapour content of the atmosphere has increased as a result, strengthening the global hydrological cycle^{1, 2, 3, 4}. This, in turn, has led to wet regions getting wetter, and dry regions drier^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}. Climate model simulations suggest that a similar intensification of existing patterns may also apply to the seasonal cycle of rainfall⁷. Here, we analyse regional and global trends in seasonal precipitation extremes over the past three decades, using a number of global and land-alone observational data sets. We show that globally the annual range of precipitation has increased, largely because wet seasons have become wetter. Although the magnitude of the shift is uncertain, largely owing to limitations inherent in the data sets used, the sign of the tendency is robust. On a regional scale, the tendency for wet seasons to get wetter occurs over climatologically rainier regions. Similarly, the tendency for dry season to get drier is seen in drier regions. Even if the total amount of annual rainfall does not change significantly, the enhancement in the seasonal precipitation cycle could have marked consequences for the frequency of droughts and floods.

A journalist explanation of the study adds some more detail:

...the gap between wet and dry seasons was widening at a rate of 1.47 millimeters per day per century. All three trends, they report, “are significant at the 99 percent confidence level.”

In the real world most of us experience, it’s hard to be sure that rainy spells are rainier, and dry seasons are drier: that is because, as the authors concede, global rainfall patterns are “spatially complex.”

But there is general agreement that such changes are taking place, with good physical reasons for doing so: a warmer world means more evaporation, and more precipitation. Furthermore, the authors say, simulations predict such a pattern and observations confirm it.
 

Tony Abbott and the friends of Dorothy*

So, Tony did a 60 Minutes bit last night which seems to have been a lot about his attitude towards gays and lesbians.    And his sister, who now lives with a woman after a lengthy heterosexual marriage, was there to lend support.

But doesn't she contradict Tony's attempted explanation of why he said 3 years ago that he felt "a bit threatened" by homosexuality?:

Supported by his lesbian sister, her partner, his wife Margie and his daughters, Mr Abbott said that when he claimed three years ago during a television interview that he felt ''a bit threatened'' by homosexuals, he had been trying to guard a family secret.

He had only just been told by his sister she was a lesbian.

 

''Now I couldn't talk about that then because it was deeply personal and deeply private,'' he said. ''But certainly they were very tough times for our family, hence my comment, because the cohesion of our family was threatened at that time. But I'm pleased to say we're all in a better space now than we were then.''

Interviewed at a family barbecue at his Sydney home, Mr Abbott's sister, Christine Forster, said he was ''completely unfazed'' when she told him she was in a lesbian relationship after 19 years of being married to a man. Her partner, Virginia Edwards, said Mr Abbott and his family had been ''fantastic''.

I think Tony is just clumsily trying to be all things to all people again. 

I don't really see much wrong with a man indicating that he's not always sure how to react to gay men or women, particularly when you're talking about certain versions of how homosexuality is expressed these days.     I mean, I suspect no one thinks having dinner with Stephen Fry would be awkward in any way, but lunch with this woman might be somewhat different.   I think this is all Abbott meant when he, clumsily,  referred to "being threatened".  He had, after all, long been friends with Christopher Pearson when he made that statement.



*  Well, it seems an appropriate title in light of my previous post

Oz-ing about

Let's start with a photo.  Do you know who this is?:

If you're like me, you would not have recognized him as Sam Raimi, a director with a bit of a cultish following for his (very successful) work, but who seems to keep his personal profile so low I had no idea what he looked like.

And here's another photo:

It's L Frank Baum.  I can't remember seeing him before, either.  The Wikipedia entry about him is pretty interesting.  As a young man, he got into breeding fancy poultry, which apparently was "a national craze at the time."  (TV not having been invented yet, I suppose.)  He wrote a book about it:  The Book of the Hamburgs: A Brief Treatise upon the Mating, Rearing, and Management of the Different Varieties of Hamburgs.  Hamburg chickens, that is. Here's a photo, because I haven't seen one of them before either:

Sort of the dalmatian of the chicken world.  But I digress.

All of this is by way of background to talking about yesterday's viewing of Oz The Great and Powerful.  But there's more backgrounding to be done yet.


I was pretty young when I was given an abridged picture book version of The Wizard of Oz, and I thought it a peculiar story, but I liked the imagery of a glowing emerald city.  I don't think I saw the movie until my  older teenage years, and remember being pleasantly surprised at the humour and charm of the portrayal of the Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow.

It also struck me that the story could easily be read as being very humanistic, and anti-religion, if not anti-theism.  The feared Wizard, who can be taken as a stand in for the fearful God of the Old Testament in particular, turns out to be a "humbug", and each of  the characters already has the worthy attribute which he seeks; they just need to be given the confidence that it is indeed within them.  

This aspect of the book and movie still, it seems to me, gets little attention.  Sure, Googling the topic now brings up some (usually fundamentalist Christian) sites which attack the story on these grounds; but not many, really.  (OK, if you really want to, you can see here a rather rotund American evangelical preacher ripping into it as a "God hating" movie.)

In any event, what were the religious views of Frank Baum?   Wikipedia says that he and his wife (who was prominent in the women's suffrage movement) were into Theosophy, 8 years before the book was published.  It summarises his views:

The Baums believed in God, but felt that religious decisions should be made by mature minds and not religious authorities. As a result, they sent their older sons to "Ethical Culture Sunday School" in Chicago, which taught morality, not religion.

Well, it would seem that he would be against the old school Christianity that emphasises fear of God, in that case. I suppose you could say it is a fairy tale that Pelagius would have enjoyed, much more so than St Augustine.

And so, we can finally come to the question - did I like the new movie? 

But before we get there - is it based on anything Baum wrote?  No, it's not.  I was aware from Martin Gardener, who was an Oz fan, that Baum had written many sequels to the original Wizard book, and I was guessing that maybe one of those books were a prequel. But no, this does not appear to be the case at all.

Nor is the movie story in any way related to the successful stage musical Wicked.  I knew nothing of that show until my kids' school choir last year did a version of "For Good", which I thought was very pleasing.  But then I found the song as it appears in the stage show, and it seems rather awful in its orginal form.  Compare, if you want to, an American high school version:

 

with the cheesy sounding stage version:



I think that's a valuable lesson in how many voices arranged well can improve a song a lot.

Anyway, the story is an elaboration on the Wizard's explanation as to how he arrived in Oz in Chapter 15 of the original book, but there was very little information there to go on.   I think that making it about a selfish loser who redeems himself in another world was basically a good idea that fits thematically with the original story.

But - and I think I'm really ready now - did I like the movie overall?

Yes I did.

The biggest surprise is the unusual decision to make the adult theme of romantic/sexual jealousy a key part of the story.   Well, as I have said, the original Oz story is a bit more serious than is normally credited, too.   But I just did not expect that the deeply flawed man who is destined to become the Wizard would be shown to be bad by way of being a chronic womaniser, even though it appears he once had a true love to whom he has been incapable of being faithful.

I am not at all sure how kids will take this, but it seems to me that it really pitches the movie more towards a teen and adult audience.  (My 10 year daughter said "he liked one woman, then another, and another.  I just don't get it."  She enjoyed the movie anyway.)   It is similar, I suppose, to the way the Tim Burton version of Alice in Wonderland started with a bit of a mini Pride and Prejudice theme. (I saw that movie on TV recently, and thought it was pretty bad.)

The movie is visually impressive; unlike many reviewers, I don't criticise James Franco for being annoyingly self absorbed when he is playing a character who is meant to be self absorbed; it made me realise again what a funny character voice Zach Braff has; and it has a pleasing sort of, I don't know, depth? to it.  It is my guess that its best features are a result of Raimi's sensibilities.  Even though I am no fan of the superhero genre, generally speaking, he did do a very good job with the Spiderman franchise.  It's funny how a man who started with zombies handles romantic themes well, isn't it?  

It's not perfect, and don't get me wrong, I still consider the whole world of Oz to be rather peculiar; but I was pleased to have seen it.

More Spielberg praise

Have I noted here before that Steven Spielberg seems to have no enemies in Hollywood?  I'm sure I have.

This article helps to explain why:  he is (apparently) very generous in terms of offering advice to other directors if they ask for it.  It also means his influence is much more pervasive than you might think:

Spielberg, 66, is considered the most influential director of our time. And then there are the more than 175 films that he, in one form or another, has been ultimately responsible for, mostly through his production company, Amblin, and his studio, DreamWorks.

But less recognised is the feedback that Spielberg has provided as a sounding board for other filmmakers. Being the recipient of such creative input is as close to receiving a benediction as one can hope for in Hollywood.

''His love of movies and desire to collaborate extends far beyond those projects that he is required to work on,'' says Abrams, who has been hailed as a Spielberg protege. ''But he is so frequently cornered by people and asked to give notes. I feel guilty about being one of them.''

Unfortunately, his advice to Abrams does not extend to "For God's sake, stop filling the screen with giant faces as if you are still directing for television", which still stands as my permanent criticism of Abrams.   (I just don't see that he is all that talented.)  

Still, any endorsement of Spielberg by anyone is good enough for me.

In other human/mouse cell mix news...

BBC News - Researchers grow teeth from gum cells

In the latest study they took human epithelial cells from the gums of human patients, grew more of them in the lab and mixed them with mesenchyme cells from mice.

The mesenchyme cells were cultured to be "inducing" - they instruct the epithelial cells to start growing into a tooth.

Transplanting the cell combination into mice, researchers were able to grow hybrid human/mouse teeth that had viable roots, they reported in the Journal of Dental Research.

Not that it seems anyone will be at risk of getting a mouse tooth by accident:

Study leader Prof Paul Sharpe said mesenchyme cells could be found in the pulp of wisdom teeth, among other sources, but the difficulty had been in getting hold of enough of them.

"This advance here is we have identified a cell population you could envisage using in the clinic. We are now working to try and identify a simple way of getting mesenchyme."

He added: "The next major challenge is to identify a way to culture adult human mesenchymal cells to be tooth-inducing, as at the moment we can only make embryonic mesenchymal cells do this."

 And here's another question:  how will lab grown teeth know what sort of tooth to turn into?  It would be a bit embarrassing having a molar grow where an incisor should be.

Pinky and the Brain on the way

Using human brain cells to make mice smarter

This article starts:

Glial cells – a family of cells found in the human central nervous system and, until recently, considered mere "housekeepers" – now appear to be essential to the unique complexity of the human brain. Scientists reached this conclusion after demonstrating that when transplanted into mice, these human cells could influence communication within the brain, allowing the animals to learn more rapidly.

Dear Scientists:  we are not entirely convinced that making mice smarter via human brain cells is a good idea.

Yours kindly,

The Public.

Not convinced

The mining tax court challenge explained

I am no constitutional lawyer, but I have to say - these arguments being run by the mining companies sound really weak to me.

I would bet money on them failing, but there will be some much richer Senior Counsel running around.  The most delicious outcome would be if the companies lost the right to deduct the State royalties but still have to pay the Commonwealth the tax.

Faster than light or instantaneous?

Chinese Physicists Measure Speed of "Spooky Action At a Distance" | MIT Technology Review

I always thought that quantum entanglement was supposed to work instantaneously.  But the fact that they were trying to measure it suggests it must be thought possible that it isn't.  Anyway, the latest result:

They say the results are clear but do not measure the speed of spooky action directly. Instead, the results place a lower bound on how fast it must be. The answer is that it is at least four orders of  magnitude faster than light, and may still turn out to be instantaneous, as quantum mechanics predicts.

And in other light speed news, I see that this paper suggest the speed limit is a result of the quantum vacuum itself:

 We show that the vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.

I have no idea if this (if shown to be true) has any implications for faster than light travel or transfer of information, but it sounds like the sort of idea that might...

Resign first - then call your boss a hopeless liar

Officer breaks ranks to condemn ADF's 'neglect' of abuse victims - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The Fairfax and News Ltd press doesn't seem to be paying much attention to this story, but it was remarkable last night to watch a serving Lieutenant Colonel (who is gay) complaining bitterly about the Army: 

Lt Col Morgan says there are no positives in the way the ADF handles abuse cases.

"They say one thing in public and do another thing in private," he said.

"What I have experienced in my personal case is complete inaction, and not just inaction but attempts to shut me down and keep me quiet.

"I don't have anything positive to say about Defence's handling of abuse and its mental health consequences."

 And:  

"I'm not really sure why not, but I suspect that our senior leadership just doesn't care.
"My personal experience tells me that the Army's abuse management strategies that I've seen - delay, deter and deceive - are still in force now."

This was followed by the Chief of Defence General David Hurley saying (to paraphrase) "no, of course he won't lose his job - we've been very understanding of his issues and personal problems etc etc".

But one of the ironies is that the Lieutenant Colonel is a psychologist himself - "the man responsible for the mental health of Australia's deployed soldiers," apparently. Is the General suggesting the Lt Col may not have the clearest assessment of his own case?  

I don't get this.  How does someone who goes on national TV to, basically, call his boss a hopeless and incompetent liar, and who encourages all other abuse victims in Defence to contact him if they are also unhappy, think that he can go back to work and have a normal working relationship?

If this was the private sector, surely to God you would be talking to the employee and saying "look, there is no way we can normalise things - mutual trust is gone.  Take some money and criticise us from outside the organisation if you want, but don't think we can work with you again."

I know from experience that Defence, and the Army in particular, can make made some very weird management decisions; it is amazing how people who are good at certain specialised things can be hopeless at exercising common sense in how to handle staff.   And it may well be that the Army didn't do the right thing by the Lt Col (or do it fast enough.)

But I think both sides are acting weird if they think everyone can now just continue as if last night didn't happen.

Peak demand has peaked

Some analysis here of electricity consumption in Australia during the pretty hot summer we just finished shows that "peak demand" was less than in previous years.  The suggestion is that it's the large amount of rooftop solar that is making a difference, although it may also be increased insulation in houses, or other matters.  Installed solar is bigger in total than I would have guessed:

Since the last hot summer in 2010, our electricity system has seen a lot of changes. For one thing, almost 2 gigawatts of distributed generation has been added in the form of domestic solar PV. To put that in context, 2 gigawatts represents a touch under 10% of average summer demand, though of course solar PV only produces at near maximum levels for a few hours in the middle of a sunny summer day. However, when solar PV is producing it takes away from the demand for electricity that otherwise would be dispatched across the poles and wires via our National Electricity Market – or NEM.

So, its encouraging that, despite the widespread installation of air conditioners which are typically turned on in the later part of the afternoon, peak demand is coming down a bit.  

No nano thanks

Fresh concern over nano-particles hidden in sunscreen - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I haven't followed closely the issue of nano particles in sunscreen, but this article has a few surprises.  Such as this:

In 2008 it was revealed that nano-particles of anatase titanium dioxide, found in some sunscreens, were leading to serious problems with Bluescope steel Colorbond roofing.

Anatase titanium dioxide was found to be one of the main factors which caused the premature weathering of the coating on the pre-painted steel roof sheets after they had been handled by workers with sunscreen on their hands.

It has also been shown to cause deterioration of other surface coatings and paints on cars and other consumer products.

But it's safe to put on skin?:

Dermatologist Dr Robert Salmon also queried its safety as a sunscreen ingredient.
"I was quite concerned when I heard these reports," he said.

"Because when it was explained to me what the mechanisms were that were blowing away this paint coating that had a 10-year guarantee, but that was being partially destroyed within 10 weeks, I noted that they were exactly the same mechanisms by which these nano-particles could also cause mutations in DNA if they got somewhere down near live cells."

 But they do test it some way, do they?:

Chris Winder, a professor of toxicology at the Australian Catholic University, says further studies are critical.

"This is a major policy problem - we can't just say, 'well, the big-sized particles are OK, so the small ones are as well'," he said.

"This needs work. From a regulatory perspective, we shouldn't accept both normal-sized particles and nano-particles as having the same health clearances.

"I think the nano-particles may have some toxicity that we're yet to find, so I think we should be prudent and at least warn people that cosmetic products contain nano-particles."

 This does not sound too encouraging...

Gaming in Arabia

No tents, no camels

Here's an interesting article (by Mary Beard's son, as it happens) regarding the sort of computer games that are being made by Arabs for Arabs.   Some of them sound rather depressing:

 For his first Afkar game, Kasmiya did not shy away from controversy. Under Ash (2001) tells the story of the first Palestinian intifada. It is considered the first distinctively Arab computer game. Others quickly followed—Hezbollah even tried its hand at creating an anti-Israeli videogame called Special Force in 2003. Kasmiya followed Under Ash with Under Siege (2005), which is based on events of the Second intifada. Players must sometimes attempt to get out of protests alive or, in other levels, fight Israeli soldiers—but never civilians, Kasmiya stresses.

“Some people call them propaganda games, some call them docu-games, depending on their perspective,” says Kasmiya. It is clear which camp he falls into: he tells me the series was based on UN records of events and so reflects reality. Victory is impossible—whichever male or female character you choose, you always die in the end. “You may not get the glory but you do get the knowledge,” he concludes. “I hope my games will make people think rather than just press the action key on the computer.”

More on arctic ice loss being felt down south...

Arctic ice loss amplified Superstorm Sandy violence

Cornell and Rutgers researchers report in the March issue of Oceanography that the severe loss of summertime Arctic sea ice—attributed to greenhouse warming—appears to enhance Northern Hemisphere jet stream meandering, intensify Arctic air mass invasions toward middle latitudes, and increase the frequency of atmospheric blocking events like the one that steered Hurricane Sandy west into the densely populated New York City area. 

 The article, "Superstorm Sandy: A Series of Unfortunate Events?" was authored by Charles H. Greene, Cornell professor of earth and atmospheric sciences and director of Cornell's Ocean Resources and Ecosystems program; Jennifer A. Francis of Rutgers University's Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences; and Bruce C. Monger, Cornell senior research associate, earth and atmospheric sciences. 

The researchers assert that the record-breaking sea ice loss from summer 2012, combined with the unusual atmospheric phenomena observed in late October, appear to be linked to global warming.

A strong atmospheric, high-pressure blocking pattern over Greenland and the northwest Atlantic prevented Hurricane Sandy from steering northeast and out to sea like most October hurricanes and tropical storms from the Caribbean. In fact, Sandy traveled up the Atlantic coast and turned left "toward the most populated area along the eastern seaboard" and converged with an extratropical cyclone; this, in turn, fed the weakening Hurricane Sandy and transformed it into a monster tempest.

An interesting mystery

Mysterious light blamed for circle of fire - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Here's the report in full:

Tasmanian police and firefighters are unable to explain the source of a beam of light which reportedly fell from the sky and formed a circle of fire in a Hobart suburb.

Early Saturday morning police and fire crews received calls from concerned residents in Carnegie Street at Claremont, who reported seeing a bright light igniting a fire in a nearby paddock.

Tasmania Fire Service officer Scott Vinen says the blaze was quickly put out, leaving an obvious burnt patch.

He says the bizarre incident has everyone baffled.

"Once we put the fire out, we kind of walked through the fire and tried to find something," he said.
"We thought a flare or something may have landed there, but we couldn't find any cause."

The Fire Service says it will not investigate further.

 I can't see it mentioned in the Hobart Mercury.  What a pity:  I would like to directly hear interviews with witnesses.

Colebatch is back

Past was a blast so now it's back to the future

My favourite economics journalist of late is back, making reassuring sounds about the economy.

Hope he's right...

Lighter than air - then and now

Hindenburg mystery solved after 76 years - Science - News - The Independent

Speaking of lighter than air things, I noticed somewhere last week that the management of the US helium supply is still a vexed issue.

But how much is there left in the world?  According to the Chairman of the Balloon Council (what a job!) in a piece he wrote for CNN, there's enough for 300 years at current rates of use.  Of course, I suppose there is a question about how much you can trust the front man from the party balloon industry. 

Celibacy reconsidered, any decade now...

I thought that the article by Frank Bruni reprinted in Fairfax today put the case against celibacy in the Catholic priesthood very well.

And looking at the Guardian, I read for the first time the background of the allegations made by a few priests (and an ex priest) against the Scottish Cardinal O'Brien.  It is pretty sordid, but most remarkably, it appears the timing is a complete co-incidence with the Pope's resignation, which is not I had assumed:

The four complainants made their statements to the papal nuncio, Archbishop Mennini, around 8 or 9 February. On 11 February the pope resigned. The first response the complainants received from the nuncio said O'Brien should continue to go to Rome because "that will make it easier to arrange his retirement to be one of prayer and seclusion like the pope". The complainants recognised church subtext. In a message to me one wrote: "This is saying, 'leave it to us to sweep it under the carpet and you can forget about it. It will fade away as if we have dealt with it.' Not acceptable."

On 22 February, the cardinal gave an interview to the BBC about going to the conclave. He also said that church rules on celibacy should be reviewed. Informally, the men heard that the church was unhappy about that interview. Action would be taken. The cardinal would not go to Rome.

So did the church act because it was shocked by the claims against the cardinal or were they were angry he had broken ranks on celibacy? Two days later, the Observer published the story.

The other regrettable thing, of course, is how unfortunate it is that a Cardinal caught in scandal about his own sexual behaviour should be one who breaches solidarity on celibacy.  This gives the perfect out for the old boys network to dismiss his call on character grounds and claim him as part of the homosexual element that has caused the problem of child abuse.  (It would appear one of the major blind spots of Benedict that he was right on board with this theory, despite lots of evidence against it.)  But in reality, one could say that (assuming the allegations are true) it is quite legitimate of someone who has failed at celibacy to be the one to make the point that it is a road too hard (and unnecessary) for priests to follow.

One thing for sure:  the simplest thing the new Pope could do to indicate to the world that the Church is open to realistic reform and change would be for the celibacy rules to be relaxed.

It is, probably, too soon for the whole Humanae Vitae question to be revisited, but I would guess that would be a job for the next Pope.  Catholics will just have to continue ignoring that teaching until it is overturned.

Looking forward to this

(The first movie was very funny.  You ought to see it, with kids or not.)

I predict it won't happen

Mars mission poses greater risk to human life than Nasa would allow | Science | guardian.co.uk

The Guardian lists all of the technical and other problems that this proposed slingshot missions would face. 

Yet still, it seems not to have made the key point (and I can't say any other report I have noticed has either):   there is no point in sending people on a dangerous mission with untested life support equipment in a tiny can just to spin around a planet, take some photos, and come back.   

This article says the capsule would have a about 7 cubic meters space.  But some articles say the inflatable living quarters part would have a volume of 17 m3.  The pressurised volume of the International Space Station is 837m3.  Skylab, with a crew of 3, had a volume of 368m3.

Spending more than 500 days in a volume of 17 m3 is, in itself, nuts.

Is there a reliable medication available for the sudden development of claustrophobia?

Especially if the inflatable module develops a leak and has to be evacuated?

I read somewhere that the mission won't take pressure suits.  No EVA then to get away from each other for a while.

This is not going to happen...

Putting baby outside

For some reason, the BBC Magazine had a look recently  at the peculiarly Nordic habit of putting babies outside during the day for a nap - including in the middle of winter.  They value fresh air highly, apparently, regardless of the bitter cold, and manage to bundle the kids up enough that they don't freeze to death.  

If you have a look at this follow up, you can also see a Dutch "baby house", looking all the world like a rabbit hutch in the back yard, being used in the 1970s.  Really, you ought to watch the video:  it looks very, very strange to Australian eyes.  

Maybe its our residual fear of dingos, or something; but doing either of these in Australia would cause uproar if it appeared on Today Tonight, or some other tabloid TV show.

End times discussed

Could the Higgs mass determine the end of the universe?

 According to quantum theory, it’s possible that the lowest energy state of our universe – when there’s nothing but space and time – isn’t the lowest possible state of all.

In this picture, there exists an even lower energy state, one that our universe could transition to. That might not sound too ominous until you learn that in the lower energy state, all the protons in all the matter in the universe decay, with the unfortunate side effect that we cease to exist.

Worse still, the transition could happen at any time, anywhere in the universe, and expand at light speed from a tiny bubble until it annihilates the entire universe as we know it, which would be, you know, bad.

Recently, this idea was re-examined within the context of the Standard Model of Particle Physics – the modern quantum theory of subatomic particles and their interactions. Precise calculations dictate that the stability of our universe is intimately connected to the mass of the Higgs boson (and the top quark), a parameter which – thanks to the efforts of Large Hadron Collider – is now known to be about 125 GeV.

It is the conclusions of this re-examination that have raised a furore in the media: the Standard Model predicts that for our universe to be stable, the Higgs mass needs to be larger than 129.4 ± 5.6 GeV, so it only just fits within the uncertainties.

Ergo the end is nigh, at least in the units of time that cosmologists work with. But don’t stock your matter-collapsing-proof shelter just yet – those time scales are billions to trillions of years.

 The article goes on to note that, as the Standard Model doesn't cover everything, there may well be an "out."

The other person who had a lot hanging on the mass of the Higgs was Frank Tipler, who had predicted a Higgs mass way of 220 or so for his Omega Point theory to work.

Sadly, I have not seen any comment by him since the LHC announcement of its measurement last year.

That seems fast...

'Nearby' supermassive black hole rotates at close to the speed of light | Science | guardian.co.uk

Phil Plait at Slate gives a bit more detail:

As the material swirls around the black hole, it emits X-rays at a very specific energy—think of it as a color. But as it orbits that color gets smeared out due to the Doppler effect. The amount of smearing indicates how fast the material is moving, and that in turn can tell astronomers how fast the black hole is spinning. This can be complicated by the presence of dense clouds of material farther out from the black hole that absorb X-rays and mess up our observations. The new data from NuSTAR allowed astronomers to show that the smearing seen is definitely due to rotation and not obscuration, unambiguously revealing the black hole's tremendous spin: just a hair below the speed of light!

Most black holes spin far slower than that, so something ramped this hole’s spin way up. One possibility, as I mentioned above, is material falling in over time. Another is that it ate one or more other black holes, which is creepy but possible. Galaxies collide, and when they do their central black holes can merge, growing larger. If the geometry is just right, this can create a single black hole with more spin. Due this a few times, and you can spin one up to fantastic speeds.

I’ll note that NGC 1365 is a massive galaxy, easily twice as large as the Milky Way (an we’re one of the biggest galaxies in the Universe). That’s exactly what you’d expect from a galaxy that’s spent a lifetime eating other ones. Cosmic cannibals grow fat when the hunting’s good.

The movie finance business still hard to understand

DreamWorks Animation takes $87 million write-down on 'Rise of the Guardians' - latimes.com

I promise I'll stop talking about movies soon, but this report shows (apparently) that a $145 million movie that takes in $300 million globally can still be said to have lost $87 million.

And this at a time when I thought digital projection was meant to make a substantial saving by studios not having to get film prints made and distributed around cinemas.  Also, I thought with kids films there was often substantial profit from DVD releases, but would this Christmas movie even be released yet? The movie is well suited for an Easter release.

Very odd. 

No rehabilitation needed

Japan’s prisons: Eastern porridge | The Economist

A somewhat interesting look here at how Japanese prisons operate.  (Watch the video too.  The interior of the prison looks pretty decent, but no reading?  Wow.)

Spielberg considered (again)

Oscars 2013 and Spielberg: The storyteller is part of our cultural DNA - CSMonitor.com

A reasonable enough, lengthy article here on Spielberg's career and development as a director.

But to see how nutty some of the reaction against him is now, read the handful of comments that follow it.

One thing that bothers me - last time I checked, a couple of weeks ago, Spielberg has not made a decision on his next movie. 

Irony, humour, etc

Well, at the First Things blog of all places, there's a decent post complaining about the attempts at humour at the Oscars show last night.  It goes on to note that the overuse of irony is actually the death of humour:

Irony, and its near-cousin sarcasm, is the lingua franca of popular culture. The more deeply we tread into this part of our national consciousness, the more we realize the breathtaking vanity of its values. Irony is, in the end, self-referential, so once it becomes self-self-referential, it has created a hall of mirrors that ultimately implodes into meaningless parodies of itself that are, well, humorless even to those toward whom the jokes were originally aimed.

When everything is ironic, irony ceases to be ironic. It lapses into mere meanness, leaving an incredibly bitter aftertaste. Indeed, the life-root of bullying just may be irony. What struck me last night was the utter brutality of much of the attempts at humor. The writers were equal-opportunity offenders, but this is, to some extent, what we find in a worldview where nothing is worth defending or treating as precious. I have a vague recollection that Henri Bergson once said that humor is the first step toward acceptance; I wonder if the corollary is true: if everything is acceptable, is there anything that can be humorous? Do rules, in some rudimentary way, actually generate humor? If comedy is always transgressive and the world (in the interest of tolerance) no longer allows transgression, then have we lost the ability to laugh? Based on the evidence of last night’s show, I have to wonder.

Actually, I think I stop understanding the argument by the last two sentences, but I was sort of with it up to then...

Not everyone liked Argo

Argo **** yourself: Ben Affleck’s Iran hostage movie is the worst. - Slate Magazine

Am I to take it that there is a lot of swearing in this film? 

Doesn't seem right...

Want to emigrate to Australia? Be warned – it's not 'hot Britain' | Rae Earl | Comment is free | The Guardian

You get some pretty wacky takes on Australia from British migrants, but this one seems to describe a place that is barely recognisable as being drawn from reality. 

Good background on a harmful bug

Understanding the recent listeria-linked cheese recall

Climate change working in ways not quite expected

Weather extremes provoked by trapping of giant waves in atmosphere

"An important part of the global air motion in the mid-latitudes of the Earth normally takes the form of waves wandering around the planet, oscillating between the tropical and the Arctic regions. So when they swing up, these waves suck warm air from the tropics to Europe, Russia, or the US, and when they swing down, they do the same thing with cold air from the Arctic," explains lead author Vladimir Petoukhov.

"What we found is that during several recent extreme weather events these planetary waves almost freeze in their tracks for weeks. So instead of bringing in cool air after having brought warm air in before, the heat just stays. In fact, we observe a strong amplification of the usually weak, slowly moving component of these waves," says Petoukhov.

The report ends on a note of caution:

...the 32-year period studied in the project provides a good indication of the mechanism involved, yet is too short for definite conclusions.

but it still sounds like an important study.

Zach for the Oscars

Re the Oscar show last night, which I tried to speed up with much use of fast forward on the digital recorder, but still couldn't compress to an hour and a half I was aiming for.

Seth MacFarlane:  He can sing! He can dance!  He can't mature beyond the age of 18!

OK, there were a couple of funny bits - the seduction of Sally Field was OK, and having William Shatner appear was amusing, but should have been funnier.

Seriously, MacFarlane is too smugly amused by himself, and his whole brand of humour is built on the sort of self aware political incorrectness that most people grow out of by their twenties.

So, I was thinking - what has gone wrong with finding an amusing host for the Oscar shows?  It easily feels like 15 years or more since I've seen a host who I thought was doing a good job.  Steve Martin used to be good, but not the last time he co-hosted.  Same with Billy Crystal.   Hollywood outsiders - like Lettermen - crash and burn.  Some people liked Hugh Jackman, but I don't care for him in anything he ever does.

What the show needs is amiable LA insiders who can do a bit of comedy.  Hosts don't need to sing and dance - let the professionals do that.  It doesn't need "edgy" or ironic comedy, but it does need someone who appeals to a younger demographic.

So who fits this bill?   It came to me last night. This guy:

Well, that's his latest role, as helpful flying monkey in the heavily promoted OZ film, but this is the man himself:

I mean, who doesn't like Zach Braff?    Who didn't like Scrubs?   In fact, he could do the whole hosting job as if it is a dream sequence from that show.    (You could surely do worse than hand over the entire comedy writing job for the Oscars to that creative team.)

Who knows, if I had a readership, I think this could be a campaign that would take off.  

Instead, we'll probably get Whoopi Goldberg for yet another attempt at a return to form.

Lincoln seen (and analysed)

In a minor triumph of parental pressure to have a 12 (nearly 13) year old boy see an educational movie that he may well not like, I convinced my son to see Lincoln with me yesterday.  He likes history a lot, and maybe has read some Horrible History stuff about the Civil War (he knew about the shooting in the theatre, definitely) so I did have at least something to work on.  Be warned, I said, the movie is mainly about politics, so there is a lot of talking; and you will almost certainly be the youngest person in the audience. (I was right on that count.)

On the drive to the cinema, I gave him a bit of background on Republicans and Democrats in the US, and tried to be helpful by suggesting that he could almost certainly impress his teacher if he could just somehow casually mention to her that he had been to see it.  He could even pretend that he really liked it, even if he didn't.  (He wouldn't be in on this subterfuge.  Kids these days - I don't know.)

So, how did he like it?

Well, I had warned him that I wanted absolutely no complaint during the movie that it was boring, but we did have an argument just before going into the cinema that $5.60 for a regular Slushie was just too expensive. This primed him to be a bit cranky for the first 20 minutes.

But at the end of the day - no, I don't think he found it boring.  Sure, he complained about how a lot of the talk was hard for him to understand, but I could tell that he was always paying attention, if not always for the right reason.  (Tommy Lee Jones, who my kids like a lot from the Men in Black movies, amused him by wearing a bad wig and playing a typically gruff character.)   If it wasn't for the Slushie argument, he might even have admitted to finding it, almost kinda, worthwhile seeing.

So how about me?   It's a thumbs up for being a really fine, intelligent and engaging movie.  I suspect that most people who find it boring may only do so from a point of view that they might have been expecting a more traditional biopic that spans more than the events of the last few months of Abe's life.   

As everyone says, you just can't keep your eyes off Daniel Day Lewis when he is on screen.  In that way it is like the other (to use a hackneyed bit of praise) absolutely mesmerising example of acting in a Spielberg film -  Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List. 

I deliberately did not read too many reviews or articles about the movie before seeing it, and I'm glad I took that approach.  You really don't want to know how nitpicking some people have been about its historical accuracy; and furthermore, I have read articles which have complained that some little detail was wrong, yet this has been contradicted in other articles.  Some of the criticism is of the kind "well, that just doesn't seem likely," but surely there are some matters of speculation involved here that no one can really be confident about.   (Even on a matter such as one prominent appearance of the "f" word, some have said this is unlikely; yet my own recent post on when it came into use indicates to me that you could not be certain that no man would use it that way at the time of the Civil War.)   It seems the movie had made everyone an expert on the Lincoln era. 

Overall, I would have to say that, having now read the relevant articles, it impresses me what a serious job Kushner did in trying to convey a movie that is essentially accurate, for a historical drama that has to fill in some details that aren't known.  I believe that Bob Carr, who seems to be a bit of a Lincoln nerd, praises it in this way as well.

One of the best overviews about its basic accuracy was at Slate.  Another short assessment from a historian who knows a lot about one of the key characters (Seward) says that there were plenty of minor points he thought wrong (the shift in some of the chronology is particularly puzzling, I think) but he still praises the movie overall:

All these points, however, are quibbles. Spielberg has made a great movie about Lincoln, Seward, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Civil War. With very few exceptions, the actors look like and act like the characters they portray; David Strathairn has Seward completely captured.

Even more persuasive are the relationships between the characters. We experience the interplay between Lincoln and Seward, how Seward could disagree with Lincoln yet serve as his most effective instrument. We see how the two men pursued their great goals, ending the Civil War and ending slavery, and how they were prepared to cut some corners to reach their goals. Spielberg and the actors make history alive in a way in which no author, however gifted, could with mere words.

I liked many of the details of the Lincoln household:  the young son Tad absolutely having the run of the house appears to be completely true.  I didn't know that the Lincolns were famously permissive parents, and Lincoln apparently took joy in playing with them.

Some people have complained a bit about the last ten minutes of the film, which I think is nonsense.  Many are simply hypersensitive above how Spielberg deals with emotion and always label it as sentimentalism.   As with Schindlers List, the ending caught me with an emotional wallop that I wasn't really expecting, and I sensed there were others in the audience suppressing a sniffle too.  (Overall, I feel confident that the audience was not finding the movie disappointing.)

So, all praise again to Spielberg.   And go see it.

Update:  Harold Holzer, one of the historical consultants to the movie, says that some of his suggestions were not followed.  But again, quite a lot of his points are of the "I don't think that's likely" character - not that it is known for sure that it could not have happened.  (Tad looking at the photographic plates, for example.  I thought it was suggested at one point that he was not supposed to be looking at them, and we know that the Lincoln were indulgent of his younger son, so how big a stretch is it really?)

Also - now he says this:

Lincoln may have given short, unmemorable speeches at countless flag-raising ceremonies in Washington, but never was he ever seen, as he is in the movie, fetching his manuscript from the lining of his top hat...

Yet in 2009 he said:

Yes, Lincoln did keep scraps of paper in the inside lining of his top hats — probably more often in the days he rode the legal circuit alone than when he was president and had clerks to help him file things.

 So it seems nitpicky why would he even mention the scene in the movie, then.

Anyway, Holzer still praises the movie overall.

Also - as I noted earlier, the main criticism of the movie has really come from right wing nutters who hate Lincoln even though he was Republican (and they also hate Spielberg too for being a liberal.)  Have a look at the start of the second comment following Holzer's article, for example:

The entire Lincoln Edifice Complex is a sham, a lie and a massive coverup of a tyrant who should have been shot the day before his inauguration.Spielberg adds yet another massive load of Bullshit on top the already Mt Rushmore high pile already extant about this singular mass murderer.

And in Australia, the only criticism of the film as "whitewashing" Lincoln that I have seen is from, you guessed it, the Right, in the form of Chris Berg of the IPA.  (Bolt had a bit of whine as well.)   Typical.

Update 2:  Daniel Day Lewis wins the Oscar, and makes what surely must be the funniest  joke of the evening.

Update 3:  I've stumbled across a very good, detailed article that says that Spielberg and Kushner have actually come up with some of their own legitimate historical arguments regarding motivation.   

Update 4:  A Washington Post article complaining about the lack of depiction of Fredrick Douglas in the movie.  Someone in the comment thread points out that he wasn't in Washington much in the couple of months the movie covers.   I have never seen so many people wanting to re-write a historical drama because of it not taking quite the route they wanted it to take.  Also, its worth some of the Lincoln defending comments there, regarding his attitude to slavery and freedom, like this one.

Possum update

We think this is the baby possum which featured with its mother here last year.  He or she now turns up alone:

And in other possum news:  the mother re-appeared yesterday after an absence of some weeks, with a new possum baby which is just starting to come out of the pouch.  No photo of new baby yet.

MASSIVE LABOR LOSS COMING IN 6 MONTHS TIME

Sorry about that shouty heading, but seriously, just how many repetitions do Australian political journalists and commentators think they can wring from that theme in the space of a fortnight?

It is tedious in the extreme.

It's periods like this that political journalism becomes a big bore, and the self fulfilling prophesy of "can the leadership survive another poor poll?" shows up journalists as participants in a big game, not just sideline reporters.

I have to admit, though, that Peter Hartcher does something unusual this morning:  he finds some public servants who used to work with Tony Abbott who say he was thoughtful, courteous and good to work with.

I don't have a problem with accepting that - I have said before that I did not mind him as a Howard government minister.

However, his virtues evaporated once he wanted the leadership.  A policy he formerly didn't really care about and couldn't really see any great harm in (an ETS) suddenly became the Worst Policy in the World (with a nod of gratitude to Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones for showing him how to become a populist.)   Suddenly a Labor parental leave plan became not generous enough (a thought which seems to have occurred to no one else in Parliament, let alone his own party.)   Massive exaggerations of the effect of government policies (mining tax and carbon pricing) fell routinely from his lips.  Flaky ideas like a "Green Army" appeared, and he forced the government into  a version of his own asylum seeker "solution" that is bound to collapse again sooner or later under the weight of its poor treatment of people on crappy island accommodation.

Nope:  whatever his past merits, Abbott was promoted above his level of competency and he doesn't deserve the leadership.  Being in charge of everything doesn't suit him.

Pig in the dock

Medieval animal trials: Why they’re not quite as crazy as they sound. - Slate Magazine

A sample from this interesting article:

Such a case might seem bizarre to modern observers, but animal trials were commonplace public events in medieval and early modern Europe. Pigs, cows, goats, horses, and dogs that allegedly broke the law were routinely subjected to the same legal proceedings as humans. In a court of law, they were treated as persons. These somber affairs, which always adhered to the strictest legal procedures, reveal a bygone mentality according to which some animals possessed moral agency.

Scholars who have explored animals on trial generally avoid addressing this mentality. Instead, they’ve situated animal trials in several sensible (and academically safer) frameworks. The dominant explanation from legal scholars and historians is that, in a society of people who believed deeply in a divinely determined order of being, with humans at the top, any disruption of God’s hierarchy had to be visibly restored with a formal event. Another hypothesis is that animal trials may have provided authorities an opportunity to intimidate the owners of animals—especially pigs—who ran roughshod through the commons. A sow hanging from the gallows was, in essence, a public service announcement saying, Control your pigs or they’ll die sooner than you hoped.  

Particle men

So, it was arguing with someone on the 'net who seems to have missed the last 300 years of philosophy and science about Thomas Aquinas and God being  the "Unmoved Mover" that led me to Google up some sites about virtual particles and quantum physics.  (My point having been that particles popping into existence from the quantum foam paints a completely different type of universe from that of Aristotle and Aquinas, where giant spheres are all rotating around the Earth, and everything is assumed to just sit there until pushed.)

The first site I read on virtual particles was this one,by Fermi lab physicist Don Lincoln, which gives what I recall as the usual kind of explanation for them.  His blog seems to only be updated once a month, but the posts look pretty interesting and I will go back to it.

But the bigger find was a link to an alternative explanation of virtual particles on a blog by physicist Matt Strassler.   Now his explanation of virtual particles is really worth reading.  For example, here is his key point:

 The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air.  A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

You have to read the whole post to understand the point, but it is clear that Strassler puts a lot of effort in explaining things in a way that lay people can get a grip on.   His other articles and blog entries look very interesting and clearly written too.  (Well, as clear as you can get on some complicated topics.)

I must add these to the blogroll...

Modern homicide

It's interesting to note that the homicide rate in Australia continues to fall, as it is apparently is internationally.  But the comparison with the US is still remarkable:

The Australian Institute of Criminology has released a report examining the 510 homicides across the country over 24 months between July 2008 and June 2010.

It found that the rate of homicide in Australia remains at a historic low of 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people.

The NSW rate was just below that at 1.1 per cent per 100,000, Victoria recorded the lowest while the Northern Territory rate was more than four times the national average.

Indigenous Australians were over-represented as victims of homicide, with the homicide rate four times higher than the equivalent rate for non-indigenous Australians.

Gun-related homicide dropped to a historic low of 13 per cent but the frequency of people dying from stab wounds jumped from 30 per cent to 41 per cent over the previous decade.

In the US, in the meantime:

 The national homicide rate for 2011 was 4.8 per 100,000 citizens — less than half of what it was in the early years of the Great Depression, when it peaked before falling precipitously before World War II. The peak in modern times of 10.2 was in 1980, as recorded by national criminal statistics.

“We’re at as low a place as we’ve been in the past 100 years,” says Randolph Roth, professor of history at Ohio State University and author of this year’s “American Homicide,” a landmark study of the history of killing in the United States. “The rate oscillates between about 5 and 9 [per 100,000], sometimes a little higher or lower, and we’re right at the bottom end of that oscillation.”

Well, isn't that fascinating:  the US is (so to speak) doing cartwheels over a historically low murder rate which is still 4 times higher than ours.   And this would seemingly mean that you can't blame all of America's current rate on the drug trade (or, in the past, on prohibition) - there have been decades in which neither of these factors were significant, the country still had a relatively high murder rate.

So, what's the theory of Roth, who is quoted above.   Here's the summary of his book on Amazon:

 In American Homicide, Randolph Roth charts changes in the character and incidence of homicide in the U.S. from colonial times to the present. Roth argues that the United States is distinctive in its level of violence among unrelated adults—friends, acquaintances, and strangers. America was extraordinarily homicidal in the mid-seventeenth century, but it became relatively non-homicidal by the mid-eighteenth century, even in the slave South; and by the early nineteenth century, rates in the North and the mountain South were extremely low. But the homicide rate rose substantially among unrelated adults in the slave South after the American Revolution; and it skyrocketed across the United States from the late 1840s through the mid-1870s, while rates in most other Western nations held steady or fell. That surge—and all subsequent increases in the homicide rate—correlated closely with four distinct phenomena: political instability; a loss of government legitimacy; a loss of fellow-feeling among members of society caused by racial, religious, or political antagonism; and a loss of faith in the social hierarchy. Those four factors, Roth argues, best explain why homicide rates have gone up and down in the United States and in other Western nations over the past four centuries, and why the United States is today the most homicidal affluent nation.

I see that the book has just been was released a year ago.  Sounds like it could be a good read.

Noted in African tabloid news

A sixty year old woman who neighbours allege is a witch is reported to have given birth to a rat at Ekumfi Eku Mpoano in the Central Region.

The woman whose name has been withheld for safety reasons is said to have challenged a pastor who told her she was possessed by an evil spirit.

The Head Pastor of the 12 Apostles Church in the Central Region, Madam Akua Nyaneba tells Adom News when the woman was brought to her she was not pregnant but upon praying for her the woman confessed she was a witch and was carrying the rat for onward transfer into her sister’s womb.

To be fair, the article (which I had missed last year - despite my efforts to keep abreast of interesting rat news) is followed by several comments indicating that the readers do not believe it.

I sort of like the odd detail about carrying the rat "for onward transfer into her sister's womb", though.

An attempt to fix European carbon trading

Carbon trading: The first hurdle | The Economist

EUROPE’S emissions-trading system, the world’s largest carbon cap-and-trade scheme, survived a near-death experience on February 19th. The environment committee of the European Parliament voted to support a plan proposed by the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, to take 900m tonnes of carbon allowances off the market for up to five years. Had it rejected the plan, the market might have collapsed.

The proposal would reduce some of the massive overcapacity in the ETS, which has driven the price of carbon down from almost €30 a tonne in 2008 to about €5 this year. As this article argues, the overcapacity has come about as a result of two things: recession (which has pushed down industrial demand for carbon, even though the volume of carbon allowances is fixed for 2013-20) and one-off factors such as an increase in the number of carbon auctions. By taking allowances off the market now, when prices are low, and reintroducing them later, when (the proposers hope) prices will be higher, the designers of the scheme hope to limit the price decline. In the first instance, that hope was not fulfilled. Prices fell to €4 a tonne after the vote.

A recovery in the price may well help the Gillard government sell its scheme.

Roman festival noted

This is late, given that Valentines Day was last week, but it sounds so odd it's worth noting anyway:

For centuries before Christianity came on the scene, the Romans celebrated a mid-February fertility festival called Lupercalia. (It continued to be honored until the 4th century A.D.) This odd ritual involved a cadre of nearly naked male runners, who roamed the city, lightly whipping every nubile female in sight with bloody strips of goathide. Sounds suspiciously like S&M, but it was a purification ritual. The floggings cleansed the city and chased off evil spirits, making Rome’s women receptive in the most basic sense for procreative sex.

Look in the mirror and slap yourselves it the face

This title is my advice to all Labor Party members and their supporters who are in a mad panic again over Labor's polling numbers.

The Party has never appeared united since the 2010 election. 

Despite this, it appeared to be within winning range of a present election, at least on a national vote, barely 2 months ago.

Since then, it is obvious that the party has had a lot of bad publicity, pretty much in one hit:   the Obeid inquiry in Sydney, Thompson being arrested, a Senator complaining about being dumped, a couple of prominent MPs announcing early retirement, people double guessing the wisdom of announcing the election date, Rudd deciding to raise his profile, and parliamentarians continuing to openly discuss how depressed they are about their prospects to any journalist they see on the street.  (In fact, it seems they run up to any journalist in the street whether the journo wants to talk to them or not.)

This is just ridiculous. 

The disunity has to stop:  changing leaders, especially back to Rudd, would be a disaster.   The public are fickle:  he might poll well for a couple of months, but there is no sign at all that he is pushing for any policy change in direction.   Do you think people will just vote for him because he's Kevin?

It is absurd that the party should be so fractured after all this time.   Rudd should either disappear back into the wood work, or do a public (and genuine) reconciliation with Gillard.   (Try looking her in the eye this time.)   Otherwise people will continue to not believe him, and his profile will be a continued destabilising influence.

Personally, I want him back in the woodwork.  There is no sign he is brilliant with policy.  He was always a flaky politician who got in by virtue of a large "it's time" factor for Howard, including dissatisfaction with Workchoices.

And finally - people have to realise the dills on the Coalition at the moment.  This morning, I heard that the Shadow Minister for Innovation Industry and Science is Sophie Mirabella (!)  She resigned rather than support an ETS an d is prominently against any carbon pricing.   She behaves badly in Parliament and is just an awful politician.  She's the type of Coalition politician who really must be kept out of government.