If the Right want violent desire policed, perhaps they should stop expressing violent desire

Everyone would like there to be a better way of preventing Islamic inspired terrorists from killing, and there is much concern over facts like one of the London killers having appeared on a British documentary last year about Islamic State supporters.

But what the nutty Right need to get a better grip on is the difficulty of policing violent thoughts, because they keep on expressing them themselves.

Let's face it:  if an Islamic journalist had written in a on line publication with a devoted readership this:

"if there was any justice, the bomb would have gone off at the Studios of Sky News, where the death of the reactionary Right wing commentators that infest the place would have improved our society",

would the defenders of Roger Franklin have shrugged their shoulders and said it was clearly angry satire that didn't really feel threatening?  (I read this morning via the perpetually angry Tom at Catallaxy that Franklin has kept his job at Quadrant - and hundreds of Quadrant are apparently upset that the board was even considering his future.)

And, speaking of that blog, you get death wish comment not infrequently, including last night from migration obsessed troll machine Fisk:

Now, of course (some) readers are going to say that he doesn't have a helicopter with which to carry out his desire - you just have to accept that some people use hyperbole and don't literally mean they   really want their political/cultural opponents to suffer violence or a nasty death.

But the problem is, of course, that the same argument will be used by radicalised Islamists.

Sure the next fallback will be "But violent, radical Islam has form - it is killing people!"   To which the response will naturally be "Right wing killing does occur - especially in the US.   You can't just argue (unless you're a real fool) that you can just tell that if a death wish is expressed by an angry white guy it's always just the righteous blowing off of steam, but if it's from someone on the Left or a Muslim, it's always serious."  (You do actually get this "all Leftists wants us to die" paranoid claim from the commenters at Catallaxy all the time.  It's just part of the ridiculous but sincerely held nutty exaggeration that routinely goes unchallenged there.)

So, yeah, we would all like something to be able to be done about Islamist inspired radicals from carrying out death wishes, and monitoring what they say about death desires towards others is one part of that.

But the nutty Right is its own worse enemy in this regard.

No "Wow" after all...

A paper details what sounds like a credible, but prosaic, explanation for the famous "Wow" radio signal of 1977.   (I thought that the signal was significant for its strength, yet I would have thought a comet's radio signal would be pretty feeble.  Still, they are near neighbours compared to pulsars and the like, so I suppose that could explain that.)

All the more reason for Chris Carter to abandon another bout of X Files.   Although, I suppose investigating the alien connections to Don Trump's hair might make it all worthwhile.

[By the way - having Trump as President undoubtedly means that new POTUSs do not receive a top secret briefing on the existence of UFOs and aliens.   Can you imagine him being able to resist tweeting about that if he did?]

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world...

Time for some random news and stories from places with different concerns:

Fiji: 

There is growing concern on the over-harvesting of coconut crabs.
And if nothing is done, there is the risk of extinction.
The crab, which is a species of the terrestrial hermit crab, also goes by the name Birgus latro or more commonly known as ugavule.

I have been interested in these crabs ever since seeing, perhaps on an Attenborough series?, that they pick up half rotted coconuts, drag them up the tree, drop them to split open the nut, and then come back down to eat the pulp inside.   That has always struck me as a strangely science-y sort of thing for a humble crab brain to know how to do.

Anyhow, further into the Pacific.

Samoa:   a column writer in the Samoan Observer gives a short history of the late 19th century colonial fights over the islands, and it's much more dramatic than I would have expected:

Germany and America were ready to go to war with each other right here in Apia to gain supreme control of Samoa. There were 7 warships in the harbour from February through to mid-March 1889. Germany had three and the United States three. The 7th belonged to Great Britain, the HMS Calliope acting as the impartial party. Rightly so, for Britain was guaranteed possession of the Fiji Islands.

Just when tensions were at an all-time high, a mighty cyclone blew for two days (16-17 March). The Great Cyclone would render apart the intentions of the super powers to settle the Samoan Question then. All six warships perished with a great loss of life in Apia Harbour. They were tossed like toys by her mighty waves. HMS Calliope alone survived. She managed to escape out to sea during the storm.

 Iceland:   Go North, young man:

Iceland will need some 30,000 foreign workers to move to the country between now and 2030, Icelandic business leaders predict.

 Mexico:   construction tries it on:

Some builders in Mexico City have been adding a few extra stories to their construction projects with the hope that no one notices, but authorities are cracking down on the practice.

Yet more about Qatar

The BBC has an article "five facts about Qatar you might not know", and the extremity of the imbalance noted in the first one is pretty surprising:

Men outnumber women - hugely

In a country of about 2.5 million people, there are fewer than 700,000 women.
This imbalance can be attributed to Qatar's sudden population explosion: this is a state built by immigrants, who are overwhelmingly young and male.
The promise of a job has meant people have flooded into Qatar - which is about the same size as Yorkshire - in recent years, taking its population from less than 700,000 in 2003, to an estimated 2.5 million in 2016.

 Yet their treatment of migrant labor is about as bad as everywhere else in the Middle East:

They come from all over the world, although the largest numbers come from India and Nepal, making Hindus the third largest religious group in the country, after Muslims and Christians, according to the CIA's World Factbook.
However, despite the promise of work and a better future, several reports in recent years have said migrants are being forced to work in appalling conditions, with more than half still living in labour camps around the country.
Qatar has promised to improve life for its workers, but Amnesty International's report for 2016/17 said they "continued to face exploitation and abuse".

About Qatar

I think this explanation of the long term background to the situation with Qatar (from Fred Kaplan at Slate) is a pretty clear one.  Then the story in the AFR explains the current dispute in more detail.  (Thanks, Jason.)

The Arab and Islamic world needs more "unity" emojis and "we're all in this together" style hashtags, I think.  

A calm take on the difficulties with preventing terrorism

Many good points made here at Vox.

Oh, and as expected, lots of US websites are saying Trump may well have completely killed his desired travel ban by his stupid use of tweeting.

I also like this critique of Trump's use of fear, in The Atlantic:

Trump is the panic president, bearing a radically opposed message: Fear is not only acceptable, but necessary. Rarely does one see a leader, much less the leader of a liberal democracy, actively embracing, even calling for, panic. But this is Trump’s response, ridiculing Khan’s plea for calm among Londoners. If it is little surprise to see tired demagogues like Lou Dobbs do this, it is distressing to see it in the president of the United States. (There may be a connection—Trump’s rhetoric seems to often derive directly from Fox, Dobbs’s employer.)

This is not a new tendency for Trump. It has been evident since he announced his candidacy almost two years ago, in which he claimed (without substantiation) that unauthorized immigrants were bringing a crime wave with them over the border. It runs through his doomsaying acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last summer, on to his pronouncements of “American carnage” in his inaugural address, and in his repeated, dishonest claims of a nation in chaotic thrall to crime. It is also central to his claim that the only way to stop terrorism in the United States is to cut off Muslim immigration, even if political and legal realities have forced him to scale back that promise.

Trump’s embrace of panic is instrumental: By first instilling fear, he can then build himself up as the solution, as he did in his RNC speech when he declared, “I alone can fix it.” But panic is a dangerous force, not always controllable by those who whip it up in the first place.  

As for the feud with Khan, the London PM:

Khan poses a particular challenge to Trump’s panic-fueled approach on two levels. For one, his appeal to calm stand at odds with the president’s desire for greater hysteria. But for another, Khan himself represents a threat to that political message. If a Muslim like Khan can win the mayorship of a city like London, and if he can win acclaim as a strong leader who upholds liberal democracy, it undermines the president’s fear-mongering about absorption of Muslims into Western society.

Now that’s something for Trump to fear.

 But large slabs of the Right are currently too stupid to see this.  

Some shooting stats

What with the (valid) concern about Islamic inspired terrorism, I see the media here is barely noticing your more routine violence in America, such as shooting last week in Orlando, Florida where a disgruntled employee killed 5 at his workplace. 

NPR has a follow up story on that, looking at some analysis of mass shootings since 2009 in the US, where the definition is that there are 4 or more killed.  The results are fairly surprising - the great, great majority are in a house - like 133 compared to 6 that were solely in a workplace.  (How much the figures are being skewed by selecting this particular definition of mass shooting is unclear, of course.)

But this makes a mockery of the gun right's lobby arguments about gun free zones, doesn't it?   Guns everywhere means a lot of mass shootings at home - often involving ex partners - and (obviously) in places where gun restrictions are irrelevant.

Pirates No 5

I went with the family yesterday to watch Pirates of the Caribbean 5, and can report that, as predicted, I had an enjoyable time.

The movie is, of course, not perfect or groundbreaking, and I have two criticisms:  I don't think the screenplay was as witty or as well thought out as it should have been.  (I don't know that the witch accusation against the young heroine was ever explained, for example; and having re-watched it recently, I thought that Stranger Tides' script was probably sharper and funnier.)    I also find it a tad distracting when films are made in Australia that I spend much time noticing the Australian-ness of the support actors.  (And, in fact, I think both young leads are Australian too, aren't they?)

That said, it looks pretty great (I think it looks a more expensive production than the last one) and I am still in general awe as to the special effects imagination that has gone into this series.  (It's just ridiculous how realistic they can make sailing ships in fantastical environments look - although nothing has ever matched the ships fighting as they swirl towards destruction at the climate of At World's End.)

If you like Depp as Jack Sparrow I think you'll still like him here; it moves quite quickly and the action is (with one or two minor quibbles) well executed.

And, look, I have to confess to this, as it may give a true indication of a what a Pirates tragic I must be:  my face literally started twitching when the vital reunion that ends the film took place.  Yes, I told my family it emotionally affected me - they couldn't believe it either.  But I think we all agreed, we would sign up for a number 6. 

The London attack

I guess I can't let it pass without saying something, so here we go:

*  as you would expect, the reactionary Right is bouncing off the walls:  I do believe I saw someone at Catallaxy suggesting internment for Muslims already here yesterday. (!)   Andrew Bolt is of course doing his best Pauline Hanson impersonation,  and I guess she will get some polling boost from this, especially from the backwoods of Queensland, where they've almost certainly never been within a 1,000 km of a Muslim, but they know they wouldn't like any of them if they did meet them.

*  The level of fearful reaction is, of course, aided entirely by modern media's saturation coverage.  I'm not saying that the media is wrong to provide long coverage - I watch it myself for longer than it warrants - but of course it can inadvertently encourage wannabe terrorists that if they do something similar, they can create a lot of consternation and fear throughout the entire West.  (And the worst at confirming that to them are the likes of Andrew Bolt and the reactionary Right.)

*  What's the bet that this will again turn out to be "home grown" terrorists?   Which would make the proposed Muslim immigration ban rather irrelevant (possibly harmful) in the short term, and as for the long term - well, I think it fair to say that the geo-political circumstances that lead to terrorist movements targetting the West generally don't last more than about 30 years, do they?  (People really need to remember the 1970's more often.)   Particularly with the defeat of IS, one would hope (and one could be completely wrong) that the radicalised arm of Islam will be beaten back into its shell for a while; hopefully permanently.

*  That all said, of course such low tech attacks are shocking and evil.   I thought that Theresa May's response sounded pretty good, really.  

*  We don't really hear much lately about the success of the West's efforts to target IS and radical Islam on the internet.   You certainly don't see much in the way of IS PR videos repeated in the media any more, but have they made the more secretive communications more difficult as well?

*  I would have thought that Trump's tweets would actually hinder him further in his proposed Muslim immigration ban.   But we all know he's so dumb that he won't give up his phone to advisers who know he is hurting his cause on twitter.  

*  I like in particular how the US Ambassador has contradicted Trump on the matter of the London mayor, who is a favourite target of the American Right for daring to be Muslim.  

* Speaking of Trump and his rushes to judgement - I could almost forgive him for assuming that the deadly Manila casino resort attack last week was Muslim inspired, given the trouble with Muslims in parts of that country, but he really shouldn't have said it out loud.   Here it is, fully confirmed - the attacker was in fact a guy, a former public servant, with a big gambling debt. (!)

Free and unwise publicity for drugs

Is it really a good idea for the media to be talking about the "safe" recreational use of illicit drugs?  In this case, hallucinogenic drugs?

The Guardian has something of a history of doing that, and its readers will often joke in comments threads about their fun times with all sorts of drugs.   But this weekend, the Fairfax Weekend magazine has a story by a young man who talks about cancelling a planned trip with LSD with mates,  and the general  tone is to suggest that its use by smart young people can be pretty normal and fun if done carefully enough.

I doubt that this is a good idea.

It's true - the writer does talk about bad trips, and how he got into one by taking cannabis and LSD together;  but there is no getting around that the overall effect on young people reading the article could be to think that it can be a fun drug to take, and why not give it a try.  

It's also true, I reckon, that LSD is having something of a sympathetic come back, with even Nature reporting a couple of studies indicating that its use is "not linked" with psychosis - although I have to say that, to me, these sound like dubious types of studies.

And as I made it clear in comments to my recent post about Cary Grant's use of it (under proper medical supervision) that I wouldn't fundamentally have a problem with medical use if it is well assessed as safe and likely being of value to people with serious depression or other mental illness that is not responding to other drugs.

Call me cautious (I say "sensible"), but I don't see any wisdom in using the drug recreationally, given the Russian roulette game it seems to be as to whether a particular trip will be terrifying instead of ecstatic.  And besides, isn't it just common sense that any chemical which is obviously playing with your brain chemistry in a really powerful way for 12 hours or so, and which (if you use it enough) can cause flashbacks for weeks or months after, is not a healthy thing.  Too unnatural - too much interference with a system which, left alone, should be enough to keep you happy and balanced.

So what about natural hallucinogens?  Going back to The Guardian, they recently gave prominence (as they would) to a survey which indicated that magic mushrooms were the type of drug leading to the least number of emergency hospital admissions.

But look at the headline they use "Study finds mushrooms are the safest recreational drug".

Of course, if you do have to go to hospital for eating the wrong type of mushroom, it can be very, very serious:  the Washington Post has a story today about 14 people struck down after eating "death cap" mushrooms in California in December (yes, including 4 young men who thought they were magic mushrooms.)  Every autumn in Canberra there are people sickened or killed from eating them, too, although I think most people who do eat them mistake them for normal, edible wild mushrooms.  It's a sad fact that they apparently taste pretty great.   What a design fault. *

So eating wild mushrooms for hallucinogenic effect is not without its lethal risks, and it seems it is still a case of Russian roulette when it comes to whether the trip will be bad, or not:

More than one in 10 said the bad trip put themselves or others in physical danger, including from violent behavior, and 2.7 percent received medical help. There were also mental consequences: “Three cases appeared associated with onset of enduring psychotic symptoms and three cases with attempted suicide.” However, despite all of that, “84 percent of respondents reported having benefited from the experience, with 76 percent reporting increased well-being or life satisfaction.”

Again, call me an old fuddy duddy, but a one in ten risk of a really bad experience, possibly with very long effects, is not good odds for recreational drug use; and as such,  a headline such as appeared in The Guardian that indicates an element of safety in taking mushrooms is not a wise thing.

When you think about it, what's tolerated in terms of the implicit downplaying of safety concerns with use of certain illicit drugs would not likely be tolerated in regards to some legal drugs.   Can you imagine the reception that The Guardian would get if it ran a story that drink driving laws were too tough now - the increased risk of driving with a .08BAC is not so bad as to warrant the highly inconvenient level (to people's enjoyment of a night out) of .05BAC?  I don't think that would fly.  (OK, I know - drink driving represents a danger to others as much as to the drunk driver himself.  Not a perfect, comparison, but still...)

So, yes, I am bit sick of this type of reporting, and wish the media would stop doing it.

*  It just occurred to me - does Japan have the same problem, because there is quite a culture there for people going out and picking wild vegetables of various types, and mushrooms are a widely loved food.  I see that, yes, it does:

 The incidence of mushroom poisoning was studied statistically from 2001 to 2010 in Japan. The total incident of mushroom poisoning was 569 cases, which involved 1,920 patients and 10 deaths. The average incident was 56.9 cases per year, involving 192 patients and 1 death. On regional differences, the mushroom poisoning was more frequent in the northeastern part of Japan. The rate of total incidents for each type of poisoning, which were classified according to symptoms caused, 54.6% in the type of gastro-intestinal disorder, 11.6% in the type of neurological symptoms, and 2.4% in the type of intracellular disorder (violent vomiting, diarrhea and dehydration and hepato-nephrosis, or rhabdomyolysis, or erroneous perception, etc.), respectively. Two species of poisonous mushrooms with gastro-intestinal disorder, Lampteromyces japonicus and Rhodophyllus rhodopolius caused the majority (52%) of all poisonings in Japan.

Just use your common sense...

Curious as to what permanent Trump sycophant and excuse maker Scott Adams had said about the decision to pull out of the Paris Accord, I visited his blog and found that (of course!) he wasn't concerned, and had put up this short explanation of his take on climate change:

Disclosure: My current view on climate science is that the climate scientists are probably right on the basic science, and their climate models are probably directionally right too. But no one has created a credible economic model around climate change. Until you have a long-term economic model that you can trust, you have no way to know what to do about climate change or when to do it. The climate science models don’t tell you any of that. They aren’t designed for that. If you want to make rational decisions about climate change economic risks, you need credible long-term economic models, not climate models.
On a related note, there’s no such thing as a credible long-term economic model. It isn’t a thing.

Well, oddly enough, over the years, I have run some posts expressing similar-ish doubts about economic modelling related to climate change:  you can read some here, here, here, here, here and here.

But the problem with the economic uncertainty and difficulty in modelling it is that the increasingly held  view is that the models may have underestimated the cost of climate change, not over estimated it. 

He seems incapable of understanding the argument that uncertainty is not your friend - it doesn't mean "do nothing", at least when it's on a matter where the parameters of possible change are known.  He seems to accept the broad parameters (or so he says), but then uses the technicality of the uncertainty as to when economic benefits of some global warming will be overcome by the economic negatives to say we can never decide to do anything!

It is clearly a nonsense position to take, and exhibits no common sense.   Does he really think it's a good idea to set in place sea level rises of several metres over the next hundred to two hundred years?  Does he think the idea of New York as New Venice is cool?   Does he think that vastly changed rain patterns and heat waves making current large population areas very difficult to live in may not be a costly and unfortunate result?   Does he have a clue about the uncertain ecological consequences of ocean acidification, more algal blooms and low oxygen in the oceans?   And no, you can't use the notion of "wait and see, and then we'll decide if we have to take action".   It's not that kind of problem - you can't reverse it with a wave of the wand, and geo-engineering is likely to invite its own problems.

Yeah, just shrug you ignorant shoulders, Scott; but you make no common sense.

Poets make pretty crook scientists

Clive James is apparently a wiz at languages, and his intellectual life has always been in the humanities.

His lengthy piece decrying climate change "alarmists", run in The Australian today with much prominence, is plainly, to anyone who has read widely on the subject, as worthless and utterly unreliable and out of date as a poet's analysis of the current state of a field of science could possibly be.  (It really feels like it was written 8 or 9 years ago, at the height of the question of the what the "pause" meant - not that serious scientists ever thought it meant that rising global temperatures had magically stopped.) 

There's a reason we don't rely on poets to instruct us on whether vaccines are good public policy, or what form of cancer treatment to take, or if Einstein could really be right because his ideas don't make much intuitive sense.   Fortunately, most know their limits. 

I don't wish James ill - he's been a very funny man in his day - but it is true that such ill formed views are literally dying out.

Rich vampires already exist

Vanity Fair notes:

Jesse Karmazin agrees. His start-up, Ambrosia, is charging about $8,000 a pop for blood transfusions from people under 25, Karmazin said at Code Conference on Wednesday. Ambrosia, which buys its blood from blood banks, now has about 100 paying customers. Some are Silicon Valley technologists, like Thiel, though Karmazin stressed that tech types aren’t Ambrosia’s only clients, and that anyone over 35 is eligible for its transfusions.

Karmazin was inspired to found Ambrosia after seeing studies researchers had done involving sewing mice together with their veins conjoined. Some aspects of aging, one 2013 study found, could be reversed when older mice get blood from younger ones, but other researchers haven’t been able to replicate these results, and the benefits of parabiosis in humans remains unclear. “I think the animal and retrospective data is compelling, and I want this treatment to be available to people,” Karmazin told the MIT Technology Review

According to the article, Ambrosia says that Thiel is not one of their customers, but there are rumours that he has his own source of young blood.

So, how's Prof Davidson's Catallaxy blog taking the Paris Accord news?

Of course, they are popping champagne corks, but the nuttiness and offensiveness of some - who view accepting the reality of climate change as somehow affecting their masculinity - is on full display.

Stand tall, Professor Davidson.  

Update:  In examining the Paris decision,  David Roberts at Vox re-visits his tribalist/cosmopolitan dichotomy explanation for Trump, and at the end of this section, the "masculinity  must dominate again" aspect gets a mention:

Trump is a tribalist

The hallmark of tribalism (a term I prefer to “nationalism,” as it gets at the deeper roots) is that it views the world in zero-sum terms — if one tribe benefits, it is at another tribe’s expense. As has been much remarked (see my post on Trump’s mindset), this describes Trump to a tee. He views all interactions, both personal and international, in terms of dominance and submission.

Tribalism has also entirely subsumed the US conservative movement. The intellectual core has all but rotted; what remains are older, rural and suburban white men and their wives, angry that their tribe is being demoted from its hegemonic position. At a barely beneath-the-surface level, Trumpism is about restoring old hierarchies: the powerful over the powerless, whites over minorities, men over women.

 Clearly, you can see how this is so true, when you read the many examples at Catallaxy.

Rain on the move?

From Climate Central:

A new study ....suggests that Earth’s rain belts could be pushed northward as the Northern Hemisphere heats up faster than the Southern Hemisphere. That shift would happen in concert with the longstanding expectation for already wet areas to see more rain and for dry ones to become more arid.

The study, detailed Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, “adds to the large body of evidence that climate change is going to mess with the large-scale motions of air and water in the atmosphere. And this matters, because those patterns largely determine where it's rainy or arid, broadly speaking,” NASA climate scientist Kate Marvel, who wasn’t involved with the study, said in an email.

These changes in rain distribution could have implications for future water resources, particularly in areas where water supplies are already stressed, such as the western U.S. and parts of Africa.

...which regions are wet and dry are also determined by the locations of the Earth’s main rain belts. The positions of those rain belts, in turn, are tied to that of the so-called thermal equator (the ring around the planet’s middle where surface temperatures are highest). And the location of that equator is impacted by the balance of temperatures between the Northern and Southern hemispheres.

Because the Northern Hemisphere has more landmass, it is heating up faster than the Southern Hemisphere, and, as some climate models have suggested, this could push the thermal equator northward, and along with it those key rain belts.

Makes some sense, and intuitively, one of the most serious potential consequences of climate change.
 

Look at my tatts

Good grief - given my aversion to tattooing, especially when on prominent display on women - I am less than pleased to see a tattoo promoting article on The Conversation by a female academic at RMIT.   (What an academy...)  

Even though she writes:

My interest in tattooing stems from my upbringing. Living in Aotearoa, from roughly the ages of eight to 28, meant that I was exposed to Maori and Pacific Islands tattooing attitudes.

I don't think she has a tribal reason herself for getting tattooed - and the tattoos of her own that she puts in the article are not of a tribal design.   She further gives the "high brow" justification for the practice:

If I see my tattoos as permanent records of rites of passage and power over adversity, ancient women and their societies may have been doing the same - but with a more restricted range of motif options. The limited range of motifs would have been due to both social conventions, the skill of the tattooist, and the tools used to create the tattoo.

Just because women got it done 2000 years ago in Greece or Egypt, I see no particular reason why this should encourage women to get kitchy art permanently fixed to their body now.  (And I maintain - the great majority of tattooing done in the West is kitch art.)

Anyway, each to their own, as they say;  just that I'll keep complaining about it, too, until fashions change.   (I still suspect it will, someday, somehow....) 

Psychological issues

The thing that immediately struck me, on listening to extracts of Trump's "we're leaving the Paris Accord" speech this morning, were the references to other countries "laughing at" the US because they knew the US was being hurt by the deal.  (And he threw in a snide reference to Germany, or Europe, in particular.)     

I was going to say that this is a case of psychological projection - but it's not quite that, I suppose.   It's whatever the term is for psychological deflection - mistaking laughter at him personally, for all of his obvious personal and intellectual shortcomings, as being directed at the country as a whole.  

And as such, it is example of what makes him so unsuited to making decisions on diplomatic and military matters (yes, including the nuclear codes) - you can imagine him mistaking a slight meant to be directed to him as deserving response on behalf of the whole country (because he will think that the country is the intended victim, not him personally.)

Given that Bannon is seem as a key person behind the Paris decision, you can well imagine him having some similar psychological issues too.   (He has been married and divorced 3 times - a bit of an obvious warning sign regarding personality.  He's also looks remarkably old and unwell, for his physical age.  Is he sensitive on that front?)

Apart from the intrigue of what drives the tiny mind of the President,  everyone will be making the obvious point in response to his claimed reasons for withdrawing.  As the Washington Post puts it:

“As of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country,” Trump said — a phrase seeming to contain a logical contradiction. If the agreement is nonbinding, then what burdens can it impose?

And that contradiction gets to the heart of why Trump seemed, on Thursday, not to be arguing against the Paris agreement itself, but rather, against the Obama administration’s pledge under that agreement, in which the United States would cut by the year 2020 its emissions by 26 to 28 percent below their 2005 levels.

But the agreement does not require a particular level of emissions cuts for a particular country; rather, the United States and any other nation can choose its own level of emissions reductions.

“It seems very unnecessary to have to withdraw from the Paris agreement if the concern is focused on the U.S. emissions target and financial contributions,” said Sue Biniaz, who served at the State Department as the United States’ lead climate change lawyer from 1989 until earlier this year. “The U.S. can unilaterally change its emissions target under the agreement — it doesn’t have to ‘renegotiate’ it — and financial contributions are voluntary.”

 As I expected, the attempted explanation of Trump is in part meant to placate his daughter - he didn't take the chance to deny climate change, and he leaves open the possibility of "renegotiation" - of a deal that doesn't bind the country to a particular target anyway.  

It's all nonsense, and the world will laugh - or grimace - again at the President.

Old news, but I like the sarcasm

While wandering the interwebs, just found this pleasantly sarcastic note at Crikey, from February this year:

“Some exciting Friday afternoon news,” IPA long-term inmate and senior fellow Chris Berg writes. The passionate free-marketeer and advocate of low taxes and small government will be taking up a postdoctoral position at … RMIT, the publicly funded university. Your low taxes at work. The old workingmen’s college is a hotbed of free-marketeers, with Catallaxy-blog aficionadi Sinclair Davidson and Steven Kates both having spent years there. How selfless of these men to deny themselves the bracing challenges of the free market, and teach the evils of government funding in an institution that receives about $550 million of its billion-dollar budget from government sources. How interesting it would be to see them offer their sevices in the market, and see how many would pay. Don’t worry, no chance of that. You’ll be working to support free-market advocacy for many years to come. Exciting Monday morning news! — Guy Rundle

 

Update on unemployment

I did note a week or so ago that Adam Creighton seems determined to be a contrarian (and of the kind who would appeal to dumb populist politicians) when it comes to matter of unemployment figures; even when a fellow "small government" traveller like Judith Sloan has long been dismissive of the argument.

Well, for more detail as to why Adam's argument is (largely) crap, Greg Jericho has done a sterling job of explaining it all here. 

Long term lead

Interesting to see that glaciologists looking at lead levels in the European environment, at least, have now realised that lead mining and smelting has been polluting the place above natural levels for a very long time:

When the Black Death swept across Europe in the 14th century, it not only killed millions, it also brought lead smelting, among many other commercial activities, to a halt. That cessation is reflected in a new analysis of historical and ice core data, which researchers say provides evidence that the natural level of lead in the air is essentially zero, contrary to common assumptions.
"These new data show that human activity has polluted European air almost uninterruptedly for the last [about] 2,000 years," the study's authors say. "Only a devastating collapse in population and economic activity caused by pandemic disease reduced atmospheric pollution to what can now more accurately be termed background or natural levels."