The ultimate bad boss

The stories of Harvey Weinstein as an abusive boss are really remarkable.  Here, in The Guardian, for example:

“Miramax was absolutely a cult, the cult of Harvey, and that’s how he got away with his behaviour for so long,” said Webster. “It was crude but very effective. People became brainwashed, some people had nervous breakdowns. People would be hired and then destroyed for no apparent reason, and then their careers and lives would be in tatters.”

He added: “Everything Harvey did was all about manipulation and fear. He was a massive bully. He would flatter people, get the best out of them and then dump on them really, really hard to destroy them. It was this whole thing of breaking people down so you could build them up in your own image.”

An ex marine developed nervous tics:

Other former Miramax employees described how their years working at the company had left them with post-traumatic stress disorder. “I remember friends would ask me what it was like to work at Miramax and I would always tell them that it’s kind of like telling people you fell down the stairs,” said Jesse Berdinka, a former US marine who worked at Miramax for seven years and said the “mental weight” of the sometimes “sadistic” experience would affect the rest of his life.

Berdinka, who worked his way from being a temp to being vice-president of development and production at Miramax, said he began drinking more than he should have in order to deal with the extreme stress, and developed nervous tics. The story of his own rise in the ranks was typical, he said, because when outsiders were brought into senior jobs they often did not last long.

“You see stories of domestic abuse on the news and think, how can people keep subjecting themselves to that? And then I would walk into the office the next day,” Berdinka said. “For me at least it was the drip, day after day, of never knowing if you are good enough or if you are going to be at the top of the world or the bottom of the shit list.”

An anonymous woman:

A third former senior executive, speaking to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity, said she believed she suffered from PTSD. She described how Weinstein threw a glass frame in her direction, narrowly missing her head. The frame contained a picture of Weinstein and Mick Jagger.

“It wasn’t just sexual abuse. Everyone got abused. It didn’t really matter how high up you were, you got the same treatment,” she said.

“If I were to sum up the physical and emotional response, I would say I feel it is PTSD,” the executive said. She said some of the symptoms re-emerged when the first stories of Weinstein’s abuse were aired on television this month, making her physically ill.

“I’ve had years of recurring nightmares. Ten years of nightmares, while I was there and after,” she said.

The Washington Post had some spectacular stories too:

 And this past week, the Wall Street Journal described a Weinstein Company executive conference gone bad: “In about 2011, after an argument over how to allocate the studio’s resources between their respective movies, Harvey Weinstein punched his brother in the face in front of about a dozen other Weinstein Co. executives, knocking him to the ground, said two people who were present. ‘I’ve been assaulted!’ Bob yelled, according to those people. Bob, who was bloodied, wanted to press charges, but was talked out of it, according to a person familiar with the incident.”

 And he's been physically assaulting people for decades:

Producer Alan Brewer recounted to The Washington Post one episode from early in Weinstein’s career, circa 1984. Weinstein became enraged when he couldn’t locate Brewer for a few hours on the day before a premiere, and when Weinstein finally found him, as The Post reported, Weinstein “lunged at him and began punching him in the head, Brewer said; the skirmish tumbled into the corridor and then the elevator. By the time Brewer reached the street, intent on never associating with the Weinsteins again, he said, Harvey was pleading for him to stay.” 

 A real nutter from way back...

More on teenagers and marijuana being a bad mix

The study is about teenage use and earlier onset of schizophrenia:

At the World Psychiatric Association’s World Congress in Berlin on October 9, Hannelore Ehrenreich of the Max Planck Institute of Experimental Medicine presented results of a study of 1,200 people with schizophrenia. The investigation analyzed a wide range of genetic and environmental risk factors for developing the debilitating mental illness. The results—being submitted for publication—show people who had consumed cannabis before age 18 developed schizophrenia approximately 10 years earlier than others. The higher the frequency of use, the data indicated, the earlier the age of schizophrenia onset. In her study neither alcohol use nor genetics predicted an earlier time of inception, but pot did. “Cannabis use during puberty is a major risk factor for schizophrenia,” Ehrenreich says.

Moderate libertarian explains himself

There is much to like in the explanation given by Will Wilkinson at the nice libertarian Niskansen Centre as to what makes their approach different from your regular, ideologically driven, Ayn Rand and gun sympathising, leave-me-and-my-money-alone!, government-welfare-is-for-losers, climate change? who-cares?-even-if-it's-real, and-I'll-chose-to-fence-sit-on-that-because-I-hate-taxes, I'll-be-on-my-floating-island-with-my-fellow-libertarians-genetically-engineering-embryos-for-life-on-Mars-anyway average libertarian.

Some key parts:

Many political philosophers, and most adherents of radical political ideologies, tend to think that an ideal vision of the best social, economic, and political system serves a useful and necessary orienting function. The idea is that reformers need to know what to aim at if they are to make steady incremental progress toward the maximally good and just society. If you don’t know where you’re headed—if you don’t know what utopia looks like—how are you supposed to know which steps to take next? 

The idea that a vision of an ideal society can serve as a moral and strategic star to steer by is both intuitive and appealing. But it turns out to be wrong. This sort of political ideal actually can’t help us find our way through the thicket of real-world politics into the clearing of justice. I’ve discussed the problems with ideal theory at length, in the context Gerald Gaus’ tremendous book The Tyranny of the Ideal, in a Vox column. This piece will be easier to understand if you read that first. Jacob Levy’s paper, “There’s No Such Thing as Ideal Theory,” is an outstanding complement. And, on the more technical side, the work of UCSD’s David Wiens is state of the art, and adds texture to Gaus’ critique...

The fact that all our evidence about how social systems actually work comes from formerly or presently existing systems is a huge problem for anyone committed to a radically revisionary ideal of the morally best society. The further a possible system is from a historical system, and thus from our base of evidence about how social systems function, the more likely we are to be mistaken about how it would work if it were realized. And the more likely we are to be mistaken about how it would actually work, the more likely we are to be mistaken that it is more free, or more equal, or more socially just than other systems, possible or actual.  

Indeed, there’s basically no way to rationally justify the belief that, say, “anarcho-capitalism” ranks better in terms of libertarian freedom than “Canada 2017,” or the belief  that “economic democracy” ranks better in terms of socialist equality than “Canada 2017.”

You may think you can imagine how anarcho-capitalism or economic democracy would work, but you can’t.  You’re really just guessing—extrapolating way beyond your evidence. You can’t just stipulate that it works the way you want it to work. Rationally speaking, you probably shouldn’t even suspect that your favorite system comes out better than an actual system. Rationally speaking, your favorite probably shouldn’t be your favorite. Utopia is a guess.

He then looks at some rankings that countries are given in terms of personal and economic freedom by the Cato Institute (not entirely sure I'm sure their methodology is sound, but still) and makes the observation:

Every highlighted country is some version of the liberal-democratic capitalist welfare state. Evidently, this general regime type is good for freedom. Indeed, it is likely the best we have ever done in terms of freedom. 

Moreover, Denmark (#5), Finland (#9), and the Netherlands (#10) are among the world’s “biggest” governments, in terms of government spending as a percentage of GDP. The “economic freedom” side of the index, which embodies a distinctly libertarian conception of economic liberty, hurts their ratings pretty significantly. Still, according to a libertarian Human Freedom Index, some of the freest places in on Earth have some of the“biggest” governments. That’s unexpected....

That is our basic data. It doesn’t necessarily imply that the United States ought to do more redistributive social spending. But when a freedom index, built from libertarian assumptions, shows that freedom thrives in many places with huge welfare states, it should lead us to downgrade our estimate of the probability that liberty and redistribution are antithetical, and upgrade our estimate of the probability that they are consistent, and possibly complementary. That’s the sort of consideration that mainly drives my current views, not ideal-theoretical qualms about neo-Lockean libertarian rights theories.

And I like these paragraphs too:

Ideal theory can drive political conflict by concealing overlapping consensus. Pretty much any way you slice it, Denmark is an actually-existing utopia. But so is Switzerland. So is New Zealand. The effective difference between the Nordic and Anglo-colonial models, in terms of “human freedom” and “social progress” is surpassingly slight. Yet passionate moral commitment to purist ideals of justice can lead us to see past the fact that the liberal-democratic capitalist welfare state, in whatever iteration, is awesome, and worth defending, from the perspective of multiple, rival political values. We miss the fact that these values fit together more harmoniously than our theories lead us to imagine. 

I suspect this has something to do with the fact that utopia-dwellers around the world seem to be losing faith in liberal democracy, and the fact that  “neoliberalism” can’t get no love, despite the fact that they measurably deliver the goods like crazy. Yet ideologues interpret this loss of faith as evidence of objective failure, which they diagnose as a lack of satisfactory progress toward their version of utopia, and push ever more passionately for an agenda they have no rational reason to believe would actually leave anyone better off.    

Really, the article is a bit of a high falutin way of saying what I have felt about libertarians for years - they don't really care about the evidence of what works in other nations in terms of tax and welfare mix, and regulation:  they just have their pat idea that small government, low taxes and little regulation is obviously a good thing.  Governing by set ideology, though, is never a good idea, whether you are a Marxist or a member of the cult of Ayn Rand. 

Even conservatives make bad Spielberg calls

I see via Jason that someone at American Conservative has written an appreciation of Stranger Things first season, but I can't say I agree with large slabs of his analysis, despite my own enjoyment of the TV show.

My main problem is that it's a bit rich for a conservative writer to be joining in on the typical progressive critic dissing of Spielberg for sentimentality, but I reckon that's what this guy is doing.

His comments on ET go particularly astray:

In E.T., the cuddly, barely articulate alien with the glowing heart is a kind of apotheosis of romanticized childhood; it functions as a Spielbergian critique of rationalistic adults who have forgotten how to love and feel. 

Er, ET is from an advanced civilisation that has perfected interstellar travel: that doesn't strike me as a very child-like thing.   He also appears to communicates telepathically with his kin:  isn't that the obvious reason he's "inarticulate" with Earthlings?

E.T. doesn’t speak much because he is Spielberg’s Rousseauan icon of pre-linguistic innocence; Eleven doesn’t speak much because she has been traumatized. 

Or - as I said - his species is telepathic.   He's more likely post-linguistic, not "pre-linguistic".

E.T.’s lack of speech reflects this innocence; Eleven’s lack of speech indicates a violation of her innocence. 

Oh for goodness sake, see above.

Look, I'll grant you that the film lets Gertie, in particular, perceive ET as child-like and in that sense "innocent".   But the older kids soon learn they are dealing with something very smart and advanced.

Unlike the scientists in E.T., the adults in Stranger Things don’t characteristically lack feeling or love; they either lack the knowledge of how to act on their love appropriately or the will to do so.

OK, the comment about the scientists in ET is just completely wrong!

One of the great things about the film is the way the screenplay gradually opens up the audience's perspective of what is going on with the adults stalking ET, from an initially mysterious and somewhat malevolent appearance, to an understanding that they are actually well intentioned.  It's made clear that Elliott has trouble seeing this due to his child's level limited perception.   No one in the film ends up evil* - there are misunderstandings on both sides, but the film is a lesson in being generous when interpreting the motives and actions of others.  That's what makes it such a positive story.

That the scientists don't lack feeling is clear from the specific, gentle scene between "Keys" (the Peter Coyote character, who leads the alien search team) and Elliott, in which the adult explains that finding ET is the fulfilment of a life long dream for him, too.   That scene, together with all the effort put in to saving the alien's life,  shows us the scientists are good, loving, and sad when they can't revive their patient.

At the same time, we don't begrudge Elliott never really "getting" that the adults are only trying to help - he's the one with the telepathic connection to the alien and the knowledge that the spaceship is returning; his lack of trust that the adults would believe his explanation of what needs to be done is understandable from his perspective. 

The film is great, and emotionally realistic, because the child hero remains psychologically a child throughout.   Sure, it feels at the end like it will be a key maturing event for him, especially when he looks back on it as he grows up, but he doesn't ever stop "acting his age" in the film.   Now that I think about it, it shares this feature with To Kill a Mockingbird - a smart kid getting her perceptions of adult life and motives opened up by events. 

As for Stranger Things:    one of the least satisfactory things was the lack of any explanation of emotional coldness of the research scientists as to what they were doing to Eleven.   It needed more emotional realism in that respect, and in that way, I would say that the lack of "sentimentality" in that part of the story was a fault, not a strength.  

In any event, I look forward to the next season.  

*   Some reader might point out the police/security team pulling guns on the escaping kids; but hey, that's just realism for gun happy America.  It's not clear they would ever have shot...

No big surprise to all but the stupid

Wingnuts being wingnuts will be in full hyperventilation mode about the Washington Post confirming that the Democrats and the Clinton campaign took over funding of the Steele dossier (from an unknown Republican who had started it), as if it wasn't obvious before today hat someone on the Democrat side must have done so.

So, as many, many people in comments in various places are saying "well duh".    

The Slate take on it is here "Does it matter?"  (Short answer - very little.)

Just wow

This sounds so ridiculous for a modern European nation, my initial reaction is to actually wonder if it is being reported right:

A Portuguese man convicted of assaulting his ex-wife will face no jail time — after an appeals court, citing the fact that his former wife was "adulterous," and noting that the Bible calls for adulterous women to be put to death, upheld his suspended sentence.

The judges called adultery a "serious attack" on a man's "dignity."

The decision has sparked outrage in Portugal.

According to Esquerda, the victim of the violent beating was, indeed, having a brief affair, which she decided to end. The man then told her husband about the relationship. Both men began directing death threats toward the woman, Esquerda writes. Then, working together, they attacked her; the scorned former sexual partner kidnapped her, then her husband, who had since divorced her, violently beat her.

The Associated Press has more on the case:

"The [husband[ was given a 15-month suspended sentence and a fine of 1,750 euros ($2,000) for using a bat spiked with nails to assault the woman in the street in 2015, leaving her covered in cuts and bruises.
"The prosecutor had argued the sentence was too lenient and asked an appeals court for prison time of 3 years and 6 months. But the appeal judges on Oct. 11 rejected his request."

 

The authoritarian Right is benefitting the most from the use of disinformation on the internet

Who can seriously argue that the Trump administration is not the most authoritarian sympathetic Presidency we have seen?    All the shouting of Trump that media criticism is fake news, and musing about revoking media licences;  his invitation in campaign rallies that protestors be beaten up; his thwarted desire for a military parade at his inauguration; his Chief of Staff drawing elitist distinctions between people who have served in the military and those who haven't; his inability to clearly condemn Nazi style marches because he knows the alt.right supports him.  

And who can argue that the disinformation rife through wingnut sites and social media was a major influence on his "base"? 

Today, I see that the New York Times has an article by a Filipino writer about how such deliberate disinformation techniques are prominent in the Philippines too, fully endorsed by the dangerous and nutty Duterte.

It starts:

MANILA — Yen Makabenta, a veteran journalist now at The Manila Times, wrote a prominent column last month about the American ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, who enthusiastically praised President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. “The Philippines is suffocating,” Mr. Makabenta quoted the ambassador as saying. “We must give President Duterte the space to run his nation.” Ms. Haley, he reported, warned of “destructive forces” that “have calibrated their plot to ouster movements” against Mr. Duterte.

Mr. Duterte no doubt appreciated Ms. Haley’s support. The only problem: It wasn’t true. Mr. Makabenta had based his column on a fake story from a website whose web address, grammatical errors and far-fetched assertions should have made clear that it was a counterfeit of Al Jazeera.

As it has around the world, the internet in the Philippines has become a morass of fake news and conspiracy theories, harassment and bullying.

Further down:

Mr. Duterte’s opponents have at times benefited from fake news, but a disproportionate amount of it favors him. Nobody knows for sure who funds these efforts, though a study by Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Research Project determined that the Duterte campaign paid $200,000 for as many as 500 dedicated trolls to attack dissenters and spread disinformation. (In response, Mr. Duterte called Oxford “a school for stupid people” — before admitting that he had in fact hired trolls.)

One of the most egregious employers of this tactic is an informal group that calls itself the Duterte Diehard Supporters, whose initials, not coincidentally, are the same as those for the Davao Death Squads, which killed crime suspects in Mr. Duterte’s hometown when he was mayor. These supporters spin circuitous defenses of Mr. Duterte’s administration, disseminate spurious reports and cast dissent as destabilization. The most dedicated have been rewarded with government positions or other employment with his allies.

That's awful, and once again it makes me think how no one saw this coming as a consequence of the medium for distributing information changing.   (Well, maybe someone gave warnings about it, but not that I'm aware.)

A libertarian idea that didn't work (not much of a surprise, really)

I've joined in with the rubbishing of Megan McArdle before (you can find the posts via the search bar at the right if you want), but now that she has written a column arguing that the libertarian's school voucher idea is pretty much a failure after 20 years of evidence, I'll cite her with approval on that issue at least!

The thing is, the explanation she gives makes sense to me, so why should I disagree with her, even though I think she is generally a bit of a dill?

Physicists fighting, and things we don't "get" yet

Back in May this year, I noted the fight that had broken out between physicists about whether the theory of cosmological inflation really made sense.

Finally, I see that Bee Hossenfelder has joined in, with two recent provocative posts in which she argues that some of the key claims about certain problems inflation allegedly solved were never problems in the first place.   Instead, it just became unthinkingly accepted amongst the physicist community that they must be problems.

She doesn't argue that inflation doesn't solve anything, but it's still pretty fascinating to see a well regarded physicist pointing out blind spots amongst her fellow scientists.

In other "gee, there's really a hell of a lot we don't understand yet" news, protons have been featuring lately.

First, there's a complete puzzle going on as to why different ways of measuring of the size of the proton keep giving incompatible results.   Nature covered it here.

Another report about it is here.  I can't find the report I most preferred, but I'll add it later if I do.

Secondly, as one J Soon has already tweeted, measurements of the proton and antiproton have shown they are very symmetrical, which seemingly removes one possible explanation of why matter came to dominate anti-matter in the universe.   The headline "the universe shouldn't exist" is a stretch, though.

Always looking backwards with vindictive intent

Axios is noting the renewed Congressional interest in the US-Russia Uranium deal, all with the point (of course) of trying to pin corruption of some kind on Hillary Clinton or Obama.

Wingnuts, who have convinced themselves that HC is the devil incarnate, keeping herself alive by nightly drinking the blood of children sacrificed in the basement of a Washington pizza parlour, think this is the biggest story since Pearl Harbour.   Their judgement, of course, has long since left the reservation:  it's once again an example of the culture war mentality under which the black President and female potential successor were a complete disaster.

It goes without saying that I could be wrong, but I reckon this looks a lot like the incredibly  time wasting Benghazi investigations all over again.   Wingnuts will think, regardless of outcome, that it was so obviously outrageously wrong.   But basically, they have stupefied themselves out of reality via the internet.  

In the bigger picture, though, apart from mere stupidity, why has the Right become so vindictive in such matters?

I reckon you see it to a lesser degree in the raids yesterday on the AWU.   The Abbott led Coalition government was clearly out to get hits on the previous government via royal commissions - they basically came up with little of long lasting effect, and opinion polls indicate that it has done the approval of the Coalition no good at all.

Now raids on a union for possibly donating money to a left leaning advocacy group?   Honestly, I reckon the public couldn't care less about this.

To care about it, you have to have this Wingnut vindictiveness which makes them look nasty and completely obsessed with trying to score political wins about not very significant things that happened  years ago.  

Good luck with backwards looking obsessions helping them politically...

Innovative use for psychedelics

Not entirely sure that a study of this kind really shows anything reliable, but here's the way it's reported:

Newly published research suggests that common psychedelic drugs -- such as magic mushrooms, LSD and mescaline (a substance derived from the peyote cactus) -- may reduce criminal offences.

The new study, co-authored by UBC Okanagan's Associate Professor of Psychology Zach Walsh, found that psychedelic drugs are associated with a decreased likelihood of antisocial criminal behaviour.

"These findings add to a growing body of research suggesting that use of classic psychedelics may have positive effects for reducing antisocial behaviour," said Walsh, a p. "They certainly highlight the need for further research into the potentially beneficial effects of these stigmatized substances for both individual and public health."

Lead author, University of Alabama Assoc. Prof. Peter Hendricks, used data obtained by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to explore the connection between the use of classic psychedelic substances and criminal behaviour among more than 480,000 American adult respondents from the past 13 years.

Key findings of the study are that respondents who have used psychedelic drugs had 27 per cent decreased odds of larceny or theft, and 22 per cent decreased odds of arrest for a violent crime in the past year. At the same time, lifetime use of other illicit substances was generally associated with increased odds of criminal behaviour.

 Well, it's a bit of a better idea than the Clockwork Orange style treatment for criminals, I guess...

This is going well, Part 2

Hard not to be amused by this explanation of how the latest, soft ball, Fox interview with Trump went:

It’s not exactly a news flash at this point that Donald Trump isn’t very fluent on questions of public policy, but his interview over the weekend with Fox Business Channel’s Maria Bartiromo is really a sobering reminder of the levels of ignorance and dishonesty that the country is dealing with. 

Bartiromo is an extraordinarily soft interviewer who doesn’t ask Trump any difficult questions or press him on any subject. That makes the extent to which he manages to flub the interview all the more striking. He’s simply incapable of discussing any topic at any length in anything remotely resembling an informed or coherent way. He says the Federal Reserve is “important psychotically” and it’s part of one of his better answers, since one can at least tell that he meant to say “psychologically.” 

By contrast, it’s often hard to make any sense at all of Trump’s words. Asked whether he plans to tie an infrastructure plan to his tax plan, Trump says, “I was thinking about tying it, but there’s too many honestly.” Too many what? He then continues: “You lose a few votes, you gain a few votes. I don’t want to take any chances ’cause I feel we have the votes right now the way it is.” There is, of course, no tax bill at the moment, so there’s no way Trump has the votes for it. 

It’s a funny interview in many ways. Along with being comically ignorant, Trump for some reason keeps referring to Chief of Staff John Kelly as “elegant.” But the prospect of a president of the United States who’s incapable of talking about any of the many issues he oversees in a reasonable way is also pretty scary.

 There's much more at the article at Vox.

This is going well

As explained by the headline at Vox:

Gold Star widow: Trump couldn’t remember my husband’s name. Trump: she’s a liar.

Wants to be a martyr for free speech?

I see that the Catallaxy blog is hosting in comments what is surely defamation about a politician.  Not just over the top criticism, as is routine there, but a quite specific, and (I would reckon) perfectly actionable claim.

Why does Sinclair Davidson let himself continually run the risk of such action?   Or am I missing something about blog owners not being liable for defamation in comments if they don't notice it?

Update:  comment has been edited, and defamatory part removed.

I think the Professor should be paying me a spotters fee every time I save him money!

The economist who writes like a 13 year old

You know how (some) young teenagers like to think they've got the world all worked out and are full of sweeping generalisations they like to proclaim to their parents or teachers, based on some misplaced surge of confidence brought on by hitting puberty and thinking they now understand what adulthood is all about?

Steve Kates continually reminds of annoying, immature 13 year old boys of that variety.   Get a load of this:

What have socialists ever done that would make anyone think they care about other people? For myself, I cannot think of a thing. Socialist ideas have never, not in a single instance, not at any time in the whole of its history, improved the lives of the communities they ruled. Other than for its leaders, socialism has only caused misery for anyone who has been trapped inside a socialist regime.

Such deep, deep thoughts are brought on by the anniversary of the October Revolution.   More:

Here is the reality. The socialist left is filled with people whose lives are driven by envy and hatred for the productive, contended and self-reliant. Ruining their lives makes no one better off but does lay to waste the lives of everyone involved, other than those who take power. No one can any longer be unaware that every socialist so-called solution to our existential and economic problems has been disastrous for everyone but those who seize power. Every socialist leader is a Stasi agent lying in wait.

Analysis with all of the subtlety, nuance and accuracy of Dinesh d'Souza's explanations that Democrats were the true inspiration for Nazism.   (You ought to read a funny explanation of that here.)   

The odd story of Middle Eastern sperm

Well, I don't recall reading about this before, but here it is in the New York Times.   While we have all heard of male sperm counts dropping for unclear reasons around the globe, apparently, male infertility has been recognized as a real problem in the Middle East for decades:

Over the past 30 years, my research has focused on male infertility in the Middle East. There, genetic sperm defects — the main cause of male infertility — are particularly common and often run in families. High rates of male smoking, ambient air pollution in the major cities and the stresses of war, too, have taken a costly toll on male reproductive health. Yet the region not only has made tremendous technological advances in combating male infertility but also has undergone a dramatic change in societal attitudes toward the problem.

Back in the 1980s, as a doctoral student, I headed to Egypt to study infertility. Semen analysis had become widely available there by the 1970s, and by the time I arrived, ordinary Egyptians — including many a male cabdriver I spoke with — were aware that men could have “weak” sperm. Scientific advances had made clear that infertility was not just a female burden....

Since those early days, much has changed as a result of several factors. Medical progress, religious permissions and government efforts have combined to make male infertility treatment much more accessible. But men themselves have played a major role in lifting taboos, in ways that are instructive for the West.

The changes began with Islamic clerics, who were among the world’s first religious leaders to approve in vitro fertilization as a solution to marital infertility. A permissive fatwa covering IVF issued in Egypt in 1980 allowed the introduction of high-tech assisted reproduction across the Muslim world. The next decades saw an IVF boom, and today, the Middle East claims one of the strongest IVF sectors in the world.

This emergence of high-tech reproductive medicine took a leap forward in the 1990s, with the introduction of a new and particularly effective form of IVF treatment known as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI, pronounced “ik-see”), a breakthrough that gives infertile men a real chance to become biological fathers. The coming of ICSI to the Middle East was a technological revolution that in turn led to a social revolution. As more and more infertile men sought the widely advertised “ICSI solution,” male infertility was transformed from a masculinity problem into a medical condition....

As men like Nabil have come to acknowledge their infertility problems and seek treatment, they have helped to lighten the heavy load once carried by their wives: the scrutiny from in-laws, the social ostracism, the threats of divorce or polygynous remarriage. Indeed, the introduction of high-tech male infertility treatment and Middle Eastern men’s eager embrace of this technology have had positive effects on gender relations across the region.

To be sure, there are very real and important differences between the Middle East and the West when it comes to male infertility. In the Middle East, most infertile couples are barred from using donor sperm to conceive, despite the religious permissibility of many other treatments and technologies such as ICSI. In the West, ICSI has long been widely available, but the cost sometimes makes it inaccessible, particularly in the United States. But the primary obstacle has come from men’s own silence on the subject — and here is where the Middle East can serve as an instructive example.

 

Politicians' affairs and the culture wars

The strange situation with Barnaby Joyce (Murdoch tabloids - and today the Australian - giving publicity to his political enemy Tony Windsor spreading via Twitter rumours about some kind of sexual misbehaviour causing marriage stress)  has me thinking about the media and politician's personal lives.

I see that on Twitter, a lot of people have been attacking Katharine Murphy of The Guardian for maintaining the line that politician's private relationships (such as marriage break ups or affairs) are not something Australian reporters report on in principle, as it's largely not relevant to their jobs.   A lot of same sex marriage supporters argue that, no, it is relevant if it shows hypocrisy in their policy attitudes. 

Insiders on the ABC didn't touch the issue as well yesterday, even though it was front page news on the Telegraph the day before.

While I certainly don't want to see Australia go the way of American salacious interest in affairs, it does seem to me that the Australian left-ish media has become too precious about this.

There is no doubt that Australian political discussion has been infected with culture war issues in a similar, though perhaps slightly less extreme, way as in America.

And it is 100% clear that to the culture war obsessed Right, the sexual behaviour and attitudes of those on the Left is of great interest and alleged importance.   Basically, they think the Left is full of sexual depravity and lack of self control.   Hence, at the likes of Catallaxy, the circumstances in which any Labor politician split with their spouse is routinely a matter of criticism and ridicule - both Paul Keating and Bill Shorten have been frequently on the receiving end of such comments.    And in the Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott wars - who can deny that Tony went out of his way to use his daughters and "family man" image to maximum PR use in his campaign, whereas Gillard was the subject to continual rumour in Right wing blogs about her relationship with her partner being fake. 

Of course, the conservative wingnut Right, being as stupid as they have become with culture war obsessions, are not so fussed about politicians on their side having divorces or affairs - look at the forgiveness of Trump as an obvious case, or in Australia, how ex liberal and now one of the Fox News wannabes Ross Cameron's past private life is ignored.

So it seems to me that things have changed somewhat since (say) the 70's and 80's, when (for example) Liberal voters may not have cared for Bob Hawke much, but they also didn't spend all day on the internet talking talking to each other about his rumoured affairs.   There are those on the Left who like to spread rumour of right wingers too - but the context is usually one of hypocrisy, not general moral depravity. 

The internet has hyped up the rumour mill and the trash talk, and the culture wars have given the Right a narrative that the Left are all sexual libertines ready to have affairs at the drop a hat.   In those circumstances, it seems to me that the left-ish journalist's squeamishness about ever mentioning rumour is largely working to the advantage of the Right.

Does that mean I think Piers Akerman should have gotten away with saying on Insiders that it was a common rumour around Canberra that Gillard's de facto was gay?    Well, no, I don't think so, because it appears clear that this was actually just an internet rumour not believed by journalists due to it having no evidence behind it at all, nor (even if it was true) any relevance on the matter of hypocrisy in attitudes on the part of Gillard.

But in this case, where one big media outlet has already front paged an ex-politician spreading rumours against a current one who is likely to go to a by-election soon?    It's also pretty obvious that Windsor would be leaving himself open to serious defamation action if it is completely unfounded, and the response of Murphy indicates that they do know something factual about Joyce's woes, it's just they are choosing not to discuss it.   But if they did, it would be Windsor who made it news, not journalists being salacious.

In these circumstances, I just don't see the justification for not mentioning this on the ABC or in The Guardian.

What a joke

This long term Catallaxy resident occasionally comments here:

I will allow for one thing:   there is behaviour which is sometimes borderline or unclear as to its intent and whether it should properly be called sexual harassment.  

But the idea that women should just get up and move on due to crystal clear harassment - way to keep them in their place, hey JC. 

Yes, John Kelly is creepily elitist in a Starship Troopers kind of way

I think it's pretty clear what happened in the Trump telephone call to the mother of the deceased soldier:  Trump asked John Kelly what he should say; Kelly gave him an outline of what had worked for him (so to speak) when his own son had been killed,  involving in part something like "he knew what he was signing up for".  But Trump delivered that line in a ham-fisted way that made it sound insensitive (and it is, frankly, no mater what Kelly may think, a line that is readily capable of coming out sounding wrong, and he might have thought more carefully how it could go wrong in delivery from his far from eloquent boss.)

So was Kelly right to be upset with the Congresswoman for her criticising the line?   Maybe, to some extent, but as many in the American media has noted, it was Trump himself who started politicising the whole matter of Presidential contact with "Gold Star" families, so it seems a bit rich to be weighing in on how outrageous it was for Wilson to say what she did.

And let's face it, a more presidential President might have reacted to the news with an apology to the mother if his meaning had been misunderstood, and then expanding on exactly what he had intended - reading off a card to make sure he gets it right, if necessary.  Instead, what did we get - a typical Trumpian "I am always right" line of denial that he had said it at all!   (Which was, essentially, contradicted by John Kelly in his appearance.)

But the more important aspect of this now is the creepily elitist militaristic line that John Kelly took in his press appearance.

Some might think that Masha Gessen at the New Yorker went too far with her assessment in "John Kelly and the Language of Military Coup, but I think she was basically right.   I liked how she pointed out that Kelly actually exaggerates the numbers, as if the nation barely knows anyone who has ever done military service (an argument I found odd, given the amount of fawning of the military you see as part of certain sporting events there):

Fallen soldiers, Kelly said, join “the best one per cent this country produces.” Here, the chief of staff again reminded his audience of its ignorance: “Most of you, as Americans, don’t know them. Many of you don’t know anyone who knows any of them. But they are the very best this country produces.

”The one-per-cent figure is puzzling. The number of people currently serving in the military, both on active duty and in the reserves, is not even one per cent of all Americans. The number of veterans in the population is far higher: more than seven per cent. But, later in the speech, when Kelly described his own distress after hearing the criticism of Trump’s phone call, the general said that he had gone to “walk among the finest men and women on this earth. And you can always find them because they’re in Arlington National Cemetery.” So, by “the best” Americans, Kelly had meant dead Americans—specifically, fallen soldiers.

To anyone sensible, this should be starting to ring authoritarian elitist alarm bells.

And it elevates the moral importance of what the military does in ways that are not really justifiable.   Sure, we can all agree that all fighters who died in a "good war" as clear as World War II died in an entirely morally justified enterprise.   We can also all agree that, even in times of relative peace, each individual soldier deserves respect for doing their government's bidding to the point of risking their life. 

But because the use of the military for much of the time is in enterprises that involve various shades of grey, we should reject any suggestion that military service per se is a morally elevating thing that makes you a "finer person" that the rest of society.

An article in Slate notes that Kelly being a Marine is probably part of the problem here.  Of all the services, they are most inclined to believe their own PR:

It’s striking that Kelly feels comfortable highlighting the civil-military divide, and even emphasizing its virtues, from the lectern of the White House briefing room. Kelly’s remarks break with the popular view among many of his contemporaries that the divide is a bad thing and that the military has grown too far apart from the nation during the 44 years of the all-volunteer force. Indeed, Defense Secretary James Mattis (Kelly’s former comrade from the Marine Corps) edited a book on the topic last year before joining the Trump administration. But perhaps Kelly’s views should not be surprising given his pedigree as a retired Marine (the Marines have always stood apart from the other services with respect to their martial virtues) and his own record of service and family sacrifice. Kelly reflects a slice of military sentiment that exists in barracks and team rooms across the globe but rarely appears in public.

Nonetheless, the implications of Kelly’s performance should worry us. If there’s no role for civilians to play other than to salute the military and give them resources, that would seem to invert the relationship between the military and the nation it’s supposed to serve.

 And at Vox, an article is accurately summed up in its subheading:

The chief of staff divides America into those who “serve” in uniform — at home and abroad — and those who should shut up.

 From the body of the piece:

In Kelly’s eyes, those who serve America understand it and those who do not simply don’t. The latter, in fact, can’t really be trusted to preserve America’s goodness.

“We don't look down upon those who haven't served,” Kelly said at the end of the presser. “In a way we're a bit sorry because you'll never experience the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kind of things our service men and women do.” 

In fact, he said at another point, they “volunteer to protect our country when there's nothing in our country anymore that seems to suggest that self-service to the nation is not only appropriate but required. That's all right” (emphasis added).

So when Kelly waxed nostalgic about the days when certain things were “sacred” — women, religion, and battlefield sacrifice — he wasn’t just echoing the complaints of so many who support Donald Trump because they too feel America is no longer great. He was saying that there are Americans who have kept the flame of American greatness alive — those who serve the country for a living — and that the best thing the rest of America can do is keep a respectful distance.

It all puts me in mind of the military elitism apparently promoted by Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers, and I'd be surprised if I am the first to write that.  

Oh yeah, as usual, I'm not:

 So, Kelly won't event take questions from people who aren't sufficiently close to the military.  It's a step towards Starship Troopers.

The thing to remember about Kelly, too, is that no matter how good his reputation as a military leader may be, anyone willing to work for a person like Trump has to be suspect in judgement.  

Weekend observations

*   When did the frequent use of the word "bespoke" become a thing?   I noticed it on (I think) Radio National this week, and then realised how it's appearing everywhere in the media, the same way viral catchphrases get used by teens.  I also realised I didn't even clearly understand what it meant, and now that I've looked it up, I'm not even sure that everyone is using appropriately.   I don't approve.

*   I thought that it had become almost impossible to find the original cut of Blade Runner on DVD, and (as I have explained before) I am apparently one of the few people who prefer it with the voice over narration.  So I was pleasantly surprised to find last night that the version on Stan (from which I haven't yet got around to un-subscribing) is the original, and I re-watched it in full.   Yeah, it's still pretty good.  I never thought it was the greatest movie, but it is very Philip K Dick thematically, and sure, you have to admire the production design.   Would be funny (not the right word) if due to a Trumpian nuclear holocaust, LA really does end up under a perpetual cloud of yellow smog by 2019.   I haven't yet gone to see the sequel, but will soon.

*  I'm very much enjoying the current springtime season of cheap Australian asparagus.  Last night it made an appearance in my Spanish style omelette/fritatta, which is a really easy by tasty light dinner.   It's so simple it seems hardly necessary to record the recipe, but I will anyway:

Roughly cube enough potato to cover frying pan.   If they are clean, just leave the skin on.  Start cooking on low heat in about 1 cm of olive oil.  After a few minutes, add in a rough diced onion, and about five minutes later some red capsicum and chopped up chorizo.  Stir them around every now and then.  The potato should be soft at about the 15 minute mark, then drain off most of the oil.  Push the cooked mix to the side and fry briefly some chopped asparagus, then spread the contents around so that you have an even mix across the fry pan. Spinkle on some salt and pepper, and pour in 5 or 6 beaten eggs over the top and shake the pan to make sure it is reaching the bottom.   Cook under low heat til you can see the mix harden, but it will need to be placed under a griller to get the top firmly set and a bit browned too.  I usually sprinkle on a bit of cheese on top before grilling, although I expect that is not a Spanish thing.   Eat with bread and a side vegetable like beans.  Delicious, especially if using a good quality chorizo.