I am not inclined to watch the video of the poor guy in Arizona who was shot while trying to comply with bizarre shouted instructions of the police. I accept, given the wide condemnation of the shooting by even Right wing outlets (HotAir, and National Review - but I don't see it on Breitbart, oddly enough), that it is an appalling case of police killing, but a dumbass jury (which yes, did see the video) nonetheless acquitted all involved.
But - if writers from the Right are going to condemn it (and they should - no doubt) - I do wish they might comment in their pieces about something glaringly obvious: American police are ridiculously trigger happy because gun laws ensure a huge number of concealed carry guns on the streets.
And the NRA wants to make more that way - with the legislation passed in the Senate this week that would force all States to be dragged down to the concealed guns laws of the most gun happy of the States.
It's a guaranteed way to make sure that police will shoot more people whether armed or not.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
After Sandy Hook
The consequences of a bigger interest in guns (either to buy, or perhaps even just getting existing ones out to clean) might account for a surge in post Sandy Hook gun deaths:
A surge in gun buying in the months immediately following the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, corresponded with an increase in accidental gun deaths in the United States, one-third of them in children, according to an analysis published today in Science.Some researchers have been very critical of the study, but this is all discussed in detail at the Science Magazine article.
About 60 additional unintended shooting deaths, roughly 20 of them in children, occurred in the 5 months after the shooting, conclude the study’s authors, economists Phillip Levine and Robin McKnight of Wellesley College in Massachusetts. For all of the 2012 calendar year, there were 545 accidental shooting deaths, or about 45 per month, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. So a 60-death bump in a 5-month period is a considerable one.
Some nuance on Jerusalem
The Lowy Institute's blog is always a good place for some calmly reasoned discussion of foreign affairs matters, and its take on the Jerusalem declaration by Trump is typically nuanced.
However, I am more convinced by Thomas Friedman's criticisms of it:
Seems to me to be a very valid criticism. (Could be applied to Brexit and the Right wing generally - cut taxes on the rich, work out what to do about lost revenue later, for example. Try to destroy Obamacare, work out what to replace it with later.) It's what happens when "winning" a culture war is all you worry about.
However, I am more convinced by Thomas Friedman's criticisms of it:
Trump could have said two things to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. First, he could have said: “Bibi, you keep asking me to declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. O.K., I will do that. But I want a deal. Here’s what I want from you in return: You will declare an end to all Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, outside of the existing settlement bloc that everyone expects to be part of Israel in any two-state solution.”...Friedman's bigger point is that Trump claims to be a "deal maker", but in fact, as with trade, he is just tearing things up with no sign of deals to come. He just gives advantage away, then leaves it others to hopefully put together something better from the broken pieces.
Trump also could have said, as the former United States ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk suggested, that he’d decided “to begin the process of moving the embassy to western Jerusalem, but at the same time was declaring his willingness to make a parallel announcement that he would establish an embassy to the state of Palestine in East Jerusalem” — as part of any final status agreement. That would at least have insulated us from looking like we made a one-sided gesture that will only complicate peacemaking and kept the door open to Palestinians.
Seems to me to be a very valid criticism. (Could be applied to Brexit and the Right wing generally - cut taxes on the rich, work out what to do about lost revenue later, for example. Try to destroy Obamacare, work out what to replace it with later.) It's what happens when "winning" a culture war is all you worry about.
Deep South
Hotair has a story about some Alabama focus group comments regarding Roy Moore, and some of the quotes are astonishing:
And:
As other articles sometimes remind us, even before the unusual adult interest in young teenage girls came to light, Moore was a terrible candidate based on his judicial behaviour and fundamentalist views.
Actual quote: “Forty years ago in Alabama, there’s a lot of mamas and daddies that’d be thrilled that their 14-year-old was getting hit on by a district attorney.” That’ll make a fine epigraph for the 2017 chapter in American history textbooks.
And:
There’s a reference to George Soros and his scheming too, which is in keeping with Moore’s own talking points. A few days ago he cast aside the warning to judge not lest ye be judged and told American Family Radio of Soros, “No matter how much money he’s got, he’s still going to the same place that people who don’t recognize God and morality and accept his salvation are going. And that’s not a good place.” Occasional pronouncements on who is and isn’t destined for hellfire will be a fun bonus of Senator Moore’s congressional tenure.(To be fair, Hotair does then go on to point out that the polls at the moment are wildly erratic as to which of the two candidates is really in the lead. It's not a certainty that he will win, but with the disgusting turnaround of Republicans, Trump and all key conservative media to support him, I think most now expect he will win.)
As other articles sometimes remind us, even before the unusual adult interest in young teenage girls came to light, Moore was a terrible candidate based on his judicial behaviour and fundamentalist views.
Scrooged re-visited
I was pleased to see that Netflix has the 1988 Bill Murray Christmas comedy Scrooged available, and I re-watched it last night, probably for first time since viewing it on VHS tape in perhaps '89 or '90.
After Groundhog Day, the obviously best thing he has done, I reckon Scrooged is the second best movie Murray has ever been in.
I don't quite understand why so it got some (although not uniformly) really bad reviews - at Rottentomatoes the summary of the Variety review is "An appallingly unfunny comedy, and a vivid illustration of the fact that money can't buy you laughs." (The original review is no longer at the link, so I can't see any more.)
Well, I liked it the first time I saw it, and it made me (and my son) laugh quite a lot last night Murray does "obnoxious guy redeemed" very well; Carol Kane's violent fairy act is eccentric and very funny for it; and was Bobcat Goldwhait ever better? It even felt strangely relevant to America today, with its mocking of gun laden violence entertainment in the first 5 minutes, and even featuring a crack about Trump Towers!
I had also completely forgotten that Karen Allen played the love interest, and her open, smiling face is given lots of screen space in a way that makes you feel that she simply must be a charming, lovely person in real life. She was never exactly classically beautiful; maybe her looks and voice just always hit a sweet spot of "potentially accessible imaginary girlfriend" to the average male viewer?
Anyway, a happy re-visit to a pretty good movie.
After Groundhog Day, the obviously best thing he has done, I reckon Scrooged is the second best movie Murray has ever been in.
I don't quite understand why so it got some (although not uniformly) really bad reviews - at Rottentomatoes the summary of the Variety review is "An appallingly unfunny comedy, and a vivid illustration of the fact that money can't buy you laughs." (The original review is no longer at the link, so I can't see any more.)
Well, I liked it the first time I saw it, and it made me (and my son) laugh quite a lot last night Murray does "obnoxious guy redeemed" very well; Carol Kane's violent fairy act is eccentric and very funny for it; and was Bobcat Goldwhait ever better? It even felt strangely relevant to America today, with its mocking of gun laden violence entertainment in the first 5 minutes, and even featuring a crack about Trump Towers!
I had also completely forgotten that Karen Allen played the love interest, and her open, smiling face is given lots of screen space in a way that makes you feel that she simply must be a charming, lovely person in real life. She was never exactly classically beautiful; maybe her looks and voice just always hit a sweet spot of "potentially accessible imaginary girlfriend" to the average male viewer?
Anyway, a happy re-visit to a pretty good movie.
Saturday, December 09, 2017
More famous than I knew
I knew Adam Gopnik could be a fine essayist, and I have linked to his work several times over the years.
But I didn't really know anything about his personal life, and just how famous he actually is.
This has been corrected by this interview in The Guardian today.
I also went via there to read his lengthy 1998 essay on undergoing 6 years of Freudian psychotherapy in New York. Yes, it's an amusing, humane and interesting read, like all of his writing. He's great.
But I didn't really know anything about his personal life, and just how famous he actually is.
This has been corrected by this interview in The Guardian today.
I also went via there to read his lengthy 1998 essay on undergoing 6 years of Freudian psychotherapy in New York. Yes, it's an amusing, humane and interesting read, like all of his writing. He's great.
Friday, December 08, 2017
The Empire secret
The best part of this amusing Jimmy Kimmel chat with Last Jedi cast members is Mark Hamill's explanation of how they kept "I am your father" a secret in Empire Strikes Back.
Hmmm
I'm surprised this isn't a bigger story in Australian media today:
President Trump has scheduled a physical health exam for early next year at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and will share the results with the public, the White House announced Thursday, a day after Trump's slurred speech sparked concern about his health.Having just watched it, I'm going with the loose denture theory, myself.
Trump slurred his words during a policy address Wednesday about Israel, inspiring media speculation that he may have had a dental or health problem. But White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday that Trump simply was suffering from a dry throat.
Barnaby's split
So, Barnaby Joyce has confirmed separation from his wife, but not the circumstances leading to it.
Tony Windsor had suggested something which sounded like it could be due to unwelcome drunken advances towards a young female staffer. Given the current situation with sexual workplace harassment being so much in the news, if it turns out that the media know more details and the situation was something that could be classified as harassment, but they are sitting on it due to their squeemishness about talking about politician's sexual affairs, I think it will look pretty stupid of them.
Similarly, if anyone of them is sitting on more material about Abbot/Credlin which only comes out in 20 years time, that would be wrong, too.
I think it is OK for journalists to leave out talking about relationship breakdowns, generally speaking, as not being relevant to politician's jobs, but there are times when such relationship issues are genuinely in the public interest.
Tony Windsor had suggested something which sounded like it could be due to unwelcome drunken advances towards a young female staffer. Given the current situation with sexual workplace harassment being so much in the news, if it turns out that the media know more details and the situation was something that could be classified as harassment, but they are sitting on it due to their squeemishness about talking about politician's sexual affairs, I think it will look pretty stupid of them.
Similarly, if anyone of them is sitting on more material about Abbot/Credlin which only comes out in 20 years time, that would be wrong, too.
I think it is OK for journalists to leave out talking about relationship breakdowns, generally speaking, as not being relevant to politician's jobs, but there are times when such relationship issues are genuinely in the public interest.
Friday space
Some space themed stories for a Friday:
* it's interesting to read recent astronaut memoir author Scott Kelly talk about how he has struggled all his life with writing at any length. I guess that means many of us can say we can do something better than a famous test pilot/astronaut.
* apparently, the next international joint space project might be a space station orbiting the Moon. This article at Nature suggests some science that could be done from there, outside of the Earth's magnetic field, but it avoids mentioning the obvious - that means potentially risky human exposure to much larger amounts of radiation. (The story at the previous link about Scott Kelly notes the he received about 10 chest X rays worth of radiation per day, and that's in the somewhat safer for radiation low earth orbit.)
Surely the radiation issue would make for a tricky design. Even relatively short stays by astronauts would have some danger unless there is a radiation proof corner of the station they can shelter in during solar storms. (They were worried during Apollo that a strong solar flare could fry all of the astronauts.) Perhaps it would be a good place to test active radiation shields. Somewhere around the house in a box I think I still have copies of an old article from the 1980's talking about such shielding, but I don't know how much research has gone into their design.
* I seemed to have missed news about the creation of the first "virtual nation" in space:
Link to the Asgardian home page is here. I wonder if eventually they'll be issuing passports? Well, that's the plan:
* it's interesting to read recent astronaut memoir author Scott Kelly talk about how he has struggled all his life with writing at any length. I guess that means many of us can say we can do something better than a famous test pilot/astronaut.
* apparently, the next international joint space project might be a space station orbiting the Moon. This article at Nature suggests some science that could be done from there, outside of the Earth's magnetic field, but it avoids mentioning the obvious - that means potentially risky human exposure to much larger amounts of radiation. (The story at the previous link about Scott Kelly notes the he received about 10 chest X rays worth of radiation per day, and that's in the somewhat safer for radiation low earth orbit.)
Surely the radiation issue would make for a tricky design. Even relatively short stays by astronauts would have some danger unless there is a radiation proof corner of the station they can shelter in during solar storms. (They were worried during Apollo that a strong solar flare could fry all of the astronauts.) Perhaps it would be a good place to test active radiation shields. Somewhere around the house in a box I think I still have copies of an old article from the 1980's talking about such shielding, but I don't know how much research has gone into their design.
* I seemed to have missed news about the creation of the first "virtual nation" in space:
Later this week, Earth will communicate for the first time with a nation based solely in space. If you consider a tiny cubesat about the size of a toaster to be a nation, that is.Given recent publicity regarding what (some) men like to suddenly show to strangers, I do have to wonder if any nerd has yet put a photo of you-know-what appendage in orbit.
The small satellite goes by the name Asgardia-1 and makes up the entirety of the territory of the virtual nation of Asgardia, the pet project of Russian/Azerbaijani scientist and businessman Igor Ashurbeyli, an entrepreneur and investor with a Ph.D. in engineering. In his mind, Asgardia planted its flag in space when it launched from NASA's Wallops Island last month aboard an Orbital ATK Cygnus cargo spacecraft.
"From a legal standpoint, the satellite is the first sovereign territory of Asgardia nation," Ashurbeyli told me over the phone via a translator. ....
The digital nation in a box will then begin orbiting Earth, and when it starts transmitting about 30 minutes later, the self-proclaimed "space kingdom" will be the first off-earth territory to be officially open for business.
Asgardia is an unusual diplomatic, legal and philosophical experiment. For now, anyone can become a citizen by simply signing up online and agreeing to accept the official constitution, which adopts an official policy of pacifism and gives Ashurbeyli the first term as "Head of Nation," among other things.
He explains that each Asgardian citizen is also entitled to up to 300 kilobytes of storage on Asgardia-1. Asgardians are encouraged to upload photos, personal documents and other digital trinkets to establish their virtual residency in space.
Link to the Asgardian home page is here. I wonder if eventually they'll be issuing passports? Well, that's the plan:
I am tempted to get in early. Having a planetary passport might come in handy during an alien invasion, perhaps...Could you please explain passports and IDs?We are working on creating the Parliament, creating the government, and creating the banking system and the national currency SOLAR. The ID card at this point is the card that will be a fully protected, chip-integrated card that would eventually allow you – when they are available – to receive services Asgardia will provide, and to operate within the currency system.We will start issuing passports as booklets for traveling only when we have reached the recognition with other states as a state that they recognize Asgardia’s passport as a valid document for crossing national borders. We are very realistic, this is a long-term goal.IDs and passports would only be received in person. We are now asking everyone, and it’s at your own discretion, to fill in your profile. This data needs to be correct. When you decide to claim your documents, you would be asked to present yourself to the ambassador of Asgardia or a consul or a national representative (this title has not been decided upon yet). Documents are taken very seriously. In the long run, it is planned to have six permanent embassies around the world, per number of continents.
Thursday, December 07, 2017
How not to get out of politics gracefully
How much more spectacularly can Mark Latham embarrass himself? Literally kissing up to fellow professional troll, Milo Y, and now launching a fundraising campaign to keep Australia Day on 26 January. Fools and their money being easily parted, he's probably got a couple of thousand for that vital (ha) campaign already.
Actually, looking at that photo of Latham slobbering Milo, he (Mark) does physically resemble that Pepe frog character, no?
Actually, looking at that photo of Latham slobbering Milo, he (Mark) does physically resemble that Pepe frog character, no?
Twitter on fire
This tweet, and many like it, are currently to be found on Twitter:
Actually, it's not 100% clear to me that it has been confirmed that his house is actually on fire. But many Tweeters have their fingers crossed...
Actually, it's not 100% clear to me that it has been confirmed that his house is actually on fire. But many Tweeters have their fingers crossed...
So that explains it...
The headline: Frances Abbott shows off her engagement ring from weightlifting fiance Sam Loch
The picture to which I think it refers. (Sorry.)
The picture to which I think it refers. (Sorry.)
Just..not...funny (and likeability discussed)
I haven't seen alleged comedian Tom Ballard very often on TV, but on the occasions I have, I didn't recognize much sign of talent.
A month or two back, when the ABC was running promos of him as star of a new daily (for goodness sake!) half hour format of comedy news commentary, I meant to comment that it looked very amateurish - remember him swinging around on a chair with his hands in the air? Just looked like they didn't have a clue as to what to do to make a smart or witty promo.
I tried watching the actual show last night. Even the name ("Tonightly") has "lame" written all over it.
Truly, it was awful, and I still utterly fail to see that he has any natural talent as a comedian, or basic likeability, at all. A half hour of topical material every day is a big ask for him, and his writers, but honestly, if it's going to be as bad as this, it deserves not even trying.
Speaking of basic likeability: I don't know anything about how amateur chat show Aaron Cheng Tonight came to be made - it looked more like a university student media project than a serious effort at TV - but I have to say, Cheng and some of the others on the show did have an appealing, dag-ish likeability which made it watchable, even with a very high rate of joke failure.
And another show I have only recently started watching: Rosehaven. The leads are really good in their roles, I think. Not the funniest show on TV, but it's quite appealing in its way.
A month or two back, when the ABC was running promos of him as star of a new daily (for goodness sake!) half hour format of comedy news commentary, I meant to comment that it looked very amateurish - remember him swinging around on a chair with his hands in the air? Just looked like they didn't have a clue as to what to do to make a smart or witty promo.
I tried watching the actual show last night. Even the name ("Tonightly") has "lame" written all over it.
Truly, it was awful, and I still utterly fail to see that he has any natural talent as a comedian, or basic likeability, at all. A half hour of topical material every day is a big ask for him, and his writers, but honestly, if it's going to be as bad as this, it deserves not even trying.
Speaking of basic likeability: I don't know anything about how amateur chat show Aaron Cheng Tonight came to be made - it looked more like a university student media project than a serious effort at TV - but I have to say, Cheng and some of the others on the show did have an appealing, dag-ish likeability which made it watchable, even with a very high rate of joke failure.
And another show I have only recently started watching: Rosehaven. The leads are really good in their roles, I think. Not the funniest show on TV, but it's quite appealing in its way.
All Hail Google
Here's something I didn't realise 'til I looked it up last night, as I waited in a vast car parking area at 11.15 pm to collect a couple of teenage girls from a concert. (Don't worry, one was my daughter.)*
You can tell Google Maps to show your location to someone in your contacts, and just for a limited time.
A very helpful idea when trying to meet someone in an open, crowded area.
* I had heard people complaining before about the complete failure of the Brisbane Entertainment Centre and/or Council to work out a way to let the car park empty in less than about 75 minutes after a concert. Yes, it's all true. Hard to believe, really, given the way the centre is not far from two major roadways you can use to get into the city.
You can tell Google Maps to show your location to someone in your contacts, and just for a limited time.
A very helpful idea when trying to meet someone in an open, crowded area.
* I had heard people complaining before about the complete failure of the Brisbane Entertainment Centre and/or Council to work out a way to let the car park empty in less than about 75 minutes after a concert. Yes, it's all true. Hard to believe, really, given the way the centre is not far from two major roadways you can use to get into the city.
Back to Portugal
I see that The Guardian is running another article in praise of Portugal's drug policy. Surely Jason wouldn't be goading me by tweeting it?
As far as it goes, the article isn't too bad - it contains some nuance in its noting that the law reform (decriminalisation of personal use) was not the only thing that helped reduce the impact of illicit drugs in the country.
The thing is, the country switched suddenly from a very conservative view of prohibition and lack of support services to one in which the view of drug use as a public health problem gained primacy. But even then it's not exactly a libertarian approach, with users being able to referred to panels that may push them towards health services
But as for lessons for Australia - our governments have long been willing to address the public health aspects, including (as I have mentioned before) a methadone program available through pharmacies even in conservative stick Bjelke Peterson's Queensland in the early 1980's, if not before. Then, of course, there is needle exchange, and (to a very limited extent) safe injecting rooms. I would be surprised if many European countries had not followed the same path of making public health support available for those who want it, while maintaining prohibition on possession (but not making enforcement of that a priority.)
The answer to the question the article proposes "why hasn't the rest of the world followed Portugal" is therefore that, in many respects, they (more or less) were already there.
Given the involvement of drugs in cases of poverty in Australia (see Struggle Street), I remain as ever a cynic about the benefit of a full decriminalisation policy.
As far as it goes, the article isn't too bad - it contains some nuance in its noting that the law reform (decriminalisation of personal use) was not the only thing that helped reduce the impact of illicit drugs in the country.
The thing is, the country switched suddenly from a very conservative view of prohibition and lack of support services to one in which the view of drug use as a public health problem gained primacy. But even then it's not exactly a libertarian approach, with users being able to referred to panels that may push them towards health services
But as for lessons for Australia - our governments have long been willing to address the public health aspects, including (as I have mentioned before) a methadone program available through pharmacies even in conservative stick Bjelke Peterson's Queensland in the early 1980's, if not before. Then, of course, there is needle exchange, and (to a very limited extent) safe injecting rooms. I would be surprised if many European countries had not followed the same path of making public health support available for those who want it, while maintaining prohibition on possession (but not making enforcement of that a priority.)
The answer to the question the article proposes "why hasn't the rest of the world followed Portugal" is therefore that, in many respects, they (more or less) were already there.
Given the involvement of drugs in cases of poverty in Australia (see Struggle Street), I remain as ever a cynic about the benefit of a full decriminalisation policy.
A sudden Spielberg surprise
The director more talented than 10 Eastwoods, 20 Tarantinos, and 50 mentally disturbed Gibsons seems to have a critical success on his hands with The Post - currently getting 82 on the (much better than Rottentomatoes) Metacritic site. (A good sign: I see a couple of British reviewers liking it too.)
I have to admit, though: the trailer for it was not that inspiring. It does make it look very "old school", and as my handful of regular review readers will recall, I wasn't actually all that sold on The Bridge despite its strong reviews. But who knows - War Horse was very 50's Hollywood, and featured an animal I consider more-or-less evil, and yet it was pretty terrific.
So, I will attend with modest but hopeful expectations.
I have to admit, though: the trailer for it was not that inspiring. It does make it look very "old school", and as my handful of regular review readers will recall, I wasn't actually all that sold on The Bridge despite its strong reviews. But who knows - War Horse was very 50's Hollywood, and featured an animal I consider more-or-less evil, and yet it was pretty terrific.
So, I will attend with modest but hopeful expectations.
Wednesday, December 06, 2017
A pretty clear explanation of the quantum puzzle
Here, at the TLS, of all places, is a pretty good and succinct explanation of how quantum theory evolved, in the context of the contribution of Erwin Schrodinger. (His complicated love life was mentioned here before in a recent post - it gets a brief mention again in this article, too.)
Struggling through Struggle Street
Can't say that I exactly long to watch the SBS documentary/reality TV show Struggle Street, but I did last night, particularly interested because this season it featured a couple of Brisbane suburbs I have passing familiarity with.
I have to say, the four "strugglers" they featured last night really pushed the boundaries of sympathy:
* the 55 year old invalid pensioner woman who was being tossed out of the rented Inala house by the unappealing guy who had let her live with him. The cause for eviction was not well defined, and the bloke himself may well have been obnoxious, but one suspects that her filling up a couple of rooms of a small house with hoarder's quantities of dolls, ceramic butterflies, cheap stuffed toys and general junk might have had something to do with it. She also smokes inside the house (one of the apparent lessons of the show seems to be that no matter how badly off, those in poverty in Australia all manage to pay the exorbitant cost of tobacco), and for recreation she zooms around the suburb's footpaths in her mobility scooter (gifted to her by the Salvation Army) at what looked to be dangerous speed. She has three adult children, who don't live close, and indicated that she had a strained relationship with them due to her "meeting the wrong men" in the past, although there seemed to be details left hanging. (One suspects the men were abusive to her or her kids.)
At least she wasn't a drug addict, but a key theme seemed to be a life of "bad choices", including getting hooked on acquiring junk toys and trinkets because they make her feel better.
* The Melbourne former heroin addict who spent half a day trying to find where he had hidden the rent money, gave up and went to the community housing office to confess he had lost it while on an alcohol (and pot?) bender the day before, only to be told that he had in fact already paid it a couple of days before! He had completely forgotten, and made the observation that maybe he did do too much marijuana. (Well, duh.) He was a cheerful soul, who got out of his recently inherited late mother's car carrying a tall bottle of beer, and complained about his brother who lived in the Mum's house and with whom he was fighting about the estate.
This does not bode well. On the face of it, he will end up with half the value of the house in cash, and I would not have a great deal of confidence that the money won't go up in drugs of one kind or another.
He also indicated that, with his new set of false teeth, he expected to be pulling in the ladies soon. (That's another lesson of the show: no matter how poor and drug addicted your are, you'll be able to "pull" a partner with equally bad judgement. Unless you are actually living under a bridge, perhaps.)
* The most depressing scenario - the ice addicted mother and father of four kids living in a shelter in Inala. Him with biker friends, a criminal history (not sure for what), domestic violence orders, and seizures from his drug use, caught in his car with synthetic marijuana saying he wasn't aware it was illegal. The mother was apparently prone to screaming violent rages from the ice and confrontations with the husband, who was too "controlling". He did sound like a jerk, but she looked so unhealthy and self pitying, I again had trouble with feeling sympathy.
The worst thing of all, in a way, with parents like that is listening to their endless claims that they know they have to get clean and live straight, and they know that if they don't they're ruining things for their kids who they really, really, really love, and knowing they are no where near actually taking action. I don't know how social workers put up with listening to such guff that seems to go on for years before people might finally actually get clean.
And, of course, the other lesson from this is the sad fact that children (usually) still love the parents who they know are self destructive and don't want to be away from them. I did, of course, feel very sorry for them - although I would rather that the 16 year old wasn't already smoking too. (She complained she was sick of being the de facto mother to the two youngest, who looked like well behaved, even if stressed out.)
I'm not sure what exactly is the right way to feel about all of this: it's easy to have sympathy to people who are pure victims of misfortune (ill health, accident, crime); but it is so, so common that poverty is caused or accompanied by things you know can be overcome if sufficiently motivated - drug and alcohol addiction, bad choices in how money is spent, staying with partners who are clearly hurting prospects of improvement.
You can't stop people making bad choices at first, but when it comes to government and charitable intervention, it is with much chagrin that you have to watch the bad choices continuing.
I have to say, the four "strugglers" they featured last night really pushed the boundaries of sympathy:
* the 55 year old invalid pensioner woman who was being tossed out of the rented Inala house by the unappealing guy who had let her live with him. The cause for eviction was not well defined, and the bloke himself may well have been obnoxious, but one suspects that her filling up a couple of rooms of a small house with hoarder's quantities of dolls, ceramic butterflies, cheap stuffed toys and general junk might have had something to do with it. She also smokes inside the house (one of the apparent lessons of the show seems to be that no matter how badly off, those in poverty in Australia all manage to pay the exorbitant cost of tobacco), and for recreation she zooms around the suburb's footpaths in her mobility scooter (gifted to her by the Salvation Army) at what looked to be dangerous speed. She has three adult children, who don't live close, and indicated that she had a strained relationship with them due to her "meeting the wrong men" in the past, although there seemed to be details left hanging. (One suspects the men were abusive to her or her kids.)
At least she wasn't a drug addict, but a key theme seemed to be a life of "bad choices", including getting hooked on acquiring junk toys and trinkets because they make her feel better.
* The Melbourne former heroin addict who spent half a day trying to find where he had hidden the rent money, gave up and went to the community housing office to confess he had lost it while on an alcohol (and pot?) bender the day before, only to be told that he had in fact already paid it a couple of days before! He had completely forgotten, and made the observation that maybe he did do too much marijuana. (Well, duh.) He was a cheerful soul, who got out of his recently inherited late mother's car carrying a tall bottle of beer, and complained about his brother who lived in the Mum's house and with whom he was fighting about the estate.
This does not bode well. On the face of it, he will end up with half the value of the house in cash, and I would not have a great deal of confidence that the money won't go up in drugs of one kind or another.
He also indicated that, with his new set of false teeth, he expected to be pulling in the ladies soon. (That's another lesson of the show: no matter how poor and drug addicted your are, you'll be able to "pull" a partner with equally bad judgement. Unless you are actually living under a bridge, perhaps.)
* The most depressing scenario - the ice addicted mother and father of four kids living in a shelter in Inala. Him with biker friends, a criminal history (not sure for what), domestic violence orders, and seizures from his drug use, caught in his car with synthetic marijuana saying he wasn't aware it was illegal. The mother was apparently prone to screaming violent rages from the ice and confrontations with the husband, who was too "controlling". He did sound like a jerk, but she looked so unhealthy and self pitying, I again had trouble with feeling sympathy.
The worst thing of all, in a way, with parents like that is listening to their endless claims that they know they have to get clean and live straight, and they know that if they don't they're ruining things for their kids who they really, really, really love, and knowing they are no where near actually taking action. I don't know how social workers put up with listening to such guff that seems to go on for years before people might finally actually get clean.
And, of course, the other lesson from this is the sad fact that children (usually) still love the parents who they know are self destructive and don't want to be away from them. I did, of course, feel very sorry for them - although I would rather that the 16 year old wasn't already smoking too. (She complained she was sick of being the de facto mother to the two youngest, who looked like well behaved, even if stressed out.)
I'm not sure what exactly is the right way to feel about all of this: it's easy to have sympathy to people who are pure victims of misfortune (ill health, accident, crime); but it is so, so common that poverty is caused or accompanied by things you know can be overcome if sufficiently motivated - drug and alcohol addiction, bad choices in how money is spent, staying with partners who are clearly hurting prospects of improvement.
You can't stop people making bad choices at first, but when it comes to government and charitable intervention, it is with much chagrin that you have to watch the bad choices continuing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)