Pretty much agree

I wonder if this anecdote is true

I haven't followed the Guthrie story with any great care, but I never felt she seemed particularly impressive, and certainly seemed to be a bit all over the shop in terms of defence of the organisation at a time it needed strong pushback against culture war idiots in the Coalition.

I don't really like the changes that have taken place in ABC content under her leadership.   But if she had any hand in the cancellation of Tonightly, I'll give her credit for that...

Aldi's big adventure

I didn't read about this before:   a 19 year old gets stuck aboard a floating "fishing hut" and drifts from Indonesia to Guam before rescue:

Sort of cool, actually.  Read about it at NPR.

O M G

Bernard Keane is a TMBG fan too?:

I shouldn't be surprised:  I can imagine him liking Hopeless Bleak Despair, for example.   (It is a great song, typical of TMGB unique ability to make you feel happy about darkness.   Come to think of it - by rights they should be big in Mexico.   That Day of the Dead stuff is along similar lines.)

Netflix update

I'm sure readers are fascinated to know what I've been watching on Netflix recently:

*  Grimm:   a long running crime/fantasy series which I had never watched before, although I have a feeling it used to be on free to air TV.    (I can't be bothered watching  this type of show on commercial television any more - the week to week changeability of programming that's become its hallmark over the last couple of decades just means you can't get into a set weekly pattern of viewing like you used to.)

Anyhow,  I find this a pleasing enough show - the acting can be a little hammy, but its got a light touch and I see that it's actually filmed in the town where it is set - Portland, Oregon.  The frequent trips it makes into green forests and quaint looking suburban streets and houses do make it look like a nice part of the States.  (I half expected it would turn out to be shot in Canada, but no.)    Only into the first season so far:  it's not earth shattering but it's good enough to keep watching.

*  Fargo:   because my son started watching the first season without me, we've started watching together season 2.   Quite a lot to like - visually very cinematic, good acting and the same, dry sort of approach to character and humour as I recall from the movie.  (Which, incidentally, I never held in particularly high regard.  It was more-or-less harmless, but I never understood the strong critical enthusiasm.  I have only seen it once and have little interest in re-watching.)   It seems to me this show, or this season, is more enjoyable than the movie.  Good.

* Godless:  I had trouble convincing my son to watch it - he's not the biggest fan of the Western.  But the first episode last night was really impressive - again, the cinematic looks and fine acting (and some unexpected scenes - riding the horse into the church service was something you don't see in Westerns every day) all worked a treat.   Very happy so far.

*  American Horror Story:   I know it's a different story every series, but the season I first tried is unimpressive.   Won't continue after 2 episodes.

Returning soon:    The Good Place (yay!), and (I saw by accident last night) another series of the very under-watched Norsemen (comedy Vikings from Norway.  I don't know why it doesn't seem to be better known.) 

Yay for solar in hurricanes (and why aren't we floating solar?)

David Roberts has linked to two renewable stories that impress:

*  A report that despite having quite a lot of solar farms installed in North Carolina (again - a bit of a surprise that a conservative region in the US has been quietly going about installing renewables - would Judith Sloan and Alan Moran care to explain why it's happening in those parts of the US?), the solar farms seem to have come out of Hurricane Florence with little damage.

*    California is building some floating solar farms on water reservoirs.   Why aren't we?   Especially in South East Queensland, where the water cooling effect in summer may be welcome as a side effect.

More about Lachlan

I noted recently that I was surprised to read somewhere that Lachlan Murdoch was actually more conservative than his Dad Rupert. 

More detail on this is provided in The Guardian today.

I'm pretty sure, now that my memory is refreshed, that I had assumed he was not like his Dad because he had seemed to act with great haste on sacking Roger Ailes, the late sleazy head of Fox News.

But as The Guardian explains, there was likely bad blood between them going back years.  In fact, the article suggests that people think Lachlan is not one for overtly taking revenge, but take revenge he does.

So, I used to think things would improve re Fox News when Rupert died.   Now, all we have to hope for is some family wide tragedy instead.   Do Lachlan and Rupert ever take the same flight, I wonder?

Amateur, defaming detective at work

This really is a remarkably inane thing to do - but we're talking a Republican attorney here:  he's from a group that has hardly been showering itself in glory with its defence of all things Trump. 

I read the Tweet thread concerned because Jonathan Swan re-tweeted it, saying that lots of people in the White House were giving it close attention.  Then Swan realised that it was a ridiculously defaming thing to do (well,he called it irresponsible) and deleted it.   As did that NYT journo whose name I forget.

But Whelan has left them up.   It's like he's riding around Washington in the back of a pick up truck yelling through a bullhorn "So sue me!  I mean it - you, Sir, give me name so I can accuse you of attempted rape, and you'll be a million bucks richer!" 

  

China and privacy

A short article at MIT Technology Review tries to make the case that China's "big data" interest in social control may actually be a bit better than the more ultra-local forms of social control they used to be known for:

Better or worse than what?

China’s surveillance culture existed long before the rise of big data. In his book The Government Next Door, Luigi Tomba details how Chinese politics have been micromanaged at the neighborhood level. Residential communities are monitored by neighborhood committees performing semigovernmental functions: reporting dissent, resolving conflicts, and managing both petitions to the government and protests against it. These functions used to be the task of retired elderly women, whom the former Wall Street Journal reporter Adi Ignatius memorably called the “small-feet KGB.” (In traditional China, women had their feet bound at birth.) The question is whether monitoring and repression through impersonal technology is better or worse than these personal intrusions.

One of the most important roles of the small-feet KGB was to enforce China’s one-child policy. The Chinese fertility rate fell dramatically while the policy applied, from 1979 to 2015—a testament to the effectiveness of these personal surveillance tactics.

In ancient China, there was a joint liability system under which three to five households were linked together. If a member of one household committed an offense, all the households were punished. During the Cultural Revolution, punishments for political dissenters were routinely meted out to their immediate family members. The political system compensated for a lack of data on individual activities by deterring dissent broadly and harshly.

Big data would be a threat if Chinese citizens could be expected to have an abundance of political and civil liberties in its absence. But China is a repressive, authoritarian society with or without big data. Technology has made the repression more precise, but precise repression might be an improvement over indiscriminate repression.

The article also talks about how the Chinese have traditionally distrusted privacy as a concept:

One reason Chinese attitudes are different is that as recently as the 1980s, the word “privacy” had negative connotations in China. Chinese norms are anchored in 2,000 years of a Confucian culture that values the intensity of interpersonal relationships. One way to solidify those relationships is through transparency and full disclosure. A circumstance that triggers secrecy is typically an unsavory one. If something is good, why not tell us? Privacy in this context was equated with preserving a dirty secret. To be private was to be antisocial.

 The point is made that the wide surveillance now underway may be changing that.

Message for monty

I don't even know that you drop in here much anymore, but I see you are trying to have a debate with someone who thinks that the world is about to be saved by energy to be mined from the quantum vacuum or some such, who seemingly thinks that the Kansas Laffer experiment was not a failure - despite the fact that Republicans themselves reversed it.   Could you ask him why that happened? 

I am also dying for someone - anyone - amongst Lizzie's myriad admirers to raise the slightest doubt about the wisdom of repeatedly  leaving her children to the care of nannies (or whoever) in Australia while she and her rich husband take extended overseas holidays - this one for 3 months.  Parenting over Skype is not quite the same as being there...

A word that makes me reach for my (imaginary) revolver

An article in the SMH by the NSW education minister (a Liberal too!) talking about concerns regarding teacher education standards (my bold):

Both the government (as the largest employer of teachers in the state) and current teachers and principals (as guardians of the profession) have a legitimate expectation that universities produce graduates who are capable of making significant contributions to the pedagogical landscape.

Hey Minister:  you could improve the public's confidence that you are on the right path by not adopting the professional jargon by which self serving (and Left leaning) teachers who teach teachers have sought to increase their status. 

Politics is kinda weird in America

Can you imagine another other county where parties rush into PR campaigns like this to defend their Supreme Court nominee of choice?:

Speaking of weird politics:   why on Earth would our new PM think it wise, or funny, to imitate the dumbest, most character deficient world leader by doing this:

I just can't see Morrison's PR flim flam winning over voters.  

Election please...

Jaws Lite - Just what the Whitsundays didn't need

I've been feeling sorry for the Whitsunday Islands for years - resorts closing down even before cyclones came and tore them up, people who invested money there 30 years on the assumption that it would always be popular getting burnt.   And now, two shark attacks in 24 hours.

Rather unusual.

The remarkably increasingly popular Japan

From a BBC story about a couple of YouTube stars (who I had occasionally looked at before), I get this:

Global interest and international visitors could have something to do with it. Tourism numbers are rising at lightning speed – 250% between 2012 and 2017. The World Tourism Organization says that Japanese tourism has seen six straight years of double-digit growth, with a record 28 million foreign visitors travelling to Japan within the last year, a figure especially powered by China. The government aims to attract 40 million visitors in 2020 for the Tokyo Olympics.

YouTube content from the country has also been on the up and up:

The rise in J-vlogging is part of a bigger trend: YouTube is more popular in Japan than ever. “The hours of content uploaded from YouTube channels in Japan has more than doubled between 2016 and 2017,” says Marc Lefkowitz, YouTube’s head of creator and artist development for Asia-Pacific.

Its popularity is well deserved.  

Another maybe, possibly, useful line of Alzheimer's research

From Ed Yong in The Atlantic:

Wiping Out the Brain’s Retired Cells Prevents a Hallmark of Alzheimer's

Don't what to be there when the big one happens again

A brief note at Nature News explains that if the Himalayas have a repeat of the very big earthquakes of the 16th century, the death toll today (due to population rise) could be huge:

A quake in the western Himalayas in 1555 may have been as large as magnitude 8. Today, a quake of this magnitude could kill 221,000 people and injure 884,000. Meanwhile, the 1505 earthquake that struck the central Himalayas may have measured as much as magnitude 8.7. A repeat could kill 599,000 people and injure more than one million. 

Australia going in the right direction

The Guardian notes that in the UK, immunisation rates are going slightly in the wrong direction:

Data from NHS Digital revealed the proportion of children receiving the MMR vaccine by the age of two fell to 91.2% in England in 2017-18, from 91.6% the year before. The figures showed 87.2% of five-year-olds had received both MMR vaccines, well below the 95% recommended by the World Health Organization.

I wondered how Australia compared, and it's pretty good:

In 2016-17, 93.5 per cent of Australian five year olds were fully immunised, this is up from from 92.9 per cent in 2015-16 and 90.0 per cent in 2011-12. The national target is 95 per cent.

So for 5 year olds, we're a full 6% higher rate of immunisation.

A little surprisingly, it would seem that US rates of MMR vaccination for up to 35 months old kids is 91.9%.  Close to the UK rate.

Still, Australia does vaccination pretty well.

I'm suffering from an urge...

...to reach through the screen and hit this plate from below, with an upwards and backwards trajectory:

Mad as Hell's satiric perfection

The Liberal Party having provided Mad as Hell's writers and actors an embarrassment of riches to work with, I had high hopes for  tonight's series return, and they were more than met.

It was spectacularly funny, smart writing and performance:  a perfect episode where not a line was out of place.  The opening segment was especially great - I hope it appears on YouTube sometime.

Go watch it on iView if you missed it...

Pill testing and the limits of hedonism

OK, I have to admit, no matter the low regard in which I hold his work now:  my initial inclination was to agree with Tim Blair on the question of pill testing and the open drug taking culture of music festivals.

I see Bolt has done some editorial on it as well, but I don't know what position he eventually came to.

Meanwhile, of course, I've noted the vast swathe of Left leaning journalists and commentators who are appalled that conservatives don't want to just admit that the yoof will never stop dropping E and God knows what else at raves, and the war on drugs has never worked, and look at Europe where pill testing is working, etc etc.

Having surveyed a lot of pieces about this, I'm somewhat torn.   It will be too much work to link to everything, but here are my impressions:

* of course I sympathise with the conservative take that an open slather attitude to all drug taking encourages hedonistic indulgence which should not be endorsed.  (An explanation of the pragmatic conservative approach to wanting to chemically adjust mood follows).   [Update:  I also meant to mention that in the comments following a Guardian pro pill testing piece, there was a surprisingly high number of readers saying - just don't do drugs.  Given the non-conservative readership of that paper, it certainly indicates that even for Lefties, this issue is pushing the limits of toleration for demands to make hedonism safer.]

* on the other hand, harm minimisation is often an appropriate component of the response to public health issues, and I can see how it is not implausible that rigorous pill testing could save some lives in some circumstances;

*  however, the state of research on pill testing at festivals seems pretty limited and much of it seems pretty anecdotal in nature.  For example, you have people who watched the testing regime saying that some pills were dumped when the intended consumer were told that they had a dangerous ingredient.   But the research on how attendees view pill testing is often based on survey results which I am not sure are all that trustworthy, and the overall research on the effect in terms of long term reduction of deaths and hospitalisations seems pretty thin, really.   (It is, probably, a hard thing to research, given the variability of the illicit drug market from year to year.)

* drug legalisation proponents - like Alex Wodak - have always been so wildly pro harm reduction that I don't trust their advocacy at all.   It's like euthanasia - if you want to convince me, don't even think of bringing obsessive Phil Nietzsche into the debate.

* not all harm minimisation is the same, and you can draw pragmatic lines:  for example, I don't think it is hypocritical to support heroin safe injecting rooms and not endorse pill testing for other drugs.  The heroin addict has a real need to get the drug for avoidance of feeling awful and not being able to function; the party goer faces no similar down side of not taking their preferred temporary high.

* I do, once again, wish that those who think illicit drugs are simply inevitable in society would at least acknowledge that it's not impossible to imagine a functioning, rich, basically successful society where the drugs are limited to the old standbys of alcohol and tobacco - because in fact you do have a few, modern examples which are pretty much exactly like that - Japan, Singapore and (to a lesser extent - but crucial because of it being a Western society example) Sweden.   Young folk of those nations are not throwing themselves off tall buildings because life is not worth living if you can't go to a rave every second week and hug strangers under the influence of ecstasy.  Can you admit that, drug softies? 

* the practical advantage of societies with one crucial, good time, legal drug (hello, alcohol, and Japan) is that its medical effects both temporary and long term are very well known and understood.  You can target public health messaging accordingly, and set up treatment using well understood methods and drugs.   One of the unacknowledged things that drug legalisation advocates never talk about is that the state of research on the brain effects of  illicit pleasure is at a much, much less advanced stage, and it's kind of irritating that there even needs to be research on stuff that the cool kids are taking for purely hedonistic reasons and just because mere alcohol is not enough for them.


* I could fully endorse pill testing at festivals if it were done on some placebo sort of basis.   Just lie, testers ("oh wow, that's really bad - rat poison chemical in those"), or hand out substitute sugar pills pretending that they are from a stash that someone surrendered and, in an act of generosity, let the testers give out as a safe substitute.   Given what we know of placebo effect, half of the users will probably feel at least a bit high from them anyway...