System failure of the worst kind

This guy (who stalked and shot his teenage kids in their house, following the daughter from her bus to find out where they lived) just sounds like he lived his entire life as a dangerous sociopath (but of the kind who could con women into having relationships with him):

Police records showed the man who shot and killed his two teenage children in a domestic assault in Sydney’s northern suburbs had been violent towards or stalked four prior domestic partners and one of his other children.

In 2010, John Edwards was refused a gun licence due to a prior AVO, the coronial inquest into the deaths heard on Monday.

But despite a long history of stalking and assault charges registered on the central police system known as the “COPS” database, Edwards was able to successfully apply in 2017 for a “Commissioners Permit” to undergo gun safety training at Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai gun clubs...

The inquest into the deaths of John, Jack and Jennifer Edwards has heard Edwards had an extraordinary relationship history, leaving behind six partners before Olga and 10 children in total.

Police interviewed all but one of the former partners, and found Edwards had a constant pattern of violence, control and stalking. Several former partners and one of his children had made police reports over decades.

Olga herself had reported two incidents to police, including an incident in February 2017, when she had been separated from Edwards for a year, and he stalked her in her "hot" yoga class....

Ms Richardson also told the inquest that Ku-ring-gai Pistol Club refused Edwards membership in 2016 after he was threatening to an officer of the club.

The Ku-ring-gai club informed the Hornsby Gun Club it had refused Edwards membership but did not let any authorities know. Edwards, who owned five firearms, completed his training at St Marys gun club, which had no knowledge of his history.

Doesn't this indicate that the system should be capable of being marked "guns to be surrendered and never to be obtained again"?

The singing tyrants

OK, so there's a reasonable chance you've seen it elsewhere, but I think it's only been out for less than a week, and I thought it was pretty interesting:



The most realistic looking thing about it (in my opinion) is the way their heads bob around.

I think I have linked to the original post of it, so it will presumably stay up, as I notice it is being taken down elsewhere.

People are suggesting that it shows what "deep fake" videos can do, and a lot of very serious people worry that politics is going to have a lot of trouble dealing with the poisonous effect of deep fake propaganda in future.

Call me too optimistic, perhaps; but if what fake videos can do is highlighted by examples such as this, doesn't it make it more likely that people will be more sceptical of  online propaganda using any form of video?   Not sure that I can convincingly make that case out when there are literally millions of Americans (nearly all Republicans) who at least partially believe in the ludicrous QAnon conspiracies - but perhaps with conspiracy and propaganda it's somewhat perversely the case that the lowest tech communication (simple text messages) promulgates the best?   All people have to believe is that such messages come from an insider - they don't have to speculate about whether the image, video or voice has been faked or manipulated on the way.       

Nick Cohen being sensible

I have been saying a similar thing for at few years now:

I once believed that you should fight the extreme right and extreme left “at the same time and for the same reasons”. The phrase had a fine sound to it, even if I say so myself, and it remains true enough. Anyone who has witnessed the public shaming of those who deviate from approved leftish ideology will find Boris Johnson’s attempts to purge the cabinet and civil service of all who disagree with him familiar. The politics may be different but the oppressive spirit is the same.

But in this terrible year, it is worth saying that moral equivalence is not the same as practical equivalence. As the world stands, the fight against the radical right is a fight for the preservation of liberal democracy. The fight against the far left is a fight for justice for the individual denied the freedom to express his or, and more frequently today, her opinions without post-Stalinist inquisitors demanding she confesses her ideological crimes or lose her job.

Both fights are essential but the difference in scale is so enormous it barely makes sense to put them in the same category.

He should also have mentioned climate change...

Reviews you didn't need

*  I've not finished it yet, but I can fully understand why the second season of Umbrella Academy has been so popular on Netflix.   It's terrifically directed, and the story is flowing with far fewer angsty relationship diversions than the first season, which did drag at times.   It's overall much wittier, too.    A very enjoyable bit of comic book based nonsense.  
*  How's this for a late review:  finally got around to watching Mulholland Drive on the weekend.   I thought I had read years ago that the movie was capable of making sense, but I didn't work it out for myself and had to go check on Reddit for the explanation.   It does have strong Twin Peaks vibes,  and I had forgotten that it had started out as another TV project that was converted into a movie.   Unfortunately, I have to say that the overall impression it gave me was that David Lynch was quite overrated - Twin Peaks was fun and enjoyable in its day, but his movie work doesn't really do much for me.   He really did make Los Angeles look like a physically unattractive dump in virtually every interior and exterior shot - perhaps that was revenge for his "creative differences" with the business at the time?  Another thing the movie made me realise (again) was how extraordinarily tame by modern standards R rated movies of even a couple of decades ago could be in pornographic and violent content.  We can all blame the internet and modern video games for that...

A good answer from Biden

Have a look at this short clip.   As someone on Twitter says about his answer:

Trump campaign taking on water

I get the impression there is probably panic developing inside the Trump campaign for the following reasons:

*  sufficient polling seems to be coming out now to conclude that the GOP convention did not lead to any substantial improvement for Trump;

*  Trump's popularity within what you would normally consider the natural ally of any "law and order" President - the military - seems to have taken a substantial hit from which it is unlikely to recover.

Remember I said when the RussianS paying for hits on American troops story came out that I thought it was going to important?   Although it did quickly disappear off the news radar, I still reckon it may have been important for hurting the military's regard for him, as was shown by the recent polling indicating that he had lost popularity there.  Now that credible reporting is out that he privately has the most ridiculously selfish view of military service [confirmed by a Fox News correspondent, no less!], I can't see his popularity with those who he was probably hoping would back him in a post election crisis over disputed election results will ever be returning.

Truth be told, the upper reaches of the Pentagon would have been privately grinding their teeth from day one about what a complete ignoramus he is, but it has taken some time for the dismissive view of him to filter down to lower ranks.  

Even the kerfuffle about whether Stars and Stripes would close looks bad for Trump.  He has said it will not close, but the timing of the suggestion it would close within weeks looks very peculiar.  

*  The Trump open encouragement for his supporters to vote twice smells of desperation. 

*  Trump's judgement in what to say about real or virtual dictators who kill their political enemies remains as "off" as ever.   I know it won't matter to his cult followers, who are blind and dumb, but surely Trump's campaigners don't think this is a useful line to be running in a week when another Russian poisoning of an opposition politician is confirmed:

At a small campaign rally in Latrobe, Pa., President Trump on Thursday praised himself for wanting to “get along” with Russia and said that when he hears people talking about Russia in the news he “turns it off.”

“They always say, ‘Trump is radical, he is off the — he is too radical, he will get us in wars,’” Mr. Trump said. “I kept you out of wars. What happened in North Korea? I got along with Kim Jong-un. They said that’s terrible. It’s good that I get along. If I get along with Russia, is that a good thing or bad thing? I think it’s a good thing.”

*  That said, it is a worry that the electoral college seems so skewed now that Biden may have to win the popular view by a really substantial margin to be sure of getting enough electoral college votes.

Family performance

Given that I lack any ability at all with musical instruments, and even the simplest sheet music may as well be hieroglyphics to me, I find it particularly remarkable that I have a daughter (rapidly approaching the end of Year 12) who can now play pieces like this on her violin (no visuals, just the audio):



There is one other piece she played recently that I might upload too.   

Otters as pets

Apparently, Youtube channels devoted to pet otters have become a thing in the last year or so.   They are very cute to watch, if this one is anything to go by:



A 2019 article in Nature Conservation discussed the trend:

In response to growing reports of otters in the pet trade, and suggestions that the popularity of pet otters on social media may be driving demand, we collated YouTube videos of pet otters to test for trends in the number of videos published, their exposure (number of views) and popularity. We used English-language search terms to provide a global overview, as well as local language search terms for four South East Asian countries identified as being of potential importance in the pet otter trade (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam), and Japan. We found that not only had the number of videos depicting pet otters increased in the last two to three years (2016–2018), but that their popularity and/or engagement had also increased. Notwithstanding some country-level differences in the details of effects observed, the greatest increases in both the number of videos produced and their popularity occurred in Indonesia and Japan. At a global-level, commercial “viral” video sites appeared to be influential in terms of posting highly popular pet otter videos. At a national level, potentially influential videos tended to be produced by four or five individual otter owners....

Our results show an increase in social media activity that may not only be driving the apparent increase in popularity, but also amplifying awareness of the availability of these animals as pets, as well as creating and perpetuating the (erroneous) perception of otters as a suitable companion animal. At a global level, there are welfare concerns associated with otters in the pet trade, and, in South East Asia specifically, there are serious conservation concerns.

 As cute as Aty the otter is in the video above, I would have thought the cost of feeding an otter fish would be enough disincentive from trying to have one as a pet.   (But then again, we know the huge cost of feeding lions and tigers hasn't stopped people keeping them as "pets" in all sorts of countries.) 

Worst Attorney General

Greg Sargent at Washington Post on why Barr is such a dangerous jerk (short version - he buys into the Right's decades' long, culture war inspired, escalation of anything to the left of them as the absolute evil enemy of everything good in the world) :

Barr gave a shocking interview to CNN late Wednesday that left zero doubt about his intentions. Barr refused to denounce Trump’s suggestion that people should try to illegally vote twice (by mail and in person), supposedly to test vote-by-mail’s validity. Trump brazenly repeated this on Thursday.

Barr also repeated his frequent claims that vote-by-mail elections have been riddled with fraud and that a foreign power could fabricate thousands of mail ballots. Both are utter nonsense. But in saying them, Barr is telegraphing his willingness to legitimize Trump’s eventual effort to try to invalidate untold numbers of mail ballots, which Trump has already told us is coming.

Meanwhile, Barr is party to another extraordinary move: Trump just approved a memo declaring the intention to restrict federal funding to Democratic-led cities designated as “anarchist jurisdictions.” Barr will determine which cities earn this label.

This is being widely denounced as illegal, and it may go nowhere. But let’s focus on its stated rationale: A city will be designated as such if it has “permitted violence and the destruction of property” and “forbids the police force from intervening to restore order.”

The idea that these officials have deliberately allowed violence and restrained police from restoring order is crucial. In reality, officials are working amid extremely complex, fast-moving conditions to balance the restoration of order and public safety with respect for civil liberties and peaceful assembly, while (ideally) avoiding abuse of the awesome powers of state violence....

Here's the more general point:

Trump’s reelection case is premised on not just on the idea that Joe Biden and Democrats are too weak to control leftist violence. It’s also that they are willingly allowing those forces to run rampant, in the full knowledge that they are out to destroy the very possibility of civil society itself.

Both Trump and Barr have delivered major speeches spelling out this worldview. Commemorating Independence Day, Trump likened his own struggle against “the radical left, the Marxists, the anarchists” to the struggle to defeat fascism in World War II.

Trump is at war with the left, to rescue civil society itself. He recently declared: “We’re saving the world from a radical left philosophy that will destroy this country.”

For his part, Barr, speaking to the Federalist Society last November, infamously declared that “it is the left” that poses the true threat to the “rule of law,” through a “scorched earth, no-holds barred” war against Trump.

Barr also voiced support for a strong executive, unshackled by oversight and legal nitpicking, declaring that it has delivered glory at moments of great national struggle against fascism, communism and “Islamic fascism,” which elevates the war on terror into an epic civilizational showdown. As Laura Field details, Barr belongs to a movement of “reocons,” or authoritarian reactionary conservatives.

Indeed, Barr is drawing on a long tradition of “anti-liberalism,” which is hostile to liberal democracy in part precisely because it doesn’t cast politics as a perpetual emergency struggle against an overarching enemy, and instead values proceduralism and compromise, which sap the moral will and decisiveness of the polity.

Barr did not explicitly declare the war against the left akin to the war with fascism. But Trump has. And by labeling the left an existential threat to the rule of law alongside a paean to the glory of the executive unfettered at times of crisis, he creeps right up to the precipice of this claim....

 Barr’s grotesque exaggerations of the leftist threat help give Trump justification for urging right-wing vigilantes to take matters into their own hands, lawlessly.

Good analysis.

Some COVID thoughts

*  the Victorian lockdown certainly seems to show, again, that strict lockdowns work;

*  there seems to be surprisingly infrequent polling on whether Dan Andrews and his government are suffering in popularity over this.   Polling back on 11 August indicated 70-something percent support for the current lockdown;  perhaps it has eroded a bit since then?  On the other hand, as case numbers come down, and it seems to work, I wouldn't be surprised if support is still pretty high.   We need to know, so (if public support is still high) we can gloat at the tiny fists being waved about in anger at Catallaxy about this is the worst civil rights crisis ever.  Sinclair just loves to go all civil/property rights on matters which kill and sicken people (in favour of the thing that will sicken them), just as he did with tobacco plain packaging. 

*  news about the possible long term effects of COVID infection on the heart is pretty worrying; except to the likes of Adam Creighton, for whom there is no hill high enough to die on over this.

*  Fauci is never coming back into Trump's (or his cult's) "good books".  No one sensible would ever want to be there, anyway.

The French method

I followed a link to an article in The Economist about a big new university in France, and read this  explanation as to rather different way they do tertiary education:

A HUGE MODERNIST university campus is emerging amid farmland on a plateau south of the French capital. The University of Paris-Saclay, officially launched this year, merges some 20 higher-education and research institutions. It has a teaching and research staff of 9,000, catering to 48,000 students—more than Harvard or Stanford. Specialised in science, it is France’s attempt to create, in President Emmanuel Macron’s words, an “MIT à la française”. Such ambition once seemed fanciful. Yet in August Paris-Saclay stormed into the Shanghai world university ranking, grabbing 14th place overall and 3rd in Europe after Cambridge and Oxford. It took the top international spot in maths.

France’s two-tier higher-education system baffles outsiders. Three-fifths of its 2.7m students are enrolled in universities. These are public. Until recently they did not select undergraduates at entry; they charge no tuition bar a small enrolment fee, and are often sneered at as second-rate. An elite minority, meanwhile, attend selective grandes écoles, for which entrance exams require at least two years of post-secondary-school cramming. To confuse matters further, research is traditionally not carried out in universities or grande ecoles but in specialised public institutions.

Over the years, this unusual structure has led to much French frustration about foreign perceptions. The country has world-class engineering schools, economics departments and mathematicians. After America, France has more Fields medal-winners for maths than any other country. Yet its fragmented system—partly down to the deliberate splitting of big universities after the 1968 student protests—has left it under-performing in world rankings and lacking global star appeal.

I had no idea the French were so into maths.   [At this point, I'm tempted to make a reference to menage a trois, but will leave that to actual comedians.]

Anyway, it looks like a successful merger.

 

Public service announcement from the Republican Party

(There's a near 100% chance that someone else has already done this on Twitter, but I haven't seen it yet.)

A small Hollywood story

One of the few entertainment industry persons I follow on Twitter is Ed Solomon, who wrote Men in Black, amongst other movies.  (He did the Bill & Ted adventure movies too - the third of which has just been released to mostly favourable reviews.)

He reminisces about the MIB movie quite a bit, and how it changed from his initial ideas after discussion with director Barry Sonnenfeld (whose taste in comedy has also appealed to me across quite a few movies).  Anyway, this tweet amused me:

 
I have to say, I remember when I first saw MIB at the cinema, this reveal really did strike a particular note of pleasure because of the way it reminded me of science fiction-y fantasies I sometimes imagined as a child.   I am sure it is a key part of the reason why the movie has been regarded with deep affection by so many people.  

Pop culture notes

Well, I can only welcome this news:

You see, to annoy my son, who feared the Youtube app on the TV would be flooded with K Pop recommendations, I watched the Dynamite clip twice in the last week.  (I wanted to see it anyway, to see why it became the fastest instant hit in Youtube viewing history.)

Ignoring the aspect of the deliberately androgynous styling of some (or all?) in the group (and also ignoring the terrible, exploitative conditions that apparently most K Pop group members have to work under), I think the song is pleasant enough pop, and sounds to my ear rather Bruno Mars-ish.   (My daughter agreed when I pointed this out.)  It is, at the very least, harmless.

Which is more than I can say for the that WAP song, which I could have ignored if it weren't for noticing the ill advised entry of annoying twerp Ben Shapiro into criticism of it.

Apart from what whiny conservative male voices (and in the case of Shapiro, I mean that very literally) have had to say about it, there has been a broader discussion of the dubious merits of "feminist empowerment" by trash talking and acting as badly as men.  See this thread in Reddit for example:

It's had 1,600 or so comments, which is good. (Mind you, a lot are trying to change her mind.)

Anyway, it's good to see that happy, all ages friendly K Pop should have knocked ultra sleazy, surely- you-do-not-want-your-daughter-(or-son)-thinking-of-sex-like-this WAP off the top position.   (No sexual pun intended, either.)

Going back to K Pop:  while I think I made some comment here a few years ago that it seemed that K Pop was really upping the androgynous style, I see that the topic of why this is a thing has been discussed on line for years.

Someone speaking in an article in 2013 suggested this, and it sounds more-or-less plausible:

I think that, according to Western expectations of gender, the overwhelming majority of male K-pop idols would be considered androgynous. But I don’t know that that has to do with K-pop challenging the gender binary. I think this has a lot to do with the “objectifiability” of K-pop idols, as is the fetishization of cuteness. Part of femininity as a social construct in nearly every culture are passivity, perceived weakness, harmlessness, and allure based on the preferences of the observer. And, of course, with cuteness, you have a performance of childishness, a major feature of which is a lack of agency. K-pop idols are someone else’s moneymaker whose worth is based on the ability to be non-threatening fantasy fodder for their audience, which translates into money spent. No wonder nearly EVERYONE in K-pop is what the West would consider hyper-feminized (women, too). This isn’t unique to K-pop. Teen heartthrobs in the West tend to be more feminine, as they have to appear innocuous and available for objectification too.

An article in 2018 notes:

That wasn't always the case. In the 1980s and 90s the salaryman was the prevailing male aesthetic. Suits, luxury watches and a traditional strong male look were the norm. Korea has mandatory national service and that moulded and defined what men thought would look appealing.

"In the 80s and 90s, men in Korean pop content were largely portrayed as tough guys in gangster and detective films, and rebellious young men in some TV dramas," says Sun Jung, the author of Korean Masculinities and Transcultural Consumption.

But all that changed in the mid-1990s when music group Seo Taeji and The Boys came onto the scene, says Prof Elfving-Hwang. They used rap, rock and techno influences and incorporated English language into their music.

They kick-started fan culture which has now become a major force in the music industry, she says.

Then followed the big entertainment companies churning out K-pop girl bands and boy bands, and their influence has been like nothing before it.

Yes, well, it is interesting to wonder how much of this is driven by the entertainment companies dictating taste.  More from that last article:

"Compared to the 80s and 90s, now there are a lot more soft masculinities - pretty boy images and gentle male images - represented in media, and consumers welcome and widely consume them," says Dr Sun Jung.

They came to be known as Khonminam - combining the words for flower and a beautiful man. She says it takes inspiration from similar concepts in Japan of bishonen or beautiful boys and Shojo manga - girls comics.
 1
But it's not feminine.

"I think the phenomenon should rather be explained through the notion of hybrid or versatile masculinity - soft yet manly at the same time - which is different from effeminised," says Dr Jung.

She cites Song Joong-ki, the star of hugely popular Korean drama "Descendants of the Sun" as the embodiment of this. He may be a khonminam in his look, but as a special forces captain in the military he is also a tough guy.

It goes on to discuss beauty products aimed at young men too, and God knows that there are a lot more of that on the shelves of Japan than Australia.

Anyway, I still think it is all pretty peculiar - a culture specific fashion trend that has been around for longer than I would have expected; even though, as noted above, Western acts aiming at a teen female audience have long de-emphasised masculine features too.   But it's as if something of dubious fashion merit, like 70's glam rock, perhaps, lasted 20 years instead of (what?) 10?   

Up, through the at-mos-phere, up, where the air is clear...

Gawd, you would have felt sick to the stomach if you saw this live, but it all has a happy ending:

Tweets noted

Actually, I am less pessimistic than the last tweeter, but I could be proved wrong....

A useful summary

My only quibble - 5 decades seems a tad longer than I thought:

Particularly apt illustration for how the Bird brain, such that it is, works

Poor reviews

My impression from Twitter is that not only did all liberals think that the Trump speech was flat and way too long, but so did the frequent Trump apologist Brit Hume on Fox.   I assume that it really was flat, then.  (I saw bits and pieces, and it is no surprise to me that it is getting this sort of comment.)

Yet look at the headline on the Washington Post on line headline:

which gives the impression that it was an energetic speech.

I am very much on side with those media critics who are getting ropeable again that the mainstream press is not doing more caning of Trump for his abuse of his position, but are "two sides-ing" the parties again.

What have they got to lose by calling out a wannabe dictator as a wannabe dictator?  He already tells his followers they are the "enemy of the people" - itself an extraordinary undemocratic and dangerous attitude that should never have been normalised by resigned acceptance of its repetition.

To be clear:  the Washington Post routinely carries pages of strong Trump criticism, including of this speech.   But it shouldn't be giving a false impression in its main headline choice.  

Unsubtle symbolism

So, not only did a President use the White House and the Presidential seal for a party political convention, he also got to use a huge amount of (I assume) public land to launch a 4th July worthy fireworks display around the most obviously phallic monument in America.   

(Look, I don't normally think of the Washington Monument as phallic, but in the context of a narcissistic, trash talking, thinks-he's-real-masculine-but-probably-needs-Viagra President, I don't think this is an unwarranted take on the symbolism.)  

Update:  Heh -

Encouraging violence for political purposes

Good article at WAPO about how it is 100% clear that Republicans have no incentive to hope that community violence calms down rapidly, as it suits them politically:

At the Republican convention, one speaker after another claimed America’s cities have descended into chaos, which is not the fault of the current president but shows how much worse things will get under Biden, who is a supposed captive of radical forces unleashed inside the Democratic Party.

Some on the right are so convinced this will be effective that they haven’t shied away from cozying up to vigilante violence. Speaking about 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, a Trump supporter who traveled to Kenosha with his AR-15 and has been charged with killing two protesters, Fox News host Tucker Carlson said: “How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?”

That’s extraordinary, not only for its seemingly understanding tone toward the alleged vigilante murder of protesters but also in its depiction of a country in total civil collapse.  And while the Trump campaign distanced itself from the killings, this points to an extraordinary level of confidence (or feigned confidence) on the right in the power of all this imagery to help Trump.

Apparently, Biden has been making the point about the cynicism of this, but not enough are hearing it:

For instance, on MSNBC Thursday, Biden responded directly to Vice President Pence’s claim at the convention that “the hard truth is, you won’t be safe in Joe Biden’s America.” Biden said: “The problem we have right now is, we’re in Donald Trump’s America.” Biden added that Trump is “rooting for more violence, not less.”

The “Donald Trump’s America” formulation makes the simple point that Trump is the problem. Trump promises only more violence and searing divisions because he thinks those things are good for him and he doesn’t care about anyone but himself.

But he has to push harder as being the one capable of bringing calmer times:

Biden has repeatedly condemned the violence, of course, despite all the lies to the contrary. And the Biden bet is that he’s intuitively understood as a creature of the center, giving him more leeway to speak frankly to the country about how systemic racism and police brutality unleash rage and grief that is understandable and calls for serious reform — and that voters are sophisticated enough to hear this.

Central to that bet, though, is the idea that Trump is widely seen as a uniformly destructive, instigating, malevolent force. This provides an opening for Biden and Harris to argue that their offer of balance — taking the protesters’ grievances seriously while condemning violence — holds out the promise of peace, where Trump only offers more chaos and devastation. And Conway just helped Democrats build that case.

 

Presenting live from the White Palace, King Trump, watched on by Prince Don, Prince Eric and Princess Ivanka

Update:

Come on, Biden

I've been saying this for a while, but with the latest escalation in violence related to a police shooting, why isn't Biden doing a speech for national TV calling for calm and addressing specifically how the situation should be addressed.

A federal government cannot solve all of the problems, but he can make sensible proposals and call for national unity to de-escalate the situation.     All Trump and his supporters are doing is telling people there is no significant problem with policing and race, and encouraging more rednecks to join in.   Biden ought to be able to make political gain as being the one who can help calm the nation.

Military event noted

I've read some tweets about Melania Trump's robotic, look at the audience as little as possible, speech in the newly de-flowered and de-tree'd Rose Garden, and still haven't seen anyone saying how her dress looked a lot to me like a version of a khaki military coat.  Surely someone else has noticed:

I would say it suited the whole Our Glorious Leader is Endorsed by the Military vibe of the proceedings, which many are noting is inappropriate if not actually illegal.

Steve Kates would be drolling in his porridge in excitement, though, I bet.

A broken blog

Huh.  If I am not mistaken, Sinclair Davidson's Ship for Old (and occasionally middle aged) Fools (Catallaxy) is broken.  It hasn't worked completely right for many weeks, actually.  

In any event, it's become pretty much unreadable since COVID struck - full of rage against Dan Andrews, continual denial of the seriousness of the disease, the most grovelling Trump admiration, and even internal fighting over whether some of the most hysterical commenters have really gone too hysterical this time.   Not to mention one younger nut who posts about his personal involvement in the "resistance" to the Victorian lockdown, but sounds half the time like he's on cocaine.   Didn't some anti lockdown protesters get arrested yesterday?  With any luck, he will be among them.

Sinclair doesn't make many appearances anymore so I don't get much fun from attacking his dubious takes.   The site now looks more like it's "CL and Friends", and the circle of commenters is narrower and more boring than ever.  I don't even read the posts by the other cranky, anonymous posters - they all sound like grey haired male retirees with too much time on their hands.  

So, the entertainment value is way down.

Donald will be annoyed

Viewing numbers for the American political conventions shouldn't matter much either way, except when you can take pleasure in knowing that the Narcissist in Chief will be telling his minions he doesn't want to see headlines like this again:

Democrats beat Republicans in first-night convention TV audience

Travel wishes

I have decided that Portugal seems well worth visiting.  I saw some ponderous young Vlogger on Youtube call it the most underrated country he has been to, but also Richard Ayoade's visit to Porto on Travel Man sparked my interest.

I also want to go to Norway, but that's a more long standing wish.  I should look up travel vloggers' trips through there on Youtube, too.

On calories

You know, it seems to me that Twisties (cheese flavour) have a lot more calories in them than the weight would suggest.  

Maybe it's in the cheese powder? 

Which has made me realise - how do they make cheese powder?   Here's an article in the New Yorker (of all places) about that.   It includes this bit of history:

While Marco Polo reportedly encountered a type of powdered milk in thirteenth-century Mongolia, and the first patent for commercial spray-drying was awarded to Samuel Percy in 1872, the first industrial spray-dried dairy products weren’t manufactured until shortly after Kraft’s development of processed cheese in the nineteen-twenties, according to “Food Powders: Physical Properties, Processing, and Functionality.”

Huh.

 

Uncle Roger power move

The most recent "Uncle Roger" bits on Youtube aren't really going anywhere much, but I'm still watching.  This amused me on Twitter, though, from some random person talking Chinese uncles:

Even unhappier than I knew

I see that it was waaaay back in 2011 that I posted about an interview in which the normally happy looking comedian Alan Davies explained that he had in fact been in psychotherapy for years as a result of an unhappy childhood, with the main problem being that his Mum died when he was 6, and his controlling father kept him from saying "goodbye", and the funeral, or even the grave. 

Now, it turns out, he says he was sexually assaulted by his Dad, who is still alive but with dementia.

I'm a bit surprised by this, because I have watched on TV some of a stand up show he was doing (as usual, I didn't like it much), and he did reference some boys at his boarding school and their enthusiasm for, um, demonstrative masturbation.  I find this a little hard to imagine in an Australian context, but yes, this is in England, where "boarding school" and "sexually inappropriate behaviour" go together in what seems to be a peculiarly national tradition.  So it's a bit  odd to me that he would be getting laughs out of that when sexually abused at home.   Not saying it didn't happen, just surprised.


But anyway, once again I ask:  what percentage of comedians actually come from a happy family background, no great disasters in personal relationships, and no addiction or bouts of depression?  Seems like it must like 2 or 3% of them.   (Jerry Seinfeld being the stellar example of "nope, everything's been pretty good for me, really.")

PS:  while I am having a day of just saying what I do and don't like - have I mentioned before that I can't stand English comedian Jimmy Carr, who turns up on SBS ads for his unfunny panel show all the time?   Don't find him funny, or likeable, at all.  


*  not referencing a technique.

Speaking of movies I didn't care for...

I don't think I have mentioned, sometime over the last year or so, having watched the American re-make of the Japanese ghost/curse story The Ring.   It was just OK-ish, my son and I thought; but we both found The Grudge (the English remake, but still set in Japan) much scarier.

Anyway, I saw on Google Play that the original Japanese Ring, or Ringu, was available, and thinking that the trailer looked sufficiently creepy, we decided to watch it.  

It was, shall we say, underwhelming.  At first, it was close to the American re-make, but then it veered off somewhat.   But it's really surprising watching a movie regarded (according to reviews) as being "the most disturbing since The Exorcist" and not being very scared at all. The creepy factor in some movies seems to really diminish quickly over time.

As it happens, I have never watched all of The Exorcist, but from bits I have seen, quite some time ago now, I have warned my son that it almost certainly looks more silly now than disturbing.  

Anyway, back to Japanese ghosts:  Netflix has recently put up a series from Japan (Ju-On Origns) which is the backstory to The Grudge movie.  Looks like the same house.   Oddly, though, it is only 30 minutes an episode, which is barely enough to get a good scare going.   We watched the first episode last night, and I thought it was worth continuing with.  Yet it has had some very bad reviews, and some good ones.  It was pretty dark in the first episode:  it apparently gets much worse.

I guess I will stick with it, for now...

An unpopular opinion

I don't care a bit for Shawshank Redemption.  Must be the Stephen King origin.

This movie routinely comes up in people's list of favourite, or feel good, or inspiring movies.

I can't remember when I watched it (it wasn't at the cinema), but it left nearly no imprint at all on my memory except for thinking at the time "why do so many people think this is so good?"

Just wanted to put that out there, for no particular reason.

Why is Sunrise so Right wing now?

I don't pay all that much attention to Sunrise, although I do usually see/hear about 20 mins of it between 6.30 and 7am.

What I want to know is this:  why has the show gone so thoroughly populist Rght wing?   The guest commentators I have seen a lot of in the last few months are social-conservative-failure-in-his-own-life Barnaby Joyce, now-hates-every-single-person-in-the-Labor-Party and Pauline-Hanson-sycophant Mark Latham, ex rampaging Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett, and from the purported Left, but wants to be part of the Right, Joel Fitzgibbon.

Sure, they dumped Pauline Hanson herself but Latham is there anyway.

This is the show that popularised Kevin Rudd to the Prime Ministership (another bad political call on their part, I reckon.)   Now we have Samantha Armytage (well, actually, I see that she is taking time off due to illness, apparently) who seems to me to very snidely Right wing populist in most of her quips. 

The internal dynamics between producers and hosts on that show would be good to know.

Never did trust Sailer

The deep state, QAnon administration

What an appalling administration:

Senior health officials in the Trump administration were taken aback last Monday when the president's trade adviser, Peter Navarro, accused them of being part of the "Deep State" during a meeting that was supposed to be about COVID-19 and the Strategic National Stockpile.

Why it matters: Five days after Navarro's private comments toward the FDA, the president echoed Navarro's sentiments with a pair of Saturday morning tweets and tagged Stephen Hahn, the head of the Food and Drug Administration.

• "The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics," the president tweeted. "Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd. Must focus on speed, and saving lives!"
• Trump then attacked the FDA for revoking its emergency use authorization "of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for treating COVID-19 amid growing evidence that the drugs are 'unlikely to be effective' in treating the coronavirus."

Yet more reason to visit Singapore

The most surprising thing I saw on CNA on the weekend:  in Singapore, a man has a shop that sells ants for hobbyists:



"Just Ants" is the name of the shop. 

I used to enjoy brief stints of ant keeping as a child, but never knew how to get a queen.  If only I was a child in Singapore, now.

So, not a bad week for the Democrats...

Seems most mainstream commentary gives Biden's acceptance speech the thumbs up;  there were notable other highlights (none of which I have got around to watching yet);  we are going to get to see if Steve Bannon's visage deteriorates even further when he is in prison with no access to skincare  products.   (Or do we learn the secret of his homeless bum looks is that he has always used whatever the American equivalent of a bar of Solvol might be for his morning facewash?) 

All in all, not a bad week for the Democrats and the hope of putting the country back on some sort of more even keel.

Mind you, the real scandal should be that there is still, probably, support for Trump in the 40 something percent range.

And the scandal about that should be that no one is talking seriously about how to undo the Right wing media information bubble that has led  the Right to gas-lit itself into such idiocy that they would defend an outright authoritarian, corrupt, intensely dumb President because he's their authoritarian, corrupt, intensely dumb man who (they think) "owns the libs".  

The US is going to have to do something about that if they want to have hopes of pulling back from a the artificial and poisonous reality maybe a full third is fully living in, with another 15% or so half way in.

It is utterly, utterly ludicrous that Right wing culture war spivs are trying the "no, you're the ones dividing us" line in light of the appalling content of the Trump campaign, the likes of which the press - and any serious pundit - should never have helped "normalise" by not calling it out at the time.

How is Murdoch playing this one?

So, Fox News is running interviews now in which the latest White House spokes-liar is throwing out the quasi-deniability line for Trump re QAnon, while running on the split screen the actual beliefs of QAnon:

Is this an attempt by Fox News to message to Trump that, no, it would be best if he did actually disavow QAnon?   Or an attempt to gain more Trump base following for QAnon - because, let's face it, brainwashing the disenchanted-with-life-white-elderly is the raison d'etre for the network, and why stop at things like "Russiagate is a hoax"?

What will pathetic Trump Cultists like puzzled dog face Tucker Carlson and smarmlord Sean Hanitty do about this tricky problem?   Keep pushing that of course their ticket to riches doesn't know what QAnon is about, despite other parts of the network running stories like the above?

Time will tell.

 

New age category needed

I have a numerically significant birthday looming, and as I was saying to my daughter recently, I'm not happy with current age categories.

I think we can all agree that adolescence virtually extends to 25 now;  youth probably covers up to almost 35, maybe 40?   "Middle aged" is probably firmly set as 40 (or 45?) to 60.

But here's my key complaint:  what do you use for (say) 60 to 75?

"Old" probably starts at 75; maybe 80.   But there seems a serious gap in naming categories between 60 to 75.

"Seniors" benefits start being talked about from 55.   But the problem is, it extends from there to 115.  

I don't know - you would think those so keen on identity politics would spend more time on this issue.  :)

Imre being stupid

Lots of notice being given to Trump's refusal to criticise QAnon, which we all know he will not do any time soon because they fantasise him as a hero of epic proportions.  

Disappointing to see the relatively sensible Imre take this Trump forgiving attitude on the matter:

First:   Trump always denies knowledge of wrongdoing when he wants to avoid disavowing someone who deserves it.  Of course he knows about QAnon.   He's re-tweeted them several times - if he doesn't know how ridiculous and dangerous their conspiracy mongering is, that is a disgrace in itself.

Secondly:   how utterly ridiculous to criticise a journalist for inviting a President to disavow support for an extreme and dangerous and stupid conspiracy.  

Thirdly:  no, it is never acceptable to say a violence fantasising conspiracy "has its heart in the right place", which is what Trump was trying to convey.    Yes, if you don't condemn such a thing, you are helping validate them.

If Imre can't condemn Trump for his weasel worded endorsement that he will later claim was not an endorsement (probably the next time some nut goes on a QAnon bender with his gun), he wants his head read.

More on hearing voices, locally

As noted in my previous post, this week's Insight re-ignited my interest in how cultural factors might influence the experience of hearing (and dealing with) voices in the head, a common feature of schziophrenia.

I seem to have missed, or forgotten, the reporting around this study in 2014:  an anthropologist who found that it seemed relatively common for people from Indian and Ghana to find the voices "playful" or entertaining; whereas all of the Americans found them nasty and unpleasant.

Here's part of the report in Stanford news (my bold on the bits about India):

For the research, Luhrmann and her colleagues interviewed 60 adults diagnosed with schizophrenia – 20 each in San Mateo, California; Accra, Ghana; and Chennai, India. Overall, there were 31 women and 29 men with an average age of 34. They were asked how many voices they heard, how often, what they thought caused the auditory hallucinations, and what their voices were like.

"We then asked the participants whether they knew who was speaking, whether they had conversations with the voices, and what the voices said. We asked people what they found most distressing about the voices, whether they had any positive experiences of voices and whether the voice spoke about sex or God," she said.

The findings revealed that hearing voices was broadly similar across all three cultures, according to Luhrmann. Many of those interviewed reported both good and bad voices, and conversations with those voices, as well as whispering and hissing that they could not quite place physically. Some spoke of hearing from God while others said they felt like their voices were an "assault" upon them.

The striking difference was that while many of the African and Indian subjects registered predominantly positive experiences with their voices, not one American did. Rather, the U.S. subjects were more likely to report experiences as violent and hateful – and evidence of a sick condition.
The Americans experienced voices as bombardment and as symptoms of a brain disease caused by genes or trauma.

One participant described the voices as "like torturing people, to take their eye out with a fork, or cut someone's head and drink their blood, really nasty stuff." Other Americans (five of them) even spoke of their voices as a call to battle or war – "'the warfare of everyone just yelling.'"

Moreover, the Americans mostly did not report that they knew who spoke to them and they seemed to have 
less personal relationships with their voices, according to Luhrmann.

Among the Indians in Chennai, more than half (11) heard voices of kin or family members commanding them to do tasks. "They talk as if elder people advising younger people," one subject said. That contrasts to the Americans, only two of whom heard family members. Also, the Indians heard fewer threatening voices than the Americans – several heard the voices as playful, as manifesting spirits or magic, and even as entertaining. Finally, not as many of them described the voices in terms of a medical or psychiatric problem, as all of the Americans did.

In Accra, Ghana, where the culture accepts that disembodied spirits can talk, few subjects described voices in brain disease terms. When people talked about their voices, 10 of them called the experience predominantly positive; 16 of them reported hearing God audibly. "'Mostly, the voices are good,'" one participant remarked. 

While this doesn't seem all that many subjects, it's still fascinating. Interestingly, though, the anthropologist didn't seem to think that it was religiosity per se which made the difference.  (Although by that, does she mean how intensely religious they are in practice and interest?  Because as noted above, they seem to be religious in the sense of just accepting a supernatural spirit world):

Why the difference? Luhrmann offered an explanation: Europeans and Americans tend to see themselves as individuals motivated by a sense of self identity, whereas outside the West, people imagine the mind and self interwoven with others and defined through relationships.

"Actual people do not always follow social norms," the scholars noted. "Nonetheless, the more independent emphasis of what we typically call the 'West' and the more interdependent emphasis of other societies has been demonstrated ethnographically and experimentally in many places."

As a result, hearing voices in a specific context may differ significantly for the person involved, they wrote. In America, the voices were an intrusion and a threat to one's private world – the voices could not be controlled.

However, in India and Africa, the subjects were not as troubled by the voices – they seemed on one level to make sense in a more relational world. Still, differences existed between the participants in India and Africa; the former's voice-hearing experience emphasized playfulness and sex, whereas the latter more often involved the voice of God.

The religiosity or urban nature of the culture did not seem to be a factor in how the voices were viewed, Luhrmann said.

"Instead, the difference seems to be that the Chennai (India) and Accra (Ghana) participants were more comfortable interpreting their voices as relationships and not as the sign of a violated mind," the researchers wrote.

The research, Luhrmann observed, suggests that the "harsh, violent voices so common in the West may not be an inevitable feature of schizophrenia." Cultural shaping of schizophrenia behavior may be even more profound than previously thought.

The findings may be clinically significant, according to the researchers. Prior research showed that specific therapies may alter what patients hear their voices say. One new approach claims it is possible to improve individuals' relationships with their voices by teaching them to name their voices and to build relationships with them, and that doing so diminishes their caustic qualities. "More benign voices may contribute to more benign course and outcome," they wrote.

The Atlantic had a story about this too, ending with a story of the success (for some people) of not ignoring the voice, but developing a kind of relationship with it:

In an article for the American Scholar, Luhrmann describes one such patient, a 20-year-0ld Dutch man named Hans, whose inner voices were urging him to study Buddhism for hours each day. He cut a deal with his demons, telling them he'd say Buddhist prayers for one hour per day, no more, no less. And it worked—the voices subsided and he was able to taper his dose of psychosis medications.
At one support group for schizophrenic patients, Hans said a new, "nice" voice he had been hearing recently threatened to get mean.

"This new voice seemed like it might get nasty," Luhrmann writes. "The group had told [Hans] that he needed to talk to it. They said that he should say, 'We have to live with each other and we have to make the best of it, and we can do it only if we respect each other.' He did that, and this new voice became nice."

Call me too cautious, perhaps, but I have spoken to both my young adult children about the show, and the key message that if ever they do start hearing voices, don't try to keep it a secret and deal with it alone, but tell others what is happening and seek some assistance.

 

Voices heard

I strongly recommend last night's Insight episode on SBS, which featured a variety of people who suffered from hearing voices in their head, explaining how it started, how they got help, and whether they are now over the problem.   A psychiatrist and psychologist were also there (the latter having made a special study of the field.)

It was terribly interesting, the variety of their experiences.   One clear message that came out of it is that they all took quite some time to admit to anyone else what was happening, and the psychologist and psychiatrist both made the point that it is far better to tell someone and get help earlier, as that makes it likelier that treatment will be a success.

Another aspect of interest was the Indian woman who made reference to "cultural practices" in her family's homeland being helpful to deal with the problem.  She alluded to the belief in the "spiritual world" but didn't elaborate.   Taking an educated guess, I assume that Indians may have less reluctance to seek support from family and friends because they share a belief that the cause probably is an external and "real" spirit attack, not something purely internal which carries a stigma of weakness (and therefore shame) in the West.   (I am sure I have read years ago that mental health outcomes are surprisingly good, on average, in India* due I think to cultural factors, and I must look up whether it is for the sort of reason I am speculating about.)


*  Yes - here it is - a post from 2007.   The link to the journal no longer works, though.   I may be able to track it down, and I want to read more on the topic anyway.  Will likely update soon...

Russia tapes may well exist

In Slate reporting on the Senate Intelligence Committee report we read this:

What the report says: Discounting the infamous pee tape allegation made in the Steele Dossier, the committee said it investigated and was unable to corroborate “three general sets of allegations” around “compromising information” Russians were said to have been collecting about Donald Trump. The report goes into some fascinating details about claims surrounding Russian kompromat efforts and about Trump’s previous trips to Russia without providing much in the way of hard evidence. It notes that Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen exchanged texts with a Georgian friend and associate days before the election about efforts to stop “tapes from Russia” after a “person in Moscow was bragging had tapes from Russian trip.”

What we already knew: Cohen’s text exchange with his Georgian friend was actually a footnote from the Mueller report and it didn’t lead anywhere. Also notably, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported that it was “aware of a realistic and well-sourced, but fake, video of someone who looks like Trump portraying him in a situation consistent with the uncorroborated allegations” of a pee tape from the Steele Dossier. If you read Ashley Feinberg’s reporting in Slate last year, though, you would have already been aware of this as well.

Yes, I read that Slate report at the time about the faked "pee tape" - it was quite surprising, the degree of care with which the tape was made; as is the matter of how little attention mainstream media seemed to give it.

In other tweets, I have seen mention of evidence that some hotel worker claiming he overheard conversation about Trump being compromised by a woman he saw during one Moscow trip.

It would not be at all surprising if there was some tape or other taken in Russia with kompromat possibilities.

Always suspected he was over-rated

Of course, people in the thread following this argue for more nuance, but it's interesting...

Not for the claustrophobic

Oh look:  that Smarter Every Day guy has another video up about his visit to a nuclear submarine, and this time he gets to explain how torpedoes get shot out of the tube, which he proceeds to crawl down (while the sub is underwater, no less).  Better him than me:

How Republicans and Trump cultists argue that black is white

Paul Waldman's column in the Washington Post details the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is controlled by Republicans, and explains the absurdity of Republicans still saying "no collusion":

So here’s what we’re left with. The person running the Trump campaign had a close associate who is a Russian intelligence officer, with whom he was sharing confidential campaign information as Russia mounted its effort to help Trump get elected.

As part of that effort, Russia broke into Democratic systems, then passed damaging information to WikiLeaks for carefully timed release. The president’s longtime friend had a line into the “leak” part of Russia’s hack-and-leak, through which he learned the subject and timing of upcoming leaks and kept Trump personally informed.

If that’s not “collusion,” what is?

Republicans will reject this verdict. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the acting chair of the committee, insisted that “the Committee found absolutely no evidence” that Trump or his campaign “colluded with the Russian government.”  

But he was using a torturously narrow definition of “collusion” to exonerate Trump.

That definition says that only a carefully planned, coordinated and executed criminal conspiracy counts as “collusion,” and anything short of that does not. But as we now know — through copious evidence collected by the special counsel’s team, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and journalists — the Trump campaign eagerly accepted the help provided by Moscow.

The campaign’s efforts were slapdash and chaotic. But to whatever degree this didn’t rise to an even more serious level, it doesn’t appear to have been for lack of trying.

Yet to this day, the position of Trump, his attorney general, the conservative media and most of the GOP is that the entire Russia investigation was a hoax, a scam, a ruse. When the FBI learned that the Kremlin was trying to sabotage our election, they want us to believe, the bureau should not have bothered to investigate.

 Update:  or, as Kasparov tweets:

End Times

Further to recent post about religious eschatology, I see that Nature has a review of a book by an astrophysicist discussing the possible ways the universe could end:   Big Crunch, Heat Death, Big Rip, or perhaps the most disconcerting one because it could presumably happen at any time, vacuum decay.  

The review notes this:

The latest measurements point to a Heat Death, but a Big Crunch or Big Rip are within their uncertainties.

Yeah, I thought that was still the case, but seems to be underappreciated in pop science writing - a reversal into a Big Crunch, which at least has that satisfying feeling of a dramatic climax (as well as possibly satisfying Hindu and Buddhist belief in a cyclic universe, not to mention a possible Tiplerian Omega Point), is not yet completely written off.   

As for vacuum decay:

The final doomsday scenario that Mack describes is extremely unlikely: vacuum decay. A tiny bubble of ‘true vacuum’ could form, owing to instability in the field associated with the Higgs boson. That might happen if, say, a black hole evaporates in just the wrong way. Such a bubble would expand at the speed of light, destroying everything, until it cancels the universe. Vacuum decay might already have begun in some distant place. We won’t see it coming.

The possibility of vacuum decay happening as a result of the experiments at the Large Hadron Collider was one reason to fret about the wisdom of operating it, as I used to note in posts which are still on the blog.   Fortunately, it would seem that the universe is not constructed in such a way that the LHC could cause much damage.

Yup

Beirut blew up because a Russian "businessman" ran out of money

Interesting to read this explanation of how Beirut came to be holding onto a ridiculously dangerous cargo due to a failure of a Russian "businessman".

 A bit more about him in The Independent:

The figure of Igor Grechushkin features prominently in the first two links of that hapless chain. A rough-and-tumble businessman from Khabarovsk in the far east of Russia, Grechushkin was on Thursday confirmed as the Rhosus’s owner by Russian state media.

Greatest country

Contextless misuse of statistics noted

We all know Trump and the GOP is going to go full throttle on claiming that there is a "tremendous" jobs recovery from the rapid loss caused by GOP confusion and politicisation of the COVID response, but it's also becoming a Right wing meme that the police are going pro-Trump again because they are being killed on the job at a higher rate.

So we get this misleading headline at ABC news (the American one):

Police officers killed surge 28% this year and some point to civil unrest and those looking to exploit it 

Shoop became the 32nd U.S. law enforcement officer shot to death this year on July 13, marking a 28% jump in felonious officer deaths over the same period in 2019, according to data from the FBI. 

But a Twitter thread about it turns up this graph: