Naomi Wolf in sheep’s clothing
Cassini’s last image of Saturn before burning up …
The right to be Heard: Red, green or Amber?
Peyton and I recorded this discussion last week with my friend Isabella Perez. It arose from my own dissatisfaction with much of the commentary I was reading. Everyone seemed preoccupied with whose side you should be on and what it all meant for #MeToo. These are of course legitimate questions, but then the commentators’ ideological preferences were no secret, nor was the way the case could be ‘spun’. If a woman is unanimously held by a jury to be lying about domestic violence, then that will set back a movement if one of its slogans is ‘always believe women’. Anyway, have a listen and let us know what you thought of what we made of it all. If you prefer audio, the mp3 is here.
Naomi Wolf in sheep’s clothing
I remember going to see Naomi Wolf talk about her new bestselling book The Beauty Myth at the Australian National Gallery. Despite all her fluency, even then I was highly suspicious. The bad decisions women were making seemed always to result from manipulation by men in powerful positions in fashion, marketing and media. I had no problem with that as a cause, but the only cause? And what was women’s agency in this?
Anyway, guess where she is now? A regular on Steve Bannon’s program The War Room. I read this in a Helen Lewis report on a story I was going to extract here, but I decided I’d read enough of it in Helen’s effort. And there was also this review of Wolf’s Vagina: a new biography. LOL.
Reading this book left me downcast. Has the Naomi Wolf I loved in The Beauty Myth really drowned in a soup of psychobabble about “energies” and “activating the Goddess array”? It seems so. The science was not engagingly presented, the transcendentalism left me cold, and the remedial advice – that men should pay more attention to their female partners’ pleasure and maybe give them a nice surprise once in a while – is banal in the extreme.
A conundrum for the free speech folks
I took one look at the picture heading this story and it was enough for me. But worth keeping in mind. Cults are everywhere, the worst of cultural viruses.
Fixing the health system
Luke Slawomirski has a post at ClubTroppo. He’s a health economist whom I met when he was at the OECD. And this piece of is reminds me how everything is connected to everything else. And how many ways we could improve things if we could take what we know and craft reform to use it to improve our health — and often to lower costs into the bargain.
We have a GP shortage in areas of greatest need (the inverse care law). Many patients don’t see their doctor because of high out-of-pocket costs (bulk billing data is a sham). Little wonder that compared to those living in other OECD countries, Australians are almost twice as likely to be admitted for respiratory conditions, most of which should be managed out of hospital.
We can bolster primary and community care in several ways. We should ensure that electronic medical records used in public hospitals can exchange information with those used in other settings, especially GPs and pharmacies. My Health Record isn’t working. The privacy risks can be managed. The benefits of integration can be considerable.
Lovely idea
What is self-preferencing?
Should Google and Amazon’s dominance prevent them ‘self-preferencing’?
Of course.
But that’s not how they see it of course. At least Google (I’m sorry, I’ll read that again — Alphabet) has ditched its commitment to not be evil so you can’t accuse it of false advertising. Anyway, it’s nice to see some (admittedly very modest) competition policy responses to our digital overlords.
Josh Frydenberg: Enabler in Chief
I thought the AFR was styling itself as The Australian Light, but this column suggests otherwise — or perhaps it’s just a spot of ‘balance’. The thing I really objected to which didn’t get a mention was Frydenberg’s playing trash politics with the pandemic and mainlining the NSW is the ‘gold standard’ malarky. I say that not as aggrieved Victorian, but because it was such an affront, such a dumbing down of the basic idea that party politics should be restrained in government to government relations whether at the inter or intra-national level.
The brutal derailment of Josh Frydenberg’s preordained glide into the office of prime minister has caused an extraordinary – and extraordinarily misplaced – bout of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
In his greatest moment of humiliation and repudiation, Frydenberg still gets the easiest run. … This reflects Frydenberg’s real aptitude: grooming his elders and the media. … Journalists are so easy to con. Learn your talking points by rote, affect a deliberate and gravel speaking style and bombard them with WhatsApp messages. Drop them the occasional exclusive and they’ll say you’re the next JFK.
[Then there’s the] enterprising narrative whereby the nation’s destiny – Frydenberg as PM,leading us to the promised land – was tragically shattered by Morrison, in whose government Frydenberg was merely a loyal passenger. It credits him with the meritorious attribute of loyalty but none of the responsibility it entails.
Pariah no more: Biden and Saudi Arabia
For Biden, Saudi Arabia is a pariah where oil is under $50 a barrel and Iran isn’t developing nukes.
A successful foreign policy for a global power such as the US cannot choose values over interests. A pure, values-centered approach to Saudi Arabia – or toward China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea, for that matter – is unsustainable. The principal measure of a foreign policy is that it prioritizes the country’s security over its preferences. Realism must prevail over idealism. History suggests the ability of a country, even one as powerful as the US, to bring about political reform in other countries is limited.
But this does not mean that the US should ignore democracy and human rights. Foreign policy must reflect the country’s values if it is to enjoy public support and lead over time toward a more democratic world, which is more likely to be peaceful and prosperous and open to cooperation. It is always a matter of degree and of balance. What the Biden administration is contemplating in Saudi Arabia appears to be righting the balance.
Xi’s intent to take Taiwan is unchanged by Ukraine
Kevin Rudd expects Xi to be planning to take Taiwan by 2035.
For Xi, reunification is not in doubt, however. As he put it in a message to his Taiwanese “compatriots” in 2019, Taiwan’s return to the mainland’s tender embrace is “a necessary requirement for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” Moreover, he has given this “necessary requirement” a definite timetable: it must be realized before 2049, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China and the date Xi has set, in accordance with his “China Dream,” for completing the “great rejuvenation.” But since Xi fully intends to be enshrined in Chinese history as Mao’s spiritual successor during his own political lifetime, the more likely timeline for reunification is between now and 2035, before he moves to a comfortable retirement with his legacy secured.
The last lesson that China’s government will take from Russia’s experience is that it is essential to hardwire the Chinese economy against the kinds of financial and economic sanctions that the US and the European Union are now using to isolate and enfeeble Russia.
Xi will also be motivated to redouble his effort to make China a “self-reliant” economy, by selectively decoupling supply chains from the West, supporting domestic technological self-sufficiency, and ensuring food and energy security. But beyond prompting China to double down on these existing policies, the war in Ukraine is unlikely to change the regime’s outlook significantly.
How to work with ‘stupid’ people
I liked this post, partly because it played to my prejudices that most people who you might think are stupid are not and that most disagreements are really misunderstandings. This is a conclusion I have come to after taking the philosopher R. G. Collingwood to heart.
Before you even decide that you disagree with someone, work to understand their judgment. You may not disagree at all. For instance:
Do you fully understand what they're saying? Or are you talking past each other?
Are you answering the same question? Maybe each of you is answering a different angle on the question (e.g., "what's our next step?" vs. "what's the long-term solution?")
Are you using terms in the same way? Sometimes disagreements come from differing definitions and terminology.
Are you talking completely in abstractions? Give examples, and ask them for examples, to get clear and concrete.
Smaller Reactors May Still Have a Big Nuclear Waste Problem
A new generation of reactors promises a nuclear energy renaissance, but critics say the US needs to figure out what to do about its radioactive garbage first
A Wired piece purportedly covering both optimistic and pessimistic sides of the nuclear waste issue. Still it hews rather close to the ‘he-said-she-said’ formula as well as ‘spinning’ the headline as negative. When you read the responses to the pessimistic story, you want the author to say a bit more about where, in their judgement one should come out. Alas it’s reportage as analysis. Can any readers suggest better articles?
Will Germany survive the Ukraine war as the economic powerhouse it’s become
Fascinating article on the transformation Germany has wrought since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
[With the opening up of Eastern Europe], unit labor costs in Germany declined by 30% between 1995 and 2012. Germany was the only country in Europe to experience such declines. … The opening of the ex-communist countries also introduced decentralized management. … The typical (median) German firm that embraced decentralized management increased its export-market share by a factor of three, while firms that stuck with centralized management generally recorded no such gains.
Finally, the opening of ex-communist Europe led to expanded production networks, which reduced costs and helped Germany deal with a severe skills shortage.… [W]hen German firms invested in Central and Eastern Europe, they employed three times as many people with academic degrees and 11% more research personnel in their subsidiaries than in their parent firms.
By the late 2000s, the resulting supply chains had reduced costs and increased productivity in German multinational firms by over 20%. Germany went from being the sick man of Europe in the 1990s to the economic powerhouse that it is today.
Will these economic arrangements survive Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
WWII: the video
And speaking of Germany …
Recommended listening
Fruitcake watch …
Meanwhile …
With the usual warning that Einstein quotes may be wrongly attributed. And while looking for that quote, I found this one.
Overflow …
I got bored reading this — but the picture is quite something. It’s sad that people can’t retire from US politics and stick around until they go senile.
