Brlogsbane has moved to Wordpress, with a very pretty new appearance and lots of interesting stuff coming up soon.
The new address for Brlogsbane is: http://brlogsbane.wordpress.com/
The new rss feed is: http://brlogsbane.wordpress.com/feed/
Jamie.
... is that 15 minutes of a Today Tonight reporter bullying and gloating that the law is on their side it seems more like the kind of thing that The Chaser would play to humiliate Today Tonight, and not the other way round.
There must be plenty of people who think the opposite, so I guess it's a bit of a Rorschach test.
If you haven't seen the story, go here: Link.
(Thanks to Lachlan for the link, and everyone else who pointed out the story.)
Here's an observation I don't understand the meaning of.
Three leads from Australia:
The Age: "A popular children's toy found to contain a chemical that the human body turns into the party drug "fantasy", or "GHB", has been banned in three states..."
NEWS.com.au: "An award-winning children's toy has been recalled because it contains a chemical which turns into a dangerous party drug when metabolised in the body."
Ninemsn: "Concerns are rising that drug-users may flock to Victorian toy stores after that state's authorities failed to withdraw from sale a popular children's toy that metabolises into the party drug fantasy when eaten."
Contrast with these headlines and leads from around the world:
CNN International: "'Date rape' drug in children's toy"
International Herald Tribune: "Toy beads found to contain precursor to 'date rape' drug"
Wall Street Journal: "Retailers around the world scrambled to pull a popular toy called Bindeez off the shelves Wednesday after a chemical in some shipments of the Chinese-made product was found to mimic the effects of the so-called date rape drug."
Reuters: "Australia announced a nationwide ban on Wednesday on around 1 million Chinese-made toys after investigations showed they contained a chemical which metabolises when swallowed into a date-rape drug."
BBC News: "Australia has issued a nationwide ban on a Chinese-made toy after it was found to contain a substance linked to the date-rape drug GHB"
From Times Online [link]:
Researchers grew fruit and vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent organic and nonorganic sites on a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle University, and at other sites in Europe. They found that levels of antioxidants in milk from organic herds were up to 90% higher than in milk from conventional herds.
As well as finding up to 40% more antioxidants in organic vegetables, they also found that organic tomatoes from Greece had significantly higher levels of antioxidants, including flavo-noids thought to reduce coronary heart disease.
There are also non-nutrition-related reasons for choosing organic produce. I don't buy any organic food at the moment, but it's something I've been thinking about.
Vanity Fair has an unforgettable article about Zsa Zsa Gabor and Prince Frédéric von Anhalt: Link. So unceasingly, mind-bogglingly bizarre that I'm going to have to read it again.
Andrew Charlton has an article in the new Monthly about the myths surrounding interest rates and government. Excerpt:
The second aspect of the government's economic spin is that budget deficits cause high interest rates. ... At the launch of his 2004 election campaign, Howard said, "Nothing is more certain than if economic policy is allowed to slip into the hands of those who, when they last had control of it, delivered five budget deficits in a row, that there will be massive upward pressure on interest rates."Charlton describes wonderfully the precise moment when Labor lost my vote at the last federal election:
There is, in theory, a relationship here. It is as follows: if the budget is in deficit, then the government's tax intake is less than its spending. To pay the bills, it must borrow the shortfall. And when the government goes to the money markets to borrow, it increases the demand for the pool of available funds for loan. By increasing the demand for funds, it raises the price of funds: that is, the interest rate. If the government adds itself to the queue of people wanting money, it makes it harder and more expensive for the private-sector borrowers to get cash, meaning that they are less likely to borrow and less likely to invest and spend.
This sounds logical, and indeed it is. It's logical, but it is not significant. Australia is, of course, part of a global economy: neither the nation's government nor its businesses are constrained to borrowing in the domestic economy. They meet their financing needs not just in the lap pool of Australian savings but in the ocean of world savings; and the impact of the government's borrowing on global debt markets is near negligible.
This is a principle well known in the United States, which has long since lost the fiscal fetishism that still holds Australians in the thrall of budget surpluses. Says the American journalist James Ledbetter: "Today the thesis that such measly sums [moderate budget deficits] could control or even significantly influence the overall economy will produce, at best, polite throat-clearing from the average American banker of businessperson."
...
When government's face recessions and crises of confidence, they try to prime the pump by spending and going to debt, to get shoppers back in the malls and CEOs back in the investing game. At the same time, the central bank pitches in by cutting interest rates to defibrillate the economy with a shock of cheap credit. In recessions, low rates and high deficits go hand in hand. Even in a boom, where excessive government spending can over-stimulate the economy, the relationship between rates and deficits is weak.
...
[M]onetary policy is based on the level of activity in the entire economy, of which stimulus from the government is just one small part.
In 2004, the then Opposition leader, Mark Latham, had the opportunity to call Howard's bluff, to point out the errors in the prime minister's claims about interest rates and trust that an honest argument, backed by economists and the Reserve Bank, would cut through the the electorate. Instead, Latham proffered a marker pen and an oversized sheet of cardboard inscribed with three promises that made up what he called the "Labor Low Interest Rate Guarantee". Sheepishly, Latham signed a commitment to put "downward pressure on interest rates" by, you guessed it, "keeping the budget in surplus ... and bringing down net debt".
With that one gesture Latham told Australians that the bogus link which the Coalition had made between deficits and interest rates was genuine, that Labor had a lot to apologise for from its last time in government, that the only way for the party to be accepted in the political mainstream was to confess its sins and never re-offend. Standing on the podium in front of the cardboard guarantee, Latham looked like a schoolboy blustering his way unprepared through a class presentation. He looked down at the ground as he uttered the phrase "fair dinkum". He knew he was being dishonest, and knew he was selling out past Labor governments and making it harder for future Labor leaders.
Link. Excerpt:
While officials have yet to determine the purpose of the attack, a number of potential theories have emerged, including the sudden deregulation of the U.S. economy, the destruction of culturally significant landmarks, and maybe the fact that man, in his essence, is no more than a collection of irrational fragments, incapable of finding reason where no reason exists.
A secret communiqué leaked by the Prophet's Collective, however, decries these theories and several others as being "completely off," and goes on to call the American people "cultural infidels."
Though many Chicago residents are still attempting to wrap their heads around the attack, some in the Windy City have refused to classify the Jell-O encasement as a terrorist act at all.
"I'm no expert, but I know terrorism when I see it," said Kathy Atwood, a Hyde Park mother of four. "Where is the devastating loss of life and massive destruction of infrastructure? This doesn't move me to run for my life at all."
She added: "Real terrorism takes years of training and meticulous planning. My 6-year-old kid can make Jell-O."
Peter Combe is doing a tour of concerts across Australia playing his classic children's songs... at over-18's venues. What a great idea.
Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman, two of my least favourite writers, both have good columns this week.
Bolt's article about the backlash against the Sudanese is mostly right on the money: Link.
And Ackerman's personal attack on Kevin Rudd sums up a lot of what many people I know are feeling about him: Link.
I don't really buy his line that Rudd is worse than Howard, but I certainly have the feeling that he's no better. This all still leaves open the question of who has the better policies, and I just don't know what to think about that yet.
If you didn't hear the news: This week the major music labels won a civil suit against Jammie Thomas, a 30-year-old single mother from Minnesota. She was found to have shared 24 songs, for which she has to pay $220,000 in damages.
Just to reiterate: $220,000 for sharing 24 songs.
Under wacky US law, these penalties are largely at the discretion of the jury - and she could have done a lot worse. The Iconoclast blog has a post about the instructions given to the jury; here's one:
The Recording Industry Association of America has pursued similar lawsuits against thousands of other people, but Jammie Thomas's case was different because she refused to settle out of court. She says she's innocent, so it went to court, and she lost big time.JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 22: In this case, each plaintiff has elected to recover "statutory damages" instead of its actual damages and profits. Under the Copyright Act, each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording downloaded or distributed without license), as you consider just. If, however, you find that the defendant's conduct was willful, then each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of up to $150,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording downloaded or distributed without license), as you consider just.
In determining the just amount of statutory damages for an infringing defendant, you may consider the willfulness of the defendant's conduct, the defendant's innocence, the defendant's continuation of infringement after notice or knowledge of the copyright or in reckless disregard of the copyright, effect of the defendant's prior or concurrent copyright infringement activity, and whether profit or gain was established.
To all those who have stumbled across my site due to the recent coverage of my battle against the RIAA, welcome. For those who did not know, I was sued by the RIAA for illegally downloading and uploading music on the Kazaa network. I refused to settle as I DID NOT do this and I was not going to be bullied, PERIOD.I will thank everyone, old and new friends alike, for all of their well wishes before the trial, during the trial and after the verdict was read. Yes, I lost. Although I may have lost this battle, I refuse to lose this war.
What made me lose? Main thing is money. I don't have it, the RIAA does. Simple as that. I couldn't afford certain things I needed; my attorney (who is a complete sweetheart of a man who took this case knowing full well what my finances are like so thank you, thank you 'Batman') gave everything he could, so we trudged ahead full steam with what little resources we had. In the end, it wasn't enough.
I truly hope no one sees this as my hand out, as that is not the case. I have not solicited any resources from anyone except advice and maybe a point in the right direction (kudos to you Mr. Ray Beckerman). I still refuse to hold my hand out. Consider it my Native Pride.
I have seen some reports about me being devistated after the verdict was read, and guess what? I was. I wonder if there is a person out there who wouldn't be upset after a jury says you're responsible to pay $222,000 for something you didn't do. I was inconsolable. I will fully admit to being a single mom of two boys living paycheck to paycheck. Potentially having 25% of my wages garnished for the rest of my life will not only hurt me, but it will hurt my family as well. Will that stop me? NEVER!!
Some of you may be asking, "What's the next step?" Well, I first need to calm down, which I have done, a little. Then, I need to strategize with Batman and figure out what my options are. So, for those of you rooting for me, stay tuned as there is more fight left in me. For those of you rooting against me? I hope you never find yourself in this same situation or one similar to it as you will then know what I know now and look back upon your actions with shame.
There's another post for those of us whose immediate reaction to the story was: "How can I send her money?"
Some of you have sent me messages asking where to send money to assist with paying this debt. I must tell you first, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for your kindness. Now, this debt isn't finalized. There are more options available my attorney is currently seeking out before I am stuck with this ridiculous bill from the RIAA. We'll worry about the debt part once it's finalized that I will have to pay it. Also, other's have been asking where to send money to assist with an appeal (I'm not saying there will be one yet, but there might be). If you feel you would like to help with an appeal, any correspondance can be sent to my attorney, otherwise known as Batman :D, at the address below. IF you decide to send something (and please do not take this as me asking, I know alot of you are in the same financial boat as I am, so I could never ask you to send money), please send it marked with my case number 06cv1497 Capital Records v Jammie Thomas, to:
Chestnut & Cambronne
Attn: Brian Toder
3700 Campbell Mithun Tower
222 South Ninth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Two movies at the cinema right now, Superbad and Ratatouille, show that Hollywood is still capable of producing pure, perfect entertainment. I highly recommend both.
One of the news media's approaches to spicing up the particularly boring upcoming election is to report breathlessly on how new technology is changing democracy. News.com.au has an article today about the supposed usefulness of Google Trends to track what Australian voters are thinking. Excerpt:
Metering the internet search terms used by Australians, Google's special tool can compare voteres' searching habits. 'Liberal' is currently more searched for than 'Labor', except in the ACT.
While the number of Australians using the search engine to find information on many key election issues has fluctuated throughout 2007, health care was the most consistently searched for term.Now, we don't know exactly what terms the journalist was tracking here, but we can do a very rough search of our own to get an idea of the order of magnitude we're talking about.
But people in the Northern Territory, the ACT and Tasmania are searching more for climate change than any other election issue.
Gary Taubes's article in New York Magazine gives a nice rundown of the evidence that exercise does not cause weight loss: link. Many of you will already be familiar with this stuff, but I still found Taubes's article an interesting and fun read. Three excerpts:
Ultimately, the relationship between physical activity and fatness comes down to the question of cause and effect. Is Lance Armstrong excessively lean because he burns off a few thousand calories a day cycling, or is he driven to expend that energy because his body is constitutionally set against storing calories as fat? If his fat tissue is resistant to accumulating calories, his body has little choice but to burn them as quickly as possible: what Rony and his contemporaries called the “activity impulse”—a physiological drive, not a conscious one. His body is telling him to get on his bike and ride, not his mind. Those of us who run to fat would have the opposite problem. Our fat tissue wants to store calories, leaving our muscles with a relative dearth of energy to burn. It’s not willpower we lack, but fuel.Previously and relatedly on Brlogsbane: Compulsory reading about food and nutrition.
...
[P]ost-workout, we get hungry: Our fat tissue is devoting itself to restoring calories as fat, depriving other tissues and organs of the fuel they need and triggering a compensatory impulse to eat. The feeling of hunger is the brain’s way of trying to satisfy the demands of the body. Just as sweating makes us thirsty, burning off calories makes us hungry.This research has never been controversial. It’s simply been considered irrelevant by authorities, all too often lean, who have been dead set on blaming fatness on some combination of gluttony, sloth, and perhaps a little genetic predisposition thrown in on the side.
...As it turns out, it’s carbohydrates—particularly easily digestible carbohydrates and sugars—that primarily stimulate insulin secretion. “Carbohydrates is driving insulin is driving fat,” as George Cahill Jr., a retired Harvard professor of medicine and expert on insulin, recently phrased it for me. So maybe if we eat fewer carbohydrates—in particular the easily digestible simple carbohydrates and sugars—we might lose considerable fat or at least not gain any more, whether we exercise or not. This would explain the slew of recent clinical trials demonstrating that dieters who restrict carbohydrates but not calories invariably lose more weight than dieters who restrict calories but not necessarily carbohydrates. Put simply, it’s quite possible that the foods—potatoes, pasta, rice, bread, pastries, sweets, soda, and beer—that our parents always thought were fattening (back when the medical specialists treating obesity believed that exercise made us hungry) really are fattening. And so if we avoid these foods specifically, we may find our weights more in line with our desires.
As for those people who insist that exercise has been the key to their weight-loss programs, the one thing we’d have to wonder is whether they changed their diets as well. Rare is the person who decides the time has come to lose weight and doesn’t also decide perhaps it’s time to eat fewer sweets, drink less beer, switch to diet soda, and maybe curtail the kind of carb-rich snacks—the potato chips and the candy bars—that might be singularly responsible for driving up their insulin and so their fat.
