EU Proposals Could Make Swedish Jam Illegal After More Than a Century on the Market




I am not a big jam-eater but I do like Lingon Sylt and always have some around. It is full of vitamins and minerals so would be a real loss if discontinued. Lingonberries are one of the few sources of vitamin C in the Arctic, where they are grown. They keep people in the very far North healthy almost single-handedly

A new proposal from the European Commission aims to make breakfast foods healthier for Europeans by raising the minimum berry content requirements in jam. The proposed regulations, discussed on April 10 and 11, seek to increase the minimum berry content in jams from 35 to 45 grams per hundred grams of product.

The proposal, which is likely to pass, poses significant implications for the Swedish jam industry, potentially altering over a century of culinary tradition.

Björnekulla, a renowned producer with popular offerings like raspberry jam, queen jam, and strawberry jam, finds itself at a crossroads due to these changes, as all the products would fall below the new permitted limit if the law is enacted.
Björnekulla would then face two options: either change their classic recipes or stop labeling their products as jam.

Pär Berglund, CEO of Björnekulla, expressed concerns about potential impacts on taste and pricing.

"More berries and less sugar tend to make the jam more sour. It's not just about compliance; it's about consumer preference," Berglund explained to Sydsvenskan.

Peter Kullgren, Minister of Rural Affairs, clarified that the intention behind the regulation is not to ban existing products but to standardize what qualifies as jam across Europe.

"This ensures that when you buy jam, whether in Sweden or Spain, you're getting the same quality and content," Kullgren stated.

*****************************************

Keith McNally strikes again! Razor-tongued restaurant owner goes after Lauren Sanchez



Artificial boobs often deliver a good return on investment.  Most Hollywood ladies seem to have them.  But this pair must set some sort of record for that.  She is also very deferenial to Bezos so I can see what her critic sees. She "crawls" to him, which is a bit sickening.  But he seems happy with his artificial lady so who are we to criticize?  She obviously likes the deal too.  She obviously thinks a billionaire is worth a bit of deference

In my past adventures I have myself been to bed with artificial DD boobs but did not find them very satisfying.  My present girlfriend's natural 12Cs suit me just fine

Note: I gather that bra sizes are not described the same in Australia and America. "12" above indicates a slender body

 
Celebrity restaurateur Keith McNally has taken aim at Lauren Sanchez in a late-night Instagram rant, branding Jeff Bezos' fiancée 'revolting.'

McNally, who famously feuded with James Corden over an omelet dispute, shared a carousel of recent pictures of Sanchez and Bezos, and proceeded to skewer the pair in a post that went up late Monday night.

'Does anybody else find Jeff Bezos' New wife - Lauren Sanchez - ABSOLUTELY REVOLTING?' he wrote.

'What an ugly and F***ing SMUG - LOOKING couple they make. Is this what having 1000 Billion dollars does to people?'

McNally's seemingly unprovoked roast comes a week after Sanchez and Bezos made several public appearances together in Washington, DC at the White House's state dinner for the Prime Minister of Japan and to present the Courage and Civility Award - an annual grant of $100million that Bezos distributes.

Keith McNally shared a carousel of pictures of Lauren Sanchez and her fiancé, Jeff Bezos, and proceeded to skewer the pair on Monday night

It is not clear why McNally targeted Sanchez and Bezos specifically. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13314425/restaurateur-keith-mcnally-rips-lauren-sanchez-instagram.html

Duck hunting season begins in Victoria despite inquiry recommending it be outlawed


<b></b>

<i>This is of course an emotional issue rather than a logical one.  If you kill animals for food what does it matter which animal you kill?  And  poultry are a very widespread source of food.  The KFC and Nando's chains would not exist otherwise.  

Hunting any animal is not for me but we have in fact evolved to kill animals for food.  So hunters are doing a very human thing.  One can only hope that the people "rescuing" ducks are also kind to their fellow human beings.  

I do myself rather like ducks  both in the environment and on my plate but  they are a very capable creature so there is never going to be any scarcity of them.  Quacking creatures in ponds are very common</i>


In wetlands across Victoria, camouflaged hunters waded into the water on Wednesday, turned their shotguns to the sky and began to bring down ducks.

At Lake Lyndger, near the wheat-growing town of Boort, Danny Ryan is waiting waist-deep in water at 8am — the moment Victoria's 2024 duck hunting season commenced.

Mr Ryan, a longtime hunter and spokesperson for the Victorian Duck Hunters Association, points to several dead tree stumps and marks an imaginary line.

This is the distance within which he will shoot ducks, he says, as it is more likely to lead to an accurate shot and an ethical kill.

Under mounting pressure and increased regulations, duck hunters like Mr Ryan are keen to stress their efforts to hunt humanely.

In a little over an hour, Mr Ryan kills three grey teal, one black duck and one wood duck. His haul is one short of the daily limit of six ducks.

It takes skill to identify from the silhouette, size and movement of the duck whether it's a species that can legally be hunted, and as birds come and go, frenzied gunfire gives way to the natural sounds of the wetlands and moments of peace.

"You get to be at one with nature, but at the same time you're interacting with nature and you're harvesting wild game birds," Mr Ryan says.

Some of the ducks the hunter shoots are killed instantly and some fall to the water injured and need to be shot again.

Some he will he eat, he says, and some will be shared with family.

Is it crueller than eating an animal raised in captivity?

"I think the majority of people if they sat down and had a really good think about that, I think that they would come on the side of 'No, the duck's had a better life'," Mr Ryan says.

Last year, a parliamentary inquiry recommended outlawing duck hunting, and many thought the 2023 season would be Victoria's last.

The inquiry cited long-term decline of native birds, animal welfare concerns regarding wounding rates, the unacceptable wounding and death rates of threatened species, and the inability to enforce compliance, as the major factors leading to its recommendation.

But the hunters are back for another season this year, after the Labor state government declined to implement the ban.

And a polarised debate continues over whether the pursuit is a noble way to stay connected to where our food comes from, or the sport of bloodthirsty killers.

The duck rescuers

On the shores of a lake near Charlton, a dozen or so Coalition Against Duck Shooting (CADS) volunteers wait to retrieve injured birds from the water.

Without a hunting license they risk a fine if they enter the water before 10am or get within 10 metres of a hunter.

Some members do enter the water, dressed in high-vis vests, and paddle kayaks with flags and whistles to shepherd ducks away from hunters.

Leading the team is David Evans, who darts around the other volunteers, his head slightly bowed and a walkie-talkie in hand, perpetually in motion.

For 28 years he has spent his autumns scouting wetlands, plucking injured birds from the water, documenting illegal killings and antagonising hunters..

Gone are the days of 8,000 shooters with pump action shotguns, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, he says.

"I think we're lucky to have 50 here in this wetland [today]," he says.

The decline in hunters gives him hope, and he believes public opinion is on his side.

This year, on the opening day of the season, interactions between hunters and those who oppose them are relatively calm, and Mr Evans says it has been that way ever since the proliferation of digital cameras.

But the rescuers say they are often verbally abused and threatened by the hunters, while shooters complain of CADS volunteers rescuing injured birds from the water before they can be killed and collected.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-13/victoria-duck-hunting-season-begins-despite-inquiry/103699988

******************************************************

The Lord's Prayer and the Holy Name


In Matthews 6:9 we read:

Ἁγιασθήτω ὄνομά σου 
 
Hagiasthētō onoma sou

hallowed be name of You

They are simple Greek words but how should we translate them?   How to translate "Hagiasthētō"? It is a form of the normal Greek word for "holy".  "Hallowed" is not a bad translation but it is an old-fashioned form of English.  "Reverenced" or "revered" would be better.  Perhaps "treated as Holy" would be best.  

And what is the name being referred to? God the father is normally referred to in the Greek NT as "theos".  But pagan gods are referred to in Greek as "theos" too.  So the prayer is not referring to that.  It is clearly referring to the distinctive name for the Hebrew god,  as used thousands of times in the OT: "Yahveh", or "Jehovah" in English.

So Jesus was explicitly telling his disciples to not to follow the priestly practice of substituting other words for "Yahveh". It seems a pity that Christians have chanted those words  so often while not heeding them.  Most Christians follow the  practice of the  Pharisees despite Christ telling his followers not to.  Rather amazing.

I am not here arguing for the rightness of the Jehovah's Witness denomination but they have clearly got one thing right.  They are one of the very few who obey the instructions  in the Lord's Prayer

JR

Love thy neighbour? What to do when you can’t stand who’s next door


It's generally good advice below but having a dog in a small unit is generally unfortunate, including for the dog.

When it comes to loud music I have a better idea than any mentioned below.  I once had some young people move in next door and they liked their music loud.  I called on them and asked them to tone it down.  I also mentioned smilingly that we both had equal rights about playing music. 

When nothing changed, I dealt with it promptly.  I put my HiFi speakers on the window sill nearest to them and promptly played Janacek's Sinfonietta through them  -- loudly.  Within minutes the kids came streaming out of the house and into their cars.  They couldn't stand it.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aFTv50AoEQ&t=31s

The Sinformietta is brass-heavy </i>avant garde<i> classical music which to most people sounds like scratching your finger-nails on a blackboard . Even some classical music fans don't like it.  But I do.  It was a very simple lesson in human diversity that some young people needed to learn.

I must mention some day how  I dealt kindly with an incessantly-barking dog.  I a psychologist and ever since Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, psychologists have modified animal behaviour


When Sabrina Damiano bought her first home – a one-bedroom apartment in Sydney’s eastern suburbs – the possibility of not getting along with her neighbours didn’t cross her mind.

“I’ve rented for the last 10 years and never had any issues,” she says. “When I moved in, I even went around and introduced myself with cupcakes and cookies.”

But just over a month later, Damiano received a breach notice saying her dog, Rufus – a 15-year-old pug-cross-maltese with dementia – was disturbing the peace by "occasionally" barking.

Damiano says she took every measure to improve the situation. She got Rufus new medication, worked from home more frequently, and hired a dog-sitter when she had to leave the house. But the breach notices kept coming. Now, the case may go to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

“Things got really nasty,” she says. “They stuck the rude finger up at me. They threatened to call the RSPCA … They took my washing off the [communal] line.”

After less than a year Damiano’s situation became so toxic that she decided to sell her apartment.

Whether faced with seemingly unreasonable complaints, or suffering at the hands of someone who blasts music at 4am every weeknight, neighbour disputes have arguably become part and parcel of community living.

According to a Relationships Australia survey conducted in 2019, over 60 per cent of women and 68 per cent of men said they had experienced conflict with neighbours.

“I’m seeing a rise in noise complaints in strata [including apartments],” says strata lawyer Amanda Farmer.

“More people are living in strata, many different types of people, like families with kids, multi-generational families, those with pets, people who are adding value by renovating … But then you also have more people working from home, so it’s the perfect storm.”

Talk it out

Let’s say your neighbour blasts the trombone at 2am every Wednesday. If this interferes with your household’s sleep (and you feel safe enough to do so), etiquette expert Amanda King recommends calmly and respectfully approaching them to communicate how the issue affects you.

“If you begin with an aggressive reaction, you may only be met with more aggression, and the issue escalates,” Sydney-based King says. “Make sure to treat your neighbour with courtesy and respect and listen to what they have to say. Keep a record of all contact you have regarding the problem.”

Face-to-face is always preferable as it comes across as more sincere, King says. However, if this isn’t possible, a carefully worded letter would suffice.

It’s possible to get ahead of any issues by establishing a positive dynamic with your neighbours from the beginning, says Sydney-based social etiquette expert Anna Musson.

“Getting along with neighbours is a thermostat for your life. We should get to know who lives near us and build a community, whether for our own loneliness, neighbourhood security or to build that sense of belonging. When we know who’s crying, whose dog is barking, who’s building a deck, it reduces how annoying we find that sound.”

Mediate

If tension persists, it’s often possible to resolve the dispute by inviting a knowledgeable and impartial third party to the conversation, says strata and community titles lawyer Allison Benson.

However, official mediation is the next step. “Owning a property in a strata or community title scheme is like a marriage, a long-term relationship with the other lot owners. It’s generally to everyone’s benefit to try to resolve the matter before it gets to the litigation stage.”

Most mediation services are free, such as via NSW Fair Trading and Community Justice Centres. Elsewhere, the Dispute Settlement Centre of Victoria also offers free mediation; however, matters referred by VCAT are generally prioritised due to high demand.

Tribunal: a worst-case scenario?

Legal action is generally considered a last resort, Benson says, as it’s time-consuming, expensive and stressful. If your case does end up before a tribunal or court, she strongly recommends seeking legal advice.

“You need to understand not just your legal rights and obligations but what’s required during the litigation process. I’ve seen many people with good claims fail because they didn’t understand what they needed to prove or the time limits that may apply to their claim.”

During a tribunal, it will be up to the complainant to prove their peace was unfairly disturbed, Farmer says. This is a rather subjective process, which largely depends on the amount of verifiable evidence each neighbour recorded throughout the dispute.

The Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation will govern most neighbourhood noise, including the use of air conditioners and musical instruments. It sets out timeframes for noisy activities and their duration.

Defining “unreasonable noise”

This will depend on it’s volume and intensity, what type of noise it is, time and place, its duration and its frequency.

When to let it go

Not every grievance is worth the battle. As the Australian population grows and apartment living booms, noise and other minor annoyances are almost inevitable.

“People are all around you,” Farmer says. “You have to come to terms with this if you’re going to live in these spaces. Noise also travels in older buildings in Australia. So, you must temper expectations.”

If something is only mildly annoying and relatively infrequent, such as a Saturday night party or someone leaving their bin in the parking bay, Benson says it’s probably best to ignore it and preserve the relationship.

President of the Australian Psychological Society, Dr Catriona Davis-McCabe, says though you can’t control how you feel about something, you can control your response.

“Not letting go and moving on from small things that annoy you compounds over time, making your life harder and less enjoyable than it needs to be. Remember that you only have a finite amount of mental capacity to deal with stress each day, so it’s better to save it for the most important issues you’re facing.”

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/love-thy-neighbour-what-to-do-when-you-can-t-stand-who-s-next-door-20240408-p5fi62.html

*************************************************

EPA sets new regulations on ‘forever chemicals’ in US drinking water


So global warming is not the only myth the EPA subscribes to. Note the weasel wording: "Has been linked to". Yes, a lot of people have linked PFAS to illness and have done so for many years. But nobody has produced good evidence for the link. Below is the most recent attempt to "link" PFAS to something. Pathetic
See also:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized rules on PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) also known as “forever chemicals” in drinking water systems across the US.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan who previously served as head of North Carolina’s Department of Environmental Quality from 2017 until early 2021, announced the regulations at the P.O. Hoffer Water Plant in Fayetteville on Wednesday.

The new rules require public water utilities to monitor for six types of PFAS and limit maximum contaminant levels (MCL).

Exposure to PFAS has been linked to serious health risks, including certain cancers, liver and heart damage in adults, and immune and developmental effects for infants and children.

“Today I’m proud to return to North Carolina to announce the first ever, nationwide, legally enforceable drinking water standard for PFAS,” Regan said, “this is the most significant action EPA has ever taken on PFAS.”

Regan noted the importance of these chemicals, but also the risks.

“These chemicals have a place and are important for certain industries and certain practices. There’s also no doubt that these chemicals entering our environment in an uncontrolled manner are harmful to our families, harmful to our communities, and harmful to our economy,” Regan said.

PFAS are a category of chemicals used since the 1940s to repel oil and water and resist heat, which makes them useful in everyday products such as nonstick cookware, stain resistant clothing, and firefighting foam.

13 months ago, Regan was in Wilmington at the campus of UNCW to announce the start of the rule-making process.

Southeastern North Carolina has been on the forefront of contaminated drinking water, since 2017 when it was reported that chemical company Chemours had been dumping GenX into the Cape Fear River for decades.

The Biden administration has allocated $1 billion to assist states in funding infrastructure upgrades to adhere to the new regulations. North Carolina is set to receive $29 million in grant funding to aid utilities in implementing testing and upgrading water treatment technology.

“You are going to hear a lot of talk about cost and it can’t be done and we shouldn’t do this,” Regan said, “Let me just tell you it can be done. It can be achieved using a range of technologies and approaches that many water systems are using today.”

The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, which provides water to customers in New Hanover County, has already invested more than $40 million to install granular activated carbon filters to address PFAS.

*******************************************

The Cut Flowers Civilization


Ben Shapiro is probably correct below. But there may be a middle way. I follow Carnap in thinking that metaphysical statements are not even meaningful, let alone right or wrong. Yet I sometimes call myself a Christian. Why? Because I try to live a Christian life. I think that is not incoherent and could be adopted by others. I do get rewards when I do the Christian thing in a situation. It's rather wonderful how often and sometimes how promptly kind, forgiving and generous behavior is rewarded

I will mention just one small and rather amusing example of such an occasion.

I was working in a Real Estate office when one of the salesmen began abusing me for something I had said. In reply I said: "Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa". I accepted blame in accordance with Matthew chapter 5 but I did it in Latin.

He was however an older Catholic who remembered the Latin mass so understood what I said and was amused by it. So he instantly went from condemning to laughing. Others nearby said frantically, "What did he say? , What did he say?" They thought I had used some sort of magic spell to get such an abrupt change in him, which, in a way, I had


This week, famed British atheist Richard Dawkins explained that he was a “cultural Christian.”

Praising civilization in the United Kingdom, Dawkins stated:

I do think that we are culturally a Christian country. I call myself a cultural Christian. I’m not a believer. But there is a distinction between being a believing Christian and being a cultural Christian. And so, you know, I love hymns and Christmas carols, and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos. I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense.

Dawkins went on to praise Christianity as a “fundamentally decent religion in a way that I think Islam is not.”

Dawkins’ case for Christianity—a case made on the basis of utility—is nothing new. It was made long ago by Voltaire, an acidic critic of the church who famously averred, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”

But the problem with the utilitarian case for religious belief is that it doesn’t animate religious believers. It is simply impossible to build a civilization on the basis of Judeo-Christian foundations while making the active case as to why those foundations ought to be dissolved.

In fact, Western civilization has doomed itself so long as it fails to reconnect to its religious roots. Philosopher Will Herberg wrote:

The moral principles of Western civilization are, in fact, all derived from the tradition rooted in Scripture and have vital meaning only in the context of that tradition. … Cut flowers retain their original beauty and fragrance, but only so long as they retain the vitality that they have drawn from their now severed roots; after that is exhausted, they wither and die. So with freedom, brotherhood, justice and personal dignity—the values that form the moral foundation of our civilization. Without the life-giving power of the faith out of which they have sprung, they possess neither meaning nor vitality.

We are a cut flowers civilization.

And eventually, cut flowers die.

That has never been more obvious than this week, when the Biden administration decided to honor the newly invented Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter Sunday. Gender ideology is a symptom of our society’s reversion to gnostic paganism, in which unseen, chaotic forces buffet us about, and in which nature is directly opposed to the freedom of our disembodied essences.

It is no wonder that gender ideology is opposed by every mainstream traditional religion.

Yet claiming that this magical holiday could not be moved, the White House issued a variety of statements in celebration of radical gender ideology, including a deeply insulting statement from the president of the United States citing the book of Genesis to the effect that transgender people are “made in the image of God”—ignoring the last half of the biblical verse, which reads, “male and female he made them.”

What better time than Easter, the holiest day in the Christian calendar, to pay homage to an entirely new religion?

Richard Dawkins is obviously correct that a civilization rooted in church is better than a civilization rooted in an alternative set of values. But in reality, the churches cannot be empty; they must be full. The cathedrals that mean Britain to Dawkins must ring with the sounds of hymns in order to maintain their holiness and their importance; otherwise, they are merely beautiful examples of old architecture, remnants of a dead civilization preserved in stone.

But our civilization must live. And that means more than cultural Christianity. It means reengaging with the source of our values—the Scriptures that educated our fathers and grandfathers.

*****************************************************

Yes, Donald Trump & Co. SHOULD fight unfair anti-white racism


The inequality between blacks and whites in the USA drives Leftists mad. Equality is a major part of their religion. But it is plain that whites prosper more than blacks do and that East Asians do best of all. And nothing seems to be able to change that. Leftists cannot accept that there are inherent differences between the three groups that will always make them better fitted to prosper in a modern Western economy. So they resort to all sorts of nonsense in order to deny what lies plainly in front of them. They say they are enemies of racism but go on immediately to practice it against whites: Equality at all costs. They are obsessed: Very unpleasant people

Is there anything more poisonous or ridiculous than insisting that corporations and the government treat people fairly regardless of race?

Apparently not.

An Axios report on the Trump team’s intention to use civil-rights laws to target DEI policies discriminating against whites has occasioned sneering and denunciations.

Philip Bump at The Washington Post snarked, as his headline puts it, “Trump aims to be a fearless warrior for White advantage.”

The New Republic commented, sarcastically, “If Donald Trump is elected to a second term in November, his allies plan to end this country’s long-standing oppression of a major marginalized group in America: white people.”

MSNBC warned, “Trumpism is increasingly organized around the reactionary principle that white Americans are not just overlooked, but are victims because of their race. This is a path to unraveling multicultural democracy.”

Much of the commentary reflects the contradictory argument that anti-white racism isn’t really a thing, yet, simultaneously, is absolutely essential to racial progress.

The same twisted reasoning was often used when the CRT controversy was at its height; critical race theory was either a right-wing myth or foundational to the truthful teaching of America’s past, or somehow both.

There should be a long German word for this rhetorical phenomenon.

Regardless, it is axiomatic that in the context of zero-sum hiring, admissions and contracting decisions, favoring one group will disadvantage another.

This has been well established regarding affirmative-action policies at colleges — it’s much harder for white (or Asian) applicants to get into competitive schools than it is for members of favored minority groups with similar credentials.

Progressives might believe that this is cosmic justice, that whites deserve whatever they get. But individuals aren’t racial symbols and shouldn’t be treated as such. A conscientious white college applicant, who has never harmed anyone, shouldn’t be punished for his or her race.

Why are the iniquities of the old Jim Crow regime being taken out on white applicants — who never voted for Lester Maddox and probably never heard of him — for assistant-vice-president jobs at banks and other corporations?

This is unfair, and, more to the point, against the law.

The US Constitution is race neutral, and so are the civil-rights laws enacted after the Civil War and in the 1960s.

As such, they are potentially a powerful weapon against the system of racial preferences that has become a pervasive feature of American life.

We saw that in the Supreme Court’s affirmative-action decision last year, and in the ruling last month against the Minority Business Development Agency by US District Court Judge Mark Pittman in Texas.

Corporations that are setting hiring targets by race and gender face massive exposure.

They haven’t had to worry about it much to this point. The plaintiffs’ bar, out of political cowardice, won’t touch this issue.

On top of that, it’s hard even to find plaintiffs; becoming known as the white person who was chiseled out of a job and sued over it is not the best career move in corporate America.

This is why an ideologically driven group like former Trump aide Stephen Miller’s America First Legal has had to pick up the baton, with some success.

But if a Trump Justice Department decides to make an example of a couple of high-profile corporations engaged in these discriminatory practices, the regime of preferences may well crumble quickly.

Until recently, the incentives have been all the other way — to adopt the fashionable attitudes, spout the familiar DEI lines, empower the apparatchiks of HR and not risk the ire of elite opinion by taking a different path.

Now, there are signs that DEI in corporate America is cresting, or at least becoming less blatant, under political and legal pressure.

If a Trump Justice Department (and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) pushes these types of policies in business and government into the dustbin, the Left will firmly plant both feet on one side of its current straddle — and say it’s a travesty that anti-white discrimination no longer exists.

****************************************************

JK Rowling is 'spreading disinformation' about Scotland's new hate crime laws says Scottish First Minister after Harry Potter author slammed his 'bumbling incompetence and illiberal authoritarianism'


As ever, the Devil is in the detail.  What consitutes "stirring up hatred"? Does any criticism count?  Leftists are prone to claim that it does.  So critics of the law have good reason to be suspicious of it.

And the Scottish First Minister is therefore in full damage-control mode, pushing a very narrow definition of "stirring up hatred".  It does seem that his very narrow definition is being adopted by Police Scotland so the actual effect of the law may be small


Harry Potter author JK Rowling and other critics of Scotland's new hate crime laws must stop 'peddling misinformation', Scotland's First Minister has said.

Humza Yousaf strongly defended the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act against claims it would hamper freedom of speech after it was introduced earlier this week. 

JK Rowling criticised the Scottish Government's hate laws while posting pictures of 10 high-profile trans people and ridiculed their claims to be women.

Speaking at Glasgow's Prestwick Airport on Saturday, Mr Yousaf said: 'There's deliberate misinformation being peddled by some bad actors across Scotland - it's hardly surprising the Opposition seek to do that.

'What we've got is a piece of legislation that in the actual Act itself, explicitly in black and white, protects freedom of expression, freedom of speech.'

The SNP leader went on: 'At the same time, it makes sure that it protects people from hatred being stirred up against them, and that is really important when we have far too many incidents of hatred that can be because of their age, disability, sexuality or religion.'

'There's no place for that in Scotland, and you have to send a really strong signal that the law will protect you.'

Rowling's comments were reported to Police Scotland as alleged hate crimes. 

The force found she had committed no crime and also said it would not record a 'non-crime hate incident' against her.

She also said that most Scots were 'upset and offended by Yousaf 's bumbling incompetence and illiberal authoritarianism', following the introduction of the legislation on Monday.

Rowling wrote on X/Twitter: 'Most of Scotland is upset and offended by Yousaf's bumbling incompetence and illiberal authoritarianism, but we aren't lobbying to have him locked up for it.'

Asked what his message to critics such as JK Rowling would be, the Nationalist MSP said: 'I would tell them to stop spreading disinformation. It isn't going to help anybody. 

 'This is a piece of legislation that was passed by every single political party in Scotland, minus the Conservatives.'

He said: 'It's a ludicrous suggestion. Actually JK Rowling's tweets are a perfect example of how the law actually works.

'JK Rowling produced some tweets that were offensive, that were insulting - but of course the law does not deal with offensive. 

'The law is dealing with new offences, criminal behaviour that has to be threatening or abusive, intent to stir up hatred. Hence why she was not arrested.

'That's not a surprise. Anybody who actually read the Bill will not be surprised that she did not get arrested. The threshold for criminality is extremely high.

'So anybody suggesting that the Bill deals with simply people having their feelings hurt, being offended, being insulted, I'm afraid that is not what the new offences are concerned with.

'There are very explicit in black and white protections for people's freedom of expression and indeed of freedom of speech. 

'The Bill has got the balance right between protecting people from hatred and protecting people's fundamental freedoms.'

Mr Yousaf also shared his views in an opinion article in The Courier newspaper, urging politicians and public figures to create a debate rooted in 'reality'.

He said false claims the law makes it a criminal offence to make 'derogatory comments' based on the characteristics covered in the Act was 'simply untrue'.

The First Minister wrote: 'As a father of two girls, and blessed with a baby on the way, I feel an even greater obligation to work as First Minister to help make Scotland even better for the next generation.

'Critics of this law shouldn't exaggerate its impact with false fears. Equally, its proponents shouldn't pretend that it can of itself eradicate hatred and prejudice from our society.'

Yousaf was also reported to police about an alleged hate crime over a speech he made at the Scottish Parliament four years ago.

Like Rowling, police confirmed it was not a hate crime and said no 'non-crime hate incident' would be recorded against his name.

Adam Tomkins, a law professor and a former Scottish Tory MSP who voted against the Hate Crime Act, previously told STV News that 'misgendering' someone was not a crime under the law.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act consolidates existing hate crime legislation and creating a new offence of stirring up hatred against protected characteristics.

Those characteristics are disability, religion, sexual orientation, age, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13278903/jk-rowling-disinformation-scotland-hate-crime-law-humza-yousaf.html

*********************************************

Do autism and psychopathy overlap?


Answering that question runs into a lot of difficulties over definition. For reference, I give the Mayo definition of both conditions below

* Autism spectrum disorder is a condition related to brain development that impacts how a person perceives and socializes with others, causing problems in social interaction and communication. The disorder also includes limited and repetitive patterns of behavior.

* Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly or with cruel indifference. They lack remorse or do not regret their behavior.


As you will see, psychopathy is no longer called that any more. For a while it was renamed "sociopathy" but now it is usually called "antisocial personality disorder'

There would appear to be one clear area of overlap: concern over other people and their feelings. But the causality would appear to be different. The psychopath is aware of other people's feelings but doesn't care while the austistic person is not aware. Both ignore other peoples feeling but for different reasons. Still, that indifference is a central feature of both syndromes so their apparent identity is an important question.

In my case, I am a person with a pretty full set of autistic characteristics, and I am aware of how little other people's sufferings and feelings impact me. I am not a sympathetic person. I do for instance greatly deplore the vicious October 7 attacks on innocent Israelis by a deranged Palestinian minority but I cannot FEEL anything about that event.

But on the other hand I have always been generous to others in some ways. At present I give roughly half of my disposable income to a charitable cause while living a generally frugal personal life. I have long given away a large slice of my income

So there is clearly a possibility of mistaking the two traits and unwinding any confusion depends on looking at other characteristics of the person

Another potential confusion is the way I drive. I am a "demon" driver and that could be mistaken for psychopathic carelessness. But it is an item of pride to me that in 60 years of driving I have never hurt myself or anyone else. I just work with fine margins, that's all. I have been known to give my passengers the shakes however

So again, things that may look the same may in fact be fundamentally different

This very post is an instance of autistic behaviour. It is common for autistics to be unusually self-revealing. Psychopaths, on the other hand, tend to be devious and to "fake good"

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen is an acknowledged authority on autism and he argues that calling it a "disorder" is wrong.
Like some of the people mentioned in the article linked below I am inclined to think it can be a gift, or even a "superpower"
I commented on that article a few days ago
*******************************************************

Greens are always warning that the Earth's overcrowded... In fact, the West's plunging birthrate will usher in a dystopia


I think the scenario pictured  below is a tad alarmist but  lower birthrates will undoubtedly cause adjustment problems.  Overlooked is that birthrates may recover for various reasons.  Straight-line projections of biological phenomena are usually simplistic.  After  non-maternal women have weeded themseves out of the gene pool, The remaining more maternal women might produce a quite high  birthrate

Picture the cities of the future. Do you imagine glittering skyscrapers, bullet trains whizzing past green parklands, flying taxis and limitless clean energy?

I’m afraid you may be disappointed. A century from now, swathes of the world’s cities are more likely to be abandoned, with small numbers of residents clinging to decaying houses set on empty, weed-strewn streets – like modern-day Detroit.

According to a new report from the Lancet medical journal, by the year 2100, just six countries could be having children at ‘replacement rate’ – that is, with enough births to keep their populations stable, let alone growing.

All six nations will be in sub-Saharan Africa. In Europe and across the West and Asia, the birth rate will have collapsed – and the total global population will be plummeting.

Eco-activists have long decried humans as a curse on the planet, greedily gobbling up resources and despoiling the natural world.

The reliably hysterical BBC presenter Chris Packham has claimed that ‘human population growth’ is ‘our greatest worry… There are just too many of us. Because if you run out of resources, it doesn’t matter how well you’re coping: if you’re starving and thirsty, you’ll die.’

Greens like Packham seem to think that if we could only reduce the overall population, the surviving rump of humanity could somehow live in closer harmony with nature. On the contrary, population collapse will presage a terrifying dystopia.

Fewer babies mean older populations – which in turn means fewer young people paying taxes to fund the pensions of the elderly. And that means that everyone has to work ever longer into old age, and in an atmosphere of declining public services and deteriorating quality of life.

So if you worry that it’s hard now to find carers to look after elderly relatives, this will be nothing compared to what your children or grandchildren will face when they are old.

In modern industrialised societies, it is generally accepted that the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) – the average number of children born to each woman during her lifetime – must be at least 2.1 to ensure a stable population.  By 2021, the TFR had fallen below 2.1 in more than half the world’s countries.

In Britain, it now stands at 1.49. In Spain and Japan it is 1.26, in Italy 1.21 and in South Korea a desperate 0.82.

Even in India – which recently overtook China as the world’s most populous nation – the TFR is down to 1.91.

There are now just 94 countries in which the rate exceeds 2.1 – and 44 of them are in sub-Saharan Africa, which suffers far higher rates of infant mortality.

The dramatic fall in Britain’s birthrate has been disguised until now because we are importing hundreds of thousands of migrants per year to do badly paid jobs that the native population increasingly spurns. 

In 2022, net migration here reached more than 700,000. The Office of National Statistics expects the UK population to reach 70million by 2026, almost 74 million by 2036 and almost 77 million by 2046 – largely fed by mass migration.

Unless migration remains high, the UK population is likely to start shrinking soon after that point – especially as the last ‘baby boomer’ (born between 1946 and 1964) reaches their 80th birthday in 2044. This mass importation of migrants to counteract a falling domestic birthrate spells huge consequences for our social fabric.

In years to come, Britain is set to face a pitiless battle with other advanced economies – many of them already much richer than we are – to import millions of overseas workers to staff our hospitals, care homes, factories and everything else.

And once the global population starts to fall in the final decades of this century, it will become ever harder to source such workers from abroad. At that point, we may find hospitals having to cut their services or even close.

So, though medical advancements will likely mean that people will be living even longer, we face a grim future in which elderly people will increasingly die of neglect, or be looked after by robots – an idea that has been trialled in Japan already.

How has this crisis crept up on us so stealthily? It wasn’t so long ago that the United Nations and others were voicing concern at overpopulation.

For decades, self-proclaimed experts have warned – in the manner of early 19th-century economist Thomas Malthus – that global supplies of food and water, as well as natural resources, would run out. 

Graphs confidently showed the world’s population accelerating exponentially, with many claiming that humankind had no choice but to launch interplanetary civilisations as we inevitably outgrew our world.

They could not have been more wrong.

Amid all the Packham-esque hysteria about a ‘population explosion’, many failed to notice that birth rates had actually already started to collapse: first in a few developed countries, such as Italy and South Korea, and then elsewhere.

As societies grow wealthier and the middle classes boom, women start to put off childbearing. This means that they end up having fewer children overall. In Britain especially, there are the added costs of childcare and the often permanent loss of income that results from leaving the workforce, even temporarily.

The striking result of all this is that the number of babies being born around the world has, in fact, already peaked.

The year 2016 is likely to go down in history as the one in which more babies were born than any other: 142million of them. By 2021, the figure was 129million – a fall of more than 9 per cent in just five years.

To be clear, the global population is for the moment still rising because people are living longer thanks to better medical care. We are not dying as quickly as babies are being born.

According to the UN, the global population reached 8billion on November 15, 2022. It should carry on growing before peaking at 10.4 billion in the 2080s – although the world will be feeling the effects of the declining birth rate long before that.

On current trends, the world’s population will start to fall by the 2090s – the first time this will have happened since the Black Death swept Eurasia in the 14th century.

So what, if anything, can we do to stop ourselves hurtling towards this calamity?

For one thing, governments must work tirelessly to encourage people to have families. Generous tax incentives for marriage, lavish child benefit payments and better and cheaper childcare are all a must, so that mothers don’t have to stop their careers in order to start families.

Britain could, if it chose to, lead the way on this.

But that seems highly unlikely with the imminent prospect of a Labour government: the statist Left habitually loathes any measures that could be seen to benefit the nuclear family or that incentivise people to have more children.

Yet in truth, the scale of this problem is so vast – and the issue so widespread – that effectively counteracting it may be next to impossible.

Absent some extraordinary shift, the gradual impoverishment of an ageing and shrinking population seems the planet’s destiny. It is not an attractive thought.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13224245/Earth-overcrowded-West-plunging-birthrate-dystopia-ROSS-CLARK.html

**********************************************

No more chardonnay or sauvignon blanc! Warming temperatures mean wine lovers will have to get used to less common plonk such as grenache and monastrell


I doubt that this is a real prospect but the best Sauvignon Blanc comes from New Zealand anyway.  And I think very highly of Verdelho, which is a Portuguese grape well adapted to warmer climates.  Verdelho is widely cultivated in Australia and I always have some of Tyrrells Verdelho on hand.  So I doubt that there will be any shortage of pleasing wines anywhere




Wine lovers have been served disappointing news ahead of summer as they're warned they may have to say goodbye to chardonnay and sauvignon blanc and hello to less common plonk such as grenache and monastrell.

With global temperatures on the rise, wine drinkers will have to settle for rarer grape varieties that can cope with hotter and drier environments, according to experts.

Wine is naturally adapted to warm and dry climates because of its origins in the Mediterranean region, with the most popular grapes heavily reliant on irrigation - the practice of applying controlled amounts of water to land to help grow plants.

But the process faces its own challenges as climate change makes water scarcer. 

Wine has already become more alcoholic and has a sweeter taste, with vineyards harvesting almost three weeks earlier than they did just four decades ago.

Hotter growing-season temperatures are making it harder for growers to achieve balance in the fruit—and, therefore, in the finished wine.  

But global warming is set to generate severe droughts and heatwaves that could leave a staggering 70 per cent of wine-growing regions across the planet unsuitable - if global temperatures rise by more than 2C.

Shocking figures show that the world is currently heading towards an almost 3C rise.

Around nine out of 10 vineyards that produce the grapes that make up favourites such as Spanish merlots and Italian sauvignon blancs could soon be forced to shut up shop.

Vineyards located in and around coastal and low-lying areas of Spain, Italy, Greece and southern California could be rendered unsuitable for growing, according to research published in The Times.

And although this means wine drinkers may have to settle for a lesser-known, drought-resistant grapes, such monastrell and grenache, it means the booze will continue to flow. 

Adaptations to which types of grapes are grown and the process of how they are cultivated are being discussed in vineyards across the planet in an effort to tackle the issue.

At its most extreme, 'which type of grapes are grown' can mean a complete change of grape variety. 

'The market needs to accept drinking other varieties than they're used to,' said Cornelis van Leeuwen, of the viticulture college Bordeaux Sciences Agro.

'Most of the international varieties, like sauvignon blanc, chardonnay, merlot, they're really not adapted to a warmer, drier climate'.

Bordeaux sanctioned the use of six new varieties in its vineyards two years ago.

More than half of vineyards across the world are planted with 12 varieties of grape - but luckily for wine lovers, there are thousands more available. 

Beyond grape varieties, growers can sometimes 'create coolness' by planting seeds on differently oriented slopes that get less or 'cooler' sun/more wind, or at higher altitudes. 

Some growers also believe they can mitigate the effects of climate change by using different clones of their existing grape varieties—versions that ripen later or more reluctantly.

A study, published in the journal Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, explored just how climate change will impact wine-growing on a global scale.

It revealed that if temperatures are held to 2C, around 25 per cent of today's wine growing regions could benefit.

Another quarter would maintain their suitability.

But anything beyond 2C would lead to the catastrophic result of 70 per cent of the world's vineyards being unable to grow the most well-known and loved wine grapes.

Statistics from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show a world that is already more than 1°C warmer than before the industrial revolution. 

Eight of the ten warmest years on record have occurred in the last decade. 

In the last two years, there have been record temperatures from Canada to Sicily, wildfires in Australia, Portugal, Greece, and California, and floods in Australia and Germany.

New growing regions are also set to open in the UK, as the climate is becomes more suitable for growing.

Sussex and Kent are already leading the way with their vastly popular Rathfinny and Denbies estates that boast chalk soils and sloped landscapes, perfect for grape growing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13243683/No-chardonnay-sauvignon-blanc-Warming-temperatures-wine-common-grenache-monastrell.html

******************************************

Smiling but lying – if real estate agents won’t tell the truth, I will


Jenna Price (below) is a grumpy old thing.  She fails to realize that real estate valuations are very uncertain, which is why auctions are so often resorted to.  And note how often auction results are surprising.  There'a an old saying in real estate that you only know the value of a  property when the cheque clears.  I have bought and sold many houses and have generally guessed well but I have had disappointments too


Have real estate agents changed, or have I? You be the judge.

We bought our first house in 1984. It was previously owned by the kind of real estate mogul who knew which suburbs were on the move. It came with a needy neighbour, an outside dunny and was right under the flight path, but we loved it. We made our first baby there and then our second.

It became clear we needed a laundry, an indoor toilet and, spare me your judgment, a kitchen which had room for both a fridge and a dishwasher. I seriously felt I was more likely to survive without a fridge than without a dishwasher. And that was before No.3.

But real estate agents could tell us, more or less, what we should pay for a bigger house in the neighbouring suburb. News in Victoria that an agency is being charged for massive underquoting must act as a warning that all agents should be fair and, more or less, square.

If only warnings worked.

Here’s what I discovered this week. My kids are on the lookout. In fact, I’m friends with an entire generation of parents whose kids are on the lookout, both for their inheritance and the prospect of leaving behind the government-sanctioned malfeasance of renting. Which brings me to this predicament.

A couple of weeks ago, a long-time friend discovered we were planning to downsize. She told me her kid and the kid’s partner were selling their house and could expect to get, according to their local agent, $1.7 million for it. Yes, it’s in one of those newly groovy suburbs, but it’s small and perfectly formed. She sent me the address. Looked great. I’m too old for groovy but whatever.

Imagine my utter lack of surprise when it turned up on your favourite real estate site, with a buyer’s guide of $1.45 million. That’s a quarter of a million dollars less than what the agent guided the sellers. I even wrote to the real estate agent just to check on that buyer’s guide because, you know, glitches happen online. He confirmed $1.45 million as the buyer’s guide. God, you’d love to be issued the seller’s guide as well, right?

In my highest dudgeon, I called the only non-real-estate-agent-real-estate-expert I know – Macquarie University’s Cathy Sherry – filled with grumpiness directed at the real estate agent.

She reminded me that the duty of the agent is to the vendor. They are engaged by the vendor. That means they have to act in the best interests of the vendor.

It’s nearly impossible to get anyone defending real estate agents in Australia, but Sherry said agents can’t ever – really – tell how many people are going to show up at an auction and how much they are prepared to spend. She says the best way to prepare yourself for what you should pay is to look at all the houses.

“Once you’ve looked at five properties, it’s not rocket science,” she says. Mind you, she did agree that my example revealed a big gap.

Now, imagine my utter frustration when one of my own children thought buying it was a possibility based on the unrealistic (and indeed phony) buyer’s guide. If you pop in the top price you want to pay (as you can on these exhausting websites), it comes up as under $1.5 million.

The problem is not the underquoting exactly. It’s the sheer manipulation of the hopes of young buyers drifting around homes which are nearly identical because they’ve been styled. (Please – I beg you – no more white walls, cream couches and AI artwork. And turn off the lights in the middle of the day. We see you.)

Buying property, unless you are a hardened investor with no emotions in the game, is a nightmare. Conveyancers. Maybe lawyers. Building reports. Banks. All under the pressure of time and fear, of not knowing what comes next. It’s a crushing combination of mundane tasks under extreme pressures of time and money. Then you have to do it all again when you fail.

Now this is not a thing where everyone got overexcited at the auction. It’s before the auction. I’ve watched a few of those and understood what happened. I’ve even been the participating underbidder (relieved when unsuccessful). But this agent knows it’s likely to go for much more, has told his vendors it will go for much more, yet is luring people in with the prospect of a bargain.

And it doesn’t just happen to buyers. Vendors often fall victim to conditioning, the practice of being told the place is worth more than it is. It’s how agents win business. Please do not imagine that because an agent tells you they can sell your palace for a huge sum, that will actually come to be.

Likewise, there are no bargains in the groovy suburbs; there is no honour in the real estate market.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/smiling-but-lying-the-truth-about-unreal-estate-agents-20240325-p5ff5z.html

**************************************************

What’s happening in Alice Springs?


A very uninformative article below.  At least at the very end of the article they screwed up enough courage to utter the word "indigenous".  The problem is in fact an Aboriginal one, with young Aborigines being particularly defiant, with their skin colour protecting them from most police action

Whites in a  position to do so are already moving out.  The town will eventually become a wasteland unless vigorous police action to arrest and imprison offenders is undertaken. Aborigines are in fact easy to control.  They have a horror of being separated from their community so keeping them in solitary  overnight will be strongly punitive and will give them a strong reluctance to  repeating that experience


Violent brawls took place on Tuesday after a group of young people attacked a local pub, the Todd Tavern. Three people have been arrested so far.

According to police, the violence began when a large group of people from the Utopia district north of Alice Springs arrived in town to commemorate the death of an 18-year-old man who was killed on March 8 when the stolen car he was travelling in rolled over.

A dramatic 12-hour night curfew for everyone under the age of eighteen will be imposed across Alice Springs after violence erupted on the streets.

The group attacked other family members in the pub, which sustained $30,000 of damage after being pelted with rocks and bricks. Another brawl broke out nearby later that evening.

The Northern Territory government has declared an emergency.

Why was a curfew announced?

The two-week curfew is designed to stop people aged under 18 gathering in the town’s CBD between 6pm and 6am.

Apart from Tuesday’s brawls, a series of violent incidents have taken place in Alice Springs in recent weeks, including on Saturday when a group of about 10 young women bashed and stripped a 16-year-old girl.

Northern Territory police will send 58 additional officers to the town. There will be no criminal penalty for breaking the curfew, police said.

Why are there calls for the federal government to be involved?
“Horrendous doesn’t cut it, but I have run out of words,” the town’s mayor, Matt Paterson, said on social media. He has previously called for federal help to tackle crime in the area.

MPs at state and federal level have expressed horror this week at the levels of violent crime in Alice Springs and called for more resources and tougher laws.

The shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, wants the federal government to deploy the defence force to maintain order, while federal Labor MP for the Alice Springs electorate of Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, also believes extra resources are needed and was seeking to work with the NT government.

The federal government could offer to deploy defence force or Australian Federal Police personnel to assist local authorities, though this would require the co-operation of the NT government.

Most policing and public safety measures, such as alcohol restrictions, are the responsibility of the territory government.

The federal government allocated $250 million in last year’s federal budget to improve social outcomes, safety and schooling in central Australia through a series of community-led programs.

Why are crime rates so high in Alice Springs?

The town has a long-standing crime problem, and has been subjected to a series of “crime waves” involving spikes in street violence and theft, and there have been periodic calls for federal intervention in recent years.

Widespread alcohol abuse is generally seen as a leading cause, coupled with chronic social disadvantage and intergenerational trauma in Indigenous communities.

Crime rates reached a four-year low in 2023, though they were still high by national standards, after limited bans on alcohol sales were re-introduced.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-s-happening-in-alice-springs-20240327-p5ffrt.html

*******************************************

Russia could launch a large-scale attack on the West as soon as 2026, classified German intelligence documents have reportedly revealed


I am tired of reading scare reports like this. They are patent nonsense.  Ukraine  has destroyed almost all of Russia's tanks and half of its airforce so what is Russia going to attack with?  They could rebuild but that would just be repeating a mistake. If it cannot defeat Uktraine who can it defeat?  The war in Ukraine has revealed that Russia is a paper tiger

German spooks are said to have recently observed a “significant intensification of Russian arms”.

The classified report, seen by Business Insider, reportedly suggests Russia is preparing for a large-scale conflict with the West.

The reorganisation of Russia’s army, troop movements, and missile deployments in the west of the country are among the signs said to be identified in the document, The Sun reported.

The outlet said: “Analysis by German intelligence services is currently circulating in the German government.

“According to this, a significant intensification of Russian arms production is being observed, which could lead to Russia doubling its military power in the next five years compared to today, especially in conventional weapons.”

The projections reportedly led intelligence services to conclude that an attack on NATO territory could “no longer be ruled out” from 2026.

NATO officials were said to be concerned about Russia’s growing military capabilities but did not believe, necessarily, that it meant the West will be dragged into war with Russia, Business Insider reports.

An American intelligence assessment found it might take Russia five to eight years to restore its military strength to what it was before Putin’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The report has not yet been made public by German spies, the outlet noted.

Vladimir Putin this week warned he is prepared to launch nuclear weapons if he feels the West is threatening Russia’s sovereignty.

He declared weapons “exist in order to use them” in his most chilling World War Three threat yet.

“We have our own principles.

“We are ready to use weapons, including any weapons, including [nuclear], if we are talking about the existence of the Russian state, harming our sovereignty and independence.”

Leaked government documents were claimed by Ukrainian hackers to prove the tyrant is preparing for a major conflict.

The bombshell papers, seemingly signed by Putin, supposedly revealed his chilling plans to attack Europe if Ukraine is defeated.

Ukraine’s National Resistance Centre said its hackers intercepted the documents via email.  <i>[propaganda]</i>

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/german-intelligence-report-raises-fresh-alarms-about-vladimir-putins-plans-for-the-west/news-story/8abfb3e847d7c3406b2e009999e48f36

**********************************************

Top scientists call for an end to daylight saving time: Experts warn clock change fuels a rise in cancer, traffic accidents and sleep issues


I am rather sympathetic to this.  I live in a State that has always resisted daylight saving, mainly because we have here a lot of influential farmers, and farmers loathe daylight saving.  But I am glad of it.  I don't like people messing around with my clocks.  The fact that I have a lot of clocks may be a factor.  I have 5 clocks in my bedroom alone.  Apologies for being eccentric but at least I always know the time


With the clocks set to go forward this Sunday, many of us will be dreading losing an hour of sleep. 

And if you think putting the clocks forward each is a literal waste of time, you are not alone.

Top sleep scientists say that shifting the day by just an hour can have massive consequences and claim it should be ditched entirely. 

From increasing cancer rates to making car accidents more likely, daylight savings can do a lot more harm than just ruining your lie-in. 

Dr Eva Winnebeck, lecturer in Chronobiology at the University of Surrey, told MailOnline: 'Chronobiologists warn against the clock change to Daylight Saving Time – each spring or even permanently.'

Problems linked with daylight savings time
Putting the clocks forward each year has been associated with: 

In the UK, daylight savings time was first introduced in 1916 as a wartime effort to save electricity and provide more daylight hours for making ammunition.

Yet while Britons are no longer churning out tank shells, in the Spring and Autumn each year we still move our clocks one hour forward or backwards. 

The argument is that, as the days get longer, shifting our days forward gives people more sunlight hours during their working days.

Proponents of this measure cite everything from lower crime rates in the evening to fewer deer being hit by cars as potential upsides.

However, many scientists say that the change is not only inconvenient, but is also actively harmful to our health. 

The biggest and most obvious impact of the change is that we lose an hour of sleep the night the clocks go forward, and have to go to bed an hour earlier the next day. 

For the vast majority of people, this will result in nothing more than feeling more tired than usual and the issue should resolve within a few days. 

But having an entire nation of people suddenly all become slightly sleep-deprived is bound to have some consequences. 

One study found an increase in 'cyberloafing' - the act of spending more of the work day making unrelated searchers online - on the Monday after the clocks go forward. 

Another study published in 2016 even found that judges in the US tend to give defendants sentences that are about five per cent harsher on 'sleepy Monday' following the clock change. 

More worryingly, it has also been suggested that the risk of fatal traffic accidents increases by about six per cent following the Spring daylight savings time transition.

Estimates suggest that about 28 fatal accidents could be avoided in the US every year if daylight savings were abolished.  

Dr Winnebeck said: 'The spring clock change, where we fast forward our clocks by 1 hour, is the clock change that is usually most disruptive to our health and wellbeing.

'Sleep loss can have many negative consequences - and with the clock change it affects millions of people at the same time!' 

Having our sleep disrupted in this way can also have knock-on effects on our overall health.

Dr Megan Crawford, a sleep researcher from the University of Strathclyde and member of the British Sleep Society, told MailOnline: 'There's an increased risk of cardiovascular events, increased risk of suicidal behaviours... and increased mortality in the days after switching our clocks: those are all linked to the loss of that one hour of sleep.'

Dr Crawford says the British Sleep Society believes that standard time should be reinstated and used all year round due to the 'short-term impact of the clock change, the potential impact across the summer, and the detrimental impact of potential permanent daylight saving times.'

Our bodies have a kind of internal clock called our circadian rhythm, which determines when we eat, when we sleep, when we are most active, and when our brains are at their best.

While the solar day is 24 hours long, the body's rhythm tends to be just a little bit longer. 

This means that someone who lived in the dark would naturally wake up a little bit later each day as their biological clock comes out of sync with the solar day.

Humans are only able to keep our body clocks in line thanks to an initial dose of bright morning sun every day. 

'We rely on a cue of bright light to bring them into line with the normal 24-hour solar cycle,' said Dr Sophie Bostock, a sleep scientist and founder of The Sleep Scientist.

'If we don't get that cue first thing in the morning, then we're lagging.'

Since daylight savings time gives us fewer hours of light in the morning, lots of people miss that initial bump of daylight that helps realign our body clocks. 

Dr Bostock said: 'From a circadian rhythm perspective, there is definitely a case for ditching daylight savings time.'

There is now a growing, if somewhat contested, body of evidence that this mismatch between the sun and our bodies can have severe long-term health impacts. 

The main issue with testing how daylight savings affects us in the long-term is that we don't have a lot of data from times when we did not observe daylight savings time. 

Dr Crawford sad: 'The best data we can draw on comes from health differences in individuals who live on different sides of a time zone, with poorer health in those who live on the western side.

'This is because the mismatch between the sun time and our clocks is greatest [in the West].

Studies have shown that those living in the West of a time zone have higher risks of leukaemia, stomach cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, and more.

Those in the west also experience lower life expectancy, higher rates of obesity, amd diabetes, and even lower income. 

Since this mismatch is very similar to those experienced when the clocks go forward, some scientists say daylight savings might be having a similar impact.

Yet some scientists say the damage to our health might be even more direct. 

Dr Rachel Edgar, a molecular virologist from Imperial College London, told MailOnline that these kinds of disruptions could even make us more susceptible to illness. 

Dr Edgar says: 'Evidence from different animal models suggests that disruption to our circadian rhythms increases the severity of different infectious diseases, such as influenza A or herpes virus.'

While she adds that more research is needed to see if this is the case in humans, she notes that 'body clocks can impact both virus replication and immune responses to these infections'.

She concludes: 'There is a broad consensus from scientists who work on circadian rhythms and sleep that any advantages of daylight saving time are outweighed by potential negative effects on our health and well-being.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13244023/scientists-call-end-daylight-saving-time.html

****************************************

Scientists find the human brain has grown by whopping 7% since 1930... but there are signs IQs have gone backwards in recent years


This is an interesting paradox. There is a long-standing correlation of about 0.3 between brain size and IQ.  So the findings are weakly contradictory. I think, however, that I may be able to give an outline of a solution to that  puzzle.

I once hypthesized that better  perinatal practices were reponsible for the average IQ gains that were observed in many countries during the 20th century

http://jonjayray.com/iqgain.html

If my hypothesis is correct, the benefit of improved obstetric practice should level out once best delivery procedures became  normal.  And it was so.  The  growth in IQ scores did level out towards the end of the 20th century.

But we need to ask the old legal question "cui bono?".  Which babies did  it help most?    Babies who were physically normal would be helped to survive with undamaged brains so brain damage due to delivery practices should be rare and hence lead to a rise in average IQ.

And the correlation between higher IQ and larger brains means that less pressure on the head during delivery (due to episiotomy, Caesarians, principally) would be particulary helpful to undamaged survival among individuals with big heads.  So a major source of better and undamaged survival among high IQ individuals would be the safer delivery of big headed babies

But what about babies which had some congenital problem that only modern medicine saved from oblivion?  In many cases the congenital problem would have affected the brain and Left us with an individual of lower IQ, much lower in some cases

So we have two populations with opposite effects from modernity.  "Normals" who avoided damage so became brighter on average and another which survived against the odds and which was on the average of lower IQ.  So what we find reported below is the averaging out of those two populations

A note of caution, however. It is much easier and more accurate to measure head size than it is to measure IQ, and the IQ gain reported is quite low and of no certain reliabiity.  And in general the higher you go up the IQ scale the lower is the reliability of the differences.  So much more segmentaion of the populations concerned would be needed to give any certainty about what is going on


Gen Z and Alpha may have a larger brain than people who were born 100 years ago, yet studies have indicated they also have the lowest IQs of previous generations.

Researchers at the University of California (UC) Davis Health studied different brain sizes of people born from the 1930 through 1970s, finding a 6.6 percent increased in brains among Gen X compared to the Silent Generation.

The team theorized that growth could be caused by external influences like health, social, cultural and educational outside factors and could reduce the risk of age-related dementia.

It comes as more recent studies have indicated that even younger generations' IQ scores have dropped in recent decades, which researchers have linked to an overreliance on phones and the internet.

Brain size doesn't necessarily make people more intelligent, and research has suggested that their is only a slight relationship between the two.

Neuroscientists have found that extra brain mass actually accomplishes very little when it comes to intelligence, and instead it serves to allow people to store more lifetime memories, according to Psychology Today.

However, the latest findings could be a contributing factor to why younger generations have a lower risk for developing dementia or Alzheimer's.

The new study was conducted across 75 years and found the brain consistently grew by 6.6 percent for people in the 1970s compared to those born in the 1930s.

Today's generation's brains measure about 1,400 milliliters in volume, but the average brain volume for people born in the 1930s was 1,234 milliliters. 

The researchers reported that factors like greater educational achievements and better management of medical issues might explain why people's brains have grown over the decades.

'The decade someone is born appears to impact brain size and potentially long-term brain health,' said Charles DeCarli, first author of the study and professor of neurology at the UC Davis Alzheimer's Disease Research Center.

Researchers looked at patterns of cardiovascular and other diseases of people born in the 1930s and introduced MRI tests (brain magnetic resonance imaging) of people of the second and third generations of the original 5,200 participants.

The MRIs were conducted between 1999 and 2019 on people born in the 1930s through the 1970s, consisting of more than 3,000 participants with an average age of 57 years old.

The area of the brain that grew the largest was the cortical surface area which controls motor activities and sensory information.

 Scientists have uncovered hundreds of different and unique regions of the brain

They reported that the area increased by 15 percent in volume and the region of the brain involved in learning and memory, called the hippocampus, had also increased in size.

However, the number of people struck by Alzheimer's has decreased by 20 percent since the 1970s, according to a separate study, and researchers are now saying increased brain size may be the culprit.

'Larger brain structures like those observed in our study may reflect improved brain development and improved brain health,' DeCarli said.

'A larger brain structure represents a larger brain reserve and may buffer the late-life effects of age-related brain diseases like Alzheimer's and related dementias.'

The brain growth in younger generations could increase brain connectivity, the study said, which could lead to more accurate and efficient performances on tasks.

Yet, even as researchers report the brain is growing with each generation, Gen Z and Alpha's IQs have dropped by at least two points, according to studies in Finland, France, the UK and other countries.

A 2023 study reported that IQ scores in the US have also dropped, but did not specify the exact drop, adding that the decrease could be due to disruptions to in-person learning during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The researchers also said the rise in social media use could be at fault, as skills like verbal reasoning, visual problem solving and numerical series tests have all gone down.

Academic and science presenter professor Jim Al-Khalili previously told Dailymail.com in 2022 that despite our ‘vastly increased scientific knowledge… the human brain hasn’t got bigger or more efficient or better than it was thousands of years ago.'

This is in direct contrast to the newest findings that the human brain is getting larger, but also raises the question of how cognitive development is increasing while gen Z and Alpha struggle to meet the same IQ levels as past generations.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13244559/Gen-Z-Alpha-larger-brains-IQs-decreasing.html

*****************************************

Lawyers may invoke Titanic in decade-long legal fight over bridge collapse



The ship is huge.  No bridge pylon could have withstood it.  So the ship is clearly responsible.  Whether the owners can be held liable for an acident does however seem very dubious to me  -- unless contributory negligence by someone in the company can be shown.  True accidents are sometimes called "An act of God" and I think that is the case here

The first shot in the legal fight over who will pay for the damage and loss from the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge will likely occur in the next few days in a Baltimore courtroom, insurance academics said.

The Singaporean owner of the cargo ship that took down the bridge is expected to invoke a law dating back to the 19th century that limits the liability of ships’ owners, according to Lawrence Brennan, a law professor at Fordham University in New York. The law is similar to one used by the Titanic’s owners after that “unsinkable” liner hit an iceberg.

This Limitation of Liability Act law caps the liability of the cargo ship’s owners — and their multiple insurers — at the value of the goods the ship was carrying and the value of the ship itself.

A representative of the ship’s owner, Grace Ocean, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The fight, maritime lawyers say, could run as long as a decade. “It will be one of the most contentious marine insurance cases in recent decades, ” said Brennan, the law professor and a retired captain in the U.S. Navy.

While the lawyers fight, most claims will likely get paid by the insurers, including money for the bridge’s reconstruction. Then they will duke it out among themselves. Other claims might take longer, including those by the families of the people killed in the crash.

Other big sources of claims include the loss of revenue for the port, for the vessels now stuck inside it, and for businesses affected by the resulting supply-chain snarl-ups.

The bridge part of this web of claims may be the simplest to resolve. The structure cost some $60 million to build in 1977, which is around $300 million today when adjusted for inflation.

The bridge is covered by the state of Maryland’s insurance. The policy, covering property damage and business interruption for bridges and tunnels, pays up to $350 million, documents show.

The state, with its insurers in support, will likely be among many claimants that sue the Singaporean owners of the giant cargo ship that struck the bridge, seeking to recover their losses.

That ship, the Dali, has coverage through a specialised property and indemnity insurer, the Britannia P & I club. It said that it is “working closely with the ship manager and relevant authorities to establish the facts and to help ensure that this situation is dealt with quickly and professionally.” Britannia is one of a dozen protection and indemnity, or P & I, clubs, which between them insure around 90% of the world’s ocean-going tonnage. Each club, owned by shipowners, operates independently. But the clubs pool resources to buy reinsurance, allowing them to pass on much of the risk they underwrite. That reinsurance covers up to $3.1 billion per ship, according to ratings firm AM Best.

This generous reinsurance safety net is led by French insurer Axa, according to people familiar with the matter, but involves in total around 80 insurers from across the globe. That means, despite a likely eye-popping overall claim, the payout is “unlikely to be significant for individual reinsurers since it will be spread across so many,” said Brandan Holmes, an official at ratings firm Moody’s.

Not all claims springing from the incident will be covered by the ship’s insurance agreements.

The bridge collapse will likely affect the operations of scores of importers, exporters and other companies that use the port. Many will likely find the event isn’t covered by their business-interruption insurance, according to Robert Merkin, a law professor at the University of Reading.

“Only some policies will cover this — it depends on the wording,” Merkin said. Business-interruption insurance is designed primarily to cover damage to the company’s own premises, although some policies have extensions that might cover external events, such as the bridge collapse, he added.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-wall-street-journal/lawyers-gear-up-for-swift-start-in-legal-fight-over-baltimore-bridge/news-story/a4a96bd3a1c35756ddc860c97dc203f4

*************************************************

'Israel Alone': What The Economist unwittingly gets right about the Jewish state



Jeff Jacoby writes below with feeling and I share that feeling.  Israel is of great emotional signifiance to me too. I am a Gentile Zionist if that is  possible. That has been so since my childhood.  I instinctively admire defeating the odds and I see Israel as precious and heroic.  Its aloneness is heroic


ON THE cover of the current issue of The Economist is an Israeli flag, covered in grime, being whipped by a sandstorm in a deserted land. The flag tilts precariously, and could fall over at any time. Above it, in heavy capital letters, are two ominous words: "Israel Alone."

The Economist has long been sharply critical of Israel, and its lead essay contains familiar fare. If Israel doesn't replace its government, the magazine warns, it could be facing "the bleakest trajectory of its 75-year existence." It acknowledges that Israel was justified in going to war against Hamas in October but scorns the "dire leadership" of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It concedes that there is no Palestinian partner with whom Israel could make peace, yet it urges Israel to do so anyway, by accepting a cease-fire and pursuing that tired old chimera, a two-state solution. The Economist admits Washington shouldn't try "to force Israel out of Gaza while Hamas could still regroup." It is sure that "a struggle for Israel's future awaits," of which "the battle in Gaza is just the start."

But is Israel alone?

If "alone" means Israel has no allies in the world, then it certainly is not alone.

Some officials who expressed strong solidarity with Israel immediately after the ghastly killings and abductions of Oct. 7 — President Biden and Senate majority leader Charles Schumer, for example — have, it is true, cooled their support in recent weeks, mostly under pressure from the political left, where anti-Israel animus runs deep. The United States refused to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution Monday calling for a temporary cease-fire in Gaza. The Canadian government announced that it would halt all arms sales to Israel.

Nevertheless, Israel retains plenty of defenders. Grass-roots support for the Jewish state in the United States remains solid. Among large swaths of the population — Republicans, evangelical Christians, and Americans 65 and older — it runs especially strong. Foreign leaders, such as British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, have been at pains to emphasize that their endorsement of a Gaza cease-fire does not lessen their solidarity with Israel as it fights a ruthless enemy. "In these dark hours my country stands by the people of Israel," Scholz said in Jerusalem this month. "Israel has the right to defend itself against the terror of Hamas."

Yet at a more profound level, The Economist's cover message is indisputably true. Israel has loyal friends of inestimable value. But ultimately the Jewish state stands alone because ultimately the Jewish people stand alone. For more than 3,000 years, almost everywhere Jews lived, they sooner or later found themselves isolated, demonized, ghettoized, dispossessed, or exterminated. Again and again they were compelled to wear symbols identifying them as Jewish. Again and again they were expelled en masse from countries where they had lived for generations. Again and again they were persecuted as heretics, barred from joining guilds, and forbidden to own land.

The pioneers of modern Zionism were convinced that only in a country of their own could Jews finally achieve the normality denied them for so long — the normality other peoples take for granted.

But they were wrong.

Israel has never been regarded as a "normal" country. Alone among the 193 members of the United Nations, it is the only one whose very right to exist is under constant assault. Jerusalem is the only capital city in the world where the vast majority of governments refuse to locate their embassies. Every other nation belongs to larger blocs of countries with which it shares historic, ethnic, linguistic, or religious bonds — they are Nordic, Francophone, Muslim, Slavic, African, Arabic, Latino, Buddhist. Only Israel stands alone.

In territory and population, the Jewish state is tiny, yet the passions it arouses — bottomless hatred from some, heartfelt admiration from others — are of an intensity worthy of a superpower. The same has always been true of the Jewish people. Their numbers are minuscule, just two-10ths of 1 percent of the human race. "Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of," wrote Mark Twain in a famous essay, "but he is heard of, has always been heard of."

What The Economist proclaims on its cover, the Biblical prophet Balaam, a non-Jew, proclaimed in the Book of Numbers. Attempting to execrate the Israelites, he intoned: "Lo, it is a people that dwells alone / And shall not be reckoned among the nations." In that singular description — a people that dwells alone — is encapsulated an essential reality of the long, long history of the Jews. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, the Jewish people — and the reborn Jewish state — are fundamentally alone, unlike the "normal" peoples and nations with whom they share the planet. Israel can never be just another country, like Belgium or Thailand. The Jewish state is alone; and that is both its blessing and its curse.

https://jeffjacoby.com/27658/israel-alone

***********************************************