Best Of

@thetimes

Investors fleeing the cryptocurrency market after President Trump ignited a trade war have wiped more than $500bn off the value of digital assets ⬇️

https://x.com/basileuspi/status/1886410925684781431

You can bet your boots Trump and Musk have been shorting crypto and have each made a gazillion dollars today in hard cash by the time they were finished. Luvvly Jubbly.

Actually, I don't think that's true at all.

I doubt Trump has any positions other than in $TRUMP, and that he'll be trying to dump at high speed, and this trade war doesn't help him.

Musk is a true believer in Bitcoin, and a large chunk of Tesla's Q4 earnings came from revaluing its Bitcoin holdings upwards.

So they've f***** themselves? How did that happen?

You're overthinking this.

Trump believes that tariffs are paid by exporters. He also believes that when America was truly great, it needed no income tax, and got all its taxes from tariffs.

He puts these two together and thinks TARIFFS ARE THE ANSWER.

Did they not teach about the Great Depression and the casual effect of the Smoot Hawley Act at his elementary school?

Trump thinks that “Smoot Hawley” is a brothel in Rotterdam.

The food in Spoons is, by and large, crap unless you're starving, on a budget and just need to plug a hole.

I agree the beer is cracking value, though.

I haven't been into a 'spoons for a couple of years, so this might be out of date. However:

It's not the worst pub food, which tends to be rather (ahem) variable if you're in an unfamiliar town.

But best of all, the food tends to arrive quickly. Which is probably not the best sign of freshness and brilliant food, but does mean that you can rely on it if you are in a hurry.

I can forgive a lot in any pub/venue of any sort, in my experience Spoons is one such, that generally avoids background music.

Lidl scores high on the same ground.

Hmmm. Assisted Dying Bill witness list.

(I'm not in a position to judge in detail - @Cyclefree ?)

Update: Kim Leadbeater’s witness list was far more unbalanced than previously reported.

Of those representing a position, 80% were in favour of the bill, 20% against. (MPs voted 55-45 in favour at second reading.)

https://x.com/ddhitchens/status/1885979023668302178

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-uk-public-continue-think-assisted-dying-should-be-legal-provided-certain-conditions-are

66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.

Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?

Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.

They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.

The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.

Some questions:

1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then
2. So many witnesses from Australia

Hmmm. Assisted Dying Bill witness list.

(I'm not in a position to judge in detail - @Cyclefree ?)

Update: Kim Leadbeater’s witness list was far more unbalanced than previously reported.

Of those representing a position, 80% were in favour of the bill, 20% against. (MPs voted 55-45 in favour at second reading.)

https://x.com/ddhitchens/status/1885979023668302178

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-uk-public-continue-think-assisted-dying-should-be-legal-provided-certain-conditions-are

66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.

Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?

Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.

They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.

Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?

Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.

What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.

The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.

For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.

And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.

At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes.
And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.

Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.

But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.

And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.

Existence is not life.

Gideon Rachman (FT):

When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…

When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”

So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?

Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?

Well the next administration might not be so different and in any case four years is a long time for destructive episodes to last. A lot of damage can be done in four years.

That's what really hit home to me over the weekend, the GOP is too far gone now, look at how J.D. Vance is defending this shit, and a few years ago he was rightly calling Trump 'America's Hitler'.

In response to @MattW

Hmmm. Assisted Dying Bill witness list.

(I'm not in a position to judge in detail - @Cyclefree ?)

Update: Kim Leadbeater’s witness list was far more unbalanced than previously reported.

Of those representing a position, 80% were in favour of the bill, 20% against. (MPs voted 55-45 in favour at second reading.)

https://x.com/ddhitchens/status/1885979023668302178

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-uk-public-continue-think-assisted-dying-should-be-legal-provided-certain-conditions-are

66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.

Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?

Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.

They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.

The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.

Some questions:

1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then
2. So many witnesses from Australia

Hmmm. Assisted Dying Bill witness list.

(I'm not in a position to judge in detail - @Cyclefree ?)

Update: Kim Leadbeater’s witness list was far more unbalanced than previously reported.

Of those representing a position, 80% were in favour of the bill, 20% against. (MPs voted 55-45 in favour at second reading.)

https://x.com/ddhitchens/status/1885979023668302178

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-uk-public-continue-think-assisted-dying-should-be-legal-provided-certain-conditions-are

66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.

Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?

Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.

They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.

Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?

Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.

What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.

The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.

For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.

And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.

At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes.
And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.

Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.

But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.

And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.

Existence is not life.

You are already free to commit suicide if you want. And have whoever you want around you. You are not obliged to take a cocktail of drugs.

Stop claiming that you are forbidden from doing any of these things. You aren't.

Oh - and suicide prevention is not "torture". Treating depression in the terminally ill (see the evidence from one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence to the committee) is not "torture" either.

Having anyone you want around you while you commit suicide is not without issues for those around you though, is it? And the act itself can be harder than you might think - hence those who choose the 'hit by a train' option. I know that you think you are fighting this bill on behalf of those who you think may be forced into assisted death, but you come across rather strong on those who would see assisted death as a legitimate release.
I have huge issues with the way the bill is being introduced, but I am in favour of the concept. We euthanise sick pets to end their suffering.

Not a good example. We euthanise pets for all sorts of reasons - not just to end suffering. Pets have no say in the matter.

Is that how we want to treat humans?

Those in favour of AD have said that they do want people around them when they commit suicide.

I have personal experience of suicide in the family.

If suicide is harder than people like to think and this is what is behind this then let's stop all the cant about terminal illnesses. It's about making suicide easier. You may think the state making suicide easier a good thing. I don't. First because those who are in a state where suicide is what they are thinking of should be helped not encouraged to end their life. And second because - as all the evidence from other countries shows - it will inevitably end up with the vulnerable being bullied into suicide because as a society we cannot be bothered to care for them, especially if this will cost money.

Tony Nicklin was someone whose medical condition was such that he had a terrible existence but was unable to end his own life. People like him would not be helped by this Bill because it requires the person to ingest the drugs themselves (whether orally or through a syringe). I can well understand the case why people like him would want something to end their suffering. If there was a law which could only apply to people like him ....

But there isn't anywhere in the world. And this Bill certainly is not such a Bill.

Were what happened to him to happen to someone close to me and they wanted me to help them I might well do so but if I did I would then hand myself in and expect to be investigated. Why? Because I think the taboo against ending someone else's life is an important one which should be maintained. And because if people cross that taboo - even for reasons of love and mercy - they should expect to be held accountable. In practice, such prosecutions are rare - and convictions even rarer. The last such prosecution - leading to an acquittal - was in 2015.

Accountability is an important concept. It applies - or should apply - to everyone. Without it all you do is create a loophole which will be abused by bad actors. It is pretty selfish frankly to expect to break a vital taboo and be excused it in advance. A society which elevates "I want, I must get" as the highest moral value without any regard for the effect of this on the marginalised and vulnerable is a pretty selfish society frankly.