In my view if Raynor did do as alleged it was a very funny and private joke. Good for her, and a very dismal thing for anyone to make capital out of it. If she didn't do as alleged then it's outrageous that it's been suggested.
Tories again looking bloody ridiculous, and from an an entirely unforced error.
Quite. They'd be well advised to move on.
"She knows she can't compete with his Oxford Union debating skills so she uses some skills he doesn't have."
Unpack that and puke.
You think it’s permissible for a shadow cabinet minister to flash her vagina at the prime minister so as to unsettle him?
No wonder you want people to move on from the topic
This cannot be simultaneously “a funny private joke if it happened” but “a totally outrageous slur if it didn’t happen”
We can all be pretty clear that she hasn't. But I do agree that these vagina-wielding fiends should be kept away from rampant stallions like the Big Dog.
One sniff of flange and he's off. You can't stop him, before you can say "you can't afford the child maintenance payments" he's already shagged it and knocked it up.
The evidence now suggests that she really did do this, and then joked about it. Read Isabel Oakeshott’s otherwise-sympathetic piece in the Spectator
Personally I find her cunning stunt mildly amusing, but I’m probably in a minority. More importantly, Labour made such a meal of the accusation being a vile piece of misogynist abuse they can’t now walk it back and say “oh well it was just a gag, isn’t she a card, let’s all move on”
The evidence? What fucking evidence. You have consumed too much sazerac.
It’s entirely plausible that - as oakeshott says in her article - that it was “daft banter over a fag”. Rather less likely that it actually happened
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
Oh good. As long as you have the nuclear football I will sleep easy.
I know it is upsetting to you that Russia can't annex its neighbour without resistance or consequence, but it is what it is.
The Telegraph (so it must be true) are telling us there are 500,000 fewer 50-70 year olds in the workplace now compared with 2019.
I've not seen any recent figures but might this not explain the "full employment" anecdotes we hear from some on here? The truth is fewer people are working because more are deciding to voluntarily become economically inactive.
I can fish out the ONS stats tomorrow but could a big chunk of that just be a change in age profile over the last three years?
We know that the number of over 65s is going to increase rapidly over the next decade, and number of young people decrease. With much reduced immigration...If there are roughly 800,000 people per year of birth, might add up.
But a large number of casualties in the attack on the HQ, including another general.
If their medical care is on the same level as the rest of the Russian Armed Forces he may yet die of gangrene.
My theory was, Putin was David doing a Uriah on Gerasimov's ass so the top GS bod in Moscow would be someone more easily persuaded into the whole nuclear launch thing.
My next helpful suggestion for Leon, is to clear some space in the crowd - perhaps my faking some esp. epic Terret's symptoms - then begin warbling out selection of old English folk ballads, ranging from "Green Sleeves" to "Anarchy in the UK".
Bet it'd go down like spotted dick at the Fairgrounds!
Other examples also come to mind. Hungarian national identity struggles from the fact it was a major empire in Eastern Empire and is now reduced to being a small state. That is a major reason for the appeal of Orbanism. I also think Islamist ideology is rooted in an insecurity among Muslims that they used to have a Caliphate stretching from Spain to India, and in the last century still had it from Morocco to Iraq, but now are mainly third rate countries.
For what it's worth, I think Britain has dealt with its rapid imperial decline pretty well. Yes, Suez was a shambles, but that is an isolated example. The country gave independence to virtually all it's colonies peacefully after 1945, without getting involved in bloody messes like the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Angola. It also openly accepted becoming a junior partner to the USA, recognizing a superpower hegemon that shared its values was the best situation possible.
Thanks for the response. I'm not sure I'd put India up as an example of peaceful and successful decolonisation in all honesty. It was a symbol of our bankruptcy.
The transition of America from isolated regional power to global superpower is perhaps the seminal event of the 20th Century. Compare America in 1901 and 2001 - two very different countries but even by 1914 the accumulation of wealth and the financial control that wealth created (American loans bankrolled Britain in both World Wars) ensured the economic primacy of Washington - the military primacy followed inevitably.
The Russians are that loser in the pub making muttered empty threats because he is so insecure next to the better looking, successful male at the next table. An entire government has inherited Putin's Napoleon complex. Its unclear whether his insecurity comes from the fact he is short, that he only got where he has because he was plucked out of mid-management obscurity by an alcoholic, or because he is lacking in manhood in some other way.
It's probably quite deep for a Sunday evening on PB but I wonder if the ruling class in Russia is suffering from a form of post-Imperial psychosis. Many countries who have enjoyed periods of "greatness" and who have then found themselves reduced have struggled to come to terms with the change, the loss of status, the loss of global importance.
To name but four, Spain, France, Germany and the United Kingdom have all had periods of being if not the dominant global power then certainly one of the leading powers. For France, I'd argue the defeat of 1940 and for Germany the defeat of 1945 shattered the final illusions of great power- they were physically humbled, ruined an conquered.
For Britain, it's been different - victory in 1945 left us bankrupt and Suez further confirmed the fact we were no longer at the top table. I'd argue much of our history since then has been a struggle for identity and purpose and we are still going through that to some degree.
For Russia, they were from 1945-89, one of the two dominant global powers. Then, within 18 months, it was gone with barely a shot fired. 30 years on, they can see the US and China moving ahead economically and militarily and while they still have nuclear weapons (as do we and the French), the truth (and Ukraine has brutally exposed this to the world if not the Russians themselves) is they are declining in world affairs. Yes, they are a significant regional power but the new bi-polar world order sits with Washington and Beijing. They can hook themselves to Beijing and become effectively a vassal of China or re-align to the West.
That's the internal struggle now within Russia - they have the power to ruin the world but not the power to restore the influence they once enjoyed. The world is moving away from their resources, their wealth and their influence. They face the marginalisation of irrelevance and that's what they struggle to accept.
Other examples also come to mind. Hungarian national identity struggles from the fact it was a major empire in Eastern Empire and is now reduced to being a small state. That is a major reason for the appeal of Orbanism. I also think Islamist ideology is rooted in an insecurity among Muslims that they used to have a Caliphate stretching from Spain to India, and in the last century still had it from Morocco to Iraq, but now are mainly third rate countries.
For what it's worth, I think Britain has dealt with its rapid imperial decline pretty well. Yes, Suez was a shambles, but that is an isolated example. The country gave independence to virtually all it's colonies peacefully after 1945, without getting involved in bloody messes like the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Angola. It also openly accepted becoming a junior partner to the USA, recognizing a superpower hegemon that shared its values was the best situation possible.
Not that isolated really. Malaya, Palestine, Cyprus, Kenya and Rhodesia could all be cited as counter examples. As for the Algeria comparison, we still are in a bloody mess in Ireland.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
The Tory flush is so busted they are only weeks away from John Redwood mounting a leadership coup surrounded by the customers from the bar in Star Wars.
Other examples also come to mind. Hungarian national identity struggles from the fact it was a major empire in Eastern Empire and is now reduced to being a small state. That is a major reason for the appeal of Orbanism. I also think Islamist ideology is rooted in an insecurity among Muslims that they used to have a Caliphate stretching from Spain to India, and in the last century still had it from Morocco to Iraq, but now are mainly third rate countries.
For what it's worth, I think Britain has dealt with its rapid imperial decline pretty well. Yes, Suez was a shambles, but that is an isolated example. The country gave independence to virtually all it's colonies peacefully after 1945, without getting involved in bloody messes like the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Angola. It also openly accepted becoming a junior partner to the USA, recognizing a superpower hegemon that shared its values was the best situation possible.
Thanks for the response. I'm not sure I'd put India up as an example of peaceful and successful decolonisation in all honesty. It was a symbol of our bankruptcy.
The transition of America from isolated regional power to global superpower is perhaps the seminal event of the 20th Century. Compare America in 1901 and 2001 - two very different countries but even by 1914 the accumulation of wealth and the financial control that wealth created (American loans bankrolled Britain in both World Wars) ensured the economic primacy of Washington - the military primacy followed inevitably.
Indian decolonization could have gone a lot worse. The bulk of the subcontinent has survived as a pluralistic democracy for 70 odd years, and it's democratic institutions have a decent chance of surviving Modi. Pakistan and Bangladesh are also partial democracies these days, which is better than most Muslim countries. Myanmar has been the real failure, but not sure that is due to the British. And the awfulness of partition pails in comparison to an Angolan or Algerian style war on an Indian scale.
The Russians are that loser in the pub making muttered empty threats because he is so insecure next to the better looking, successful male at the next table. An entire government has inherited Putin's Napoleon complex. Its unclear whether his insecurity comes from the fact he is short, that he only got where he has because he was plucked out of mid-management obscurity by an alcoholic, or because he is lacking in manhood in some other way.
That post tells me more about the size of your penis than about anything else. Except perhaps your understanding of history: are you clear about who Napoleon was and the extent of his achievements?
And just so I can settle a bet with myself, are you over 6 ft tall?
It's probably quite deep for a Sunday evening on PB but I wonder if the ruling class in Russia is suffering from a form of post-Imperial psychosis. Many countries who have enjoyed periods of "greatness" and who have then found themselves reduced have struggled to come to terms with the change, the loss of status, the loss of global importance.
To name but four, Spain, France, Germany and the United Kingdom have all had periods of being if not the dominant global power then certainly one of the leading powers. For France, I'd argue the defeat of 1940 and for Germany the defeat of 1945 shattered the final illusions of great power- they were physically humbled, ruined an conquered.
For Britain, it's been different - victory in 1945 left us bankrupt and Suez further confirmed the fact we were no longer at the top table. I'd argue much of our history since then has been a struggle for identity and purpose and we are still going through that to some degree.
For Russia, they were from 1945-89, one of the two dominant global powers. Then, within 18 months, it was gone with barely a shot fired. 30 years on, they can see the US and China moving ahead economically and militarily and while they still have nuclear weapons (as do we and the French), the truth (and Ukraine has brutally exposed this to the world if not the Russians themselves) is they are declining in world affairs. Yes, they are a significant regional power but the new bi-polar world order sits with Washington and Beijing. They can hook themselves to Beijing and become effectively a vassal of China or re-align to the West.
That's the internal struggle now within Russia - they have the power to ruin the world but not the power to restore the influence they once enjoyed. The world is moving away from their resources, their wealth and their influence. They face the marginalisation of irrelevance and that's what they struggle to accept.
Other examples also come to mind. Hungarian national identity struggles from the fact it was a major empire in Eastern Empire and is now reduced to being a small state. That is a major reason for the appeal of Orbanism. I also think Islamist ideology is rooted in an insecurity among Muslims that they used to have a Caliphate stretching from Spain to India, and in the last century still had it from Morocco to Iraq, but now are mainly third rate countries.
For what it's worth, I think Britain has dealt with its rapid imperial decline pretty well. Yes, Suez was a shambles, but that is an isolated example. The country gave independence to virtually all it's colonies peacefully after 1945, without getting involved in bloody messes like the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Angola. It also openly accepted becoming a junior partner to the USA, recognizing a superpower hegemon that shared its values was the best situation possible.
The USA has not shared British values, and having it as a hegemon has not been the best situation possible, but otherwise I agree - the decline has been gentler than it might otherwise have been no sacking by the Goths. Just now it feels like there must be more to life though. Brexit must have happened for a reason.
Other examples also come to mind. Hungarian national identity struggles from the fact it was a major empire in Eastern Empire and is now reduced to being a small state. That is a major reason for the appeal of Orbanism. I also think Islamist ideology is rooted in an insecurity among Muslims that they used to have a Caliphate stretching from Spain to India, and in the last century still had it from Morocco to Iraq, but now are mainly third rate countries.
For what it's worth, I think Britain has dealt with its rapid imperial decline pretty well. Yes, Suez was a shambles, but that is an isolated example. The country gave independence to virtually all it's colonies peacefully after 1945, without getting involved in bloody messes like the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Angola. It also openly accepted becoming a junior partner to the USA, recognizing a superpower hegemon that shared its values was the best situation possible.
Thanks for the response. I'm not sure I'd put India up as an example of peaceful and successful decolonisation in all honesty. It was a symbol of our bankruptcy.
The transition of America from isolated regional power to global superpower is perhaps the seminal event of the 20th Century. Compare America in 1901 and 2001 - two very different countries but even by 1914 the accumulation of wealth and the financial control that wealth created (American loans bankrolled Britain in both World Wars) ensured the economic primacy of Washington - the military primacy followed inevitably.
Indian decolonization could have gone a lot worse. The bulk of the subcontinent has survived as a pluralistic democracy for 70 odd years, and it's democratic institutions have a decent chance of surviving Modi. Pakistan and Bangladesh are also partial democracies these days, which is better than most Muslim countries. Myanmar has been the real failure, but not sure that is due to the British. And the awfulness of partition pails in comparison to an Angolan or Algerian style war on an Indian scale.
Again, I'm not sure I would consider the years of civil war in Sri Lanka as a success story.
I agree that Britain managed the retreat from Empire better than most others, but that's a bit like saying somebody is less unhinged than Dominic Cummings.
The Russians are that loser in the pub making muttered empty threats because he is so insecure next to the better looking, successful male at the next table. An entire government has inherited Putin's Napoleon complex. Its unclear whether his insecurity comes from the fact he is short, that he only got where he has because he was plucked out of mid-management obscurity by an alcoholic, or because he is lacking in manhood in some other way.
That post tells me more about the size of your penis than about anything else. Except perhaps your understanding of history: are you clear about who Napoleon was and the extent of his achievements?
And just so I can settle a bet with myself, are you over 6 ft tall?
Although Napoleon's achievements were pretty much at an end when he was given the Elba in 1814.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
If everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
The Russians are that loser in the pub making muttered empty threats because he is so insecure next to the better looking, successful male at the next table. An entire government has inherited Putin's Napoleon complex. Its unclear whether his insecurity comes from the fact he is short, that he only got where he has because he was plucked out of mid-management obscurity by an alcoholic, or because he is lacking in manhood in some other way.
That post tells me more about the size of your penis than about anything else. Except perhaps your understanding of history: are you clear about who Napoleon was and the extent of his achievements?
And just so I can settle a bet with myself, are you over 6 ft tall?
Although Napoleon's achievements were pretty much at an end when he was given the Elba in 1814.
@NTarnopolsky Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's Jewishness does not negate his Nazism says Russian FM Sergei Lavrov. Adolf Hitler also "had Jewish blood."
The Russians are that loser in the pub making muttered empty threats because he is so insecure next to the better looking, successful male at the next table. An entire government has inherited Putin's Napoleon complex. Its unclear whether his insecurity comes from the fact he is short, that he only got where he has because he was plucked out of mid-management obscurity by an alcoholic, or because he is lacking in manhood in some other way.
That post tells me more about the size of your penis than about anything else. Except perhaps your understanding of history: are you clear about who Napoleon was and the extent of his achievements?
And just so I can settle a bet with myself, are you over 6 ft tall?
Although Napoleon's achievements were pretty much at an end when he was given the Elba in 1814.
Yes. That was his Waterloo.
Although if his doctor is to be believed, it wasn't until after Waterloo that he had a long wood.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
On topic, I have arrived at the Nawlins Jazz fest (“no firearms allowed”) which looks like a total hoot
Except that I have no cash and no one takes cards (America, sort this out)
This is the line for the ATM
Yours truly last (and first) attended the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival in the late '70s. At same location as today, the Fairgrounds. Aside from the weather not being too hot (in a good way!) only remember two things:
> when you parked your car, a Black kid would immediately ask you, Mister, if you pay me $5 I'll watch your car. Proper answer by was, yes. This being a poor neighborhood, and was established means for local kids to get some money, legitimately. Because was also well-established, that the kid you gave the five-spot to, would, if need be, defend your car to the death. As a matter of honor.
> when I got in, plenty of great acts, but only one I remember was Doc Watson, who was fantastic. Toward the end of his set, he asked the crowd, what shall we do next? So people started shouting out their favorites. So I began bellowing out - "TENNESSEE STUD! TENNESSEE STUD!" And next thing, the band started playing . . . "Tennessee Stud"
I’m drinking crap wine, eating a crawfish sausage po-boy, listening to Cajun bluegrass (in French)
I hope you’re suitably impressed by my authenticity
Cheers!
Sounds good to me, though I'd go for a cold can of Dixie beer with that. Weather looks great, web say 82F with 61% humidity, not too bad for mid-afternoon. Crowd does NOT look too crowded either.
On topic, I have arrived at the Nawlins Jazz fest (“no firearms allowed”) which looks like a total hoot
Except that I have no cash and no one takes cards (America, sort this out)
This is the line for the ATM
Yours truly last (and first) attended the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival in the late '70s. At same location as today, the Fairgrounds. Aside from the weather not being too hot (in a good way!) only remember two things:
> when you parked your car, a Black kid would immediately ask you, Mister, if you pay me $5 I'll watch your car. Proper answer by was, yes. This being a poor neighborhood, and was established means for local kids to get some money, legitimately. Because was also well-established, that the kid you gave the five-spot to, would, if need be, defend your car to the death. As a matter of honor.
> when I got in, plenty of great acts, but only one I remember was Doc Watson, who was fantastic. Toward the end of his set, he asked the crowd, what shall we do next? So people started shouting out their favorites. So I began bellowing out - "TENNESSEE STUD! TENNESSEE STUD!" And next thing, the band started playing . . . "Tennessee Stud"
I’m drinking crap wine, eating a crawfish sausage po-boy, listening to Cajun bluegrass (in French)
I hope you’re suitably impressed by my authenticity
Cheers!
Sounds good to me, though I'd go for a cold can of Dixie beer with that. Weather looks great, web say 82F with 61% humidity, not too bad for mid-afternoon. Crowd does NOT look too crowded either.
What's ticket price?
Dunno. I’m on a freebie. Thankyou, Louisiana taxpayer
It is a gas
A lot of highly attractive young women rockin the denim hot pants thing. They are reviving my faith in America
The Russians are that loser in the pub making muttered empty threats because he is so insecure next to the better looking, successful male at the next table. An entire government has inherited Putin's Napoleon complex. Its unclear whether his insecurity comes from the fact he is short, that he only got where he has because he was plucked out of mid-management obscurity by an alcoholic, or because he is lacking in manhood in some other way.
That post tells me more about the size of your penis than about anything else. Except perhaps your understanding of history: are you clear about who Napoleon was and the extent of his achievements?
And just so I can settle a bet with myself, are you over 6 ft tall?
You have grown rather obsessed with me! But I know how difficult it is for Russian shills to hear criticism of flabby chested Putin, so I will answer your question. I am neither over nor under six foot, given that is exactly my height.
And for your education, Napoleon's insecure desire to be the next Roman Emperor ended up with his country collapsed and a million French dead. I suppose that might count as an achievement compared to the tin pot leader of Moscow.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Sounds like an example of the discredited theory of Lamarckism.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
What's an 'antinutrient'?
An antinutrient is a component of food that requires nutrients (such as minerals) to digest it, so a net effect of eating it is to draw them from the body. Phytic acid is the anti-nutrient found in the hull of grains. Soaking, sourdough, or sprouted grains remove this factor.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Don't shoot the messenger! I thought it was all about nutrition (over the very long term).
It's probably quite deep for a Sunday evening on PB but I wonder if the ruling class in Russia is suffering from a form of post-Imperial psychosis. Many countries who have enjoyed periods of "greatness" and who have then found themselves reduced have struggled to come to terms with the change, the loss of status, the loss of global importance.
To name but four, Spain, France, Germany and the United Kingdom have all had periods of being if not the dominant global power then certainly one of the leading powers. For France, I'd argue the defeat of 1940 and for Germany the defeat of 1945 shattered the final illusions of great power- they were physically humbled, ruined an conquered.
For Britain, it's been different - victory in 1945 left us bankrupt and Suez further confirmed the fact we were no longer at the top table. I'd argue much of our history since then has been a struggle for identity and purpose and we are still going through that to some degree.
For Russia, they were from 1945-89, one of the two dominant global powers. Then, within 18 months, it was gone with barely a shot fired. 30 years on, they can see the US and China moving ahead economically and militarily and while they still have nuclear weapons (as do we and the French), the truth (and Ukraine has brutally exposed this to the world if not the Russians themselves) is they are declining in world affairs. Yes, they are a significant regional power but the new bi-polar world order sits with Washington and Beijing. They can hook themselves to Beijing and become effectively a vassal of China or re-align to the West.
That's the internal struggle now within Russia - they have the power to ruin the world but not the power to restore the influence they once enjoyed. The world is moving away from their resources, their wealth and their influence. They face the marginalisation of irrelevance and that's what they struggle to accept.
Other examples also come to mind. Hungarian national identity struggles from the fact it was a major empire in Eastern Empire and is now reduced to being a small state. That is a major reason for the appeal of Orbanism. I also think Islamist ideology is rooted in an insecurity among Muslims that they used to have a Caliphate stretching from Spain to India, and in the last century still had it from Morocco to Iraq, but now are mainly third rate countries.
For what it's worth, I think Britain has dealt with its rapid imperial decline pretty well. Yes, Suez was a shambles, but that is an isolated example. The country gave independence to virtually all it's colonies peacefully after 1945, without getting involved in bloody messes like the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Angola. It also openly accepted becoming a junior partner to the USA, recognizing a superpower hegemon that shared its values was the best situation possible.
The USA has not shared British values, and having it as a hegemon has not been the best situation possible, but otherwise I agree - the decline has been gentler than it might otherwise have been no sacking by the Goths. Just now it feels like there must be more to life though. Brexit must have happened for a reason.
With the exception of Trump, the US has absolutely shared British values of constitutionalism, representative government and free enterprise economics. The UK and the US also have had a similar balance of realpolitik vs idealism in foreign affairs. The alternatives of hegemony by a European colonial power, Russia, India or China, or of an anarchic world order, would all have been worse.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Sounds like an example of the discredited theory of Lamarckism.
It's fairly standard and accepted science that the well-nourished grow taller and the less nourished less tall.
Other examples also come to mind. Hungarian national identity struggles from the fact it was a major empire in Eastern Empire and is now reduced to being a small state. That is a major reason for the appeal of Orbanism. I also think Islamist ideology is rooted in an insecurity among Muslims that they used to have a Caliphate stretching from Spain to India, and in the last century still had it from Morocco to Iraq, but now are mainly third rate countries.
For what it's worth, I think Britain has dealt with its rapid imperial decline pretty well. Yes, Suez was a shambles, but that is an isolated example. The country gave independence to virtually all it's colonies peacefully after 1945, without getting involved in bloody messes like the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Angola. It also openly accepted becoming a junior partner to the USA, recognizing a superpower hegemon that shared its values was the best situation possible.
Thanks for the response. I'm not sure I'd put India up as an example of peaceful and successful decolonisation in all honesty. It was a symbol of our bankruptcy…
Yes, but compare for example with French Vietnam. They tried to hang on, bankrolled by the US, lost a humiliating and disastrous war, and passed the problem on to their superpower supporter, with results that turned out even more disastrous.
We were pretty crap - have any empires not been ? - but we could have been far worse in letting go.
The Russians are that loser in the pub making muttered empty threats because he is so insecure next to the better looking, successful male at the next table. An entire government has inherited Putin's Napoleon complex. Its unclear whether his insecurity comes from the fact he is short, that he only got where he has because he was plucked out of mid-management obscurity by an alcoholic, or because he is lacking in manhood in some other way.
That post tells me more about the size of your penis than about anything else. Except perhaps your understanding of history: are you clear about who Napoleon was and the extent of his achievements?
And just so I can settle a bet with myself, are you over 6 ft tall?
You have grown rather obsessed with me! But I know how difficult it is for Russian shills to hear criticism of flabby chested Putin, so I will answer your question. I am neither over nor under six foot, given that is exactly my height.
And for your education, Napoleon's insecure desire to be the next Roman Emperor ended up with his country collapsed and a million French dead. I suppose that might count as an achievement compared to the tin pot leader of Moscow.
Mmm. Exactly what I would say if I were, oooh, let's pluck a number like 5'7" out of the air, shall we, and put on the spot. Well done. Good save.
On topic, I have arrived at the Nawlins Jazz fest (“no firearms allowed”) which looks like a total hoot
Except that I have no cash and no one takes cards (America, sort this out)
This is the line for the ATM
Yours truly last (and first) attended the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival in the late '70s. At same location as today, the Fairgrounds. Aside from the weather not being too hot (in a good way!) only remember two things:
> when you parked your car, a Black kid would immediately ask you, Mister, if you pay me $5 I'll watch your car. Proper answer by was, yes. This being a poor neighborhood, and was established means for local kids to get some money, legitimately. Because was also well-established, that the kid you gave the five-spot to, would, if need be, defend your car to the death. As a matter of honor.
> when I got in, plenty of great acts, but only one I remember was Doc Watson, who was fantastic. Toward the end of his set, he asked the crowd, what shall we do next? So people started shouting out their favorites. So I began bellowing out - "TENNESSEE STUD! TENNESSEE STUD!" And next thing, the band started playing . . . "Tennessee Stud"
I’m drinking crap wine, eating a crawfish sausage po-boy, listening to Cajun bluegrass (in French)
I hope you’re suitably impressed by my authenticity
Cheers!
Sounds good to me, though I'd go for a cold can of Dixie beer with that. Weather looks great, web say 82F with 61% humidity, not too bad for mid-afternoon. Crowd does NOT look too crowded either.
On topic, I have arrived at the Nawlins Jazz fest (“no firearms allowed”) which looks like a total hoot
Except that I have no cash and no one takes cards (America, sort this out)
This is the line for the ATM
Yours truly last (and first) attended the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival in the late '70s. At same location as today, the Fairgrounds. Aside from the weather not being too hot (in a good way!) only remember two things:
> when you parked your car, a Black kid would immediately ask you, Mister, if you pay me $5 I'll watch your car. Proper answer by was, yes. This being a poor neighborhood, and was established means for local kids to get some money, legitimately. Because was also well-established, that the kid you gave the five-spot to, would, if need be, defend your car to the death. As a matter of honor.
> when I got in, plenty of great acts, but only one I remember was Doc Watson, who was fantastic. Toward the end of his set, he asked the crowd, what shall we do next? So people started shouting out their favorites. So I began bellowing out - "TENNESSEE STUD! TENNESSEE STUD!" And next thing, the band started playing . . . "Tennessee Stud"
I’m drinking crap wine, eating a crawfish sausage po-boy, listening to Cajun bluegrass (in French)
I hope you’re suitably impressed by my authenticity
Cheers!
Sounds good to me, though I'd go for a cold can of Dixie beer with that. Weather looks great, web say 82F with 61% humidity, not too bad for mid-afternoon. Crowd does NOT look too crowded either.
What's ticket price?
Dunno. I’m on a freebie. Thankyou, Louisiana taxpayer
It is a gas
A lot of highly attractive young women rockin the denim hot pants thing. They are reviving my faith in America
Festival website says one ticket available for $123. Perhaps comes with sedan chair, which could prove useful!
Addendum: Also glad to hear that some things have NOT changed.
It's probably quite deep for a Sunday evening on PB but I wonder if the ruling class in Russia is suffering from a form of post-Imperial psychosis. Many countries who have enjoyed periods of "greatness" and who have then found themselves reduced have struggled to come to terms with the change, the loss of status, the loss of global importance.
To name but four, Spain, France, Germany and the United Kingdom have all had periods of being if not the dominant global power then certainly one of the leading powers. For France, I'd argue the defeat of 1940 and for Germany the defeat of 1945 shattered the final illusions of great power- they were physically humbled, ruined an conquered.
For Britain, it's been different - victory in 1945 left us bankrupt and Suez further confirmed the fact we were no longer at the top table. I'd argue much of our history since then has been a struggle for identity and purpose and we are still going through that to some degree.
For Russia, they were from 1945-89, one of the two dominant global powers. Then, within 18 months, it was gone with barely a shot fired. 30 years on, they can see the US and China moving ahead economically and militarily and while they still have nuclear weapons (as do we and the French), the truth (and Ukraine has brutally exposed this to the world if not the Russians themselves) is they are declining in world affairs. Yes, they are a significant regional power but the new bi-polar world order sits with Washington and Beijing. They can hook themselves to Beijing and become effectively a vassal of China or re-align to the West.
That's the internal struggle now within Russia - they have the power to ruin the world but not the power to restore the influence they once enjoyed. The world is moving away from their resources, their wealth and their influence. They face the marginalisation of irrelevance and that's what they struggle to accept.
Other examples also come to mind. Hungarian national identity struggles from the fact it was a major empire in Eastern Empire and is now reduced to being a small state. That is a major reason for the appeal of Orbanism. I also think Islamist ideology is rooted in an insecurity among Muslims that they used to have a Caliphate stretching from Spain to India, and in the last century still had it from Morocco to Iraq, but now are mainly third rate countries.
For what it's worth, I think Britain has dealt with its rapid imperial decline pretty well. Yes, Suez was a shambles, but that is an isolated example. The country gave independence to virtually all it's colonies peacefully after 1945, without getting involved in bloody messes like the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Angola. It also openly accepted becoming a junior partner to the USA, recognizing a superpower hegemon that shared its values was the best situation possible.
The USA has not shared British values, and having it as a hegemon has not been the best situation possible, but otherwise I agree - the decline has been gentler than it might otherwise have been no sacking by the Goths. Just now it feels like there must be more to life though. Brexit must have happened for a reason.
With the exception of Trump, the US has absolutely shared British values of constitutionalism, representative government and free enterprise economics. The UK and the US also have had a similar balance of realpolitik vs idealism in foreign affairs. The alternatives of hegemony by a European colonial power, Russia, India or China, or of an anarchic world order, would all have been worse.
Those aren't the only two alternatives. And Britain itself was never a hegemonic world power, which probably explains how relatively benign we were as the leading world power. 'Absolute power' etc. There were many world powers in the 19th century, and the world saw peace and prosperity the like of which was never seen before or since.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
It's undeniable that there is still some way to go here though. I recall being in a pub off Sauchiehall St and seeing on the menu "Glasgow salad" - needless to say it turned out to be a bowl of chips. Bit of a cultural thing, really.
The Russians are that loser in the pub making muttered empty threats because he is so insecure next to the better looking, successful male at the next table. An entire government has inherited Putin's Napoleon complex. Its unclear whether his insecurity comes from the fact he is short, that he only got where he has because he was plucked out of mid-management obscurity by an alcoholic, or because he is lacking in manhood in some other way.
That post tells me more about the size of your penis than about anything else. Except perhaps your understanding of history: are you clear about who Napoleon was and the extent of his achievements?
And just so I can settle a bet with myself, are you over 6 ft tall?
You have grown rather obsessed with me! But I know how difficult it is for Russian shills to hear criticism of flabby chested Putin, so I will answer your question. I am neither over nor under six foot, given that is exactly my height.
And for your education, Napoleon's insecure desire to be the next Roman Emperor ended up with his country collapsed and a million French dead. I suppose that might count as an achievement compared to the tin pot leader of Moscow.
Mmm. Exactly what I would say if I were, oooh, let's pluck a number like 5'7" out of the air, shall we, and put on the spot. Well done. Good save.
That makes sense, given your grip on reality is so slender you admire a failed, botoxed leader like little Vova Putin. I prefer factual reality!
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Don't shoot the messenger! I thought it was all about nutrition (over the very long term).
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Sounds like an example of the discredited theory of Lamarckism.
It's fairly standard and accepted science that the well-nourished grow taller and the less nourished less tall.
Well less, but you don't then pass on such characteristics to distant descendants.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
It's undeniable that there is still some way to go here though. I recall being in a pub off Sauchiehall St and seeing on the menu "Glasgow salad" - needless to say it turned out to be a bowl of chips. Bit of a cultural thing, really.
Yes, modern Scotland is different! Still wonderful food to be found though.
Ru wasting tank ammunition blowing up houses from point blank range.
Like they have such good supply lines they don't need to worry about ammo.
olexander scherba🇺🇦 @olex_scherba · 1h #Russian anti-war channel @CurrentTimeTv publishes videos of RU tanks systematically destroying #Mariupol homes from a point-blanc range. Confirms the stories of evacuees, & debunks #Putin’s narrative of not targeting civilians.
The Russians are that loser in the pub making muttered empty threats because he is so insecure next to the better looking, successful male at the next table. An entire government has inherited Putin's Napoleon complex. Its unclear whether his insecurity comes from the fact he is short, that he only got where he has because he was plucked out of mid-management obscurity by an alcoholic, or because he is lacking in manhood in some other way.
That post tells me more about the size of your penis than about anything else. Except perhaps your understanding of history: are you clear about who Napoleon was and the extent of his achievements?
And just so I can settle a bet with myself, are you over 6 ft tall?
You have grown rather obsessed with me! But I know how difficult it is for Russian shills to hear criticism of flabby chested Putin, so I will answer your question. I am neither over nor under six foot, given that is exactly my height.
And for your education, Napoleon's insecure desire to be the next Roman Emperor ended up with his country collapsed and a million French dead. I suppose that might count as an achievement compared to the tin pot leader of Moscow.
Mmm. Exactly what I would say if I were, oooh, let's pluck a number like 5'7" out of the air, shall we, and put on the spot. Well done. Good save.
That makes sense, given your grip on reality is so slender you admire a failed, botoxed leader like little Vova Putin. I prefer factual reality!
Thanks, titch. All I ever said about the admittedly detestable Putin was, that he had a very large nuclear arsenal. Which he does. Some very short men are better equipped than others. Deal with it.
It's probably quite deep for a Sunday evening on PB but I wonder if the ruling class in Russia is suffering from a form of post-Imperial psychosis. Many countries who have enjoyed periods of "greatness" and who have then found themselves reduced have struggled to come to terms with the change, the loss of status, the loss of global importance.
To name but four, Spain, France, Germany and the United Kingdom have all had periods of being if not the dominant global power then certainly one of the leading powers. For France, I'd argue the defeat of 1940 and for Germany the defeat of 1945 shattered the final illusions of great power- they were physically humbled, ruined an conquered.
For Britain, it's been different - victory in 1945 left us bankrupt and Suez further confirmed the fact we were no longer at the top table. I'd argue much of our history since then has been a struggle for identity and purpose and we are still going through that to some degree.
For Russia, they were from 1945-89, one of the two dominant global powers. Then, within 18 months, it was gone with barely a shot fired. 30 years on, they can see the US and China moving ahead economically and militarily and while they still have nuclear weapons (as do we and the French), the truth (and Ukraine has brutally exposed this to the world if not the Russians themselves) is they are declining in world affairs. Yes, they are a significant regional power but the new bi-polar world order sits with Washington and Beijing. They can hook themselves to Beijing and become effectively a vassal of China or re-align to the West.
That's the internal struggle now within Russia - they have the power to ruin the world but not the power to restore the influence they once enjoyed. The world is moving away from their resources, their wealth and their influence. They face the marginalisation of irrelevance and that's what they struggle to accept.
Other examples also come to mind. Hungarian national identity struggles from the fact it was a major empire in Eastern Empire and is now reduced to being a small state. That is a major reason for the appeal of Orbanism. I also think Islamist ideology is rooted in an insecurity among Muslims that they used to have a Caliphate stretching from Spain to India, and in the last century still had it from Morocco to Iraq, but now are mainly third rate countries.
For what it's worth, I think Britain has dealt with its rapid imperial decline pretty well. Yes, Suez was a shambles, but that is an isolated example. The country gave independence to virtually all it's colonies peacefully after 1945, without getting involved in bloody messes like the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Angola. It also openly accepted becoming a junior partner to the USA, recognizing a superpower hegemon that shared its values was the best situation possible.
The USA has not shared British values, and having it as a hegemon has not been the best situation possible, but otherwise I agree - the decline has been gentler than it might otherwise have been no sacking by the Goths. Just now it feels like there must be more to life though. Brexit must have happened for a reason.
With the exception of Trump, the US has absolutely shared British values of constitutionalism, representative government and free enterprise economics. The UK and the US also have had a similar balance of realpolitik vs idealism in foreign affairs. The alternatives of hegemony by a European colonial power, Russia, India or China, or of an anarchic world order, would all have been worse.
Those aren't the only two alternatives. And Britain itself was never a hegemonic world power, which probably explains how relatively benign we were as the leading world power. 'Absolute power' etc. There were many world powers in the 19th century, and the world saw peace and prosperity the like of which was never seen before or since.
It's probably quite deep for a Sunday evening on PB but I wonder if the ruling class in Russia is suffering from a form of post-Imperial psychosis. Many countries who have enjoyed periods of "greatness" and who have then found themselves reduced have struggled to come to terms with the change, the loss of status, the loss of global importance.
To name but four, Spain, France, Germany and the United Kingdom have all had periods of being if not the dominant global power then certainly one of the leading powers. For France, I'd argue the defeat of 1940 and for Germany the defeat of 1945 shattered the final illusions of great power- they were physically humbled, ruined an conquered.
For Britain, it's been different - victory in 1945 left us bankrupt and Suez further confirmed the fact we were no longer at the top table. I'd argue much of our history since then has been a struggle for identity and purpose and we are still going through that to some degree.
For Russia, they were from 1945-89, one of the two dominant global powers. Then, within 18 months, it was gone with barely a shot fired. 30 years on, they can see the US and China moving ahead economically and militarily and while they still have nuclear weapons (as do we and the French), the truth (and Ukraine has brutally exposed this to the world if not the Russians themselves) is they are declining in world affairs. Yes, they are a significant regional power but the new bi-polar world order sits with Washington and Beijing. They can hook themselves to Beijing and become effectively a vassal of China or re-align to the West.
That's the internal struggle now within Russia - they have the power to ruin the world but not the power to restore the influence they once enjoyed. The world is moving away from their resources, their wealth and their influence. They face the marginalisation of irrelevance and that's what they struggle to accept.
Other examples also come to mind. Hungarian national identity struggles from the fact it was a major empire in Eastern Empire and is now reduced to being a small state. That is a major reason for the appeal of Orbanism. I also think Islamist ideology is rooted in an insecurity among Muslims that they used to have a Caliphate stretching from Spain to India, and in the last century still had it from Morocco to Iraq, but now are mainly third rate countries.
For what it's worth, I think Britain has dealt with its rapid imperial decline pretty well. Yes, Suez was a shambles, but that is an isolated example. The country gave independence to virtually all it's colonies peacefully after 1945, without getting involved in bloody messes like the French in Algeria or the Portuguese in Angola. It also openly accepted becoming a junior partner to the USA, recognizing a superpower hegemon that shared its values was the best situation possible.
The USA has not shared British values, and having it as a hegemon has not been the best situation possible, but otherwise I agree - the decline has been gentler than it might otherwise have been no sacking by the Goths. Just now it feels like there must be more to life though. Brexit must have happened for a reason.
With the exception of Trump, the US has absolutely shared British values of constitutionalism, representative government and free enterprise economics. The UK and the US also have had a similar balance of realpolitik vs idealism in foreign affairs. The alternatives of hegemony by a European colonial power, Russia, India or China, or of an anarchic world order, would all have been worse.
Those aren't the only two alternatives. And Britain itself was never a hegemonic world power, which probably explains how relatively benign we were as the leading world power. 'Absolute power' etc. There were many world powers in the 19th century, and the world saw peace and prosperity the like of which was never seen before or since.
The height of the British Empire had the country in control of 25% of the globe, the Pacific Ocean as effectively a British lake and places like Brazil and China part of the informal Empire under the British thumb. The idea that was not "hegemonic" is ridiculous.
As for that level of "prosperity" not being seen since, that is laughable. The average European, African or Asian is far wealthier today than then.
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
@NTarnopolsky Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's Jewishness does not negate his Nazism says Russian FM Sergei Lavrov. Adolf Hitler also "had Jewish blood."
The Russians are that loser in the pub making muttered empty threats because he is so insecure next to the better looking, successful male at the next table. An entire government has inherited Putin's Napoleon complex. Its unclear whether his insecurity comes from the fact he is short, that he only got where he has because he was plucked out of mid-management obscurity by an alcoholic, or because he is lacking in manhood in some other way.
That post tells me more about the size of your penis than about anything else. Except perhaps your understanding of history: are you clear about who Napoleon was and the extent of his achievements?
And just so I can settle a bet with myself, are you over 6 ft tall?
You have grown rather obsessed with me! But I know how difficult it is for Russian shills to hear criticism of flabby chested Putin, so I will answer your question. I am neither over nor under six foot, given that is exactly my height.
And for your education, Napoleon's insecure desire to be the next Roman Emperor ended up with his country collapsed and a million French dead. I suppose that might count as an achievement compared to the tin pot leader of Moscow.
Mmm. Exactly what I would say if I were, oooh, let's pluck a number like 5'7" out of the air, shall we, and put on the spot. Well done. Good save.
That makes sense, given your grip on reality is so slender you admire a failed, botoxed leader like little Vova Putin. I prefer factual reality!
Thanks, titch. All I ever said about the admittedly detestable Putin was, that he had a very large nuclear arsenal. Which he does. Some very short men are better equipped than others. Deal with it.
I don't think all the nukes in the world will compensate for Putin's lack of equipment.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Sounds like an example of the discredited theory of Lamarckism.
It's fairly standard and accepted science that the well-nourished grow taller and the less nourished less tall.
Well less, but you don't then pass on such characteristics to distant descendants.
I had never heard of Lamarck - now given him a quick Google. I believe that modern understanding of genetics is coming around to the fact that genes can indeed be altered during one's life and passed down the generations. So (if it isn't happenong already), a reappraisal of his work seems overdue.
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Sounds like an example of the discredited theory of Lamarckism.
It's fairly standard and accepted science that the well-nourished grow taller and the less nourished less tall.
Well less, but you don't then pass on such characteristics to distant descendants.
On the whole, taller peoples tend to live in flat areas and smaller people in hilly areas. I reckon this is because being tall gives you an evolutionary advantage in flat terrain since you can see over other people's heads. In hilly areas, though, being tall is a waste of energy since you can you simply go and stand on a high place to see what's coming.
Just spent a wonderful family day in Southwold. A bit chillier than I would have liked, but fun. It was also bittersweet: my parents are getting older and noticeably frailer now. Where once they would have walked from the pier to the harbour and back, they now drive.
Thank goodness Covid is essentially over, so we can at least spend these more of these precious moments together.
@Jossiasjessop To be fair that is not an insignificant walk. My wife and dog returned from our Southwold house today. She escaped from me for a week as now I am on crutches and can get about and look after myself. But no point in me going there if not mobile.
Where do you stay? My wife was looking at rental prices today and they are ridiculous.
We don't stay. Mum and dad are in their caravan further inland (still caravanning in their eighties!), whilst we nipped up for the day - two hours there, two hours back.
I love Southwold. On my walk twenty years ago, I walked down the coast from Edinburgh, and Southwold was the first 'perfect' seaside resort I came across. It really is pocket-sized magnificence.
I can see why people want to live there.
Mrs J is always worried about me going to the seaside, as she's worried I'll do another lap. It's tempting, but life won't allow it.
Yet....
Hope your leg(s) get better soon.
Re my legs - thank you. I'm nearly there. Southwold is lovely. Practically nobody actually lives there. It is almost entirely 2nd homes serviced by residents of surrounding villages. All the pubs and shops are aimed at the 2nd home owners. There is an online newspaper that takes the piss out of us all. In our row of terraces only 1 house is not a 2nd home. It really is a holiday town. It is also full of luvvies. Through contacts we can sometimes use Richard Curtis' beach hut.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Sounds like an example of the discredited theory of Lamarckism.
It's fairly standard and accepted science that the well-nourished grow taller and the less nourished less tall.
Well less, but you don't then pass on such characteristics to distant descendants.
On the whole, taller peoples tend to live in flat areas and smaller people in hilly areas. I reckon this is because being tall gives you an evolutionary advantage in flat terrain since you can see over other people's heads. In hilly areas, though, being tall is a waste of energy since you can you simply go and stand on a high place to see what's coming.
I presume what Luckyguy is trying yo say is that even at the height of British imperium, there was contestation with France, Germany, Russia etc.
Whereas US hegemony within the Western Hemisphere after say 1945 was unrivalled.
As to alternatives, it is possible to imagine a British empire of sorts continuing to the modern day, but only based on some kind of arrangement with the dominions. The idea of a non-democratic empire in Africa et al had lost its ideological underpinnings even by 1939.
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
Hungary should be expelled from the EU. There is no need to wait, either, they represent no serious threat to the Western order. Perhaps even less so if they are out in the cold.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Sounds like an example of the discredited theory of Lamarckism.
It's fairly standard and accepted science that the well-nourished grow taller and the less nourished less tall.
Well less, but you don't then pass on such characteristics to distant descendants.
I had never heard of Lamarck - now given him a quick Google. I believe that modern understanding of genetics is coming around to the fact that genes can indeed be altered during one's life and passed down the generations. So (if it isn't happenong already), a reappraisal of his work seems overdue.
If you've never heard of Larmarckism until now, I think you need to do a lot more than a quick Google before deciding which research topics evolutionary biologists should be pursuing!
@NTarnopolsky Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's Jewishness does not negate his Nazism says Russian FM Sergei Lavrov. Adolf Hitler also "had Jewish blood."
Lavrov belongs with his boss in front of a war crimes tribunal.
An interesting one for future historians: arguably Hitler and Himmler and the rest actually believed their own bollx about an aryan race and jews being parasites who were holding back the fatherland etc etc.
Seems to me there is a very good chance that Lavrov knows he is talking utter cock but has persuaded himself it is necessary for his own survival or survival of his mate Putin.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Sounds like an example of the discredited theory of Lamarckism.
It's fairly standard and accepted science that the well-nourished grow taller and the less nourished less tall.
Well less, but you don't then pass on such characteristics to distant descendants.
On the whole, taller peoples tend to live in flat areas and smaller people in hilly areas. I reckon this is because being tall gives you an evolutionary advantage in flat terrain since you can see over other people's heads. In hilly areas, though, being tall is a waste of energy since you can you simply go and stand on a high place to see what's coming.
Could be that having a lower centre of gravity provides better stability when moving around hilly areas; for the flats its better to have the longer legs and speed.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Sounds like an example of the discredited theory of Lamarckism.
It's fairly standard and accepted science that the well-nourished grow taller and the less nourished less tall.
Well less, but you don't then pass on such characteristics to distant descendants.
On the whole, taller peoples tend to live in flat areas and smaller people in hilly areas. I reckon this is because being tall gives you an evolutionary advantage in flat terrain since you can see over other people's heads. In hilly areas, though, being tall is a waste of energy since you can you simply go and stand on a high place to see what's coming.
Hahaha, genius. The giants of Benbecula and Lincolnshire.
Hungary should be expelled from the EU. There is no need to wait, either, they represent no serious threat to the Western order. Perhaps even less so if they are out in the cold.
Hmmm... I am not sure encouraging a NATO member into the arms of Russia would be such a great thing.
Hungary should be expelled from the EU. There is no need to wait, either, they represent no serious threat to the Western order. Perhaps even less so if they are out in the cold.
Hmmm... I am not sure encouraging a NATO member into the arms of Russia would be such a great thing.
A reckoning is coming for them, sooner or later.
The EU can’t continue to allow a undemocratic or even anti-democratic state to veto aspects of foreign policy.
Hungary should be expelled from the EU. There is no need to wait, either, they represent no serious threat to the Western order. Perhaps even less so if they are out in the cold.
To quote LBJ, better having them inside tent pissing out, than outside pissing in?
Sure as shit would NOT be free with intel to Budapest. Am about 99.46% sure that's already NATO policy.
Hungary should be expelled from the EU. There is no need to wait, either, they represent no serious threat to the Western order. Perhaps even less so if they are out in the cold.
Hmmm... I am not sure encouraging a NATO member into the arms of Russia would be such a great thing.
A reckoning is coming for them, sooner or later.
The EU can’t continue to allow a undemocratic or even anti-democratic state to veto aspects of foreign policy.
Yes, it is a fundamental principle of the EU that it is a union of democratic states. When a state stops being democratic, it should have no place in the union.
Just spent a wonderful family day in Southwold. A bit chillier than I would have liked, but fun. It was also bittersweet: my parents are getting older and noticeably frailer now. Where once they would have walked from the pier to the harbour and back, they now drive.
Thank goodness Covid is essentially over, so we can at least spend these more of these precious moments together.
@Jossiasjessop To be fair that is not an insignificant walk. My wife and dog returned from our Southwold house today. She escaped from me for a week as now I am on crutches and can get about and look after myself. But no point in me going there if not mobile.
Where do you stay? My wife was looking at rental prices today and they are ridiculous.
We don't stay. Mum and dad are in their caravan further inland (still caravanning in their eighties!), whilst we nipped up for the day - two hours there, two hours back.
I love Southwold. On my walk twenty years ago, I walked down the coast from Edinburgh, and Southwold was the first 'perfect' seaside resort I came across. It really is pocket-sized magnificence.
I can see why people want to live there.
Mrs J is always worried about me going to the seaside, as she's worried I'll do another lap. It's tempting, but life won't allow it.
Yet....
Hope your leg(s) get better soon.
Re my legs - thank you. I'm nearly there. Southwold is lovely. Practically nobody actually lives there. It is almost entirely 2nd homes serviced by residents of surrounding villages. All the pubs and shops are aimed at the 2nd home owners. There is an online newspaper that takes the piss out of us all. In our row of terraces only 1 house is not a 2nd home. It really is a holiday town. It is also full of luvvies. Through contacts we can sometimes use Richard Curtis' beach hut.
Apparently what we are looking at, according to the Guardian, is the “Mr Fly of the year” award given out at one of Boris Johnson’s lockdown parties - in this instance for attracting greenfly. Other awards at Tory Lockdown parties include “Female MP with the most lovely seat” award (adjudicated by Johnson Snr) “Cummings Eye Test Award” for most bravest/brazen excuse given in a TV interview, the “Peppa Pig” for best ad lib, and “you never could believe” for the most daring sexual conquest, won last year by Hancock.
Labour have tried to start a smear that a “most sexist pig of the year” award was handed out at a Boris lockdown party, but that’s just too ridiculous to even contemplate. Silly silly Labour.
I presume what Luckyguy is trying yo say is that even at the height of British imperium, there was contestation with France, Germany, Russia etc.
Whereas US hegemony within the Western Hemisphere after say 1945 was unrivalled.
As to alternatives, it is possible to imagine a British empire of sorts continuing to the modern day, but only based on some kind of arrangement with the dominions. The idea of a non-democratic empire in Africa et al had lost its ideological underpinnings even by 1939.
"Within the Western hemisphere" seems like an artificial constraint, given globally it was a massive period of intense competition between two superpowers. Who seriously contested British power in Asia or Africa in the late 1800s?
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Sounds like an example of the discredited theory of Lamarckism.
It's fairly standard and accepted science that the well-nourished grow taller and the less nourished less tall.
Well less, but you don't then pass on such characteristics to distant descendants.
I had never heard of Lamarck - now given him a quick Google. I believe that modern understanding of genetics is coming around to the fact that genes can indeed be altered during one's life and passed down the generations. So (if it isn't happenong already), a reappraisal of his work seems overdue.
If you've never heard of Larmarckism until now, I think you need to do a lot more than a quick Google before deciding which research topics evolutionary biologists should be pursuing!
@Luckyguy1983 is just wrong opining about genes being altered in a heritable manner by diet. But it is true to say that environmental factors - including prolonged dietary deficits - can alter gene expression through epigenetic mechanisms. and to a limited extent (not fully understood), some of those epigenetic effects are heritable into at least the next generation.
And it’s at least plausible that a long period of good diet, following most of history where nutrition was inadequate for most people, might see a sustained increase in height over several generations to what is the full genetic potential of a given population. Doesn’t take centuries, though; just a few generations. Compare the average height of the late Victorians to today.
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
Primaries in Ohio and other states, will soon give barometer & temp readings re: 45's continued coat-tails.
Hungary should be expelled from the EU. There is no need to wait, either, they represent no serious threat to the Western order. Perhaps even less so if they are out in the cold.
Hmmm... I am not sure encouraging a NATO member into the arms of Russia would be such a great thing.
A reckoning is coming for them, sooner or later.
The EU can’t continue to allow a undemocratic or even anti-democratic state to veto aspects of foreign policy.
So don’t allow them. That doesn’t require expulsion, though.
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel very optimistic about it, expecially given how much some Dems dislike Biden, and yet there's no one obviously better placed to unify them next time.
On topic, I have arrived at the Nawlins Jazz fest (“no firearms allowed”) which looks like a total hoot
Except that I have no cash and no one takes cards (America, sort this out)
This is the line for the ATM
Yours truly last (and first) attended the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival in the late '70s. At same location as today, the Fairgrounds. Aside from the weather not being too hot (in a good way!) only remember two things:
> when you parked your car, a Black kid would immediately ask you, Mister, if you pay me $5 I'll watch your car. Proper answer by was, yes. This being a poor neighborhood, and was established means for local kids to get some money, legitimately. Because was also well-established, that the kid you gave the five-spot to, would, if need be, defend your car to the death. As a matter of honor.
> when I got in, plenty of great acts, but only one I remember was Doc Watson, who was fantastic. Toward the end of his set, he asked the crowd, what shall we do next? So people started shouting out their favorites. So I began bellowing out - "TENNESSEE STUD! TENNESSEE STUD!" And next thing, the band started playing . . . "Tennessee Stud"
I’m drinking crap wine, eating a crawfish sausage po-boy, listening to Cajun bluegrass (in French)
I hope you’re suitably impressed by my authenticity
Cheers!
Sounds good to me, though I'd go for a cold can of Dixie beer with that. Weather looks great, web say 82F with 61% humidity, not too bad for mid-afternoon. Crowd does NOT look too crowded either.
On topic, I have arrived at the Nawlins Jazz fest (“no firearms allowed”) which looks like a total hoot
Except that I have no cash and no one takes cards (America, sort this out)
This is the line for the ATM
Yours truly last (and first) attended the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival in the late '70s. At same location as today, the Fairgrounds. Aside from the weather not being too hot (in a good way!) only remember two things:
> when you parked your car, a Black kid would immediately ask you, Mister, if you pay me $5 I'll watch your car. Proper answer by was, yes. This being a poor neighborhood, and was established means for local kids to get some money, legitimately. Because was also well-established, that the kid you gave the five-spot to, would, if need be, defend your car to the death. As a matter of honor.
> when I got in, plenty of great acts, but only one I remember was Doc Watson, who was fantastic. Toward the end of his set, he asked the crowd, what shall we do next? So people started shouting out their favorites. So I began bellowing out - "TENNESSEE STUD! TENNESSEE STUD!" And next thing, the band started playing . . . "Tennessee Stud"
I’m drinking crap wine, eating a crawfish sausage po-boy, listening to Cajun bluegrass (in French)
I hope you’re suitably impressed by my authenticity
Cheers!
Sounds good to me, though I'd go for a cold can of Dixie beer with that. Weather looks great, web say 82F with 61% humidity, not too bad for mid-afternoon. Crowd does NOT look too crowded either.
What's ticket price?
Dunno. I’m on a freebie. Thankyou, Louisiana taxpayer
Hungary should be expelled from the EU. There is no need to wait, either, they represent no serious threat to the Western order. Perhaps even less so if they are out in the cold.
Hmmm... I am not sure encouraging a NATO member into the arms of Russia would be such a great thing.
A reckoning is coming for them, sooner or later.
The EU can’t continue to allow a undemocratic or even anti-democratic state to veto aspects of foreign policy.
The EU has moved (or attempted to move) faster on Ukraine than many would have expected. But dealing with little Putin wannabe in Hungary? I just can't picture how they can meaningfully do anything. It took bloody ages to seek to take action on some states, and how much stick can realistically be brought alongside the carrot of EU membership privileges?
Apparently what we are looking at, according to the Guardian, is the “Mr Fly of the year” award given out at one of Boris Johnson’s lockdown parties - in this instance for attracting greenfly. Other awards at Tory Lockdown parties include “Female MP with the most lovely seat” award (adjudicated by Johnson Snr) “Cummings Eye Test Award” for most bravest/brazen excuse given in a TV interview, the “Peppa Pig” for best ad lib, and “you never could believe” for the most daring sexual conquest, won last year by Hancock.
Labour have tried to start a smear that a “most sexist pig of the year” award was handed out at a Boris lockdown party, but that’s just too ridiculous to even contemplate. Silly silly Labour.
Looks like one of the participants from May Day morning in Oxford today
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel very optimistic about it, expecially given how much some Dems dislike Biden, and yet there's no one obviously better placed to unify them next time.
Hungary should be expelled from the EU. There is no need to wait, either, they represent no serious threat to the Western order. Perhaps even less so if they are out in the cold.
To quote LBJ, better having them inside tent pissing out, than outside pissing in?
Sure as shit would NOT be free with intel to Budapest. Am about 99.46% sure that's already NATO policy.
They wouldn't be pissing out though. In a union which requires unanimity for many of its decisions, they'd be pissing all over everyone else in the tent.
@NTarnopolsky Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's Jewishness does not negate his Nazism says Russian FM Sergei Lavrov. Adolf Hitler also "had Jewish blood."
Lavrov belongs with his boss in front of a war crimes tribunal.
He's been Foreign minister for over 15 years, one can only assume he is fully complicit and encouraging on every maniac thing they have done under Putin. That he may be deliberately talking nonsense without believing it only makes it more infuriating in how to respond to such people. Especially when a lot of people in Russia believe it, or feel required to believe it.
I presume what Luckyguy is trying yo say is that even at the height of British imperium, there was contestation with France, Germany, Russia etc.
Whereas US hegemony within the Western Hemisphere after say 1945 was unrivalled.
As to alternatives, it is possible to imagine a British empire of sorts continuing to the modern day, but only based on some kind of arrangement with the dominions. The idea of a non-democratic empire in Africa et al had lost its ideological underpinnings even by 1939.
"Within the Western hemisphere" seems like an artificial constraint, given globally it was a massive period of intense competition between two superpowers. Who seriously contested British power in Asia or Africa in the late 1800s?
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel very optimistic about it, expecially given how much some Dems dislike Biden, and yet there's no one obviously better placed to unify them next time.
Buttigieg remains my tip for 2024
Somehow though he needs to get past the Dem primary where black voters are significant and as a group they seem to really not like Buttigieg. Maybe next time will be different.
Dems really are in a mess. Harris is hopeless and cannot be nominee. Biden is clearly too old, but who will tell him. Trump will run on the economy which is now a mess compared to his time in office. Looks like an easy win at the moment but two years to go.
I presume what Luckyguy is trying yo say is that even at the height of British imperium, there was contestation with France, Germany, Russia etc.
Whereas US hegemony within the Western Hemisphere after say 1945 was unrivalled.
As to alternatives, it is possible to imagine a British empire of sorts continuing to the modern day, but only based on some kind of arrangement with the dominions. The idea of a non-democratic empire in Africa et al had lost its ideological underpinnings even by 1939.
"Within the Western hemisphere" seems like an artificial constraint, given globally it was a massive period of intense competition between two superpowers. Who seriously contested British power in Asia or Africa in the late 1800s?
The peak of Britain's economical and military might is widely considered to have been 1850, marked the the Great Exhibition. The Empire still expanded in landmass after that but that isn't always an indicator of growing power. So if we take 1850, you had America already very powerful, in Europe you had Russia, Austria-Hungary, France, and Prussia all first rank powers, and a whole lot of second rank powers like The Ottoman Empire, the Netherlands, Italy etc. And don't forget that Britain's military clout lay primarily in its Navy - it couldn't really contest wars on land, alone. As our power slowly waned, it was notable that we picked fights with the likes of China, not with the other great powers.
The foreign policy of Britain was always to preserve the 'balance of powers'. That has never been the foreign policy of the USA, whose goal has always been to preserve US dominance.
Hungary should be expelled from the EU. There is no need to wait, either, they represent no serious threat to the Western order. Perhaps even less so if they are out in the cold.
Hmmm... I am not sure encouraging a NATO member into the arms of Russia would be such a great thing.
A reckoning is coming for them, sooner or later.
The EU can’t continue to allow a undemocratic or even anti-democratic state to veto aspects of foreign policy.
So don’t allow them. That doesn’t require expulsion, though.
But then you are talking about introducing QMV to foreign policy and I’m not sure how many would go for that.
It is a dilemma that the EU must solve, one way or another.
They are normally super keen to claim everything as a Scottish invention. Yet not “southern fried chicken”
Not sure why. KFC giving it a bad name?
Done correctly it’s a fantastic dish. Spicy and crunchy and salty and umami. Mmm
I for one welcome Ishyvoo to the ranks of the PB Nats. We need more grumpiness.
Just didn't feel right. Shallow frying early on, when southern states being populated, yes. Industrial scale deep fat in Glasgow etc. late C19, yes. Modern deep fat frying on domestic cookers, yes. But the KFC story didn't ring true.
Some of us actually quite like historical accuracy ...
I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it still seems very possible to me.
The Scots will fry anything, the traditional oil was lard, you don’t need modern deep fat criers.
The Scots-Irish settled the Appalachians, taking with them whisky, country music, a propensity for evangelical religion, and fried chicken.
It’s entirely plausible.
Utter pish , very few in Scotland would have been able to afford chickens many moons ago. Stereotypical sh**e, may have been different in the Appalachians. Back then it would have been more likely to be oysters and French wine. Or even vegetarion, beans , pulse etc.
Boswell claimed to have had fried chicken in the Outer Hebrides so I am calling shite.
@Leon is right that this seems to have a struck a nerve, and I too cannot really understand why.
Cultural cringe about unhealthy Scottish cuisine
But I don’t see why. Scotland has a fine cuisine at its heart. Venison, salmon, noble angus beef. Wonderful shellfish etc
Scotland traditionally eats a lot of oats (Johnson said something like 'In England, oats feed horses, in Scotland, the populace), which were made weekly into porridge (a very healthy way of eating them as the grains were 'soaked', neutralising their antinutrients), and haggis, full of richly nourishing organ meats, and Malc's famous turnips, also extremely good for you, and lots of fish. At one point, Scots were noted for being taller than their English counterparts, which indicates a better diet.
I have a Dutch friend who is absolutely convinced that Scottish people walk too much and grind our legs down.
She seems convinced that if everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
That's a fairly stupid assumption. I am just over 6ft and have Dutch heritage. I put it down to the draining of the plains back in the 17th century (was it then?) all that nourishing soil, full of minerals, producing so much good food. Dumas documents it. It's what enabled them to rise to world domination later too - it stands to reason it would have made them taller. There is always plentiful nourishing food before a culture gains pre-eminence - look at the Egyptians and the flooding of the Nile.
Sounds like an example of the discredited theory of Lamarckism.
It's fairly standard and accepted science that the well-nourished grow taller and the less nourished less tall.
Well less, but you don't then pass on such characteristics to distant descendants.
I had never heard of Lamarck - now given him a quick Google. I believe that modern understanding of genetics is coming around to the fact that genes can indeed be altered during one's life and passed down the generations. So (if it isn't happenong already), a reappraisal of his work seems overdue.
If you've never heard of Larmarckism until now, I think you need to do a lot more than a quick Google before deciding which research topics evolutionary biologists should be pursuing!
@Luckyguy1983 is just wrong opining about genes being altered in a heritable manner by diet. But it is true to say that environmental factors - including prolonged dietary deficits - can alter gene expression through epigenetic mechanisms. and to a limited extent (not fully understood), some of those epigenetic effects are heritable into at least the next generation.
And it’s at least plausible that a long period of good diet, following most of history where nutrition was inadequate for most people, might see a sustained increase in height over several generations to what is the full genetic potential of a given population. Doesn’t take centuries, though; just a few generations. Compare the average height of the late Victorians to today.
A sentence to say how wrong I am, and two paragraphs to say how right I am.
I presume what Luckyguy is trying yo say is that even at the height of British imperium, there was contestation with France, Germany, Russia etc.
Whereas US hegemony within the Western Hemisphere after say 1945 was unrivalled.
As to alternatives, it is possible to imagine a British empire of sorts continuing to the modern day, but only based on some kind of arrangement with the dominions. The idea of a non-democratic empire in Africa et al had lost its ideological underpinnings even by 1939.
"Within the Western hemisphere" seems like an artificial constraint, given globally it was a massive period of intense competition between two superpowers. Who seriously contested British power in Asia or Africa in the late 1800s?
The peak of Britain's economical and military might is widely considered to have been 1850, marked the the Great Exhibition. The Empire still expanded in landmass after that but that isn't always an indicator of growing power. So if we take 1850, you had America already very powerful, in Europe you had Russia, Austria-Hungary, France, and Prussia all first rank powers, and a whole lot of second rank powers like The Ottoman Empire, the Netherlands, Italy etc. And don't forget that Britain's military clout lay primarily in its Navy - it couldn't really contest wars on land, alone. As our power slowly waned, it was notable that we picked fights with the likes of China, not with the other great powers.
The foreign policy of Britain was always to preserve the 'balance of powers'. That has never been the foreign policy of the USA, whose goal has always been to preserve US dominance.
Peak British power was arguably the early 19th century when we mastered industry long before anyone else. We could have shut the information borders and conquered 100% of the world
Arguably we should have
Instead we contented ourselves with a third of the world. Because we believe in Fair Play
Just spent a wonderful family day in Southwold. A bit chillier than I would have liked, but fun. It was also bittersweet: my parents are getting older and noticeably frailer now. Where once they would have walked from the pier to the harbour and back, they now drive.
Thank goodness Covid is essentially over, so we can at least spend these more of these precious moments together.
@Jossiasjessop To be fair that is not an insignificant walk. My wife and dog returned from our Southwold house today. She escaped from me for a week as now I am on crutches and can get about and look after myself. But no point in me going there if not mobile.
Where do you stay? My wife was looking at rental prices today and they are ridiculous.
We don't stay. Mum and dad are in their caravan further inland (still caravanning in their eighties!), whilst we nipped up for the day - two hours there, two hours back.
I love Southwold. On my walk twenty years ago, I walked down the coast from Edinburgh, and Southwold was the first 'perfect' seaside resort I came across. It really is pocket-sized magnificence.
I can see why people want to live there.
Mrs J is always worried about me going to the seaside, as she's worried I'll do another lap. It's tempting, but life won't allow it.
Yet....
Hope your leg(s) get better soon.
Re my legs - thank you. I'm nearly there. Southwold is lovely. Practically nobody actually lives there. It is almost entirely 2nd homes serviced by residents of surrounding villages. All the pubs and shops are aimed at the 2nd home owners. There is an online newspaper that takes the piss out of us all. In our row of terraces only 1 house is not a 2nd home. It really is a holiday town. It is also full of luvvies. Through contacts we can sometimes use Richard Curtis' beach hut.
Sounds like hell.
I know people complain about 2nd home owners, but in this case they are all in a confined area bringing in money and employment to the residents around the town. It is difficult to believe that economy would exist without them. House prices are ridiculously high in the town but plummet as soon as you cross the bridge when leaving. We found it because my brother in law is a carpenter at the theatre and my sister in law and her husband are actors who perform there often in the summer.
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel very optimistic about it, expecially given how much some Dems dislike Biden, and yet there's no one obviously better placed to unify them next time.
Buttigieg remains my tip for 2024
Somehow though he needs to get past the Dem primary where black voters are significant and as a group they seem to really not like Buttigieg. Maybe next time will be different.
Dems really are in a mess. Harris is hopeless and cannot be nominee. Biden is clearly too old, but who will tell him. Trump will run on the economy which is now a mess compared to his time in office. Looks like an easy win at the moment but two years to go.
The elephant in the room is Buttigieg is gay. That shouldn’t matter but it will in the swing states you need to win . I like him , think he’s a great speaker , served his country , in ordinary circumstances he looks a good candidate but I just can’t see the USA electing a gay President .
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel very optimistic about it, expecially given how much some Dems dislike Biden, and yet there's no one obviously better placed to unify them next time.
Buttigieg remains my tip for 2024
Somehow though he needs to get past the Dem primary where black voters are significant and as a group they seem to really not like Buttigieg. Maybe next time will be different.
Dems really are in a mess. Harris is hopeless and cannot be nominee. Biden is clearly too old, but who will tell him. Trump will run on the economy which is now a mess compared to his time in office. Looks like an easy win at the moment but two years to go.
The elephant in the room is Buttigieg is gay. That shouldn’t matter but it will in the swing states you need to win . I like him , think he’s a great speaker , served his country , in ordinary circumstances he looks a good candidate but I just can’t see the USA electing a gay President .
Gay man or fecking lunatic who will get us all killed.
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel very optimistic about it, expecially given how much some Dems dislike Biden, and yet there's no one obviously better placed to unify them next time.
Buttigieg remains my tip for 2024
Somehow though he needs to get past the Dem primary where black voters are significant and as a group they seem to really not like Buttigieg. Maybe next time will be different.
Dems really are in a mess. Harris is hopeless and cannot be nominee. Biden is clearly too old, but who will tell him. Trump will run on the economy which is now a mess compared to his time in office. Looks like an easy win at the moment but two years to go.
The elephant in the room is Buttigieg is gay. That shouldn’t matter but it will in the swing states you need to win . I like him , think he’s a great speaker , served his country , in ordinary circumstances he looks a good candidate but I just can’t see the USA electing a gay President .
What will do Buttigieg in is not his gayness but (1) he’s a white guy probably trying to upstage a black woman in the Democrat primaries, (2) he took time off for parental leave when the US faced a supply chain crisis - American electorates don’t want their politicians neglecting their duties and (3) he’s not been a great Transportation Sec (name one achievement).
I presume what Luckyguy is trying yo say is that even at the height of British imperium, there was contestation with France, Germany, Russia etc.
Whereas US hegemony within the Western Hemisphere after say 1945 was unrivalled.
As to alternatives, it is possible to imagine a British empire of sorts continuing to the modern day, but only based on some kind of arrangement with the dominions. The idea of a non-democratic empire in Africa et al had lost its ideological underpinnings even by 1939.
"Within the Western hemisphere" seems like an artificial constraint, given globally it was a massive period of intense competition between two superpowers. Who seriously contested British power in Asia or Africa in the late 1800s?
The peak of Britain's economical and military might is widely considered to have been 1850, marked the the Great Exhibition. The Empire still expanded in landmass after that but that isn't always an indicator of growing power. So if we take 1850, you had America already very powerful, in Europe you had Russia, Austria-Hungary, France, and Prussia all first rank powers, and a whole lot of second rank powers like The Ottoman Empire, the Netherlands, Italy etc. And don't forget that Britain's military clout lay primarily in its Navy - it couldn't really contest wars on land, alone. As our power slowly waned, it was notable that we picked fights with the likes of China, not with the other great powers.
The foreign policy of Britain was always to preserve the 'balance of powers'. That has never been the foreign policy of the USA, whose goal has always been to preserve US dominance.
Peak British power was arguably the early 19th century when we mastered industry long before anyone else. We could have shut the information borders and conquered 100% of the world
Arguably we should have
Instead we contented ourselves with a third of the world. Because we believe in Fair Play
Yeah we only conquered a third of the world because we believed in fair play. Pull the other one.
I presume what Luckyguy is trying yo say is that even at the height of British imperium, there was contestation with France, Germany, Russia etc.
Whereas US hegemony within the Western Hemisphere after say 1945 was unrivalled.
As to alternatives, it is possible to imagine a British empire of sorts continuing to the modern day, but only based on some kind of arrangement with the dominions. The idea of a non-democratic empire in Africa et al had lost its ideological underpinnings even by 1939.
"Within the Western hemisphere" seems like an artificial constraint, given globally it was a massive period of intense competition between two superpowers. Who seriously contested British power in Asia or Africa in the late 1800s?
The peak of Britain's economical and military might is widely considered to have been 1850, marked the the Great Exhibition. The Empire still expanded in landmass after that but that isn't always an indicator of growing power. So if we take 1850, you had America already very powerful, in Europe you had Russia, Austria-Hungary, France, and Prussia all first rank powers, and a whole lot of second rank powers like The Ottoman Empire, the Netherlands, Italy etc. And don't forget that Britain's military clout lay primarily in its Navy - it couldn't really contest wars on land, alone. As our power slowly waned, it was notable that we picked fights with the likes of China, not with the other great powers.
The foreign policy of Britain was always to preserve the 'balance of powers'. That has never been the foreign policy of the USA, whose goal has always been to preserve US dominance.
Peak British power was arguably the early 19th century when we mastered industry long before anyone else. We could have shut the information borders and conquered 100% of the world
Arguably we should have
Instead we contented ourselves with a third of the world. Because we believe in Fair Play
If we had attempted something along those lines, it would not have ended so gently. America has run the world as a bit of a racket imo (and I say this with nothing but admiration and love for the actual people), and when the chickens come home to roost, I don't see it being pretty. There will be no moving into the comfy dower house like the dowager duchess when that all ends.
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel very optimistic about it, expecially given how much some Dems dislike Biden, and yet there's no one obviously better placed to unify them next time.
Buttigieg remains my tip for 2024
Somehow though he needs to get past the Dem primary where black voters are significant and as a group they seem to really not like Buttigieg. Maybe next time will be different.
Dems really are in a mess. Harris is hopeless and cannot be nominee. Biden is clearly too old, but who will tell him. Trump will run on the economy which is now a mess compared to his time in office. Looks like an easy win at the moment but two years to go.
The elephant in the room is Buttigieg is gay. That shouldn’t matter but it will in the swing states you need to win . I like him , think he’s a great speaker , served his country , in ordinary circumstances he looks a good candidate but I just can’t see the USA electing a gay President .
You'd think it would have been harder to elect a black President than a gay one, but the USA managed that one. Though 2008 is a long time ago in American politics.
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel very optimistic about it, expecially given how much some Dems dislike Biden, and yet there's no one obviously better placed to unify them next time.
Buttigieg remains my tip for 2024
Somehow though he needs to get past the Dem primary where black voters are significant and as a group they seem to really not like Buttigieg. Maybe next time will be different.
Dems really are in a mess. Harris is hopeless and cannot be nominee. Biden is clearly too old, but who will tell him. Trump will run on the economy which is now a mess compared to his time in office. Looks like an easy win at the moment but two years to go.
The elephant in the room is Buttigieg is gay. That shouldn’t matter but it will in the swing states you need to win . I like him , think he’s a great speaker , served his country , in ordinary circumstances he looks a good candidate but I just can’t see the USA electing a gay President .
What will do Buttigieg in is not his gayness but (1) he’s a white guy probably trying to upstage a black woman in the Democrat primaries, (2) he took time off for parental leave when the US faced a supply chain crisis - American electorates don’t want their politicians neglecting their duties and (3) he’s not been a great Transportation Sec (name one achievement).
1. Didn't hurt Joe Biden. 2. Being a devoted father isn't a bad thing in a pro-family culture. 3. He has successfully overseen $600bn of infrastructure investment without scandal or corruption
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel very optimistic about it, expecially given how much some Dems dislike Biden, and yet there's no one obviously better placed to unify them next time.
Buttigieg remains my tip for 2024
Somehow though he needs to get past the Dem primary where black voters are significant and as a group they seem to really not like Buttigieg. Maybe next time will be different.
Dems really are in a mess. Harris is hopeless and cannot be nominee. Biden is clearly too old, but who will tell him. Trump will run on the economy which is now a mess compared to his time in office. Looks like an easy win at the moment but two years to go.
The elephant in the room is Buttigieg is gay. That shouldn’t matter but it will in the swing states you need to win . I like him , think he’s a great speaker , served his country , in ordinary circumstances he looks a good candidate but I just can’t see the USA electing a gay President .
Gay man or fecking lunatic who will get us all killed.
Could be the choice next time.
70% of Americans support gay marriage. Buttigieg is in a similar place to Obama in 2008.
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel very optimistic about it, expecially given how much some Dems dislike Biden, and yet there's no one obviously better placed to unify them next time.
Buttigieg remains my tip for 2024
Somehow though he needs to get past the Dem primary where black voters are significant and as a group they seem to really not like Buttigieg. Maybe next time will be different.
Dems really are in a mess. Harris is hopeless and cannot be nominee. Biden is clearly too old, but who will tell him. Trump will run on the economy which is now a mess compared to his time in office. Looks like an easy win at the moment but two years to go.
The elephant in the room is Buttigieg is gay. That shouldn’t matter but it will in the swing states you need to win . I like him , think he’s a great speaker , served his country , in ordinary circumstances he looks a good candidate but I just can’t see the USA electing a gay President .
What will do Buttigieg in is not his gayness but (1) he’s a white guy probably trying to upstage a black woman in the Democrat primaries, (2) he took time off for parental leave when the US faced a supply chain crisis - American electorates don’t want their politicians neglecting their duties and (3) he’s not been a great Transportation Sec (name one achievement).
His biggest problem is his complete lack of charisma. If he weren't gay he wouldn't get the same coverage.
Because 384 warheads are rather less than 3750 and they think they might not survive being hit by the latter number?
Quite so. We are sitting here thinking, if Russia unleashes tactical nukes on Ukraine, do we pretend we care enough to retaliate? I am absolutely confident that the average Joe in the USA is thinking, if they nuke London...
I live in the USA and follow politics here closely. Unless Trump is in charge, there is absolute zero percent chance that the US would respond to a nuke on London with anything less than full nuclear attacks on every Russian city.
What about Birmingham (UK)?
Same same. The UK is highly admired by Americans on both sides of the fence.
"Unless Trump is in charge,"
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
I think people are overstating the chance Trump gets re-elected. I know people who voted for Trump twice that won't vote for him again.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel very optimistic about it, expecially given how much some Dems dislike Biden, and yet there's no one obviously better placed to unify them next time.
Buttigieg remains my tip for 2024
Somehow though he needs to get past the Dem primary where black voters are significant and as a group they seem to really not like Buttigieg. Maybe next time will be different.
Dems really are in a mess. Harris is hopeless and cannot be nominee. Biden is clearly too old, but who will tell him. Trump will run on the economy which is now a mess compared to his time in office. Looks like an easy win at the moment but two years to go.
The elephant in the room is Buttigieg is gay. That shouldn’t matter but it will in the swing states you need to win . I like him , think he’s a great speaker , served his country , in ordinary circumstances he looks a good candidate but I just can’t see the USA electing a gay President .
What will do Buttigieg in is not his gayness but (1) he’s a white guy probably trying to upstage a black woman in the Democrat primaries, (2) he took time off for parental leave when the US faced a supply chain crisis - American electorates don’t want their politicians neglecting their duties and (3) he’s not been a great Transportation Sec (name one achievement).
1. Didn't hurt Joe Biden. 2. Being a devoted father isn't a bad thing in a pro-family culture. 3. He has successfully overseen $600bn of infrastructure investment without scandal or corruption
I'm quite tired and I thought you'd just outed Joe Biden.
Comments
We know that the number of over 65s is going to increase rapidly over the next decade, and number of young people decrease. With much reduced immigration...If there are roughly 800,000 people per year of birth, might add up.
Bet it'd go down like spotted dick at the Fairgrounds!
The transition of America from isolated regional power to global superpower is perhaps the seminal event of the 20th Century. Compare America in 1901 and 2001 - two very different countries but even by 1914 the accumulation of wealth and the financial control that wealth created (American loans bankrolled Britain in both World Wars) ensured the economic primacy of Washington - the military primacy followed inevitably.
And just so I can settle a bet with myself, are you over 6 ft tall?
I agree that Britain managed the retreat from Empire better than most others, but that's a bit like saying somebody is less unhinged than Dominic Cummings.
If everyone cycled instead we'd be just as tall as them. Thought she was taking the piss but apparently this is a general assumption in the Netherlands.
Amongst other things.
@NTarnopolsky
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's Jewishness does not negate his Nazism says Russian FM Sergei Lavrov. Adolf Hitler also "had Jewish blood."
https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1520862330669735936
It is a gas
A lot of highly attractive young women rockin the denim hot pants thing. They are reviving my faith in America
And for your education, Napoleon's insecure desire to be the next Roman Emperor ended up with his country collapsed and a million French dead. I suppose that might count as an achievement compared to the tin pot leader of Moscow.
They tried to hang on, bankrolled by the US, lost a humiliating and disastrous war, and passed the problem on to their superpower supporter, with results that turned out even more disastrous.
We were pretty crap - have any empires not been ? - but we could have been far worse in letting go.
Addendum: Also glad to hear that some things have NOT changed.
Laissez les bon temps roulet!
Like they have such good supply lines they don't need to worry about ammo.
olexander scherba🇺🇦
@olex_scherba
·
1h
#Russian anti-war channel
@CurrentTimeTv
publishes videos of RU tanks systematically destroying #Mariupol homes from a point-blanc range. Confirms the stories of evacuees, & debunks #Putin’s narrative of not targeting civilians.
https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/status/1520853808225660929
As for that level of "prosperity" not being seen since, that is laughable. The average European, African or Asian is far wealthier today than then.
The world was also more violent then:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years
Hungary will block EU sanctions on energy says senior Hungarian official Gulyás
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1520875986539237379
Whereas US hegemony within the Western Hemisphere after say 1945 was unrivalled.
As to alternatives, it is possible to imagine a British empire of sorts continuing to the modern day, but only based on some kind of arrangement with the dominions. The idea of a non-democratic empire in Africa et al had lost its ideological underpinnings even by 1939.
Not exactly reassuring given what will happen in Jan 2025.
There is no need to wait, either, they represent no serious threat to the Western order. Perhaps even less so if they are out in the cold.
Seems to me there is a very good chance that Lavrov knows he is talking utter cock but has persuaded himself it is necessary for his own survival or survival of his mate Putin.
The EU can’t continue to allow a undemocratic or even anti-democratic state to veto aspects of foreign policy.
Sure as shit would NOT be free with intel to Budapest. Am about 99.46% sure that's already NATO policy.
Labour have tried to start a smear that a “most sexist pig of the year” award was handed out at a Boris lockdown party, but that’s just too ridiculous to even contemplate. Silly silly Labour.
But it is true to say that environmental factors - including prolonged dietary deficits - can alter gene expression through epigenetic mechanisms. and to a limited extent (not fully understood), some of those epigenetic effects are heritable into at least the next generation.
And it’s at least plausible that a long period of good diet, following most of history where nutrition was inadequate for most people, might see a sustained increase in height over several generations to what is the full genetic potential of a given population.
Doesn’t take centuries, though; just a few generations. Compare the average height of the late Victorians to today.
It Tavira is lovely. Quite touristy, but lovely. Preferable to the Spanish side of the border for sure
Drunk
2. Russia
Dems really are in a mess. Harris is hopeless and cannot be nominee. Biden is clearly too old, but who will tell him. Trump will run on the economy which is now a mess compared to his time in office. Looks like an easy win at the moment but two years to go.
The foreign policy of Britain was always to preserve the 'balance of powers'. That has never been the foreign policy of the USA, whose goal has always been to preserve US dominance.
It is a dilemma that the EU must solve, one way or another.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-party-celebrates-blair-with-launch-of-1997-merchandise_uk_626e6e49e4b050c90f415901
Arguably we should have
Instead we contented ourselves with a third of the world. Because we believe in Fair Play
Could be the choice next time.
2. Being a devoted father isn't a bad thing in a pro-family culture.
3. He has successfully overseen $600bn of infrastructure investment without scandal or corruption