Just last night my wife, Dana Moshkovitz, presented a proposal at the STOC business meeting to host STOC’2024 at a beautiful family-friendly resort outside Austin. The proposal failed, in part because of the argument that, if a pregnant STOC attendee faced a life-threatening medical condition, Texas doctors might choose to let her die, or the attendee might be charged with murder for having a miscarriage. In other words: Texas (and indeed, half the US) will apparently soon be like Donetsk or North Korea, dangerous for Blue Americans to visit even for just a few days.
(Symposium on Theory of Computing)
The not even to save life thing is extraordinarily vindictive and concerning. You can see travel insurers excluding Texas for women altogether
There’s some hyperbole there re blue American safety, but it won’t take long for some manifestly unjust death to happen (or some MD gets jailed for ignoring the law to save a life) and then there will be fireworks.
It is hyperbole - but check out this story from yesterday
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
but is it beneficial for society as a whole...you havent answered my question so i think we can take it you can agree its negative for society as a whole even if beneficial for some individuals
I'm sorry I wasn't plain enough.
It's got f*ck all to do with society and is therefor totally beneficial to society.
thats not an answer...do you care about society pal
Who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families.
So saith the blessed Margaret, in her Sermon on the Mound in Edinburgh.
(Just in passing, and no observation of mine on MT's speech either way, but I don't know who coined that name for her speech. But if it was an Edinburgh journalist, that was in the full knowledge of the local equivalent of Speaker's Corner also being on the Mound. Especially notorious for a really ferocious Protestant Unionist speaker denouncing what he didn't like. IIRC he set up a paramilitary group who fought the BUF because they didn't like Mosley's progressive views on certain matters ...)
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
Dunno if you are a Russian bot, but this seems to me entirely plausible. Women can be much more socially conservative than men, see female genital mutilation, which is often preserved by the opinions of women (men tend not to care, or be anti)
The same process is known to defending rape lawyers, who will always try to pack a jury with women, as they are more judgemental (“the slut was drunk and asking for it”)
Women under 45 are more strongly pro-Choice than men under 45. Above 60, it's the other way around.
it will be women who rollback the sexual revolution when they decide they are no longer benefitting from it...maybe they are sick of rough casual sex and men who wont commit or even working in large corporations for 60 hours per week to afford a house...at that point the whole sexual revolution collapses
Are you another @Leon incarnation, trying out some speculative fiction ?
ON topic, have any PB-ers ever been to Montenegro?
I have to move on soon, possibly tomorrow, and for various reasons I need to be a bit closer to civilisation than the Caucasus, yet I still fancy somewhere new (and not too far away)
Montenegro fits the bill. Is it as lovely as it looks in photos? Food? Wine? People?
The Dalmatian coast is lovely but I’ve never been to MN sadly. Would love to go.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
Dunno if you are a Russian bot, but this seems to me entirely plausible. Women can be much more socially conservative than men, see female genital mutilation, which is often preserved by the opinions of women (men tend not to care, or be anti)
The same process is known to defending rape lawyers, who will always try to pack a jury with women, as they are more judgemental (“the slut was drunk and asking for it”)
Women under 45 are more strongly pro-Choice than men under 45. Above 60, it's the other way around.
it will be women who rollback the sexual revolution when they decide they are no longer benefitting from it...maybe they are sick of rough casual sex and men who wont commit or even working in large corporations for 60 hours per week to afford a house...at that point the whole sexual revolution collapses
You do know that they aren't obliged to have rough casual sex? Women aren't forced to swipe left on Tinder.
you have the classic "goldman sachs" type view of seeing us as a society of atomised indviduals...have you never heard of social pressure....that "goldman sachs" type view of people as atomised individuals has done tremendous harm
While the "micktrain" worldview of seeking to control the behaviour of consenting adults has been utterly without problems, right?
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
No, mate. It's not about sex, it's about sex with you.
i wish i had the power to reverse the sexual revolution all by myself lol
What do you want to reverse, precisely.
People having consensual relations with whoever they want to is their own business.
If nobody wants to have consensual relations with you, then your being an "incel" isn't the fault of the sexual revolution.
mmm so we have someone who thinks hardcore internet porn and love island is a net benefit to society...its a view
I wouldn't want to live in a society where people couldn't watch Love Island, and were banned from jacking off to lactation porn.
People have different interests - tractors, guns, lactation porn, internet forums about political betting. And that's a good thing.
You have no right not to be offended by other people's choices.
yes but its a net negative to society having hardcore internet porn in young boys hands which they then use as an excuse to abuse young girls so theres that
Presumably it was the hardcore pornography regularly consumed by Catholic priests that caused them to bugger to the choirboys.
Or would you like to present some actual evidence?
so you think hardcore internet porn is a societal positive...ok its a view i suppose
No, I'm asking you for evidence that the availability of pornography has increased the amount of sexual violence.
And my point is that a group that very definitely didn't have access to hardcore Internet porn, seemed to have no problems in engaging in an awful lot of sexual violence.
mmm problem is that argument starts to veer into homophobia a bit though doesnt it.....are you suggesting homosexuals are inherently more inclined to abuse???
PM Boris Johnson says he's "always believed in a woman's right to choose" after US Supreme Court overturned a 50-year-old ruling that legalised abortion in the country
Remember when the Brexiteers said it was terrible how Obama chimed in on Brexit? Crickets
He was asked a question by a journalist. What answer could have have given that you would have approved of?
He have a good answer - I am just pointing out the hypocrisy from Brexiteers. Obama was asked a question too.
Sorry, I missed this post.
Then it might have been good for you to say: "That was a good reply. But remember when the Brexiteers ..."
The problem with your post is that it seems to criticise Johnson on an essentially unrelated point. There was no way he could answer the question *without* either pulling ordure down onto himself, 'interfering' in US politics, or having people make stupid comments such as yours.
For once he gave a clear, good answer.
(I don't think I had any particular view on Obama's Brexit comment.)
One of the problems of posting more than 12 hours after a by-election result is it's usually been said, argued, rebutted, retracted and in any case some thing else has pushed it off the agenda.
Three thoughts from me:
First, a marvellous effort by the LDs to win Tiverton & Honiton. This wasn't a "gimme" given the seat hadn't been won even in 1997. It required what seems sometime to be taken for granted in terms of hard work but don't underestimate what's needed especially in the early days.
One or two on here have sniped a little about Richard Foord but he's obviously worked his proverbials off and whle he and I both know the real work of trying to hold the seat starts now it's still an incredible achievement to come from third and achieve a swing only a whisker short of 30%.
Second, in Wakefield, as we saw in Australia, the collapse of the centre-right didn't translate directly to a swing to the main opposition centre-left party. The third-placed Independent, about whom very little has been said, put up a solid performance and clearly while disillusioned Conservatives and anti-Conservative voters seem happy to coalesce around an LD candidate, the same isn't true for a Labour candidate and that's an issue for Starmer.
Third, looking at Tiverton & Honiton, I was struck by the way the Conservative candidate was controlled by her Agent and by presumably CCHQ staffers. Helen Hurford looked photogenic enough and I'm sure she could engage with voters but she wasn't given the chance. The farce of her hiding in a side room, coming out for the result and disappearing without a word was ridiculous.
I don't know why the Conservative Party wants such tight control of its by-election candidate - has she been "promised" another go at the next GE contingent on her playing her part now? It might have been better if she'd been allowed to speak for yourself, acknowledge the problems and issues people have with the Prime Minister and argue she'd be in a better position to get help than an Opposition MP.
I agree. If anything the Tories would probably do slightly better at by-elections with maverick candidates able to say whatever they thought about any subject even if it wasn't the party line.
Just last night my wife, Dana Moshkovitz, presented a proposal at the STOC business meeting to host STOC’2024 at a beautiful family-friendly resort outside Austin. The proposal failed, in part because of the argument that, if a pregnant STOC attendee faced a life-threatening medical condition, Texas doctors might choose to let her die, or the attendee might be charged with murder for having a miscarriage. In other words: Texas (and indeed, half the US) will apparently soon be like Donetsk or North Korea, dangerous for Blue Americans to visit even for just a few days.
(Symposium on Theory of Computing)
The not even to save life thing is extraordinarily vindictive and concerning. You can see travel insurers excluding Texas for women altogether
There’s some hyperbole there re blue American safety, but it won’t take long for some manifestly unjust death to happen (or some MD gets jailed for ignoring the law to save a life) and then there will be fireworks.
It is hyperbole - but check out this story from yesterday
ON topic, have any PB-ers ever been to Montenegro?
I have to move on soon, possibly tomorrow, and for various reasons I need to be a bit closer to civilisation than the Caucasus, yet I still fancy somewhere new (and not too far away)
Montenegro fits the bill. Is it as lovely as it looks in photos? Food? Wine? People?
The Dalmatian coast is lovely but I’ve never been to MN sadly. Would love to go.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
Dunno if you are a Russian bot, but this seems to me entirely plausible. Women can be much more socially conservative than men, see female genital mutilation, which is often preserved by the opinions of women (men tend not to care, or be anti)
The same process is known to defending rape lawyers, who will always try to pack a jury with women, as they are more judgemental (“the slut was drunk and asking for it”)
Women under 45 are more strongly pro-Choice than men under 45. Above 60, it's the other way around.
it will be women who rollback the sexual revolution when they decide they are no longer benefitting from it...maybe they are sick of rough casual sex and men who wont commit or even working in large corporations for 60 hours per week to afford a house...at that point the whole sexual revolution collapses
You do know that they aren't obliged to have rough casual sex? Women aren't forced to swipe left on Tinder.
you have the classic "goldman sachs" type view of seeing us as a society of atomised indviduals...have you never heard of social pressure....that "goldman sachs" type view of people as atomised individuals has done tremendous harm
While the "micktrain" worldview of seeking to control the behaviour of consenting adults has been utterly without problems, right?
happy medium mate happy medium....society doesnt have to be saudi arabia nor the present day uk...there is a balance between outright sexual decadence and sexual repression
ON topic, have any PB-ers ever been to Montenegro?
I have to move on soon, possibly tomorrow, and for various reasons I need to be a bit closer to civilisation than the Caucasus, yet I still fancy somewhere new (and not too far away)
Montenegro fits the bill. Is it as lovely as it looks in photos? Food? Wine? People?
The Dalmatian coast is lovely but I’ve never been to MN sadly. Would love to go.
I’ve done Croatia and Bosnia but Montenegro looks effing incredible. Think I’m going to do it
Mountains, lakes, wild forest, and stunning Med coast. All in a place only TWO THIRDS THE SIZE OF WALES
PM Boris Johnson says he's "always believed in a woman's right to choose" after US Supreme Court overturned a 50-year-old ruling that legalised abortion in the country
Remember when the Brexiteers said it was terrible how Obama chimed in on Brexit? Crickets
He was asked a question by a journalist. What answer could have have given that you would have approved of?
Others here have already criticised commentary on the decision - e.g. the EU, upthread. Johnson could have replied "none of my business - up to the American people". Now I don't think he should have, but it does feel as if some folk are saying that the only people who should comment on other nations' affairs are those we agree with.
And if he had said: "None of my business," then people would have suggested he agreed with the decision, or was too cowardly to criticise it.
Sometimes politicians can be criticised whatever answer they give. This is a classic example (and I think he gave a good answer).
Yes, so do I, but that wasn't the point I was making.
I understand the point you (and he) was making. It's just a rather stupid one, and seems designed only to criticise Boris for actually giving a straight answer for once.
And it's funny how often some on the right (e.g. Leon) get accused of being Brexit obsessed, when the lefties on here seem more so!
I wasn't criticising Boris though, I was criticising those on here who said that it's America's business and we shouldn't give an opinion. I don't agree with them.
I haven't been on here much today (got man flu). Has anyone said that? Leon?
Overturning Roe puts the USA back to the position of every other nation in the world in that it becomes elected representatives decision whether or not abortion. I of course think it should be allowed but like SCOTUS I can't see anything in the US constitution about it
Untrue, there are constitutions and constitutional courts that do set out the law for abortion, for instance Poland.
Yes, but it’s not in the US Constitution.
There were two issues with Roe v Wade, both of which have been debated before, namely:
1. It took the decision out of the hands of elected representatives and,
2. The legal decisions given for it were shaky.
Much of the reason there has been a problem with it in the US is down to 1. If you believe in the right to abortion, then you should campaign for it and go through the democratic process. BTW, that same argument was often said to those who wanted Brexit.
The most interesting part of the decision is actually Roberts voted for it. Given he tends to go with the flow on the most contentious issues, either he is pissed off with the leak / threats against the Justices or he’s decided the tide is flowing in the favour of the conservatives.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
Dunno if you are a Russian bot, but this seems to me entirely plausible. Women can be much more socially conservative than men, see female genital mutilation, which is often preserved by the opinions of women (men tend not to care, or be anti)
The same process is known to defending rape lawyers, who will always try to pack a jury with women, as they are more judgemental (“the slut was drunk and asking for it”)
Women under 45 are more strongly pro-Choice than men under 45. Above 60, it's the other way around.
it will be women who rollback the sexual revolution when they decide they are no longer benefitting from it...maybe they are sick of rough casual sex and men who wont commit or even working in large corporations for 60 hours per week to afford a house...at that point the whole sexual revolution collapses
Are you another @Leon incarnation, trying out some speculative fiction ?
ON topic, have any PB-ers ever been to Montenegro?
I have to move on soon, possibly tomorrow, and for various reasons I need to be a bit closer to civilisation than the Caucasus, yet I still fancy somewhere new (and not too far away)
Montenegro fits the bill. Is it as lovely as it looks in photos? Food? Wine? People?
The Dalmatian coast is lovely but I’ve never been to MN sadly. Would love to go.
It’s gone to the dogs a bit.
Good in spots, still, I believe. Especially in coach class.
PM Boris Johnson says he's "always believed in a woman's right to choose" after US Supreme Court overturned a 50-year-old ruling that legalised abortion in the country
Remember when the Brexiteers said it was terrible how Obama chimed in on Brexit? Crickets
He was asked a question by a journalist. What answer could have have given that you would have approved of?
He have a good answer - I am just pointing out the hypocrisy from Brexiteers. Obama was asked a question too.
Sorry, I missed this post.
Then it might have been good for you to say: "That was a good reply. But remember when the Brexiteers ..."
The problem with your post is that it seems to criticise Johnson on an essentially unrelated point. There was no way he could answer the question *without* either pulling ordure down onto himself, 'interfering' in US politics, or having people make stupid comments such as yours.
For once he gave a clear, good answer.
(I don't think I had any particular view on Obama's Brexit comment.)
The major criticism of Obama's comment at the time, as I recall, was not that he made it but that what he said was so obviously written for him by one of Cameron's team.
Just last night my wife, Dana Moshkovitz, presented a proposal at the STOC business meeting to host STOC’2024 at a beautiful family-friendly resort outside Austin. The proposal failed, in part because of the argument that, if a pregnant STOC attendee faced a life-threatening medical condition, Texas doctors might choose to let her die, or the attendee might be charged with murder for having a miscarriage. In other words: Texas (and indeed, half the US) will apparently soon be like Donetsk or North Korea, dangerous for Blue Americans to visit even for just a few days.
(Symposium on Theory of Computing)
The not even to save life thing is extraordinarily vindictive and concerning. You can see travel insurers excluding Texas for women altogether
There’s some hyperbole there re blue American safety, but it won’t take long for some manifestly unjust death to happen (or some MD gets jailed for ignoring the law to save a life) and then there will be fireworks.
It is hyperbole - but check out this story from yesterday
It's not hyperbole. Absolute abortion bans - which today's ruling allows, and which are likely in several states - completely remove personal autonomy with regard to pregnant women's medical choices. And it also turns every miscarriage into a potential criminal case.
Calling it hyperbole is glossing over the reality of that.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
No, mate. It's not about sex, it's about sex with you.
ON topic, have any PB-ers ever been to Montenegro?
I have to move on soon, possibly tomorrow, and for various reasons I need to be a bit closer to civilisation than the Caucasus, yet I still fancy somewhere new (and not too far away)
Montenegro fits the bill. Is it as lovely as it looks in photos? Food? Wine? People?
IF you can, find & read "Njegos [Njegoš]: Poet, Prince, Bishop" by Milovan Djilas [Đilas] perhaps the most notable Montenegrin of the 20th century, famous for his role as one of Tito's key lieutenants with Partisans during WWII, and also for breaking with Stalin AND then Tito.
This book is both Djilas's biography of the founder of the (semi) modern Montenegrin state AND also a love poem to the land and people of the Black Mountain.
Djilas can be a rather turgid writer, but this book is one of his best, along with "Conversations with Stalin".
On my last night in Tbilisi I discover the best restaurant in the country. Down in a cellar. Full of Georgian politicians and artists. Dirt cheap. Ah well
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
No, mate. It's not about sex, it's about sex with you.
i wish i had the power to reverse the sexual revolution all by myself lol
What do you want to reverse, precisely.
People having consensual relations with whoever they want to is their own business.
If nobody wants to have consensual relations with you, then your being an "incel" isn't the fault of the sexual revolution.
mmm so we have someone who thinks hardcore internet porn and love island is a net benefit to society...its a view
I wouldn't want to live in a society where people couldn't watch Love Island, and were banned from jacking off to lactation porn.
People have different interests - tractors, guns, lactation porn, internet forums about political betting. And that's a good thing.
You have no right not to be offended by other people's choices.
yes but its a net negative to society having hardcore internet porn in young boys hands which they then use as an excuse to abuse young girls so theres that
Presumably it was the hardcore pornography regularly consumed by Catholic priests that caused them to bugger to the choirboys.
Or would you like to present some actual evidence?
so you think hardcore internet porn is a societal positive...ok its a view i suppose
No, I'm asking you for evidence that the availability of pornography has increased the amount of sexual violence.
And my point is that a group that very definitely didn't have access to hardcore Internet porn, seemed to have no problems in engaging in an awful lot of sexual violence.
mmm problem is that argument starts to veer into homophobia a bit though doesnt it.....are you suggesting homosexuals are inherently more inclined to abuse???
You seem to be changing the subject.
You have suggested that access to pornography results in sexual violence.
Let's look at a pre-Internet world, shall we, where access to pornography was much more uneven. In 2004, almost all the worst countries from a rape perspective were in Africa.
But even ignoring that, the countries in the West with the lowest rapes of rape were those with the least restrictive pornography laws. The Netherlands - even today - has levels of sexual violence we can only dream of.
And the growth of the Internet doesn't seem to have led to an increase in rates of rape over time either. In the US thirty years ago, there were 42.8 rapes per 100,000 people. Now it is 38.4.
So, where is your evidence that access to porn increases sexual violence. The evidence, fwiw, suggests exactly the opposite: that people find gratification in the world of make believe in their bedroom, rather than by forcing themselves onto others.
ON topic, have any PB-ers ever been to Montenegro?
I have to move on soon, possibly tomorrow, and for various reasons I need to be a bit closer to civilisation than the Caucasus, yet I still fancy somewhere new (and not too far away)
Montenegro fits the bill. Is it as lovely as it looks in photos? Food? Wine? People?
The Dalmatian coast is lovely but I’ve never been to MN sadly. Would love to go.
I’ve done Croatia and Bosnia but Montenegro looks effing incredible. Think I’m going to do it
Mountains, lakes, wild forest, and stunning Med coast. All in a place only TWO THIRDS THE SIZE OF WALES
Ooof
Couple centuries ago, when battling the Turks (or Austrians) the Montenegrins liked to say, "We and the Russians - 100 million strong!"
Just last night my wife, Dana Moshkovitz, presented a proposal at the STOC business meeting to host STOC’2024 at a beautiful family-friendly resort outside Austin. The proposal failed, in part because of the argument that, if a pregnant STOC attendee faced a life-threatening medical condition, Texas doctors might choose to let her die, or the attendee might be charged with murder for having a miscarriage. In other words: Texas (and indeed, half the US) will apparently soon be like Donetsk or North Korea, dangerous for Blue Americans to visit even for just a few days.
(Symposium on Theory of Computing)
The not even to save life thing is extraordinarily vindictive and concerning. You can see travel insurers excluding Texas for women altogether
There’s some hyperbole there re blue American safety, but it won’t take long for some manifestly unjust death to happen (or some MD gets jailed for ignoring the law to save a life) and then there will be fireworks.
It is hyperbole - but check out this story from yesterday
It's not hyperbole. Absolute abortion bans - which today's ruling allows, and which are likely in several states - completely remove personal autonomy with regard to pregnant women's medical choices. And it also turns every miscarriage into a potential criminal case.
Calling it hyperbole is glossing over the reality of that.
Yes I probably should clarify that the hyperbole comment was directed at the “Blue Americans not safe in Red States” part. I entirely agree that any pregnant woman is not safe in red states.
ON topic, have any PB-ers ever been to Montenegro?
I have to move on soon, possibly tomorrow, and for various reasons I need to be a bit closer to civilisation than the Caucasus, yet I still fancy somewhere new (and not too far away)
Montenegro fits the bill. Is it as lovely as it looks in photos? Food? Wine? People?
IF you can, find & read "Njegos [Njegoš]: Poet, Prince, Bishop" by Milovan Djilas [Đilas] perhaps the most notable Montenegrin of the 20th century, famous for his role as one of Tito's key lieutenants with Partisans during WWII, and also for breaking with Stalin AND then Tito.
This book is both Djilas's biography of the founder of the (semi) modern Montenegrin state AND also a love poem to the land and people of the Black Mountain.
Djilas can be a rather turgid writer, but this book is one of his best, along with "Conversations with Stalin".
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
No, mate. It's not about sex, it's about sex with you.
i wish i had the power to reverse the sexual revolution all by myself lol
What do you want to reverse, precisely.
People having consensual relations with whoever they want to is their own business.
If nobody wants to have consensual relations with you, then your being an "incel" isn't the fault of the sexual revolution.
mmm so we have someone who thinks hardcore internet porn and love island is a net benefit to society...its a view
I wouldn't want to live in a society where people couldn't watch Love Island, and were banned from jacking off to lactation porn.
People have different interests - tractors, guns, lactation porn, internet forums about political betting. And that's a good thing.
You have no right not to be offended by other people's choices.
yes but its a net negative to society having hardcore internet porn in young boys hands which they then use as an excuse to abuse young girls so theres that
Presumably it was the hardcore pornography regularly consumed by Catholic priests that caused them to bugger to the choirboys.
Or would you like to present some actual evidence?
so you think hardcore internet porn is a societal positive...ok its a view i suppose
No, I'm asking you for evidence that the availability of pornography has increased the amount of sexual violence.
And my point is that a group that very definitely didn't have access to hardcore Internet porn, seemed to have no problems in engaging in an awful lot of sexual violence.
mmm problem is that argument starts to veer into homophobia a bit though doesnt it.....are you suggesting homosexuals are inherently more inclined to abuse???
I'm very sorry, but unfortunately you lack the stature AND seniority here on PB, to have license to be putting your words into other PBers posts.
Don't take much here to earn that right. But way more than half-a-day of bilge-pumping methinks.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
Dunno if you are a Russian bot, but this seems to me entirely plausible. Women can be much more socially conservative than men, see female genital mutilation, which is often preserved by the opinions of women (men tend not to care, or be anti)
The same process is known to defending rape lawyers, who will always try to pack a jury with women, as they are more judgemental (“the slut was drunk and asking for it”)
Women under 45 are more strongly pro-Choice than men under 45. Above 60, it's the other way around.
it will be women who rollback the sexual revolution when they decide they are no longer benefitting from it...maybe they are sick of rough casual sex and men who wont commit or even working in large corporations for 60 hours per week to afford a house...at that point the whole sexual revolution collapses
You do know that they aren't obliged to have rough casual sex? Women aren't forced to swipe left on Tinder.
you have the classic "goldman sachs" type view of seeing us as a society of atomised indviduals...have you never heard of social pressure....that "goldman sachs" type view of people as atomised individuals has done tremendous harm
While the "micktrain" worldview of seeking to control the behaviour of consenting adults has been utterly without problems, right?
happy medium mate happy medium....society doesnt have to be saudi arabia nor the present day uk...there is a balance between outright sexual decadence and sexual repression
Are we talking about sexual decadence though?
Banning abortion means that females in normal relationships who have an accident or are naive and who do not want a baby - plus the male concerned who doesn't not want a baby either - are barred by state dictate from exercising choice.
Those interested in the facts about American public opinion on abortion might want to dig into, for example, Gallup, which has been polling on the issue for decades.
Or, you might want to look at the opinions of Hugh Hefner and Jesse Jackson. Jackson is the most interesting of the two because he changed his position, possibly for political reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson
(I assume all of you know that, in the US, a disproportionate number of abortions are performed on black women, and that the Freakonomics folks argued that Rov v. Wade was a big reason for the decline in crime in the US, in the years after the decision.)
And there is this irony: Catholic Democratic politicians often said that they were personally opposed to abortion, but that they would not impose their views on others. As it happens I think that's a fair description of Joe Biden's views, though he may not say that in public, now. And Donald Trump? It is fairly clear that, as a follower of Hugh Hefner, he is personally in favor of abortion.
(My own views? I think it was a terrible mistake for the Supreme Court to invent a right that, before the decision, almost no one thought was in the Constitution. Before Roe, states were changing the laws on abortion, with legislatures reaching different compromises in different states. As in any democracy, the compromises were often imperfect, but they had this great advantage: If the voters didn't like them, they could change them, through their legislatures, or even directly in the states that have initiatives and referendums.
Now, I expect us to go back to that period of democratic compromises, with the resulting patchwork looking much like Europe.)
Overturning Roe puts the USA back to the position of every other nation in the world in that it becomes elected representatives decision whether or not abortion. I of course think it should be allowed but like SCOTUS I can't see anything in the US constitution about it
Untrue, there are constitutions and constitutional courts that do set out the law for abortion, for instance Poland.
The most interesting part of the decision is actually Roberts voted for it. Given he tends to go with the flow on the most contentious issues, either he is pissed off with the leak / threats against the Justices or he’s decided the tide is flowing in the favour of the conservatives.
Note that Roberts gave a separate opinion.
He only said the ban after 15 weeks was OK - he did not overturn Roe in full.
By the by, for those who say that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, how do they explain the 4th Amendment ? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”
On my last night in Tbilisi I discover the best restaurant in the country. Down in a cellar. Full of Georgian politicians and artists. Dirt cheap. Ah well
Cellars sometime do turn out to harbor great restaurants in odd places.
Years ago went to one in that noted culinary capital - Lewiston, Idaho.
Saw the sign on the street, was a bit dubious about a cellar under a bar. Turned out to be good and quirky; thing I remember was that a small plate of spaghetti with meatballs was included with every meal. I had mine as appetizer to great steak with baked (Idaho) potato (of course) at a very reasonable price.
Can think of other examples, but that was most notable in my humble experience.
On my last night in Tbilisi I discover the best restaurant in the country. Down in a cellar. Full of Georgian politicians and artists. Dirt cheap. Ah well
Cellars sometime do turn out to harbor great restaurants in odd places.
Years ago went to one in that noted culinary capital - Lewiston, Idaho.
Saw the sign on the street, was a bit dubious about a cellar under a bar. Turned out to be good and quirky; thing I remember was that a small plate of spaghetti with meatballs was included with every meal. I had mine as appetizer to great steak with baked (Idaho) potato (of course) at a very reasonable price.
Can think of other examples, but that was most notable in my humble experience.
Overturning Roe puts the USA back to the position of every other nation in the world in that it becomes elected representatives decision whether or not abortion. I of course think it should be allowed but like SCOTUS I can't see anything in the US constitution about it
Untrue, there are constitutions and constitutional courts that do set out the law for abortion, for instance Poland.
What does the Polish Court say about abortion. One hot potato I thought of is that the EHCR if it had the err "right" set of judges on it could interpret 'right to life' in a certain fashion.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
No, mate. It's not about sex, it's about sex with you.
i wish i had the power to reverse the sexual revolution all by myself lol
What do you want to reverse, precisely.
People having consensual relations with whoever they want to is their own business.
If nobody wants to have consensual relations with you, then your being an "incel" isn't the fault of the sexual revolution.
mmm so we have someone who thinks hardcore internet porn and love island is a net benefit to society...its a view
I wouldn't want to live in a society where people couldn't watch Love Island, and were banned from jacking off to lactation porn.
People have different interests - tractors, guns, lactation porn, internet forums about political betting. And that's a good thing.
You have no right not to be offended by other people's choices.
yes but its a net negative to society having hardcore internet porn in young boys hands which they then use as an excuse to abuse young girls so theres that
Presumably it was the hardcore pornography regularly consumed by Catholic priests that caused them to bugger to the choirboys.
Or would you like to present some actual evidence?
so you think hardcore internet porn is a societal positive...ok its a view i suppose
No, I'm asking you for evidence that the availability of pornography has increased the amount of sexual violence.
And my point is that a group that very definitely didn't have access to hardcore Internet porn, seemed to have no problems in engaging in an awful lot of sexual violence.
mmm problem is that argument starts to veer into homophobia a bit though doesnt it.....are you suggesting homosexuals are inherently more inclined to abuse???
You seem to be changing the subject.
You have suggested that access to pornography results in sexual violence.
Let's look at a pre-Internet world, shall we, where access to pornography was much more uneven. In 2004, almost all the worst countries from a rape perspective were in Africa.
But even ignoring that, the countries in the West with the lowest rapes of rape were those with the least restrictive pornography laws. The Netherlands - even today - has levels of sexual violence we can only dream of.
And the growth of the Internet doesn't seem to have led to an increase in rates of rape over time either. In the US thirty years ago, there were 42.8 rapes per 100,000 people. Now it is 38.4.
So, where is your evidence that access to porn increases sexual violence. The evidence, fwiw, suggests exactly the opposite: that people find gratification in the world of make believe in their bedroom, rather than by forcing themselves onto others.
I'm not talking about rape I'm talking about things like choking which women can feel pressured into due to the ubiquity of internet porn Also with regard to rape I don't think Africa is a fair comparison and if rape in the west is falling why are we always being told by women there is an epidemic of rape, are those women lying?
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
L'avortement est un droit fondamental pour toutes les femmes. Il faut le protéger. J’exprime ma solidarité avec les femmes dont les libertés sont aujourd’hui remises en cause par la Cour suprême des États-Unis d’Amérique.
Rentoul agrees with me that Wakefield 'not enough' for SKS. Wise old Rentoul. However, in tandem with a blue wall collapse I think he could fall over the line. But those red wallers that disappeared from Lab tallies, no sign they are returning. If not when a Tory nonces on a kid and the PM is distilled pure toxicity then when? The Red Wall is not (yet) coming home.
By the by, for those who say that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, how do they explain the 4th Amendment ? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”
I don't think anyone has said that, have they? They've just said that it's a dubious, at best, justification for abortion rights.
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
Roe vs Wade is settled law that i would not overturn.
Kavanaugh has a whole pile of other perjury on top of that. Probably Thomas as well.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
No, mate. It's not about sex, it's about sex with you.
i wish i had the power to reverse the sexual revolution all by myself lol
What do you want to reverse, precisely.
People having consensual relations with whoever they want to is their own business.
If nobody wants to have consensual relations with you, then your being an "incel" isn't the fault of the sexual revolution.
mmm so we have someone who thinks hardcore internet porn and love island is a net benefit to society...its a view
I wouldn't want to live in a society where people couldn't watch Love Island, and were banned from jacking off to lactation porn.
People have different interests - tractors, guns, lactation porn, internet forums about political betting. And that's a good thing.
You have no right not to be offended by other people's choices.
yes but its a net negative to society having hardcore internet porn in young boys hands which they then use as an excuse to abuse young girls so theres that
Presumably it was the hardcore pornography regularly consumed by Catholic priests that caused them to bugger to the choirboys.
Or would you like to present some actual evidence?
so you think hardcore internet porn is a societal positive...ok its a view i suppose
No, I'm asking you for evidence that the availability of pornography has increased the amount of sexual violence.
And my point is that a group that very definitely didn't have access to hardcore Internet porn, seemed to have no problems in engaging in an awful lot of sexual violence.
mmm problem is that argument starts to veer into homophobia a bit though doesnt it.....are you suggesting homosexuals are inherently more inclined to abuse???
You seem to be changing the subject.
You have suggested that access to pornography results in sexual violence.
Let's look at a pre-Internet world, shall we, where access to pornography was much more uneven. In 2004, almost all the worst countries from a rape perspective were in Africa.
But even ignoring that, the countries in the West with the lowest rapes of rape were those with the least restrictive pornography laws. The Netherlands - even today - has levels of sexual violence we can only dream of.
And the growth of the Internet doesn't seem to have led to an increase in rates of rape over time either. In the US thirty years ago, there were 42.8 rapes per 100,000 people. Now it is 38.4.
So, where is your evidence that access to porn increases sexual violence. The evidence, fwiw, suggests exactly the opposite: that people find gratification in the world of make believe in their bedroom, rather than by forcing themselves onto others.
I'm not talking about rape I'm talking about things like choking which women can feel pressured into due to the ubiquity of internet porn Also with regard to rape I don't think Africa is a fair comparison and if rape in the west is falling why are we always being told by women there is an epidemic of rape, are those women lying?
Just taking your last point: reporting - both to the police and in the media. In ye olden days, abuses such as rape would rarely be mentioned, and rarely prosecuted. Nowadays there are much stronger attempts to get people to report abuse, and abuses often get mentioned in the media.
It's like saying that the Catholic Church has suddenly become infested with child abusers, as all the reports of child abuse are suddenly coming out - when in fact it is probably in far better position now wrt combatting abuse than it ever was.
I don't think there's an 'epidemic of rape' or other abuse - if epidemic means a massive increase. It's always happened. It was just rarely mentioned and rarely reported.
Overturning Roe puts the USA back to the position of every other nation in the world in that it becomes elected representatives decision whether or not abortion. I of course think it should be allowed but like SCOTUS I can't see anything in the US constitution about it
Untrue, there are constitutions and constitutional courts that do set out the law for abortion, for instance Poland.
The most interesting part of the decision is actually Roberts voted for it. Given he tends to go with the flow on the most contentious issues, either he is pissed off with the leak / threats against the Justices or he’s decided the tide is flowing in the favour of the conservatives.
Note that Roberts gave a separate opinion.
He only said the ban after 15 weeks was OK - he did not overturn Roe in full.
It's not really the Roberts Court any longer, anyway. His opinion is a sideshow.
The more interesting comment was one from Kavanaugh who put forward the view that states cannot prohibit and prevent, or criminalise travel out of state to obtain an abortion, since there is a constitutional right to interstate travel.
Since that is also a right not enumerated in the constitution - just like Roe - it rather undercuts his concurrence.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
No, mate. It's not about sex, it's about sex with you.
i wish i had the power to reverse the sexual revolution all by myself lol
What do you want to reverse, precisely.
People having consensual relations with whoever they want to is their own business.
If nobody wants to have consensual relations with you, then your being an "incel" isn't the fault of the sexual revolution.
mmm so we have someone who thinks hardcore internet porn and love island is a net benefit to society...its a view
I wouldn't want to live in a society where people couldn't watch Love Island, and were banned from jacking off to lactation porn.
People have different interests - tractors, guns, lactation porn, internet forums about political betting. And that's a good thing.
You have no right not to be offended by other people's choices.
Lactation? One learns something on PB ... now I really worry about farming MPs!
On my last night in Tbilisi I discover the best restaurant in the country. Down in a cellar. Full of Georgian politicians and artists. Dirt cheap. Ah well
Cellars sometime do turn out to harbor great restaurants in odd places.
Years ago went to one in that noted culinary capital - Lewiston, Idaho.
Saw the sign on the street, was a bit dubious about a cellar under a bar. Turned out to be good and quirky; thing I remember was that a small plate of spaghetti with meatballs was included with every meal. I had mine as appetizer to great steak with baked (Idaho) potato (of course) at a very reasonable price.
Can think of other examples, but that was most notable in my humble experience.
Wings in Edinburgh is another example.
There’s a couple in Moscow/St Petersburg as well
It’s a Russian/Soviet thing, definitely, I presume because of the brutal winter climate. Cellars are easier to keep warm?
The Stray Dogs Cafe in St Petersburg - down in a cellar - is full of brilliant memories of Petersburg’s Silver Age, when Akhmatova and Mandelstam swapped sonnets with mad Tsarist lesbians
I was there in the summer of 2019, and it was still full of lesbians
How long before any westerner can go down the steps into the Stray Dogs Cafe? Sad
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
The testified, for example, that they regarded Roe as "settled law".
By the by, for those who say that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, how do they explain the 4th Amendment ? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”
I don't think anyone has said that, have they? They've just said that it's a dubious, at best, justification for abortion rights.
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
The testified, for example, that they regarded Roe as "settled law".
True enough (despite all the jail-house lawyer shade-tree legal analysis on PB).
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
The testified, for example, that they regarded Roe as "settled law".
It was settled law.
I wonder how far some of these Justices want to go back? How many would like to go back to Dredd Scott?
By the by, for those who say that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, how do they explain the 4th Amendment ? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
Roe vs Wade is settled law that i would not overturn.
Kavanaugh has a whole pile of other perjury on top of that. Probably Thomas as well.
How many actually committed to not overturning it? As far as I'm aware the normal line was to call it settled law but leave it at that.
Which was a cop out, they were allowed to get away with, if so. It was settled law when they said it, but settled law can become unsettled at any time, if it didn't we'd have no need for politicians, legislations or courts like SCOTUS that interpret legislation and constitutions.
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
The testified, for example, that they regarded Roe as "settled law".
It was settled law.
I wonder how far some of these Justices want to go back? How many would like to go back to Dredd Scott?
Not quite sure how Clarence Thomas would have ruled on THAT one.
As a jurist, would appear to be spitting image of Roger Taney . . . with a slight twist . . .
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
The testified, for example, that they regarded Roe as "settled law".
It was settled law.
I wonder how far some of these Justices want to go back? How many would like to go back to Dredd Scott?
Don't effing joke.
Alito actually referenced Taney's opinion in Dredd Scott in his recent gun rights decision.
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
The testified, for example, that they regarded Roe as "settled law".
It was settled law.
I wonder how far some of these Justices want to go back? How many would like to go back to Dredd Scott?
Don't effing joke.
Alito actually referenced Taney's opinion in Dredd Scott in his recent gun rights decision.
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
The testified, for example, that they regarded Roe as "settled law".
It was settled law.
I wonder how far some of these Justices want to go back? How many would like to go back to Dredd Scott?
That ruling on writs of mandamus always struck me as being really dodgy.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
No, mate. It's not about sex, it's about sex with you.
i wish i had the power to reverse the sexual revolution all by myself lol
What do you want to reverse, precisely.
People having consensual relations with whoever they want to is their own business.
If nobody wants to have consensual relations with you, then your being an "incel" isn't the fault of the sexual revolution.
mmm so we have someone who thinks hardcore internet porn and love island is a net benefit to society...its a view
I wouldn't want to live in a society where people couldn't watch Love Island, and were banned from jacking off to lactation porn.
People have different interests - tractors, guns, lactation porn, internet forums about political betting. And that's a good thing.
You have no right not to be offended by other people's choices.
yes but its a net negative to society having hardcore internet porn in young boys hands which they then use as an excuse to abuse young girls so theres that
And you think banning it would achieve...what, precisely? It would still exist.
What you're describing is a problem we have with the wonderful, magical but flawed thing that is the internet.
It bears no relation whatsoever to (largely) men rolling back the rights of women over their own bodies.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
No, mate. It's not about sex, it's about sex with you.
i wish i had the power to reverse the sexual revolution all by myself lol
What do you want to reverse, precisely.
People having consensual relations with whoever they want to is their own business.
If nobody wants to have consensual relations with you, then your being an "incel" isn't the fault of the sexual revolution.
mmm so we have someone who thinks hardcore internet porn and love island is a net benefit to society...its a view
I wouldn't want to live in a society where people couldn't watch Love Island, and were banned from jacking off to lactation porn.
People have different interests - tractors, guns, lactation porn, internet forums about political betting. And that's a good thing.
You have no right not to be offended by other people's choices.
yes but its a net negative to society having hardcore internet porn in young boys hands which they then use as an excuse to abuse young girls so theres that
And you think banning it would achieve...what, precisely? It would still exist.
What you're describing is a problem we have with the wonderful, magical but flawed thing that is the internet.
It bears no relation whatsoever to (largely) men rolling back the rights of women over their own bodies.
Good grief. Maybe the best meal I’ve had in Georgia (and the standard is high)
Down in a cellar. Fine khinkali, nice green salad, fresh adjika (pictured) - that’s the hot smoky Georgian chili paprika sauce - and magnificent kutaisi kebabs in another dreamy spicy sauce
Plus excellent bread and two large glasses of delicious chilled dry red wine
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
The testified, for example, that they regarded Roe as "settled law".
It was settled law.
I wonder how far some of these Justices want to go back? How many would like to go back to Dredd Scott?
Don't effing joke.
Alito actually referenced Taney's opinion in Dredd Scott in his recent gun rights decision.
Lincoln would be rolling in his grave at the state of the modern Republican Party ... The Party that won the Civil War is now for those who think the wrong side won the Civil War.
Good grief. Maybe the best meal I’ve had in Georgia (and the standard is high)
Down in a cellar. Fine khinkali, nice green salad, fresh adjika (pictured) - that’s the hot smoky Georgian chili paprika sauce - and magnificent kutaisi kebabs in another dreamy spicy sauce
Plus excellent bread and two large glasses of delicious chilled dry red wine
Cost?
£14
No wonder the politicians come here
Is that a battery operated tomato for extra taste?
It’s actually rather cheering that you can still go to a beautiful fascinating historic civilised city and have a delicious meal - surrounded by politicians! - for £14 a head. Including plentiful and excellent local wine
AND - listen up, Merika - no one expects a tip, and they are totally surprised, even bemused, when you leave one
Good grief. Maybe the best meal I’ve had in Georgia (and the standard is high)
Down in a cellar. Fine khinkali, nice green salad, fresh adjika (pictured) - that’s the hot smoky Georgian chili paprika sauce - and magnificent kutaisi kebabs in another dreamy spicy sauce
Plus excellent bread and two large glasses of delicious chilled dry red wine
Cost?
£14
No wonder the politicians come here
Is that a battery operated tomato for extra taste?
If people who wanted to spambot PB would preface their first post 'Long time lurker here'. Then say something about proportional representation, it would take weeks for them to be flushed out, if ever.
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
The testified, for example, that they regarded Roe as "settled law".
It was settled law.
I wonder how far some of these Justices want to go back? How many would like to go back to Dredd Scott?
Don't effing joke.
Alito actually referenced Taney's opinion in Dredd Scott in his recent gun rights decision.
If people who wanted to spambot PB would preface their first post 'Long time lurker here'. Then say something about proportional representation, it would take weeks for them to be flushed out, if ever.
If they referenced the Second Punic War, then never.....
One of the problems of posting more than 12 hours after a by-election result is it's usually been said, argued, rebutted, retracted and in any case some thing else has pushed it off the agenda.
Three thoughts from me:
First, a marvellous effort by the LDs to win Tiverton & Honiton. This wasn't a "gimme" given the seat hadn't been won even in 1997. It required what seems sometime to be taken for granted in terms of hard work but don't underestimate what's needed especially in the early days.
One or two on here have sniped a little about Richard Foord but he's obviously worked his proverbials off and whle he and I both know the real work of trying to hold the seat starts now it's still an incredible achievement to come from third and achieve a swing only a whisker short of 30%.
Second, in Wakefield, as we saw in Australia, the collapse of the centre-right didn't translate directly to a swing to the main opposition centre-left party. The third-placed Independent, about whom very little has been said, put up a solid performance and clearly while disillusioned Conservatives and anti-Conservative voters seem happy to coalesce around an LD candidate, the same isn't true for a Labour candidate and that's an issue for Starmer.
Third, looking at Tiverton & Honiton, I was struck by the way the Conservative candidate was controlled by her Agent and by presumably CCHQ staffers. Helen Hurford looked photogenic enough and I'm sure she could engage with voters but she wasn't given the chance. The farce of her hiding in a side room, coming out for the result and disappearing without a word was ridiculous.
I don't know why the Conservative Party wants such tight control of its by-election candidate - has she been "promised" another go at the next GE contingent on her playing her part now? It might have been better if she'd been allowed to speak for yourself, acknowledge the problems and issues people have with the Prime Minister and argue she'd be in a better position to get help than an Opposition MP.
I agree. If anything the Tories would probably do slightly better at by-elections with maverick candidates able to say whatever they thought about any subject even if it wasn't the party line.
Yet Tory members are up in arms because they let a candidate who thinks Brexit is pants slip through the Wakefield selection
If people who wanted to spambot PB would preface their first post 'Long time lurker here'. Then say something about proportional representation, it would take weeks for them to be flushed out, if ever.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Enough of this chippy 'pal' thing. It's a cringer.
On the 'respect' front, for me it depends. People who believe abortion is morally wrong and (if a woman) would never contemplate it - I respect that. But people (esp men) who seek to impose that view by law on everyone else and in the process roll back the emancipation of women by 50 years - I don't respect that. I have contempt for it tbh.
It's a subset of the right isn't it - the deeply religious conservative ones. Very niche over here thankfully. Plenty of them are women.
A subset wielding disproportionate power atm for various reasons. Personally I think this is so gross that it won't hold. Can't say how exactly it will collapse but I'm pretty sure it will. You can't do this to women in 2022. You can't just sort of 'pretend' those struggles of the civil rights era never happened. I know the phrase 'wrong side of history' is over-bandied and can irritate, but it really does apply here.
maybe the tide of history is turning...maybe women have decided they have had enough of the sexual revolution
Good grief. Maybe the best meal I’ve had in Georgia (and the standard is high)
Down in a cellar. Fine khinkali, nice green salad, fresh adjika (pictured) - that’s the hot smoky Georgian chili paprika sauce - and magnificent kutaisi kebabs in another dreamy spicy sauce
Plus excellent bread and two large glasses of delicious chilled dry red wine
Cost?
£14
No wonder the politicians come here
Is that a battery operated tomato for extra taste?
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
The testified, for example, that they regarded Roe as "settled law".
It was settled law.
I wonder how far some of these Justices want to go back? How many would like to go back to Dredd Scott?
Don't effing joke.
Alito actually referenced Taney's opinion in Dredd Scott in his recent gun rights decision.
Lincoln would be rolling in his grave at the state of the modern Republican Party ... The Party that won the Civil War is now for those who think the wrong side won the Civil War.
With respect to the impact of the Sexual Revolution and it's relevance to Roe v Wade & today SCOTUS ruling, clear that Justice Kavanaugh brought some keen personal insights into the legal debate.
After all, isn't his favorite cocktail being: Sex on the Beach.
Reckon that Clarence Thomas's favorite is likely: Rum and Coke.
Comments
(Just in passing, and no observation of mine on MT's speech either way, but I don't know who coined that name for her speech. But if it was an Edinburgh journalist, that was in the full knowledge of the local equivalent of Speaker's Corner also being on the Mound. Especially notorious for a really ferocious Protestant Unionist speaker denouncing what he didn't like. IIRC he set up a paramilitary group who fought the BUF because they didn't like Mosley's progressive views on certain matters ...)
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election.
https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Then it might have been good for you to say: "That was a good reply. But remember when the Brexiteers ..."
The problem with your post is that it seems to criticise Johnson on an essentially unrelated point. There was no way he could answer the question *without* either pulling ordure down onto himself, 'interfering' in US politics, or having people make stupid comments such as yours.
For once he gave a clear, good answer.
(I don't think I had any particular view on Obama's Brexit comment.)
Mountains, lakes, wild forest, and stunning Med coast. All in a place only TWO THIRDS THE SIZE OF WALES
Ooof
There were two issues with Roe v Wade, both of which have been debated before, namely:
1. It took the decision out of the hands of elected representatives and,
2. The legal decisions given for it were shaky.
Much of the reason there has been a problem with it in the US is down to 1. If you believe in the right to abortion, then you should campaign for it and go through the democratic process. BTW, that same argument was often said to those who wanted Brexit.
The most interesting part of the decision is actually Roberts voted for it. Given he tends to go with the flow on the most contentious issues, either he is pissed off with the leak / threats against the Justices or he’s decided the tide is flowing in the favour of the conservatives.
With respect to David Herdson they chose the wrong candidate for last night's election
Absolute abortion bans - which today's ruling allows, and which are likely in several states - completely remove personal autonomy with regard to pregnant women's medical choices.
And it also turns every miscarriage into a potential criminal case.
Calling it hyperbole is glossing over the reality of that.
This book is both Djilas's biography of the founder of the (semi) modern Montenegrin state AND also a love poem to the land and people of the Black Mountain.
Djilas can be a rather turgid writer, but this book is one of his best, along with "Conversations with Stalin".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milovan_Djilas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petar_II_Petrović-Njegoš
You have suggested that access to pornography results in sexual violence.
Let's look at a pre-Internet world, shall we, where access to pornography was much more uneven. In 2004, almost all the worst countries from a rape perspective were in Africa.
But even ignoring that, the countries in the West with the lowest rapes of rape were those with the least restrictive pornography laws. The Netherlands - even today - has levels of sexual violence we can only dream of.
And the growth of the Internet doesn't seem to have led to an increase in rates of rape over time either. In the US thirty years ago, there were 42.8 rapes per 100,000 people. Now it is 38.4.
So, where is your evidence that access to porn increases sexual violence. The evidence, fwiw, suggests exactly the opposite: that people find gratification in the world of make believe in their bedroom, rather than by forcing themselves onto others.
I love reading great books set in landscapes I am exploring. Sounds perfect
Don't take much here to earn that right. But way more than half-a-day of bilge-pumping methinks.
Banning abortion means that females in normal relationships who have an accident or are naive and who do not want a baby - plus the male concerned who doesn't not want a baby either - are barred by state dictate from exercising choice.
Or, you might want to look at the opinions of Hugh Hefner and Jesse Jackson. Jackson is the most interesting of the two because he changed his position, possibly for political reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson
(I assume all of you know that, in the US, a disproportionate number of abortions are performed on black women, and that the Freakonomics folks argued that Rov v. Wade was a big reason for the decline in crime in the US, in the years after the decision.)
And there is this irony: Catholic Democratic politicians often said that they were personally opposed to abortion, but that they would not impose their views on others. As it happens I think that's a fair description of Joe Biden's views, though he may not say that in public, now. And Donald Trump? It is fairly clear that, as a follower of Hugh Hefner, he is personally in favor of abortion.
(My own views? I think it was a terrible mistake for the Supreme Court to invent a right that, before the decision, almost no one thought was in the Constitution. Before Roe, states were changing the laws on abortion, with legislatures reaching different compromises in different states. As in any democracy, the compromises were often imperfect, but they had this great advantage: If the voters didn't like them, they could change them, through their legislatures, or even directly in the states that have initiatives and referendums.
Now, I expect us to go back to that period of democratic compromises, with the resulting patchwork looking much like Europe.)
He only said the ban after 15 weeks was OK - he did not overturn Roe in full.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”
Years ago went to one in that noted culinary capital - Lewiston, Idaho.
Saw the sign on the street, was a bit dubious about a cellar under a bar. Turned out to be good and quirky; thing I remember was that a small plate of spaghetti with meatballs was included with every meal. I had mine as appetizer to great steak with baked (Idaho) potato (of course) at a very reasonable price.
Can think of other examples, but that was most notable in my humble experience.
(Me? I think they are plausible, on evolutionary grounds, but haven't looked at any of them, in detail.)
One hot potato I thought of is that the EHCR if it had the err "right" set of judges on it could interpret 'right to life' in a certain fashion.
Meanwhile absolute scenes at Headingley
https://www.twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1540385276350046208
L'avortement est un droit fondamental pour toutes les femmes. Il faut le protéger. J’exprime ma solidarité avec les femmes dont les libertés sont aujourd’hui remises en cause par la Cour suprême des États-Unis d’Amérique.
However, in tandem with a blue wall collapse I think he could fall over the line. But those red wallers that disappeared from Lab tallies, no sign they are returning. If not when a Tory nonces on a kid and the PM is distilled pure toxicity then when? The Red Wall is not (yet) coming home.
Kavanaugh has a whole pile of other perjury on top of that. Probably Thomas as well.
It's like saying that the Catholic Church has suddenly become infested with child abusers, as all the reports of child abuse are suddenly coming out - when in fact it is probably in far better position now wrt combatting abuse than it ever was.
I don't think there's an 'epidemic of rape' or other abuse - if epidemic means a massive increase. It's always happened. It was just rarely mentioned and rarely reported.
His opinion is a sideshow.
The more interesting comment was one from Kavanaugh who put forward the view that states cannot prohibit and prevent, or criminalise travel out of state to obtain an abortion, since there is a constitutional right to interstate travel.
Since that is also a right not enumerated in the constitution - just like Roe - it rather undercuts his concurrence.
Wonderful thing, the 9th Amendment.
It’s a Russian/Soviet thing, definitely, I presume because of the brutal winter climate. Cellars are easier to keep warm?
The Stray Dogs Cafe in St Petersburg - down in a cellar - is full of brilliant memories of Petersburg’s Silver Age, when Akhmatova and Mandelstam swapped sonnets with mad Tsarist lesbians
I was there in the summer of 2019, and it was still full of lesbians
How long before any westerner can go down the steps into the Stray Dogs Cafe? Sad
Until, that is, they decided to unsettle it.
I wonder how far some of these Justices want to go back? How many would like to go back to Dredd Scott?
Very few really argue that the 4th introduces a general right to privacy:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
I would argue that it plainly does.
Which was a cop out, they were allowed to get away with, if so. It was settled law when they said it, but settled law can become unsettled at any time, if it didn't we'd have no need for politicians, legislations or courts like SCOTUS that interpret legislation and constitutions.
As a jurist, would appear to be spitting image of Roger Taney . . . with a slight twist . . .
Alito actually referenced Taney's opinion in Dredd Scott in his recent gun rights decision.
What you're describing is a problem we have with the wonderful, magical but flawed thing that is the internet.
It bears no relation whatsoever to (largely) men rolling back the rights of women over their own bodies.
Down in a cellar. Fine khinkali, nice green salad, fresh adjika (pictured) - that’s the hot smoky Georgian chili paprika sauce - and magnificent kutaisi kebabs in another dreamy spicy sauce
Plus excellent bread and two large glasses of delicious chilled dry red wine
Cost?
£14
No wonder the politicians come here
AND - listen up, Merika - no one expects a tip, and they are totally surprised, even bemused, when you leave one
Evidently "delivery" is No. 10's buzz-word for this harsh morning-after.
Whereas what most UKers seem to want, is deliverance from the likes of them and (esp) Big Dog.
I can't quite tell.
The GOP is now a full blown personality cult.
Well, if I were Mordaunt, I doubt I'd have bothered to jazz it up much either.
After all, isn't his favorite cocktail being: Sex on the Beach.
Reckon that Clarence Thomas's favorite is likely: Rum and Coke.