Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
I'm proud of the fact that Dawkins is able to write a load of rubbish about religion, and the Pythons were able to ridicule Christianity, without it being a huge risk.
Saying, "he always knew he was taking a huge risk," does not help us get to the same place with Islam. I'm angry about this. Everyone should be angry about this. We shouldn't just accept that a person runs a huge risk to write about Islam.
We all know it definitely is more of a risk, and so as a matter of practicality people are likely to be more cautious, but we should always be very very angry abotu that as you say.
If someone goes out of their way to mock a faith simply to provoke a reaction that might make them a dick, but they should be able to do it without any fear. Any faith that cannot handle others not showing theit believe deference, or being able to handle disrespect of it, is simply that of a brutal child.
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Overturning Roe v. Wade might just screw the GOP.
Yes, that was an idiotic piece of self-harm by the American Right. They had the Dems on the run, then that
What an appalling choice Americans face. Cultural Marxists on the Left, bent on destroying the Enlightenment (and healthcare, education, etc) and religious freaks on the Right, who want to set back the rights of women by 50 years, and much else
And yet it is not a choice from which American voters can turn away. It's the future of the country. It is one or the other, however hideous the alternatives
I'd go with the religious freaks, as there is a chance a recognisably free and strong America may still emerge from that shitshow
You are beyond redemption.
All those drugs have addled your mind.
Not only do the GOP want to set the rights of women back fifty years, they want to bring back anti-miscegenation laws, disenfranchise blacks, but your messed up minds prefers that over people who focus on pronouns.
I think there are some Southern legislatures that would like to reinstate anti miscegenation laws but they must know thats a dead letter>
One of them said something like 'They said that about overturning Roe'.
Roe was always on weak ground (and the Kansas vote suggests that actually ending the constitutional right to abortion might not make a lot of difference at State level). The reasoning behind Bird v Loving is a lot stronger.
Roe was* an impeccable fusion of logical reasoning and modern interpretation of the constitution which balanced protection and respect for women with same for the unborn child. A superb piece of law. Right up there with the very best examples of that noble art.
* Such a crying shame to have to use the past tense here.
It was quite defensible, as a piece of legislation. As a piece of legal reasoning, not so much.
If he survives, the perpetrator should be made to read 'The Satanic Verses' once a week for the full length of his sentence. If Rushdie dies, the perpetrator should be made to read it three times a week.
But that might be a bit much, even for a country that has the death penalty...
On this whole set of issues I've never understood the forays into performing irreversible or hard to reverse procedures for children and adolescents.
We don't even trust children to drive, smoke, drink, have sex, decide to drop out of school, and many other things, but we think they can make such choices rather than, if needed, be supported until such a time as they can make that choice as an adult?
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
On this whole set of issues I've never understood the forays into performing irreversible or hard to reverse procedures for children and adolescents.
We don't even trust children to drive, smoke, drink, have sex, decide to drop out of school, and many other things, but we think they can make such choices rather than, if needed, be supported until such a time as they can make that choice as an adult?
Medical opinion on this subject seems quite different in the US to the UK.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
I'm proud of the fact that Dawkins is able to write a load of rubbish about religion, and the Pythons were able to ridicule Christianity, without it being a huge risk.
Saying, "he always knew he was taking a huge risk," does not help us get to the same place with Islam. I'm angry about this. Everyone should be angry about this. We shouldn't just accept that a person runs a huge risk to write about Islam.
We all know it definitely is more of a risk, and so as a matter of practicality people are likely to be more cautious, but we should always be very very angry abotu that as you say.
If someone goes out of their way to mock a faith simply to provoke a reaction that might make them a dick, but they should be able to do it without any fear. Any faith that cannot handle others not showing theit believe deference, or being able to handle disrespect of it, is simply that of a brutal child.
Remember when a load people went and protested the Charlie Hebdo front page, just after the whole paper had been wiped out?
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
high suicide rate not attractive
As in for doctors? Was not aware of it being particularly high?
On this whole set of issues I've never understood the forays into performing irreversible or hard to reverse procedures for children and adolescents.
We don't even trust children to drive, smoke, drink, have sex, decide to drop out of school, and many other things, but we think they can make such choices rather than, if needed, be supported until such a time as they can make that choice as an adult?
It's all part of The Great Wokeness. Self identification. Obsession with identity, racial and sexual
Boston Children's Hospital
"For children 9 and under, the hospital helps facilitate a social transition that prepares them for their 10th birthday, which is when children are offered individualized treatment plans that can include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and chest surgeries."
Patients only 17 years old can obtain a vaginoplasty, but Dr. Oren Ganor, co-director of Boston Children’s Center for Gender Surgery, hinted in an email that children even younger can be operated on. Ganor said in an email to WBUR that he is "slightly flexible" when it comes to the age of males seeking genital surgery. Ganor adds that the policy has not been finalized "because of the issue around consent for sterilization (which is part of the procedure).” Dr. Jaromir Slama, a plastic surgeon at Boston Medical Center, describes the vaginoplasty procedure: "It involves orchiectomy, removing the testicles, and we use the skin tube of the penis and some of the skin of the perineum to pretty much turn it outside in and that becomes the new vagina."
"Boston Children’s Hospital accepts teens as young as 15 years old seeking chest surgeries, such as double mastectomies for female patients and breast augmentation for male patients.""
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
And quite a lot of doctors do go and do something else instead, or do their doctoring somewhere else. Pay them less, and that outflow will increase.
As with a lot of things, it's frustrating that we have to pay so much for medical care, but ultimately things (and people) cost what they cost. Complaining about it doesn't change that.
On this whole set of issues I've never understood the forays into performing irreversible or hard to reverse procedures for children and adolescents.
We don't even trust children to drive, smoke, drink, have sex, decide to drop out of school, and many other things, but we think they can make such choices rather than, if needed, be supported until such a time as they can make that choice as an adult?
Medical opinion on this subject seems quite different in the US to the UK.
Not so. There are equally crazy people on both sides of the pond, and they are now in senior political/health/education positions. Indeed the Trans-TERF wars, which started in the UK, are still, probably, more vicious over here
The difference we are now seeing is that this medicalised gender madness is colliding with the profit motive in American medicine, as hospitals see a way to make tons of money from unhappy kids and their helpless parents. Grotesque
If he survives, the perpetrator should be made to read 'The Satanic Verses' once a week for the full length of his sentence. If Rushdie dies, the perpetrator should be made to read it three times a week.
But that might be a bit much, even for a country that has the death penalty...
I recall a video of a chap somewhere in the UK asking passers by if they'd read it or what they thought about it, with plenty of negative reactions up to some older chap coming back and snatching it out of the guy's hands.
It'd be amusing in its childish inability to tolerate another opinion (and making a virtue of idiotic thuggery) were it not so dangerous.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
And quite a lot of doctors do go and do something else instead, or do their doctoring somewhere else. Pay them less, and that outflow will increase.
As with a lot of things, it's frustrating that we have to pay so much for medical care, but ultimately things (and people) cost what they cost. Complaining about it doesn't change that.
Tying the bursary to service - in the same way many third party funded degrees are tied - would be a start.
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
Medicine is popular so that parents can say "My son/daughter is a doctor".
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
Medicine is popular so that parents can say "My son/daughter is a doctor".
True, but that’s not enough on its own. Medics needs to be careful not to trash their profession too much too. Every time a doctor is on tv moaning about long hours, and how unfair it all is, it has an effect on potential recruits.
If he survives, the perpetrator should be made to read 'The Satanic Verses' once a week for the full length of his sentence. If Rushdie dies, the perpetrator should be made to read it three times a week.
But that might be a bit much, even for a country that has the death penalty...
I quite like it, though don’t think it’s as good as his other stuff. A marmite author though, I’ve always rather enjoyed his writing but I do understand why others find it rather self-indulgent or needlessly dense and opaque.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Was he taking the documents to use as kompramat agsinst someone? And were they physical documents, or stuff on a phone? Or maybe emails sent to himself? It's all very odd.
@AlexThomp On the plane to NH the night of the Iowa caucuses, Elizabeth Warren said: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”
@AlexThomp On the plane to NH the night of the Iowa caucuses, Elizabeth Warren said: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”
@AlexThomp On the plane to NH the night of the Iowa caucuses, Elizabeth Warren said: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Yeah but your obsession over woke has driven you as mad as a box of frogs. Or its just your age like your ranting about the music of today and how there's no good music anymore.
"Social justice commies" is something that frothing loons have been raving about for about 75 years. Have you got any reds under your bed?
1960s Leon would have been ranting about the music of the youth, counterculture, civil rights and so on.
@Leon is the best recruiting Sargeant for woke out there: his mouth frothes so much, that one assumes that he must be talking utter shit.
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
And quite a lot of doctors do go and do something else instead, or do their doctoring somewhere else. Pay them less, and that outflow will increase.
As with a lot of things, it's frustrating that we have to pay so much for medical care, but ultimately things (and people) cost what they cost. Complaining about it doesn't change that.
Those GP hours and pay are the only reason my gf is doing nightshifts at A&E at the moment.
Trump has always been very efficient at his twin defences of
1) I did not do it 2) Everyone does it, so its no big deal.
Expect to see a lot of figures pretending they think the Trump allegation might possibly be something serious, but that it is vital to first examine the Obama records first and so no one should comment or criticise Trump.
From the Wikipedia article on Loving v. Virginia: "Despite the Supreme Court's decision, anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states, although the decision had made them unenforceable. State judges in Alabama continued to enforce its anti-miscegenation statute until 1970, when the Nixon administration obtained a ruling from a U.S. District Court in United States v. Brittain.[42][43] In 2000, Alabama became the last state to adapt its laws to the Supreme Court's decision, when 60% of voters endorsed a constitutional amendment, Amendment 2, that removed anti-miscegenation language from the state constitution.[44]
After Loving v. Virginia, the number of interracial marriages continued to increase across the United States[45] and in the South. In Georgia, for instance, the number of interracial marriages increased from 21 in 1967 to 115 in 1970.[46] At the national level, 0.4% of marriages were interracial in 1960, 2.0% in 1980,[47] 12% in 2013,[48] and 16% in 2015, almost 50 years after Loving:"
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Overturning Roe v. Wade might just screw the GOP.
Yes, that was an idiotic piece of self-harm by the American Right. They had the Dems on the run, then that
What an appalling choice Americans face. Cultural Marxists on the Left, bent on destroying the Enlightenment (and healthcare, education, etc) and religious freaks on the Right, who want to set back the rights of women by 50 years, and much else
And yet it is not a choice from which American voters can turn away. It's the future of the country. It is one or the other, however hideous the alternatives
I'd go with the religious freaks, as there is a chance a recognisably free and strong America may still emerge from that shitshow
You are beyond redemption.
All those drugs have addled your mind.
Not only do the GOP want to set the rights of women back fifty years, they want to bring back anti-miscegenation laws, disenfranchise blacks, but your messed up minds prefers that over people who focus on pronouns.
I think there are some Southern legislatures that would like to reinstate anti miscegenation laws but they must know thats a dead letter>
One of them said something like 'They said that about overturning Roe'.
Roe was always on weak ground (and the Kansas vote suggests that actually ending the constitutional right to abortion might not make a lot of difference at State level). The reasoning behind Bird v Loving is a lot stronger.
Roe was* an impeccable fusion of logical reasoning and modern interpretation of the constitution which balanced protection and respect for women with same for the unborn child. A superb piece of law. Right up there with the very best examples of that noble art.
* Such a crying shame to have to use the past tense here.
And at the time a not particularly controversial, consensus decision.
No, amazing as it is to think now. Ah well. The arc of history bends towards justice but there's no shortage of false turns and dead ends along the way.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Either you believe in free speech or you don't.
You can believe in free speech while recognising the reality that if you anger 2 billion Muslims worldwide then it only takes a few extremists amongst them for your life to be in danger. Hence he has had armed protection ever since he wrote the book
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Overturning Roe v. Wade might just screw the GOP.
Yes, that was an idiotic piece of self-harm by the American Right. They had the Dems on the run, then that
What an appalling choice Americans face. Cultural Marxists on the Left, bent on destroying the Enlightenment (and healthcare, education, etc) and religious freaks on the Right, who want to set back the rights of women by 50 years, and much else
And yet it is not a choice from which American voters can turn away. It's the future of the country. It is one or the other, however hideous the alternatives
I'd go with the religious freaks, as there is a chance a recognisably free and strong America may still emerge from that shitshow
You are beyond redemption.
All those drugs have addled your mind.
Not only do the GOP want to set the rights of women back fifty years, they want to bring back anti-miscegenation laws, disenfranchise blacks, but your messed up minds prefers that over people who focus on pronouns.
I think there are some Southern legislatures that would like to reinstate anti miscegenation laws but they must know thats a dead letter>
One of them said something like 'They said that about overturning Roe'.
Roe was always on weak ground (and the Kansas vote suggests that actually ending the constitutional right to abortion might not make a lot of difference at State level). The reasoning behind Bird v Loving is a lot stronger.
Roe was* an impeccable fusion of logical reasoning and modern interpretation of the constitution which balanced protection and respect for women with same for the unborn child. A superb piece of law. Right up there with the very best examples of that noble art.
* Such a crying shame to have to use the past tense here.
It's only a superb piece of law in that it found a convoluted way to justify the outcome that it wanted (and you did, and I did). The fact that it was able to be overturned now shows it to have been an ineffective fudge.
I didn't find it convoluted. Creative, yes, but in a logical not a wild way.
Remember the denial and cynicism from certain people on here when it was announced that the UK would train 10,000 Ukrainian troops every three months? How we were told it was impossible?
"Britain is on track to train more 🇺🇦 troops than it planned. When asked if the UK could train more 🇺🇦 troops than the 10,000 by October as outlined, Defence Sec Ben Wallace said:”I think we're committed now to really going beyond that. We’re going to train more and for longer”"
The raid is politically neutral. Trump plays the victim, the Right claims persecution, the Left touts no one is above investigation, and the DOJ/FBI can show true impartiality when they don't prosecute It all cancels out. Everyone wins so no one wins.
What happens if they have found the nuclear codes?
They got changed at midday on 20 January 2021 if I understand correctly. I think that's a bit of a red herring.
Oh no, the actual launch codes to many nuclear missiles were 12345 for several decades!
The process that’s in place, is designed to make sure that the authority to launch actually comes from the President, rather than than everyone else thinking he’s bonkers or senile.
Wasn't it even worse and they were 11111? I seem to remember the military resented having codes at all so 'ticked the box' in a 'f**k you' kinda way?
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Overturning Roe v. Wade might just screw the GOP.
Yes, that was an idiotic piece of self-harm by the American Right. They had the Dems on the run, then that
What an appalling choice Americans face. Cultural Marxists on the Left, bent on destroying the Enlightenment (and healthcare, education, etc) and religious freaks on the Right, who want to set back the rights of women by 50 years, and much else
And yet it is not a choice from which American voters can turn away. It's the future of the country. It is one or the other, however hideous the alternatives
I'd go with the religious freaks, as there is a chance a recognisably free and strong America may still emerge from that shitshow
According to Fox News latest poll (and it is pretty much the gold standard) the Democrats only lead the Republicans by 11% on abortion. By contrast, the Republicans lead by 15% on inflation and prices, and even by 3% on gun rights.
While I'm sure that's true, the Kansas vote shows which side has the greater enthusiasm right now
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Either you believe in free speech or you don't.
You can believe in free speech while recognising the reality that if you anger 2 billion Muslims worldwide then it only takes a few extremists amongst them for your life to be in danger. Hence he has had armed protection ever since he wrote the book
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
Medicine is popular so that parents can say "My son/daughter is a doctor".
The decline in Foundation Doctors (Interns in America) continuing in training in either hospital specialities or General Practice is quite stark over the last decade.
Some go into research, locums, etc and apply later on but increasingly leave the profession entirely.
Remember the denial and cynicism from certain people on here when it was announced that the UK would train 10,000 Ukrainian troops every three months? How we were told it was impossible?
"Britain is on track to train more 🇺🇦 troops than it planned. When asked if the UK could train more 🇺🇦 troops than the 10,000 by October as outlined, Defence Sec Ben Wallace said:”I think we're committed now to really going beyond that. We’re going to train more and for longer”"
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Overturning Roe v. Wade might just screw the GOP.
Yes, that was an idiotic piece of self-harm by the American Right. They had the Dems on the run, then that
What an appalling choice Americans face. Cultural Marxists on the Left, bent on destroying the Enlightenment (and healthcare, education, etc) and religious freaks on the Right, who want to set back the rights of women by 50 years, and much else
And yet it is not a choice from which American voters can turn away. It's the future of the country. It is one or the other, however hideous the alternatives
I'd go with the religious freaks, as there is a chance a recognisably free and strong America may still emerge from that shitshow
You are beyond redemption.
All those drugs have addled your mind.
Not only do the GOP want to set the rights of women back fifty years, they want to bring back anti-miscegenation laws, disenfranchise blacks, but your messed up minds prefers that over people who focus on pronouns.
I think there are some Southern legislatures that would like to reinstate anti miscegenation laws but they must know thats a dead letter>
One of them said something like 'They said that about overturning Roe'.
Roe was always on weak ground (and the Kansas vote suggests that actually ending the constitutional right to abortion might not make a lot of difference at State level). The reasoning behind Bird v Loving is a lot stronger.
Roe was* an impeccable fusion of logical reasoning and modern interpretation of the constitution which balanced protection and respect for women with same for the unborn child. A superb piece of law. Right up there with the very best examples of that noble art.
* Such a crying shame to have to use the past tense here.
It's only a superb piece of law in that it found a convoluted way to justify the outcome that it wanted (and you did, and I did). The fact that it was able to be overturned now shows it to have been an ineffective fudge.
I didn't find it convoluted. Creative, yes, but in a logical not a wild way.
The Ginsburg critique (given that she still supported the decision) is still to me the least convincing. Had it been decided on the grounds she later advocated for, I don't think the recent history would have been much different at all.
The Republican justices were determined to overturn it, and they would have done so just the same. The Dobbs decision is the one that is entirely bereft of legal reasoning.
I burst out laughing when I heard about the Tories virtual beds. Before anyone said anything, a fool would know that there are not the Doctors nor the nurses for 7000 extra beds. Of course 7000 extra beds, some described as virtual beds is just a lie . Have the Tories not learned anything from Johnson's tenure.?
Remember the denial and cynicism from certain people on here when it was announced that the UK would train 10,000 Ukrainian troops every three months? How we were told it was impossible?
"Britain is on track to train more 🇺🇦 troops than it planned. When asked if the UK could train more 🇺🇦 troops than the 10,000 by October as outlined, Defence Sec Ben Wallace said:”I think we're committed now to really going beyond that. We’re going to train more and for longer”"
@AlexThomp On the plane to NH the night of the Iowa caucuses, Elizabeth Warren said: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”
After reading all those Woke essays, I want seriously rightwing Republicans to win - just not Trump, he's toxic, mad, venal and a menacing narcissist
A radical right government is the only way America can save itself. Which is a damn shame, because the radical right in the USA is fucking nuts. But at least they are patriotic, and not social justice commies. The American Left will actually destroy America
Overturning Roe v. Wade might just screw the GOP.
Yes, that was an idiotic piece of self-harm by the American Right. They had the Dems on the run, then that
What an appalling choice Americans face. Cultural Marxists on the Left, bent on destroying the Enlightenment (and healthcare, education, etc) and religious freaks on the Right, who want to set back the rights of women by 50 years, and much else
And yet it is not a choice from which American voters can turn away. It's the future of the country. It is one or the other, however hideous the alternatives
I'd go with the religious freaks, as there is a chance a recognisably free and strong America may still emerge from that shitshow
You are beyond redemption.
All those drugs have addled your mind.
Not only do the GOP want to set the rights of women back fifty years, they want to bring back anti-miscegenation laws, disenfranchise blacks, but your messed up minds prefers that over people who focus on pronouns.
I think there are some Southern legislatures that would like to reinstate anti miscegenation laws but they must know thats a dead letter>
One of them said something like 'They said that about overturning Roe'.
Roe was always on weak ground (and the Kansas vote suggests that actually ending the constitutional right to abortion might not make a lot of difference at State level). The reasoning behind Bird v Loving is a lot stronger.
Roe was* an impeccable fusion of logical reasoning and modern interpretation of the constitution which balanced protection and respect for women with same for the unborn child. A superb piece of law. Right up there with the very best examples of that noble art.
* Such a crying shame to have to use the past tense here.
It was quite defensible, as a piece of legislation. As a piece of legal reasoning, not so much.
Hmm, the 'agree to disagree' shuffle then. I found it pretty cogent.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
I don't think he has the Nom in the bag. I think the party will at the end of the day choose somebody with strong prospects of winning the Big P.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
I don't think he has the Nom in the bag. I think the party will at the end of the day choose somebody with strong prospects of winning the Big P.
Few Republicans have had the spine to stand up to Trump, and those that have have been run out of town mostly. There are possible candidates, like De Santis, but they’re running on pro-Trump platforms. So, how do they win against Trump?
Ah yes you're ahead of me. Course anything but AGW denial is the sort of woke madness which is rendering the planet unliveable for decent, right minded people.
Remember the denial and cynicism from certain people on here when it was announced that the UK would train 10,000 Ukrainian troops every three months? How we were told it was impossible?
"Britain is on track to train more 🇺🇦 troops than it planned. When asked if the UK could train more 🇺🇦 troops than the 10,000 by October as outlined, Defence Sec Ben Wallace said:”I think we're committed now to really going beyond that. We’re going to train more and for longer”"
Trump has always been very efficient at his twin defences of
1) I did not do it 2) Everyone does it, so its no big deal.
Expect to see a lot of figures pretending they think the Trump allegation might possibly be something serious, but that it is vital to first examine the Obama records first and so no one should comment or criticise Trump.
Any American can have .003 million, 33 million, or 333 gazillion documents in their home and the FBI would not conduct a search. But if one of those documents was classified, then the FBI may conduct a search.
@AlexThomp On the plane to NH the night of the Iowa caucuses, Elizabeth Warren said: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
Absent Trump and DeSantis Pence's main rivals would be Cruz, who is no Trumpite having been Trump's main rival in 2016 for the nomination and Haley who is too moderate for the GOP at the moment and also somewhat distant from Trump
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
I think there's a good chance that if Trump Sr doesn't run for some reason, such as his health, then Donald Trump Jr might run & could even get the nomination. The Trump family will not want to easily give up its hold on the GOP.
Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
Either you believe in free speech or you don't.
You can believe in free speech while recognising the reality that if you anger 2 billion Muslims worldwide then it only takes a few extremists amongst them for your life to be in danger. Hence he has had armed protection ever since he wrote the book
So you don't believe in free speech then?
I do but I am not Muslim. There are 2 billion of them, many of them extremist and only 1 of me, I was not the problem for Mr Rushdie
List of Republicans saying "it's unthinkable that Trump would remove classified documents from the White House because he has too much integrity to do that."
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
I think there's a good chance that if Trump Sr doesn't run for some reason, such as his health, then Donald Trump Jr might run & could even get the nomination. The Trump family will not want to easily give up its hold on the GOP.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
I think there's a good chance that if Trump Sr doesn't run for some reason, such as his health, then Donald Trump Jr might run & could even get the nomination. The Trump family will not want to easily give up its hold on the GOP.
The Trump family want to be the Kim family.
That is unfair. There is one crucial difference. Whilst the Don may cheat at golf even he would be too embarrassed to claim he had a round of 18 holes in one.
@AlexThomp On the plane to NH the night of the Iowa caucuses, Elizabeth Warren said: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
I think there's a good chance that if Trump Sr doesn't run for some reason, such as his health, then Donald Trump Jr might run & could even get the nomination. The Trump family will not want to easily give up its hold on the GOP.
The Trump family want to be the Kim family.
That is unfair. There is one crucial difference. Whilst the Don may cheat at golf even he would be too embarrassed to claim he had a round of 18 holes in one.
Is that really an unorthodox secret aircraft that made no sound and moved at astonishing speed? And why does it suddenly emerge now, after 30’years? Quite odd
NYPD: "On August 12, 2022, at about 11 a.m., a male suspect ran up onto the stage and attacked Rushdie and an interviewer. Rushdie suffered an apparent stab wound to the neck, and was transported by helicopter to an area hospital. His condition is not yet known"
That aircraft looks like a Hawk or Harrier or Hunter - the last not likely in Scotland in 1990, the first two perfectly acceptable. It's not, I think, the Tornado referred to in the article, though that might just be a journalistic messup.
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
Medicine is popular so that parents can say "My son/daughter is a doctor".
The decline in Foundation Doctors (Interns in America) continuing in training in either hospital specialities or General Practice is quite stark over the last decade.
Some go into research, locums, etc and apply later on but increasingly leave the profession entirely.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
I think there's a good chance that if Trump Sr doesn't run for some reason, such as his health, then Donald Trump Jr might run & could even get the nomination. The Trump family will not want to easily give up its hold on the GOP.
The Trump family want to be the Kim family.
America would benefit from following part of their example. They need to transfer power to a jong un.
Trump has always been very efficient at his twin defences of
1) I did not do it 2) Everyone does it, so its no big deal.
Expect to see a lot of figures pretending they think the Trump allegation might possibly be something serious, but that it is vital to first examine the Obama records first and so no one should comment or criticise Trump.
Any American can have .003 million, 33 million, or 333 gazillion documents in their home and the FBI would not conduct a search. But if one of those documents was classified, then the FBI may conduct a search.
Trump has always been very efficient at his twin defences of
1) I did not do it 2) Everyone does it, so its no big deal.
Expect to see a lot of figures pretending they think the Trump allegation might possibly be something serious, but that it is vital to first examine the Obama records first and so no one should comment or criticise Trump.
Any American can have .003 million, 33 million, or 333 gazillion documents in their home and the FBI would not conduct a search. But if one of those documents was classified, then the FBI may conduct a search.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
I think there's a good chance that if Trump Sr doesn't run for some reason, such as his health, then Donald Trump Jr might run & could even get the nomination. The Trump family will not want to easily give up its hold on the GOP.
The Trump family want to be the Kim family.
America would benefit from following part of their example. They need to transfer power to a jong un.
I burst out laughing when I heard about the Tories virtual beds. Before anyone said anything, a fool would know that there are not the Doctors nor the nurses for 7000 extra beds. Of course 7000 extra beds, some described as virtual beds is just a lie . Have the Tories not learned anything from Johnson's tenure.?
I think what they learned was "we'd have got away with it if it hadn't been for Chris Pincher". That might not have been what the experience should have taught the Conservative Party, but there's often a gap between what should be learned and what is learned.
FPT IshmaelZ Posts: 19,116 3:35PM DavidL said: » show previous quotes To take one very obvious example by the same logic the fact that in almost every culture women have a better life expectancy than men must conclusively prove that society is inherently biased against men and fails to recognise inherent female privilege, that any suggestion that women are disadvantaged or ever have been disadvantaged is a failure to recognise the structual biases that cause men to die at an earlier age.
It is, quite frankly, both mad and depressing.
@IshmaelZ said: So you really think that black people are *biologically* less well able than whites and Asians to be educated so as to become competent doctors, and that there is inherent white privilege here which qwe should just put up with cos there is nothing to be done about it? @DavidL says No, of course I don't. What I do say is that the answer to that problem is to look at the societal issues that result in that under performance and seek to address them. Which is not easy. But the answer is not to appoint doctors who come from a minority who are, bluntly, not up to the rather difficult job.
30 odd years ago someone noticed that sheriffs were male, pale and stale. This, of course, reflected the profession that they had gained the requisite experience in. The answer was to appoint many female sheriffs. In my experience female solicitors, such as my wife, hated this because along with many excellent appointments they also appointed various incompetent female sheriffs who gave female sheriffs a bad name. Of course, they also appointed a lot of seriously incompetent male sheriffs too but they did not stand out so much amongst the profession. Those I spoke to wanted female Sheriffs to be appointed on merit, given a fair and even crack of the whip and an equal chance.
Now, 30 odd years on, the profession is becoming increasingly female dominated as is the bench, albeit 20 years or so behind. The focus now is on whether there are sufficient minorities and we are in danger of making the same mistakes again.
As a society we aspire to true equality of opportunity and rightly so. That means that those who face structural problems, whether of poverty, social breakdown, poor schooling or whatever should indeed be helped but the ideal that all are selected on merit is a really important principle and should not be abandoned, whether for gender or racial reasons.
At what point does law start seeing the same problems as medicine, that encouragement of women to join these professions leads eventually to shortages, as they effectively “retire” in their thirties?
I don't think that it will. The key difference is that it is relatively easy and cheap to train lawyers. We don't need lots of kit or fancy labs. We get books and precedent, pretty much all of which are now available online.
The problem in medicine is that UK plc invests very serious money into training a doctor. If that doctor goes part time for family reasons in his or her 30s we have got a very poor return on that investment. Ditto if they retire in their late 50s because they have maxed out their pensions.
Like I've said before, we should pay doctors less so that they have to work full time to make ends meet and have to keep at it until they reach retirement age. It's not like they are capable of doing something else instead, and there will be no shortage of teenagers [whose parents are] desperate [for them to] get into med school.
Not sure about the last bit of that. Pharmacy pay rates, particularly for locums, dipped markedly with the increase in pharmacy graduates (last 10-15 years with new schools of pharmacy). This made it a lot harder to recruit students, and the ones who did come had on average worse grades. If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too. If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
Medicine is popular so that parents can say "My son/daughter is a doctor".
The decline in Foundation Doctors (Interns in America) continuing in training in either hospital specialities or General Practice is quite stark over the last decade.
Some go into research, locums, etc and apply later on but increasingly leave the profession entirely.
Blimey. That's a leaky pipeline. What happened?
Jeremy Hunt and pay deal I think. It's quite outrageous that an F2 doctor is only earning £34000. I was on 1.5 times that when I retired as a teacher (admittedly a private school).
Bloke sees someone else with a kite at the same time as a plane goes past, gets scared and then confused why no-one from the MoD bothered to talk to him about it.....,.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
Absent Trump and DeSantis Pence's main rivals would be Cruz, who is no Trumpite having been Trump's main rival in 2016 for the nomination and Haley who is too moderate for the GOP at the moment and also somewhat distant from Trump
Cruz is a pretty awful candidate.
Rick Scott, the Florida Senator who headlined CPAC is another possibility.
As is customary in these cases, alleged six photos, but only only one available. It’s good, but could be an object thrown into the air and snapped. This story was covered by the recent Craig Charles series, and I wonder if that’s why it’s surfaced now. Certainly intriguing. I don’t buy their story of terror though. I’d be fascinated, not terrified.
The FBI raid won't hurt Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination & it might even help him a lot by energising his supporters.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
Yes, if he wants to run again the GOP nomination is Trump's for the taking.
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
Pence, in the eyes of the Trump fanatics, failed to stop the steal. They won’t forgive him. I think his path to the nomination is a difficult one.
Against Trump or De Santis yes, absent neither it is there for the taking and evangelical voters would strongly be behind Pence
It seems unlikely to me that there won’t be a Trumpist candidate: Trump himself or De Santis or someone else. For Pence to come through, he needs no-one Trumpier up against him. Ain’t gonna happen.
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
Absent Trump and DeSantis Pence's main rivals would be Cruz, who is no Trumpite having been Trump's main rival in 2016 for the nomination and Haley who is too moderate for the GOP at the moment and also somewhat distant from Trump
Cruz is a pretty awful candidate.
Rick Scott, the Florida Senator who headlined CPAC is another possibility.
I think Tom Cotton and John Hawley are also potential candidates.
As is customary in these cases, alleged six photos, but only only one available. It’s good, but could be an object thrown into the air and snapped. This story was covered by the recent Craig Charles series, and I wonder if that’s why it’s surfaced now. Certainly intriguing. I don’t buy their story of terror though. I’d be fascinated, not terrified.
My first instinct was something reflecting in a loch.
Comments
If someone goes out of their way to mock a faith simply to provoke a reaction that might make them a dick, but they should be able to do it without any fear. Any faith that cannot handle others not showing theit believe deference, or being able to handle disrespect of it, is simply that of a brutal child.
"Boston Children’s Hospital (@BostonChildren) is now offering “gender affirming hysterectomies” for young girls"
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1557775959217950725?s=20&t=xkSQ-ttb9hl_lCnRQMAiyQ
If he survives, the perpetrator should be made to read 'The Satanic Verses' once a week for the full length of his sentence. If Rushdie dies, the perpetrator should be made to read it three times a week.
But that might be a bit much, even for a country that has the death penalty...
We don't even trust children to drive, smoke, drink, have sex, decide to drop out of school, and many other things, but we think they can make such choices rather than, if needed, be supported until such a time as they can make that choice as an adult?
If you degrade doctors pay and conditions too much, you may choke the supply too.
If you are a bright kid, there are many high paid careers. Engineering, the city, law, artisanal flint knapping. Medicine is popular not just because of a desire to help people, but because of pay and the chance to retire young(ish) and work part time.
It was them being deliberately provocative.
Boston Children's Hospital
"For children 9 and under, the hospital helps facilitate a social transition that prepares them for their 10th birthday, which is when children are offered individualized treatment plans that can include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and chest surgeries."
Patients only 17 years old can obtain a vaginoplasty, but Dr. Oren Ganor, co-director of Boston Children’s Center for Gender Surgery, hinted in an email that children even younger can be operated on. Ganor said in an email to WBUR that he is "slightly flexible" when it comes to the age of males seeking genital surgery. Ganor adds that the policy has not been finalized "because of the issue around consent for sterilization (which is part of the procedure).”
Dr. Jaromir Slama, a plastic surgeon at Boston Medical Center, describes the vaginoplasty procedure: "It involves orchiectomy, removing the testicles, and we use the skin tube of the penis and some of the skin of the perineum to pretty much turn it outside in and that becomes the new vagina."
"Boston Children’s Hospital accepts teens as young as 15 years old seeking chest surgeries, such as double mastectomies for female patients and breast augmentation for male patients.""
https://thepostmillennial.com/boston-childrens-hospital-gleefully-encourages-surgical-pharmaceutical-gender-transition-for-teens/
History will not look at us kindly. That we tolerated this insanity. That we did not fight back, hard
As with a lot of things, it's frustrating that we have to pay so much for medical care, but ultimately things (and people) cost what they cost. Complaining about it doesn't change that.
The difference we are now seeing is that this medicalised gender madness is colliding with the profit motive in American medicine, as hospitals see a way to make tons of money from unhappy kids and their helpless parents. Grotesque
It'd be amusing in its childish inability to tolerate another opinion (and making a virtue of idiotic thuggery) were it not so dangerous.
The people who'll vote for him in the primaries don't really care if he took any documents when he left the White House & they think the raids are politically motivated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Which is a great name for that particular case.
@AlexThomp
On the plane to NH the night of the Iowa caucuses, Elizabeth Warren said: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”
https://twitter.com/alexthomp/status/1558080939544256514
1) I did not do it
2) Everyone does it, so its no big deal.
Expect to see a lot of figures pretending they think the Trump allegation might possibly be something serious, but that it is vital to first examine the Obama records first and so no one should comment or criticise Trump.
They say if she has evidence of antisemitism in the civil service she must report it to the Cabinet Secretary. 👇 https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1558123740264861701/photo/1
After Loving v. Virginia, the number of interracial marriages continued to increase across the United States[45] and in the South. In Georgia, for instance, the number of interracial marriages increased from 21 in 1967 to 115 in 1970.[46] At the national level, 0.4% of marriages were interracial in 1960, 2.0% in 1980,[47] 12% in 2013,[48] and 16% in 2015, almost 50 years after Loving:"
If he declines to run again though I would make Pence favourite to be GOP nominee. DeSantis I think will lose his Florida governorship re election attempt in November to Charlie Crist based on the most recent polls.
Pence is also even more pro life than Trump and the darling of evangelical voters and therefore the ideal candidate for the GOP post Trump and post Roe v Wade. Loyal to Trump while respecting the constitution and staunchly in favour of taking as much opportunity to push the new opportunity for the pro life movement in as many states as possible
https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2019/02/student-reading-list-salman-rushdie-fatwa/
"Britain is on track to train more 🇺🇦 troops than it planned. When asked if the UK could train more 🇺🇦 troops than the 10,000 by October as outlined, Defence Sec Ben Wallace said:”I think we're committed now to really going beyond that. We’re going to train more and for longer”"
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/wmo7zj/britain_is_on_track_to_train_more_troops_than_it/
CON: 46.8%
GRN: 41.4%
LDEM: 11.8%
Votes cast: 425
Conservative HOLD.
Previously elected unopposed.
Outstanding Green result.
If anyone is interested every page had already been handed to the National Recrords Archive, reviewed, copied and then given to Obama when requested.
Some go into research, locums, etc and apply later on but increasingly leave the profession entirely.
No joy yet but it's early days. Watch this space peeps.
The Republican justices were determined to overturn it, and they would have done so just the same.
The Dobbs decision is the one that is entirely bereft of legal reasoning.
It's been genuinely good leadership from Britain.
What's the quote? If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow?
THis is quite interesting re a Tory MP and his constituents.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/12/its-scary-south-thanet-locals-rally-against-net-zero-rejecting-mp
There are a lot of evangelical voters, but it appears there are even more who think Trump is god.
Chilling.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1557884029780852737
https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/features/211532/revealed-after-32-years-the-top-secret-picture-one-mod-insider-calls-the-most-spectacular-ufo-photo-ever-captured
Quite a grainy photo tho
The former President thinks Americans are stupid. We are not stupid.
https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1557814396621131778
Or, indeed, Presidential Library.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/obama-white-house-records/index.html
...
...
...
Is that really an unorthodox secret aircraft that made no sound and moved at astonishing speed? And why does it suddenly emerge now, after 30’years? Quite odd
"On August 12, 2022, at about 11 a.m., a male suspect ran up onto the stage and attacked Rushdie and an interviewer. Rushdie suffered an apparent stab wound to the neck, and was transported by helicopter to an area hospital. His condition is not yet known"
https://www.uapmedia.uk/articles/calvinerevealed
That is a fucking weird object
Republicans who days ago were near-united in blasting the Justice Department are allowing that nuclear weapons-related materials at Mar-a-Lago might be problematic.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/12/gop-contorts-itself-in-defense-of-trump-as-new-fbi-search-details-emerge-00051418
Rick Scott, the Florida Senator who headlined CPAC is another possibility.
This story was covered by the recent Craig Charles series, and I wonder if that’s why it’s surfaced now.
Certainly intriguing. I don’t buy their story of terror though. I’d be fascinated, not terrified.
Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.