From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Arizona are talking about working 'till Thanksgiving' to get all votes counted. Nevada may well also take considerable time. We probably will not know the fate of the senate for a considerable time. Maricopa has 275,000 signatures to verify then count for example. We might know the House fate later today though
NYT have a note saying in 2020 it took Nevada 3 days to reach 90% reported so I perhaps ought not to hold my breath.
🥺 But that ain’t great, I’ve got plans for my winnings
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
Dobbs is an utter shitshow as far as legal or constitutional reasoning is concerned.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
LOL, even funnier when saddo Tories are reduced to dragging up rubbish from almost 50 years ago.
Of course it’s always funny to remember that a majority of Tory MPs and MSPs voted against gay marriage much more recently when they and their fanbois start bleating about being a ‘progressive’ party.
Why on earth should a Conservative Party be Progressive? Economic and social liberalism may be the consensus now in the UK on the whole but of course there will be social conservatives in the Conservative Party opposed to social liberalism just as there will be socialists in the Labour Party opposed to capitalism and economic liberalism
Gay marriage as opposed to gay decriminalisation is neither progressive nor unprogressive.
At issue is whether 'marriage' means or should refer only to a particular relationship between one man and one woman or whether it can properly mean something else as well in law and custom. Both views are entirely arguable and rational; progress has nothing to say about it.
Marriage in origin is circularly defined: A marriage is a hetero partnership whose children are legitimate. What is a legitimate child? One born to a married couple. But there is nothing to stop us repurposing the concept once its original use has expired. Which it has, with the sole exception of the inheriting of titles.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
What an amazing life story.
*And he is 67*. At Oxford or Cambridge he would be retiring.
It is incredibly unusual for a 67-year old to make a really creative contribution to mathematics. Because mathematics research is a youngster's game.
E.g., Newton did nothing much after his 37th birthday, Gauss after his 40th.
Apparently Russian state media now reporting that the order to retreat from the right bank of the Dnipro has been given. A degree of scepticism and nervousness on Ukraine War twitter as to whether this is a ruse of some sort.
There’s a Ukranian suspicion that this is a massive reverse Trojan horse, that there’s hundreds of booby-trapped locations and thousands of soldiers hiding in the city, waiting for the Ukranians to come back to try and take over. It’s not impossible that the plan is to nuke the city, or flood it by blowing the dam upstream of the river.
Yes. Who would trust the Russians?
Still, there are other signs that the play might be to create a shorter, more defensible, front line by abandoning the right bank and then call for peace talks in an attempt to hold on to what they have left. If that is the strategy then there would be no trap.
If Russia abandons the right bank then Ukraine can strip its forces bare and move them to other fronts.
It also brings a whole lot more of the occupied area within HIMARS range. Russian troops are being squashed into an ever smaller kill zone.
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
LOL, even funnier when saddo Tories are reduced to dragging up rubbish from almost 50 years ago.
Of course it’s always funny to remember that a majority of Tory MPs and MSPs voted against gay marriage much more recently when they and their fanbois start bleating about being a ‘progressive’ party.
Why on earth should a Conservative Party be Progressive? Economic and social liberalism may be the consensus now in the UK on the whole but of course there will be social conservatives in the Conservative Party opposed to social liberalism just as there will be socialists in the Labour Party opposed to capitalism and economic liberalism
Gay marriage as opposed to gay decriminalisation is neither progressive nor unprogressive.
At issue is whether 'marriage' means or should refer only to a particular relationship between one man and one woman or whether it can properly mean something else as well in law and custom. Both views are entirely arguable and rational; progress has nothing to say about it.
Marriage in origin is circularly defined: A marriage is a hetero partnership whose children are legitimate. What is a legitimate child? One born to a married couple. But there is nothing to stop us repurposing the concept once its original use has expired. Which it has, with the sole exception of the inheriting of titles.
Agree, of course, about our power to repurpose. The rest of the argument is a bit thin.
To this day lots of people quite like the idea there is an institution with a name and history which governs relationships characterised by public promise, fidelity and the transmission of life, together with a promise to care for that new life together.
It is central to many lives of progressives and traditionalists and is by no means defunct. Cameron and Rishi; Blair and Starmer......?
Then again, I think privileging natural born children over the adopted, sperm doned etc is wrong, and without that the distinctiveness of trad marriage vanishes.
The nuts and bolts can be very odd. I know two nice female academics who got married in absolutely trad full on bridal white, which looked bloody odd. Also new nomenclature would be good to replace husband/husband and wife/wife. I nearly bought a novel the other day by someone I was at school with, till I saw a reference in the bio blurb to his living in Rutland, or somewhere, with his "hubby."
This morning in Seattle yours truly witnessed the Crack of Dawn - a thin wedge of red outlining the jagged line of the Cascade range about thirty miles east. Which as I walked grew lighter and wider, in the clear, cold, early air of a bright Fall day.
Walking back to my humble abode, from my not-so-humble coffee shop, day was fully dawned. While I couldn't yet see the sun, the Cascades were in still-hazy view to the east. Ando the west, the Olympic Mountains stood out clear as a bell, capped with this weekend's snow.
And seemingly above the Olympic peaks, a band of clouds, parallel to earth (so to speak) probably hundreds of feet, maybe even more, and clearly miles long - floating in the sky (there was virtually zero wind) oriented north/south above the long fjord that is Puget Sound.
AND higher in the west than the water and the mountains and the clouds - a bright full moon.
If it looks like the Republicans are going to nick Nevada can someone explain to me why they're still at 3 with the Dems available at 1.45?
Why haven't punters reacted?
Some of us have 😌
And mentally spending the winnings on a shopping trip.
Plus the imaginary fifty big ones that I've stuck on for you, remember. I got 3.9. That'll be a nice payout so do NOT forget to claim it if it lands. You know what I'm like. I'll be off down the pub with it.
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
LOL, even funnier when saddo Tories are reduced to dragging up rubbish from almost 50 years ago.
Of course it’s always funny to remember that a majority of Tory MPs and MSPs voted against gay marriage much more recently when they and their fanbois start bleating about being a ‘progressive’ party.
Why on earth should a Conservative Party be Progressive? Economic and social liberalism may be the consensus now in the UK on the whole but of course there will be social conservatives in the Conservative Party opposed to social liberalism just as there will be socialists in the Labour Party opposed to capitalism and economic liberalism
Gay marriage as opposed to gay decriminalisation is neither progressive nor unprogressive.
At issue is whether 'marriage' means or should refer only to a particular relationship between one man and one woman or whether it can properly mean something else as well in law and custom. Both views are entirely arguable and rational; progress has nothing to say about it.
Marriage in origin is circularly defined: A marriage is a hetero partnership whose children are legitimate. What is a legitimate child? One born to a married couple. But there is nothing to stop us repurposing the concept once its original use has expired. Which it has, with the sole exception of the inheriting of titles.
You're giving us a link to a site which, *by definition*, operates on faith not objective testing.
There are massive potnetial complications from confounding factors - not least whether the marriage breakup and bad results for the children are due to some common factor such as poverty. That report is potentially full of them.
If it looks like the Republicans are going to nick Nevada can someone explain to me why they're still at 3 with the Dems available at 1.45?
Why haven't punters reacted?
NYT and others saying 200K+ votes left to count, most from Clark and Washoe, who they think break to Cortez +40k to overturn the lead. but Laxalt's price has come in a point in last hour or so. Has been some debate on here today as to how many are actually still outstanding. I'm trying to find some timeline of the count in 2020 but even if I could it might not be much use here.
A true gamble then.
I've stuck £30 on Laxalt on the basis no-one knows (so his price might be value) and I'll be equally pissed off by a £150 loss to a £180 loss but will feel mildly pleased if I get it to a £85-90 loss only.
Not tempted to weigh in and get flat with the 1.14 available on the GOP taking the House?
I like reading about mathematics on wikipedia as no matter how I try I cannot grasp the fundamental concepts they attempt to describe in plain terms.
You are not alone in that. My son did a maths degree, and refuses to try and explain algebraic geometry to me on the grounds the effort would be a waste of both our time.
My youngest bro is a Maths Prof. I've looked at some of his speciality stuff - kind of Tales Of Topological Oceans - and it's utterly utterly beyond my ken. And I did Maths at Imperial. Shows the gulf between "good at maths" and "mathematician". It's wider than the grand canyon.
57k mail ballots left in Washoe. (These are not necessarily good for the Dem) Press conference at 11:30 Nevada time to get outstanding ballot count in Clark. (These will be good for the Dem)
US betting. I should probably cash out now but am too busy at Kempton Park. Let's hope the market does not move away from me in the next two or three hours.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
A session of hard labour in the fields during the Cultural Revolution adds to the tale too.
Even in America, at the time of his first breakthrough, Zhang was an untenured lecturer at a second-rate university.
The good people of Wikipedia say Zhang is 67, an emphatic counter-example to the popular notion that mathematicians do their best work by 25 and are burnt out by 40.
He's going the Hokusai route:
"When I was fifty I had published a universe of designs. But all I have done before the age of seventy is not worth bothering with. At seventy-five I'll have learned something of the pattern of nature, of animals, of plants, of trees, birds, fish and insects. When I am eighty you will see real progress. At ninety I shall have cut my way deeply into the mystery of life itself. At one hundred, I shall be a marvellous artist. At 110, everything I create; a dot, a line, will jump to life as never before. To all of you who are going to live as long as I do, I promise to keep my word. I am writing this in my old age. I used to call myself Hokusai, but today I sign myself The Old Man Mad About Drawing."
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
They almost definitely will not get over 50%, it should be something like 49.5 vs 48.5 with 2% Libertarian to share about. A toss up run off. (Edit - its been indeed called as a run off by the looks of things) And Arizona is not yet a lock.
I’m sure Heathener was referring to the 50/50 Senate not 50% plus one to win Georgia.
I see Robert is now calling Nevada as likely GOP. I moved from calling Nevada certain GOP to probable GOP, and placed a bet on that considering I published my opinion. However, of the issues which have dominated this elections, inflation helping GOP, Women’s Rights helping Dems, as the remaining votes to be counted in Nevada are the high population area’s, where I anticipate a lot of younger, working, female identifying voters, abortion could play big with them this time, so splits could favour Dem a little more than anticipated, so I wouldn’t entirely rule out the Dem win in Nevada, and a majority Senate win.
I also wouldn’t bank on Warnock winning the run off, a lot can happen in a month to flip a tight race, such as the President vomiting into the Japanese Ambassadors lap, and as the Ambassador glances down they see the head of a Black Swan rise between their legs.
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
LOL, even funnier when saddo Tories are reduced to dragging up rubbish from almost 50 years ago.
Of course it’s always funny to remember that a majority of Tory MPs and MSPs voted against gay marriage much more recently when they and their fanbois start bleating about being a ‘progressive’ party.
Why on earth should a Conservative Party be Progressive? Economic and social liberalism may be the consensus now in the UK on the whole but of course there will be social conservatives in the Conservative Party opposed to social liberalism just as there will be socialists in the Labour Party opposed to capitalism and economic liberalism
Gay marriage as opposed to gay decriminalisation is neither progressive nor unprogressive.
At issue is whether 'marriage' means or should refer only to a particular relationship between one man and one woman or whether it can properly mean something else as well in law and custom. Both views are entirely arguable and rational; progress has nothing to say about it.
Marriage in origin is circularly defined: A marriage is a hetero partnership whose children are legitimate. What is a legitimate child? One born to a married couple. But there is nothing to stop us repurposing the concept once its original use has expired. Which it has, with the sole exception of the inheriting of titles.
You're giving us a link to a site which, *by definition*, operates on faith not objective testing.
There are massive potnetial complications from confounding factors - not least whether the marriage breakup and bad results for the children are due to some common factor such as poverty. That report is potentially full of them.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
Dobbs is an utter shitshow as far as legal or constitutional reasoning is concerned.
Was my sense, yes. Roe not flawless but better. However - sorry @Anabobazina - ianauscl.
If it looks like the Republicans are going to nick Nevada can someone explain to me why they're still at 3 with the Dems available at 1.45?
Why haven't punters reacted?
NYT and others saying 200K+ votes left to count, most from Clark and Washoe, who they think break to Cortez +40k to overturn the lead. but Laxalt's price has come in a point in last hour or so. Has been some debate on here today as to how many are actually still outstanding. I'm trying to find some timeline of the count in 2020 but even if I could it might not be much use here.
A true gamble then.
I've stuck £30 on Laxalt on the basis no-one knows (so his price might be value) and I'll be equally pissed off by a £150 loss to a £180 loss but will feel mildly pleased if I get it to a £85-90 loss only.
Not tempted to weigh in and get flat with the 1.14 available on the GOP taking the House?
When I checked an hour or so ago GOP taking the House was 1.07.
Drifted?
I'd probably have to throw a grand at it even at that price to close the gap.
I've been playing it like Nick Leeson trying to save Barings for the last 12 hours so don't want to dig a bigger hole if I can help it.
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
LOL, even funnier when saddo Tories are reduced to dragging up rubbish from almost 50 years ago.
Of course it’s always funny to remember that a majority of Tory MPs and MSPs voted against gay marriage much more recently when they and their fanbois start bleating about being a ‘progressive’ party.
Why on earth should a Conservative Party be Progressive? Economic and social liberalism may be the consensus now in the UK on the whole but of course there will be social conservatives in the Conservative Party opposed to social liberalism just as there will be socialists in the Labour Party opposed to capitalism and economic liberalism
Gay marriage as opposed to gay decriminalisation is neither progressive nor unprogressive.
At issue is whether 'marriage' means or should refer only to a particular relationship between one man and one woman or whether it can properly mean something else as well in law and custom. Both views are entirely arguable and rational; progress has nothing to say about it.
Marriage in origin is circularly defined: A marriage is a hetero partnership whose children are legitimate. What is a legitimate child? One born to a married couple. But there is nothing to stop us repurposing the concept once its original use has expired. Which it has, with the sole exception of the inheriting of titles.
You're giving us a link to a site which, *by definition*, operates on faith not objective testing.
There are massive potnetial complications from confounding factors - not least whether the marriage breakup and bad results for the children are due to some common factor such as poverty. That report is potentially full of them.
I like reading about mathematics on wikipedia as no matter how I try I cannot grasp the fundamental concepts they attempt to describe in plain terms.
You are not alone in that. My son did a maths degree, and refuses to try and explain algebraic geometry to me on the grounds the effort would be a waste of both our time.
It’s 50/50 whether that’s true or whether he just forgot it all the minute he left the exam hall and squeaked a pass in the tricky module. See my relationship with Quantum Mechanics as a student, or my current ability to retain anything I am told about the details of accounting standards, for details.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
That’s a very extreme view. You’re in favour of 38-week abortions?
Not ideally, but I'm not in favour of banning by law things I'm not in favour of either.
If someone wants to terminate a pregnancy at any time, until birth, that should be their prerogative. Its not a decision anyone should or would take lightly.
If you're saying the alternative to abortion is birth at that stage, as the baby is "viable" then that is OK in my eyes. What's not OK is making someone continue to carry a pregnancy against their will. Yet despite people claiming that pregnancies are viable at 24 weeks, does the NHS offer inductions at that stage? When my wife was pregnant with our second daughter we had to wait until 42 weeks before we could get an induction.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
They almost definitely will not get over 50%, it should be something like 49.5 vs 48.5 with 2% Libertarian to share about. A toss up run off. (Edit - its been indeed called as a run off by the looks of things) And Arizona is not yet a lock.
I’m sure Heathener was referring to the 50/50 Senate not 50% plus one to win Georgia.
I see Robert is now calling Nevada as likely GOP. I moved from calling Nevada certain GOP to probable GOP, and placed a bet on that considering I published my opinion. However, of the issues which have dominated this elections, inflation helping GOP, Women’s Rights helping Dems, as the remaining votes to be counted in Nevada are the high population area’s, where I anticipate a lot of younger, working, female identifying voters, abortion could play big with them this time, so splits could favour Dem a little more than anticipated, so I wouldn’t entirely rule out the Dem win in Nevada, and a majority Senate win.
I also wouldn’t bank on Warnock winning the run off, a lot can happen in a month to flip a tight race, such as the President vomiting into the Japanese Ambassadors lap, and as the Ambassador glances down they see the head of a Black Swan rise between their legs.
And on that surreal twist, I’ll serve dinner.
Hang on, I thought you'd mentally spent your winnings!
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
Dobbs is an utter shitshow as far as legal or constitutional reasoning is concerned.
So was Roe.
There should be a right to abortion. Pretending it was covered by "right to privacy" was always nonsense.
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
LOL, even funnier when saddo Tories are reduced to dragging up rubbish from almost 50 years ago.
Of course it’s always funny to remember that a majority of Tory MPs and MSPs voted against gay marriage much more recently when they and their fanbois start bleating about being a ‘progressive’ party.
Why on earth should a Conservative Party be Progressive? Economic and social liberalism may be the consensus now in the UK on the whole but of course there will be social conservatives in the Conservative Party opposed to social liberalism just as there will be socialists in the Labour Party opposed to capitalism and economic liberalism
Gay marriage as opposed to gay decriminalisation is neither progressive nor unprogressive.
At issue is whether 'marriage' means or should refer only to a particular relationship between one man and one woman or whether it can properly mean something else as well in law and custom. Both views are entirely arguable and rational; progress has nothing to say about it.
Marriage in origin is circularly defined: A marriage is a hetero partnership whose children are legitimate. What is a legitimate child? One born to a married couple. But there is nothing to stop us repurposing the concept once its original use has expired. Which it has, with the sole exception of the inheriting of titles.
You're giving us a link to a site which, *by definition*, operates on faith not objective testing.
There are massive potnetial complications from confounding factors - not least whether the marriage breakup and bad results for the children are due to some common factor such as poverty. That report is potentially full of them.
Confounders, HYUFD, and direction of causation. Very few professional footballers are one-legged. Does it follow that football is a valuable tool in the fight against one-leggedness?
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
LOL, even funnier when saddo Tories are reduced to dragging up rubbish from almost 50 years ago.
Of course it’s always funny to remember that a majority of Tory MPs and MSPs voted against gay marriage much more recently when they and their fanbois start bleating about being a ‘progressive’ party.
Why on earth should a Conservative Party be Progressive? Economic and social liberalism may be the consensus now in the UK on the whole but of course there will be social conservatives in the Conservative Party opposed to social liberalism just as there will be socialists in the Labour Party opposed to capitalism and economic liberalism
Gay marriage as opposed to gay decriminalisation is neither progressive nor unprogressive.
At issue is whether 'marriage' means or should refer only to a particular relationship between one man and one woman or whether it can properly mean something else as well in law and custom. Both views are entirely arguable and rational; progress has nothing to say about it.
Marriage in origin is circularly defined: A marriage is a hetero partnership whose children are legitimate. What is a legitimate child? One born to a married couple. But there is nothing to stop us repurposing the concept once its original use has expired. Which it has, with the sole exception of the inheriting of titles.
You're giving us a link to a site which, *by definition*, operates on faith not objective testing.
There are massive potnetial complications from confounding factors - not least whether the marriage breakup and bad results for the children are due to some common factor such as poverty. That report is potentially full of them.
Another organization which by definition promotes marriage.
"Testimony is like an arrow shot from a long bow; the force of it depends on the strength of the hand that draws it. Argument is like an arrow from a crossbow, which has equal force though shot by a child." - Samuel Johnson
This morning in Seattle yours truly witnessed the Crack of Dawn - a thin wedge of red outlining the jagged line of the Cascade range about thirty miles east. Which as I walked grew lighter and wider, in the clear, cold, early air of a bright Fall day.
Walking back to my humble abode, from my not-so-humble coffee shop, day was fully dawned. While I couldn't yet see the sun, the Cascades were in still-hazy view to the east. Ando the west, the Olympic Mountains stood out clear as a bell, capped with this weekend's snow.
And seemingly above the Olympic peaks, a band of clouds, parallel to earth (so to speak) probably hundreds of feet, maybe even more, and clearly miles long - floating in the sky (there was virtually zero wind) oriented north/south above the long fjord that is Puget Sound.
AND higher in the west than the water and the mountains and the clouds - a bright full moon.
That ain’t nothing. We got Swanage aligned with grid north, true north AND magnetic north.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
What an amazing life story.
*And he is 67*. At Oxford or Cambridge he would be retiring.
It is incredibly unusual for a 67-year old to make a really creative contribution to mathematics. Because mathematics research is a youngster's game.
E.g., Newton did nothing much after his 37th birthday, Gauss after his 40th.
As a pedant I must point out that Newton went on to busy himself with some viral reforms at the Royal Mint into his 60s, which he really did drive himself by all accounts.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
I like reading about mathematics on wikipedia as no matter how I try I cannot grasp the fundamental concepts they attempt to describe in plain terms.
You are not alone in that. My son did a maths degree, and refuses to try and explain algebraic geometry to me on the grounds the effort would be a waste of both our time.
My youngest bro is a Maths Prof. I've looked at some of his speciality stuff - kind of Tales Of Topological Oceans - and it's utterly utterly beyond my ken. And I did Maths at Imperial. Shows the gulf between "good at maths" and "mathematician". It's wider than the grand canyon.
A friend who is an economist relates that economics study now is 87% maths. And the maths is formidable.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
What an amazing life story.
*And he is 67*. At Oxford or Cambridge he would be retiring.
It is incredibly unusual for a 67-year old to make a really creative contribution to mathematics. Because mathematics research is a youngster's game.
E.g., Newton did nothing much after his 37th birthday, Gauss after his 40th.
As a pedant I must point out that Newton went on to busy himself with some viral reforms at the Royal Mint into his 60s, which he really did drive himself by all accounts.
TBF that's admin is it not? Rather than cutting edge (no pun intended) research?
Incidentally it is pretty fucking rich for Nate Silver to attack people for going off "vibes" when the Deluxe 538 model (the one the gets promoted on their site) literally has a Vibes component to it, I'm sorry "Expert Judgement" applied to the result.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
That’s a very extreme view. You’re in favour of 38-week abortions?
Not ideally, but I'm not in favour of banning by law things I'm not in favour of either.
If someone wants to terminate a pregnancy at any time, until birth, that should be their prerogative. Its not a decision anyone should or would take lightly.
If you're saying the alternative to abortion is birth at that stage, as the baby is "viable" then that is OK in my eyes. What's not OK is making someone continue to carry a pregnancy against their will. Yet despite people claiming that pregnancies are viable at 24 weeks, does the NHS offer inductions at that stage? When my wife was pregnant with our second daughter we had to wait until 42 weeks before we could get an induction.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Well said. You put it better than I could.
I would suggest that once you have passed the point where the unborn child could survive outside the womb with medical attention and grow to normal maturity, then (unless it would risk the life of the mother or the child has one of a number of identifiable medical conditions) a woman wanting a late term abortion should instead be offered a caesarean and, if she does not wish to keep it, then the child be taken into care.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
That’s a very extreme view. You’re in favour of 38-week abortions?
Not ideally, but I'm not in favour of banning by law things I'm not in favour of either.
If someone wants to terminate a pregnancy at any time, until birth, that should be their prerogative. Its not a decision anyone should or would take lightly.
If you're saying the alternative to abortion is birth at that stage, as the baby is "viable" then that is OK in my eyes. What's not OK is making someone continue to carry a pregnancy against their will. Yet despite people claiming that pregnancies are viable at 24 weeks, does the NHS offer inductions at that stage? When my wife was pregnant with our second daughter we had to wait until 42 weeks before we could get an induction.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Well said. You put it better than I could.
I think we collectively tell ourselves a fairy story about 24 weeks in this country not because we have really thought about it since the 60s, but because we collectively don’t want to reopen a debate on abortion, and the current system mostly works fine. We all know banning abortion would be awful, and we all know that to have it requires some sort of limit as a compromise or we’ll lose it, so we leave it well alone and let clinicians do their thing.
If it looks like the Republicans are going to nick Nevada can someone explain to me why they're still at 3 with the Dems available at 1.45?
Why haven't punters reacted?
NYT and others saying 200K+ votes left to count, most from Clark and Washoe, who they think break to Cortez +40k to overturn the lead. but Laxalt's price has come in a point in last hour or so. Has been some debate on here today as to how many are actually still outstanding. I'm trying to find some timeline of the count in 2020 but even if I could it might not be much use here.
A true gamble then.
I've stuck £30 on Laxalt on the basis no-one knows (so his price might be value) and I'll be equally pissed off by a £150 loss to a £180 loss but will feel mildly pleased if I get it to a £85-90 loss only.
Not tempted to weigh in and get flat with the 1.14 available on the GOP taking the House?
When I checked an hour or so ago GOP taking the House was 1.07.
Drifted?
I'd probably have to throw a grand at it even at that price to close the gap.
I've been playing it like Nick Leeson trying to save Barings for the last 12 hours so don't want to dig a bigger hole if I can help it.
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
They almost definitely will not get over 50%, it should be something like 49.5 vs 48.5 with 2% Libertarian to share about. A toss up run off. (Edit - its been indeed called as a run off by the looks of things) And Arizona is not yet a lock.
I’m sure Heathener was referring to the 50/50 Senate not 50% plus one to win Georgia.
I see Robert is now calling Nevada as likely GOP. I moved from calling Nevada certain GOP to probable GOP, and placed a bet on that considering I published my opinion. However, of the issues which have dominated this elections, inflation helping GOP, Women’s Rights helping Dems, as the remaining votes to be counted in Nevada are the high population area’s, where I anticipate a lot of younger, working, female identifying voters, abortion could play big with them this time, so splits could favour Dem a little more than anticipated, so I wouldn’t entirely rule out the Dem win in Nevada, and a majority Senate win.
I also wouldn’t bank on Warnock winning the run off, a lot can happen in a month to flip a tight race, such as the President vomiting into the Japanese Ambassadors lap, and as the Ambassador glances down they see the head of a Black Swan rise between their legs.
And on that surreal twist, I’ll serve dinner.
Hang on, I thought you'd mentally spent your winnings!
Hang loose, you're the won who called this a true gamble as you piled on.
Seems appropriate for a handle named Casino, giving the last throw of dice the “Full Nick Leeson against the market” on Las Vegas.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
I like reading about mathematics on wikipedia as no matter how I try I cannot grasp the fundamental concepts they attempt to describe in plain terms.
You are not alone in that. My son did a maths degree, and refuses to try and explain algebraic geometry to me on the grounds the effort would be a waste of both our time.
My youngest bro is a Maths Prof. I've looked at some of his speciality stuff - kind of Tales Of Topological Oceans - and it's utterly utterly beyond my ken. And I did Maths at Imperial. Shows the gulf between "good at maths" and "mathematician". It's wider than the grand canyon.
A friend who is an economist relates that economics study now is 87% maths. And the maths is formidable.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
What an amazing life story.
*And he is 67*. At Oxford or Cambridge he would be retiring.
It is incredibly unusual for a 67-year old to make a really creative contribution to mathematics. Because mathematics research is a youngster's game.
E.g., Newton did nothing much after his 37th birthday, Gauss after his 40th.
As a pedant I must point out that Newton went on to busy himself with some viral reforms at the Royal Mint into his 60s, which he really did drive himself by all accounts.
TBF that's admin is it not? Rather than cutting edge (no pun intended) research?
Depends on your point of view I suppose, but I think the vigour with which he dealt with “clipping” and the like took mental application and was an outlet for the man he was.
I generally agree with original point, I just think the odd exception like Newton is such a genius they are an exception.
P.S. I may have personal reasons for wanting to equate skilled leadership and administration with mathematical genius.
I like reading about mathematics on wikipedia as no matter how I try I cannot grasp the fundamental concepts they attempt to describe in plain terms.
You are not alone in that. My son did a maths degree, and refuses to try and explain algebraic geometry to me on the grounds the effort would be a waste of both our time.
My youngest bro is a Maths Prof. I've looked at some of his speciality stuff - kind of Tales Of Topological Oceans - and it's utterly utterly beyond my ken. And I did Maths at Imperial. Shows the gulf between "good at maths" and "mathematician". It's wider than the grand canyon.
A friend who is an economist relates that economics study now is 87% maths. And the maths is formidable.
It damages economics and is a waste of maths.
Well it just seems to be what it is now. I'm sure you know my friend if you're the type that heads off to the IMF.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
@Richard_Tyndall 's suggestion of a caesarean offer is not unreasonable to me, but until birth the father doesn't get to control the mother's body.
I like reading about mathematics on wikipedia as no matter how I try I cannot grasp the fundamental concepts they attempt to describe in plain terms.
You are not alone in that. My son did a maths degree, and refuses to try and explain algebraic geometry to me on the grounds the effort would be a waste of both our time.
My youngest bro is a Maths Prof. I've looked at some of his speciality stuff - kind of Tales Of Topological Oceans - and it's utterly utterly beyond my ken. And I did Maths at Imperial. Shows the gulf between "good at maths" and "mathematician". It's wider than the grand canyon.
A friend who is an economist relates that economics study now is 87% maths. And the maths is formidable.
It damages economics and is a waste of maths.
Well it just seems to be what it is now. I'm sure you know my friend if you're the type that heads off to the IMF.
Incidentally it is pretty fucking rich for Nate Silver to attack people for going off "vibes" when the Deluxe 538 model (the one the gets promoted on their site) literally has a Vibes component to it, I'm sorry "Expert Judgement" applied to the result.
Sometimes I wonder if Nate Silver did not just get lucky first time out in 2008, and has since spun some inspired guesswork into a career. (Probably not, tbf.)
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
What an amazing life story.
*And he is 67*. At Oxford or Cambridge he would be retiring.
It is incredibly unusual for a 67-year old to make a really creative contribution to mathematics. Because mathematics research is a youngster's game.
E.g., Newton did nothing much after his 37th birthday, Gauss after his 40th.
As a pedant I must point out that Newton went on to busy himself with some viral reforms at the Royal Mint into his 60s, which he really did drive himself by all accounts.
TBF that's admin is it not? Rather than cutting edge (no pun intended) research?
Depends on your point of view I suppose, but I think the vigour with which he dealt with “clipping” and the like took mental application and was an outlet for the man he was.
I generally agree with original point, I just think the odd exception like Newton is such a genius there are an exception.
P.S. I may have personal reasons for wanting to equate skilled leadership and administration with mathematical genius.
I once took a look into the religious beliefs of your genius, and came to the conclusion he was bloody weird.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
What is she the mother of? And if she is the mother, then what about the father, whose input was vital in the process. He has in one respect lent her the baby.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
What an amazing life story.
*And he is 67*. At Oxford or Cambridge he would be retiring.
It is incredibly unusual for a 67-year old to make a really creative contribution to mathematics. Because mathematics research is a youngster's game.
E.g., Newton did nothing much after his 37th birthday, Gauss after his 40th.
As a pedant I must point out that Newton went on to busy himself with some viral reforms at the Royal Mint into his 60s, which he really did drive himself by all accounts.
Sure, he was a fairly quarrelsome Master & Warden of the Royal Mint.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".
And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
They almost definitely will not get over 50%, it should be something like 49.5 vs 48.5 with 2% Libertarian to share about. A toss up run off. (Edit - its been indeed called as a run off by the looks of things) And Arizona is not yet a lock.
I’m sure Heathener was referring to the 50/50 Senate not 50% plus one to win Georgia.
I see Robert is now calling Nevada as likely GOP. I moved from calling Nevada certain GOP to probable GOP, and placed a bet on that considering I published my opinion. However, of the issues which have dominated this elections, inflation helping GOP, Women’s Rights helping Dems, as the remaining votes to be counted in Nevada are the high population area’s, where I anticipate a lot of younger, working, female identifying voters, abortion could play big with them this time, so splits could favour Dem a little more than anticipated, so I wouldn’t entirely rule out the Dem win in Nevada, and a majority Senate win.
I also wouldn’t bank on Warnock winning the run off, a lot can happen in a month to flip a tight race, such as the President vomiting into the Japanese Ambassadors lap, and as the Ambassador glances down they see the head of a Black Swan rise between their legs.
And on that surreal twist, I’ll serve dinner.
Hang on, I thought you'd mentally spent your winnings!
Hang loose, you're the won who called this a true gamble as you piled on.
Seems appropriate for a handle named Casino, giving the last throw of dice the “Full Nick Leeson against the market” on Las Vegas.
I like to think of myself as Daniel Craig defeating Le Chiffre, if I'm honest, but Nick Leeson is sometimes more accurate.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".
And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
Indeed. Once you get on to "basic [and therefore immutable] human rights" you get on to eternal truths and @HYUFD can tell you where that leads. Yes that's right - straight to Vatican City and the Word of god.
57k mail ballots left in Washoe. (These are not necessarily good for the Dem) Press conference at 11:30 Nevada time to get outstanding ballot count in Clark. (These will be good for the Dem)
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
OT. I thought PMQ's were interesting. I'm not sure that attacks on Sunak's wealth are a good idea. It suggested a thought out attack line which under the circumstances seemed unnecessary.
Starmer's got so much material using things Sunak's screwed up on he doesn't need to go after the personal stuff. I also think the kind of voters who might be impressed by this line of attack are ones that I'm hoping Labour can live without.
Red Wall Brexiteers.
The impossible dream, Roger. Regaining the "Red Wall" is at the heart of Starmer's path to power. It's all plotted out. Do not offend floating voters generally but above all make sure those seats lost in 2019 come back.
The problem with the Tory Red Wall voters is that they're really UKIPers. That's a long way from the middle ground that Starmer was claiming he'd pitched his tent on. I'm sure that after the experience of the last six years the country are now miles away from this dysfunctional Tory Party who most people now regard as a bunch of freaks.
So it's now for Starmer to set the narrative and to describe where HIS middle ground is. He's done everything right so far but he's got to resist trying to be everything to everyone. The public want a serious party with decent values. We've now seen the Tories from every angle and they're the most disgusting version most of us have seen. Starmer will never have a better time to set his direction
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".
And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
It's a genuine conundrum. I tend to take Kinabalu's view (unsurprising as he's basically right about everything). The idea that people's freedoms could just be taken away at the whim of some rabble rousing politician is really repulsive to me. Ultimately the decision has to be democratic but it shouldn't be easy or quick. Whipping up the majority to shit all over the rights of a minority is just too easy, and by the time the wrong is righted it might simply be too late.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".
And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
Not beyond democracy. Just enshrined to the max. Objective - very hard to change.
I like reading about mathematics on wikipedia as no matter how I try I cannot grasp the fundamental concepts they attempt to describe in plain terms.
You are not alone in that. My son did a maths degree, and refuses to try and explain algebraic geometry to me on the grounds the effort would be a waste of both our time.
My youngest bro is a Maths Prof. I've looked at some of his speciality stuff - kind of Tales Of Topological Oceans - and it's utterly utterly beyond my ken. And I did Maths at Imperial. Shows the gulf between "good at maths" and "mathematician". It's wider than the grand canyon.
A friend who is an economist relates that economics study now is 87% maths. And the maths is formidable.
It damages economics and is a waste of maths.
What should we be using the maths for?
(Plenty of my mathmo friends took umbrage at the very idea of using maths. Though I would have very much liked a general magic formula solution to cubic equations.)
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".
And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
Not beyond democracy. Just enshrined to the max. Objective - very hard to change.
You mean like Christ the Redeemer kind of objective?
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".
And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
It's a genuine conundrum. I tend to take Kinabalu's view (unsurprising as he's basically right about everything). The idea that people's freedoms could just be taken away at the whim of some rabble rousing politician is really repulsive to me. Ultimately the decision has to be democratic but it shouldn't be easy or quick. Whipping up the majority to shit all over the rights of a minority is just too easy, and by the time the wrong is righted it might simply be too late.
It shouldn't be easy or quick, but that's not his position which was 'as hard as possible', which suggests to be almost impossible, and thus not flexible enough, and ending up with people ignoring what is written and interpreting it however they like when morals and mores change.
It's very hard to pinpoint the ideal level of protection and procedural or legal hurdles vs a total free for all, but if it is so tough it is easier to ignore and reinterpret that's what will happen, it actually prevents sensible evolution.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
What an amazing life story.
*And he is 67*. At Oxford or Cambridge he would be retiring.
It is incredibly unusual for a 67-year old to make a really creative contribution to mathematics. Because mathematics research is a youngster's game.
E.g., Newton did nothing much after his 37th birthday, Gauss after his 40th.
As a pedant I must point out that Newton went on to busy himself with some viral reforms at the Royal Mint into his 60s, which he really did drive himself by all accounts.
TBF that's admin is it not? Rather than cutting edge (no pun intended) research?
Depends on your point of view I suppose, but I think the vigour with which he dealt with “clipping” and the like took mental application and was an outlet for the man he was.
I generally agree with original point, I just think the odd exception like Newton is such a genius there are an exception.
P.S. I may have personal reasons for wanting to equate skilled leadership and administration with mathematical genius.
I once took a look into the religious beliefs of your genius, and came to the conclusion he was bloody weird.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
What an amazing life story.
*And he is 67*. At Oxford or Cambridge he would be retiring.
It is incredibly unusual for a 67-year old to make a really creative contribution to mathematics. Because mathematics research is a youngster's game.
E.g., Newton did nothing much after his 37th birthday, Gauss after his 40th.
As a pedant I must point out that Newton went on to busy himself with some viral reforms at the Royal Mint into his 60s, which he really did drive himself by all accounts.
TBF that's admin is it not? Rather than cutting edge (no pun intended) research?
Depends on your point of view I suppose, but I think the vigour with which he dealt with “clipping” and the like took mental application and was an outlet for the man he was.
I generally agree with original point, I just think the odd exception like Newton is such a genius there are an exception.
P.S. I may have personal reasons for wanting to equate skilled leadership and administration with mathematical genius.
I once took a look into the religious beliefs of your genius, and came to the conclusion he was bloody weird.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Lol. It's Nevada. They are probably already on a break.
Few hands of 'jack in the casino with a breakfast bap
someone's hoovered up the £1k at 3.5 on Laxalt.
Well, if it comes back I'm tempted to shovel some in myself as £50 could dig me out of most of my hole.
How sure are we?
Not sure at all.
It's entirely possible that the remaining 25% breaks with a 12 point gap to Cortez Masto.
However, the current odds make the Democrats clear favorites, and I would suggest that the Republicans should be narrow favorites.
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
They almost definitely will not get over 50%, it should be something like 49.5 vs 48.5 with 2% Libertarian to share about. A toss up run off. (Edit - its been indeed called as a run off by the looks of things) And Arizona is not yet a lock.
Walker benefited from Kemp being on the ticket, and even with that, Warnock had the lead.
So I'd make the Democrats the favorites in any run off.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The fundamental right is for voters and legislators to decide difficult issues, not a false reading of a constitution or a court.
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Not my view. As explained above I think basic human rights - which this one is imo - should be enshrined in a manner that makes it as hard as possible for politicians to remove them.
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
Problem is, if everyone disagrees on the list of what is a "basic" human right, and therefore to be put beyond democracy, what do we choose? I can't see a good answer other than "none of them".
And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
Not beyond democracy. Just enshrined to the max. Objective - very hard to change.
You mean like Christ the Redeemer kind of objective?
No I don't.
Approach like this. Which is harder to change in America, state law, federal law, or the constitution?
Whatever the answer is - that's where a woman's right to bodily autonomy should reside.
I like reading about mathematics on wikipedia as no matter how I try I cannot grasp the fundamental concepts they attempt to describe in plain terms.
You are not alone in that. My son did a maths degree, and refuses to try and explain algebraic geometry to me on the grounds the effort would be a waste of both our time.
My youngest bro is a Maths Prof. I've looked at some of his speciality stuff - kind of Tales Of Topological Oceans - and it's utterly utterly beyond my ken. And I did Maths at Imperial. Shows the gulf between "good at maths" and "mathematician". It's wider than the grand canyon.
A friend who is an economist relates that economics study now is 87% maths. And the maths is formidable.
It damages economics and is a waste of maths.
What should we be using the maths for?
(Plenty of my mathmo friends took umbrage at the very idea of using maths. Though I would have very much liked a general magic formula solution to cubic equations.)
It should be used for doing more maths! And proper science. In economics it is almost never used in a useful way. About 90% of economics these days is pointless.
Comments
All the SCUSA has done is place the USA where the UK is - voters and lawmakers decide. Good. Gun laws next, please.
Bold.
https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/children-raised-by-married-parents-fare-better-the-research-proves-it/1182.article
*And he is 67*. At Oxford or Cambridge he would be retiring.
It is incredibly unusual for a 67-year old to make a really creative contribution to mathematics. Because mathematics research is a youngster's game.
E.g., Newton did nothing much after his 37th birthday, Gauss after his 40th.
Maybe it needed Leon to doubt her victory three times before a cock crowed to make it certain.
Until then, carry on.
The nuts and bolts can be very odd. I know two nice female academics who got married in absolutely trad full on bridal white, which looked bloody odd. Also new nomenclature would be good to replace husband/husband and wife/wife. I nearly bought a novel the other day by someone I was at school with, till I saw a reference in the bio blurb to his living in Rutland, or somewhere, with his "hubby."
This morning in Seattle yours truly witnessed the Crack of Dawn - a thin wedge of red outlining the jagged line of the Cascade range about thirty miles east. Which as I walked grew lighter and wider, in the clear, cold, early air of a bright Fall day.
Walking back to my humble abode, from my not-so-humble coffee shop, day was fully dawned. While I couldn't yet see the sun, the Cascades were in still-hazy view to the east. Ando the west, the Olympic Mountains stood out clear as a bell, capped with this weekend's snow.
And seemingly above the Olympic peaks, a band of clouds, parallel to earth (so to speak) probably hundreds of feet, maybe even more, and clearly miles long - floating in the sky (there was virtually zero wind) oriented north/south above the long fjord that is Puget Sound.
AND higher in the west than the water and the mountains and the clouds - a bright full moon.
There are massive potnetial complications from confounding factors - not least whether the marriage breakup and bad results for the children are due to some common factor such as poverty. That report is potentially full of them.
57k mail ballots left in Washoe. (These are not necessarily good for the Dem)
Press conference at 11:30 Nevada time to get outstanding ballot count in Clark. (These will be good for the Dem)
(Thread)
https://twitter.com/ColtonLochhead/status/1590401461183475714
"When I was fifty I had published a universe of designs. But all I have done before the age of seventy is not worth bothering with. At seventy-five I'll have learned something of the pattern of nature, of animals, of plants, of trees, birds, fish and insects. When I am eighty you will see real progress. At ninety I shall have cut my way deeply into the mystery of life itself. At one hundred, I shall be a marvellous artist. At 110, everything I create; a dot, a line, will jump to life as never before. To all of you who are going to live as long as I do, I promise to keep my word. I am writing this in my old age. I used to call myself Hokusai, but today I sign myself The Old Man Mad About Drawing."
I see Robert is now calling Nevada as likely GOP. I moved from calling Nevada certain GOP to probable GOP, and placed a bet on that considering I published my opinion. However, of the issues which have dominated this elections, inflation helping GOP, Women’s Rights helping Dems, as the remaining votes to be counted in Nevada are the high population area’s, where I anticipate a lot of younger, working, female identifying voters, abortion could play big with them this time, so splits could favour Dem a little more than anticipated, so I wouldn’t entirely rule out the Dem win in Nevada, and a majority Senate win.
I also wouldn’t bank on Warnock winning the run off, a lot can happen in a month to flip a tight race, such as the President vomiting into the Japanese Ambassadors lap, and as the Ambassador glances down they see the head of a Black Swan rise between their legs.
And on that surreal twist, I’ll serve dinner.
You are though, I think.
Drifted?
I'd probably have to throw a grand at it even at that price to close the gap.
I've been playing it like Nick Leeson trying to save Barings for the last 12 hours so don't want to dig a bigger hole if I can help it.
If someone wants to terminate a pregnancy at any time, until birth, that should be their prerogative. Its not a decision anyone should or would take lightly.
If you're saying the alternative to abortion is birth at that stage, as the baby is "viable" then that is OK in my eyes. What's not OK is making someone continue to carry a pregnancy against their will. Yet despite people claiming that pregnancies are viable at 24 weeks, does the NHS offer inductions at that stage? When my wife was pregnant with our second daughter we had to wait until 42 weeks before we could get an induction. Well said. You put it better than I could.
There should be a right to abortion. Pretending it was covered by "right to privacy" was always nonsense.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1590378464560828417?s=61&t=-Qsem5tDCyBfsPVOf3HLdQ
- Samuel Johnson
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
It's an exception to my other view that power should be devolved to the lowest level of accountability compatible with avoiding absurd inefficiencies.
Ooo this is getting a bit deep now, isn't it? But that's no bad thing sometimes. So long as we don't disappear up our backsides - which the abortion debate is prone to.
(yes, 1.14, back in a bit now)
Seems appropriate for a handle named Casino, giving the last throw of dice the “Full Nick Leeson against the market” on Las Vegas.
I generally agree with original point, I just think the odd exception like Newton is such a genius they are an exception.
P.S. I may have personal reasons for wanting to equate skilled leadership and administration with mathematical genius.
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1590413484595945472
Still a long way to go, to zero.
@Richard_Tyndall 's suggestion of a caesarean offer is not unreasonable to me, but until birth the father doesn't get to control the mother's body.
new thread innit
What a waste of the greatest mind of his age.
And even if we could agree on a limited, uncontroversial set, what happens as times change? Do we want to end up like America, pretending a document from 300 years ago is fundamental and having unelected judges argue over strict adherence to it or a modern interpretation, and risk legislating when they are unelected?
Neither are serious positions.
You’re smarter that that, @BartholomewRoberts
So it's now for Starmer to set the narrative and to describe where HIS middle ground is. He's done everything right so far but he's got to resist trying to be everything to everyone. The public want a serious party with decent values. We've now seen the Tories from every angle and they're the most disgusting version most of us have seen. Starmer will never have a better time to set his direction
(Plenty of my mathmo friends took umbrage at the very idea of using maths. Though I would have very much liked a general magic formula solution to cubic equations.)
It's very hard to pinpoint the ideal level of protection and procedural or legal hurdles vs a total free for all, but if it is so tough it is easier to ignore and reinterpret that's what will happen, it actually prevents sensible evolution.
It's entirely possible that the remaining 25% breaks with a 12 point gap to Cortez Masto.
However, the current odds make the Democrats clear favorites, and I would suggest that the Republicans should be narrow favorites.
So I'd make the Democrats the favorites in any run off.
Approach like this. Which is harder to change in America, state law, federal law, or the constitution?
Whatever the answer is - that's where a woman's right to bodily autonomy should reside.