From an Editors' Note in today's NYT: "The Times's initial accounts attributed the claim of Israeli responsibility to Palestinian officials, and noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the blast. However, the early versions of the coverage -- and the prominence it received in a headline, news alert and social media channels -- relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified."
Well, that's a first step, but they need to go further. They could, for example, fire the editor responsible for that error. Then do a big article on how untrustworthy Hamas is.
(No link because this is from a print copy, but I imagine you can find the whole Note, with a quick search.)
From an Editors' Note in today's NYT: "The Times's initial accounts attributed the claim of Israeli responsibility to Palestinian officials, and noted that the Israeli military said it was investigating the blast. However, the early versions of the coverage -- and the prominence it received in a headline, news alert and social media channels -- relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified."
Well, that's a first step, but they need to go further. They could, for example, fire the editor responsible for that error. Then do a big article on how untrustworthy Hamas is.
(No link because this is from a print copy, but I imagine you can find the whole Note, with a quick search.)
AP (via Seattle Times) - Jenna Ellis becomes latest Trump lawyer to plead guilty over efforts to overturn Georgia’s election
ATLANTA (AP) — Attorney and prominent conservative media figure Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a felony charge over efforts to overturn Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss in Georgia, tearfully telling the judge she looks back on that time with “deep remorse.”
Ellis, the fourth defendant in the case to enter into a plea deal, was a vocal part of Trump’s reelection campaign in the last presidential cycle and was charged alongside the Republican former president and 17 others with violating the state’s anti-racketeering law.
Ellis pleaded guilty to one felony count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings. She had been facing charges of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and soliciting the violation of oath by a public officer, both felonies.
She rose to speak after pleading guilty, fighting back tears as she said she would have not have represented Trump after the 2020 election if she knew then what she knows now, claiming that she she relied on lawyers with much more experience than her and failed to verify the things they told her.
“What I did not do but should have done, Your Honor, was to make sure that the facts the other lawyers alleged to be true were in fact true,” the 38-year-old Ellis said.
I suspect everyone they wish to use against Trump will be offered (and accept) a plea bargain.
Leaving the final case to be all the original defendants offering evidence against Trump and Rudy...
Yet he is still the 2.9 fav for the WH. That price, for me, is one of the wonders of the world. I can sit looking at it for hours.
What can actually damage Trump electorally though? His supporters treat him as a god, and the independents dont like Biden or the direction of the country.
The only shifts I expect are for swing voters based on the economy and household finances, which could go either way. The rest is noise.
I'm taking a different view. I think it's not tenable (even in this crazy world) to have as a candidate for US president a guy who is likely going down for election fraud and racketeering, and I think this will dawn on enough people (and in time) such that come November he won't be on the ballot. I realize I'm almost alone on here with this but that's all the better so long as I'm right. And I really am confident about it. Maybe I shouldn't be but I am. We will see. The next year will be fascinating.
So no specific event? Just a general feeling of had enough?
Maybe an event. Or maybe that thing whereby something absurd (in this case Donald Trump back in the White House) finally starts to look absurd to a critical mass of people and then, kaboom, things change quite quickly. It can appear sudden even though it's been building for a while. I have a couple of mental images: emperor's new clothes, and the cartoon character who runs off a cliff and for a while stays in mid air, legs pumping, defying gravity before he succumbs to reality and falls. That's Trump for me, one of those.
There are lots of examples of unstable equilibriums, where things move quite quickly. If (a) a non-Trump figure were to emerge as the clear challenger, at the same time as (b) serious doubts being thrown onto Mr Trump's electability in the General, then yes, I could see someone else becoming the Republican nominee.
Right now, however, neither of those has happened.
I would suggest that Trumps tactics make (a) stable. As soon as anyone gets above 10% he calls them a rino and their popularity plateaus or dips encouraging those on 5% to keep carrying on.
While he does do that, he is not all powerful. Other people have agency, and it is far from impossible that Ms Haley - for example - manages to separate herself from the pack.
His greatest pillar of support is of course Biden. Given the Democrats seem keen on wheeling him out again (possibly literally) then Trump has to be a favourite in the rematch.
Trump as a president wasn't the disaster we imagined, and no doubt won't be the feared disaster next time. What he does though is totally undermine the whole apparatus of state in the US. (Biden is guilty of this too)
More ridiculous both-are-bad nonsense. How on Earth does Biden undermine the whole apparatus of the state? Biden is a conventional politician, who does conventional politics. Trump is a serial criminal who cares for nothing other than himself and who tried to overthrow Biden’s win in 2020.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Jenna Ellis becomes latest Trump lawyer to plead guilty over efforts to overturn Georgia’s election
ATLANTA (AP) — Attorney and prominent conservative media figure Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty on Tuesday to a felony charge over efforts to overturn Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss in Georgia, tearfully telling the judge she looks back on that time with “deep remorse.”
Ellis, the fourth defendant in the case to enter into a plea deal, was a vocal part of Trump’s reelection campaign in the last presidential cycle and was charged alongside the Republican former president and 17 others with violating the state’s anti-racketeering law.
Ellis pleaded guilty to one felony count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings. She had been facing charges of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and soliciting the violation of oath by a public officer, both felonies.
She rose to speak after pleading guilty, fighting back tears as she said she would have not have represented Trump after the 2020 election if she knew then what she knows now, claiming that she she relied on lawyers with much more experience than her and failed to verify the things they told her.
“What I did not do but should have done, Your Honor, was to make sure that the facts the other lawyers alleged to be true were in fact true,” the 38-year-old Ellis said.
I suspect everyone they wish to use against Trump will be offered (and accept) a plea bargain.
Leaving the final case to be all the original defendants offering evidence against Trump and Rudy...
Yet he is still the 2.9 fav for the WH. That price, for me, is one of the wonders of the world. I can sit looking at it for hours.
What can actually damage Trump electorally though? His supporters treat him as a god, and the independents dont like Biden or the direction of the country.
The only shifts I expect are for swing voters based on the economy and household finances, which could go either way. The rest is noise.
I'm taking a different view. I think it's not tenable (even in this crazy world) to have as a candidate for US president a guy who is likely going down for election fraud and racketeering, and I think this will dawn on enough people (and in time) such that come November he won't be on the ballot. I realize I'm almost alone on here with this but that's all the better so long as I'm right. And I really am confident about it. Maybe I shouldn't be but I am. We will see. The next year will be fascinating.
So no specific event? Just a general feeling of had enough?
Maybe an event. Or maybe that thing whereby something absurd (in this case Donald Trump back in the White House) finally starts to look absurd to a critical mass of people and then, kaboom, things change quite quickly. It can appear sudden even though it's been building for a while. I have a couple of mental images: emperor's new clothes, and the cartoon character who runs off a cliff and for a while stays in mid air, legs pumping, defying gravity before he succumbs to reality and falls. That's Trump for me, one of those.
There are lots of examples of unstable equilibriums, where things move quite quickly. If (a) a non-Trump figure were to emerge as the clear challenger, at the same time as (b) serious doubts being thrown onto Mr Trump's electability in the General, then yes, I could see someone else becoming the Republican nominee.
Right now, however, neither of those has happened.
I would suggest that Trumps tactics make (a) stable. As soon as anyone gets above 10% he calls them a rino and their popularity plateaus or dips encouraging those on 5% to keep carrying on.
While he does do that, he is not all powerful. Other people have agency, and it is far from impossible that Ms Haley - for example - manages to separate herself from the pack.
His greatest pillar of support is of course Biden. Given the Democrats seem keen on wheeling him out again (possibly literally) then Trump has to be a favourite in the rematch.
Trump as a president wasn't the disaster we imagined, and no doubt won't be the feared disaster next time. What he does though is totally undermine the whole apparatus of state in the US. (Biden is guilty of this too)
More ridiculous both-are-bad nonsense. How on Earth does Biden undermine the whole apparatus of the state? Biden is a conventional politician, who does conventional politics. Trump is a serial criminal who cares for nothing other than himself and who tried to overthrow Biden’s win in 2020.
Another reason rural areas are unhappy with the Democrats: "More than 100 rural hospitals have shuttered nationwide over the past two decades, with at least nine closures announced this year alone, according to tracking by the North Carolina Rural Health Research Program.
The Rural Emergency Hospital designation seeks to curb those closures by offering struggling critical access hospitals or rural hospitals with fewer than 50 beds an additional 5 percent for their covered outpatient services. Hospitals that convert can also receive monthly facilities payments that add up to more than $3 million each year." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/23/rural-emergency-hospitals-try-find-their-footing/
Some years ago, I saw a description of a study by Carnegie-Mellon researchers which found that Obamacare was responsible for the closing of many rural hospitals. There are now parts of the US where the closest hospital is hours away.
Who’da thought it, Gothenburg is a really nice place.
People seem happy and friendly, great cafes, a wonderful food market, clean, tidy, infrastructure that works.
Off to Oslo tomorrow.
I spent a good amount of time (several stretches of a month or more) working in both Gothenburg and Stockholm about ten years ago. Stockholm is stunnngly lovely in the centre, but Gothenburg always struck me as the friendlier place with several hidden gems. Has a really interesting little portrait gallery, too.
Courthouse News Service - Abortion, parents’ rights and Youngkin’s tactics take center stage as purple Virginia votes for legislature
Redistricting has mobilized voters and shifted the political landscape, offering opportunities for new leaders to emerge — and for new control of the General Assembly.
RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — Hot-button national issues and redistricting are turning the nation's eyes on Virginia, with all 140 of the state's General Assembly seats up for grabs in November. . . .
After a Democratic trifecta in 2020, Republicans gained control of the House of Delegates, the lower body of the legislature, and Republican Glenn Youngkin beat the incumbent governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, in the 2021 elections.
Democrats have controlled the Senate since 2020 and acted as a brick wall stopping Republican-backed legislation from reaching Youngkin's desk. . . .
Over 300,000 Virginians have already cast their ballots. Meagher said as Virginia's elections become more nationalized, voters who might have skipped an off-year election in the past are heading to the polls.
Nationally watched issues are playing a big part in many races.
New Senate District 16, encompassing parts of suburban Richmond's Henrico County, is contested between incumbent Republican Senator Siobhan Dunnavant and Democratic Delegate Schuyler VanValkenburg. . . .
Most of the new House District 97 in Virginia Beach voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 but opted to support Youngkin in 2021. A young Democratic challenger, Michael Feggans, 40, is taking on GOP incumbent Delegate Karen Greenhalgh, with each pulling in more than $1.8 million in donations. . . .
A poll from Christopher Newport University found that only 24 percent of likely voters supported abortion restrictions. . . .
Democrats' control of the Senate over the last two sessions has complicated Youngkin's time in office. After extensive negotiations, he signed a much-delayed budget that both parties chalked up as a win for their side. The agreement provided one-time state tax rebates to Virginians, increased the standard deduction and issued raises for teachers and state employees.
Youngkin hopes a Republican trifecta can deliver the type of legislation he campaigned on. Youngkin has flirted with national ambitions since he came to Richmond, but Caughell said a decisive Democratic victory this November could turn Republican donors off of his approach. . . .
The SCOTUS has placed USA states in the same position as in the UK: it's a matter for voters and legislators. Voters who disagree with what their state has done know exactly what to do about it. The row is somewhat confected and overdone.
The SCOTUS should of course do the same with guns, where only a perverse reading of the constitution allows the present malign set up.
Should they do the same with slavery? (Obviously not but I am pointing out the flaw in that thinking)
No strong views on that, and no idea if slavery is specifically outlawed by the USA constitution. In the UK it is a matter for voters and legislators, as is the legalisation of torturing children for fun (currently, happily illegal).
Abortion both in principle and in detail is a profoundly contested matter among serious people; slavery isn't. As in the UK it should be a matter for voters and legislators.
Yes. Look at America. Look at serious ethicists across the world. Look at the various views there are on what constitutes proper justification, and at what term in a pregnancy, for termination.
This renders the UK view - that it is for voters and legislators not courts and constitutions, to determine the matter for us - the best available. Same elsewhere. Not everywhere will turn out the same.
The SCOTUS has placed USA states in the same position as in the UK: it's a matter for voters and legislators. Voters who disagree with what their state has done know exactly what to do about it. The row is somewhat confected and overdone.
The SCOTUS should of course do the same with guns, where only a perverse reading of the constitution allows the present malign set up.
Should they do the same with slavery? (Obviously not but I am pointing out the flaw in that thinking)
No strong views on that, and no idea if slavery is specifically outlawed by the USA constitution. In the UK it is a matter for voters and legislators, as is the legalisation of torturing children for fun (currently, happily illegal).
Abortion both in principle and in detail is a profoundly contested matter among serious people; slavery isn't. As in the UK it should be a matter for voters and legislators.
There is more debate about the time limit however, even if the vast majority don't want to ban abortion completely they don't want abortion until birth either
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Orban does actualy participate in the organisation of Turkic states.
Hungary only participates as an Observer State.
Just like India is an Observer State of the Arab league.
Modern Hungarian ethnicity/identity/nationality does have Turkic elements, but Hungarian "Turianism" (see link below) is mostly/predominately a species of eastern-European hyper-nationalism.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Have you not paid attention?
Yitzhak Rabin, William Jefferson Clinton and Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini (aka Yasser Arafat) said that in 1993. Its part of what won the former and the latter the Nobel Peace Prize too.
Please find any Treaty, UNSC Resolution or otherwise dating after 1993 that affirms the 1967 borders as the border. I'm not aware of any.
Don't tell bondegezou about this nation. where abortion is almost totally illegal: "Abortion in Germany is illegal, but not punishable during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy under the condition of mandatory counseling, and it is permitted later in pregnancy in cases that the pregnancy poses an important danger to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. In the case that the abortion is because of rape it is legal in the first 12 weeks without mandatory counseling. Otherwise in the illegal, but not punishable case, the woman needs to receive counseling, called Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung ("pregnancy-conflict counseling"), at least three days prior to the abortion and must take place at a state-approved centre, which afterwards gives the applicant a Beratungsschein ("certificate of counseling"). Abortions that do not meet these conditions are punishable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany
A little sidebar to the history of the ARM chip.... another hidden landmark of that era (70s/early 80s) was the use of BCPL by Martin Richards. It was a programming language designed to write operating systems for computers and the BBC Micro's OS and languages were all written in BCPL.
But BCPL was the main inspiration for a language called B which did not work well, but the author's next turn of the wheel was called "C" and it was possibly the most important computer language ever written.
So that little group of Cambridge engineers and programmers literally designed and built the modern world behind the scenes and their work still influences everything we do today.
Wish we knew more about what's going on in China, so we could decide whether this is good news, bad news, or a mix: "China has removed Defense Minister Li Shangfu, who vanished from public view nearly two months ago, in the latest in a string of high-level purges of the Chinese military apparently related to an investigation into weapons procurement."
The SCOTUS has placed USA states in the same position as in the UK: it's a matter for voters and legislators. Voters who disagree with what their state has done know exactly what to do about it. The row is somewhat confected and overdone.
The SCOTUS should of course do the same with guns, where only a perverse reading of the constitution allows the present malign set up.
Should they do the same with slavery? (Obviously not but I am pointing out the flaw in that thinking)
No strong views on that, and no idea if slavery is specifically outlawed by the USA constitution. In the UK it is a matter for voters and legislators, as is the legalisation of torturing children for fun (currently, happily illegal).
Abortion both in principle and in detail is a profoundly contested matter among serious people; slavery isn't. As in the UK it should be a matter for voters and legislators.
Yes. Look at America. Look at serious ethicists across the world. Look at the various views there are on what constitutes proper justification, and at what term in a pregnancy, for termination.
This renders the UK view - that it is for voters and legislators not courts and constitutions, to determine the matter for us - the best available. Same elsewhere. Not everywhere will turn out the same.
I’m all for the matter being decided by votes and not constitutions. Secular democracies always decide on abortion being legal. It’s not an issue that’s profoundly contested in Great Britain.
The US is different. It’s very hard to see anything having any relationship to ethics coming out of the US anti-abortion movement.
Originally ARM was "Acorn's RISC Machine" a type of special low-power, high performance chip designed by Acorn Computers in Cambridge - the same Acorn that designed and built the BBC micro.
They wanted a successor chip to the 8 bit 6502 (a lovely chip with a great assembly language that was a delight to program in) but there was nothing on the market except the 68000 series (wound up in early Apples) or the ponderous Z8000 which was horrendous in terms of power consumption and cost.
So they designed their own chip. Very low power, very high performance. And nowadays it powers every smartphone on the planet.
You have a BBC micro in your pocket
It's a shame so many people in the UK are unaware of ARM's achievements.
Steve Furber, the designer of the original ARM1 processor, tells a story about the very first sample ARM chip they received for testing. He hooked the power input of the chip up to a ammeter so they could measure how much power it was consuming, and turned it on. The chip powered up... but the meter remained at zero.
When connecting the meter Furber had accidentally dislodged the chip's power connection. So the ARM processor was running without a power supply - it managed to work just using the tiny amounts of power it could pull in from the surrounding chips over data connections. At the time there was no other processor with power consumption anything like that low. Truly portable computing was born at that moment.
Of course, Acorn then took that amazingly efficient processor and stuck it into a desktop computer where power consumption was a complete irrelevance...
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Wish we knew more about what's going on in China, so we could decide whether this is good news, bad news, or a mix: "China has removed Defense Minister Li Shangfu, who vanished from public view nearly two months ago, in the latest in a string of high-level purges of the Chinese military apparently related to an investigation into weapons procurement."
It’s probably about removing anyone who might have a power base independent of Xi. Like all the other ones.
The SCOTUS has placed USA states in the same position as in the UK: it's a matter for voters and legislators. Voters who disagree with what their state has done know exactly what to do about it. The row is somewhat confected and overdone.
The SCOTUS should of course do the same with guns, where only a perverse reading of the constitution allows the present malign set up.
Should they do the same with slavery? (Obviously not but I am pointing out the flaw in that thinking)
No strong views on that, and no idea if slavery is specifically outlawed by the USA constitution. In the UK it is a matter for voters and legislators, as is the legalisation of torturing children for fun (currently, happily illegal).
Abortion both in principle and in detail is a profoundly contested matter among serious people; slavery isn't. As in the UK it should be a matter for voters and legislators.
There is more debate about the time limit however, even if the vast majority don't want to ban abortion completely they don't want abortion until birth either
The overwhelming majority of abortions take place early on. Very late abortions are extremely rare and only done in exceptional circumstances. People who talk about not wanting abortion until birth are trying to sway emotions and mislead about the reality of abortion, a safe and commonplace procedure that numerous people you know have had, because — guess what — they’re actually driven by some dodgy religious argument.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
Don't tell bondegezou about this nation. where abortion is almost totally illegal: "Abortion in Germany is illegal, but not punishable during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy under the condition of mandatory counseling, and it is permitted later in pregnancy in cases that the pregnancy poses an important danger to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. In the case that the abortion is because of rape it is legal in the first 12 weeks without mandatory counseling. Otherwise in the illegal, but not punishable case, the woman needs to receive counseling, called Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung ("pregnancy-conflict counseling"), at least three days prior to the abortion and must take place at a state-approved centre, which afterwards gives the applicant a Beratungsschein ("certificate of counseling"). Abortions that do not meet these conditions are punishable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany
There are 100,000 abortions in Germany a year. It’s technically illegal except for a whole bunch of situations, just as abortion is technically illegal in the UK except for a whole bunch of situations. In other words, safe abortion is readily available in Germany, as in the UK.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one. And one that is barely a century old, at that.
Originally ARM was "Acorn's RISC Machine" a type of special low-power, high performance chip designed by Acorn Computers in Cambridge - the same Acorn that designed and built the BBC micro.
They wanted a successor chip to the 8 bit 6502 (a lovely chip with a great assembly language that was a delight to program in) but there was nothing on the market except the 68000 series (wound up in early Apples) or the ponderous Z8000 which was horrendous in terms of power consumption and cost.
So they designed their own chip. Very low power, very high performance. And nowadays it powers every smartphone on the planet.
You have a BBC micro in your pocket
It's a shame so many people in the UK are unaware of ARM's achievements.
Steve Furber, the designer of the original ARM1 processor, tells a story about the very first sample ARM chip they received for testing. He hooked the power input of the chip up to a ammeter so they could measure how much power it was consuming, and turned it on. The chip powered up... but the meter remained at zero.
When connecting the meter Furber had accidentally dislodged the chip's power connection. So the ARM processor was running without a power supply - it managed to work just using the tiny amounts of power it could pull in from the surrounding chips over data connections. At the time there was no other processor with power consumption anything like that low. Truly portable computing was born at that moment.
Of course, Acorn then took that amazingly efficient processor and stuck it into a desktop computer where power consumption was a complete irrelevance...
And we let ARM be purchased by foreigners! Madness!!!
The govt should have bought a sizeable stake in ARM. It would be like getting free money...
Originally ARM was "Acorn's RISC Machine" a type of special low-power, high performance chip designed by Acorn Computers in Cambridge - the same Acorn that designed and built the BBC micro.
They wanted a successor chip to the 8 bit 6502 (a lovely chip with a great assembly language that was a delight to program in) but there was nothing on the market except the 68000 series (wound up in early Apples) or the ponderous Z8000 which was horrendous in terms of power consumption and cost.
So they designed their own chip. Very low power, very high performance. And nowadays it powers every smartphone on the planet.
You have a BBC micro in your pocket
It's a shame so many people in the UK are unaware of ARM's achievements.
Steve Furber, the designer of the original ARM1 processor, tells a story about the very first sample ARM chip they received for testing. He hooked the power input of the chip up to a ammeter so they could measure how much power it was consuming, and turned it on. The chip powered up... but the meter remained at zero.
When connecting the meter Furber had accidentally dislodged the chip's power connection. So the ARM processor was running without a power supply - it managed to work just using the tiny amounts of power it could pull in from the surrounding chips over data connections. At the time there was no other processor with power consumption anything like that low. Truly portable computing was born at that moment.
Of course, Acorn then took that amazingly efficient processor and stuck it into a desktop computer where power consumption was a complete irrelevance...
TBF, back in 1985/6 there were (relatively) few mobile devices that required battery power; and most of those would have required technical help Acorn could not give at the time - because they were trying to get to grips with it themselves. And the low power consumption was not a direct design aim, but an odd cost-reduction for manufacture.
Incidentally, AFAICR one of the first, if not the first, device outside Acorn to use an ARM was a chess computer. Later there was the Apple Newton, and the 3DO games console; both of which were not quite successful.
Although I would obviously like Acorn to get much of the credit for ARM's success, and much credit is due, I would give more to Robin Saxby, their first CEO. He was the one who turned a tech with potential into the world-leading company we see today.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
On the other hand, the Arab League nations combined have 13.4 million sq. km. (5.2 million sq. miles).
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
Boris Johnson has warned that the British government will not recognise any unilateral changes to Israel’s 1967 borders and suggested that proposals to annex territory on the West Bank ‘’will fail in their objective of securing borders and will be contrary to Israel’s own long-term interests."
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
But there isn't one for Ireland either - it had to give up NI to Great Britain. Not to NI.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
Wish we knew more about what's going on in China, so we could decide whether this is good news, bad news, or a mix: "China has removed Defense Minister Li Shangfu, who vanished from public view nearly two months ago, in the latest in a string of high-level purges of the Chinese military apparently related to an investigation into weapons procurement."
Perhaps THAT is why this guy has gone to China . . . armed for whatever . . .
Hong Kong Free Press - US Republican Senator Jeff Wilson arrested over carrying gun into Hong Kong, barred from leaving city
Jeff Wilson, a Washington state Republican senator, reportedly called the police on journalists who photographed him as he walked out of the courthouse on Monday.
Wilson, a Republican senator from Washington state, appeared at Shatin Magistrates’ Courts on Monday following his Saturday arrest. He was released on a cash bail of HK$20,000 and ordered to hand over his travel documents and not to leave Hong Kong, local media reported.
Sing Tao Daily reported that Wilson, as well as his wife and two men who were with him, got into an altercation with reporters who took photos of him as he was leaving the courthouse. The police were called, with Wilson’s group demanding reporters delete the photos saying Wilson had not consented to being photographed.
Police arrived on the scene to mediate, as Wilson and his wife threatened to photograph the reporters in retaliation.
Wilson is scheduled to appear at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts next Monday.
Carrying arms without a license is punishable by up to 14 years in jail and a fine of HK$100,000, but cases heard at magistrates courts see a maximum jail term of two years for a single offence.
Under the US Transportation Security Administration’s restrictions, firearms cannot be taken in carry-on bags on international or domestic flights. They can be checked in, but the carrier must ensure they are packed in a container and declared to the airline while checking in. . . .
Wilson announced last month that he would run for re-election.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
But there isn't one for Ireland either - it had to give up NI to Great Britain. Not to NI.
What's your point? Yes that makes NI part of the United Kingdom, which is settled international law.
The Israeli borders are not settled international law. The UNSC AFAIK respects the Oslo Accords at defining the borders as a matter for future negotiations, in the meantime there is a sort of legal limbo as Palestine does not exist (and never has) legally, and there's no defined border, and the last internationally recognised owners of the land have relinquished their claims.
Originally ARM was "Acorn's RISC Machine" a type of special low-power, high performance chip designed by Acorn Computers in Cambridge - the same Acorn that designed and built the BBC micro.
They wanted a successor chip to the 8 bit 6502 (a lovely chip with a great assembly language that was a delight to program in) but there was nothing on the market except the 68000 series (wound up in early Apples) or the ponderous Z8000 which was horrendous in terms of power consumption and cost.
So they designed their own chip. Very low power, very high performance. And nowadays it powers every smartphone on the planet.
You have a BBC micro in your pocket
It's a shame so many people in the UK are unaware of ARM's achievements.
Steve Furber, the designer of the original ARM1 processor, tells a story about the very first sample ARM chip they received for testing. He hooked the power input of the chip up to a ammeter so they could measure how much power it was consuming, and turned it on. The chip powered up... but the meter remained at zero.
When connecting the meter Furber had accidentally dislodged the chip's power connection. So the ARM processor was running without a power supply - it managed to work just using the tiny amounts of power it could pull in from the surrounding chips over data connections. At the time there was no other processor with power consumption anything like that low. Truly portable computing was born at that moment.
Of course, Acorn then took that amazingly efficient processor and stuck it into a desktop computer where power consumption was a complete irrelevance...
And we let ARM be purchased by foreigners! Madness!!!
The govt should have bought a sizeable stake in ARM. It would be like getting free money...
The Softbank sale kept me in beer and wine for a few years ...
Something I felt a little bad about; I was against the deal, but did well out of it.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Although I would obviously like Acorn to get much of the credit for ARM's success, and much credit is due, I would give more to Robin Saxby, their first CEO. He was the one who turned a tech with potential into the world-leading company we see today.
Agreed. ARM had excellent technology, but it was far-sighted management and the adoption of an innovative business model that ensured success.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
But there isn't one for Ireland either - it had to give up NI to Great Britain. Not to NI.
What's your point? Yes that makes NI part of the United Kingdom, which is settled international law.
The Israeli borders are not settled international law. The UNSC AFAIK respects the Oslo Accords at defining the borders as a matter for future negotiations, in the meantime there is a sort of legal limbo as Palestine does not exist (and never has) legally, and there's no defined border, and the last internationally recognised owners of the land have relinquished their claims.
Palestine DOES exist. Jordan gave up its claim in 1988 in favour of the Palestinians.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
But there isn't one for Ireland either - it had to give up NI to Great Britain. Not to NI.
What's your point? Yes that makes NI part of the United Kingdom, which is settled international law.
The Israeli borders are not settled international law. The UNSC AFAIK respects the Oslo Accords at defining the borders as a matter for future negotiations, in the meantime there is a sort of legal limbo as Palestine does not exist (and never has) legally, and there's no defined border, and the last internationally recognised owners of the land have relinquished their claims.
Palestine DOES exist. Jordan gave up its claim in 1988 in favour of the Palestinians.
No, it does not.
The UK does not recognise it, nor does the USA, nor does the UNSC.
It doesn't matter how many UNGA members recognise something, that does not make it real or law.
To quote Abba Eban again: If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.
But the way the UN works, is only the UNSC can pass binding resolutions so if that 13 includes any of the USA, UK, France, China or Russia then the resolution has been defeated legally. Since there are three permanent members that don't recognise Palestine, it does not exist.
The Madagascar proposal is implemented in (one of the timelines) in |Christopher Priest's novel 'The Separation.' This is very much a background item, but it is indicated that the Jewish state established there is, in the present day, experiencing problems from Madagascan natives resisting the expropriation of their homeland.
The Madagascar proposal is implemented in (one of the timelines) in |Christopher Priest's novel 'The Separation.' This is very much a background item, but it is indicated that the Jewish state established there is, in the present day, experiencing problems from Madagascan natives resisting the expropriation of their homeland.
The Yiddish Policemen's Union is a 2007 novel by American author Michael Chabon.[1] The novel is a detective story set in an alternative history version of the present day, based on the premise that during World War II, a temporary settlement for Jewish refugees was established in Sitka, Alaska, in 1941, and that the fledgling State of Israel was destroyed in 1948. The novel is set in Sitka, which it depicts as a large, Yiddish-speaking metropolis.
Tlingit Alaska Natives [are close neighbors] and there has been a history of friction between the Jews and the Tlingit, but also of intermarriage and cross-cultural contact; one of the novel's characters, Berko Shemets, is half Jewish, half Tlingit.
SSI - btw Tlingit is pronounced (something like) "Klink-it".
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
Originally ARM was "Acorn's RISC Machine" a type of special low-power, high performance chip designed by Acorn Computers in Cambridge - the same Acorn that designed and built the BBC micro.
They wanted a successor chip to the 8 bit 6502 (a lovely chip with a great assembly language that was a delight to program in) but there was nothing on the market except the 68000 series (wound up in early Apples) or the ponderous Z8000 which was horrendous in terms of power consumption and cost.
So they designed their own chip. Very low power, very high performance. And nowadays it powers every smartphone on the planet.
You have a BBC micro in your pocket
It's a shame so many people in the UK are unaware of ARM's achievements.
Steve Furber, the designer of the original ARM1 processor, tells a story about the very first sample ARM chip they received for testing. He hooked the power input of the chip up to a ammeter so they could measure how much power it was consuming, and turned it on. The chip powered up... but the meter remained at zero.
When connecting the meter Furber had accidentally dislodged the chip's power connection. So the ARM processor was running without a power supply - it managed to work just using the tiny amounts of power it could pull in from the surrounding chips over data connections. At the time there was no other processor with power consumption anything like that low. Truly portable computing was born at that moment.
Of course, Acorn then took that amazingly efficient processor and stuck it into a desktop computer where power consumption was a complete irrelevance...
TBF, back in 1985/6 there were (relatively) few mobile devices that required battery power; and most of those would have required technical help Acorn could not give at the time - because they were trying to get to grips with it themselves. And the low power consumption was not a direct design aim, but an odd cost-reduction for manufacture.
Incidentally, AFAICR one of the first, if not the first, device outside Acorn to use an ARM was a chess computer. Later there was the Apple Newton, and the 3DO games console; both of which were not quite successful.
Although I would obviously like Acorn to get much of the credit for ARM's success, and much credit is due, I would give more to Robin Saxby, their first CEO. He was the one who turned a tech with potential into the world-leading company we see today.
I had a Newton. Totally useless, but a lovely thing.
Originally ARM was "Acorn's RISC Machine" a type of special low-power, high performance chip designed by Acorn Computers in Cambridge - the same Acorn that designed and built the BBC micro.
They wanted a successor chip to the 8 bit 6502 (a lovely chip with a great assembly language that was a delight to program in) but there was nothing on the market except the 68000 series (wound up in early Apples) or the ponderous Z8000 which was horrendous in terms of power consumption and cost.
So they designed their own chip. Very low power, very high performance. And nowadays it powers every smartphone on the planet.
You have a BBC micro in your pocket
It's a shame so many people in the UK are unaware of ARM's achievements.
Steve Furber, the designer of the original ARM1 processor, tells a story about the very first sample ARM chip they received for testing. He hooked the power input of the chip up to a ammeter so they could measure how much power it was consuming, and turned it on. The chip powered up... but the meter remained at zero.
When connecting the meter Furber had accidentally dislodged the chip's power connection. So the ARM processor was running without a power supply - it managed to work just using the tiny amounts of power it could pull in from the surrounding chips over data connections. At the time there was no other processor with power consumption anything like that low. Truly portable computing was born at that moment.
Of course, Acorn then took that amazingly efficient processor and stuck it into a desktop computer where power consumption was a complete irrelevance...
TBF, back in 1985/6 there were (relatively) few mobile devices that required battery power; and most of those would have required technical help Acorn could not give at the time - because they were trying to get to grips with it themselves. And the low power consumption was not a direct design aim, but an odd cost-reduction for manufacture.
Incidentally, AFAICR one of the first, if not the first, device outside Acorn to use an ARM was a chess computer. Later there was the Apple Newton, and the 3DO games console; both of which were not quite successful.
Although I would obviously like Acorn to get much of the credit for ARM's success, and much credit is due, I would give more to Robin Saxby, their first CEO. He was the one who turned a tech with potential into the world-leading company we see today.
I had a Newton. Totally useless, but a lovely thing.
Seattle Times - Off-duty Alaska pilot may have taken psychedelic mushrooms before trying to shut down engines
An off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot accused of attempting to shut off engines during a Sunday evening Horizon Air flight from Everett has been charged in federal court.
An off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot accused of attempting to shut off the plane’s engines during a Horizon Air flight out of Everett may have taken psychedelic mushrooms immediately before the incident, investigators said in charging papers. . . .
In statements to the Horizon flight crew and to police, Emerson described himself as suffering from depression and insomnia, claiming he believed he was dreaming when he attempted to disable the plane, an FBI special agent investigating the matter said in an affidavit. Emerson, the FBI agent continued, told police “it was his first-time taking mushrooms.” . . .
After a physical struggle with the pilots that lasted approximately 30 seconds, Emerson exited the cockpit. The pilots exited autopilot and started diverting to Portland International Airport.
Heading toward the back of the plane, Emerson told a flight attendant he needed to be handcuffed “or it’s going to be bad.” Flight attendants then cuffed Emerson and seated him in the rear of the plane. During the flight’s descent, Emerson tried to grab the handle of the emergency exit, but a flight attendant stopped him by placing her hands on top of his.
The flight attendant later told investigators Emerson said he “messed everything up” and that “he tried to kill everybody,” according to the FBI agent’s statement. . . .
Emerson is alleged to have told police he was having a “nervous breakdown,” that he had not slept in 40 hours and had been suffering from depression for six months. He felt dehydrated and tired, according to the FBI investigator’s statement.
“I didn’t feel OK,” he told police, according to the FBI agent. “It seemed like the pilots weren’t paying attention to what was going on.’”
Emerson then said he pulled the emergency handles because he thought he was dreaming and wanted to wake up. According to investigators, he noted that “it was his first time taking mushrooms.” “I’m not fighting any charges you want to bring against me, guys,” Emerson said, according to the federal criminal complaint.
The affidavit matches Alaska’s understanding of what happened based on debriefings with the flight crew, a company spokesperson said Tuesday.
Alaska removed Emerson from service indefinitely on Sunday, according to the spokesperson, and is consulting with the Air Line Pilots Association, the union representing Alaska pilots, “regarding his employment status.” . . .
SSI - one way or another, Alaska Airlines has a whole lot of (plane) 'splaining to do.
Have we done the Ilkley referendum results. I don't feel they'd be atypical for this sort of proposal and feed into the wider ULEZ, cut the green crap agenda, though I'll defer to @SandyRentool on whether there was anything particular that wouldn't apply elsewhere:
Ilkley Parish Poll Election: Turnout: 4148, 34.7%
Combined town wide 20 limit and speed humps: 10.7% of votes cast in favour
They should have gone straight for the visceral emotional appeal
A sequence of soaring, sublime shots of places like Ortygia, and Venice and Barcelona and the Dolomites and the Matterhorn, and the Hebrides - and magnificent cathedrals like Durham and Milan and Seville and Chartres and York - and cosy English pubs and delightful Parisian bistros and beer halls in Bavaria and tavernas under the plane tree in the Zagoriou mountains - with a sonorous voice over saying THIS, THIS IS YOUR HOME, EUROPE IS YOUR HOME, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND CIVILISED PLACE ON EARTH - why wouid you leave such a home?? Stay and defend it! Celebrate it! You are the luckiest person in the world: a EUROPEAN
That would have won by a canter
That sounds a bit fascist.
Geez, don't be ridiculous.
I agree with Leon on this. The Remain campaign cast Britain as unable to survive independent from the EU, and so people would just have to lump it. But there's so much that's great about being in the EU and Europe, and so that should have been celebrated.
It had a 'protect our beautiful home from the foreign hordes' vibe. Not keen.
Re the serious point I don't buy the idea that Remain lost because of a shit campaign. It's bollox imo. I think they lost because the underlying mood of the country was Out and the Leave campaign pushed all the right buttons to convert that into the win. If Remain had been relentlessly positive and idealistic about Europe it wouldn't have been as close as 48/52. They fought a good losing campaign. They did well to not lose by more.
The one thing I think they could have done, which they didn't, is go dirty and personal on the charlatans on the Leave side. Cameron said no to that for party management purposes. That might have made a difference imo. So, not more positive but more negative is what might have worked. That's my considered opinion on this one. But, you know, it's gone now isn't it. Best to concentrate on damage limitation plus reminding Leavers it's their fault and no-one else's.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
LOL, did not know that.
However since I originally wrote The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either my point stands, since I always put the caveat "almost" there.
When we look at democratic countries, they are almost all standing with the UK, USA, France and others on this issue, while Sweden and India are very much exceptions.
But since the UNSC gives veto powers to the UK, USA and France it wouldn't matter if it was 190 to 4 with just Israel, USA, UK and France opposed - under the UN's Charter that would still be a rejection.
Have we done the Ilkley referendum results. I don't feel they'd be atypical for this sort of proposal and feed into the wider ULEZ, cut the green crap agenda, though I'll defer to @SandyRentool on whether there was anything particular that wouldn't apply elsewhere:
Ilkley Parish Poll Election: Turnout: 4148, 34.7%
Combined town wide 20 limit and speed humps: 10.7% of votes cast in favour
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
But there isn't one for Ireland either - it had to give up NI to Great Britain. Not to NI.
What's your point? Yes that makes NI part of the United Kingdom, which is settled international law.
The Israeli borders are not settled international law. The UNSC AFAIK respects the Oslo Accords at defining the borders as a matter for future negotiations, in the meantime there is a sort of legal limbo as Palestine does not exist (and never has) legally, and there's no defined border, and the last internationally recognised owners of the land have relinquished their claims.
Palestine DOES exist. Jordan gave up its claim in 1988 in favour of the Palestinians.
No, it does not.
The UK does not recognise it, nor does the USA, nor does the UNSC.
It doesn't matter how many UNGA members recognise something, that does not make it real or law.
To quote Abba Eban again: If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.
But the way the UN works, is only the UNSC can pass binding resolutions so if that 13 includes any of the USA, UK, France, China or Russia then the resolution has been defeated legally. Since there are three permanent members that don't recognise Palestine, it does not exist.
Absolutely disgusting tragedy that people can't afford a healthy diet with meat to eat every day in this day and age. Dumping meat for chips or other processed carbs is not good for your health, or your tastebuds.
We should eliminate tariffs and non-tariff barriers on high quality meat from abroad to make it more affordable, as well as ensuring economic development so everyone can enjoy meat every day.
I'm making a conscious effort to eat more meat in my diet. I already eat meat every day, but am trying to do so in more meals too, to improve my health. Everyone should have that option.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
Carrot and stick - I agree re the latter. The carrot has to have a stick to dangle from, to be held by the donkey's rider.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
The Madagascar proposal is implemented in (one of the timelines) in |Christopher Priest's novel 'The Separation.' This is very much a background item, but it is indicated that the Jewish state established there is, in the present day, experiencing problems from Madagascan natives resisting the expropriation of their homeland.
Alaska is the site of a hypothetical Jewish state in Michael Chabon's v. good hard boiled novel Yiddish Policeman’s Union.
Have we done the Ilkley referendum results. I don't feel they'd be atypical for this sort of proposal and feed into the wider ULEZ, cut the green crap agenda, though I'll defer to @SandyRentool on whether there was anything particular that wouldn't apply elsewhere:
Ilkley Parish Poll Election: Turnout: 4148, 34.7%
Combined town wide 20 limit and speed humps: 10.7% of votes cast in favour
People want 20 limits that don't impact their journeys. And they get the hump over humps. Especially if they've grounded their car going over one too fast.
My local insight is that Ilkley is full of posh twats that can't abide being part of Bradford, but came close to voting in a Green Councillor in May. Whether that impacts the result to make it atypical, I'm not sure.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
I suppose sayings change..
Apparently 'have your cake and eat it' used to be the other way around.
For me I was surprised by the story of the tortoise and the hare. I'd always heard the expression 'slow and steady wins the race' of course, but the version of the tale I always remembered is where the tortoise cheats in order to win, which wiki ascribes as a 'folk variant' of the tale about using smarts to outwit brawn, changing the morale completely.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not
Apart from India and Sweden, you also have recognition from the democracies of Iceland, Brazil, Ukraine, Malaysia, South Africa, Kenya, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Colombia, Guyana, Ecuador, Suriname, Ghana, Botswana, Namibia, Tunisia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Senegal, Zambia, Malawi, Madagascar, Indonesia, Philippines, Nepal, Bhutan, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, Belize, El Salvador, Cape Verde, Sao Tome, Saint Kitts, Antigua, Dominica, St Lucia, St Vincent and Grenada.
I have defined a democracy as any nation that scores 50% or more on the Freedom House scale. Note that Freedom House defines as "partly free" many nations scoring as low as 37%. https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2023
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
Don’t get me started on begging the question.
Quite.
And as for the other thing - if (to adapt a famous philosophical discussion) I said dogmatically that all swans (beaks and feet apart) are white, black or black and white*, and you said that on the contrary, some are pink, you wouldn't be inpressed if I said that it was uncommon for a swan to be pink so I would just ignore what you said.
The Madagascar proposal is implemented in (one of the timelines) in |Christopher Priest's novel 'The Separation.' This is very much a background item, but it is indicated that the Jewish state established there is, in the present day, experiencing problems from Madagascan natives resisting the expropriation of their homeland.
Alaska is the site of a hypothetical Jewish state in Michael Chabon's v. good hard boiled novel Yiddish Policeman’s Union.
Am I dreaming that Mull was once mooted as a possible Jewish homeland. Or am I getting my displaced peoples mixed up.
The SCOTUS has placed USA states in the same position as in the UK: it's a matter for voters and legislators. Voters who disagree with what their state has done know exactly what to do about it. The row is somewhat confected and overdone.
The SCOTUS should of course do the same with guns, where only a perverse reading of the constitution allows the present malign set up.
Should they do the same with slavery? (Obviously not but I am pointing out the flaw in that thinking)
No strong views on that, and no idea if slavery is specifically outlawed by the USA constitution. In the UK it is a matter for voters and legislators, as is the legalisation of torturing children for fun (currently, happily illegal).
Abortion both in principle and in detail is a profoundly contested matter among serious people; slavery isn't. As in the UK it should be a matter for voters and legislators.
Yes. Look at America. Look at serious ethicists across the world. Look at the various views there are on what constitutes proper justification, and at what term in a pregnancy, for termination.
This renders the UK view - that it is for voters and legislators not courts and constitutions, to determine the matter for us - the best available. Same elsewhere. Not everywhere will turn out the same.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
No, the carrot is on a stick. The stick is used like a horse crop. SO you have both a pull and a push effect.
The German equivalent is "doughnut* and whip" which makes the two meanings clear.
*actually Zuckerbrot= "sugar bread", but I think doughnut is a good translation
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not
Apart from India and Sweden, you also have recognition from the democracies of Iceland, Brazil, Ukraine, Malaysia, South Africa, Kenya, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Colombia, Guyana, Ecuador, Suriname, Ghana, Botswana, Namibia, Tunisia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Senegal, Zambia, Malawi, Madagascar, Indonesia, Philippines, Nepal, Bhutan, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, Belize, El Salvador, Cape Verde, Sao Tome, Saint Kitts, Antigua, Dominica, St Lucia, St Vincent and Grenada.
I have defined a democracy as any nation that scores 50% or more on the Freedom House scale. Note that Freedom House defines as "partly free" many nations scoring as low as 37%. https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2023
"Partly free" is not free.
Freedom House has a definition for free, it does not include the likes of the Dominican Republic, Peru etc
It would be fair to include Iceland and Brazil, actual free countries.
And again, it doesn't matter since the UNSC means the UK, USA and France all have veto powers. But even without that, the democratic world - actual democracies not "partial" ones - are almost all against recognition prior to a peace agreement being reached.
There is quite a strong negative relationship between whether a country is a free democracy, and whether it recognises Palestine. I wonder why that could be?
The Madagascar proposal is implemented in (one of the timelines) in |Christopher Priest's novel 'The Separation.' This is very much a background item, but it is indicated that the Jewish state established there is, in the present day, experiencing problems from Madagascan natives resisting the expropriation of their homeland.
Alaska is the site of a hypothetical Jewish state in Michael Chabon's v. good hard boiled novel Yiddish Policeman’s Union.
Am I dreaming that Mull was once mooted as a possible Jewish homeland. Or am I getting my displaced peoples mixed up.
There are quite a few uninhabited Scottish islands, but Mull is not one of them
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
Yes, my unserstanding is that of Carynx - 'proves' in this case pretty much means 'disprove'.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
Yes, my unserstanding is that of Carynx - 'proves' in this case pretty much means 'disprove'.
I always used it and understood it as Topping explains, that the exception is so rare as to be noteworthy proves that the rule generally holds.
You make it sound sinister but they are clearly referring to the Oslo Accords. Just like their pals screaming Jihad mean self-improvement, not anything bloody like chopping up the infidels.
They should have gone straight for the visceral emotional appeal
A sequence of soaring, sublime shots of places like Ortygia, and Venice and Barcelona and the Dolomites and the Matterhorn, and the Hebrides - and magnificent cathedrals like Durham and Milan and Seville and Chartres and York - and cosy English pubs and delightful Parisian bistros and beer halls in Bavaria and tavernas under the plane tree in the Zagoriou mountains - with a sonorous voice over saying THIS, THIS IS YOUR HOME, EUROPE IS YOUR HOME, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND CIVILISED PLACE ON EARTH - why wouid you leave such a home?? Stay and defend it! Celebrate it! You are the luckiest person in the world: a EUROPEAN
That would have won by a canter
That sounds a bit fascist.
Geez, don't be ridiculous.
I agree with Leon on this. The Remain campaign cast Britain as unable to survive independent from the EU, and so people would just have to lump it. But there's so much that's great about being in the EU and Europe, and so that should have been celebrated.
It had a 'protect our beautiful home from the foreign hordes' vibe. Not keen.
Re the serious point I don't buy the idea that Remain lost because of a shit campaign. It's bollox imo. I think they lost because the underlying mood of the country was Out and the Leave campaign pushed all the right buttons to convert that into the win. If Remain had been relentlessly positive and idealistic about Europe it wouldn't have been as close as 48/52. They fought a good losing campaign. They did well to not lose by more.
The one thing I think they could have done, which they didn't, is go dirty and personal on the charlatans on the Leave side. Cameron said no to that for party management purposes. That might have made a difference imo. So, not more positive but more negative is what might have worked. That's my considered opinion on this one. But, you know, it's gone now isn't it. Best to concentrate on damage limitation plus reminding Leavers it's their fault and no-one else's.
But they did do that. AIR, they were openly pretty personal about the main characters on the leave side. I remember being quite surprised at how nasty Amber Rudd, for example, was being.
The first anniversary of Meloni's premiership passed at the weekend, during which she dumped her rape victim blaming partner and perhaps married herself to the nation Queen Bess like.
Selected highlights of the Italian Sky news polling on her first year:
A note that wider party polling has been pretty ossified since the GE, with no party having moved much more than 2% from their election positions 12 months ago.
Government approval: -21 (+56 coalition voters, -66 opposition voters)
Meloni tops best government ministers, I guess partly due to name recognition and Finance Minister, Giorgetti (moderate wing of Lega) and Foreign minister, Tajani (Forza's steady hand) poll OK. Salvini, now DPM and Public Works canters to the worst minister prize.
Meloni gets -19 approval rating, similar to the other best ministers (+39 gov voters, -55 OPP voters), Salvini is on -42 (Note: because of the more split party vote, ratings tend perhap 10 points lower than would be typical in the UK, and these are barely changed from her approval on election day)
Best policy areas for the government are fiscal and economic, worst is immigration.
Most supported specific measures, domestic violence laws and tax/benefits measures. Most opposed: Messina bridge project and anti-surrogacy laws.
But the (various) opposition is badly thought of. Overall approval rating of -52.
So following the law is now seen as disqualifying . It’s astonishing what’s happened to the USA where nearly half the population are happy to believe ridiculous conspiracy theories. What were Americans thinking when they put the GOP Taliban in charge of the House .
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
Yes, my unserstanding is that of Carynx - 'proves' in this case pretty much means 'disprove'.
I always used it and understood it as Topping explains, that the exception is so rare as to be noteworthy proves that the rule generally holds.
Not if you’re a scientist. Rule of thumb, perhaps.
They should have gone straight for the visceral emotional appeal
A sequence of soaring, sublime shots of places like Ortygia, and Venice and Barcelona and the Dolomites and the Matterhorn, and the Hebrides - and magnificent cathedrals like Durham and Milan and Seville and Chartres and York - and cosy English pubs and delightful Parisian bistros and beer halls in Bavaria and tavernas under the plane tree in the Zagoriou mountains - with a sonorous voice over saying THIS, THIS IS YOUR HOME, EUROPE IS YOUR HOME, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND CIVILISED PLACE ON EARTH - why wouid you leave such a home?? Stay and defend it! Celebrate it! You are the luckiest person in the world: a EUROPEAN
That would have won by a canter
That sounds a bit fascist.
Geez, don't be ridiculous.
I agree with Leon on this. The Remain campaign cast Britain as unable to survive independent from the EU, and so people would just have to lump it. But there's so much that's great about being in the EU and Europe, and so that should have been celebrated.
It had a 'protect our beautiful home from the foreign hordes' vibe. Not keen.
Re the serious point I don't buy the idea that Remain lost because of a shit campaign. It's bollox imo. I think they lost because the underlying mood of the country was Out and the Leave campaign pushed all the right buttons to convert that into the win. If Remain had been relentlessly positive and idealistic about Europe it wouldn't have been as close as 48/52. They fought a good losing campaign. They did well to not lose by more.
The one thing I think they could have done, which they didn't, is go dirty and personal on the charlatans on the Leave side. Cameron said no to that for party management purposes. That might have made a difference imo. So, not more positive but more negative is what might have worked. That's my considered opinion on this one. But, you know, it's gone now isn't it. Best to concentrate on damage limitation plus reminding Leavers it's their fault and no-one else's.
But they did do that. AIR, they were openly pretty personal about the main characters on the leave side. I remember being quite surprised at how nasty Amber Rudd, for example, was being.
Also, I agree with Leon: the Remain campaign was astonishingly shit. You have to give people a reason to vote for you - you can't just abuse and threaten them. It was the Hillary Clinton of British political campaigns.
Comments
Well, that's a first step, but they need to go further. They could, for example, fire the editor responsible for that error. Then do a big article on how untrustworthy Hamas is.
(No link because this is from a print copy, but I imagine you can find the whole Note, with a quick search.)
People seem happy and friendly, great cafes, a wonderful food market, clean, tidy, infrastructure that works.
Off to Oslo tomorrow.
It’s all ‘lessons will be learned’
Biden is Israel.
Trump is Hamas.
The Rural Emergency Hospital designation seeks to curb those closures by offering struggling critical access hospitals or rural hospitals with fewer than 50 beds an additional 5 percent for their covered outpatient services. Hospitals that convert can also receive monthly facilities payments that add up to more than $3 million each year."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/23/rural-emergency-hospitals-try-find-their-footing/
Some years ago, I saw a description of a study by Carnegie-Mellon researchers which found that Obamacare was responsible for the closing of many rural hospitals. There are now parts of the US where the closest hospital is hours away.
Redistricting has mobilized voters and shifted the political landscape, offering opportunities for new leaders to emerge — and for new control of the General Assembly.
RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — Hot-button national issues and redistricting are turning the nation's eyes on Virginia, with all 140 of the state's General Assembly seats up for grabs in November. . . .
After a Democratic trifecta in 2020, Republicans gained control of the House of Delegates, the lower body of the legislature, and Republican Glenn Youngkin beat the incumbent governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, in the 2021 elections.
Democrats have controlled the Senate since 2020 and acted as a brick wall stopping Republican-backed legislation from reaching Youngkin's desk. . . .
Over 300,000 Virginians have already cast their ballots. Meagher said as Virginia's elections become more nationalized, voters who might have skipped an off-year election in the past are heading to the polls.
Nationally watched issues are playing a big part in many races.
New Senate District 16, encompassing parts of suburban Richmond's Henrico County, is contested between incumbent Republican Senator Siobhan Dunnavant and Democratic Delegate Schuyler VanValkenburg. . . .
Most of the new House District 97 in Virginia Beach voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 but opted to support Youngkin in 2021. A young Democratic challenger, Michael Feggans, 40, is taking on GOP incumbent Delegate Karen Greenhalgh, with each pulling in more than $1.8 million in donations. . . .
A poll from Christopher Newport University found that only 24 percent of likely voters supported abortion restrictions. . . .
Democrats' control of the Senate over the last two sessions has complicated Youngkin's time in office. After extensive negotiations, he signed a much-delayed budget that both parties chalked up as a win for their side. The agreement provided one-time state tax rebates to Virginians, increased the standard deduction and issued raises for teachers and state employees.
Youngkin hopes a Republican trifecta can deliver the type of legislation he campaigned on. Youngkin has flirted with national ambitions since he came to Richmond, but Caughell said a decisive Democratic victory this November could turn Republican donors off of his approach. . . .
https://www.courthousenews.com/abortion-parents-rights-and-youngkins-tactics-take-center-stage-as-purple-virginia-votes-for-legislature/
This renders the UK view - that it is for voters and legislators not courts and constitutions, to determine the matter for us - the best available. Same elsewhere. Not everywhere will turn out the same.
Used to be a great sushi restaurant round the corner
Yitzhak Rabin, William Jefferson Clinton and Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini (aka Yasser Arafat) said that in 1993. Its part of what won the former and the latter the Nobel Peace Prize too.
Please find any Treaty, UNSC Resolution or otherwise dating after 1993 that affirms the 1967 borders as the border. I'm not aware of any.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany
But BCPL was the main inspiration for a language called B which did not work well, but the author's next turn of the wheel was called "C" and it was possibly the most important computer language ever written.
So that little group of Cambridge engineers and programmers literally designed and built the modern world behind the scenes and their work still influences everything we do today.
The US is different. It’s very hard to see anything having any relationship to ethics coming out of the US anti-abortion movement.
Steve Furber, the designer of the original ARM1 processor, tells a story about the very first sample ARM chip they received for testing. He hooked the power input of the chip up to a ammeter so they could measure how much power it was consuming, and turned it on. The chip powered up... but the meter remained at zero.
When connecting the meter Furber had accidentally dislodged the chip's power connection. So the ARM processor was running without a power supply - it managed to work just using the tiny amounts of power it could pull in from the surrounding chips over data connections. At the time there was no other processor with power consumption anything like that low. Truly portable computing was born at that moment.
Of course, Acorn then took that amazingly efficient processor and stuck it into a desktop computer where power consumption was a complete irrelevance...
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4272846-virginia-gop-sends-explicit-fliers-democrats-sex-video-scandal/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaturbate
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one. And one that is barely a century old, at that.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
The govt should have bought a sizeable stake in ARM. It would be like getting free money...
Incidentally, AFAICR one of the first, if not the first, device outside Acorn to use an ARM was a chess computer. Later there was the Apple Newton, and the 3DO games console; both of which were not quite successful.
Although I would obviously like Acorn to get much of the credit for ARM's success, and much credit is due, I would give more to Robin Saxby, their first CEO. He was the one who turned a tech with potential into the world-leading company we see today.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Boris Johnson has warned that the British government will not recognise any unilateral changes to Israel’s 1967 borders and suggested that proposals to annex territory on the West Bank ‘’will fail in their objective of securing borders and will be contrary to Israel’s own long-term interests."
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
Hong Kong Free Press - US Republican Senator Jeff Wilson arrested over carrying gun into Hong Kong, barred from leaving city
Jeff Wilson, a Washington state Republican senator, reportedly called the police on journalists who photographed him as he walked out of the courthouse on Monday.
Wilson, a Republican senator from Washington state, appeared at Shatin Magistrates’ Courts on Monday following his Saturday arrest. He was released on a cash bail of HK$20,000 and ordered to hand over his travel documents and not to leave Hong Kong, local media reported.
Sing Tao Daily reported that Wilson, as well as his wife and two men who were with him, got into an altercation with reporters who took photos of him as he was leaving the courthouse. The police were called, with Wilson’s group demanding reporters delete the photos saying Wilson had not consented to being photographed.
Police arrived on the scene to mediate, as Wilson and his wife threatened to photograph the reporters in retaliation.
Wilson is scheduled to appear at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts next Monday.
Carrying arms without a license is punishable by up to 14 years in jail and a fine of HK$100,000, but cases heard at magistrates courts see a maximum jail term of two years for a single offence.
Under the US Transportation Security Administration’s restrictions, firearms cannot be taken in carry-on bags on international or domestic flights. They can be checked in, but the carrier must ensure they are packed in a container and declared to the airline while checking in. . . .
Wilson announced last month that he would run for re-election.
https://hongkongfp.com/2023/10/24/us-republican-senator-jeff-wilson-arrested-over-carrying-gun-into-hong-kong-barred-from-leaving-city
The Israeli borders are not settled international law. The UNSC AFAIK respects the Oslo Accords at defining the borders as a matter for future negotiations, in the meantime there is a sort of legal limbo as Palestine does not exist (and never has) legally, and there's no defined border, and the last internationally recognised owners of the land have relinquished their claims.
Something I felt a little bad about; I was against the deal, but did well out of it.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
The UK does not recognise it, nor does the USA, nor does the UNSC.
It doesn't matter how many UNGA members recognise something, that does not make it real or law.
To quote Abba Eban again: If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.
But the way the UN works, is only the UNSC can pass binding resolutions so if that 13 includes any of the USA, UK, France, China or Russia then the resolution has been defeated legally. Since there are three permanent members that don't recognise Palestine, it does not exist.
The Yiddish Policemen's Union is a 2007 novel by American author Michael Chabon.[1] The novel is a detective story set in an alternative history version of the present day, based on the premise that during World War II, a temporary settlement for Jewish refugees was established in Sitka, Alaska, in 1941, and that the fledgling State of Israel was destroyed in 1948. The novel is set in Sitka, which it depicts as a large, Yiddish-speaking metropolis.
Tlingit Alaska Natives [are close neighbors] and there has been a history of friction between the Jews and the Tlingit, but also of intermarriage and cross-cultural contact; one of the novel's characters, Berko Shemets, is half Jewish, half Tlingit.
SSI - btw Tlingit is pronounced (something like) "Klink-it".
Totally useless, but a lovely thing.
An off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot accused of attempting to shut off engines during a Sunday evening Horizon Air flight from Everett has been charged in federal court.
An off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot accused of attempting to shut off the plane’s engines during a Horizon Air flight out of Everett may have taken psychedelic mushrooms immediately before the incident, investigators said in charging papers. . . .
In statements to the Horizon flight crew and to police, Emerson described himself as suffering from depression and insomnia, claiming he believed he was dreaming when he attempted to disable the plane, an FBI special agent investigating the matter said in an affidavit. Emerson, the FBI agent continued, told police “it was his first-time taking mushrooms.” . . .
After a physical struggle with the pilots that lasted approximately 30 seconds, Emerson exited the cockpit. The pilots exited autopilot and started diverting to Portland International Airport.
Heading toward the back of the plane, Emerson told a flight attendant he needed to be handcuffed “or it’s going to be bad.” Flight attendants then cuffed Emerson and seated him in the rear of the plane. During the flight’s descent, Emerson tried to grab the handle of the emergency exit, but a flight attendant stopped him by placing her hands on top of his.
The flight attendant later told investigators Emerson said he “messed everything up” and that “he tried to kill everybody,” according to the FBI agent’s statement. . . .
Emerson is alleged to have told police he was having a “nervous breakdown,” that he had not slept in 40 hours and had been suffering from depression for six months. He felt dehydrated and tired, according to the FBI investigator’s statement.
“I didn’t feel OK,” he told police, according to the FBI agent. “It seemed like the pilots weren’t paying attention to what was going on.’”
Emerson then said he pulled the emergency handles because he thought he was dreaming and wanted to wake up. According to investigators, he noted that “it was his first time taking mushrooms.”
“I’m not fighting any charges you want to bring against me, guys,” Emerson said, according to the federal criminal complaint.
The affidavit matches Alaska’s understanding of what happened based on debriefings with the flight crew, a company spokesperson said Tuesday.
Alaska removed Emerson from service indefinitely on Sunday, according to the spokesperson, and is consulting with the Air Line Pilots Association, the union representing Alaska pilots, “regarding his employment status.” . . .
SSI - one way or another, Alaska Airlines has a whole lot of (plane) 'splaining to do.
Ilkley Parish Poll Election:
Turnout: 4148, 34.7%
Combined town wide 20 limit and speed humps: 10.7% of votes cast in favour
Town wide 20 limit: 24.5% in favour
Town wide road humps only: 8.9% in favour
Targeted 20 zones: 55.8% in favour
Targeted road humps: 26.9% in favour
Spending 87k cost of scheme: 18.9% in favour
https://www.bradford.gov.uk/your-council/elections-and-voting/ilkley-parish-poll-election-result-of-poll/
Re the serious point I don't buy the idea that Remain lost because of a shit campaign. It's bollox imo. I think they lost because the underlying mood of the country was Out and the Leave campaign pushed all the right buttons to convert that into the win. If Remain had been relentlessly positive and idealistic about Europe it wouldn't have been as close as 48/52. They fought a good losing campaign. They did well to not lose by more.
The one thing I think they could have done, which they didn't, is go dirty and personal on the charlatans on the Leave side. Cameron said no to that for party management purposes. That might have made a difference imo. So, not more positive but more negative is what might have worked. That's my considered opinion on this one. But, you know, it's gone now isn't it. Best to concentrate on damage limitation plus reminding Leavers it's their fault and no-one else's.
However since I originally wrote The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either my point stands, since I always put the caveat "almost" there.
When we look at democratic countries, they are almost all standing with the UK, USA, France and others on this issue, while Sweden and India are very much exceptions.
But since the UNSC gives veto powers to the UK, USA and France it wouldn't matter if it was 190 to 4 with just Israel, USA, UK and France opposed - under the UN's Charter that would still be a rejection.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/24/uk-meat-consumption-lowest-level-since-record-began-data-reveal
Onana is some use
Donald Trump and his allies had started whipping against the No. 3 House Republican.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/10/24/congress/emmer-drops-out-00123306
I think the chaos is the point, for Trump.
We should eliminate tariffs and non-tariff barriers on high quality meat from abroad to make it more affordable, as well as ensuring economic development so everyone can enjoy meat every day.
I'm making a conscious effort to eat more meat in my diet. I already eat meat every day, but am trying to do so in more meals too, to improve my health. Everyone should have that option.
“Intifada intifada! There is only one solution!”
ONLY ONE SOLUTION
Let me guess: it’s… quite a terminal solution?
https://x.com/theeliklein/status/1716602651314364567?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
He would see this country burn if he could be king of the ashes
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
My local insight is that Ilkley is full of posh twats that can't abide being part of Bradford, but came close to voting in a Green Councillor in May. Whether that impacts the result to make it atypical, I'm not sure.
For me I was surprised by the story of the tortoise and the hare. I'd always heard the expression 'slow and steady wins the race' of course, but the version of the tale I always remembered is where the tortoise cheats in order to win, which wiki ascribes as a 'folk variant' of the tale about using smarts to outwit brawn, changing the morale completely.
https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1716924801426886976
I have defined a democracy as any nation that scores 50% or more on the Freedom House scale. Note that Freedom House defines as "partly free" many nations scoring as low as 37%.
https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2023
Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) told us Rep Emmer’s vote to certify the 2020 election counted against him in his pursuit of the Speakership. And appears to have disqualified him
https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1716918748886810897
And as for the other thing - if (to adapt a famous philosophical discussion) I said dogmatically that all swans (beaks and feet apart) are white, black or black and white*, and you said that on the contrary, some are pink, you wouldn't be inpressed if I said that it was uncommon for a swan to be pink so I would just ignore what you said.
SO you have both a pull and a push effect.
The German equivalent is "doughnut* and whip" which makes the two meanings clear.
*actually Zuckerbrot= "sugar bread", but I think doughnut is a good translation
Unless funds are unlimited, do a little planning for where to eat dinner. Expect 2-2.5 times UK prices.
Freedom House has a definition for free, it does not include the likes of the Dominican Republic, Peru etc
It would be fair to include Iceland and Brazil, actual free countries.
And again, it doesn't matter since the UNSC means the UK, USA and France all have veto powers. But even without that, the democratic world - actual democracies not "partial" ones - are almost all against recognition prior to a peace agreement being reached.
There is quite a strong negative relationship between whether a country is a free democracy, and whether it recognises Palestine. I wonder why that could be?
But, annoyingly, because we were an hour late my rental car company had given up on me.
At least the less they import from the other side of the world the better, for food security.
The first anniversary of Meloni's premiership passed at the weekend, during which she dumped her rape victim blaming partner and perhaps married herself to the nation Queen Bess like.
Selected highlights of the Italian Sky news polling on her first year:
A note that wider party polling has been pretty ossified since the GE, with no party having moved much more than 2% from their election positions 12 months ago.
https://tg24.sky.it/politica/2023/10/20/sondaggi-politici-governo-meloni-un-anno#00
Government approval: -21 (+56 coalition voters, -66 opposition voters)
Meloni tops best government ministers, I guess partly due to name recognition and Finance Minister, Giorgetti (moderate wing of Lega) and Foreign minister, Tajani (Forza's steady hand) poll OK. Salvini, now DPM and Public Works canters to the worst minister prize.
Meloni gets -19 approval rating, similar to the other best ministers (+39 gov voters, -55 OPP voters), Salvini is on -42 (Note: because of the more split party vote, ratings tend perhap 10 points lower than would be typical in the UK, and these are barely changed from her approval on election day)
Best policy areas for the government are
fiscal and economic, worst is immigration.
Most supported specific measures, domestic violence laws and tax/benefits measures. Most opposed: Messina bridge project and anti-surrogacy laws.
But the (various) opposition is badly thought of. Overall approval rating of -52.
Rule of thumb, perhaps.