Say what you like about Rishi, he likely will lose the next election but he was ruthless enough to take his best chance of being PM and shaft Boris in 2022 and stand for leader and now he is PM. Whereas Portillo in 1995 and David Miliband in 2008/9 were too cowardly to take on Major or Brown and thus lost their best chances to be PM
Richi took his shot, and missed.
It is the Country's misfortune that he was beaten by someone so bad they decided sloppy seconds were an improvement
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The "absence of evidence" is more explicable if that absence has been caused by governments unable to handle the consequences and so suppressing the evidence. What we are currently seeing is perhaps a lot of that "evidence" now being released along with a "we don't know what these things are or where they come from" narrative.
Which is a line that can't hold for long. Hence a need for the US President to make some sort of announcement to the population. And where I came in with my black swan.
Maybe. Occam's Razor suggests that in this general case other explanations for the absence of evidence may also be contenders.
If really decent evidence exists, it is unlikely to be single discrete particles of it that governments as a whole can control (and is unlikely to be confined to the USA or to our period of history). The desire to be the most famous scientist in the world, even more so than Einstein, and to write the most read ever paper must lurk in the hearts of enough physics folk to ensure that a journal like 'Nature' gets to publish some peer reviewed stuff. If such evidence exists.
"On this evening's episode of 'Sedan Chair Travels' our intrepid host Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the "Grand Horizontal" of the 21st century, explores the backroads and byways of the West Country . . . until being 'accidentially' dropped into the Wookie Hole by his less-than-gruntled sedan-chair attendants."
A pedant insists: Wookey Hole.
Wookie Hole is the kind you rummage around in a lot of long ginger fur to find.
But even then Wookey Hole is horizontal. Not vertical. You're thinking of the pots higher up on Mendip.
For this pedantry, you are gifted a large wad of Red Man tobacco.
"On this evening's episode of 'Sedan Chair Travels' our intrepid host Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the "Grand Horizontal" of the 21st century, explores the backroads and byways of the West Country . . . until being 'accidentially' dropped into the Wookie Hole by his less-than-gruntled sedan-chair attendants."
A pedant insists: Wookey Hole.
Wookie Hole is the kind you rummage around in a lot of long ginger fur to find.
But even then Wookey Hole is horizontal. Not vertical. You're thinking of the pots higher up on Mendip.
My guess is JRM's future sedan churls will NOT be as particular, as to which hole they drop and/or stuff him.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The "absence of evidence" is more explicable if that absence has been caused by governments unable to handle the consequences and so suppressing the evidence. What we are currently seeing is perhaps a lot of that "evidence" now being released along with a "we don't know what these things are or where they come from" narrative.
Which is a line that can't hold for long. Hence a need for the US President to make some sort of announcement to the population. And where I came in with my black swan.
Maybe. Occam's Razor suggests that in this general case other explanations for the absence of evidence may also be contenders.
If really decent evidence exists, it is unlikely to be single discrete particles of it that governments as a whole can control (and is unlikely to be confined to the USA or to our period of history). The desire to be the most famous scientist in the world, even more so than Einstein, and to write the most read ever paper must lurk in the hearts of enough physics folk to ensure that a journal like 'Nature' gets to publish some peer reviewed stuff. If such evidence exists.
If such evidence exists and we can find it.
It's a long way to even the nearest star.
Way more likely than us meeting living non human alien species and communicating with them is the chances of us encountering an alien probe - working autonomously (with AI on board?) - sent out by some other interstellar civilisation billions of years ago, to go and seek life
That is another speculation in the air at the moment. And it it temptingly plausible. After all it’s what we did - sending solo explorers across the wide oceans just in case. But AI would be used instead, if possible, as it theoretically can live forever
Imagine some of these probes were maybe designed to “crash” on impact with a promising planet. Imagine a government got hold of a few….
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
If they were to opine that Trump engaged in insurrection, then that is as much a green light to state-level judges to make him ineligible to be on the ballot as if they had decided the candidate was not 35 years of age, not a natural born citizen, or had not lived in the United States for at least 14 years. It's a requirement of the US Constitution. Simples.
Again though, being under 35 is not an absolute bar to election, just to serving. The 20th Amendment specifically deals with that kind of scenario, which heavily implies such a person can be elected. Likewise, a senator elected underage does not have his or her election annulled. The most recent such example was Rush Holt who was elected in 1934 but not permitted to take his seat until after he turned 30, in June 1935 (Biden was himself 29 when he was elected, though had turned 30 by the start of the Congressional term).
BTW, last night in New Orleans, University of Washington defeated University of Texas by 37-31 in the Sugar Bowl.
Meaning that UW will face University of Michigan (winner of the Rose Bowl versus The Ohio State University) in next week in Houston, to decide the national #1 college football team for NCAA Division 1.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The "absence of evidence" is more explicable if that absence has been caused by governments unable to handle the consequences and so suppressing the evidence. What we are currently seeing is perhaps a lot of that "evidence" now being released along with a "we don't know what these things are or where they come from" narrative.
Which is a line that can't hold for long. Hence a need for the US President to make some sort of announcement to the population. And where I came in with my black swan.
Maybe. Occam's Razor suggests that in this general case other explanations for the absence of evidence may also be contenders.
If really decent evidence exists, it is unlikely to be single discrete particles of it that governments as a whole can control (and is unlikely to be confined to the USA or to our period of history). The desire to be the most famous scientist in the world, even more so than Einstein, and to write the most read ever paper must lurk in the hearts of enough physics folk to ensure that a journal like 'Nature' gets to publish some peer reviewed stuff. If such evidence exists.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
If they were to opine that Trump engaged in insurrection, then that is as much a green light to state-level judges to make him ineligible to be on the ballot as if they had decided the candidate was not 35 years of age, not a natural born citizen, or had not lived in the United States for at least 14 years. It's a requirement of the US Constitution. Simples.
Again though, being under 35 is not an absolute bar to election, just to serving. The 20th Amendment specifically deals with that kind of scenario, which heavily implies such a person can be elected. Likewise, a senator elected underage does not have his or her election annulled but simply can't take their seat until their 30th birthday - there are several examples of that having happened, the most recent being Rush Holt who was elected in 1934 and not permitted to take his seat until June 1935 (Biden was himself 29 when he was elected, though had turned 30 by the start of the Congressional term).
The only problem might be, as the only way of removing this bar is a two thirds majority in the Senate and hell will freeze over before that is achieved, it would effectively bar him from office anyway.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
If they were to opine that Trump engaged in insurrection, then that is as much a green light to state-level judges to make him ineligible to be on the ballot as if they had decided the candidate was not 35 years of age, not a natural born citizen, or had not lived in the United States for at least 14 years. It's a requirement of the US Constitution. Simples.
Again though, being under 35 is not an absolute bar to election, just to serving. The 20th Amendment specifically deals with that kind of scenario, which heavily implies such a person can be elected. Likewise, a senator elected underage does not have his or her election annulled. The most recent such example was Rush Holt who was elected in 1934 but not permitted to take his seat until after he turned 30, in June 1935 (Biden was himself 29 when he was elected, though had turned 30 by the start of the Congressional term).
From wiki entry for Russell Long, son of Huey Long:
Russell Long was elected in 1948 to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy created by the death of John Overton, which had been filled temporarily by the appointment of William Feazel. In winning election to the Senate, Long became the only person in U.S. history to be preceded in that chamber by both his father and his mother.
He was elected on November 2, 1948, one day before his 30th birthday, and took office on December 31, thus meeting the Constitutional requirement that Senators be at least 30 years old upon taking office.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
Arthur C Clarke's Childhood's End had a peaceful alien invasion that led to something of a utopia on Earth but they never let themselves be seen. The reason being, in a somewhat Jungian twist, that they looked like the devil. One of his best books.
Did you ever encounter James Blish's A Case for Conscience? On the issue of revelation of the Christian religion to aliens on an exosolar planet.
Humans are maybe only a decade or two from being able to send out probes with AI pilots, self fuelled and potentially unlimited by time. I predict we WILL do this. It’s just one step up from sending out interplanetary probes (which we’ve done).
So if we can and will do it others will surely have done it (if others exist) so they “should” be out there
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
My sense is that Thomas is more likely to recuse himself than not.
It would be a good way to partially launder his reputation
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
If they were to opine that Trump engaged in insurrection, then that is as much a green light to state-level judges to make him ineligible to be on the ballot as if they had decided the candidate was not 35 years of age, not a natural born citizen, or had not lived in the United States for at least 14 years. It's a requirement of the US Constitution. Simples.
Again though, being under 35 is not an absolute bar to election, just to serving. The 20th Amendment specifically deals with that kind of scenario, which heavily implies such a person can be elected. Likewise, a senator elected underage does not have his or her election annulled. The most recent such example was Rush Holt who was elected in 1934 but not permitted to take his seat until after he turned 30, in June 1935 (Biden was himself 29 when he was elected, though had turned 30 by the start of the Congressional term).
From wiki entry for Russell Long, son of Huey Long:
Russell Long was elected in 1948 to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy created by the death of John Overton, which had been filled temporarily by the appointment of William Feazel. In winning election to the Senate, Long became the only person in U.S. history to be preceded in that chamber by both his father and his mother.
He was elected on November 2, 1948, one day before his 30th birthday, and took office on December 31, thus meeting the Constitutional requirement that Senators be at least 30 years old upon taking office.
Anyone interested in understanding longevity should learn about the Hispanic Paradox: "The Hispanic paradox is an epidemiological finding that Hispanic Americans tend to have health outcomes that "paradoxically" are comparable to, or in some cases better than, those of their U.S. non-Hispanic White counterparts, even though Hispanics have lower average income and education, higher rates of disability, as well as a higher incidence of various cardiovascular risk factors and metabolic diseases." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_paradox
(In my semi-informed opinion, stronger families and communities explain the "paradox'.)
They probably have a better diet than many non-Hispanics.
Also, life expectancy in, say, Costa Rica is 79 compared to 77 in the United States.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
Arthur C Clarke's Childhood's End had a peaceful alien invasion that led to something of a utopia on Earth but they never let themselves be seen. The reason being, in a somewhat Jungian twist, that they looked like the devil. One of his best books.
Did you ever encounter James Blish's A Case for Conscience? On the issue of revelation of the Christian religion to aliens on an exosolar planet.
No, it sounds interesting though.
With this ambiguous earth His dealings have been told us. These abide: The signal to a maid, the human birth, The lesson, and the young Man crucified. But not a star of all The innumerable host of stars has heard How He administered this terrestrial ball. Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word. Of His earth-visiting feet None knows the secret, cherished, perilous, The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet Heart-shattering secret of His way with us. No planet knows that this Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave, Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss, Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave. Nor, in our little day, May His devices with the heavens be guessed, His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way Or His bestowals there be manifest. But in the eternities, Doubtless we shall compare together, hear A million alien Gospels, in what guise He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear. O, be prepared, my soul! To read the inconceivable, to scan The million forms of God those stars unroll When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
My sense is that Thomas is more likely to recuse himself than not.
It would be a good way to partially launder his reputation
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
In which case, though ?
I would agree with you in expecting them to throw out his absurdly broad claims of Presidential immunity (and double jeopardy) regarding the Jan 6 charges (which if allowed would literally allow incumbent presidents to murder their opponents, and face no remedy except for impeachment).
How they rule on the Colorado (and Maine) decision is more problematic, though. Even if they act as justices, rather than politicians sitting on the bench, there's no straightforward ruling which won't cause further problems.
Such as with SCOTUS's previous ruling in "Bush v Gore".
Where, for example, alleged "obiter dicta" is actually/effectively law of the land.
Certainly have heard it quoted as such on numerous occasions, by Republicans.
Even if there were nine entirely incorruptible liberals on the court, it would not be an easy case to decide, since they are effectively being asked to define the hitherto undefined boundaries of a law.
While the 14th amendment is incontrovertibly the law of the land, the clause in question has been so little used that there is significant uncertainty about what exactly it means for any given case.
It seems to me that at least five of the Justices will give Trump the benefit of the doubt.
They could rule that the question - whether Trump is guilty of insurrection - is a question of fact, to be determined by a jury in criminal proceedings - and until that happens, he’s eligible to run.
Whilst that could be the outcome, there are a few glaring problems.
Firstly, the 14th Amendment doesn't refer to conviction, even though the term is used elsewhere in the Constitution. The reality is the wording doesn't really support the need for a conviction if you want to read it literally. That's problematic for a conservative justice, as reading it literally is what conservatives do. They'd probably get comfortable with it ultimately, but may not - the Trump appointed justices plus Roberts are conservatives who do genuinely worry about this stuff.
Secondly, it begs an enormous question. What offence would Trump need to be convicted of to bar him from office? Because the SCOTUS know exactly what the charges are - so are any of them disqualifying?
Thirdly, it kicks the can recklessly down the road. Fine, it gets them through the primaries. But what if a conviction comes in October, or next February? It's all much uglier than either saying he's eligible now, or even saying he's not. All hell would break loose if he was declared ineligible now, but as nothing compared to if he was in the White House.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
My sense is that Thomas is more likely to recuse himself than not.
It would be a good way to partially launder his reputation
My sense is - do NOT bet on that.
Indeed.
It is very difficult indeed to think what could launder a reputation as dirty as his has become.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
If they were to opine that Trump engaged in insurrection, then that is as much a green light to state-level judges to make him ineligible to be on the ballot as if they had decided the candidate was not 35 years of age, not a natural born citizen, or had not lived in the United States for at least 14 years. It's a requirement of the US Constitution. Simples.
Again though, being under 35 is not an absolute bar to election, just to serving. The 20th Amendment specifically deals with that kind of scenario, which heavily implies such a person can be elected. Likewise, a senator elected underage does not have his or her election annulled. The most recent such example was Rush Holt who was elected in 1934 but not permitted to take his seat until after he turned 30, in June 1935 (Biden was himself 29 when he was elected, though had turned 30 by the start of the Congressional term).
From wiki entry for Russell Long, son of Huey Long:
Russell Long was elected in 1948 to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy created by the death of John Overton, which had been filled temporarily by the appointment of William Feazel. In winning election to the Senate, Long became the only person in U.S. history to be preceded in that chamber by both his father and his mother.
He was elected on November 2, 1948, one day before his 30th birthday, and took office on December 31, thus meeting the Constitutional requirement that Senators be at least 30 years old upon taking office.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
It wasn't really the making of Portillo, though. One can't feel sorry for him - he's had a thoroughly nice and interesting life. But his dream was to be PM, not to serve time in some middling cabinet posts in a fag end Tory government, followed by making some amiable travel programmes like the bastard child of John Selwyn Gummer and Judith Chalmers.
You're right that he (and JRM would be similar) have enough about them to shake their opponent warmly by the hand, thank the returning officer, their campaign team, and their constituents for the honour of having been their MP. They aren't stupid enough to rant and rave like Mellor, storm off the stage like that tit in Tamworth, or blame their opponent and the dumb punters like the Chesham guy. But failure is failure.
In retrospect Portillo should have stood against Major in 1995 if he really wanted to be PM. Thatcher would have likely come out for him and he would have had a much better chance of winning a majority of Tory MPs then than Redwood did.
By the time his chance came again in 2001 he was far too much of a woolly, social liberal and too much like New Labour for most Tory MPs and members and most Thatcherites backed IDS instead
Not one of the great decisions of the 21st Century.
Although if I remember rightly the polling suggested Portillo would have lost to Clarke.
Of the general public but they weren't the electorate, Tory MPs were and they wouldn't have defied Thatcher's orders to back Portillo (in 1997 they even backed Hague over Clarke when the Lady told them too).
Say what you like about Rishi, he likely will lose the next election but he was ruthless enough to take his best chance of being PM and shaft Boris in 2022 and stand for leader and now he is PM. Whereas Portillo in 1995 and David Miliband in 2008/9 were too cowardly to take on Major or Brown and thus lost their best chances to be PM
I was talking about polling of Tory members (this was the first election where they had a vote). The Telegraph commissioned some in advance of the final round of MPs and being idiots they were delighted when it showed Duncan Smith was more likely to beat Clarke than Portillo.
That was in 2001 when Portillo was a wishy, washy metrosexual liberal not the hard as iron, 'who dares wins' Thatcherite he still was in 1995. Plus I believe in 2001 polling showed Portillo still beating Clarke with Tory members just not as much as IDS would and Thatcher had made clear she would endorse whichever of them faced Clarke in the members ballot. She was neutral until IDS knocked out Portillo in the final Tory MPs vote then she swung her handbag behind IDS as she had swung it behind Hague in 1997 and Major in 1990 to ensure the traitors Heseltine and Clarke who had betrayed her never became Tory leader. Indeed Thatcher clearly preferred Blair as PM running a non socialist Labour government at that time to having Heseltine or Clarke as PM
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The "absence of evidence" is more explicable if that absence has been caused by governments unable to handle the consequences and so suppressing the evidence. What we are currently seeing is perhaps a lot of that "evidence" now being released along with a "we don't know what these things are or where they come from" narrative.
Which is a line that can't hold for long. Hence a need for the US President to make some sort of announcement to the population. And where I came in with my black swan.
Maybe. Occam's Razor suggests that in this general case other explanations for the absence of evidence may also be contenders.
If really decent evidence exists, it is unlikely to be single discrete particles of it that governments as a whole can control (and is unlikely to be confined to the USA or to our period of history). The desire to be the most famous scientist in the world, even more so than Einstein, and to write the most read ever paper must lurk in the hearts of enough physics folk to ensure that a journal like 'Nature' gets to publish some peer reviewed stuff. If such evidence exists.
Humans are maybe only a decade or two from being able to send out probes with AI pilots, self fuelled and potentially unlimited by time. I predict we WILL do this. It’s just one step up from sending out interplanetary probes (which we’ve done).
So if we can and will do it others will surely have done it (if others exist) so they “should” be out there
That they either should or should not be out there exhausts the possibilities I think.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Maine is probably 1 electoral vote lost for Trump, if this happens - Maine splits its electoral votes.
The interesting bit will be any cases up coming in swing states
Or if big states like California, NY and Illinois try to block Trump from their ballots.
For even if they are blue states in the general election they carry a lot of delegates in the GOP primaries which would make it much more difficult for Trump to even get the GOP nomination in the Presidential election and impossible if most swing states also keep him off the ballot (even if he could still run 3rd party in red states and any swing states which kept him on the ballot)
Does the ballot blocking for former insurgents apply to primaries, as well?
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
My sense is that Thomas is more likely to recuse himself than not.
It would be a good way to partially launder his reputation
No way. It would set too much of a precedent.
He knows he's there for life. He's not going to let common sense or morals get in the way of his ruling.
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
Anyone interested in understanding longevity should learn about the Hispanic Paradox: "The Hispanic paradox is an epidemiological finding that Hispanic Americans tend to have health outcomes that "paradoxically" are comparable to, or in some cases better than, those of their U.S. non-Hispanic White counterparts, even though Hispanics have lower average income and education, higher rates of disability, as well as a higher incidence of various cardiovascular risk factors and metabolic diseases." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic_paradox
(In my semi-informed opinion, stronger families and communities explain the "paradox'.)
They probably have a better diet than many non-Hispanics.
Also, life expectancy in, say, Costa Rica is 79 compared to 77 in the United States.
It’s interesting, though both ‘Hispanic’ and ‘white’ are terms that contain multitudes.
One hypothesis I didn’t see in there but was the first that sprung to my mind was the drag effect of certain social issues that affect poorer whites in the US in particular - most obviously opiates, but other health issues too which could be mitigated somewhat by stronger community/family ties.
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
Marks & Spencer's do gluten-free hot cross buns well outside traditional Easter, but that's because the gluten-free Pope came up with different rules for when Easter is held than traditional Catholicism in the great schism.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
In which case, though ?
I would agree with you in expecting them to throw out his absurdly broad claims of Presidential immunity (and double jeopardy) regarding the Jan 6 charges (which if allowed would literally allow incumbent presidents to murder their opponents, and face no remedy except for impeachment).
How they rule on the Colorado (and Maine) decision is more problematic, though. Even if they act as justices, rather than politicians sitting on the bench, there's no straightforward ruling which won't cause further problems.
Such as with SCOTUS's previous ruling in "Bush v Gore".
Where, for example, alleged "obiter dicta" is actually/effectively law of the land.
Certainly have heard it quoted as such on numerous occasions, by Republicans.
Even if there were nine entirely incorruptible liberals on the court, it would not be an easy case to decide, since they are effectively being asked to define the hitherto undefined boundaries of a law.
While the 14th amendment is incontrovertibly the law of the land, the clause in question has been so little used that there is significant uncertainty about what exactly it means for any given case.
It seems to me that at least five of the Justices will give Trump the benefit of the doubt.
They could rule that the question - whether Trump is guilty of insurrection - is a question of fact, to be determined by a jury in criminal proceedings - and until that happens, he’s eligible to run.
Whilst that could be the outcome, there are a few glaring problems.
Firstly, the 14th Amendment doesn't refer to conviction, even though the term is used elsewhere in the Constitution. The reality is the wording doesn't really support the need for a conviction if you want to read it literally. That's problematic for a conservative justice, as reading it literally is what conservatives do. They'd probably get comfortable with it ultimately, but may not - the Trump appointed justices plus Roberts are conservatives who do genuinely worry about this stuff.
Secondly, it begs an enormous question. What offence would Trump need to be convicted of to bar him from office? Because the SCOTUS know exactly what the charges are - so are any of them disqualifying?
Thirdly, it kicks the can recklessly down the road. Fine, it gets them through the primaries. But what if a conviction comes in October, or next February? It's all much uglier than either saying he's eligible now, or even saying he's not. All hell would break loose if he was declared ineligible now, but as nothing compared to if he was in the White House.
This is the comedy of the mess the nutter GOP lot are in. Patriots, defenders of the constitution, taking wedge issues to court to foam on about the exact text of the document and the meaning intended by the people who wrote the amendments.
And here we are. Wanting to abruptly reverse all of that. According to their own process: The constitution defines POTUS as an office The constitution disbars insurrectionists from office The constitution does not require legal conviction as it isn't legal sanction
Would love to hear the ruling if they reverse fettle...
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
I have no idea about a Tory mp tweets and to be fair nearly 60 years ago my family and I owned a newsagents and grocers and we did display Easter eggs in the new year
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
Arthur C Clarke's Childhood's End had a peaceful alien invasion that led to something of a utopia on Earth but they never let themselves be seen. The reason being, in a somewhat Jungian twist, that they looked like the devil. One of his best books.
Did you ever encounter James Blish's A Case for Conscience? On the issue of revelation of the Christian religion to aliens on an exosolar planet.
No, it sounds interesting though.
With this ambiguous earth His dealings have been told us. These abide: The signal to a maid, the human birth, The lesson, and the young Man crucified. But not a star of all The innumerable host of stars has heard How He administered this terrestrial ball. Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word. Of His earth-visiting feet None knows the secret, cherished, perilous, The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet Heart-shattering secret of His way with us. No planet knows that this Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave, Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss, Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave. Nor, in our little day, May His devices with the heavens be guessed, His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way Or His bestowals there be manifest. But in the eternities, Doubtless we shall compare together, hear A million alien Gospels, in what guise He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear. O, be prepared, my soul! To read the inconceivable, to scan The million forms of God those stars unroll When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.
Alice Meynell
What I find interesting about that and indeed about the Blish book is that they both assume a society where what people think about religion really matters, indeed it is the central point of their existence. In the west at least such people are very rare today but that is of course not the case around the world. It is always worth remembering that you really do not have to go back very far in our own history to find a world with very different views on religion and the importance of religious belief.
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
I have no idea about a Tory mp tweets and to be fair nearly 60 years ago my family and I owned a newsagents and grocers and we did display Easter eggs in the new year
I expect it may not surprise many
Only surprise, is that they waited until AFTER Christmas.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
Arthur C Clarke's Childhood's End had a peaceful alien invasion that led to something of a utopia on Earth but they never let themselves be seen. The reason being, in a somewhat Jungian twist, that they looked like the devil. One of his best books.
Did you ever encounter James Blish's A Case for Conscience? On the issue of revelation of the Christian religion to aliens on an exosolar planet.
No, it sounds interesting though.
Quite striking - part of a rather eclectic and esoteric trilogy of theological SF, including IIRC a biographical novel of Roger Bacon and a double book on the Last Judgement.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
I have no idea about a Tory mp tweets and to be fair nearly 60 years ago my family and I owned a newsagents and grocers and we did display Easter eggs in the new year
I expect it may not surprise many
I have no problem with you responding to Jake Berry. I have a problem with Jake Berry trying to create another culture wars woke issue with something that happens *every single year*.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
I believe it’s a production issue - a second line would be required to provide annual supply and the risk would be that continual availability would impact demand long term.
The current fix is to do a seasonal (scream) eggs if extra capacity is available
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
He/she is missing an open goal by not pointing out that they’re halal (“When will this madness end!?”)
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
I have no idea about a Tory mp tweets and to be fair nearly 60 years ago my family and I owned a newsagents and grocers and we did display Easter eggs in the new year
I expect it may not surprise many
I have no problem with you responding to Jake Berry. I have a problem with Jake Berry trying to create another culture wars woke issue with something that happens *every single year*.
Probably trying out the old "War on Christmas" crap so beloved by US Republicans for past decades.
Horrific pictures of the Japan Airlines A350 plane on fire at Haneda Airport after collision with another plane. It looks like the composite structure is the fuel for the flames. Would make me think twice before boarding an A350 or 787 plane soon.
On the other hand all the passengers and crew got out alive, so maybe it's safer than it looks.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
Ah, so now I know. This is what happens when schools stop teaching Scripture and replace it woke so-called ‘RE’.
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
Marks & Spencer's do gluten-free hot cross buns well outside traditional Easter, but that's because the gluten-free Pope came up with different rules for when Easter is held than traditional Catholicism in the great schism.
Catholicism is gluten free. Thanks to transubstantiation, you are consuming the Body of Christ, not a little bit of unleavened bread.
Actually, stuffing the mouths of the gluten intolerant with communion hosts would be a rigorous scientific test of transubstantiation. Off to hospital? The prods are right. All fine and dandy? A miracle!
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
Arthur C Clarke's Childhood's End had a peaceful alien invasion that led to something of a utopia on Earth but they never let themselves be seen. The reason being, in a somewhat Jungian twist, that they looked like the devil. One of his best books.
Did you ever encounter James Blish's A Case for Conscience? On the issue of revelation of the Christian religion to aliens on an exosolar planet.
No, it sounds interesting though.
With this ambiguous earth His dealings have been told us. These abide: The signal to a maid, the human birth, The lesson, and the young Man crucified. But not a star of all The innumerable host of stars has heard How He administered this terrestrial ball. Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word. Of His earth-visiting feet None knows the secret, cherished, perilous, The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet Heart-shattering secret of His way with us. No planet knows that this Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave, Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss, Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave. Nor, in our little day, May His devices with the heavens be guessed, His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way Or His bestowals there be manifest. But in the eternities, Doubtless we shall compare together, hear A million alien Gospels, in what guise He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear. O, be prepared, my soul! To read the inconceivable, to scan The million forms of God those stars unroll When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.
Alice Meynell
What I find interesting about that and indeed about the Blish book is that they both assume a society where what people think about religion really matters, indeed it is the central point of their existence. In the west at least such people are very rare today but that is of course not the case around the world. It is always worth remembering that you really do not have to go back very far in our own history to find a world with very different views on religion and the importance of religious belief.
Very true, and still true in many parts of the USA, of course. It's easy to trip up socially when chatting to American friends from rural areas to treat religion with mild irony, as we tend to do in Britain. That's why abortion remains such a hot issue there, while in Britain there is a pretty broad consensus around current rules. I also think we will see assisted dying legalised within 10 years, but it's not coming any time soon in US Federal legislation.
Conversely militant atheism doesn't really grip many people in Britain - I know some virulent American atheists who are reacting aganist the influence of evangelical churches. It's hard to get worked up about the influence of the CoE.
Humans are maybe only a decade or two from being able to send out probes with AI pilots, self fuelled and potentially unlimited by time. I predict we WILL do this. It’s just one step up from sending out interplanetary probes (which we’ve done).
So if we can and will do it others will surely have done it (if others exist) so they “should” be out there
Maybe you should be slightly more sceptical about AI.
Horrific pictures of the Japan Airlines A350 plane on fire at Haneda Airport after collision with another plane. It looks like the composite structure is the fuel for the flames. Would make me think twice before boarding an A350 or 787 plane soon.
On the other hand all the passengers and crew got out alive, so maybe it's safer than it looks.
If you can land on top of another plane, have a consequential fireball and get everyone out alive you have a remarkably safe mode of transport.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
Edit, I see that @SandyRentool has already answered this more than satisfactorily.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
Ah, so now I know. This is what happens when schools stop teaching Scripture and replace it woke so-called ‘RE’.
RS, sir, RS.
You don't think we educate the little buggers, do you?
That's probably enough to get you an Inadequate from OFSTED, and possibly a bad inspection grade too.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
The Church of England has for years used what look and taste like small discs of cardboard
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
Marks & Spencer's do gluten-free hot cross buns well outside traditional Easter, but that's because the gluten-free Pope came up with different rules for when Easter is held than traditional Catholicism in the great schism.
Catholicism is gluten free. Thanks to transubstantiation, you are consuming the Body of Christ, not a little bit of unleavened bread.
Actually, stuffing the mouths of the gluten intolerant with communion hosts would be a rigorous scientific test of transubstantiation. Off to hospital? The prods are right. All fine and dandy? A miracle!
The Roman Catholic church says, and I'm being serious now, the communion must contain wheat, which fucks you up if you are gluten-intolerant or, particularly, have coeliac disease. There are some very low gluten communion wafers where they use wheat starch but avoid most of the gluten, but that may not be enough for some people. See https://www.beyondceliac.org/celiac-news/whats-a-practicing-catholic-with-celiac-disease-to-do/ for more.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
Up here, Hexham falling would be huge.
Came close in 1997 (few hundred votes) so it'd be a major upset if it happened and would look bad for the rest of the country for Sunak
Sort of area that's been swinging leftwards, mind. Was the only NE constituency, and one of the few in the country I suspect, to have swung to Labour between 2015 and 2019.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Maine is probably 1 electoral vote lost for Trump, if this happens - Maine splits its electoral votes.
The interesting bit will be any cases up coming in swing states
Or if big states like California, NY and Illinois try to block Trump from their ballots.
For even if they are blue states in the general election they carry a lot of delegates in the GOP primaries which would make it much more difficult for Trump to even get the GOP nomination in the Presidential election and impossible if most swing states also keep him off the ballot (even if he could still run 3rd party in red states and any swing states which kept him on the ballot)
Does the ballot blocking for former insurgents apply to primaries, as well?
My understanding is that actually is down to state law in some sense.
So the 14th Amendment is a federal matter and says who is eligible to hold office. It does not say who can appear on a ballot paper. A state could, depending on state law, have someone on the ballot for a primary or general election, who is not eligible to hold the office if elected.
But that doesn't really solve the issue for SCOTUS. If Trump is eligible to be President, clearly Colorado and Maine have this wrong as their own state laws don't allow them to exclude eligible candidates and it'd be a separate problem under the Constitution if they did. They can have various technical filing rules, and indeed it isn't uncommon for Presidential candidates to appear on the ballot in some states but not others, but that's a slightly different matter - Trump can clearly meet those requirements and both Colorado and Maine have said this is eligibility under 14th Amendment, not some technical issue.
If, however, Trump is ineligible, the ruling has to make that clear. And it definitely has to be one or the other - he might be on the ballot paper in some states but not others, but his eligibility for the presidency cannot differ between Texas and Colorado. You're either eligible or not, and states can't take a different view on it - it's squarely a question of interpretation of the US Constitution for SCOTUS.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
Arthur C Clarke's Childhood's End had a peaceful alien invasion that led to something of a utopia on Earth but they never let themselves be seen. The reason being, in a somewhat Jungian twist, that they looked like the devil. One of his best books.
Did you ever encounter James Blish's A Case for Conscience? On the issue of revelation of the Christian religion to aliens on an exosolar planet.
No, it sounds interesting though.
With this ambiguous earth His dealings have been told us. These abide: The signal to a maid, the human birth, The lesson, and the young Man crucified. But not a star of all The innumerable host of stars has heard How He administered this terrestrial ball. Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word. Of His earth-visiting feet None knows the secret, cherished, perilous, The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet Heart-shattering secret of His way with us. No planet knows that this Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave, Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss, Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave. Nor, in our little day, May His devices with the heavens be guessed, His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way Or His bestowals there be manifest. But in the eternities, Doubtless we shall compare together, hear A million alien Gospels, in what guise He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear. O, be prepared, my soul! To read the inconceivable, to scan The million forms of God those stars unroll When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.
Alice Meynell
What I find interesting about that and indeed about the Blish book is that they both assume a society where what people think about religion really matters, indeed it is the central point of their existence. In the west at least such people are very rare today but that is of course not the case around the world. It is always worth remembering that you really do not have to go back very far in our own history to find a world with very different views on religion and the importance of religious belief.
Very true, and still true in many parts of the USA, of course. It's easy to trip up socially when chatting to American friends from rural areas to treat religion with mild irony, as we tend to do in Britain. That's why abortion remains such a hot issue there, while in Britain there is a pretty broad consensus around current rules. I also think we will see assisted dying legalised within 10 years, but it's not coming any time soon in US Federal legislation.
Conversely militant atheism doesn't really grip many people in Britain - I know some virulent American atheists who are reacting aganist the influence of evangelical churches. It's hard to get worked up about the influence of the CoE.
The CoE is above religion in the same way the King is above politics. Its sole remaining purpose is to add ceremonial lustre to significant occasions.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
Protestant churches, yes, I believe so. Catholic, no. Orthodox, no.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
The Church of England has for years used what look and taste like small discs of cardboard
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
Ah, so now I know. This is what happens when schools stop teaching Scripture and replace it woke so-called ‘RE’.
RS, sir, RS.
You don't think we educate the little buggers, do you?
That's probably enough to get you an Inadequate from OFSTED, and possibly a bad inspection grade too.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
If they were to opine that Trump engaged in insurrection, then that is as much a green light to state-level judges to make him ineligible to be on the ballot as if they had decided the candidate was not 35 years of age, not a natural born citizen, or had not lived in the United States for at least 14 years. It's a requirement of the US Constitution. Simples.
Again though, being under 35 is not an absolute bar to election, just to serving. The 20th Amendment specifically deals with that kind of scenario, which heavily implies such a person can be elected. Likewise, a senator elected underage does not have his or her election annulled but simply can't take their seat until their 30th birthday - there are several examples of that having happened, the most recent being Rush Holt who was elected in 1934 and not permitted to take his seat until June 1935 (Biden was himself 29 when he was elected, though had turned 30 by the start of the Congressional term).
The only problem might be, as the only way of removing this bar is a two thirds majority in the Senate and hell will freeze over before that is achieved, it would effectively bar him from office anyway.
Sure. But that's a political bar, not a legal one.
Though Trump might well govern via a pliant VP anyway, in such a scenario.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
The Church of England has for years used what look and taste like small discs of cardboard
Better than having the look and taste of small discs of human flesh.
In my mass-going days, the host would sometimes get stuck to the roof of my mouth. Poking about with a finger to dislodge it always seemed to be somewhat disrespectful to the Almighty.
at which stage in the US campaign cycle is the first time likely to be that an argument between a judge or prosecutor on one side, and Donald Trump personally on the other, is shown on live TV?
That will surely be a big moment, both for how voters see him who haven't yet decided how to vote and for Trump's internal psychology - the latter because there could be a powerful collision between the showbiz wrestling world in which he lives and the real world, which even a bucketful of Norman Vincent Peale's wisdom could be insufficient to damp. Or in less fancy words, he's got it coming to him and this is when it sinks in.
From his POV, how does he prepare for this? Ideally his corner would want him to role-play it, maybe begin with a civil case rather than a criminal one, possibly even add a surprise spring to his bow that lets him do something different from jutting his chin out, lying his head off, and saying he's the Messiah, but ... isn't this where he begins to meet his destiny and susses that he's not the superkiller his dad trained him to be?
Not because of lack of willpower, but because the outside place he tries to deny the existence of, consisting of everything outside of him himself, isn't quite susceptible to such an act-out?
On which: Dr Mary Trump may still have a part to play.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
Protestant churches, yes, I believe so. Catholic, no. Orthodox, no.
I don't believe Protestants believe in transubstantiation. I don't think the CofE "officially" does but some of its members and priests do.
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
Marks & Spencer's do gluten-free hot cross buns well outside traditional Easter, but that's because the gluten-free Pope came up with different rules for when Easter is held than traditional Catholicism in the great schism.
Catholicism is gluten free. Thanks to transubstantiation, you are consuming the Body of Christ, not a little bit of unleavened bread.
Actually, stuffing the mouths of the gluten intolerant with communion hosts would be a rigorous scientific test of transubstantiation. Off to hospital? The prods are right. All fine and dandy? A miracle!
The Roman Catholic church says, and I'm being serious now, the communion must contain wheat, which fucks you up if you are gluten-intolerant or, particularly, have coeliac disease. There are some very low gluten communion wafers where they use wheat starch but avoid most of the gluten, but that may not be enough for some people. See https://www.beyondceliac.org/celiac-news/whats-a-practicing-catholic-with-celiac-disease-to-do/ for more.
But following transubstantiation it won't contain wheat. So should be OK for anyone to take. Except vegetarians and vegans, of course.
Or is the Catholic Church admitting that it is just a load of old nonsense?
at which stage in the US campaign cycle is the first time likely to be that an argument between a judge or prosecutor on one side, and Donald Trump personally on the other, is shown on live TV?
That will surely be a big moment, both for how voters see him who haven't yet decided how to vote and for Trump's internal psychology - the latter because there could be a powerful collision between the showbiz wrestling world in which he lives and the real world, which even a bucketful of Norman Vincent Peale's wisdom could be insufficient to damp. Or in less fancy words, he's got it coming to him and this is when it sinks in.
From his POV, how does he prepare for this? Ideally his corner would want him to role-play it, maybe begin with a civil case rather than a criminal one, possibly even add a surprise spring to his bow that lets him do something different from jutting his chin out, lying his head off, and saying he's the Messiah, but ... isn't this where he begins to meet his destiny and susses that he's not the superkiller his dad trained him to be?
On which: Mary Trump may still have a part to play.
In the non-televised NY fraud case, he was his usual obnoxious, rambling, confrontational self when on the stand, despite repeated urging from the judge not to be like that! With TV cameras, he'll be even worse.
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
Marks & Spencer's do gluten-free hot cross buns well outside traditional Easter, but that's because the gluten-free Pope came up with different rules for when Easter is held than traditional Catholicism in the great schism.
Catholicism is gluten free. Thanks to transubstantiation, you are consuming the Body of Christ, not a little bit of unleavened bread.
Actually, stuffing the mouths of the gluten intolerant with communion hosts would be a rigorous scientific test of transubstantiation. Off to hospital? The prods are right. All fine and dandy? A miracle!
The Roman Catholic church says, and I'm being serious now, the communion must contain wheat, which fucks you up if you are gluten-intolerant or, particularly, have coeliac disease. There are some very low gluten communion wafers where they use wheat starch but avoid most of the gluten, but that may not be enough for some people. See https://www.beyondceliac.org/celiac-news/whats-a-practicing-catholic-with-celiac-disease-to-do/ for more.
But following transubstantiation it won't contain wheat. So should be OK for anyone to take. Except vegetarians and vegans, of course.
Or is the Catholic Church admitting that it is just a load of old nonsense?
The Catholic Church's official position is that the communion will appear in every possible way to be a small piece of "bread", but that it is nonetheless the body of Christ. I presume that extends to producing the symptoms of someone with coeliac eating bread.
at which stage in the US campaign cycle is the first time likely to be that an argument between a judge or prosecutor on one side, and Donald Trump personally on the other, is shown on live TV?
That will surely be a big moment, both for how voters see him who haven't yet decided how to vote and for Trump's internal psychology - the latter because there could be a powerful collision between the showbiz wrestling world in which he lives and the real world, which even a bucketful of Norman Vincent Peale's wisdom could be insufficient to damp. Or in less fancy words, he's got it coming to him and this is when it sinks in.
From his POV, how does he prepare for this? Ideally his corner would want him to role-play it, maybe begin with a civil case rather than a criminal one, possibly even add a surprise spring to his bow that lets him do something different from jutting his chin out, lying his head off, and saying he's the Messiah, but ... isn't this where he begins to meet his destiny and susses that he's not the superkiller his dad trained him to be?
On which: Mary Trump may still have a part to play.
In the non-televised NY fraud case, he was his usual obnoxious, rambling, confrontational self when on the stand, despite repeated urging from the judge not to be like that! With TV cameras, he'll be even worse.
Yes. It will be a massive moment when a judge tell him to shut up on live TV, or to answer the question that was just put to him by an aggressive prosecutor, and he suffers the ignominy of having to do what he's told in front of an audience of millions or get taken down to the cells. This isn't the role that wrestling, The Apprentice, or for that matter the White House prepared him for.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
Protestant churches, yes, I believe so. Catholic, no. Orthodox, no.
I don't believe Protestants believe in transubstantiation. I don't think the CofE "officially" does but some of its members and priests do.
I've checked out what the CofE has to say on the matter:
"THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
Arthur C Clarke's Childhood's End had a peaceful alien invasion that led to something of a utopia on Earth but they never let themselves be seen. The reason being, in a somewhat Jungian twist, that they looked like the devil. One of his best books.
Did you ever encounter James Blish's A Case for Conscience? On the issue of revelation of the Christian religion to aliens on an exosolar planet.
No, it sounds interesting though.
With this ambiguous earth His dealings have been told us. These abide: The signal to a maid, the human birth, The lesson, and the young Man crucified. But not a star of all The innumerable host of stars has heard How He administered this terrestrial ball. Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word. Of His earth-visiting feet None knows the secret, cherished, perilous, The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet Heart-shattering secret of His way with us. No planet knows that this Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave, Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss, Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave. Nor, in our little day, May His devices with the heavens be guessed, His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way Or His bestowals there be manifest. But in the eternities, Doubtless we shall compare together, hear A million alien Gospels, in what guise He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear. O, be prepared, my soul! To read the inconceivable, to scan The million forms of God those stars unroll When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.
Alice Meynell
What I find interesting about that and indeed about the Blish book is that they both assume a society where what people think about religion really matters, indeed it is the central point of their existence. In the west at least such people are very rare today but that is of course not the case around the world. It is always worth remembering that you really do not have to go back very far in our own history to find a world with very different views on religion and the importance of religious belief.
Yes. The west is an interesting exception to the norm. The USA (the exception to the exception) is, like Ireland, catching up with the rest of the west. Opinions vary, but I quite like the theory that the key time of cultural shift - from religion being mainstream normal to non-religion being mainstream normal - in most of the UK is not the high minded Victorian rationalists, WWI or WW2 but 1960-1970.
In other words I, and most of us, have watched the key critical times in our lifetimes; and empirically/anecdotally I think this is true.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
Protestant churches, yes, I believe so. Catholic, no. Orthodox, no.
I don't believe Protestants believe in transubstantiation. I don't think the CofE "officially" does but some of its members and priests do.
It was one of the major themes of the reformation... so by definition Protestants, including the CofE, do not believe in transubstantiation, so the communion wine and wafer are symbols of sacrifice and common believe, rather than a physically changed host.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
Protestant churches, yes, I believe so. Catholic, no. Orthodox, no.
I don't believe Protestants believe in transubstantiation. I don't think the CofE "officially" does but some of its members and priests do.
I've checked out what the CofE has to say on the matter:
"THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."
I think that is a "maybe"?
Of Prots; Luther believed passionately in the real presence but NOT in transubstantiation. He had no theory of how it worked, except that it did.
Calvin, which the CoE adopted in the 16th century, believed the real presence was in heaven not here and the whole thing taken together was Christ spiritually present. A multitude of interpretations are possible.
Zwingli believed the whole thing was a reminder and the bread and wine a visual aid.
Modern Anglicans believe all of these, + the RC view + several others made up since + complete reverent agnosticism about it (perhaps a plurality are about there).
The 39 Articles, (quoted supra) are not binding on laity or clergy today. (Good thing).
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
If they were to opine that Trump engaged in insurrection, then that is as much a green light to state-level judges to make him ineligible to be on the ballot as if they had decided the candidate was not 35 years of age, not a natural born citizen, or had not lived in the United States for at least 14 years. It's a requirement of the US Constitution. Simples.
Again though, being under 35 is not an absolute bar to election, just to serving. The 20th Amendment specifically deals with that kind of scenario, which heavily implies such a person can be elected. Likewise, a senator elected underage does not have his or her election annulled. The most recent such example was Rush Holt who was elected in 1934 but not permitted to take his seat until after he turned 30, in June 1935 (Biden was himself 29 when he was elected, though had turned 30 by the start of the Congressional term).
Show me somebody prepared to fund a political campaign for a candidate who can stand but cannot serve - and I'll admit you have a point!
Humans are maybe only a decade or two from being able to send out probes with AI pilots, self fuelled and potentially unlimited by time. I predict we WILL do this. It’s just one step up from sending out interplanetary probes (which we’ve done).
So if we can and will do it others will surely have done it (if others exist) so they “should” be out there
Maybe you should be slightly more sceptical about AI.
Interesting story in today's NYT re: recent study (now being peer-reviewed) on affect of ChatGPT on over 750 professional writers, divided into three groups: using AI after instruction; using AI without instruction; not using AI at all.
Preliminary findings > "sharply mixed results in the consultant's work product" > "ChatGPT greatly improved the speed and quality of work on a brainstorming [creative] task" > "but it led many consultants astray when doing more analytical work"
When asked to come up with business plan and sales pitch for a new type of shoe; at this "brainstorming" task, "people who simply cut and pasted ChatGPT's output were rated more highly than colleagues who blended its work with their own thoughts".
"On a task requiring reasoning based on evidence [!], however, ChatGPT was not helpful at all. In this group, volunteers were asked to advise a [hypothetical] corporation . . . [and] interpret data from spreadsheets . . . Here, ChatGPT lulled employees into trusting it too much". Result: those without AI correct (according to evaluation) 85% of the time; those using AI without instruction correct just over 70%; those using AI with instruction = 60% correct.
Anyhow - top tip: Go to a Sikh Gurdwara, rather than a Christian church. Prashad is much tastier than a communion wafer. Our 2 year old great niece loves the stuff!
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
Protestant churches, yes, I believe so. Catholic, no. Orthodox, no.
I don't believe Protestants believe in transubstantiation. I don't think the CofE "officially" does but some of its members and priests do.
It was one of the major themes of the reformation... so by definition Protestants, including the CofE, do not believe in transubstantiation, so the communion wine and wafer are symbols of sacrifice and common believe, rather than a physically changed host.
Do keep up.
Luther believed all his life that the bread and wine was the body and blood, but denied transubstantiation - having no view on how it worked, except that God made it so, so that was that.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
Protestant churches, yes, I believe so. Catholic, no. Orthodox, no.
I don't believe Protestants believe in transubstantiation. I don't think the CofE "officially" does but some of its members and priests do.
It was one of the major themes of the reformation... so by definition Protestants, including the CofE, do not believe in transubstantiation, so the communion wine and wafer are symbols of sacrifice and common believe, rather than a physically changed host.
Do keep up.
Luther believed all his life that the bread and wine was the body and blood, but denied transubstantiation - having no view on how it worked, except that God made it so, so that was that.
Oh good grief, Philippa Langley has a new book out, claiming inter alia that Lambert Simnel was Edward V.
Well, I have to admit it's original. Nonsense on stilts, but original.
Even allowing for the multiplicity of Edwards about at the time, it's surprising she muddled up Edward V with Edward Earl Of Warwick (whom Lambert Simnel also wasn't, for the record).
So? I know some moron Tory MP is tweeting about it, but this isn't news. Easter confectionery lines go into wholesalers in December, Christmas ones in August. Its an expandable consumption category, so if you get products in early you sell more. Some stuff (Creme Eggs, The Big Purple One) would sell all year round.
Marks & Spencer's do gluten-free hot cross buns well outside traditional Easter, but that's because the gluten-free Pope came up with different rules for when Easter is held than traditional Catholicism in the great schism.
Catholicism is gluten free. Thanks to transubstantiation, you are consuming the Body of Christ, not a little bit of unleavened bread.
Actually, stuffing the mouths of the gluten intolerant with communion hosts would be a rigorous scientific test of transubstantiation. Off to hospital? The prods are right. All fine and dandy? A miracle!
The Roman Catholic church says, and I'm being serious now, the communion must contain wheat, which fucks you up if you are gluten-intolerant or, particularly, have coeliac disease. There are some very low gluten communion wafers where they use wheat starch but avoid most of the gluten, but that may not be enough for some people. See https://www.beyondceliac.org/celiac-news/whats-a-practicing-catholic-with-celiac-disease-to-do/ for more.
But following transubstantiation it won't contain wheat. So should be OK for anyone to take. Except vegetarians and vegans, of course.
Or is the Catholic Church admitting that it is just a load of old nonsense?
The RC view (not mine) is that the substance - which is an intangible element of any sort of stuff - changes, but the accidents (the appearance) remains the same.
Compare gender identity. It is possible in the view of some to possess entire male biological equipment as a person (accidents) but in substance to be female. It is exactly the same.
This analysis depends on an Aristotelian view of what things are and how they are formed. (This view is out of fashion generally but is immensely powerful).
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
Arthur C Clarke's Childhood's End had a peaceful alien invasion that led to something of a utopia on Earth but they never let themselves be seen. The reason being, in a somewhat Jungian twist, that they looked like the devil. One of his best books.
Did you ever encounter James Blish's A Case for Conscience? On the issue of revelation of the Christian religion to aliens on an exosolar planet.
No, it sounds interesting though.
With this ambiguous earth His dealings have been told us. These abide: The signal to a maid, the human birth, The lesson, and the young Man crucified. But not a star of all The innumerable host of stars has heard How He administered this terrestrial ball. Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word. Of His earth-visiting feet None knows the secret, cherished, perilous, The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet Heart-shattering secret of His way with us. No planet knows that this Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave, Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss, Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave. Nor, in our little day, May His devices with the heavens be guessed, His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way Or His bestowals there be manifest. But in the eternities, Doubtless we shall compare together, hear A million alien Gospels, in what guise He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear. O, be prepared, my soul! To read the inconceivable, to scan The million forms of God those stars unroll When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.
Alice Meynell
What I find interesting about that and indeed about the Blish book is that they both assume a society where what people think about religion really matters, indeed it is the central point of their existence. In the west at least such people are very rare today but that is of course not the case around the world. It is always worth remembering that you really do not have to go back very far in our own history to find a world with very different views on religion and the importance of religious belief.
Very true, and still true in many parts of the USA, of course. It's easy to trip up socially when chatting to American friends from rural areas to treat religion with mild irony, as we tend to do in Britain. That's why abortion remains such a hot issue there, while in Britain there is a pretty broad consensus around current rules. I also think we will see assisted dying legalised within 10 years, but it's not coming any time soon in US Federal legislation.
Conversely militant atheism doesn't really grip many people in Britain - I know some virulent American atheists who are reacting aganist the influence of evangelical churches. It's hard to get worked up about the influence of the CoE.
So in Britain we're quite moderate and level-headed then, disregarding extremes on both sides?
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
The Church of England has for years used what look and taste like small discs of cardboard
That depends on your bit of the CofE.
The Low (late 20C/early 21C definition of "Low") end tends to use actual loaves of bread, as a theological link to daily life rather than a wafer factory, and as a nod to a physical "one bread" from the NT.
To me it seems utterly bonkers that you can have a political system where someone is entitled to be on the ballot but is not entitled to serve if elected, but the US constitution does seem to have moments of extreme nuttiness like that (+ judges that seem to take very nutty decisions on what it all really means).
I think Trump is ever so slightly too short for the Rep nomination at the moment and so, accounting for the possibility of "events", I have laid him a chunk.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
The Church of England has for years used what look and taste like small discs of cardboard
Better than having the look and taste of small discs of human flesh.
In my mass-going days, the host would sometimes get stuck to the roof of my mouth. Poking about with a finger to dislodge it always seemed to be somewhat disrespectful to the Almighty.
Understandable but of no concern at all to the almighty who took the form of a smelly baby being sick and all the other stuff.
I’m confused why this is news - all supermarkets have a seasonal aisle that will go Christmas, Easter, summer, back to school, Halloween, Christmas
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
Tbf I don’t see a reason why creme eggs couldn’t be available year round.
Because it's sacrilegious! Creme eggs should be eaten at Easter, as it says in the Bible! From Matthew 26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The question I had occasion to ask on Hogmanay was whether the gluten free alternative being offered in some churches to bread were really still Jesus?
Protestant churches, yes, I believe so. Catholic, no. Orthodox, no.
I don't believe Protestants believe in transubstantiation. I don't think the CofE "officially" does but some of its members and priests do.
It was one of the major themes of the reformation... so by definition Protestants, including the CofE, do not believe in transubstantiation, so the communion wine and wafer are symbols of sacrifice and common believe, rather than a physically changed host.
Do keep up.
English are a nation of heathens, and have been for nearly (or is it at least?) two centuries now. As reflected in what passes for theological discourse on PB.
NOTE that swearing oath explicitly renouncing doctrine of transubstantiation, was requirement for holding office in England:
I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.
Policy of banning avowed transubstantiationists from public life was one of the core doctrines of post-Restoration Tory Party.
Interestingly, it was opposed and substantially (!) overturned by Sir Robert Peel, founder of Conservative Party.
Who MAY have been shilling for infamous Yankee Wheat Wafer lobby, in line with his repeal of Corn Laws?
Comments
That didn't take long !!!!!!
It is the Country's misfortune that he was beaten by someone so bad they decided sloppy seconds were an improvement
This means you can chew bacca.
That is another speculation in the air at the moment. And it it temptingly plausible. After all it’s what we did - sending solo explorers across the wide oceans just in case. But AI would be used instead, if possible, as it theoretically can live forever
Imagine some of these probes were maybe designed to “crash” on impact with a promising planet. Imagine a government got hold of a few….
Russell Long was elected in 1948 to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy created by the death of John Overton, which had been filled temporarily by the appointment of William Feazel. In winning election to the Senate, Long became the only person in U.S. history to be preceded in that chamber by both his father and his mother.
He was elected on November 2, 1948, one day before his 30th birthday, and took office on December 31, thus meeting the Constitutional requirement that Senators be at least 30 years old upon taking office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_B._Long
So if we can and will do it others will surely have done it (if others exist) so they “should” be out there
It would be a good way to partially launder his reputation
Also, life expectancy in, say, Costa Rica is 79 compared to 77 in the United States.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/30/costa-ricans-live-longer-than-we-do-whats-the-secret
With this ambiguous earth
His dealings have been told us. These abide:
The signal to a maid, the human birth,
The lesson, and the young Man crucified.
But not a star of all
The innumerable host of stars has heard
How He administered this terrestrial ball.
Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word.
Of His earth-visiting feet
None knows the secret, cherished, perilous,
The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet
Heart-shattering secret of His way with us.
No planet knows that this
Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave,
Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss,
Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave.
Nor, in our little day,
May His devices with the heavens be guessed,
His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way
Or His bestowals there be manifest.
But in the eternities,
Doubtless we shall compare together, hear
A million alien Gospels, in what guise
He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear.
O, be prepared, my soul!
To read the inconceivable, to scan
The million forms of God those stars unroll
When, in our turn, we show to them a Man.
Alice Meynell
Firstly, the 14th Amendment doesn't refer to conviction, even though the term is used elsewhere in the Constitution. The reality is the wording doesn't really support the need for a conviction if you want to read it literally. That's problematic for a conservative justice, as reading it literally is what conservatives do. They'd probably get comfortable with it ultimately, but may not - the Trump appointed justices plus Roberts are conservatives who do genuinely worry about this stuff.
Secondly, it begs an enormous question. What offence would Trump need to be convicted of to bar him from office? Because the SCOTUS know exactly what the charges are - so are any of them disqualifying?
Thirdly, it kicks the can recklessly down the road. Fine, it gets them through the primaries. But what if a conviction comes in October, or next February? It's all much uglier than either saying he's eligible now, or even saying he's not. All hell would break loose if he was declared ineligible now, but as nothing compared to if he was in the White House.
It is very difficult indeed to think what could launder a reputation as dirty as his has become.
And the corner shop has had crème eggs from the day the cash and carry got them in (so early December)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67511954
Look to be viable boiler replacements for a lot of households.
He knows he's there for life. He's not going to let common sense or morals get in the way of his ruling.
One hypothesis I didn’t see in there but was the first that sprung to my mind was the drag effect of certain social issues that affect poorer whites in the US in particular - most obviously opiates, but other health issues too which could be mitigated somewhat by stronger community/family ties.
Asking for a friend.
And here we are. Wanting to abruptly reverse all of that. According to their own process:
The constitution defines POTUS as an office
The constitution disbars insurrectionists from office
The constitution does not require legal conviction as it isn't legal sanction
Would love to hear the ruling if they reverse fettle...
I expect it may not surprise many
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And he took a small chocolate egg, and prayed over it, and gave it to them, saying, Taste ye, for it has some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside. And, lo, it did have some sort of sweet, gooey stuff inside, which made it look a bit like a real egg.
The current fix is to do a seasonal (scream) eggs if extra capacity is available
Old piss in broken bottle.
On the other hand all the passengers and crew got out alive, so maybe it's safer than it looks.
Actually, stuffing the mouths of the gluten intolerant with communion hosts would be a rigorous scientific test of transubstantiation. Off to hospital? The prods are right. All fine and dandy? A miracle!
Conversely militant atheism doesn't really grip many people in Britain - I know some virulent American atheists who are reacting aganist the influence of evangelical churches. It's hard to get worked up about the influence of the CoE.
Edit, I see that @SandyRentool has already answered this more than satisfactorily.
You don't think we educate the little buggers, do you?
That's probably enough to get you an Inadequate from OFSTED, and possibly a bad inspection grade too.
So the 14th Amendment is a federal matter and says who is eligible to hold office. It does not say who can appear on a ballot paper. A state could, depending on state law, have someone on the ballot for a primary or general election, who is not eligible to hold the office if elected.
But that doesn't really solve the issue for SCOTUS. If Trump is eligible to be President, clearly Colorado and Maine have this wrong as their own state laws don't allow them to exclude eligible candidates and it'd be a separate problem under the Constitution if they did. They can have various technical filing rules, and indeed it isn't uncommon for Presidential candidates to appear on the ballot in some states but not others, but that's a slightly different matter - Trump can clearly meet those requirements and both Colorado and Maine have said this is eligibility under 14th Amendment, not some technical issue.
If, however, Trump is ineligible, the ruling has to make that clear. And it definitely has to be one or the other - he might be on the ballot paper in some states but not others, but his eligibility for the presidency cannot differ between Texas and Colorado. You're either eligible or not, and states can't take a different view on it - it's squarely a question of interpretation of the US Constitution for SCOTUS.
Though Trump might well govern via a pliant VP anyway, in such a scenario.
In my mass-going days, the host would sometimes get stuck to the roof of my mouth. Poking about with a finger to dislodge it always seemed to be somewhat disrespectful to the Almighty.
at which stage in the US campaign cycle is the first time likely to be that an argument between a judge or prosecutor on one side, and Donald Trump personally on the other, is shown on live TV?
That will surely be a big moment, both for how voters see him who haven't yet decided how to vote and for Trump's internal psychology - the latter because there could be a powerful collision between the showbiz wrestling world in which he lives and the real world, which even a bucketful of Norman Vincent Peale's wisdom could be insufficient to damp. Or in less fancy words, he's got it coming to him and this is when it sinks in.
From his POV, how does he prepare for this? Ideally his corner would want him to role-play it, maybe begin with a civil case rather than a criminal one, possibly even add a surprise spring to his bow that lets him do something different from jutting his chin out, lying his head off, and saying he's the Messiah, but ... isn't this where he begins to meet his destiny and susses that he's not the superkiller his dad trained him to be?
Not because of lack of willpower, but because the outside place he tries to deny the existence of, consisting of everything outside of him himself, isn't quite susceptible to such an act-out?
On which: Dr Mary Trump may still have a part to play.
Or is the Catholic Church admitting that it is just a load of old nonsense?
https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-2024-legal-and-political-calendars-a-cheat-sheet
"THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."
I think that is a "maybe"?
In other words I, and most of us, have watched the key critical times in our lifetimes; and empirically/anecdotally I think this is true.
On the Wednesday after Christmas my cardiologist phoned in the evening to say I needed an urgent pacemaker operation and to stop driving
He said he would do it within 4 weeks so hopefully he will as I do feel very much under the weather
Strangely my 85 year old wife's cousin has his 30 year old pacemaker changed in October and my brother in law had one fitted four weeks ago
Popcorn stocks might run low.
Do keep up.
https://x.com/joyce_karam/status/1742227311347298555?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Israel did it
If the war is going to widen, it could be now (let’s hope it doesn’t)
Calvin, which the CoE adopted in the 16th century, believed the real presence was in heaven not here and the whole thing taken together was Christ spiritually present. A multitude of interpretations are possible.
Zwingli believed the whole thing was a reminder and the bread and wine a visual aid.
Modern Anglicans believe all of these, + the RC view + several others made up since + complete reverent agnosticism about it (perhaps a plurality are about there).
The 39 Articles, (quoted supra) are not binding on laity or clergy today. (Good thing).
Preliminary findings
> "sharply mixed results in the consultant's work product"
> "ChatGPT greatly improved the speed and quality of work on a brainstorming [creative] task"
> "but it led many consultants astray when doing more analytical work"
When asked to come up with business plan and sales pitch for a new type of shoe; at this "brainstorming" task, "people who simply cut and pasted ChatGPT's output were rated more highly than colleagues who blended its work with their own thoughts".
"On a task requiring reasoning based on evidence [!], however, ChatGPT was not helpful at all. In this group, volunteers were asked to advise a [hypothetical] corporation . . . [and] interpret data from spreadsheets . . . Here, ChatGPT lulled employees into trusting it too much". Result: those without AI correct (according to evaluation) 85% of the time; those using AI without instruction correct just over 70%; those using AI with instruction = 60% correct.
(Could perhaps also be used as a pizza topping.)
Well, I have to admit it's original. Nonsense on stilts, but original.
Even allowing for the multiplicity of Edwards about at the time, it's surprising she muddled up Edward V with Edward Earl Of Warwick (whom Lambert Simnel also wasn't, for the record).
Compare gender identity. It is possible in the view of some to possess entire male biological equipment as a person (accidents) but in substance to be female. It is exactly the same.
This analysis depends on an Aristotelian view of what things are and how they are formed. (This view is out of fashion generally but is immensely powerful).
Makes me proud to be British.
The Low (late 20C/early 21C definition of "Low") end tends to use actual loaves of bread, as a theological link to daily life rather than a wafer factory, and as a nod to a physical "one bread" from the NT.
NOTE that swearing oath explicitly renouncing doctrine of transubstantiation, was requirement for holding office in England:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Acts
The oath for the Test Act 1673 was:
I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.
Policy of banning avowed transubstantiationists from public life was one of the core doctrines of post-Restoration Tory Party.
Interestingly, it was opposed and substantially (!) overturned by Sir Robert Peel, founder of Conservative Party.
Who MAY have been shilling for infamous Yankee Wheat Wafer lobby, in line with his repeal of Corn Laws?