Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
Range Rovers are uninsurable because people keep nicking them. It's that simple.
"The analysis also indicated that large mammals, such as deer or llamas, made up most of the meat in the diet, rather than smaller mammals such as birds or fish."
Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish"
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
"The analysis also indicated that large mammals, such as deer or llamas, made up most of the meat in the diet, rather than smaller mammals such as birds or fish."
Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish"
Even worse neither birds nor fish are mammals...
Yes, as PB noticed later
The Guardian has now quietly changed this, without admitting the change
Bit late tho, as the original error has gone viral
Flogging NHS patient data to American tech bros will apparently see Britain at the "forefront of [the] biotechnology and AI revolution" according to washed up politicians from 20 years back.
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
Range Rovers are uninsurable because people keep nicking them. It's that simple.
Around this part of London there's a group of criminals who consistently go around on mopeds and old Range Rovers.
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
The uninsurability is a combination of car and driver. A bunch of professional tea leaves cracked the security system a couple of years back, and they can be opened and started with a device that looks like a phone but is actually an RF transceiver. You have to block it in with another car, if you don’t want it stolen.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking into account the behaviour and consequences they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
The annoying and frustrating thing about the RR (not the Evoque, Velar, etc which are low-rent crap) is that it has some aspects of a really good product. Even now, none of the manifold competition do the off-road/luxury combination with the quite the same elan. It's just designed with a cost-cutting mania and shoddily built by no-marks who don't give a fuck (see also McLaren). None of that seems to hurt the resale values which are a testament to the power of the brand and defy the crappy execution.
Second-hand car Youtubers are buying cheap Range Rovers. Presumably there is a survivorship bias here, and the ones that were too badly built have been scrapped.
I'm looking forward to @kinabalu 's response to that header.
Just done it!
In essence: my Big Short derives from my judgement of America and the American people. That it and they are not so far 'gone' - ie infantilized and corrupted - as to re-elect Donald Trump in the face of all that's known about him.
I still think this. I'm not too fussed about what the polls say right now. I think they'll change as the election nears and minds focus. I'm confident.
But I could be wrong. I'm not American, don't know many, and I don't live in America. This is intuition (albeit strong intuition) from a distance. And if I am wrong it's got to be very possible that I'm very wrong - hence why I've done this bet @ 4.7. It's value imo, both in itself and in the context of my overall book.
The American system of political log jam and legalised bribery has created a democracy where it feels like nothing can be changed.
When you add in the extremes of success/failure possible, Break The System starts to look attractive to some groups.
Another interesting question, if the Tories merge with Reform, is whether there are enough more moderate Tory MP's left for the Parliamentary party to split, or whether a new party will simply emerge, separately.
There are very large gaps opening up on the Centre-Right, and Left, of British politics.
There aren't enough Remainer, One Nation Tory MPs to make up a new party that can win seats under FPTP, at most they would go LD.
The Tories would only likely merge with Reform, Canada style, if Reform overtook them on seats and votes.
Under PR of course the Tories and Reform could stay separate parties but form coalition governments together
Has anyone ever explained WHY Donald Trump wears this ridiculous fake tan that makes his face all orange?
In the latest photos he looks even more orange than ever. It is not a great look. He looks insane, and his face is orange
WTF. Why does he do it? Why not let it go, or get an actual tan - he spends half his time in Florida
But he has a (relatively) well planned coiffure:
Maybe he regards "orange face" as a quirky but necessary part of his political branding, the same way Hitler apparently used "toothbrush moustache"
Re. Boris’s shambolic hairdo at the moment… is he exaggerating scruffiness to magnify the ‘new smart & serious look’ image he presents on his comeback?
Has anyone ever explained WHY Donald Trump wears this ridiculous fake tan that makes his face all orange?
In the latest photos he looks even more orange than ever. It is not a great look. He looks insane, and his face is orange
WTF. Why does he do it? Why not let it go, or get an actual tan - he spends half his time in Florida
Both candidates have a somewhat embalmed appearance, though at least Biden’s family spent a bit with a decent mortician while Trump looks like Melania sent him down to a back street operation in Tijuana and then welched on the bill. Wouldn’t be surprised if the latter situation actually took place in due course.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
The plot extends several years back. The drop is much more significant this year.
Has anyone ever explained WHY Donald Trump wears this ridiculous fake tan that makes his face all orange?
In the latest photos he looks even more orange than ever. It is not a great look. He looks insane, and his face is orange
WTF. Why does he do it? Why not let it go, or get an actual tan - he spends half his time in Florida
But he has a (relatively) well planned coiffure:
Maybe he regards "orange face" as a quirky but necessary part of his political branding, the same way Hitler apparently used "toothbrush moustache"
Re. Boris’s shambolic hairdo at the moment… is he exaggerating scruffiness to magnify the ‘new smart & serious look’ image he presents on his comeback?
More like he is getting ever more desperate to hide his obvious baldness, which requires increasingly absurd hairdos
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
Except that is a multi year graph that shows no similar drop at that time of year in previous years.
Has anyone ever explained WHY Donald Trump wears this ridiculous fake tan that makes his face all orange?
In the latest photos he looks even more orange than ever. It is not a great look. He looks insane, and his face is orange
WTF. Why does he do it? Why not let it go, or get an actual tan - he spends half his time in Florida
But he has a (relatively) well planned coiffure:
Estonian ERKE leader/twat Rain Epler is currently setting the standard for far-right, idiosyncratic hair cuts. Although we have not seen what the trichologists of Phnom Penh have done to Lunchtime O'Booze yet.
Bro is rocking that Witcher 3 peasant bowl cut hard.
Another interesting question, if the Tories merge with Reform, is whether there are enough more moderate Tory MP's left for the Parliamentary party to split, or whether a new party will simply emerge, separately.
There are very large gaps opening up on the Centre-Right, and Left, of British politics.
There aren't enough Remainer, One Nation Tory MPs to make up a new party that can win seats under FPTP, at most they would go LD.
The Tories would only likely merge with Reform, Canada style, if Reform overtook them on seats and votes.
Under PR of course the Tories and Reform could stay separate parties but form coalition governments together
The logic would be that a new party would emerge to the left of Labour (maybe combining with the Greens, maybe not) - that gap in the market has long been obvious, leaving the Labour brand as a moderate, social democratic party. So the LibDems would have to shift into a centre-right, FDP type position that would accommodate those one nation Tories, leaving whatever emerges from the wreckage of the car crash on the right as the right wing party. Whether there's an additional space beyond that for the extremely nutty right wing (other than as a fringe protest party) isn't at all clear.
Has anyone ever explained WHY Donald Trump wears this ridiculous fake tan that makes his face all orange?
In the latest photos he looks even more orange than ever. It is not a great look. He looks insane, and his face is orange
WTF. Why does he do it? Why not let it go, or get an actual tan - he spends half his time in Florida
Both candidates have a somewhat embalmed appearance, though at least Biden’s family spent a bit with a decent mortician while Trump looks like Melania sent him down to a back street operation in Tijuana and then welched on the bill. Wouldn’t be surprised if the latter situation actually took place in due course.
Yes, that's acute
Biden looks like a dead person who has been skifully embalmed, and for some reason can now sort-of walk and talk
"The analysis also indicated that large mammals, such as deer or llamas, made up most of the meat in the diet, rather than smaller mammals such as birds or fish."
Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish"
Even worse neither birds nor fish are mammals...
Yes, as PB noticed later
The Guardian has now quietly changed this, without admitting the change
Bit late tho, as the original error has gone viral
They have admitted the change - it's at the bottom of the article.
Have you admitted your error in saying, "Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish""?
There are plenty of fish in mountain streams and lakes.
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking into account the behaviour and consequences they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
The annoying and frustrating thing about the RR (not the Evoque, Velar, etc which are low-rent crap) is that it has some aspects of a really good product. Even now, none of the manifold competition do the off-road/luxury combination with the quite the same elan. It's just designed with a cost-cutting mania and shoddily built by no-marks who don't give a fuck (see also McLaren). None of that seems to hurt the resale values which are a testament to the power of the brand and defy the crappy execution.
Second-hand car Youtubers are buying cheap Range Rovers. Presumably there is a survivorship bias here, and the ones that were too badly built have been scrapped.
Just seen the price of a new Range Rover. When did they cross the £100k threshold (& then some !). I always thought of them as being around the £40k mark but I might be remembering back to about 1995 here...
Has anyone ever explained WHY Donald Trump wears this ridiculous fake tan that makes his face all orange?
In the latest photos he looks even more orange than ever. It is not a great look. He looks insane, and his face is orange
WTF. Why does he do it? Why not let it go, or get an actual tan - he spends half his time in Florida
But he has a (relatively) well planned coiffure:
Estonian ERKE leader/twat Rain Epler is currently setting the standard for far-right, idiosyncratic hair cuts. Although we have not seen what the trichologists of Phnom Penh have done to Lunchtime O'Booze yet.
Bro is rocking that Witcher 3 peasant bowl cut hard.
OMG that is fantastic. And the tache too
Can it possibly be a wig? A wig THAT bad?
Have you found the worst haircut in the history of politics? I think you might. Chapeau
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
Except that is a multi year graph that shows no similar drop at that time of year in previous years.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"The analysis also indicated that large mammals, such as deer or llamas, made up most of the meat in the diet, rather than smaller mammals such as birds or fish."
Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish"
Even worse neither birds nor fish are mammals...
Yes, as PB noticed later
The Guardian has now quietly changed this, without admitting the change
Bit late tho, as the original error has gone viral
They have admitted the change - it's at the bottom of the article.
Have you admitted your error in saying, "Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish""?
There are plenty of fish in mountain streams and lakes.
That second change is new. So they first made the error, they they stealthily corrected it, then eventually they admitted the change
"The analysis also indicated that large mammals, such as deer or llamas, made up most of the meat in the diet, rather than smaller mammals such as birds or fish."
Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish"
Even worse neither birds nor fish are mammals...
Yes, as PB noticed later
The Guardian has now quietly changed this, without admitting the change
Bit late tho, as the original error has gone viral
They have admitted the change - it's at the bottom of the article.
Have you admitted your error in saying, "Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish""?
There are plenty of fish in mountain streams and lakes.
Indeed. Otherwise where would all those central Europeans get their traditional Christmas carp/pike/perch?
FWIW I disagree with this thread. I expect Biden to win the popular vote handily.
Unemployment in the US is at a 50 year low. Biden’s administration has created 14m jobs including 1m manufacturing jobs as he promised. Real wages, which have been flat, are now rising strongly. For the first time in decades US growth is matching or even exceeding China.
It is a terrific record and his low polling numbers are a reflection of the bias in the right wing media calling everything awful. As the population focuses on this I expect Biden’s numbers to improve sharply and some of the Trump court cases to damage his.
Not only do I see this as a poor bet, if I am right trading opportunities are likely to be poor because the Republican vote is not likely to be as good as it is now again.
Totally disagree (although I guess that is to be expected) and I think @Quincel has written a very good post and raises what could be an interesting opportunity.
I'll tackle some of your broader points first though. If the US is matching China's growth rate, it is because China is having a mare of a 2023 and looks like 2024, and its rate is falling, not that the US has turbocharged growth. The jobs Biden 'created' are really a bounceback from the pandemic and of the measures both Administrations took. As for the 'right-wing' media, could you list out the publications please? I get Fox, the NY Post and the WSJ and Mail Online. Against that, you have the NYT, WP, LAT, Chicago Tribune etc, plus most of the other major networks who have, to put it charitably, a centre-left bias. The mass of the media is not right-wing.
But never mind that. Here is what could make the bet interesting. Quincel raises the very good point re 2022 pointing to the polls being wrong. That could play against the bet.
But one thing increasingly clear is that the Democrats have become the beneficiaries of lower turnout in the mid-terms rather than the Republicans - which historically has been the case - as graduates and suburbanites become more of their base. Yet even in that election, on the House popular vote, the Republicans won by 2-3 points. True, some seats were uncontested but, in 2024 with more low-propensity voters, you would expect the Republicans to benefit.
There is also the fact that there are anecdotal signs Republicans are also gaining in heavily Democrat areas. Hochul only defeated Zeldin by 5+ points in the NY Governorship race and Murphy only won the NJ vote by 2. No-one imagines the situation has got better for the Democrats in those states. CA will never go Republican but, for the purposes of this bet, the Republicans only have to make modest voting inroads, which it looks like they are.
So, actually, Quincel has identified an opportunity.
For comparison, the last time a Dem president was up for reelection in 2012 he won the popular vote by 3.9%. In the previous midterms 2010 Republicans won the House popular vote by 6.8% - a turnaround of 10.7%.
So on balance Republicans winning the House vote by 2%ish (after deducting for the higher number of seats Dems didn't contest) would if anything point to Democrats winning the popular vote narrowly in the 2024 presidential election.
However, I think it's too early to say much about who is going to win the popular vote, but Biden's net approval ratings are worse than Trump's were at this point in his presidency according to this: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/ Actually worse than any president since the second world war, so Republicans popular vote is probably value at 10/3. It's probably better value than the 10/11 or so available Republicans winning the presidency - I think people are maybe overestimating the advantage the Republicans will have in the Electoral College this time.
That is a fair point re 2-3 points in 2022 not necessarily being a big lead historically. The (part) counter-argument would be that Democrats were energised by Roe v Wade which boosted their usual turnout.
Re the timing, yes, I am in the camp of thinking it is too early to bet but, for me, I don't see how Biden gets out of this situation. The economy will improve but I do not see how the immigration situation does if only because of the pressure from the activist base and the concerns over his age will only get worse and probably intensify as he campaigns and so is more publicly out there. I also think Bibi has decided that Trump would suit him better than Biden, and so I suspect he will drag out the conflict v Hamas knowing that this causes significant problems for Biden within the Democrats. Which is why I have bet on Biden being shunted out of the way and the Democrats to go into November with someone who is not Biden or Harris.
I agree with your earlier point that the midterm turnout advantage the Republicans used to have might have disappeared - and yes the Roe v Wade decision boosted Dems in 2022. I don't think the House results in 2022 were that great for either party in terms of a basis for 2024.
On how Biden gets out of this situation. He's not that far behind on current head-to-head polling (though usually a bit worse with other candidates included), so if the economy improves (or people's perception of the economy improves) it's surely possible for him to win even if the immigration situation doesn't improve.
As an aside, Biden's 2020 vote was much less efficient that Hillary Clinton's 2016 vote in terms of the electoral college, so it's a bit of a myth that Clinton was especially bad for piling up votes where she didn't need them. Personally I think Biden was always a bad choice as candidate. I would even say if Clinton had beaten Obama in the primaries in 2008 she would have probably made a better president than Obama, with a more coherent foreign policy, and the world wouldn't be in such a shit situation today.
Has anyone ever explained WHY Donald Trump wears this ridiculous fake tan that makes his face all orange?
In the latest photos he looks even more orange than ever. It is not a great look. He looks insane, and his face is orange
WTF. Why does he do it? Why not let it go, or get an actual tan - he spends half his time in Florida
But he has a (relatively) well planned coiffure:
Maybe he regards "orange face" as a quirky but necessary part of his political branding, the same way Hitler apparently used "toothbrush moustache"
Yep I think so. Same re the colour of his hair which is nothing like his natural colour (which I assume is grey now, but wasn't). if he did now go natural for both though he would be crucified in the media.
Sad really, that for all his faults, the ones that hit hardest recently were that he smells or has syphilis because of the red marks on his hands (which could easily have been ink) and not actually the ones that really matter. Politics today eh.
"The analysis also indicated that large mammals, such as deer or llamas, made up most of the meat in the diet, rather than smaller mammals such as birds or fish."
Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish"
Even worse neither birds nor fish are mammals...
Yes, as PB noticed later
The Guardian has now quietly changed this, without admitting the change
Bit late tho, as the original error has gone viral
They have admitted the change - it's at the bottom of the article.
Have you admitted your error in saying, "Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish""?
There are plenty of fish in mountain streams and lakes.
That second change is new. So they first made the error, they they stealthily corrected it, then eventually they admitted the change
Poor performance
But anyways a distraction from the principal finding (or hypothesis, according to view) that the idea our stone age ancestors ate tons of meat and few plants is wrong.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
Has anyone ever explained WHY Donald Trump wears this ridiculous fake tan that makes his face all orange?
In the latest photos he looks even more orange than ever. It is not a great look. He looks insane, and his face is orange
WTF. Why does he do it? Why not let it go, or get an actual tan - he spends half his time in Florida
But he has a (relatively) well planned coiffure:
Estonian ERKE leader/twat Rain Epler is currently setting the standard for far-right, idiosyncratic hair cuts. Although we have not seen what the trichologists of Phnom Penh have done to Lunchtime O'Booze yet.
Bro is rocking that Witcher 3 peasant bowl cut hard.
That's fantastic.
It's like some sort of cross between Chris Waddle and the Wicker Man. 1980's /70's football/soft porn meets The Forest People.
"The analysis also indicated that large mammals, such as deer or llamas, made up most of the meat in the diet, rather than smaller mammals such as birds or fish."
Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish"
Even worse neither birds nor fish are mammals...
Yes, as PB noticed later
The Guardian has now quietly changed this, without admitting the change
Bit late tho, as the original error has gone viral
They have admitted the change - it's at the bottom of the article.
Have you admitted your error in saying, "Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish""?
There are plenty of fish in mountain streams and lakes.
That second change is new. So they first made the error, they they stealthily corrected it, then eventually they admitted the change
Poor performance
But anyways a distraction from the principal finding (or hypothesis, according to view) that the idea our stone age ancestors ate tons of meat and few plants is wrong.
And it's not a dramatic "finding". It's one study of 24 skeletons in one fairly unique location, right up the Andes
If there is anywhere in the world where you might expect a hunter gatherer people to encounter problems hunting, and therefore turn to plants, it is going to be more extreme environments like high mountains
The actual study is no doubt quite sound. The Guardian's sweeping extrapolation is, to put it politely, not
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Looks like the Suez blockades all started around the same time as the Hamas attacks on the Israeli music festival.
"The analysis also indicated that large mammals, such as deer or llamas, made up most of the meat in the diet, rather than smaller mammals such as birds or fish."
Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish"
Even worse neither birds nor fish are mammals...
Yes, as PB noticed later
The Guardian has now quietly changed this, without admitting the change
Bit late tho, as the original error has gone viral
They have admitted the change - it's at the bottom of the article.
Have you admitted your error in saying, "Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish""?
There are plenty of fish in mountain streams and lakes.
That second change is new. So they first made the error, they they stealthily corrected it, then eventually they admitted the change
Poor performance
But anyways a distraction from the principal finding (or hypothesis, according to view) that the idea our stone age ancestors ate tons of meat and few plants is wrong.
And it's not a dramatic "finding". It's one study of 24 skeletons in one fairly unique location, right up the Andes
If there is anywhere in the world where you might expect a hunter gatherer people to encounter problems hunting, and therefore turn to plants, it is going to be more extreme environments like high mountains
The actual study is no doubt quite sound. The Guardian's sweeping extrapolation is, to put it politely, not
"The analysis also indicated that large mammals, such as deer or llamas, made up most of the meat in the diet, rather than smaller mammals such as birds or fish."
Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish"
Even worse neither birds nor fish are mammals...
Yes, as PB noticed later
The Guardian has now quietly changed this, without admitting the change
Bit late tho, as the original error has gone viral
They have admitted the change - it's at the bottom of the article.
Have you admitted your error in saying, "Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish""?
There are plenty of fish in mountain streams and lakes.
That second change is new. So they first made the error, they they stealthily corrected it, then eventually they admitted the change
Poor performance
But anyways a distraction from the principal finding (or hypothesis, according to view) that the idea our stone age ancestors ate tons of meat and few plants is wrong.
And it's not a dramatic "finding". It's one study of 24 skeletons in one fairly unique location, right up the Andes
If there is anywhere in the world where you might expect a hunter gatherer people to encounter problems hunting, and therefore turn to plants, it is going to be more extreme environments like high mountains
The actual study is no doubt quite sound. The Guardian's sweeping extrapolation is, to put it politely, not
Could have been the press release writer, not the Graun. You'd need to check that before blaming the Graun.
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking into account the behaviour and consequences they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
The annoying and frustrating thing about the RR (not the Evoque, Velar, etc which are low-rent crap) is that it has some aspects of a really good product. Even now, none of the manifold competition do the off-road/luxury combination with the quite the same elan. It's just designed with a cost-cutting mania and shoddily built by no-marks who don't give a fuck (see also McLaren). None of that seems to hurt the resale values which are a testament to the power of the brand and defy the crappy execution.
Second-hand car Youtubers are buying cheap Range Rovers. Presumably there is a survivorship bias here, and the ones that were too badly built have been scrapped.
That’s because you need to be making money from videos about the car, to afford to keep it serviceable.
Trip to the garage, unexpected big bill, stranded and towed, it has WHAT wrong with it this time? - all great ‘content’.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
You don't get to be right by simply repeating an assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary. 148grss's graph clearly shows that that Houthi action only started having a significant impact on shipping a few weeks ago. While they may have been making a nuisance of themselves before then, that clearly wasn't on anything like the scale of the current attacks.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
A blockade means stopping ships and searching them for contraband.
Firing on shipping at random, which you welcome, is piracy.
As well as being pirates, the Houthis are also slavers.
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking into account the behaviour and consequences they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable in London; a start.
Do you need all three to have 'made it'?
I have only one and zero desire for the other two. Have had a Range Rover parked on the drive too, but not ours so probably doesn't count
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
Range Rovers are uninsurable because people keep nicking them. It's that simple.
Around this part of London there's a group of criminals who consistently go around on mopeds and old Range Rovers.
Consequently I associate them with criminality.
The problem with Rangerotters and similar SUVs is that they're too wide to pass each other in narrow streets where two normal cars would have no problem. They cause thrombotic stop-go traffic jams in all our towns and villages, which must be as frustrating for their drivers as it is for everyone else. A differential road tax heavily skewed towards narrower vehicles would help.
FWIW I disagree with this thread. I expect Biden to win the popular vote handily.
Unemployment in the US is at a 50 year low. Biden’s administration has created 14m jobs including 1m manufacturing jobs as he promised. Real wages, which have been flat, are now rising strongly. For the first time in decades US growth is matching or even exceeding China.
It is a terrific record and his low polling numbers are a reflection of the bias in the right wing media calling everything awful. As the population focuses on this I expect Biden’s numbers to improve sharply and some of the Trump court cases to damage his.
Not only do I see this as a poor bet, if I am right trading opportunities are likely to be poor because the Republican vote is not likely to be as good as it is now again.
Totally disagree (although I guess that is to be expected) and I think @Quincel has written a very good post and raises what could be an interesting opportunity.
I'll tackle some of your broader points first though. If the US is matching China's growth rate, it is because China is having a mare of a 2023 and looks like 2024, and its rate is falling, not that the US has turbocharged growth. The jobs Biden 'created' are really a bounceback from the pandemic and of the measures both Administrations took. As for the 'right-wing' media, could you list out the publications please? I get Fox, the NY Post and the WSJ and Mail Online. Against that, you have the NYT, WP, LAT, Chicago Tribune etc, plus most of the other major networks who have, to put it charitably, a centre-left bias. The mass of the media is not right-wing.
But never mind that. Here is what could make the bet interesting. Quincel raises the very good point re 2022 pointing to the polls being wrong. That could play against the bet.
But one thing increasingly clear is that the Democrats have become the beneficiaries of lower turnout in the mid-terms rather than the Republicans - which historically has been the case - as graduates and suburbanites become more of their base. Yet even in that election, on the House popular vote, the Republicans won by 2-3 points. True, some seats were uncontested but, in 2024 with more low-propensity voters, you would expect the Republicans to benefit.
There is also the fact that there are anecdotal signs Republicans are also gaining in heavily Democrat areas. Hochul only defeated Zeldin by 5+ points in the NY Governorship race and Murphy only won the NJ vote by 2. No-one imagines the situation has got better for the Democrats in those states. CA will never go Republican but, for the purposes of this bet, the Republicans only have to make modest voting inroads, which it looks like they are.
So, actually, Quincel has identified an opportunity.
For comparison, the last time a Dem president was up for reelection in 2012 he won the popular vote by 3.9%. In the previous midterms 2010 Republicans won the House popular vote by 6.8% - a turnaround of 10.7%.
So on balance Republicans winning the House vote by 2%ish (after deducting for the higher number of seats Dems didn't contest) would if anything point to Democrats winning the popular vote narrowly in the 2024 presidential election.
However, I think it's too early to say much about who is going to win the popular vote, but Biden's net approval ratings are worse than Trump's were at this point in his presidency according to this: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/ Actually worse than any president since the second world war, so Republicans popular vote is probably value at 10/3. It's probably better value than the 10/11 or so available Republicans winning the presidency - I think people are maybe overestimating the advantage the Republicans will have in the Electoral College this time.
That is a fair point re 2-3 points in 2022 not necessarily being a big lead historically. The (part) counter-argument would be that Democrats were energised by Roe v Wade which boosted their usual turnout.
Re the timing, yes, I am in the camp of thinking it is too early to bet but, for me, I don't see how Biden gets out of this situation. The economy will improve but I do not see how the immigration situation does if only because of the pressure from the activist base and the concerns over his age will only get worse and probably intensify as he campaigns and so is more publicly out there. I also think Bibi has decided that Trump would suit him better than Biden, and so I suspect he will drag out the conflict v Hamas knowing that this causes significant problems for Biden within the Democrats. Which is why I have bet on Biden being shunted out of the way and the Democrats to go into November with someone who is not Biden or Harris.
I agree with your earlier point that the midterm turnout advantage the Republicans used to have might have disappeared - and yes the Roe v Wade decision boosted Dems in 2022. I don't think the House results in 2022 were that great for either party in terms of a basis for 2024.
On how Biden gets out of this situation. He's not that far behind on current head-to-head polling (though usually a bit worse with other candidates included), so if the economy improves (or people's perception of the economy improves) it's surely possible for him to win even if the immigration situation doesn't improve.
As an aside, Biden's 2020 vote was much less efficient that Hillary Clinton's 2016 vote in terms of the electoral college, so it's a bit of a myth that Clinton was especially bad for piling up votes where she didn't need them. Personally I think Biden was always a bad choice as candidate. I would even say if Clinton had beaten Obama in the primaries in 2008 she would have probably made a better president than Obama, with a more coherent foreign policy, and the world wouldn't be in such a shit situation today.
That isn't really true, Biden won 51% of the popular vote in 2020 but 57% of Electoral College votes.
Hillary by contrast won 48% of the popular vote in 2016 but just just 42% of Electoral College votes.
Had Biden been Democrat candidate in 2016 he probably would have won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and beaten Trump, so we would never have had a Trump presidency in the first place.
Hillary is more intelligent than Biden and arguably more competent and an experienced Senator and Secretary of State, however she was a terrible campaigner whereas Biden is much better on the stump, as indeed was Bill Clinton her husband which is why they were elected President not her. Her crap campaign in 2008 despite starting with the entire Democrat establishment behind her also meant she was beaten by the more charismatic but less experience Senator from Illinois, Obama, for her party's nomination.
Had Hillary kept her ego in check and backed then VP Biden as Presidential candidate to succeed President Obama in 2016, Trump may have been defeated before he could truly take off
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
The uninsurability is a combination of car and driver. A bunch of professional tea leaves cracked the security system a couple of years back, and they can be opened and started with a device that looks like a phone but is actually an RF transceiver. You have to block it in with another car, if you don’t want it stolen.
The bifold doors are a tell tale for the rantalong nature of the piece - those were 'aspirational' up to about perhaps 2005; since then anyone who wants something that is practical (Clarkson's fabled architects in a Saab?) goes for lift-and-slide 3G doors, which don't deteriorate in performance.
On LRs/RRs, I normally encounter them whilst I am walking around town when people have driven them into, then out of the other side of, a marked parallel parking bay, blocking the footway to leave them room to get out on the driver's side and protect their wingmirror, whilst placing more vulnerable pedestrians in danger without thought.
For a symbol of the sleb LR lifestyle, I'd give you Katie Price, and her 10 year spree of criminal offences - and not having a real prison sentence or a lifetime driving ban yet. That's a different strata from the drug-dealers in second-hand LRs/RRs (or Audis-BMWs these days), or the wide-boy-on-the-pull demographic (see Park Royal 110mph crash incident).
I'll stick with my Skoda, and what looks to be cheaper insurance this year.
I don't especially mind when these idiots win the Darwin Award; I do mind when they put others in danger or hurt / kill.
Enough - crew cabs and Yank-o-trucks are for another day .
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
The 47.2% Trump is on in the RCP average is not actually much different to the 46.8% he got in 2020.
It is Biden who has plummeted from 51.3% in 2020 to just 44.3% now. So if Biden can win back the voters he got in 2020 who are now undecided he can still win the popular vote and likely the EC too.
Of course it is not impossible Trump wins the popular vote, if many Biden voters in safe states stay home or go 3rd party but Biden still wins the EC if Biden voters all come out in the closest swing states.
Indeed a recent poll has Biden still ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania. Even if Biden lost Arizona and Georgia back to Trump, if he held the states in the West and Virginia Hillary won in 2016 and won all the northern states even Kerry won in 2004 ie all the North East states plus Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin, he would still narrowly win the EC
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
Range Rovers are uninsurable because people keep nicking them. It's that simple.
Around this part of London there's a group of criminals who consistently go around on mopeds and old Range Rovers.
Consequently I associate them with criminality.
The problem with Rangerotters and similar SUVs is that they're too wide to pass each other in narrow streets where two normal cars would have no problem. They cause thrombotic stop-go traffic jams in all our towns and villages, which must be as frustrating for their drivers as it is for everyone else. A differential road tax heavily skewed towards narrower vehicles would help.
An old boss bought a Range Rover but sold it a couple of months later. He'd not taken into account the narrow Covent Garden streets where he lived.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
If I was PM this would be my first priority. I cannot believe that it is STILL possible to do this. Its a bloody joke.
Wasn't there also a case where you could get a cheaper ticket to a station beyond your destination, but if you go off early you were in trouble? I seem to recall a case of that.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
If what the Serbs did in Bosnia counts as genocide, then what the Israelis are doing in Gaza must also count as genocide. The Israelis certainly have the right to self-defence and justice for attacks carried out on them, but there is a point at which self-defence itself becomes aggression, and Israel has gone way beyond that point.
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
The uninsurability is a combination of car and driver. A bunch of professional tea leaves cracked the security system a couple of years back, and they can be opened and started with a device that looks like a phone but is actually an RF transceiver. You have to block it in with another car, if you don’t want it stolen.
The bifold doors are a tell tale for the rantalong nature of the piece - those were 'aspirational' up to about perhaps 2005; since then anyone who wants something that is practical (Clarkson's fabled architects in a Saab?) goes for lift-and-slide 3G doors, which don't deteriorate in performance.
On LRs/RRs, I normally encounter them whilst I am walking around town when people have driven them into, then out of the other side of, a marked parallel parking bay, blocking the footway to leave them room to get out on the driver's side and protect their wingmirror, whilst placing more vulnerable pedestrians in danger without thought.
For a symbol of the sleb LR lifestyle, I'd give you Katie Price, and her 10 year spree of criminal offences - and not having a real prison sentence or a lifetime driving ban yet. That's a different strata from the drug-dealers in second-hand LRs/RRs (or Audis-BMWs these days), or the wide-boy-on-the-pull demographic (see Park Royal 110mph crash incident).
I'll stick with my Skoda, and what looks to be cheaper insurance this year.
I don't especially mind when these idiots win the Darwin Award; I do mind when they put others in danger or hurt / kill.
Enough - crew cabs and Yank-o-trucks are for another day .
Just walking through a supermarket car park once a week finds any number of cars with scraped doors or dented wings from low-speed collisions. Cars are getting wider and roads and parking spaces are not.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
"The analysis also indicated that large mammals, such as deer or llamas, made up most of the meat in the diet, rather than smaller mammals such as birds or fish."
Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish"
Even worse neither birds nor fish are mammals...
Yes, as PB noticed later
The Guardian has now quietly changed this, without admitting the change
Bit late tho, as the original error has gone viral
They have admitted the change - it's at the bottom of the article.
Have you admitted your error in saying, "Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish""?
There are plenty of fish in mountain streams and lakes.
That second change is new. So they first made the error, they they stealthily corrected it, then eventually they admitted the change
Poor performance
But anyways a distraction from the principal finding (or hypothesis, according to view) that the idea our stone age ancestors ate tons of meat and few plants is wrong.
And it's not a dramatic "finding". It's one study of 24 skeletons in one fairly unique location, right up the Andes
If there is anywhere in the world where you might expect a hunter gatherer people to encounter problems hunting, and therefore turn to plants, it is going to be more extreme environments like high mountains
The actual study is no doubt quite sound. The Guardian's sweeping extrapolation is, to put it politely, not
How hard is it to hunt down a llama?
Quite hard I suspect. They look docile but they are fast
Here’s one next to our car in the Bolivian Andes. Or it may be an alpaca. Think it’s a llama
Looks easy but you get too close and WHOOSH. Also of course the Spitting
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
If what the Serbs did in Bosnia counts as genocide, then what the Israelis are doing in Gaza must also count as genocide. The Israelis certainly have the right to self-defence and justice for attacks carried out on them, but there is a point at which self-defence itself becomes aggression, and Israel has gone way beyond that point.
Then perhaps Hamas might have agreed to a ceasefire in exchange for returning the hostages, including a 1 year old baby. FFS.
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
Range Rovers are uninsurable because people keep nicking them. It's that simple.
Around this part of London there's a group of criminals who consistently go around on mopeds and old Range Rovers.
Consequently I associate them with criminality.
The problem with Rangerotters and similar SUVs is that they're too wide to pass each other in narrow streets where two normal cars would have no problem. They cause thrombotic stop-go traffic jams in all our towns and villages, which must be as frustrating for their drivers as it is for everyone else. A differential road tax heavily skewed towards narrower vehicles would help.
The EU introduced a directive limiting the width of HGVs in the 1990s. I don't see much reason why there shouldn't be a similar law restricting the maximum dimensions of regular cars. The cost of re-engineering roads and cities to accommodate larger vehicles would be astronomical.
The restriction doesn't need to be particularly strict. It can still allow for a variety of vehicle sizes to allow choice. But a limit is needed.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
If what the Serbs did in Bosnia counts as genocide, then what the Israelis are doing in Gaza must also count as genocide. The Israelis certainly have the right to self-defence and justice for attacks carried out on them, but there is a point at which self-defence itself becomes aggression, and Israel has gone way beyond that point.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
Was this all just preemtive strikes for the October 7th attack that was coming?
OK so I looked at the links. I read one case and it was a 17 year old killed by the IDF. Awful. But the context was a battle with Palestinian militia.
Oh, that's fine then!
Mahmoud stood by the side of a road, waiting for the sounds of shooting in the distance to stop, and was not holding any weapon or projectile, a witness said and a security-camera video that Human Rights Watch reviewed showed. After the distant shooting had stopped and the Israeli forces were withdrawing, a single shot fired from an Israeli military vehicle roughly 100 meters away struck Mahmoud, the witness said. No Palestinian fighters were in the area, the witness said. Mahmoud was killed a block away from the street where Israeli forces killed the journalist Shireen Abu Aqla on May 11, 2022.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
If what the Serbs did in Bosnia counts as genocide, then what the Israelis are doing in Gaza must also count as genocide. The Israelis certainly have the right to self-defence and justice for attacks carried out on them, but there is a point at which self-defence itself becomes aggression, and Israel has gone way beyond that point.
Then perhaps Hamas might have agreed to a ceasefire in exchange for returning the hostages, including a 1 year old baby. FFS.
Do you really think that Israel would stop killing Palestinians if the hostages were returned?
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
Range Rovers are uninsurable because people keep nicking them. It's that simple.
Around this part of London there's a group of criminals who consistently go around on mopeds and old Range Rovers.
Consequently I associate them with criminality.
The problem with Rangerotters and similar SUVs is that they're too wide to pass each other in narrow streets where two normal cars would have no problem. They cause thrombotic stop-go traffic jams in all our towns and villages, which must be as frustrating for their drivers as it is for everyone else. A differential road tax heavily skewed towards narrower vehicles would help.
The EU introduced a directive limiting the width of HGVs in the 1990s. I don't see much reason why there shouldn't be a similar law restricting the maximum dimensions of regular cars. The cost of re-engineering roads and cities to accommodate larger vehicles would be astronomical.
The restriction doesn't need to be particularly strict. It can still allow for a variety of vehicle sizes to allow choice. But a limit is needed.
The increase in widths was instrumental in my decision to demolish an old garage from the 1960s at my place and replace it with a workshed with wooden floor - no point in keeping the garage option and it couldn't be widened without planning hassle. If the future buyer wants to park his Morningside assault wagon under cover then there's room to build a garage elsewhere on the plot.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
For anyone who wants to sincerely listen to anti-Zionist Jewish people, I'm quite enjoying this podcast by Matt Leib, an American comic who is discussing the situation as it unfolds with other Jewish and Palestinian friends (including a recent interview with the sibling of someone who was killed in the October 7th attacks).
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
Range Rovers are uninsurable because people keep nicking them. It's that simple.
Around this part of London there's a group of criminals who consistently go around on mopeds and old Range Rovers.
Consequently I associate them with criminality.
The problem with Rangerotters and similar SUVs is that they're too wide to pass each other in narrow streets where two normal cars would have no problem. They cause thrombotic stop-go traffic jams in all our towns and villages, which must be as frustrating for their drivers as it is for everyone else. A differential road tax heavily skewed towards narrower vehicles would help.
The EU introduced a directive limiting the width of HGVs in the 1990s. I don't see much reason why there shouldn't be a similar law restricting the maximum dimensions of regular cars. The cost of re-engineering roads and cities to accommodate larger vehicles would be astronomical.
The restriction doesn't need to be particularly strict. It can still allow for a variety of vehicle sizes to allow choice. But a limit is needed.
All cars have a maximum width of 2.55m to get EU type approval. The UK has not exercised any "Brexit Freedoms" to deviate from this.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
Has anyone ever explained WHY Donald Trump wears this ridiculous fake tan that makes his face all orange?
In the latest photos he looks even more orange than ever. It is not a great look. He looks insane, and his face is orange
WTF. Why does he do it? Why not let it go, or get an actual tan - he spends half his time in Florida
But he has a (relatively) well planned coiffure:
Maybe he regards "orange face" as a quirky but necessary part of his political branding, the same way Hitler apparently used "toothbrush moustache"
Re. Boris’s shambolic hairdo at the moment… is he exaggerating scruffiness to magnify the ‘new smart & serious look’ image he presents on his comeback?
More like he is getting ever more desperate to hide his obvious baldness, which requires increasingly absurd hairdos
I’d never noticed him going bald, why wouldn’t he just have a weave?
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
Was this all just preemtive strikes for the October 7th attack that was coming?
OK so I looked at the links. I read one case and it was a 17 year old killed by the IDF. Awful. But the context was a battle with Palestinian militia.
Oh, that's fine then!
Mahmoud stood by the side of a road, waiting for the sounds of shooting in the distance to stop, and was not holding any weapon or projectile, a witness said and a security-camera video that Human Rights Watch reviewed showed. After the distant shooting had stopped and the Israeli forces were withdrawing, a single shot fired from an Israeli military vehicle roughly 100 meters away struck Mahmoud, the witness said. No Palestinian fighters were in the area, the witness said. Mahmoud was killed a block away from the street where Israeli forces killed the journalist Shireen Abu Aqla on May 11, 2022.
No its not fucking all right. That was not the point. The point is too many men with guns ON BOTH SIDES in a WAR ZONE. That's the context.
I never see any blame from you for Hamas, for Iran, for the Houthis. Why is that?
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
If I was PM this would be my first priority. I cannot believe that it is STILL possible to do this. Its a bloody joke.
Wasn't there also a case where you could get a cheaper ticket to a station beyond your destination, but if you go off early you were in trouble? I seem to recall a case of that.
If you have an Advance and get of early there is the risk of being hassled. On a flexible ticket you should be fine as break of journey is normally allowed.
There was a famous case of a chap some years ago with a ticket to Durham getting off at Darlo so his wife could give him a lift home and being hossed for a new ticket.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
Labour 47 Tories 20 Reform 13 (!!!) LibDems 8 Greens 6 SNP 4
And this is with a leader most people have never heard of, Richard Tice.
Yes but Reform will probably not stand in most seats, so will their erstwhile voters stay at home or go home to the Conservatives?
RefUK claim they will be standing in all seats. Whilst they (or the Brexit Party as they were then) made that claim in 2019, then stood down in most to facilitate a "Get Brexit Done" result, that isn't in their interests now. They are interested in taking over the Conservatives, not propping them up.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
If I was PM this would be my first priority. I cannot believe that it is STILL possible to do this. Its a bloody joke.
Wasn't there also a case where you could get a cheaper ticket to a station beyond your destination, but if you go off early you were in trouble? I seem to recall a case of that.
If you have an Advance and get of early there is the risk of being hassled. On a flexible ticket you should be fine as break of journey is normally allowed.
There was a famous case of a chap some years ago with a ticket to Durham getting off at Darlo so his wife could give him a lift home and being hossed for a new ticket.
I think that was the one I was remembering. A symptom of a broken system.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
If I was PM this would be my first priority. I cannot believe that it is STILL possible to do this. Its a bloody joke.
Wasn't there also a case where you could get a cheaper ticket to a station beyond your destination, but if you go off early you were in trouble? I seem to recall a case of that.
A friend used to have a major client in Manchester. His firm worked out that it was half the price to to buy a ticket from Euston to Wrexham, then simply alight at Manchester. Not sure if that’s still the case but it saved his company a small fortune.
It should be illegal for the chiselling privateer train company cowboy tossers to do this. Easy hit for Royale.
Oh and renationalise whatever is left of the twats while he is at it.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
FWIW I disagree with this thread. I expect Biden to win the popular vote handily.
Unemployment in the US is at a 50 year low. Biden’s administration has created 14m jobs including 1m manufacturing jobs as he promised. Real wages, which have been flat, are now rising strongly. For the first time in decades US growth is matching or even exceeding China.
It is a terrific record and his low polling numbers are a reflection of the bias in the right wing media calling everything awful. As the population focuses on this I expect Biden’s numbers to improve sharply and some of the Trump court cases to damage his.
Not only do I see this as a poor bet, if I am right trading opportunities are likely to be poor because the Republican vote is not likely to be as good as it is now again.
Totally disagree (although I guess that is to be expected) and I think @Quincel has written a very good post and raises what could be an interesting opportunity.
I'll tackle some of your broader points first though. If the US is matching China's growth rate, it is because China is having a mare of a 2023 and looks like 2024, and its rate is falling, not that the US has turbocharged growth. The jobs Biden 'created' are really a bounceback from the pandemic and of the measures both Administrations took. As for the 'right-wing' media, could you list out the publications please? I get Fox, the NY Post and the WSJ and Mail Online. Against that, you have the NYT, WP, LAT, Chicago Tribune etc, plus most of the other major networks who have, to put it charitably, a centre-left bias. The mass of the media is not right-wing.
But never mind that. Here is what could make the bet interesting. Quincel raises the very good point re 2022 pointing to the polls being wrong. That could play against the bet.
But one thing increasingly clear is that the Democrats have become the beneficiaries of lower turnout in the mid-terms rather than the Republicans - which historically has been the case - as graduates and suburbanites become more of their base. Yet even in that election, on the House popular vote, the Republicans won by 2-3 points. True, some seats were uncontested but, in 2024 with more low-propensity voters, you would expect the Republicans to benefit.
There is also the fact that there are anecdotal signs Republicans are also gaining in heavily Democrat areas. Hochul only defeated Zeldin by 5+ points in the NY Governorship race and Murphy only won the NJ vote by 2. No-one imagines the situation has got better for the Democrats in those states. CA will never go Republican but, for the purposes of this bet, the Republicans only have to make modest voting inroads, which it looks like they are.
So, actually, Quincel has identified an opportunity.
For comparison, the last time a Dem president was up for reelection in 2012 he won the popular vote by 3.9%. In the previous midterms 2010 Republicans won the House popular vote by 6.8% - a turnaround of 10.7%.
So on balance Republicans winning the House vote by 2%ish (after deducting for the higher number of seats Dems didn't contest) would if anything point to Democrats winning the popular vote narrowly in the 2024 presidential election.
However, I think it's too early to say much about who is going to win the popular vote, but Biden's net approval ratings are worse than Trump's were at this point in his presidency according to this: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/ Actually worse than any president since the second world war, so Republicans popular vote is probably value at 10/3. It's probably better value than the 10/11 or so available Republicans winning the presidency - I think people are maybe overestimating the advantage the Republicans will have in the Electoral College this time.
That is a fair point re 2-3 points in 2022 not necessarily being a big lead historically. The (part) counter-argument would be that Democrats were energised by Roe v Wade which boosted their usual turnout.
Re the timing, yes, I am in the camp of thinking it is too early to bet but, for me, I don't see how Biden gets out of this situation. The economy will improve but I do not see how the immigration situation does if only because of the pressure from the activist base and the concerns over his age will only get worse and probably intensify as he campaigns and so is more publicly out there. I also think Bibi has decided that Trump would suit him better than Biden, and so I suspect he will drag out the conflict v Hamas knowing that this causes significant problems for Biden within the Democrats. Which is why I have bet on Biden being shunted out of the way and the Democrats to go into November with someone who is not Biden or Harris.
I agree with your earlier point that the midterm turnout advantage the Republicans used to have might have disappeared - and yes the Roe v Wade decision boosted Dems in 2022. I don't think the House results in 2022 were that great for either party in terms of a basis for 2024.
On how Biden gets out of this situation. He's not that far behind on current head-to-head polling (though usually a bit worse with other candidates included), so if the economy improves (or people's perception of the economy improves) it's surely possible for him to win even if the immigration situation doesn't improve.
As an aside, Biden's 2020 vote was much less efficient that Hillary Clinton's 2016 vote in terms of the electoral college, so it's a bit of a myth that Clinton was especially bad for piling up votes where she didn't need them. Personally I think Biden was always a bad choice as candidate. I would even say if Clinton had beaten Obama in the primaries in 2008 she would have probably made a better president than Obama, with a more coherent foreign policy, and the world wouldn't be in such a shit situation today.
That isn't really true, Biden won 51% of the popular vote in 2020 but 57% of Electoral College votes.
Hillary by contrast won 48% of the popular vote in 2016 but just just 42% of Electoral College votes.
Had Biden been Democrat candidate in 2016 he probably would have won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and beaten Trump, so we would never have had a Trump presidency in the first place.
Hillary is more intelligent than Biden and arguably more competent and an experienced Senator and Secretary of State, however she was a terrible campaigner whereas Biden is much better on the stump, as indeed was Bill Clinton her husband which is why they were elected President not her. Her crap campaign in 2008 despite starting with the entire Democrat establishment behind her also meant she was beaten by the more charismatic but less experience Senator from Illinois, Obama, for her party's nomination.
Had Hillary kept her ego in check and backed then VP Biden as Presidential candidate to succeed President Obama in 2016, Trump may have been defeated before he could truly take off
Clinton lost the 2016 tipping point state of Pennsylvania by 0.7% and won the national popular vote by 2.1%. In other words, (with universal swing) she would have needed a national popular vote win of 2.8% in order to win the Electoral College.
Biden won the 2020 tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%, and the national popular vote by 4.4%. In other words he needed to win the popular vote by 3.8% in order to win the EC.
So the Republican EC advantage vs popular vote increased from 2.8% in Trump vs Clinton, to 3.8% in Trump vs Biden. OK I was exaggerating to say Biden's vote was *much* less efficient, but it was less efficient.
One site, from 6500 years ago, with 24 skeletons in a fairly unique location - up in the Andes - does not prove "Early human hunter-gatherers ate mostly plants and vegetables"
How can a self respecting science journalist write this drivel? Is it Woke nonsense, or is she just stupid?
There could be any number of reasons why this one unusual site produces 24 skeletons of people who liked carrots. I mean, they are half way up a fucking mountain, maybe there wasn't that much meat. So they ate leaves
Have they considered that?
Absolutely laughable
Two sites, actually. And they merely say 'it suggests', not 'proves'.
As they point out, firm evidence for the actual balance of human diet going back that far is scant.
One thing it does show pretty conclusively is the power of the headline over the rest of the text.
To quote someone wittier than myself "there aren't any cave paintings of salads".
Unlike the buffalo hunt, the carrot hunt was to exhausting to draw .
In the UK at least, there *are* quite a lot of animal bones at prehistoric sites. But there are a heck of a lot more roasted hazelnut shells. Most prehistoric communities were also littoral - and there's evidence for a lot of shellfish in the diet (again more in the "gather" than the "hunter" end of things).
Archaeology is woke now. Facts are woke.
In fairness, I think the article is a quite horrible misrepresentation of the actual findings and conclusions, which look sound enough to me (fwiw I have a BSc and MA in archaeology, albeit a long time ago now), by (being generous to the journo here) implying that the findings apply to hunter gatherers in general, which they do not.
There is a general point about misrepresentation of the adaptability and variety of hunter-gatherer lifestyles, which as @mwadams here illustrates will reflect the environment. Thus in an environment where edible, nutritious plant life is abundant it may well be the major part of the diet. In other places - the most obvious example being extremely cold environments - animals will be the staple. And it is true that the 'man the hunter, woman the gatherer' trope is (to be extremely generous now) fairly tenuously evidenced and certainly not a universal (and by implication, innate) trait.
One of the keys to the success and dominance of humans isn't just intelligence, it's the versatility too. We can live pretty much purely on plants, or purely on animals.
The hunter gatherer civilisation of the Tas Tepeler (Gobekli Tepe etc) seems, from what we have learmed so far, to be extremely macho, phallocratic, dominated by male values, and also obsessed with hunting, and prey animals, and la chasse. Also there is evidence of brutal human sacrifice
It is quite contrary to the idea we all lived on gathered mushrooms and wild roots worshipped a nice mother Goddess, and did peaceful knitting in harmony with nature absent any conflict, which I am sure the Guardian would like us to believe
Yes. But that is one society, in one place, over one period. It is foolish to take any single example of the enormous variety of human cultures and say that it is somehow the ur-culture from which everything else is a deviation.
Sure, but the Tas Tepeler must represent a large "civilisation" of thousands of hunter gatherers over many centuries, as against 24 skeletons up a hill in Peru
I know which is more important evidence
The most interesting thing about Gobekli Tepe - and other neolithic cultures, the early Jomon in Japan from the top of my head is a good example - is how it demonstrates that the development of agriculture and secondary products revolution are not necessary for a vibrant, cohesive culture over a large scale that can be seen in evidence from its material remains.
Fitting ancient civilisations into today's culture wars is a little tiresome from whichever angle it is approached.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
Was this all just preemtive strikes for the October 7th attack that was coming?
OK so I looked at the links. I read one case and it was a 17 year old killed by the IDF. Awful. But the context was a battle with Palestinian militia.
Oh, that's fine then!
Mahmoud stood by the side of a road, waiting for the sounds of shooting in the distance to stop, and was not holding any weapon or projectile, a witness said and a security-camera video that Human Rights Watch reviewed showed. After the distant shooting had stopped and the Israeli forces were withdrawing, a single shot fired from an Israeli military vehicle roughly 100 meters away struck Mahmoud, the witness said. No Palestinian fighters were in the area, the witness said. Mahmoud was killed a block away from the street where Israeli forces killed the journalist Shireen Abu Aqla on May 11, 2022.
No its not fucking all right. That was not the point. The point is too many men with guns ON BOTH SIDES in a WAR ZONE. That's the context.
I never see any blame from you for Hamas, for Iran, for the Houthis. Why is that?
Because my tax money doesn't go towards funding the violence committed by Hamas, Iran or the Houthis - and it does actively go towards killing them and civilians near them. So where I have a political interest is in what I can impact and what I am culpable for.
I also did do the "condemn Hamas" dance after October 7th, but when I mentioned that maybe there is a political reason a militant group exists in an area that has been occupied for the past almost 80 years beyond just antisemitism, that turned into me apparently supporting Hamas - so I have no desire to get into that again. Indeed, in this very conversation me pointing to one act that a group has done has been turned into me supporting stoning gay people (which would be difficult because I don't know how I would go about throwing stones at myself - I guess I could ask some of my previous partners to do it whilst I do it to them? And most of the queer people I know have their own dealers, so I can't help get them stoned that way).
The 47.2% Trump is on in the RCP average is not actually much different to the 46.8% he got in 2020.
It is Biden who has plummeted from 51.3% in 2020 to just 44.3% now. So if Biden can win back the voters he got in 2020 who are now undecided he can still win the popular vote and likely the EC too.
Of course it is not impossible Trump wins the popular vote, if many Biden voters in safe states stay home or go 3rd party but Biden still wins the EC if Biden voters all come out in the closest swing states.
Indeed a recent poll has Biden still ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania. Even if Biden lost Arizona and Georgia back to Trump, if he held the states in the West and Virginia Hillary won in 2016 and won all the northern states even Kerry won in 2004 ie all the North East states plus Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin, he would still narrowly win the EC
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
Was this all just preemtive strikes for the October 7th attack that was coming?
OK so I looked at the links. I read one case and it was a 17 year old killed by the IDF. Awful. But the context was a battle with Palestinian militia.
Oh, that's fine then!
Mahmoud stood by the side of a road, waiting for the sounds of shooting in the distance to stop, and was not holding any weapon or projectile, a witness said and a security-camera video that Human Rights Watch reviewed showed. After the distant shooting had stopped and the Israeli forces were withdrawing, a single shot fired from an Israeli military vehicle roughly 100 meters away struck Mahmoud, the witness said. No Palestinian fighters were in the area, the witness said. Mahmoud was killed a block away from the street where Israeli forces killed the journalist Shireen Abu Aqla on May 11, 2022.
No its not fucking all right. That was not the point. The point is too many men with guns ON BOTH SIDES in a WAR ZONE. That's the context.
I never see any blame from you for Hamas, for Iran, for the Houthis. Why is that?
Because my tax money doesn't go towards funding the violence committed by Hamas, Iran or the Houthis - and it does actively go towards killing them and civilians near them. So where I have a political interest is in what I can impact and what I am culpable for.
I also did do the "condemn Hamas" dance after October 7th, but when I mentioned that maybe there is a political reason a militant group exists in an area that has been occupied for the past almost 80 years beyond just antisemitism, that turned into me apparently supporting Hamas - so I have no desire to get into that again. Indeed, in this very conversation me pointing to one act that a group has done has been turned into me supporting stoning gay people (which would be difficult because I don't know how I would go about throwing stones at myself - I guess I could ask some of my previous partners to do it whilst I do it to them? And most of the queer people I know have their own dealers, so I can't help get them stoned that way).
Does terrorism work? Its hard not to look at the IRA and think that in some ways they were successful, but ulttimately their aim of united Ireland has not yet been achieved. And in the end they had to sit down and talk.
Its times for those in the ME to grow up, but too many don't want to. They still think their preferred outcomes are possible, and that includes for too many of them a world without Israel and a world were being gay does indeed get you stoned to death and not with cannabis.
On Topic. I think it's worth considering why Biden is unpopular. If we look at the history of Biden's approval ratings there is one clear event that sticks out.
On August 10th 2021, Biden's approval ratings were 49.8 and +7.1. Kabul fell to the Taliban on August 15th, and the chaotic evacuation ended on August 31st. On September 2nd 2021, Biden's approval ratings were 46.8 and -0.4. They've never recovered.
Biden's greatest asset was the sense he gave of being a grown-up, of being in control and knowing what to do, in comparison to Trump's juvenile behaviour and general cluelessness. The Fall of Kabul shattered Biden's reputation, in a similar way to how the Iran hostage crisis did for Carter.
People can reasonably make all sorts of points about Trump's culpability for the failure, and these have merit for learning how to avoid such disasters in the future, but they do nothing to restore the loss of confidence in Biden. The humiliation of the US happened on Biden's watch, and so he is responsible.
It's taken me far too long to recognise this because, like many people I think, I was still transfixed by Trump. Biden had beaten Trump in 2020, and so it was necessary for Biden to do so again in 2024. But, for once, this isn't about Trump. It's about Biden. Not about Biden's age, or his policies, but that he presided over America's greatest foreign policy humiliation for more than four decades. I don't think he will win re-election.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Bumped into a chap called Keane Duncan yesterday, first on social media and then in the market square in Settle. Candidate for the first York and North Yorkshire mayorship, he manages to set out his wares without once mentioning the “C” word…
Comments
In the latest photos he looks even more orange than ever. It is not a great look. He looks insane, and his face is orange
WTF. Why does he do it? Why not let it go, or get an actual tan - he spends half his time in Florida
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/13/us-enters-yemen-war-bombing-houthis-who-launched-missiles-at-navy-ship
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/curbing-houthi-attacks-civilian-ships-bab-al-mandab
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
The Guardian has now quietly changed this, without admitting the change
Bit late tho, as the original error has gone viral
Former political rivals join together again to call for Britain to be at forefront of biotechnology and AI ‘revolution’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tony-blair-and-william-hague-sell-nhs-data-to-fund-medical-advances-fz27bmb98 (£££)
Flogging NHS patient data to American tech bros will apparently see Britain at the "forefront of [the] biotechnology and AI revolution" according to washed up politicians from 20 years back.
Consequently I associate them with criminality.
When you add in the extremes of success/failure possible, Break The System starts to look attractive to some groups.
Hence Trump.
The Tories would only likely merge with Reform, Canada style, if Reform overtook them on seats and votes.
Under PR of course the Tories and Reform could stay separate parties but form coalition governments together
Bro is rocking that Witcher 3 peasant bowl cut hard.
Biden looks like a dead person who has been skifully embalmed, and for some reason can now sort-of walk and talk
Have you admitted your error in saying, "Who could have guessed that primitive pre-farming people living ten thousand fucking feet up a bloody mountain, "didn't eat a lot of fish""?
There are plenty of fish in mountain streams and lakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmw_O9cmk1Q
(3-minute GB News video)
Can it possibly be a wig? A wig THAT bad?
Have you found the worst haircut in the history of politics? I think you might. Chapeau
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
Poor performance
On how Biden gets out of this situation. He's not that far behind on current head-to-head polling (though usually a bit worse with other candidates included), so if the economy improves (or people's perception of the economy improves) it's surely possible for him to win even if the immigration situation doesn't improve.
As an aside, Biden's 2020 vote was much less efficient that Hillary Clinton's 2016 vote in terms of the electoral college, so it's a bit of a myth that Clinton was especially bad for piling up votes where she didn't need them. Personally I think Biden was always a bad choice as candidate. I would even say if Clinton had beaten Obama in the primaries in 2008 she would have probably made a better president than Obama, with a more coherent foreign policy, and the world wouldn't be in such a shit situation today.
Sad really, that for all his faults, the ones that hit hardest recently were that he smells or has syphilis because of the red marks on his hands (which could easily have been ink) and not actually the ones that really matter. Politics today eh.
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/23/houthis-say-us-uk-airstrikes-will-not-go-unpunished-or-unanswered#:~:text=Houthi leaders also repeated that,are “not Israeli connected”.
It's like some sort of cross between Chris Waddle and the Wicker Man. 1980's /70's football/soft porn meets The Forest People.
If there is anywhere in the world where you might expect a hunter gatherer people to encounter problems hunting, and therefore turn to plants, it is going to be more extreme environments like high mountains
The actual study is no doubt quite sound. The Guardian's sweeping extrapolation is, to put it politely, not
Co-ordinated attacks, backed by Iran & Qatar?
Trip to the garage, unexpected big bill, stranded and towed, it has WHAT wrong with it this time? - all great ‘content’.
2) Why were they doing it before?
3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
Firing on shipping at random, which you welcome, is piracy.
As well as being pirates, the Houthis are also slavers.
I have only one and zero desire for the other two. Have had a Range Rover parked on the drive too, but not ours so probably doesn't count
Hillary by contrast won 48% of the popular vote in 2016 but just just 42% of Electoral College votes.
Had Biden been Democrat candidate in 2016 he probably would have won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and beaten Trump, so we would never have had a Trump presidency in the first place.
Hillary is more intelligent than Biden and arguably more competent and an experienced Senator and Secretary of State, however she was a terrible campaigner whereas Biden is much better on the stump, as indeed was Bill Clinton her husband which is why they were elected President not her. Her crap campaign in 2008 despite starting with the entire Democrat establishment behind her also meant she was beaten by the more charismatic but less experience Senator from Illinois, Obama, for her party's nomination.
Had Hillary kept her ego in check and backed then VP Biden as Presidential candidate to succeed President Obama in 2016, Trump may have been defeated before he could truly take off
On LRs/RRs, I normally encounter them whilst I am walking around town when people have driven them into, then out of the other side of, a marked parallel parking bay, blocking the footway to leave them room to get out on the driver's side and protect their wingmirror, whilst placing more vulnerable pedestrians in danger without thought.
For a symbol of the sleb LR lifestyle, I'd give you Katie Price, and her 10 year spree of criminal offences - and not having a real prison sentence or a lifetime driving ban yet. That's a different strata from the drug-dealers in second-hand LRs/RRs (or Audis-BMWs these days), or the wide-boy-on-the-pull demographic (see Park Royal 110mph crash incident).
I'll stick with my Skoda, and what looks to be cheaper insurance this year.
I don't especially mind when these idiots win the Darwin Award; I do mind when they put others in danger or hurt / kill.
Enough - crew cabs and Yank-o-trucks are for another day
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Wasn't there also a case where you could get a cheaper ticket to a station beyond your destination, but if you go off early you were in trouble? I seem to recall a case of that.
2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue.
3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2023/08/22/2023-is-already-the-deadliest-year-on-record-for-palestinians-in-occupied-west-bank-says-un-envoy/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/28/west-bank-spike-israeli-killings-palestinian-children
Was this all just preemtive strikes for the October 7th attack that was coming?
Here’s one next to our car in the Bolivian Andes. Or it may be an alpaca. Think it’s a llama
Looks easy but you get too close and WHOOSH. Also of course the Spitting
The restriction doesn't need to be particularly strict. It can still allow for a variety of vehicle sizes to allow choice. But a limit is needed.
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
Mahmoud stood by the side of a road, waiting for the sounds of shooting in the distance to stop, and was not holding any weapon or projectile, a witness said and a security-camera video that Human Rights Watch reviewed showed. After the distant shooting had stopped and the Israeli forces were withdrawing, a single shot fired from an Israeli military vehicle roughly 100 meters away struck Mahmoud, the witness said. No Palestinian fighters were in the area, the witness said. Mahmoud was killed a block away from the street where Israeli forces killed the journalist Shireen Abu Aqla on May 11, 2022.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
https://uk.radio.net/podcast/bad-hasbara-the-worlds-most-moral-podcast
Otherwise: no.
It's not their data to sell
She agrees with me that the Israeli government is guilty of war crimes.
I never see any blame from you for Hamas, for Iran, for the Houthis. Why is that?
There was a famous case of a chap some years ago with a ticket to Durham getting off at Darlo so his wife could give him a lift home and being hossed for a new ticket.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
It should be illegal for the chiselling privateer train company cowboy tossers to do this. Easy hit for Royale.
Oh and renationalise whatever is left of the twats while he is at it.
Biden won the 2020 tipping point state of Wisconsin by 0.6%, and the national popular vote by 4.4%. In other words he needed to win the popular vote by 3.8% in order to win the EC.
So the Republican EC advantage vs popular vote increased from 2.8% in Trump vs Clinton, to 3.8% in Trump vs Biden. OK I was exaggerating to say Biden's vote was *much* less efficient, but it was less efficient.
Fitting ancient civilisations into today's culture wars is a little tiresome from whichever angle it is approached.
I also did do the "condemn Hamas" dance after October 7th, but when I mentioned that maybe there is a political reason a militant group exists in an area that has been occupied for the past almost 80 years beyond just antisemitism, that turned into me apparently supporting Hamas - so I have no desire to get into that again. Indeed, in this very conversation me pointing to one act that a group has done has been turned into me supporting stoning gay people (which would be difficult because I don't know how I would go about throwing stones at myself - I guess I could ask some of my previous partners to do it whilst I do it to them? And most of the queer people I know have their own dealers, so I can't help get them stoned that way).
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/
Biden also leads Trump in Michigan 45% to 41% in a recent poll this month
https://mirs-uploads.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1790-T.I. STATEWIDE 01 11 2024 (1).pdf
Its times for those in the ME to grow up, but too many don't want to. They still think their preferred outcomes are possible, and that includes for too many of them a world without Israel and a world were being gay does indeed get you stoned to death and not with cannabis.
I think it's worth considering why Biden is unpopular. If we look at the history of Biden's approval ratings there is one clear event that sticks out.
On August 10th 2021, Biden's approval ratings were 49.8 and +7.1. Kabul fell to the Taliban on August 15th, and the chaotic evacuation ended on August 31st. On September 2nd 2021, Biden's approval ratings were 46.8 and -0.4. They've never recovered.
Biden's greatest asset was the sense he gave of being a grown-up, of being in control and knowing what to do, in comparison to Trump's juvenile behaviour and general cluelessness. The Fall of Kabul shattered Biden's reputation, in a similar way to how the Iran hostage crisis did for Carter.
People can reasonably make all sorts of points about Trump's culpability for the failure, and these have merit for learning how to avoid such disasters in the future, but they do nothing to restore the loss of confidence in Biden. The humiliation of the US happened on Biden's watch, and so he is responsible.
It's taken me far too long to recognise this because, like many people I think, I was still transfixed by Trump. Biden had beaten Trump in 2020, and so it was necessary for Biden to do so again in 2024. But, for once, this isn't about Trump. It's about Biden. Not about Biden's age, or his policies, but that he presided over America's greatest foreign policy humiliation for more than four decades. I don't think he will win re-election.
https://time.com/6548068/palestinian-children-israeli-prison-arrested/
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
https://www.timesofisrael.com/intelligence-ministry-concept-paper-proposes-transferring-gazans-to-egypts-sinai/#:~:text=Aimed at preserving security for Israel&text=The document proposes moving Gaza's,the displaced Palestinians from entering
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/01/22/artificial-island-off-gaza-pitched-by-israeli-minister-in-eu-meeting-is-irrelevant-borrell
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
All they need to do is to buy up one of the ancestry genetics/genealogy firms.