Travel question, where I think I know the answer but want validation.
10 days in October half term. Somewhere with decent weather. Not Italy or Greece. Maximum 5 hours.
So far I am down to a shortlist of: Egypt (Cairo), Turkey, Malta, Morocco, La Palma or El Hierro.
I am edging towards either Ankara to the Antalya coast via Cappadocia, or Tangier to Agadir via the Atlas.
Strong recommendations or warnings welcome.
Of the suggestions you make, I would do Morocco
But I agree with @carnforth - get the ferry over from Spain. It makes it much more of an adventure - a boat from Europe to Africa! - then head south as far as you can, and feel the sun and the heat rise and rise. Maybe culminate at Essaouira - poetic and wild in the wind
Make sure it’s the ferry to Tangier town and not the modern port 50km away. And how about outbound by train with sleep stops in Barcelona and Algeciras, return with stops in Madrid and Paris? If you are travelling with 2 kids under 12, they go free with an adult on a full price Interrail pass. 5 day pass + reservations for all three for about £600
Travel question, where I think I know the answer but want validation.
10 days in October half term. Somewhere with decent weather. Not Italy or Greece. Maximum 5 hours.
So far I am down to a shortlist of: Egypt (Cairo), Turkey, Malta, Morocco, La Palma or El Hierro.
I am edging towards either Ankara to the Antalya coast via Cappadocia, or Tangier to Agadir via the Atlas.
Strong recommendations or warnings welcome.
Of the suggestions you make, I would do Morocco
But I agree with @carnforth - get the ferry over from Spain. It makes it much more of an adventure - a boat from Europe to Africa! - then head south as far as you can, and feel the sun and the heat rise and rise. Maybe culminate at Essaouira - poetic and wild in the wind
Thanks everyone for the counsel. The family consensus is Morocco. We’ll start either in Andalucia (flight to Jerez) and get the ferry, indulging in our first world privilege to do the reverse trip to that which so many thousands of the destitute and oppressed attempt in the other direction, or in Tangier which I’ve fancied visiting for a while. Then the TGV to Marrakech via Casablanca, then do a drive round the Atlas and desert. We’ve done that bit before - and Essaouira - before children, but enough time has elapsed and our youngest will find it exotic (the eldest may have started his gap year in Namibia by then).
The one problem with a holiday in late October is harvest. If it’s a warm year we’ll have the grapes in by half term and the timing is perfect. If not, then I may need to cancel. So I’ll leave it a couple of months to book I think.
What are the chances of me “getting lucky” so often?
Not very high. This would indicate that my local Marks and Sparks is being hit several times a day - every single day. Robert Jenrick is on to a winner with his campaigns
I see that Jenrick's fare dodging video is now on almost 14 million views.
Is it? What are we looking at besides Kamala falling? If we look at this aggregation site and compare results with and without Harris, one shows dramatic change but the latter, without, has a series of flat lines. https://www.racetothewh.com/president/2028/dem
Health warning: this was the first search result for a race I've not been following.
The court rulings against him have driven him mad & he is now lashing out.
The Steel tariffs aren't covered by the rulings & have been previously judged by the courts to be within presidential authority.
He's like a toddler who has had a dangerous toy taken away by a parent. He has now grabbed another toy & is rolling around on the floor having a tantrum.
If you were someone who operated a business in the United States, how would you cope with the constant changing of tariffs on a weekly basis?
I assume economic indicators in the next few weeks are going to start to reveal (if they are allowed to be published, I'm still expecting tractor stats soon) the US economy in freefall......
GDP fell in the first quarter. Trump blamed Biden.
Travel question, where I think I know the answer but want validation.
10 days in October half term. Somewhere with decent weather. Not Italy or Greece. Maximum 5 hours.
So far I am down to a shortlist of: Egypt (Cairo), Turkey, Malta, Morocco, La Palma or El Hierro.
I am edging towards either Ankara to the Antalya coast via Cappadocia, or Tangier to Agadir via the Atlas.
Strong recommendations or warnings welcome.
Malta's a delight. If you have the funds, five days at the Phonecia in Valletta, five days at the Kempinski on Gozo. If not, the same places but cheaper hotels. Mentally deduct half a star from any hotel rating you see.
For Morocco, it's fun to start in Andalucia (been to Granada for the Alhambra? Cadiz? Seville? Jerez?) and take the ferry from Tarifa to Tangier.
Malta is not a delight. Overdeveloped, overcrowded, and quite poor food
The history in Valletta is properly interesting, the Caravaggio is ace,. the megaliths on Gozo are compelling. But that's, what, three days?
In late October the weather can easily be cool or damp, which rules out beach fun, and without beaches Malta is pretty boring
Malta is an absolute and corrupt toilet. Valletta old town is a joy but Greater Valetta and St Julian's make Tower Hamlets look prosperous. The roads are bad the restaurants are poor and what was once a four star beach hotel is now a skyscraper overlooking more skyscrapers. Without doubt the most disappointing destination ever.
As for Gozo, I was already pissed off with Malta so I didn't really give it any benefit of the doubt. All roads lead to the capital, the name of which escapes me for the moment and to travel anywhere drivers have to traverse this pinch point. The one saving grace is they drive on the correct side of the road.
Is it? What are we looking at besides Kamala falling? If we look at this aggregation site and compare results with and without Harris, one shows dramatic change but the latter, without, has a series of flat lines. https://www.racetothewh.com/president/2028/dem
Health warning: this was the first search result for a race I've not been following.
You can't really say "besides Harris", though. It's predictable her numbers were going to fall, but this is a very rapid change.
There are a couple of things to remember, not least of which is that Kamala Harris will not be running again. She will run for California Governor, and will mostly be safely in Sacremento at the time of the next election.
The second thing to note is that Gavin Newsom is currently the betting favorite. This is - candidly - nuts. He's not even particularly popular in California. Fifth in the polls and from California... this is not a man who can pull together a coalition.
The third thing is that there are currently two voices of the "opposition": AOC (supported by Bernie) and Pete Buttigieg.
AOC (+support) is doing packed stadium gigs. She's a serious contender. But she's also far to the left of Ms Harris.
Pete Buttigieg is ubiquitous on TV: he's the moderate Democrat who's on the channels that average politically engaged people watch. Was he a very good transportation secretary? Probably not (albeit he's probably better than the incumbent), but he's the most consistent voice of opposition to Trump.
FWIW, I don't think Shapiro stands much of a chance.
If I were to be betting, I would mostly be selling Newsom, Shapiro, and Harris. Between them they are a combined 30% chance of being nominee on Polymarket, and in reality, I'd reckon the chance is less than 5%.
There are a couple of things to remember, not least of which is that Kamala Harris will not be running again. She will run for California Governor, and will mostly be safely in Sacremento at the time of the next election.
The second thing to note is that Gavin Newsom is currently the betting favorite. This is - candidly - nuts. He's not even particularly popular in California. Fifth in the polls and from California... this is not a man who can pull together a coalition.
The third thing is that there are currently two voices of the "opposition": AOC (supported by Bernie) and Pete Buttigieg.
AOC (+support) is doing packed stadium gigs. She's a serious contender. But she's also far to the left of Ms Harris.
Pete Buttigieg is ubiquitous on TV: he's the moderate Democrat who's constantly on TV here. Was he a very good transportation secretary? Probably not (albeit he's probably better than the incumbent), but he's the most consistent voice of opposition to Trump.
FWIW, I don't think Shapiro stands much of a chance.
If I were to be betting, I would mostly be selling Newsom, Shapiro, and Harris. Between them they are a combined 30% chance of being nominee on Polymarket, and in reality, I'd reckon the chance is less than 5%.
Also; sell Fetterman, Jon Stewart, Barack Obama (can still be sold for a 2% probability on Polymarket??!?!?!?), and Michelle Obama.
There are a couple of things to remember, not least of which is that Kamala Harris will not be running again. She will run for California Governor, and will mostly be safely in Sacremento at the time of the next election.
The second thing to note is that Gavin Newsom is currently the betting favorite. This is - candidly - nuts. He's not even particularly popular in California. Fifth in the polls and from California... this is not a man who can pull together a coalition.
The third thing is that there are currently two voices of the "opposition": AOC (supported by Bernie) and Pete Buttigieg.
AOC (+support) is doing packed stadium gigs. She's a serious contender. But she's also far to the left of Ms Harris.
Pete Buttigieg is ubiquitous on TV: he's the moderate Democrat who's constantly on TV here. Was he a very good transportation secretary? Probably not (albeit he's probably better than the incumbent), but he's the most consistent voice of opposition to Trump.
FWIW, I don't think Shapiro stands much of a chance.
If I were to be betting, I would mostly be selling Newsom, Shapiro, and Harris. Between them they are a combined 30% chance of being nominee on Polymarket, and in reality, I'd reckon the chance is less than 5%.
Also; sell Fetterman, Jon Stewart, Barack Obama (can still be sold for a 2% probability on Polymarket??!?!?!?), and Michelle Obama.
Fuck me, you can still sell Hillary Clinton at 2% on Polymarket too. There are some complete idiots out there.
Random complete punts on Polymarket: Jon Ossoff, Mark Cuban, and Andy Beshear. All highly unlikely to be the Democratic nominee. But given you can get on all of them for about the same odds as Hilary Clinton, I'd chuck $5 on.
I rewatched a bit of M*A*S*H the other night. It's on most nights on one of the back channels.
It was massive at the time but hasn't aged well. The film even less so.
RIP though.
The film honestly comes over as quite nasty, now. It’s strange to think how low-level sexual abuse was once a source of mainstream comedy.
The TV show lasted quite a bit longer than the Korean war itself. It had its moments, but was pretty played out well before the last season- not the last time a US TV show seemed to be flogging a dead horse. Nevertheless there are nuggets and many did involve the magnificent Major "Hot Lips" Houlihan.
Re Vietnam v Korea, the different reactions to each war are a good example of how the ethics of waging war are so often judged by its results. Korea succeeded, so in general, it’s seen as the right thing to have done. Vietnam failed, so it is not.
There are a couple of things to remember, not least of which is that Kamala Harris will not be running again. She will run for California Governor, and will mostly be safely in Sacremento at the time of the next election.
The second thing to note is that Gavin Newsom is currently the betting favorite. This is - candidly - nuts. He's not even particularly popular in California. Fifth in the polls and from California... this is not a man who can pull together a coalition.
The third thing is that there are currently two voices of the "opposition": AOC (supported by Bernie) and Pete Buttigieg.
AOC (+support) is doing packed stadium gigs. She's a serious contender. But she's also far to the left of Ms Harris.
Pete Buttigieg is ubiquitous on TV: he's the moderate Democrat who's on the channels that average politically engaged people watch. Was he a very good transportation secretary? Probably not (albeit he's probably better than the incumbent), but he's the most consistent voice of opposition to Trump.
FWIW, I don't think Shapiro stands much of a chance.
If I were to be betting, I would mostly be selling Newsom, Shapiro, and Harris. Between them they are a combined 30% chance of being nominee on Polymarket, and in reality, I'd reckon the chance is less than 5%.
There’s a fair change she doesn’t run for governor, either.
Re Vietnam v Korea, the different reactions to each war are a good example of how the ethics of waging war are so often judged by its results. Korea succeeded, so in general, it’s seen as the right thing to have done. Vietnam failed, so it is not.
Also, Korea was a UN thingy not just American, and there were allies from all over the world including Britain.
The other thing is that we tend to judge the modern South Korea with its technologically advanced cities, rather than the far less developed country of the 1950s.
I rewatched a bit of M*A*S*H the other night. It's on most nights on one of the back channels.
It was massive at the time but hasn't aged well. The film even less so.
RIP though.
The film honestly comes over as quite nasty, now. It’s strange to think how low-level sexual abuse was once a source of mainstream comedy.
The TV show lasted quite a bit longer than the Korean war itself. It had its moments, but was pretty played out well before the last season- not the last time a US TV show seemed to be flogging a dead horse. Nevertheless there are nuggets and many did involve the magnificent Major "Hot Lips" Houlihan.
She developed the character well, starting off as the rather one dimensional army brat lover of the loathsome Frank Burns, but maturing into the strict but 3 dimensional Major Houlihan, the career woman. For a show made in the Seventies about the Fifties that was pretty progressive.
The early series of the show mocked the regular army characters like Houlihan and Burns relentlessly, and Colonel Blake was simply ineffectual. Gradually the show became more conservative, with Winchester replacing Burns, Hunnicut replacing Trapper, and Potter replacing Blake. All were more conventional and more rounded. Houlihan was developed along the same lines rather than replaced.
It was all part of the recovery of the American psyche, from My Lai and the Pentagon Papers to a Reagan era revival of belief in its military. There were parallels elsewhere, from Taxi Driver shifting to Rambo.
There are a couple of things to remember, not least of which is that Kamala Harris will not be running again. She will run for California Governor, and will mostly be safely in Sacremento at the time of the next election.
The second thing to note is that Gavin Newsom is currently the betting favorite. This is - candidly - nuts. He's not even particularly popular in California. Fifth in the polls and from California... this is not a man who can pull together a coalition.
The third thing is that there are currently two voices of the "opposition": AOC (supported by Bernie) and Pete Buttigieg.
AOC (+support) is doing packed stadium gigs. She's a serious contender. But she's also far to the left of Ms Harris.
Pete Buttigieg is ubiquitous on TV: he's the moderate Democrat who's on the channels that average politically engaged people watch. Was he a very good transportation secretary? Probably not (albeit he's probably better than the incumbent), but he's the most consistent voice of opposition to Trump.
FWIW, I don't think Shapiro stands much of a chance.
If I were to be betting, I would mostly be selling Newsom, Shapiro, and Harris. Between them they are a combined 30% chance of being nominee on Polymarket, and in reality, I'd reckon the chance is less than 5%.
Shapiro for VP, as he probably should have been the last time.
Re Vietnam v Korea, the different reactions to each war are a good example of how the ethics of waging war are so often judged by its results. Korea succeeded, so in general, it’s seen as the right thing to have done. Vietnam failed, so it is not.
Also, Korea was a UN thingy not just American, and there were allies from all over the world including Britain.
The other thing is that we tend to judge the modern South Korea with its technologically advanced cities, rather than the far less developed country of the 1950s.
South Korea was a pretty repressive dictatorship well into the Eighties. I have Korean friend in his sixties who remembers the secret police arrests and torture of his fellow students rather too well.
I read an interesting article a while back that made the case that it was the American War in Vietnam that was the spur to the South Korean economic boom. The Americans were very keen to spread the load and casualties so financed quite large Korean forces in Vietnam, with the soldiers well paid and trained compared to the poverty of the homeland. This was part of the seed corn capital of Korean development.
The Australuans were in both too. My father's cousin was in Vietnam in 1969 with the Australian military, and in the first M*A*S*H series there was an Australian Anaesthetist.
Re Vietnam v Korea, the different reactions to each war are a good example of how the ethics of waging war are so often judged by its results. Korea succeeded, so in general, it’s seen as the right thing to have done. Vietnam failed, so it is not.
I don’t think that’s quite right. The situations leading up to the two wars were entirely different.
Both involved the US/communist rivalry, obviously, but Korea was a complex, post colonial civil war, whereas Vietnam was a pretty straightforward anti-colonial struggle. The Korean political rivalries leading up to that conflict are enormously complicated, and require a book to describe.
That the contemporary ethics were different is demonstrated by the UN support for the US in Korea.
The manner in which both wars were conducted can’t really be described as ethical at all, involving enormous, deliberate civilian casualties in both cases - though the US was far more culpable in Vietnam.
The court rulings against him have driven him mad & he is now lashing out.
The Steel tariffs aren't covered by the rulings & have been previously judged by the courts to be within presidential authority.
He's like a toddler who has had a dangerous toy taken away by a parent. He has now grabbed another toy & is rolling around on the floor having a tantrum.
If you were someone who operated a business in the United States, how would you cope with the constant changing of tariffs on a weekly basis?
I assume economic indicators in the next few weeks are going to start to reveal (if they are allowed to be published, I'm still expecting tractor stats soon) the US economy in freefall......
The energy and activity in the market has picked up markedly in the last 4 weeks
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
Re Vietnam v Korea, the different reactions to each war are a good example of how the ethics of waging war are so often judged by its results. Korea succeeded, so in general, it’s seen as the right thing to have done. Vietnam failed, so it is not.
I have not yet been to Korea, but have been to Vietnam.
While still nominally Communist, Vietnam is an economic success, and a very dynamic and exciting economically booming place. Would it be such a place if the American War had fizzled out into a Korea like stalemate in the Seventies? I think not.
Indeed despite the successful defence of South Korea (which sounds a fascinating place to visit, and far better than the north) , it seems that Vietnam has the brighter looking future.
Perhaps Koreas difficulties mostly derive from being sandwiched between the great powers of China and Japan. Like Ukraine or Poland, they live in a bad neighbourhood.
This is an account which reposts the life experiences of women in conservative Islamic countries. It is heartbreaking
An example
“I am a 27-year-old Saudi woman, forced to wear a double-layered niqab that allows me to see only with half of one eye. But that’s not all — I’m also forced to stay at home and serve, with the full approval of both society and my family. No one sees anything wrong with this.
Even though driving is legally allowed now, it remains forbidden within my family.
My outings are limited to hospital visits and shopping for clothes twice a year during the two Eids. Days have become indistinguishable to me — I can’t tell what day it is unless I look at a calendar.
I wake up and cook lunch for the family (they consider themselves lenient for letting me sleep in while my mother prepares breakfast). The rest of my day is spent within four walls.
I’ve lost contact with my friends because I’m unable to go out. I literally have nothing to talk about — there are no events in my life. I haven’t truly lived. My childhood and teenage memories all happened within the walls of our home. There’s nothing to tell.
I can’t even form new relationships. My social skills have vanished because of being confined for so long. I suffer from social anxiety — I can’t talk to strangers without my voice trembling.
Only when my family travels do I sneak out to a café or mall — those are the greatest adventures I’ve ever had.
I’m ashamed of myself and my life. I don’t want to die — I just want to live.”💔
It makes me despair that we blithely import this culture into the UK
They are no better than slave societies, but the slavery is done by gender
Yes and not only are women restricted in terms of career and expected to stay home (and while I am all for stay at home mothers it shouldn't be compulsory). LGBT activity is illegal too with fines, prison, floggings and even capital punishment still maintained in Saudi law for same sex relations
Given these conditions, I presume you think we should give people coming from Saudi Arabia asylum?
Re Vietnam v Korea, the different reactions to each war are a good example of how the ethics of waging war are so often judged by its results. Korea succeeded, so in general, it’s seen as the right thing to have done. Vietnam failed, so it is not.
I have not yet been to Korea, but have been to Vietnam.
While still nominally Communist, Vietnam is an economic success, and a very dynamic and exciting economically booming place. Would it be such a place if the American War had fizzled out into a Korea like stalemate in the Seventies? I think not.
Indeed despite the successful defence of South Korea (which sounds a fascinating place to visit, and far better than the north) , it seems that Vietnam has the brighter looking future.
Perhaps Koreas difficulties mostly derive from being sandwiched between the great powers of China and Japan. Like Ukraine or Poland, they live in a bad neighbourhood.
Vietnam is booming because it is doing its run from Developing Country to Developed now.
Re Vietnam v Korea, the different reactions to each war are a good example of how the ethics of waging war are so often judged by its results. Korea succeeded, so in general, it’s seen as the right thing to have done. Vietnam failed, so it is not.
I have not yet been to Korea, but have been to Vietnam.
While still nominally Communist, Vietnam is an economic success, and a very dynamic and exciting economically booming place. Would it be such a place if the American War had fizzled out into a Korea like stalemate in the Seventies? I think not.
Indeed despite the successful defence of South Korea (which sounds a fascinating place to visit, and far better than the north) , it seems that Vietnam has the brighter looking future.
Perhaps Koreas difficulties mostly derive from being sandwiched between the great powers of China and Japan. Like Ukraine or Poland, they live in a bad neighbourhood.
Vietnam is booming because it is doing its run from Developing Country to Developed now.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
Re Vietnam v Korea, the different reactions to each war are a good example of how the ethics of waging war are so often judged by its results. Korea succeeded, so in general, it’s seen as the right thing to have done. Vietnam failed, so it is not.
Also, Korea was a UN thingy not just American, and there were allies from all over the world including Britain.
The other thing is that we tend to judge the modern South Korea with its technologically advanced cities, rather than the far less developed country of the 1950s.
South Korea was a pretty repressive dictatorship well into the Eighties. I have Korean friend in his sixties who remembers the secret police arrests and torture of his fellow students rather too well.
I read an interesting article a while back that made the case that it was the American War in Vietnam that was the spur to the South Korean economic boom. The Americans were very keen to spread the load and casualties so financed quite large Korean forces in Vietnam, with the soldiers well paid and trained compared to the poverty of the homeland. This was part of the seed corn capital of Korean development.
The Australuans were in both too. My father's cousin was in Vietnam in 1969 with the Australian military, and in the first M*A*S*H series there was an Australian Anaesthetist.
We are told of similar economic effects in Russia where recruits from the poorest regions are sending home their relatively high pay, along with compensation for death in some cases.
I rewatched a bit of M*A*S*H the other night. It's on most nights on one of the back channels.
It was massive at the time but hasn't aged well. The film even less so.
RIP though.
The film honestly comes over as quite nasty, now. It’s strange to think how low-level sexual abuse was once a source of mainstream comedy.
The TV show lasted quite a bit longer than the Korean war itself. It had its moments, but was pretty played out well before the last season- not the last time a US TV show seemed to be flogging a dead horse. Nevertheless there are nuggets and many did involve the magnificent Major "Hot Lips" Houlihan.
She developed the character well, starting off as the rather one dimensional army brat lover of the loathsome Frank Burns, but maturing into the strict but 3 dimensional Major Houlihan, the career woman. For a show made in the Seventies about the Fifties that was pretty progressive.
The early series of the show mocked the regular army characters like Houlihan and Burns relentlessly, and Colonel Blake was simply ineffectual. Gradually the show became more conservative, with Winchester replacing Burns, Hunnicut replacing Trapper, and Potter replacing Blake. All were more conventional and more rounded. Houlihan was developed along the same lines rather than replaced.
It was all part of the recovery of the American psyche, from My Lai and the Pentagon Papers to a Reagan era revival of belief in its military. There were parallels elsewhere, from Taxi Driver shifting to Rambo.
One of the interesting things about watching the series at repeat channel pace is seeing those changes at roughly one series a week, instead of one series a year. At that rate, you sort of see the changes in the show's psyche (let's face it, growing up, especially in terms of attitudes towards women) happening. A bit like a time lapse video of an ecosystem developing.
Besides, there are plenty of evenings when reruns of MASH or The Avengers are the best thing on the box.
Re Vietnam v Korea, the different reactions to each war are a good example of how the ethics of waging war are so often judged by its results. Korea succeeded, so in general, it’s seen as the right thing to have done. Vietnam failed, so it is not.
I have not yet been to Korea, but have been to Vietnam.
While still nominally Communist, Vietnam is an economic success, and a very dynamic and exciting economically booming place. Would it be such a place if the American War had fizzled out into a Korea like stalemate in the Seventies? I think not.
Indeed despite the successful defence of South Korea (which sounds a fascinating place to visit, and far better than the north) , it seems that Vietnam has the brighter looking future.
Perhaps Koreas difficulties mostly derive from being sandwiched between the great powers of China and Japan. Like Ukraine or Poland, they live in a bad neighbourhood.
Vietnam is booming because it is doing its run from Developing Country to Developed now.
South Korea is a fully developed world country.
South Korea also has catastrophic demographics.
Yes, there is a phenomenal disparity between young men and women in world view, not something likely to result in a recovery of the fertility rate. One reason that Vietnam is booming is that it has a growing workforce.
Economic growth does seem to depend on having plenty of workers, good educational systems, cheap energy, few obstacles to building and good transport infrastructure. Each comes at a financial and/or environmental price, and not one that the British seem to want to pay.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
It is - of course - worth remembering that some of the "cost savings" will come with revenue savings attached. So, for example, the dramatic reduction in the IRS workforce will undoubtedly result in less tax collected.
Similarly, the staff cuts at the Department of Education might well result in fewer student loans being repaid.
Re Vietnam v Korea, the different reactions to each war are a good example of how the ethics of waging war are so often judged by its results. Korea succeeded, so in general, it’s seen as the right thing to have done. Vietnam failed, so it is not.
I have not yet been to Korea, but have been to Vietnam.
While still nominally Communist, Vietnam is an economic success, and a very dynamic and exciting economically booming place. Would it be such a place if the American War had fizzled out into a Korea like stalemate in the Seventies? I think not.
Indeed despite the successful defence of South Korea (which sounds a fascinating place to visit, and far better than the north) , it seems that Vietnam has the brighter looking future.
Perhaps Koreas difficulties mostly derive from being sandwiched between the great powers of China and Japan. Like Ukraine or Poland, they live in a bad neighbourhood.
Vietnam is booming because it is doing its run from Developing Country to Developed now.
South Korea is a fully developed world country.
South Korea also has catastrophic demographics.
Yes, there is a phenomenal disparity between young men and women in world view, not something likely to result in a recovery of the fertility rate. One reason that Vietnam is booming is that it has a growing workforce.
Economic growth does seem to depend on having plenty of workers, good educational systems, cheap energy, few obstacles to building and good transport infrastructure. Each comes at a financial and/or environmental price, and not one that the British seem to want to pay.
Yes and no. Women seem (from what I've gathered) to be held to the same ultra-high level of career expectation but also to be entirely responsible for childcare, which is obviously impossible to manage.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
I rewatched a bit of M*A*S*H the other night. It's on most nights on one of the back channels.
It was massive at the time but hasn't aged well. The film even less so.
RIP though.
The film honestly comes over as quite nasty, now. It’s strange to think how low-level sexual abuse was once a source of mainstream comedy.
The TV show lasted quite a bit longer than the Korean war itself. It had its moments, but was pretty played out well before the last season- not the last time a US TV show seemed to be flogging a dead horse. Nevertheless there are nuggets and many did involve the magnificent Major "Hot Lips" Houlihan.
She developed the character well, starting off as the rather one dimensional army brat lover of the loathsome Frank Burns, but maturing into the strict but 3 dimensional Major Houlihan, the career woman. For a show made in the Seventies about the Fifties that was pretty progressive.
The early series of the show mocked the regular army characters like Houlihan and Burns relentlessly, and Colonel Blake was simply ineffectual. Gradually the show became more conservative, with Winchester replacing Burns, Hunnicut replacing Trapper, and Potter replacing Blake. All were more conventional and more rounded. Houlihan was developed along the same lines rather than replaced.
It was all part of the recovery of the American psyche, from My Lai and the Pentagon Papers to a Reagan era revival of belief in its military. There were parallels elsewhere, from Taxi Driver shifting to Rambo.
One of the interesting things about watching the series at repeat channel pace is seeing those changes at roughly one series a week, instead of one series a year. At that rate, you sort of see the changes in the show's psyche (let's face it, growing up, especially in terms of attitudes towards women) happening. A bit like a time lapse video of an ecosystem developing.
Besides, there are plenty of evenings when reruns of MASH or The Avengers are the best thing on the box.
Yes, I enjoy new film and series, but there is a lot to be said for revisiting the series and films of previous decades. They tell us lots about the times they were made, as well as the times they were set.
The other night I rewatched American Graffiti on Amazon, not having seen it for a few decades. I think it my favourite George Lucas film, that says a lot about the coming boomer nostalgia for the period, but with a Seventies vibe of lost innocence.
I watched "Ice Cold in Alex" on BBC player too, one of my favourite British war films, all sweat, social class and the psychology of exhaustion, a mirror into 1950s Britain.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
(Also: that page is not describing per year, but total numbers. So, if it's over the course of five years, it's $35bn/year.)
It also includes lease sales and "regulatory savings", the latter of which sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Here's the thing. Government is incredibly wasteful. The problem is that the wasteful bits are the ones that are untouchable: i.e. Social Security, Defence, and Medicare.
Travel question, where I think I know the answer but want validation.
10 days in October half term. Somewhere with decent weather. Not Italy or Greece. Maximum 5 hours.
So far I am down to a shortlist of: Egypt (Cairo), Turkey, Malta, Morocco, La Palma or El Hierro.
I am edging towards either Ankara to the Antalya coast via Cappadocia, or Tangier to Agadir via the Atlas.
Strong recommendations or warnings welcome.
Of the suggestions you make, I would do Morocco
But I agree with @carnforth - get the ferry over from Spain. It makes it much more of an adventure - a boat from Europe to Africa! - then head south as far as you can, and feel the sun and the heat rise and rise. Maybe culminate at Essaouira - poetic and wild in the wind
Thanks everyone for the counsel. The family consensus is Morocco. We’ll start either in Andalucia (flight to Jerez) and get the ferry, indulging in our first world privilege to do the reverse trip to that which so many thousands of the destitute and oppressed attempt in the other direction, or in Tangier which I’ve fancied visiting for a while. Then the TGV to Marrakech via Casablanca, then do a drive round the Atlas and desert. We’ve done that bit before - and Essaouira - before children, but enough time has elapsed and our youngest will find it exotic (the eldest may have started his gap year in Namibia by then).
The one problem with a holiday in late October is harvest. If it’s a warm year we’ll have the grapes in by half term and the timing is perfect. If not, then I may need to cancel. So I’ll leave it a couple of months to book I think.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
(Also: that page is not describing per year, but total numbers. So, if it's over the course of five years, it's $35bn/year.)
It also includes lease sales and "regulatory savings", the latter of which sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Here's the thing. Government is incredibly wasteful. The problem is that the wasteful bits are the ones that are untouchable: i.e. Social Security, Defence, and Medicare.
Government spending is much like Medicine, or political punditry for that matter.
Half of it is probably pointless, but no one knows which half.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
It is - of course - worth remembering that some of the "cost savings" will come with revenue savings attached. So, for example, the dramatic reduction in the IRS workforce will undoubtedly result in less tax collected.
Similarly, the staff cuts at the Department of Education might well result in fewer student loans being repaid.
We’re already seeing the direct impact of the IRS cuts. Bonkers stuff. They’ve been scything through actual front line tax agents.
The UK did a bit of that to HMRC in the 2010s too, but the impact was back office which is why you generally want to avoid calling an HMRC call centre.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
(Also: that page is not describing per year, but total numbers. So, if it's over the course of five years, it's $35bn/year.)
It also includes lease sales and "regulatory savings", the latter of which sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Here's the thing. Government is incredibly wasteful. The problem is that the wasteful bits are the ones that are untouchable: i.e. Social Security, Defence, and Medicare.
Government spending is much like Medicine, or political punditry for that matter.
Half of it is probably pointless, but no one knows which half.
... but all of it needs to be paid for by legalised extortion from the hard-working and enterprising.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
(Also: that page is not describing per year, but total numbers. So, if it's over the course of five years, it's $35bn/year.)
It also includes lease sales and "regulatory savings", the latter of which sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Here's the thing. Government is incredibly wasteful. The problem is that the wasteful bits are the ones that are untouchable: i.e. Social Security, Defence, and Medicare.
Government spending is much like Medicine, or political punditry for that matter.
Half of it is probably pointless, but no one knows which half.
... but all of it needs to be paid for by legalised extortion from the hard-working and enterprising.
To be fair, not just the hard-working and enterprising, also the lazy and lucky.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
(Also: that page is not describing per year, but total numbers. So, if it's over the course of five years, it's $35bn/year.)
It also includes lease sales and "regulatory savings", the latter of which sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Here's the thing. Government is incredibly wasteful. The problem is that the wasteful bits are the ones that are untouchable: i.e. Social Security, Defence, and Medicare.
Government spending is much like Medicine, or political punditry for that matter.
Half of it is probably pointless, but no one knows which half.
And then it's the difference between an organisation where cutting marginal operations is fine (because ultimately, the only purpose of any business is to make a profit) and one where it's potentially disastrous (a safety net with holes people can fall through is a failure).
Interesting but slightly alarming piece by Fraser Nelson in today's Times. He starts by being utterly realistic about the failure of Cummings and Musk in government. But then he goes on to blame the abuse of lawfare;
A democratic restoration, the sweeping away of snares used to thwart government policy, can be implemented at any time. Even by Starmer, a legal knight.
Which is all very well, except that all those laws were put in place to stop real abuses happening. Even the really annoying ones. The state is now complex enough that it can't fit in one man's head, no matter how clever or computer-enhanced.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
(Also: that page is not describing per year, but total numbers. So, if it's over the course of five years, it's $35bn/year.)
It also includes lease sales and "regulatory savings", the latter of which sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Here's the thing. Government is incredibly wasteful. The problem is that the wasteful bits are the ones that are untouchable: i.e. Social Security, Defence, and Medicare.
Government spending is much like Medicine, or political punditry for that matter.
Half of it is probably pointless, but no one knows which half.
... but all of it needs to be paid for by legalised extortion from the hard-working and enterprising.
It would be an interesting exercise to allow individuals to opt out of tax and in return receive no services whatsoever.
No health, education, policing, state pension for those prople, obviously. But also, no fire or ambulance services, not allowed to use the roads (which is unfortunate because they can buy fuel really cheaply), no rail either (or maybe with a big surcharge to cover the subsidy), not sure all the savings you amass from those taxes avoid would be that secure, as no government protection. No vote of course so no influence on future laws. Lots of other things I haven't consider too no doubt.
Defence, environment, the legal system, all sorts of quality standards... trickier to split out but don't think you can guarantee to benefit from them.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
(Also: that page is not describing per year, but total numbers. So, if it's over the course of five years, it's $35bn/year.)
It also includes lease sales and "regulatory savings", the latter of which sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Here's the thing. Government is incredibly wasteful. The problem is that the wasteful bits are the ones that are untouchable: i.e. Social Security, Defence, and Medicare.
Government spending is much like Medicine, or political punditry for that matter.
Half of it is probably pointless, but no one knows which half.
... but all of it needs to be paid for by legalised extortion from the hard-working and enterprising.
For example much defence spending is wasted. Soldiers trained and equipped for wars that never come, over engineered pointy nosed jets that drop bombs on peasants no better than a WW1 biplane could, ships that are scrapped without firing a shot in anger.
Similarly screening people for cancers that they do not have. Treatment of people who would never had a cardiovascular event with blood pressure meds and statins.
All quite obviously wasted, yet could have been essential. We just don't know what the future holds, we can only make informed gambles.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
(Also: that page is not describing per year, but total numbers. So, if it's over the course of five years, it's $35bn/year.)
It also includes lease sales and "regulatory savings", the latter of which sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Here's the thing. Government is incredibly wasteful. The problem is that the wasteful bits are the ones that are untouchable: i.e. Social Security, Defence, and Medicare.
Government spending is much like Medicine, or political punditry for that matter.
Half of it is probably pointless, but no one knows which half.
... but all of it needs to be paid for by legalised extortion from the hard-working and enterprising.
To be fair, not just the hard-working and enterprising, also the lazy and lucky.
Though the lazy and lucky who inherited a wedge pay less income tax (NI) of course.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
(Also: that page is not describing per year, but total numbers. So, if it's over the course of five years, it's $35bn/year.)
It also includes lease sales and "regulatory savings", the latter of which sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Here's the thing. Government is incredibly wasteful. The problem is that the wasteful bits are the ones that are untouchable: i.e. Social Security, Defence, and Medicare.
Government spending is much like Medicine, or political punditry for that matter.
Half of it is probably pointless, but no one knows which half.
... but all of it needs to be paid for by legalised extortion from the hard-working and enterprising.
It would be an interesting exercise to allow individuals to opt out of tax and in return receive no services whatsoever.
No health, education, policing, state pension for those prople, obviously. But also, no fire or ambulance services, not allowed to use the roads (which is unfortunate because they can buy fuel really cheaply), no rail either (or maybe with a big surcharge to cover the subsidy), not sure all the savings you amass from those taxes avoid would be that secure, as no government protection. No vote of course so no influence on future laws. Lots of other things I haven't consider too no doubt.
Defence, environment, the legal system, all sorts of quality standards... trickier to split out but don't think you can guarantee to benefit from them.
Such people could be free of taxes, but would also be outlaws, who could be killed with impunity.
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
Great. So they’re lying about an extra $15B. What they’re not doing is saving the US Govt much money.
Although - somewhat to my surprise - the industry feedback I am getting is that FDA and FDA-CVM are being much more constructive and responsive than they have been in the past
So DOGE has been a disaster as it always was going to be.
Doesn’t exactly bode well for Farage does it?
Has it? I read it had saved $170bn. That seems a lot to me, even within the context of the US budget.
DOGE claims to have saved $160B, but has only provided evidence for $32.5B. When you look at that evidence, a lot of that turns out to be exaggeration as well: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
It appears from the link to their website that you have provided they actually claim to have saved 175bn - that piece was written in April.
(Also: that page is not describing per year, but total numbers. So, if it's over the course of five years, it's $35bn/year.)
It also includes lease sales and "regulatory savings", the latter of which sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Here's the thing. Government is incredibly wasteful. The problem is that the wasteful bits are the ones that are untouchable: i.e. Social Security, Defence, and Medicare.
Government spending is much like Medicine, or political punditry for that matter.
Half of it is probably pointless, but no one knows which half.
... but all of it needs to be paid for by legalised extortion from the hard-working and enterprising.
To be fair, not just the hard-working and enterprising, also the lazy and lucky.
I was once suppose to be giving a reading at a wedding in Gloucestershire and upon unpacking at the hotel that morning found I had left my formal shoes at home. I drove ASAP into Cheltenham and bought some new ones. No other course of action would have been acceptable.
I was once suppose to be giving a reading at a wedding in Gloucestershire and upon unpacking at the hotel that morning found I had left my formal shoes at home. I drove ASAP into Cheltenham and bought some new ones. No other course of action would have been acceptable.
Done the same in similar circumstances. Of course my formal shoes get a lot of wear so there was no real loss in the long run.
Comments
May 29
Did you seriously blur out the brown people and leave the couple of White offenders unblurred?
https://x.com/ErArBla/status/1928026419763814865
https://www.racetothewh.com/president/2028/dem
Health warning: this was the first search result for a race I've not been following.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/religion/article/witch-thrown-off-druid-training-course-trans-row-k2vlp238v (£££)
What a time to be alive.
Trump blamed Biden.
As for Gozo, I was already pissed off with Malta so I didn't really give it any benefit of the doubt. All roads lead to the capital, the name of which escapes me for the moment and to travel anywhere drivers have to traverse this pinch point. The one saving grace is they drive on the correct side of the road.
It's predictable her numbers were going to fall, but this is a very rapid change.
The second thing to note is that Gavin Newsom is currently the betting favorite. This is - candidly - nuts. He's not even particularly popular in California. Fifth in the polls and from California... this is not a man who can pull together a coalition.
The third thing is that there are currently two voices of the "opposition": AOC (supported by Bernie) and Pete Buttigieg.
AOC (+support) is doing packed stadium gigs. She's a serious contender. But she's also far to the left of Ms Harris.
Pete Buttigieg is ubiquitous on TV: he's the moderate Democrat who's on the channels that average politically engaged people watch. Was he a very good transportation secretary? Probably not (albeit he's probably better than the incumbent), but he's the most consistent voice of opposition to Trump.
FWIW, I don't think Shapiro stands much of a chance.
If I were to be betting, I would mostly be selling Newsom, Shapiro, and Harris. Between them they are a combined 30% chance of being nominee on Polymarket, and in reality, I'd reckon the chance is less than 5%.
Nevertheless there are nuggets and many did involve the magnificent Major "Hot Lips" Houlihan.
The other thing is that we tend to judge the modern South Korea with its technologically advanced cities, rather than the far less developed country of the 1950s.
The early series of the show mocked the regular army characters like Houlihan and Burns relentlessly, and Colonel Blake was simply ineffectual. Gradually the show became more conservative, with Winchester replacing Burns, Hunnicut replacing Trapper, and Potter replacing Blake. All were more conventional and more rounded. Houlihan was developed along the same lines rather than replaced.
It was all part of the recovery of the American psyche, from My Lai and the Pentagon Papers to a Reagan era revival of belief in its military. There were parallels elsewhere, from Taxi Driver shifting to Rambo.
I read an interesting article a while back that made the case that it was the American War in Vietnam that was the spur to the South Korean economic boom. The Americans were very keen to spread the load and casualties so financed quite large Korean forces in Vietnam, with the soldiers well paid and trained compared to the poverty of the homeland. This was part of the seed corn capital of Korean development.
The Australuans were in both too. My father's cousin was in Vietnam in 1969 with the Australian military, and in the first M*A*S*H series there was an Australian Anaesthetist.
The situations leading up to the two wars were entirely different.
Both involved the US/communist rivalry, obviously, but Korea was a complex, post colonial civil war, whereas Vietnam was a pretty straightforward anti-colonial struggle. The Korean political rivalries leading up to that conflict are enormously complicated, and require a book to describe.
That the contemporary ethics were different is demonstrated by the UN support for the US in Korea.
The manner in which both wars were conducted can’t really be described as ethical at all, involving enormous, deliberate civilian casualties in both cases - though the US was far more culpable in Vietnam.
It's a sad fact that Korea's geographical position has seen it be a realm of conflicts of other powers for a lot of its history.
While still nominally Communist, Vietnam is an economic success, and a very dynamic and exciting economically booming place. Would it be such a place if the American War had fizzled out into a Korea like stalemate in the Seventies? I think not.
Indeed despite the successful defence of South Korea (which sounds a fascinating place to visit, and far better than the north) , it seems that Vietnam has the brighter looking future.
Perhaps Koreas difficulties mostly derive from being sandwiched between the great powers of China and Japan. Like Ukraine or Poland, they live in a bad neighbourhood.
South Korea is a fully developed world country.
https://doge.gov/savings
Besides, there are plenty of evenings when reruns of MASH or The Avengers are the best thing on the box.
Economic growth does seem to depend on having plenty of workers, good educational systems, cheap energy, few obstacles to building and good transport infrastructure. Each comes at a financial and/or environmental price, and not one that the British seem to want to pay.
Similarly, the staff cuts at the Department of Education might well result in fewer student loans being repaid.
The Swiss village wiped off the map by a glacier
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-c7f929de-96a9-45e5-b1bb-31de82fce72d
Rather poignantly, several of the hotels wiped out are now listed as 'Temporarily closed' on Google Maps.
The other night I rewatched American Graffiti on Amazon, not having seen it for a few decades. I think it my favourite George Lucas film, that says a lot about the coming boomer nostalgia for the period, but with a Seventies vibe of lost innocence.
I watched "Ice Cold in Alex" on BBC player too, one of my favourite British war films, all sweat, social class and the psychology of exhaustion, a mirror into 1950s Britain.
It also includes lease sales and "regulatory savings", the latter of which sounds suspiciously like bullshit.
Here's the thing. Government is incredibly wasteful. The problem is that the wasteful bits are the ones that are untouchable: i.e. Social Security, Defence, and Medicare.
Half of it is probably pointless, but no one knows which half.
https://x.com/bagshaw2112/status/1928399687184175576?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The UK did a bit of that to HMRC in the 2010s too, but the impact was back office which is why you generally want to avoid calling an HMRC call centre.
Interesting but slightly alarming piece by Fraser Nelson in today's Times. He starts by being utterly realistic about the failure of Cummings and Musk in government. But then he goes on to blame the abuse of lawfare;
A democratic restoration, the sweeping away of snares used to thwart government policy, can be implemented at any time. Even by Starmer, a legal knight.
Which is all very well, except that all those laws were put in place to stop real abuses happening. Even the really annoying ones. The state is now complex enough that it can't fit in one man's head, no matter how clever or computer-enhanced.
I reckon we are due a big old juicy political earthquake tonight for the Sundays.
No health, education, policing, state pension for those prople, obviously. But also, no fire or ambulance services, not allowed to use the roads (which is unfortunate because they can buy fuel really cheaply), no rail either (or maybe with a big surcharge to cover the subsidy), not sure all the savings you amass from those taxes avoid would be that secure, as no government protection. No vote of course so no influence on future laws. Lots of other things I haven't consider too no doubt.
Defence, environment, the legal system, all sorts of quality standards... trickier to split out but don't think you can guarantee to benefit from them.
Similarly screening people for cancers that they do not have. Treatment of people who would never had a cardiovascular event with blood pressure meds and statins.
All quite obviously wasted, yet could have been essential. We just don't know what the future holds, we can only make informed gambles.
By their fellow travellers shall ye know them.
Kellie-Jay Keen
@ThePosieParker
Baby trafficker
https://x.com/ThePosieParker/status/1928501454580367587
NEW THREAD