A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
And the private company that ran the rails before them also failed - and failed harder. It's almost as if running the rails without running the trains that go on the rails is a bloody stupid way of structuring a national railway system.
I generally reckon the prognostications of those who say - in any context - "aha, this problem could have been avoided simply by selling at the top of the market, as any fule knoweth!" can safely be ignored. (Except, sadly, in the court of public opinion, where its sagacity goes unquestioned.)
Whether conversation verges on topics of house prices or shares or gold or baseball cards or tulip bulbs, I've found such strategic complete ignoral a good rule of thumb for the promotion of sanity and the prevention of tedium.
Corbyn also expresses the views of a lot of Labour activists at the moment as his polling shows, indeed, some Burnham MPs may well have moved to Corbyn had they not already declared for Burnham first
They aren't that mad!
Some of those who initially joined Burnham's campaign did so because there was no genuine leftwing in the race at that time
I've certainly heard this put forward as the reason why Corbyn struggled so much to find the nominations (Burnham had already hoovered the lefties up already), though it strikes me as odd given that (from memory - anyone help me out here?) Diane Abbott also struggled to make up the numbers during the nomination period in the previous leadership election, and she'd have been drawing from a similar pool to Corbyn.
True, but most of the new 2015 intake was from the left
I know it's not a like-for-like comparison, but it does make me wary of this "Corbyn would have got the nomination without 'help' had he started earlier" argument.
I don't need a subjective opinion (or as you put it "I think") because there is pretty extensive, properly founded scientific research which a few hours on the internet lets you fill in pretty much all the blanks.
I know what works for me personally and it seems I'm reasonably average (was going to put normal but that's almost a pejorative word in the situation) but I wouldn't extend that to believe it is the same for everyone without doing some reading and seeing what the science says.
You don't have to argue one way or another. Just read up on it. Of course, not everyone will like what they read.
I have read up on it. And the trouble is, both men and women see women as sexual objects - which doesn't make sense, given that most women aren't attracted to other women.
That's why I don't agree sexual objectification is natural. It's something conditioned by society, and its representation of women.
Surely everything society has been doing for at least the last 20 years (if not 40 years) has been counter to this. And yet despite this the strong prevalence of female fantasy and desire to be objectified in the right environment remains.
As I said previously, the conclusions may not be what people want.
Perhaps the focus needs to switch to accepting human sexuality and to educate on where this is appropriate and where objectification is not appropriate rather than to somehow change human sexuality.
Mrs Scrap advises as a disinterested non-political anorak that of the 4 candidates - she's never heard of Kendall or Corbyn and of the other two Yvette seems by far the most impressive and trustworthy.
She might be keener if she knew of my long-standing bet with Shadsy on Yvette for LotO placed in 2011 I think....
A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise. I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Corbyn also expresses the views of a lot of Labour activists at the moment as his polling shows, indeed, some Burnham MPs may well have moved to Corbyn had they not already declared for Burnham first
They aren't that mad!
Some of those who initially joined Burnham's campaign did so because there was no genuine leftwing in the race at that time
I've certainly heard this put forward as the reason why Corbyn struggled so much to find the nominations (Burnham had already hoovered the lefties up already), though it strikes me as odd given that (from memory - anyone help me out here?) Diane Abbott also struggled to make up the numbers during the nomination period in the previous leadership election, and she'd have been drawing from a similar pool to Corbyn.
True, but most of the new 2015 intake was from the left
I know it's not a like-for-like comparison, but it does make me wary of this "Corbyn would have got the nomination without 'help' had he started earlier" argument.
It is not guaranteed, but certainly had he declared at the same time as Burnham it is plausible
I don't need a subjective opinion (or as you put it "I think") because there is pretty extensive, properly founded scientific research which a few hours on the internet lets you fill in pretty much all the blanks.
I know what works for me personally and it seems I'm reasonably average (was going to put normal but that's almost a pejorative word in the situation) but I wouldn't extend that to believe it is the same for everyone without doing some reading and seeing what the science says.
You don't have to argue one way or another. Just read up on it. Of course, not everyone will like what they read.
I have read up on it. And the trouble is, both men and women see women as sexual objects - which doesn't make sense, given that most women aren't attracted to other women.
That's why I don't agree sexual objectification is natural. It's something conditioned by society, and its representation of women.
Surely everything society has been doing for at least the last 20 years (if not 40 years) has been counter to this. And yet despite this the strong prevalence of female fantasy and desire to be objectified remains.
As I said previously, the conclusions may not be what people want.
How is everything society has been doing over the last forty years counter to this?
I question whether women wanting to be objectified is actually true, but even so - society in general tells women that being objectified is a good thing, and that a large part of female value is in their appearance anyway. In this sense objectification, for many is an affirmation of their value. So it's not too surprising that there are women out there who see objectification as a positive thing, even when studies have been done showing its negative impact on female image and self-esteem.
I note the letters "RBS" did not appear here today. What on earth is Britain doing selling bank shares into a low interest rate environment after a sovereign debt crisis?
The government is not an investment company. It does not hold stakes in businesses simply in the belief that they'll produce a return. Not even Jeremy Corbyn wants that. Nor is there any indication that RBS shares will rise particularly - but hopefully they will as a result of the government playing its only remaining card: implanting the idea that starting to sell RBS implies confidence in its business.
If the nation is competent enough to manage a significant holding of debt, it must surely be competent enough to manage a portfolio of assets.
On first reading I thought this has to be a joke but I now suspect that it isn't intended as such. Therefore it can only be the product of a total lack of understanding of business/ finance. RBS is also not a portfolio and I suspect we could all grow a lot older, or die in the process of waiting for RBS to turn a profit.
RBS is not run by the UK government. The UK government owns a stake in the bank which is an asset in its portfolio of assets. It has no governance role in RBS. The bank is run exactly the same, in every conceivable way, as it would be if it were owned entirely outwith the state.
The only decision which Osborne should be making is "how do I get the best return for the public purse". That's clearly not how he is making the decision. It is either being done purely on an ideological basis or on a basis of rewarding his friends in the typical way of high level British state corruption.
You confirm my reading of your competence in this matter. An elementary lesson, simply put - shareholders ultimately call the shots in all companies and RBS's majority shareholder has flexed and continues to flex its muscles both publicly and privately. You correctly identify Osborne's motivation in managing the UK's nationalised shareholding but the issues here are much more complicated so I will leave them fallow as you are clearly pretty much out of your depth on this subject.
To wit: not paying Stephen Hester market rates and ultimately pushing him out. The latter possibly the right of a shareholder; the former possibly not.
A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise. I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise. I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
I wonder what happened at the end of the 1940s, and what happened in the mid 1990s to directly result in a massive change.
Since I sold my only car in 1973, and took up mainly cycling and walking, the number of cars on the road must surely have risen by six or eightfold (I would welcome precision here), speaking from a worm's eye aspect. Perhaps the rise from 1970ish was fuelled by desperation. I hope sociologists are on the case.
Male and Female brains are wired somewhat differently. While it's true that (generally) a woman will be stimulated more by imagination, men are very much visual creatures.
On the subject of porn. When will the government do something about the BBC showing Hardcore Food Porn in primetime! All I can think about is heading down to Asda for an utterly enormous Black Forest Gateau. Won't somebody think of the children!
Given that women's 'imaginations' will produce visual images (inside their head) I can't see how women aren't somewhat visual anyway. I've always thought visual was a nice way of saying shallow, basically.
And I see you're a fan of the Great British Bake Off. Although I hate Black Forest Gateu with a passion. In fact I find gateus 'meh' in general....
It's based on the cues that various stimuli cause.
Randomly pulled article, all the research points to the same thing.
So men are less creative than women then.
Also, judging by that link I assume you think sexual objectification is natural - I'd argue being attracted to someone and objectification are two different things, mind.
I don't need a subjective opinion (or as you put it "I think") because there is pretty extensive, properly founded scientific research which a few hours on the internet lets you fill in pretty much all the blanks.
I know what works for me personally and it seems I'm reasonably average (was going to put normal but that's almost a pejorative word in the situation) but I wouldn't extend that to believe it is the same for everyone without doing some reading and seeing what the science says.
You don't have to argue one way or another. Just read up on it. Of course, not everyone will like what they read.
I have read up on it. And the trouble is, both men and women see women as sexual objects - which doesn't make sense, given that most women aren't attracted to other women.
That's why I don't agree sexual objectification is natural. It's something conditioned by society, and its representation of women.
Surely everything humans do is natural since humans are natural.
Male and Female brains are wired somewhat differently. While it's true that (generally) a woman will be stimulated more by imagination, men are very much visual creatures.
On the subject of porn. When will the government do something about the BBC showing Hardcore Food Porn in primetime! All I can think about is heading down to Asda for an utterly enormous Black Forest Gateau. Won't somebody think of the children!
Given that women's 'imaginations' will produce visual images (inside their head) I can't see how women aren't somewhat visual anyway. I've always thought visual was a nice way of saying shallow, basically.
And I see you're a fan of the Great British Bake Off. Although I hate Black Forest Gateu with a passion. In fact I find gateus 'meh' in general....
It's based on the cues that various stimuli cause.
Randomly pulled article, all the research points to the same thing.
So men are less creative than women then.
Also, judging by that link I assume you think sexual objectification is natural - I'd argue being attracted to someone and objectification are two different things, mind.
I don't need a subjective opinion (or as you put it "I think") because there is pretty extensive, properly founded scientific research which a few hours on the internet lets you fill in pretty much all the blanks.
I know what works for me personally and it seems I'm reasonably average (was going to put normal but that's almost a pejorative word in the situation) but I wouldn't extend that to believe it is the same for everyone without doing some reading and seeing what the science says.
You don't have to argue one way or another. Just read up on it. Of course, not everyone will like what they read.
I have read up on it. And the trouble is, both men and women see women as sexual objects - which doesn't make sense, given that most women aren't attracted to other women.
That's why I don't agree sexual objectification is natural. It's something conditioned by society, and its representation of women.
Surely everything humans do is natural since humans are natural.
I can't agree. Arguably monogamy, going on computers, etc isn't natural but humans do it.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Surely everything society has been doing for at least the last 20 years (if not 40 years) has been counter to this. And yet despite this the strong prevalence of female fantasy and desire to be objectified remains.
As I said previously, the conclusions may not be what people want.
How is everything society has been doing over the last forty years counter to this?
I question whether women wanting to be objectified is actually true, but even so - society in general tells women that being objectified is a good thing, and that a large part of female value is in their appearance anyway. In this sense objectification, for many is an affirmation of their value. So it's not too surprising that there are women out there who see objectification as a positive thing, even when studies have been done showing its negative impact on female image and self-esteem.
Actually my choice of words was poor. It's not "everything". However, there have been significant movements to change attitudes in this area, from the liberal media to the feminist movement and lots in between. Yes some areas, perhaps the mainstream press media seem to have made no progress.
Overall, surely it is difficult to think that there are not significant societal changes in 2015 than in 1975? Yet, there does not seem to be any change in the desire amongst women for objectified roles in the right environment.
It's always difficult when you get to chicken and egg debates. Is EL James rich because women want to read about being objectified or do women want to be objectified because they've read Fifty Shades? On balance, given how much change there has been in society, I'm very much in the former camp. Clearly your view is different but I'm not clear what you're basing that on.
Too much information from Chris Christie at a NH rally
NEW Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is a Catholic, but, as he told a crowd in New Hampshire, that hasn't stopped him from using birth control. "I'm a Catholic but I've used birth control, and not just the rhythm method," the presidential candidate said in the town hall event.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
The story may not be general knowledge, but I learned the name and being the third party candidate the way I learned most things as a child - from The Simpsons .
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
'Disagree, this has been Burnham policy for over a month and he needs some red meat to win over activists. 60% + of the public want the railways renationalised anyway in most polls '
Think you will find it's yet another fantasy policy as nationalization would fall foul of EU competition rules.
Surely everything society has been doing for at least the last 20 years (if not 40 years) has been counter to this. And yet despite this the strong prevalence of female fantasy and desire to be objectified remains.
As I said previously, the conclusions may not be what people want.
How is everything society has been doing over the last forty years counter to this?
I question whether women wanting to be objectified is actually true, but even so - society in general tells women that being objectified is a good thing, and that a large part of female value is in their appearance anyway. In this sense objectification, for many is an affirmation of their value. So it's not too surprising that there are women out there who see objectification as a positive thing, even when studies have been done showing its negative impact on female image and self-esteem.
Actually my choice of words was poor. It's not "everything". However, there have been significant movements to change attitudes in this area, from the liberal media to the feminist movement and lots in between. Yes some areas, perhaps the mainstream press media seem to have made no progress.
Overall, surely it is difficult to think that there are not significant societal changes in 2015 than in 1975? Yet, there does not seem to be any change in the desire amongst women for objectified roles in the right environment.
It's always difficult when you get to chicken and egg debates. Is EL James rich because women want to read about being objectified or do women want to be objectified because they've read Fifty Shades? On balance, given how much change there has been in society, I'm very much in the former camp. Clearly your view is different but I'm not clear what you're basing that on.
On women wanting to be objectified - again, I did address this in my previous post. That although there has been much societal change over the last couple of decades, women are not yet equal. There are still gender roles, and there are still double-standards in regard to the sexes. And despite the changes in women's role, women predominantly in the media are celebrated for their sexual appeal to men, as opposed to their actual achievements. This comes back to my previous post - that if we believe that women want to be objectified, then of course they do: society tells women its one of their main, if not main value. Everyone wants to feel valued.
The mainstream media making no progress is the key. While feminists and the liberal media may have - to a degree put the idea of sexual objectification theory into public consciousness, it's not affected that much of the media - movies, music, newspapers, magazines, etc do still, to a large degree objectify women. The attitudes of those with power in the media hasn't changed.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
And the private company that ran the rails before them also failed - and failed harder. It's almost as if running the rails without running the trains that go on the rails is a bloody stupid way of structuring a national railway system.
Only if you believe that vertical integration is the only way forward. It isn't.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.
I note the letters "RBS" did not appear here today. What on earth is Britain doing selling bank shares into a low interest rate environment after a sovereign debt crisis?
The government is not an investment company. It does not hold stakes in businesses simply in the belief that they'll produce a return. Not even Jeremy Corbyn wants that. Nor is there any indication that RBS shares will rise particularly - but hopefully they will as a result of the government playing its only remaining card: implanting the idea that starting to sell RBS implies confidence in its business.
If the nation is competent enough to manage a significant holding of debt, it must surely be competent enough to manage a portfolio of assets.
On first reading I thought this has to be a joke but I now suspect that it isn't intended as such. Therefore it can only be the product of a total lack of understanding of business/ finance. RBS is also not a portfolio and I suspect we could all grow a lot older, or die in the process of waiting for RBS to turn a profit.
RBS is not run by the UK government. The UK government owns a stake in the bank which is an asset in its portfolio of assets. It has no governance role in RBS. The bank is run exactly the same, in every conceivable way, as it would be if it were owned entirely outwith the state.
The only decision which Osborne should be making is "how do I get the best return for the public purse". That's clearly not how he is making the decision. It is either being done purely on an ideological basis or on a basis of rewarding his friends in the typical way of high level British state corruption.
You confirm my reading of your competence in this matter. An elementary lesson, simply put - shareholders ultimately call the shots in all companies and RBS's majority shareholder has flexed and continues to flex its muscles both publicly and privately. You correctly identify Osborne's motivation in managing the UK's nationalised shareholding but the issues here are much more complicated so I will leave them fallow as you are clearly pretty much out of your depth on this subject.
To wit: not paying Stephen Hester market rates and ultimately pushing him out. The latter possibly the right of a shareholder; the former possibly not.
Interesting point. There is a lot of "nod and a wink" pressure from any powerful shareholder of any company. Osborne could be quite open 'cos, how many are going to naysay a pay cut for a banker?
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
On women wanting to be objectified - again, I did address this in my previous post. That although there has been much societal change over the last couple of decades, women are not yet equal. There are still gender roles, and there are still double-standards in regard to the sexes. And despite the changes in women's role, women predominantly in the media are celebrated for their sexual appeal to men, as opposed to their actual achievements. This comes back to my previous post - that if we believe that women want to be objectified, then of course they do: society tells women its one of their main, if not main value. Everyone wants to feel valued.
The mainstream media making no progress is the key. While feminists and the liberal media may have - to a degree put the idea of sexual objectification theory into public consciousness, it's not affected that much of the media - movies, music, newspapers, magazines, etc do still, to a large degree objectify women. The attitudes of those with power in the media hasn't changed.
The point I would make is that some of these societal changes are absolutely enormous. I suspect you are on the younger side for this forum, I might think you should look up "The Benny Hill Show", "On The Buses", The Carry On Films, The Confessions Films. These were before my time but the first free were still being repeated in the 80s and 90s and even the noughties on DAYTIME television (actually I think Benny Hill was still being made into the 90s).
The level of objectification is obscene and almost always linked with blatant mysogyny. The mysogyny has largely vanished in its entirety from the mainstream media, the objectification is absolutely minimal in direct comparison to the 70s. Yet, the level and prevalence of female identification with BDSM, Rape Fantasy and other sexual choices closely identified with objectification seems utterly unchanged. Hence, there appears to be no correlation between reduction in mysogyny and objectification in the media and the choices women make. If your argument was correct, there would have been reduced prevalence.
To wit: not paying Stephen Hester market rates and ultimately pushing him out. The latter possibly the right of a shareholder; the former possibly not.
Interesting point. There is a lot of "nod and a wink" pressure from any powerful shareholder of any company. Osborne could be quite open 'cos, how many are going to naysay a pay cut for a banker?
True - except that Hester (who I don't like, FWIW) waived his contractual bonus after a public media campaign whipped up by the Chancellor
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....
He gave Bill Clinton the keys to the White House
That's the traditional wisdom, which I repeated as part of "the story". But the numbers do suggest that although they helped Clinton, they probably weren't determinative.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.
Looks like he split the Republican vote.
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise. I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
Thanks. It's a closed fracture, thankfully small. Hurts like **** though. All down to my own stupidity.
My famkly have been wonderful - my dad and sis drove for 11 hours to pick me and the car up and take me to hospital. I'm an independent sort of fellow, so it feels embarrassing to rely on tbem, but i hope i'd do the same for them. Now recuperating at my parent's house before Mrs J & the young 'un arrive back from holiday.
I've had the pleasure to meet many current & ex railway workers in the past. Sadly I don't k ow do many atm though.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.
Looks like he split the Republican vote.
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
As I say, it's certainly the received wisdom. But like all good stories, it probably isn't true.
Trump, on the other hand, would really split the vote...
Even Norway could be in trouble if the oil price drops much further:
"Meanwhile, several reports show that Norway is not dependent on an oil price higher than USD $40 per barrel in order to balance next year's national budget. This is the same conclusion and number that Fitch has presented, and it is the lowest level for all the oil producers that the rating company has looked at."
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....
He gave Bill Clinton the keys to the White House
That's the traditional wisdom, which I repeated as part of "the story". But the numbers do suggest that although they helped Clinton, they probably weren't determinative.
Clinton only got 43% of the vote vs 37% for Bush
I haven't seen data on second prefs for Perot supports, but I'd assume that a maverick, right wing, capitalist would be more likely to win support from, ooooh, shall we say Republicans or Democrats?
The point I would make is that some of these societal changes are absolutely enormous. I suspect you are on the younger side for this forum, I might think you should look up "The Benny Hill Show", "On The Buses", The Carry On Films, The Confessions Films. These were before my time but the first free were still being repeated in the 80s and 90s and even the noughties on DAYTIME television (actually I think Benny Hill was still being made into the 90s).
The level of objectification is obscene and almost always linked with blatant mysogyny. The mysogyny has largely vanished in its entirety from the mainstream media, the objectification is absolutely minimal in direct comparison to the 70s. Yet, the level and prevalence of female identification with BDSM, Rape Fantasy and other sexual choices closely identified with objectification seems utterly unchanged. Hence, there appears to be no correlation between reduction in mysogyny and objectification in the media and the choices women make. If your argument was correct, there would have been reduced prevalence.
I disagree that objectification has reduced, as you argue. More explicit music videos, increased access hardcore porn, page 3, DM sidebar of shame. Even the way cameras are panin nearly every movie, TV show on women is essentially designed for the male gaze. In newspapers and magazines, most images of women have been sexualized to some degree or another. So yes, I'd argue there a correlation between objectification and the choices women make. Even rape fantasty isn't something most women want; and for the 25% - 40% who do, the fantasies are not common or frequent. In fact, an awful lot of these rape fantasies seem to lead to eventually the woman wanting to have sex - in contrast to much of the rape fantasies in online porn I've seen where this isn't the case at all.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.
Looks like he split the Republican vote.
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
Bush would have lost in 1992 anyway, even without Perot. He almost lost in the republican primaries to Pat Buchanan.
The only reason Bush became president in 1988 was because he was the VP to Reagan.
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
'Disagree, this has been Burnham policy for over a month and he needs some red meat to win over activists. 60% + of the public want the railways renationalised anyway in most polls '
Think you will find it's yet another fantasy policy as nationalization would fall foul of EU competition rules.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....
He gave Bill Clinton the keys to the White House
Arguable, most exit polls showed Perot's supporters would have split 50% Bush - 50% Clinton had Perot not been in the race and the rest would not have voted
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
'Disagree, this has been Burnham policy for over a month and he needs some red meat to win over activists. 60% + of the public want the railways renationalised anyway in most polls '
Think you will find it's yet another fantasy policy as nationalization would fall foul of EU competition rules.
It's a bit not complicated than that: SNCF is, of course, owned by the state, as are most national railways. The rules that exist are poorly drafted, and seem to miss the point that wev live on an island. What they are designed to prohibit is the French government using their ownership of the tracks to cross subsidise a state push into Belgian railways (for example).
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
No doubt it is just me but do those part time workers earning over £50000 a year for sitting at the front of a tube train but who are on strike yet again tonight not kill the argument for nationalisation of the railways stone cold irredeemably dead?
Does anyone believe for a moment they would be getting away with this nonsense if TFL was privately run?
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.
Looks like he split the Republican vote.
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
Bush would have lost in 1992 anyway, even without Perot. He almost lost in the republican primaries to Pat Buchanan.
The only reason Bush became president in 1988 was because he was the VP to Reagan.
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
Wow.
There's something about that surname Bush.
Bush Snr sounds like he could rival Dubya in the 'worst president' stakes....
'Disagree, this has been Burnham policy for over a month and he needs some red meat to win over activists. 60% + of the public want the railways renationalised anyway in most polls '
Think you will find it's yet another fantasy policy as nationalization would fall foul of EU competition rules.
France's railways are still state owned I believe
Most of Britain's is too, though from foreign state owned companies.
In fact most companies that run the trains and the buses in Britain use the profits to subsidize their businesses back home. I read a few years ago that a canadian bus company that runs the buses in Manchester increased the bus fares in Manchester in order to find the money to reduce them in Canada.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.
Looks like he split the Republican vote.
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
Bush would have lost in 1992 anyway, even without Perot. He almost lost in the republican primaries to Pat Buchanan.
The only reason Bush became president in 1988 was because he was the VP to Reagan.
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
Wow.
There's something about that surname Bush.
Bush Snr sounds like he could rival Dubya in the 'worst president' stakes....
I disagree that objectification has reduced, as you argue. More explicit music videos, increased access hardcore porn, page 3, DM sidebar of shame. Even the way cameras are panin nearly every movie, TV show on women is essentially designed for the male gaze. In newspapers and magazines, most images of women have been sexualized to some degree or another. So yes, I'd argue there a correlation between objectification and the choices women make. Even rape fantasty isn't something most women want; and for the 25% - 40% who do, the fantasies are not common or frequent. In fact, an awful lot of these rape fantasies seem to lead to eventually the woman wanting to have sex - in contrast to much of the rape fantasies in online porn I've seen where this isn't the case at all.
Again, I think your idea over how women are portrayed today compared to in the past is wrong.
There is absolutely NOTHING in a modern Rap video that is not comparable with Rock videos from the 1980s. The level of objectification, lack of clothing, etc. are comparable.
You may not know this but in the 70s and 80s, page 3 included 16 year olds. Today, the Sun don't even run it most days.
Sidebar of Shame is nothing new. No huge differences in how movies are shot (although nudity is much, much less common), images of women appear no more sexualised today than 10 or 20 years ago.
On your last point perhaps you should consider. If the prevalent rape fantasies women actually have are different to the rape scenarios in available porn, perhaps you need to consider that it is the women's choice otherwise the scenario would not differ so markedly from the porn portrayal.
If your argument is true, then the fantasy should match the influence.
I don't understand why Americans elected him not once, but twice. 2000 can be explained by Florida, but 2004? Then again it's a bit of a Sophie's choice in choosing between Kerry and Bush.
I don't understand why Americans elected him not once, but twice. 2000 can be explained by Florida, but 2004? Then again it's a bit of a Sophie's choice in choosing between Kerry and Bush.
You got it there about the Kerry effect in 2004, the democrats choose their version of Mitt Romney and predictably they lost.
Anyone could have beaten Bush in 2004, except the plank of wood that the democrats nominated.
You can say that is the main reason why everyone but Corbyn is losing the Labour leadership race, because so far Corbyn is the only candidate not being a plank of wood.
I disagree that objectification has reduced, as you argue. More explicit music videos, increased access hardcore porn, page 3, DM sidebar of shame. Even the way cameras are panin nearly every movie, TV show on women is essentially designed for the male gaze. In newspapers and magazines, most images of women have been sexualized to some degree or another. So yes, I'd argue there a correlation between objectification and the choices women make. Even rape fantasty isn't something most women want; and for the 25% - 40% who do, the fantasies are not common or frequent. In fact, an awful lot of these rape fantasies seem to lead to eventually the woman wanting to have sex - in contrast to much of the rape fantasies in online porn I've seen where this isn't the case at all.
Again, I think your idea over how women are portrayed today compared to in the past is wrong.
There is absolutely NOTHING in a modern Rap video that is not comparable with Rock videos from the 1980s. The level of objectification, lack of clothing, etc. are comparable.
You may not know this but in the 70s and 80s, page included 16 year olds. Today, the Sun don't even run it most days.
Sidebar of Shame is nothing new. No huge differences in how movies are shot (although nudity is much, much less common), images of women appear no more sexualised today than 10 or 20 years ago.
On your last point perhaps you should consider. If the prevalent rape fantasies women actually have are different to the rape scenarios in available porn, perhaps you need to consider that it is the women's choice otherwise the scenario would not differ so markedly from the porn portrayal.
If your argument is true, then the fantasy should match the influence.
On rape fantasies, I don't think it's online porn that influences them (after all, I suspect most women don't actively view online porn). I think sexual double standards do - therefore women have fantasies of being 'taken'.
As for your other points r.e. rap videos, sidebar of shame, images of women and movies - I'm not arguing that these have dramatically changed in twenty years. I'm saying objectification in the media is still predominate; it just comes in a different format. The whole rap video comparison to rock videos would demonstrate that - although these days objectification is pretty prevalent in pop and dance music videos too. It's genreless, you could say.
On The Sun - as far as I was aware, they were running it as they usually do - especially after the saga earlier this year over it. And although 16 year olds don't feature in page 3, teenage girls are still sexualised considerably - the whole 'naughty school-girl thing' anyone. Britney Spears cashed on on this in the late 1990s.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.
Looks like he split the Republican vote.
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
Bush would have lost in 1992 anyway, even without Perot. He almost lost in the republican primaries to Pat Buchanan.
The only reason Bush became president in 1988 was because he was the VP to Reagan.
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
Wow.
There's something about that surname Bush.
Bush Snr sounds like he could rival Dubya in the 'worst president' stakes....
Disagree, Bush Snr was an OK President in my book. He won the Gulf War with an international Coalition, saw a peaceful end to the Cold War and Soviet Union and raised taxes on the rich to close the deficit and really was a genuine centrist unlike what passes for most of the GOP today. Like John Major he also offered a calmer, more moderate contrast to his more rightwing predecessor
Today's Times reports that Cooper is on holiday in USA with hubby, Burnhanm on holiday in Spain and Kendal on holiday with family.
Corbyn continues on the hustings.
Mmmmmm.....
OK, Corbyn is the only one who is seriously campaigning up till now, but now he's the only one actually campaigning.
We could all see the others having trashy campaigns but this is ridiculous, do they even care about winning the Labour Leadership or have they just given up?
I don't understand why Americans elected him not once, but twice. 2000 can be explained by Florida, but 2004? Then again it's a bit of a Sophie's choice in choosing between Kerry and Bush.
You got it there about the Kerry effect in 2004, the democrats choose their version of Mitt Romney and predictably they lost.
Anyone could have beaten Bush in 2004, except the plank of wood that the democrats nominated.
You can say that is the main reason why everyone but Corbyn is losing the Labour leadership race, because so far Corbyn is the only candidate not being a plank of wood.
Goodnight.
Bush won because the nation was at war and he was a very good campaigner who mobilised his base. Dean would have been defeated by an even larger margin than Kerry and Edwards, as we now know, was a scandal in the making
'Disagree, this has been Burnham policy for over a month and he needs some red meat to win over activists. 60% + of the public want the railways renationalised anyway in most polls '
Think you will find it's yet another fantasy policy as nationalization would fall foul of EU competition rules.
France's railways are still state owned I believe
Most of Britain's is too, though from foreign state owned companies.
In fact most companies that run the trains and the buses in Britain use the profits to subsidize their businesses back home. I read a few years ago that a canadian bus company that runs the buses in Manchester increased the bus fares in Manchester in order to find the money to reduce them in Canada.
Question for the French: why the hell aren't you arresting and charging them then?
Interesting sting Newsnight interview with the fragrant French Ambassadatrix laughing at the suggestion and just saying 'I know naarthing - ask someone else.'
No thought of asking her government and supplying some answers.
I wonder if we need a deal with Zebrugge and just close the tunnel when the French whoeveritisthismonth go on strike, and simply close the tunnel for the duration.
On rape fantasies, I don't think it's online porn that influences them (after all, I suspect most women don't actively view online porn). I think sexual double standards do - therefore women have fantasies of being 'taken'.
As for your other points r.e. rap videos, sidebar of shame, images of women and movies - I'm not arguing that these have dramatically changed in twenty years. I'm saying objectification in the media is still predominate; it just comes in a different format. The whole rap video comparison to rock videos would demonstrate that - although these days objectification is pretty prevalent in pop and dance music videos too. It's genreless, you could say.
On The Sun - as far as I was aware, they were running it as they usually do - especially after the saga earlier this year over it. And although 16 year olds don't feature in page 3, teenage girls are still sexualised considerably - the whole 'naughty school-girl thing' anyone. Britney Spears cashed on on this in the late 1990s.
I don't understand what you mean with your first point on double standards.
I'm happy to accept that the objectification in some aspects of the mainstream media is similar today as to the past. However, it is not true of all aspects and in many, many ways the environment today is completely different and much less mysogynistic and objectifying.
The thirds point makes this most clear. Yes there is an implied teenage fantasy in Britney Spears early stuff. But it is implied. In the past this was actually stated. IIRC from reruns of Please Sir! it was filled with jokes about schoolgirls banging older men including teachers. IIRC in the original black and white St Trinians movies they girls ran a brothel. The mainstream media didn't imply teenage fantasies. They were explicitly stated.
Number of mixed race 20 yr old female posters on here
0-0.5
I would go for over 0.5 :-)
Off Topic:
Wow, Saudis heading towards 20% deficit. Makes Syrizia or Corbyn seem positively abstemious. There looks to be a very large turd airborne towards that fan.
A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise. I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
I wonder what happened at the end of the 1940s, and what happened in the mid 1990s to directly result in a massive change.
wow. The best advert for privatisation.
Quite. If you looked at the consequences of privatisation of railways, not only was the policy a success in its own right, an evidence based approach would say it must rank in one of the most successful government policies of the last seventy years. It isnt just passenger numbers, its rolling stock, passenger safety, incidents etc.
The whole context of the railways is seen in a different attitude. Instead of scrapping over an ever reducing service, 'managed decline', the biggest problem we have now is capacity. Too many people wanting to use it!!
For those of you watching the debate tomorrow, left to right on the stage the order is Christie, Rubio, Carson, Walker, Trump, Bush, Huckabee, Cruz, Paul and Kasich.
It's being held at the Quicken Loans Arena, home of Lebron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers.
Megyn Kelly, one of the moderators (along with Brett Baier and Chris Wallace), is being frequently teased by everyone (not least Mike Huckabee) for introducing Huckabee on her show recently pronouncing his name with an F instead of an H. It was a funny moment.
A significant problem for the unthinking railway renationalisation feticishts is that the part of the system that is failing is the part that has already been nationalised. Network Rail's failures at Christmas were bad enough; their failures on the CP5 program are unforgivable.
And it is 100% NR's fault. They developed the program; they were given the money, yet they've failed Iin just the first year.
I hope you're healing ok. I too had quick treatment for a hill running injury in Scotland in Stirling. Actually, the cast they put on was unnecessary, but running around on crutches was a new kind of exercise. I do wish you could meet my friend John, who is a seventh generation train worker.
I wonder what happened at the end of the 1940s, and what happened in the mid 1990s to directly result in a massive change.
wow. The best advert for privatisation.
Quite. If you looked at the consequences of privatisation of railways, not only was the policy a success in its own right, an evidence based approach would say it must rank in one of the most successful government policies of the last seventy years. It isnt just passenger numbers, its rolling stock, passenger safety, incidents etc.
The whole context of the railways is seen in a different attitude. Instead of scrapping over an ever reducing service, 'managed decline', the biggest problem we have now is capacity. Too many people wanting to use it!!
Just to clarify, Osborne's motivation is "how do I get the best return for the public purse"?
Just to clarify even more, Osborne's real motivation is "how do I get the best quick return to balance the books as soon as possible, and so boost the chances of my election as next Tory Leader?"
I disagree that objectification has reduced, as you argue. More explicit music videos, increased access hardcore porn, page 3, DM sidebar of shame. Even the way cameras are panin nearly every movie, TV show on women is essentially designed for the male gaze. In newspapers and magazines, most images of women have been sexualized to some degree or another. So yes, I'd argue there a correlation between objectification and the choices women make. Even rape fantasty isn't something most women want; and for the 25% - 40% who do, the fantasies are not common or frequent. In fact, an awful lot of these rape fantasies seem to lead to eventually the woman wanting to have sex - in contrast to much of the rape fantasies in online porn I've seen where this isn't the case at all.
Again, I think your idea over how women are portrayed today compared to in the past is wrong.
There is absolutely NOTHING in a modern Rap video that is not comparable with Rock videos from the 1980s. The level of objectification, lack of clothing, etc. are comparable.
You may not know this but in the 70s and 80s, page 3 included 16 year olds. Today, the Sun don't even run it most days.
Sidebar of Shame is nothing new. No huge differences in how movies are shot (although nudity is much, much less common), images of women appear no more sexualised today than 10 or 20 years ago.
On your last point perhaps you should consider. If the prevalent rape fantasies women actually have are different to the rape scenarios in available porn, perhaps you need to consider that it is the women's choice otherwise the scenario would not differ so markedly from the porn portrayal.
If your argument is true, then the fantasy should match the influence.
An interesting debate, if I may butt in.
I think societal changes may lag media changes, attitudes will be stronlgly influenced in childhood, less so later on.
Also re your last point, it should "rape fantasies in pron watched by women" not "available pron" to make a proper comparison. Cheers!
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
Bush I was not corrupt. Other than the fact he lost, he wasn't really unpopular either.
But the point I wish to address is Presidential depiction in the movies. There may be specific parodies of Bush 1 but "Clear and Present Danger" isn't really one of them. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish specific homages from just a general perception of what presidents look like. We know that some of them are specific (Monckton/Anderson in "Washington: Behind Closed Doors" are necessarily Nixon/LBJ, the Stantons in "Primary Colors" are necessarily Billary) but sometimes it may just be a lack of imagination. Is Kevin Kline in "Dave" a pastiche of Bush 1 or just a generalised President? Andrew Shepherd in "The American President" is presumably a romanticised Clinton, but is Bartlet in "The West Wing"? Allison Taylor in 24 is presumably a Hillary manque, but David Palmer isn't Obama (the timing's wrong). And so on...
Although you could make the case that the President in the book C&PD is Bush 1 (the times match up if you assume the POD is the 92 election, with Fowler/Durling/Ryan replacing Clinton/Clinton/Bush 2, making Ryan President during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, matching the events in "Rainbow Six"), but I don't think it's specifically him in the movie version, I think it's just a nonspecific President.
A couple of further questions from the WMUR Granite State poll of NH Democratic voters I mentioned earlier -
Which Democratic candidate best represents the values of Democrats? Sanders 43% Clinton 34%
Which Democratic candidate do you think is least honest? Clinton 31% Sanders 3%
Again this is before either the federal judge's order about her email or the FBI investigating her server security was known.
In other bad news, the WSJ today reported that the Clintons donated about $15 million to charity between 2007-2014. Except for $200k it all went to the Clinton Foundation.
The foundation pays travel and other expenses for the Clinton family and gives them a forum to promote public policy, although it has done some good work in - for example - combating world hunger.
The $15 million is written off their taxes.
There is nothing illegal here. But the optics aren't good.
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
Bush I was not corrupt. Other than the fact he lost, he wasn't really unpopular either.
But the point I wish to address is Presidential depiction in the movies. There may be specific parodies of Bush 1 but "Clear and Present Danger" isn't really one of them. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish specific homages from just a general perception of what presidents look like. We know that some of them are specific (Monckton/Anderson in "Washington: Behind Closed Doors" are necessarily Nixon/LBJ, the Stantons in "Primary Colors" are necessarily Billary) but sometimes it may just be a lack of imagination. Is Kevin Kline in "Dave" a pastiche of Bush 1 or just a generalised President? Andrew Shepherd in "The American President" is presumably a romanticised Clinton, but is Bartlet in "The West Wing"? Allison Taylor in 24 is presumably a Hillary manque, but David Palmer isn't Obama (the timing's wrong). And so on...
Although you could make the case that the President in the book C&PD is Bush 1 (the times match up if you assume the POD is the 92 election, with Fowler/Durling/Ryan replacing Clinton/Clinton/Bush 2, making Ryan President during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, matching the events in "Rainbow Six"), but I don't think it's specifically him in the movie version, I think it's just a nonspecific President.
Good effort. You did however overlook Hollywood's predictive powers, when a full four years before George W Bush was elected it had a former air force pilot becoming President.
Who then overcomes a great oppressing alien force with a band of pilots who gain ultimate success against the structures looming over US cites by crashing into one of them in a suicide mission...er, hang on, that's gone horribly wrong.....
Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh
Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.
In other bad news, the WSJ today reported that the Clintons donated about $15 million to charity between 2007-2014. Except for $200k it all went to the Clinton Foundation.
The foundation pays travel and other expenses for the Clinton family and gives them a forum to promote public policy, although it has done some good work in - for example - combating world hunger.
The $15 million is written off their taxes.
There is nothing illegal here. But the optics aren't good.
Neither is FBI involvement.
Philanthropy is great - those that have earned a great deal of money during their careers should be free to do with it what they wish. But I do think people should do it after they've left the arena in which they've earned their money.
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
Bush I was not corrupt. Other than the fact he lost, he wasn't really unpopular either.
But the point I wish to address is Presidential depiction in the movies. There may be specific parodies of Bush 1 but "Clear and Present Danger" isn't really one of them. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish specific homages from just a general perception of what presidents look like. We know that some of them are specific (Monckton/Anderson in "Washington: Behind Closed Doors" are necessarily Nixon/LBJ, the Stantons in "Primary Colors" are necessarily Billary) but sometimes it may just be a lack of imagination. Is Kevin Kline in "Dave" a pastiche of Bush 1 or just a generalised President? Andrew Shepherd in "The American President" is presumably a romanticised Clinton, but is Bartlet in "The West Wing"? Allison Taylor in 24 is presumably a Hillary manque, but David Palmer isn't Obama (the timing's wrong). And so on...
Although you could make the case that the President in the book C&PD is Bush 1 (the times match up if you assume the POD is the 92 election, with Fowler/Durling/Ryan replacing Clinton/Clinton/Bush 2, making Ryan President during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, matching the events in "Rainbow Six"), but I don't think it's specifically him in the movie version, I think it's just a nonspecific President.
Ruth Davidson is running scared of the SNP and has given up any hope of holding on to her list seat. Possible she also believes there is less chance of fictitious burly men in Edinburgh
Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.
Comments
Whether conversation verges on topics of house prices or shares or gold or baseball cards or tulip bulbs, I've found such strategic complete ignoral a good rule of thumb for the promotion of sanity and the prevention of tedium.
As I said previously, the conclusions may not be what people want.
Perhaps the focus needs to switch to accepting human sexuality and to educate on where this is appropriate and where objectification is not appropriate rather than to somehow change human sexuality.
She might be keener if she knew of my long-standing bet with Shadsy on Yvette for LotO placed in 2011 I think....
Privatisation of the railways works - and has doubled passenger numbers?
So they are just victims of their own success.
Labour's solution:
(1) nationalise
(2) less people use
(3) service no longer over-stretched
(4) result!
Hahahhahaha.
Hahahahahahhahahahaha.
I question whether women wanting to be objectified is actually true, but even so - society in general tells women that being objectified is a good thing, and that a large part of female value is in their appearance anyway. In this sense objectification, for many is an affirmation of their value. So it's not too surprising that there are women out there who see objectification as a positive thing, even when studies have been done showing its negative impact on female image and self-esteem.
There's now a dozen PBers on there ready to gloat at their successes - especially if TSE as expected is bottom of our league.
I've set up a Political Betting league on the free fantasy league game from the premier league.
http://fantasy.premierleague.com/
The code to join this private league is 1336513-316355
You can join up anonymously if you wish by choosing first and second names as I did - scrap and heap...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/team-miliband-minimum-wage-out-of-touch-arnie-graf-labour-election
Overall, surely it is difficult to think that there are not significant societal changes in 2015 than in 1975? Yet, there does not seem to be any change in the desire amongst women for objectified roles in the right environment.
It's always difficult when you get to chicken and egg debates. Is EL James rich because women want to read about being objectified or do women want to be objectified because they've read Fifty Shades? On balance, given how much change there has been in society, I'm very much in the former camp. Clearly your view is different but I'm not clear what you're basing that on.
Where are @Monty's impassioned screeds on why it is outrageous for a supporter of one party to intervene in the internal affairs of another?
Or is it ok when it's lefties undermining the Right?
'Disagree, this has been Burnham policy for over a month and he needs some red meat to win over activists. 60% + of the public want the railways renationalised anyway in most polls '
Think you will find it's yet another fantasy policy as nationalization would fall foul of EU competition rules.
The mainstream media making no progress is the key. While feminists and the liberal media may have - to a degree put the idea of sexual objectification theory into public consciousness, it's not affected that much of the media - movies, music, newspapers, magazines, etc do still, to a large degree objectify women. The attitudes of those with power in the media hasn't changed.
"That giant sucking sound....."
The level of objectification is obscene and almost always linked with blatant mysogyny. The mysogyny has largely vanished in its entirety from the mainstream media, the objectification is absolutely minimal in direct comparison to the 70s. Yet, the level and prevalence of female identification with BDSM, Rape Fantasy and other sexual choices closely identified with objectification seems utterly unchanged. Hence, there appears to be no correlation between reduction in mysogyny and objectification in the media and the choices women make. If your argument was correct, there would have been reduced prevalence.
If the GOP really is daft enough to nominate Trump, it's job down for Clinton once again.
My famkly have been wonderful - my dad and sis drove for 11 hours to pick me and the car up and take me to hospital. I'm an independent sort of fellow, so it feels embarrassing to rely on tbem, but i hope i'd do the same for them. Now recuperating at my parent's house before Mrs J & the young 'un arrive back from holiday.
I've had the pleasure to meet many current & ex railway workers in the past. Sadly I don't k ow do many atm though.
Trump, on the other hand, would really split the vote...
"Meanwhile, several reports show that Norway is not dependent on an oil price higher than USD $40 per barrel in order to balance next year's national budget. This is the same conclusion and number that Fitch has presented, and it is the lowest level for all the oil producers that the rating company has looked at."
http://www.norwaypost.com/index.php/business/general-business/30441
I haven't seen data on second prefs for Perot supports, but I'd assume that a maverick, right wing, capitalist would be more likely to win support from, ooooh, shall we say Republicans or Democrats?
https://twitter.com/amolrajan/status/629030207698116608
He almost lost in the republican primaries to Pat Buchanan.
The only reason Bush became president in 1988 was because he was the VP to Reagan.
The Bush administration was so corrupt and unpopular that he was caricatured in 2 Hollywood films quite successfully, in the "The Naked Gun 2 1/2" and in the "Clear and Present Danger".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ7kn2-GEmM
As I suspect today's version of Bush is going to become from today's version of Perot.
Does anyone believe for a moment they would be getting away with this nonsense if TFL was privately run?
There's something about that surname Bush.
Bush Snr sounds like he could rival Dubya in the 'worst president' stakes....
In fact most companies that run the trains and the buses in Britain use the profits to subsidize their businesses back home.
I read a few years ago that a canadian bus company that runs the buses in Manchester increased the bus fares in Manchester in order to find the money to reduce them in Canada.
Goodnight.
And I leave tonight with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZvrIiqLv7M
There is absolutely NOTHING in a modern Rap video that is not comparable with Rock videos from the 1980s. The level of objectification, lack of clothing, etc. are comparable.
You may not know this but in the 70s and 80s, page 3 included 16 year olds. Today, the Sun don't even run it most days.
Sidebar of Shame is nothing new. No huge differences in how movies are shot (although nudity is much, much less common), images of women appear no more sexualised today than 10 or 20 years ago.
On your last point perhaps you should consider. If the prevalent rape fantasies women actually have are different to the rape scenarios in available porn, perhaps you need to consider that it is the women's choice otherwise the scenario would not differ so markedly from the porn portrayal.
If your argument is true, then the fantasy should match the influence.
Anyone could have beaten Bush in 2004, except the plank of wood that the democrats nominated.
You can say that is the main reason why everyone but Corbyn is losing the Labour leadership race, because so far Corbyn is the only candidate not being a plank of wood.
Goodnight.
Corbyn continues on the hustings.
Mmmmmm.....
As for your other points r.e. rap videos, sidebar of shame, images of women and movies - I'm not arguing that these have dramatically changed in twenty years. I'm saying objectification in the media is still predominate; it just comes in a different format. The whole rap video comparison to rock videos would demonstrate that - although these days objectification is pretty prevalent in pop and dance music videos too. It's genreless, you could say.
On The Sun - as far as I was aware, they were running it as they usually do - especially after the saga earlier this year over it. And although 16 year olds don't feature in page 3, teenage girls are still sexualised considerably - the whole 'naughty school-girl thing' anyone. Britney Spears cashed on on this in the late 1990s.
We could all see the others having trashy campaigns but this is ridiculous, do they even care about winning the Labour Leadership or have they just given up?
Number of mixed race 20 yr old female posters on here
0-0.5
No thought of asking her government and supplying some answers.
I wonder if we need a deal with Zebrugge and just close the tunnel when the French whoeveritisthismonth go on strike, and simply close the tunnel for the duration.
Eurotunnel is a French company, isn't it?
I'm happy to accept that the objectification in some aspects of the mainstream media is similar today as to the past. However, it is not true of all aspects and in many, many ways the environment today is completely different and much less mysogynistic and objectifying.
The thirds point makes this most clear. Yes there is an implied teenage fantasy in Britney Spears early stuff. But it is implied. In the past this was actually stated. IIRC from reruns of Please Sir! it was filled with jokes about schoolgirls banging older men including teachers. IIRC in the original black and white St Trinians movies they girls ran a brothel. The mainstream media didn't imply teenage fantasies. They were explicitly stated.
Off Topic:
Wow, Saudis heading towards 20% deficit. Makes Syrizia or Corbyn seem positively abstemious. There looks to be a very large turd airborne towards that fan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11768136/Saudi-Arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-US-oil-industry-buckles.html
The whole context of the railways is seen in a different attitude. Instead of scrapping over an ever reducing service, 'managed decline', the biggest problem we have now is capacity. Too many people wanting to use it!!
It's being held at the Quicken Loans Arena, home of Lebron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers.
Megyn Kelly, one of the moderators (along with Brett Baier and Chris Wallace), is being frequently teased by everyone (not least Mike Huckabee) for introducing Huckabee on her show recently pronouncing his name with an F instead of an H. It was a funny moment.
Quite possibly true but could we just say "I think" ?
I think societal changes may lag media changes, attitudes will be stronlgly influenced in childhood, less so later on.
Also re your last point, it should "rape fantasies in pron watched by women" not "available pron" to make a proper comparison. Cheers!
But the point I wish to address is Presidential depiction in the movies. There may be specific parodies of Bush 1 but "Clear and Present Danger" isn't really one of them. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish specific homages from just a general perception of what presidents look like. We know that some of them are specific (Monckton/Anderson in "Washington: Behind Closed Doors" are necessarily Nixon/LBJ, the Stantons in "Primary Colors" are necessarily Billary) but sometimes it may just be a lack of imagination. Is Kevin Kline in "Dave" a pastiche of Bush 1 or just a generalised President? Andrew Shepherd in "The American President" is presumably a romanticised Clinton, but is Bartlet in "The West Wing"? Allison Taylor in 24 is presumably a Hillary manque, but David Palmer isn't Obama (the timing's wrong). And so on...
Although you could make the case that the President in the book C&PD is Bush 1 (the times match up if you assume the POD is the 92 election, with Fowler/Durling/Ryan replacing Clinton/Clinton/Bush 2, making Ryan President during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, matching the events in "Rainbow Six"), but I don't think it's specifically him in the movie version, I think it's just a nonspecific President.
Which Democratic candidate best represents the values of Democrats?
Sanders 43%
Clinton 34%
Which Democratic candidate do you think is least honest?
Clinton 31%
Sanders 3%
Again this is before either the federal judge's order about her email or the FBI investigating her server security was known.
In other bad news, the WSJ today reported that the Clintons donated about $15 million to charity between 2007-2014. Except for $200k it all went to the Clinton Foundation.
The foundation pays travel and other expenses for the Clinton family and gives them a forum to promote public policy, although it has done some good work in - for example - combating world hunger.
The $15 million is written off their taxes.
There is nothing illegal here. But the optics aren't good.
Neither is FBI involvement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186430/I-deal-SNP-power-Left-wing-leadership-candidate-says-work-party-2020-election-day-day-basis.html
Who then overcomes a great oppressing alien force with a band of pilots who gain ultimate success against the structures looming over US cites by crashing into one of them in a suicide mission...er, hang on, that's gone horribly wrong.....
Looks like the Scottish Conservatives are giving up on Glasgow. This is the first sign of how much of a wipe out the Loyalists are facing in 2016 should there be significant numbers of split votes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33797255
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/07/5_reasons_george_w_bush_is_still_one_of_the_worst_presidents_ever_partner/
Interesting alternative view to the revisionist one being pushed by the GOP.
Burnham = trying to Make Him Smile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC3LefUmH5g