ITV Will Smith tells @GMB it's 'almost criminal' Hollywood doesn't show America's diversity amid the #OscarsSoWhite row https://t.co/f1EVpclR7R
Not Oscar's problem if there weren't award-worthy performances this year. Look at those doing the casting and the directors first. If they aren't making the movies, they aren't getting on the list....
I think its dead racist that Jackie Chan has never got an Oscar nomination. I mean films like The Tuxedo are cinematic masterpieces and he has been awarded best actor at the Hong Kong Film Awards over 10 times ;-) Clearly the academy are just a bunch of racists....
How many actors of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi extraction have been Oscar nominated? How many actors with disabilities?
Diversity to some in this debate seems to have a very narrow definition
How many white actors get acclaim in Bollywood?
Quite a few, compared to the number that there are.
ITV Will Smith tells @GMB it's 'almost criminal' Hollywood doesn't show America's diversity amid the #OscarsSoWhite row https://t.co/f1EVpclR7R
Not Oscar's problem if there weren't award-worthy performances this year. Look at those doing the casting and the directors first. If they aren't making the movies, they aren't getting on the list....
I think its dead racist that Jackie Chan has never got an Oscar nomination. I mean films like The Tuxedo are cinematic masterpieces and he has been awarded best actor at the Hong Kong Film Awards over 10 times ;-) Clearly the academy are just a bunch of racists....
How many actors of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi extraction have been Oscar nominated? How many actors with disabilities?
Diversity to some in this debate seems to have a very narrow definition
What about the French? Marion Cotillard was stunning in 'Macbeth'.
Jean Dujardin won for The Actor not so long ago...
The Artist I think you mean.
Doh! Yes, indeed. It was about an actor.. close enough!
The last black actor I can remember seeing was John Boyega in Star Wars.
Sci-fi/Fantasy's barrier of entry to getting any sort of acclaim at the Oscars is alot higher than other types of move. The Dark Knight wasn't even nominated in 2008 !
Now Will Smith is planning on doing Suicide Squad and some Bad Boys sequels. These movies might be good or not so good. But they aren't the sort you do for an Oscar.
true indeed that oscar demands a cerain type of movie. maybe a type which doesn't have so many black roles.
when I watched the star wars (enjoyed it immensely) I did contemplate that it is still likely impossible to cast the roles the other way round i.e. black woman takes main lead role, main lead male white character suffers panic attack during violence
ITV Will Smith tells @GMB it's 'almost criminal' Hollywood doesn't show America's diversity amid the #OscarsSoWhite row https://t.co/f1EVpclR7R
Not Oscar's problem if there weren't award-worthy performances this year. Look at those doing the casting and the directors first. If they aren't making the movies, they aren't getting on the list....
I think its dead racist that Jackie Chan has never got an Oscar nomination. I mean films like The Tuxedo are cinematic masterpieces and he has been awarded best actor at the Hong Kong Film Awards over 10 times ;-) Clearly the academy are just a bunch of racists....
How many actors of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi extraction have been Oscar nominated? How many actors with disabilities?
Diversity to some in this debate seems to have a very narrow definition
That was my rather underhand point. The debate is being focused through the lens of black vs white, and I would suggest perhaps that is because black actors in Hollywood are actually very powerful. Many other ethnic groups and those with disabilities are not so fortunate. For instance, how many times are people with disabilities played by actors who have don't have one. The guy out of Breaking Bad being a rare exception. In "I Am Sam", they employed actors with learning difficulties, except for the crucial main role, of erhhh well somebody with a learning difficulty (played by Sean Penn).
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
'Americans have a serious "ancestral" issue with black-white relationships'
Yes they do - and there is a whole industry in the US based on perpetuating that problem and extracting as much attention and resources as possible by doing so.
We have it here as well.
We didn't fight a Civil War over the issue though.
ITV Will Smith tells @GMB it's 'almost criminal' Hollywood doesn't show America's diversity amid the #OscarsSoWhite row https://t.co/f1EVpclR7R
Not Oscar's problem if there weren't award-worthy performances this year. Look at those doing the casting and the directors first. If they aren't making the movies, they aren't getting on the list....
I think its dead racist that Jackie Chan has never got an Oscar nomination. I mean films like The Tuxedo are cinematic masterpieces and he has been awarded best actor at the Hong Kong Film Awards over 10 times ;-) Clearly the academy are just a bunch of racists....
How many actors of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi extraction have been Oscar nominated? How many actors with disabilities?
Diversity to some in this debate seems to have a very narrow definition
That was my rather underhand point. The debate is being focused through the lens of black vs white, and I would suggest perhaps that is because black actors in Hollywood are actually very powerful. Many other ethnic groups and those with disabilities are not so fortunate. For instance, how many times are people with disabilities played by actors who have don't have one. The guy out of Breaking Bad being a rare exception. In "I Am Sam", they employed actors with learning difficulties, except for the crucial main role, of erhhh well somebody with a learning difficulty (played by Sean Penn).
Some might argue that Penn's behaviour would indicate a few difficulties...
ITV Will Smith tells @GMB it's 'almost criminal' Hollywood doesn't show America's diversity amid the #OscarsSoWhite row https://t.co/f1EVpclR7R
Not Oscar's problem if there weren't award-worthy performances this year. Look at those doing the casting and the directors first. If they aren't making the movies, they aren't getting on the list....
I think its dead racist that Jackie Chan has never got an Oscar nomination. I mean films like The Tuxedo are cinematic masterpieces and he has been awarded best actor at the Hong Kong Film Awards over 10 times ;-) Clearly the academy are just a bunch of racists....
How many actors of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi extraction have been Oscar nominated? How many actors with disabilities?
Diversity to some in this debate seems to have a very narrow definition
That was my rather underhand point. The debate is being focused through the lens of black vs white, and I would suggest perhaps that is because black actors in Hollywood are actually very powerful. Many other ethnic groups and those with disabilities are not so fortunate. For instance, how many times are people with disabilities played by actors who have don't have one. The guy out of Breaking Bad being a rare exception. In "I Am Sam", they employed actors with learning difficulties, except for the crucial main role, of erhhh well somebody with a learning difficulty (played by Sean Penn).
Some might argue that Penn's behaviour would indicate a few difficulties...
Not sure they include narcissism as a learning difficulty....
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
Where does that leave Brazilians?
Um, Portugal (and by extension her colonies) was part of Spain/Spanish Empire from 1580 to 1640.
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
Where does that leave Brazilians?
I think Latino is the preferred term because it would include Brazilians as well as Hispanics.
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
Where does that leave Brazilians?
Um, Portugal (and by extension her colonies) was part of Spain/Spanish Empire from 1580 to 1640.
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
Do you believe that this traditional definition is how Hispanic is used in modern America?
I would find that a pretty hard assertion to believe, as I said, it seems very clear to me that its development in a modern context (which is very recent) and its use today is very much a case of "not white enough".
Re child migrants, I have just had my round robin email from Yvette Cooper who is championing the cause. I can fully understand that it is right to settle children who are displaced from their families who have been already given asylum status here, though I feel slightly uneasy that their parents have abandoned their children to such an uncertain plight. In the UK you are charged with child abandonment for leaving children for a day or two- upping sticks, and abandoning your child in a war torn country just strikes me as irresponsible to the extreme.
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
Where does that leave Brazilians?
Um, Portugal (and by extension her colonies) was part of Spain/Spanish Empire from 1580 to 1640.
All that effort to get thumped by Djokovic. Again.
Does anyone have more experience in coming second at a particular Slam (Assuming Murray comes up short for his 5th runner up spot in Aus)?
Murray is a really great player. He's just unfortunate in that his ascendancy has coincided with three of the greatest tennis players ever known in the history of the sport. Had he been around in the 80s/ 90s his record of grand slams won could easily be into double figures.
Really good and insightful article, thanks for linking it.
Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly.
Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
Where does that leave Brazilians?
Um, Portugal (and by extension her colonies) was part of Spain/Spanish Empire from 1580 to 1640.
The equivalent term to Hispanic for Portuguese speaking countries and cultures is Lusophone
Yebbut because of Iberian Union, Lusophones can also claim a historic "relationship" with Spain.
In my experience the average Brazilian would respond to being called Hispanic in the way you would expect a Mancunian to respond to being called a Scouser!
All that effort to get thumped by Djokovic. Again.
Does anyone have more experience in coming second at a particular Slam (Assuming Murray comes up short for his 5th runner up spot in Aus)?
Murray is a really great player. He's just unfortunate in that his ascendancy has coincided with three of the greatest tennis players ever known in the history of the sport. Had he been around in the 80s/ 90s his record of grand slams won could easily be into double figures.
There is probably a good argument that had Murray's ascendancy been in the 80s or 90s, without the current state of Sports Science and Medicine, that his career would only have lasted 4 or 5 years.
Most of his early career wasn't spend improving as a player (although he did) but in working out how to keep his body from falling apart from the stresses his style of play put on his frame.
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
This arose frequently pre-WW2, when Jewish families were unable to leave Germany tried to at least get their children to safety - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport . Our care system isn't great but it is a lot better than being killed. Refusing to let them in compounds the misery to no useful effect.
Re child migrants, I have just had my round robin email from Yvette Cooper who is championing the cause. I can fully understand that it is right to settle children who are displaced from their families who have been already given asylum status here, though I feel slightly uneasy that their parents have abandoned their children to such an uncertain plight. In the UK you are charged with child abandonment for leaving children for a day or two- upping sticks, and abandoning your child in a war torn country just strikes me as irresponsible to the extreme.
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
Has she taken any into her home yet like she promised?
All that effort to get thumped by Djokovic. Again.
Does anyone have more experience in coming second at a particular Slam (Assuming Murray comes up short for his 5th runner up spot in Aus)?
Murray is a really great player. He's just unfortunate in that his ascendancy has coincided with three of the greatest tennis players ever known in the history of the sport. Had he been around in the 80s/ 90s his record of grand slams won could easily be into double figures.
I don't think Murray would have found the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Lendl etc. to be pushovers.
ITV Will Smith tells @GMB it's 'almost criminal' Hollywood doesn't show America's diversity amid the #OscarsSoWhite row https://t.co/f1EVpclR7R
Not Oscar's problem if there weren't award-worthy performances this year. Look at those doing the casting and the directors first. If they aren't making the movies, they aren't getting on the list....
I think its dead racist that Jackie Chan has never got an Oscar nomination. I mean films like The Tuxedo are cinematic masterpieces and he has been awarded best actor at the Hong Kong Film Awards over 10 times ;-) Clearly the academy are just a bunch of racists....
How many actors of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi extraction have been Oscar nominated? How many actors with disabilities?
Diversity to some in this debate seems to have a very narrow definition
When was the last award to someone with significant Native American ancestry?
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
This arose frequently pre-WW2, when Jewish families were unable to leave Germany tried to at least get their children to safety - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport . Our care system isn't great but it is a lot better than being killed. Refusing to let them in compounds the misery to no useful effect.
All that effort to get thumped by Djokovic. Again.
Does anyone have more experience in coming second at a particular Slam (Assuming Murray comes up short for his 5th runner up spot in Aus)?
Murray is a really great player. He's just unfortunate in that his ascendancy has coincided with three of the greatest tennis players ever known in the history of the sport. Had he been around in the 80s/ 90s his record of grand slams won could easily be into double figures.
There is probably a good argument that had Murray's ascendancy been in the 80s or 90s, without the current state of Sports Science and Medicine, that his career would only have lasted 4 or 5 years.
Most of his early career wasn't spend improving as a player (although he did) but in working out how to keep his body from falling apart from the stresses his style of play put on his frame.
That's very good. Gives a good understanding of the "Wastington" state of mind, in much the same way as some use "Westminster" here in a somewhat derogatory manner.
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
This arose frequently pre-WW2, when Jewish families were unable to leave Germany tried to at least get their children to safety - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport . Our care system isn't great but it is a lot better than being killed. Refusing to let them in compounds the misery to no useful effect.
All that effort to get thumped by Djokovic. Again.
Does anyone have more experience in coming second at a particular Slam (Assuming Murray comes up short for his 5th runner up spot in Aus)?
Murray is a really great player. He's just unfortunate in that his ascendancy has coincided with three of the greatest tennis players ever known in the history of the sport. Had he been around in the 80s/ 90s his record of grand slams won could easily be into double figures.
I don't think Murray would have found the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Lendl etc. to be pushovers.
Sampras was supreme on grass, but much weaker on other surfaces. I think Murray would have been able to outfire the other two, which is not to say, of course, that they would have been pushovers.
''We didn't fight a Civil War over the issue though. ''
You think the American Civil War was about Black white relations? Most Southern soldiers had no slaves, and many big plantation owners never fought.
The South was, in many case, fighting 'because y'all are down here'
Wasn't all about directly, for sure, but AIUI it was about the State's Rights to run their affairs the way they wanted, which included allowing slavery.
I think Federer is hanging around long enough to hand over the tennis baton to the next generation which may be sooner than one thinks. Once Raonic and Dimitriov step up, and start regularly beating him he will quit. Federer will continue playing along as his only nemesis is Djoko.
I personally think Raonic will be contending for number one spot within a year or so- if you were going to construct the perfect physique for playing tennis you would make him.
All that effort to get thumped by Djokovic. Again.
Does anyone have more experience in coming second at a particular Slam (Assuming Murray comes up short for his 5th runner up spot in Aus)?
Murray is a really great player. He's just unfortunate in that his ascendancy has coincided with three of the greatest tennis players ever known in the history of the sport. Had he been around in the 80s/ 90s his record of grand slams won could easily be into double figures.
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
This arose frequently pre-WW2, when Jewish families were unable to leave Germany tried to at least get their children to safety - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport . Our care system isn't great but it is a lot better than being killed. Refusing to let them in compounds the misery to no useful effect.
Why should we take migrant children from other EU countries ? No wonder labour are out of touch with immigration in this country.
That's very good. Gives a good understanding of the "Wastington" state of mind, in much the same way as some use "Westminster" here in a somewhat derogatory manner.
The 'Washington' effect is, I would say, much more potent, because Washington as a city is dominated by the federal government and its employees and hangers-on, in a way which London isn't.
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
Where does that leave Brazilians?
Um, Portugal (and by extension her colonies) was part of Spain/Spanish Empire from 1580 to 1640.
And in Lisbon there is a whacking great statue of the Marquis de Pombal, think Nelson's column, the man who the Portuguese credit with rescuing them from Spanish slavery. It would be a mistake, Cap'n Doc, to think that the Portuguese and Spanish do not have "issues".
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
This arose frequently pre-WW2, when Jewish families were unable to leave Germany tried to at least get their children to safety - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport . Our care system isn't great but it is a lot better than being killed. Refusing to let them in compounds the misery to no useful effect.
Why should we take migrant children from other EU countries ? No wonder labour are out of touch with immigration in this country.
That is the key thing to my mind - these children are already within the EU - shouldn't it be the countries who are currently caring for those children who continue to take the lead? Yes, there will need to be burden sharing - but it doesn't seem right to shift children from country to country trying to find support.
The UN needs to take a much more global approach to all of this - and involve the whole world in providing long term support. Not just assuming Europe can and will cope.
.. And we haven't heard a word about the proposed safeguards for non-euro-members and the City, against eurozone bullying. Has that just been quietly abandoned?
No, the journalists can't be bothered to make up stories about it.
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
Where does that leave Brazilians?
Um, Portugal (and by extension her colonies) was part of Spain/Spanish Empire from 1580 to 1640.
And in Lisbon there is a whacking great statue of the Marquis de Pombal, think Nelson's column, the man who the Portuguese credit with rescuing them from Spanish slavery. It would be a mistake, Cap'n Doc, to think that the Portuguese and Spanish do not have "issues".
Wasn't Pombal the chap responsible for the rebuilding of Lisbon after the earthquake?
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
This arose frequently pre-WW2, when Jewish families were unable to leave Germany tried to at least get their children to safety - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport . Our care system isn't great but it is a lot better than being killed. Refusing to let them in compounds the misery to no useful effect.
But that assumes that France is a dangerous country from which those children need to be rescued. Granted there are a lot of insults we can throw at the French in jest and anger but you cannot seriously be suggesting that those children are in such danger that they need to cared for by the UK government rather than the French....
'Americans have a serious "ancestral" issue with black-white relationships'
Yes they do - and there is a whole industry in the US based on perpetuating that problem and extracting as much attention and resources as possible by doing so.
We have it here as well.
We didn't fight a Civil War over the issue though.
Nor did the United States, Mr. Cole, thought it has become fashionable to pretend that they did.
'Americans have a serious "ancestral" issue with black-white relationships'
Yes they do - and there is a whole industry in the US based on perpetuating that problem and extracting as much attention and resources as possible by doing so.
We have it here as well.
We didn't fight a Civil War over the issue though.
Nor did the United States, Mr. Cole, thought it has become fashionable to pretend that they did.
States Rights included the right for "citizens" to own slaves.
American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn’t.
The GOP base are also fed up of having moderate nominees who lose, after McCain and Romney they want a red meat conservative, hence Trump and Cruz doing so well
Except, of course, that there is nothing in Trump's past that suggests he is in the slightest bit conservative.
There's the interview with Playboy where he says he would like to be President: a Democrat President. There's the interview where he backed Hilary to make a deal with Iran. He's pro-choice (vehemently), and pro-gun control.
These were the views he expressed when he wasn't running for office.
If you ask me: is someone more likely to lie about their views when (a) it doesn't matter; or (b) when they are running for President, you'd not get many people choosing (a). The fact is that Trump is a New York liberal, with a corporatist and anti-immigration streak.
It reminds me a little of Conservative leaders. They only become leaders by preaching Europscepticism. But when they're in power, their true colours show through.
There will be a lot of very disappointed Republicans out there when Trump turns out to be as left wing as Obama.
Extrapolating from the present trajectory of polling intentions, whether phone or online, LEAVE will win a referendum held in June.
Cameron REALLY needs to come back with some concrete reforms. I see no evidence that this is about to happen. And we haven't heard a word about the proposed safeguards for non-euro-members and the City, against eurozone bullying. Has that just been quietly abandoned?
ITV Will Smith tells @GMB it's 'almost criminal' Hollywood doesn't show America's diversity amid the #OscarsSoWhite row https://t.co/f1EVpclR7R
Ultimate luuvie outrage.
Indeed, all must have prizes - the Oscars may be the last bastion of a meritocracy.
snip
Another issue is how quickly black actors in the US want to cash in, Cuba Gooding Jr was a good example of a failed career because he decided to cash in on his earlier good performances too quickly. He had early success with Boyz 'n the Hood, then followed it up with an Oscar winning performance in Jerry Maguire (completely outshining Tom Cruise in the process) and Men of Honor for which he received a lot of acclaim. After that he cashed in and decided to make dross like Rat Race and Norbit. He has never recovered from this poor decision making. This story applies to countless Black American actors and actresses who are far to quick to cash in on early success and ruin their career prospects. I very much doubt John Boyega will make those mistakes.
Cameron doing his best to anger REMAIN voters by handing some minor decisions about the UK's benefit system to the EU Commission.
Vote LEAVE to start a serious negotiation between the UK and the EU where the UK then has leverage to change some substantive issues. The EU encourages second referendums after new negotiations.
No.
Leave is leave.
The British government will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty immediately following a vote to Leave.
All that means is that further negotiations take place in the context that the UK really will leave unless the EU offers substantive changes to the UK.
There would be parallel negotiations about the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the EU and what the terms would be for the UK to agree to stay in the EU.
Many late nights of beer and sandwiches for the civil servants.
Nick- Europe is still scarred by what happened in WW2. There was no place of safety for Jews on the continent. But presumably, in war torn Syria, or Afghanistan, the children are received first in refugee camps outside of the war zones on the borders- hardly ideal I know, but possibly better than the uncertainties of the dinghies, and trek across Europe to finally end up alone in a care home in Ramsgate or Doncaster- which are ripe with drugs, child abuse and exploitation.
And I struggle with the concept of people who would leave a war torn country and their children behind without family. And those who get separated from their children during the journey into Europe- I again struggle with that- how can that happen? How can you lose your child and then once lost just continue onwards.
Maybe I'm missing something here and am just callous.
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
This arose frequently pre-WW2, when Jewish families were unable to leave Germany tried to at least get their children to safety - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport . Our care system isn't great but it is a lot better than being killed. Refusing to let them in compounds the misery to no useful effect.
Re child migrants, I have just had my round robin email from Yvette Cooper who is championing the cause. I can fully understand that it is right to settle children who are displaced from their families who have been already given asylum status here, though I feel slightly uneasy that their parents have abandoned their children to such an uncertain plight. In the UK you are charged with child abandonment for leaving children for a day or two- upping sticks, and abandoning your child in a war torn country just strikes me as irresponsible to the extreme.
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
If Sharon Shoesmith's free, why don't we send her over to Syria with a few ambulance chasers from Leigh Day to put together a case for prosecution?
That's very good. Gives a good understanding of the "Wastington" state of mind, in much the same way as some use "Westminster" here in a somewhat derogatory manner.
The 'Washington' effect is, I would say, much more potent, because Washington as a city is dominated by the federal government and its employees and hangers-on, in a way which London isn't.
It also permeates the mindset - in Jakarta I had dealings with both the British and American embassies- for the British staff, Whitehall was thousands of miles away and periodically needed to be put right on certain matters. For the American staff Washington was in the next room and every word was hung upon.
Cameron doing his best to anger REMAIN voters by handing some minor decisions about the UK's benefit system to the EU Commission.
Vote LEAVE to start a serious negotiation between the UK and the EU where the UK then has leverage to change some substantive issues. The EU encourages second referendums after new negotiations.
No.
Leave is leave.
The British government will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty immediately following a vote to Leave.
All that means is that further negotiations take place in the context that the UK really will leave unless the EU offers substantive changes to the UK.
There would be parallel negotiations about the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the EU and what the terms would be for the UK to agree to stay in the EU.
Many late nights of beer and sandwiches for the civil servants.
Extrapolating from the present trajectory of polling intentions, whether phone or online, LEAVE will win a referendum held in June.
Cameron REALLY needs to come back with some concrete reforms. I see no evidence that this is about to happen. And we haven't heard a word about the proposed safeguards for non-euro-members and the City, against eurozone bullying. Has that just been quietly abandoned?
We don't need any theorising from a nerd who got the General Election wrong. We can all see it with our own eyes. Because exactly the same thing happened with indyref. Six months before indyref, NO was 15-20 points ahead, sometimes more, and then, as time went on....
Apropos of nothing...the Graun in its latest survey is asking about bias in news reporting: "Do you think the Guardian is biased to the left?" and (for the first time also in one of these surveys?): "Do you think the Guardian is biased to the right?"
V funny obviously they are worried that their not wholly adulatory position on Jezza is losing them readers.
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
This arose frequently pre-WW2, when Jewish families were unable to leave Germany tried to at least get their children to safety - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindertransport . Our care system isn't great but it is a lot better than being killed. Refusing to let them in compounds the misery to no useful effect.
But that assumes that France is a dangerous country from which those children need to be rescued. Granted there are a lot of insults we can throw at the French in jest and anger but you cannot seriously be suggesting that those children are in such danger that they need to cared for by the UK government rather than the French....
No journalist ever seems to want to ask this question. They are busy claiming we should be taking more, should be doing more, condemning Cameron's angle on this, etc etc etc....as if France is a 3rd world war torn hell hole. Why no condemnation of France? One for letting them stream about attacking lorries, two for not processing them properly and deporting those that have no right to be there, three for not identifying vulnerable people and caring for them.
The BBC reporter yesterday kinda of let it slip when he was describing the jungle and then said well just over there is a new modern housing estate and the other side a new sports complex. I don't think you get that in war torn Syria. France just want to ignore the issue, duck the tough problems and hope they eventually get to the UK. In the meantime, they just post a few police men in the area to regulate media visits.
Cameron doing his best to anger REMAIN voters by handing some minor decisions about the UK's benefit system to the EU Commission.
Vote LEAVE to start a serious negotiation between the UK and the EU where the UK then has leverage to change some substantive issues. The EU encourages second referendums after new negotiations.
No.
Leave is leave.
The British government will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty immediately following a vote to Leave.
All that means is that further negotiations take place in the context that the UK really will leave unless the EU offers substantive changes to the UK.
There would be parallel negotiations about the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the EU and what the terms would be for the UK to agree to stay in the EU.
Many late nights of beer and sandwiches for the civil servants.
No.
Leave is leave.
Agreed. If we vote for leave, then leave it will be.
Any attempt to try and do another renegotiation will end up in court fights and end-of-career moments for politicians.
That's very good. Gives a good understanding of the "Wastington" state of mind, in much the same way as some use "Westminster" here in a somewhat derogatory manner.
The 'Washington' effect is, I would say, much more potent, because Washington as a city is dominated by the federal government and its employees and hangers-on, in a way which London isn't.
It also permeates the mindset - in Jakarta I had dealings with both the British and American embassies- for the British staff, Whitehall was thousands of miles away and periodically needed to be put right on certain matters. For the American staff Washington was in the next room and every word was hung upon.
I think this reflects the different nature of US and UK embassies. In most countries, the US embassy is more like a proconsul, whereas in nearly all countries the UK embassy is just an Embassy. If the US embassy receives instructions from Washington, they are expected to implement them effectively. If the UK embassy receives instructions from the UK for which the Embassy has no political or economic leverage to implement, the embassy staff has to put London right.
Apropos of nothing...the Graun in its latest survey is asking about bias in news reporting: "Do you think the Guardian is biased to the left?" and (for the first time also in one of these surveys?): "Do you think the Guardian is biased to the right?"
V funny obviously they are worried that their not wholly adulatory position on Jezza is losing them readers.
''We didn't fight a Civil War over the issue though. ''
You think the American Civil War was about Black white relations? Most Southern soldiers had no slaves, and many big plantation owners never fought.
The South was, in many case, fighting 'because y'all are down here'
Wasn't all about directly, for sure, but AIUI it was about the State's Rights to run their affairs the way they wanted, which included allowing slavery.
The notion that ordinary confederate soldiers were not worried that freed slaves would take their jobs, work, livelihood is a bit naive.
In Mississippi and South Carolina nearly 50% of families owned slaves; over 50% of the population were slaves. 43% of the lower south were slaves.
That's very good. Gives a good understanding of the "Wastington" state of mind, in much the same way as some use "Westminster" here in a somewhat derogatory manner.
The 'Washington' effect is, I would say, much more potent, because Washington as a city is dominated by the federal government and its employees and hangers-on, in a way which London isn't.
I agree. It's easier to get out of "Westminster" but only if one desires to.
I'm not too familiar with Washington other than through television, but I imagine it's quite difficult to get out of the mentality when there's literally no-one there bar a few tourists who isn't some part of the machinery of government.
Apropos of nothing...the Graun in its latest survey is asking about bias in news reporting: "Do you think the Guardian is biased to the left?" and (for the first time also in one of these surveys?): "Do you think the Guardian is biased to the right?"
V funny obviously they are worried that their not wholly adulatory position on Jezza is losing them readers.
What to do!? Poor old Graun.
Very revealing that they are asking the wrong question. The problem with the Guardian isn't that they are a left-wing paper, but that they (or at least many of their commentators) have stopped discussing policy and instead fallen prey to the gross error of accusing those of different views of being evil.
Nick- Europe is still scarred by what happened in WW2. There was no place of safety for Jews on the continent. But presumably, in war torn Syria, or Afghanistan, the children are received first in refugee camps outside of the war zones on the borders- hardly ideal I know, but possibly better than the uncertainties of the dinghies, and trek across Europe to finally end up alone in a care home in Ramsgate or Doncaster- which are ripe with drugs, child abuse and exploitation.
And I struggle with the concept of people who would leave a war torn country and their children behind without family. And those who get separated from their children during the journey into Europe- I again struggle with that- how can that happen? How can you lose your child and then once lost just continue onwards.
Maybe I'm missing something here and am just callous.
You're one of the least callous people I've met, so scratch that one! I think the bottom line is that if you're a family in Syria or Libya there are literally no good options, and you are choosing between horrible alternatives with wildly incomplete information. Options include toughing it out (maybe all the bombs will miss you and the country will get better?) or going to a refugee camp (maybe they won't be places like the Palestinian camps where you're stuck for decades?) - or trusting dodgy smuggler X (he wants recommendations to other customers so maybe he'll deliver?) or sending the toughest/youngest family member (maybe they can find a better future and bring the family later?) or...
They make well make the right or wrong choices, who knows for sure? But they aren't our choices. The choices we have are to let migrant children in (which might risk attracting more?) or turn them away (which might destroy their lives?). The comfortable, popular option is to turn them away, vaguely asserting that we're motivated by concern over sending the wrong signal. It's probably the wrong choice.
American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn’t.
The GOP base are also fed up of having moderate nominees who lose, after McCain and Romney they want a red meat conservative, hence Trump and Cruz doing so well
Except, of course, that there is nothing in Trump's past that suggests he is in the slightest bit conservative.
There's the interview with Playboy where he says he would like to be President: a Democrat President. There's the interview where he backed Hilary to make a deal with Iran. He's pro-choice (vehemently), and pro-gun control.
These were the views he expressed when he wasn't running for office.
If you ask me: is someone more likely to lie about their views when (a) it doesn't matter; or (b) when they are running for President, you'd not get many people choosing (a). The fact is that Trump is a New York liberal, with a corporatist and anti-immigration streak.
It reminds me a little of Conservative leaders. They only become leaders by preaching Europscepticism. But when they're in power, their true colours show through.
There will be a lot of very disappointed Republicans out there when Trump turns out to be as left wing as Obama.
If Trump wins, then for at least two years, he'll be dealing with a Republican Senate and House. I expect that they'd get through some of the stuff they want, but not as much as they'd like. In practice, I think he'd be to the right of Obama, but to the left of Cruz or Rubio.
It is very arguable that if the Nats had benefited from another 2 or 3 weeks of campaigning, they would have won
Or lost by a bigger margin
With hindsight, Salmond should have said that he would hand over to a new leader (i.e. Sturgeon) after the vote regardless of the result. She would have been a much more credible Prime Minster in waiting.
Apropos of nothing...the Graun in its latest survey is asking about bias in news reporting: "Do you think the Guardian is biased to the left?" and (for the first time also in one of these surveys?): "Do you think the Guardian is biased to the right?"
V funny obviously they are worried that their not wholly adulatory position on Jezza is losing them readers.
What to do!? Poor old Graun.
Very revealing that they are asking the wrong question. The problem with the Guardian isn't that they are a left-wing paper, but that they (or at least many of their commentators) have stopped discussing policy and instead fallen prey to the gross error of accusing those of different views of being evil.
What a "bunch" of c.... oh wait I don't need to go past calling them a bunch. That is offensive enough.
The idea that the American Civil War was not about slavery is gross revisionism. When Confederate politicians were arguing for the right to continue their "peculiar institution" they were talking about slavery.
Extrapolating from the present trajectory of polling intentions, whether phone or online, LEAVE will win a referendum held in June.
Cameron REALLY needs to come back with some concrete reforms. I see no evidence that this is about to happen. And we haven't heard a word about the proposed safeguards for non-euro-members and the City, against eurozone bullying. Has that just been quietly abandoned?
We don't need any theorising from a nerd who got the General Election wrong. We can all see it with our own eyes. Because exactly the same thing happened with indyref. Six months before indyref, NO was 15-20 points ahead, sometimes more, and then, as time went on....
How many Hispanic actors get nominations? I'm totally struggling here bar long-dead Raul Julia
Not sure Hispanic is a good example as it's not a real thing.
Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catchall to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship with Spain, regardless of race and ethnicity.[4][5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[34] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
That was really my point. Hispanic is not a racial identifier and as such is pretty meaningless when (regularly) used as one.
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
The term Hispanic is Spanish: hispano and broadly refers to the peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain. The term is older than America.
Where does that leave Brazilians?
Um, Portugal (and by extension her colonies) was part of Spain/Spanish Empire from 1580 to 1640.
And in Lisbon there is a whacking great statue of the Marquis de Pombal, think Nelson's column, the man who the Portuguese credit with rescuing them from Spanish slavery. It would be a mistake, Cap'n Doc, to think that the Portuguese and Spanish do not have "issues".
I think 'Hispanic' is as real a grouping as 'Scottish'.
Apropos of nothing...the Graun in its latest survey is asking about bias in news reporting: "Do you think the Guardian is biased to the left?" and (for the first time also in one of these surveys?): "Do you think the Guardian is biased to the right?"
V funny obviously they are worried that their not wholly adulatory position on Jezza is losing them readers.
What to do!? Poor old Graun.
Very revealing that they are asking the wrong question. The problem with the Guardian isn't that they are a left-wing paper, but that they (or at least many of their commentators) have stopped discussing policy and instead fallen prey to the gross error of accusing those of different views of being evil.
Having read many Guardian article, I assumed they were trying to make readers laugh..as surely no sensible person could take them seriously.
"My meat addiction is over: I’ve gone vegan, and it’s brilliant" is one of the funniest I have read..
If Trump wins, then for at least two years, he'll be dealing with a Republican Senate and House. I expect that they'd get through some of the stuff they want, but not as much as they'd like. In practice, I think he'd be to the right of Obama, but to the left of Cruz or Rubio.
A Trump State of the Union address would be a hoot.
There will be a lot of very disappointed Republicans out there when Trump turns out to be as left wing as Obama.
I think you're making the same mistake that Tucker Carlson talks about in the article linked below: that of assuming that Republican voters want and believe the same things as the current Republican elite.
Re child migrants, I have just had my round robin email from Yvette Cooper who is championing the cause. I can fully understand that it is right to settle children who are displaced from their families who have been already given asylum status here, though I feel slightly uneasy that their parents have abandoned their children to such an uncertain plight. In the UK you are charged with child abandonment for leaving children for a day or two- upping sticks, and abandoning your child in a war torn country just strikes me as irresponsible to the extreme.
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
If Sharon Shoesmith's free, why don't we send her over to Syria with a few ambulance chasers from Leigh Day to put together a case for prosecution?
Shall we organise a whip-round for their one-way tickets to Damascus? I'll chip in a tenner.
But that assumes that France is a dangerous country from which those children need to be rescued. Granted there are a lot of insults we can throw at the French in jest and anger but you cannot seriously be suggesting that those children are in such danger that they need to cared for by the UK government rather than the French....
No, but passing the buck back and forth isn't a solution either. We should support Merkel (boo hiss) in getting a fair share agreed across Europe. And while we're waiting for that, we should take a large chunk ourselves anyway. The fact that geographically Turkey is nearer than Greece, Greece nearer than France and France nearer than the UK is convenient, but not really sufficient to hide behind.
''We didn't fight a Civil War over the issue though. ''
You think the American Civil War was about Black white relations? Most Southern soldiers had no slaves, and many big plantation owners never fought.
The South was, in many case, fighting 'because y'all are down here'
Wasn't all about directly, for sure, but AIUI it was about the State's Rights to run their affairs the way they wanted, which included allowing slavery.
The notion that ordinary confederate soldiers were not worried that freed slaves would take their jobs, work, livelihood is a bit naive.
In Mississippi and South Carolina nearly 50% of families owned slaves; over 50% of the population were slaves. 43% of the lower south were slaves.
One curious feature of the South was that in seaports and factories, slave and free labourers sometimes worked side by side. One effect was that the free labourers were given the most dangerous work, because the slaves were too valuable to risk. If a free labourer was killed in an accident at work, at worst, the employer was looking at paying a few weeks' compensation to his family. If a slave was killed, that was a dead loss of several hundred dollars to his owner. You can imagine how that fuelled resentment among the free poor.
If Jack Monroe did not exist, the Guardian would have to invent her.
I quite like her. But I really don't think that "woman changes diet" is much of a story, whether it's about a celebrity slimmer or a Guardianista wanting to claim the moral high ground.
But that assumes that France is a dangerous country from which those children need to be rescued. Granted there are a lot of insults we can throw at the French in jest and anger but you cannot seriously be suggesting that those children are in such danger that they need to cared for by the UK government rather than the French....
No, but passing the buck back and forth isn't a solution either. We should support Merkel (boo hiss) in getting a fair share agreed across Europe. And while we're waiting for that, we should take a large chunk ourselves anyway. The fact that geographically Turkey is nearer than Greece, Greece nearer than France and France nearer than the UK is convenient, but not really sufficient to hide behind.
But, there is no public appetite to take in hundreds of thousands of people.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic#Definitions_in_the_United_States
To my mind, I'm not surprised that America choose to invent the term. It seems to have been developed as a way of saying "not white enough".
45% of all Latino eligible voters live in two states - California & Texas https://t.co/KBHFdB6xrr https://t.co/HDxN2IY0uI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Union
Still south of the equator.
I would find that a pretty hard assertion to believe, as I said, it seems very clear to me that its development in a modern context (which is very recent) and its use today is very much a case of "not white enough".
But, I cannot understand how though it is in other migrant children's interests to try and settle them in the UK if they have no roots here leaving them at the mercy of our pretty appalling public care system for children. The outcomes for children in our care system are terrible, and these are UK children with family and contacts, for foreign children without any ties at all, they will just sink to the bottom.
Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.
That gentleman's analysis could be applied to all sorts of political situations, everywhere
Most of his early career wasn't spend improving as a player (although he did) but in working out how to keep his body from falling apart from the stresses his style of play put on his frame.
You think the American Civil War was about Black white relations? Most Southern soldiers had no slaves, and many big plantation owners never fought.
The South was, in many case, fighting 'because y'all are down here'
I personally think Raonic will be contending for number one spot within a year or so- if you were going to construct the perfect physique for playing tennis you would make him.
You and your mob are just taking the p!ss.
The UN needs to take a much more global approach to all of this - and involve the whole world in providing long term support. Not just assuming Europe can and will cope.
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21689649-migrants-are-streaming-germany-few-are-interested-france-non-merci
Except, of course, that there is nothing in Trump's past that suggests he is in the slightest bit conservative.
There's the interview with Playboy where he says he would like to be President: a Democrat President.
There's the interview where he backed Hilary to make a deal with Iran.
He's pro-choice (vehemently), and pro-gun control.
These were the views he expressed when he wasn't running for office.
If you ask me: is someone more likely to lie about their views when (a) it doesn't matter; or (b) when they are running for President, you'd not get many people choosing (a). The fact is that Trump is a New York liberal, with a corporatist and anti-immigration streak.
It reminds me a little of Conservative leaders. They only become leaders by preaching Europscepticism. But when they're in power, their true colours show through.
There will be a lot of very disappointed Republicans out there when Trump turns out to be as left wing as Obama.
There would be parallel negotiations about the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the EU and what the terms would be for the UK to agree to stay in the EU.
Many late nights of beer and sandwiches for the civil servants.
And I struggle with the concept of people who would leave a war torn country and their children behind without family. And those who get separated from their children during the journey into Europe- I again struggle with that- how can that happen? How can you lose your child and then once lost just continue onwards.
Maybe I'm missing something here and am just callous.
Leave is leave.
V funny obviously they are worried that their not wholly adulatory position on Jezza is losing them readers.
What to do!? Poor old Graun.
The BBC reporter yesterday kinda of let it slip when he was describing the jungle and then said well just over there is a new modern housing estate and the other side a new sports complex. I don't think you get that in war torn Syria. France just want to ignore the issue, duck the tough problems and hope they eventually get to the UK. In the meantime, they just post a few police men in the area to regulate media visits.
Agreed. If we vote for leave, then leave it will be.
Any attempt to try and do another renegotiation will end up in court fights and end-of-career moments for politicians.
What do you base that on? If the history of the EU is anything to go by we would almost certainly be asked again.
In Mississippi and South Carolina nearly 50% of families owned slaves; over 50% of the population were slaves.
43% of the lower south were slaves.
Or if the polls look iffy as we get to the vote, there will be a desperate, panicky attempt to make more worthless baubles available, a la scotland.
I'm not too familiar with Washington other than through television, but I imagine it's quite difficult to get out of the mentality when there's literally no-one there bar a few tourists who isn't some part of the machinery of government.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/jack-monroe-meat-vegan-food-ingredients
They make well make the right or wrong choices, who knows for sure? But they aren't our choices. The choices we have are to let migrant children in (which might risk attracting more?) or turn them away (which might destroy their lives?). The comfortable, popular option is to turn them away, vaguely asserting that we're motivated by concern over sending the wrong signal. It's probably the wrong choice.
There's the interview with Playboy where he says he would like to be President: a Democrat President.
There's the interview where he backed Hilary to make a deal with Iran.
He's pro-choice (vehemently), and pro-gun control.
These were the views he expressed when he wasn't running for office.
If you ask me: is someone more likely to lie about their views when (a) it doesn't matter; or (b) when they are running for President, you'd not get many people choosing (a). The fact is that Trump is a New York liberal, with a corporatist and anti-immigration streak.
It reminds me a little of Conservative leaders. They only become leaders by preaching Europscepticism. But when they're in power, their true colours show through.
There will be a lot of very disappointed Republicans out there when Trump turns out to be as left wing as Obama.
If Trump wins, then for at least two years, he'll be dealing with a Republican Senate and House. I expect that they'd get through some of the stuff they want, but not as much as they'd like. In practice, I think he'd be to the right of Obama, but to the left of Cruz or Rubio.
OH NO HE ISN'T.
OH YES HE IS.
"My meat addiction is over: I’ve gone vegan, and it’s brilliant" is one of the funniest I have read..
http://www.politicaltours.com/