I feel in a bit of a dilemma at the moment , and would be interested in any views as to how to proceed. Unlike last year - when I did pay £3 to register as a supporter - I have no vote at all in this year's Labour leadership election.However, I do have a friend who does have a vote as a result of being a member of a trade union. He has voted for Corbyn despite the fact that at General Elections he votes Green if he votes at all! My question is - Should I contact the Labour Compliance Unit with a view to getting his vote set aside?
Urm, on what basis? Wasn't the whole point of Corbo that he got more Green voters back to the fold than Miliband?
Also, the idea that there is a Labour Party compliance unit that members of the public can inform on people to just cracks me up...
Miss Cyclefree, quite (must admit I'd never heard of that chap before now).
The economy does matter, but making a purely economic argument, regardless of social or cultural or political impact, reduces the people to slaves selling themselves to the highest bidder. The economy often is the one crucial argument for a decision, but it isn't always so.
Remain even buggered that up with their overblown fear-mongering, which then led people to discount more credible claims that they made.
Looking to the future, and thinking of the burka ban polling, if UKIP can seize that sort of territory, they could do handily, especially if facing an open borders friend of Hamas.
Mr Dancer, I'd argue that, in a generally affluent society where the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and health are met, economic factors matter far less than higher order psychological factors such as respect, control and purpose. I'd wager that many of those (particularly Labour supporters) who voted Out felt disrespected and helpless.
And the fact that such people are being given goodies by the EU does not make them feel more warmly inclined to it. If anything people dislike being made to feel the object of charity, made to feel grateful rather than feeling able to make their own decisions about their lives. That's why, in part, the "Take Control" meme of the Leave campaign was so powerful.
One reason perhaps why areas such as Wales - the recipient of so much EU largesse - voted Leave.
As did an even higher per capita recipient, Cornwall.
I feel in a bit of a dilemma at the moment , and would be interested in any views as to how to proceed. Unlike last year - when I did pay £3 to register as a supporter - I have no vote at all in this year's Labour leadership election.However, I do have a friend who does have a vote as a result of being a member of a trade union. He has voted for Corbyn despite the fact that at General Elections he votes Green if he votes at all! My question is - Should I contact the Labour Compliance Unit with a view to getting his vote set aside?
“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” (EM Forster)
Also, from a statistical point if view, it is incredibly unlikely that one vote either way will make any difference to the result (one in a few hundred thousand)..
My view is that as a Green voter he had no more right to vote in an internal Labour Party election than would a Tory voter.
How the hell has the Labour party come to this? Have a word with yourself, man. He's in a union, he gets a vote. Or is it only if he votes as you want? Go on, grass him up, he's better off not having friends like you.
In the absence of Harry Hayfield it looks like we have the following by-elections today: Bournemouth UA, Kinson North, Con defence Cornwall UA, Four Lanes, UKIP defence Dorset CC, Ferndown, Con defence East Dorset DC, Parley, Con defence Stockton on Tees UA, Grangefield, Lab defence Otley TC, Ashfield, LDx2 defence Lymington and Pennington TC, Pennington, Con defence.
The Cornwall and Dorset seats look the most interesting.
I feel in a bit of a dilemma at the moment , and would be interested in any views as to how to proceed. Unlike last year - when I did pay £3 to register as a supporter - I have no vote at all in this year's Labour leadership election.However, I do have a friend who does have a vote as a result of being a member of a trade union. He has voted for Corbyn despite the fact that at General Elections he votes Green if he votes at all! My question is - Should I contact the Labour Compliance Unit with a view to getting his vote set aside?
“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” (EM Forster)
Also, from a statistical point if view, it is incredibly unlikely that one vote either way will make any difference to the result (one in a few hundred thousand)..
My view is that as a Green voter he had no more right to vote in an internal Labour Party election than would a Tory voter.
The fact that this even has to be asked shows what a total mess Labour are in. Ed M's brilliant bravewave to open voting to all has been a disaster.
"Brexit is a cry for meaning in a world overrun with research and information. It is a plea for morality in a time when we’re governed by sums and maths. As Charles Leadbeater put it, Brexit was about “restoring a semblance of meaning to people’s lives”; it was a “vote for something more than money — for pride, belonging, community, identity, a sense of ‘home’”."
Spot on. Although he should have added "and a sense of at least a modicum of control over their own destiny"
Seamus Heaney put it very well in a lecture he gave a few months before he died.
“We are not simply a credit rating or an economy but a history and a culture, a human population rather than a statistical phenomenon.”
Our politicians forgot that. There is more to life than economics.
The politicians who deserve to prosper are those who remember that nations are more than simply a random collection of people in one geographical area, all of them interchangeable, simply breathing widgets.
The concept of "home", of "our home" is a very powerful and deep rooted one. It is worthwhile. And it is one which politicians mess with at their peril.
Of course, there are plenty of politicians who believe precisely what you describe: that nation states are outdated and redundant, people are just economic units and overall economic prosperity is all that matters.
I hope the lesson is learnt but we shall see.
Indeed, many of them reside in central London and Manhattan, very wealthy areas with amongst the highest level of support for Remain and Hillary respectively
Miss Cyclefree, quite (must admit I'd never heard of that chap before now).
The economy does matter, but making a purely economic argument, regardless of social or cultural or political impact, reduces the people to slaves selling themselves to the highest bidder. The economy often is the one crucial argument for a decision, but it isn't always so.
Remain even buggered that up with their overblown fear-mongering, which then led people to discount more credible claims that they made.
Looking to the future, and thinking of the burka ban polling, if UKIP can seize that sort of territory, they could do handily, especially if facing an open borders friend of Hamas.
Mr Dancer, I'd argue that, in a generally affluent society where the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and health are met, economic factors matter far less than higher order psychological factors such as respect, control and purpose. I'd wager that many of those (particularly Labour supporters) who voted Out felt disrespected and helpless.
And the fact that such people are being given goodies by the EU does not make them feel more warmly inclined to it. If anything people dislike being made to feel the object of charity, made to feel grateful rather than feeling able to make their own decisions about their lives. That's why, in part, the "Take Control" meme of the Leave campaign was so powerful.
One reason perhaps why areas such as Wales - the recipient of so much EU largesse - voted Leave.
EU largesse that, for a great part, could well be funded by the UK taxpayers, given we are net contributors.
Mr. Borough, whilst I agree, it's worth also noting that Labour MPs were bloody thick, not understanding that their role wasn't to 'broaden debate' but to act as gatekeepers and stop someone they couldn't see as a credible leader getting the job.
Mr. Stopper, there's another issue for Labour, which is that its two wings now appear to be Practically Communist and Metropolitan. The working class could be swept up by UKIP, or simply not turn out next time.
London News reporting that the local residents and workers in Harlow had been on at the Police for ages about youths harrasing people (of all backgrounds) in the area where that Polish man was murdered.
I read a report earlier saying the same - and the kids are mixed ethnicity too. It's a thug gang.
Miss Cyclefree, quite (must admit I'd never heard of that chap before now).
The economy does matter, but making a purely economic argument, regardless of social or cultural or political impact, reduces the people to slaves selling themselves to the highest bidder. The economy often is the one crucial argument for a decision, but it isn't always so.
Remain even buggered that up with their overblown fear-mongering, which then led people to discount more credible claims that they made.
Looking to the future, and thinking of the burka ban polling, if UKIP can seize that sort of territory, they could do handily, especially if facing an open borders friend of Hamas.
Mr Dancer, I'd argue that, in a generally affluent society where the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and health are met, economic factors matter far less than higher order psychological factors such as respect, control and purpose. I'd wager that many of those (particularly Labour supporters) who voted Out felt disrespected and helpless.
And the fact that such people are being given goodies by the EU does not make them feel more warmly inclined to it. If anything people dislike being made to feel the object of charity, made to feel grateful rather than feeling able to make their own decisions about their lives. That's why, in part, the "Take Control" meme of the Leave campaign was so powerful.
One reason perhaps why areas such as Wales - the recipient of so much EU largesse - voted Leave.
I feel in a bit of a dilemma at the moment , and would be interested in any views as to how to proceed. Unlike last year - when I did pay £3 to register as a supporter - I have no vote at all in this year's Labour leadership election.However, I do have a friend who does have a vote as a result of being a member of a trade union. He has voted for Corbyn despite the fact that at General Elections he votes Green if he votes at all! My question is - Should I contact the Labour Compliance Unit with a view to getting his vote set aside?
“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” (EM Forster)
Also, from a statistical point if view, it is incredibly unlikely that one vote either way will make any difference to the result (one in a few hundred thousand)..
My view is that as a Green voter he had no more right to vote in an internal Labour Party election than would a Tory voter.
If he has no public profile as a Green voter (such as a former Green candidate), then your friend is likely to be puzzled as to why the Labour Compliance Unit is contacting him out of the blue.
Your friend will presumably conclude that they have received a private tip-off. This may well have uncomfortable consequences for your friendship.
It so happens that friends of my voted in the Scottish Referendum. They were second home owners, and so they were not actually entitled to do so. I did nothing (although I told them I didn’t approve).
I think if I was going to do it, I’d prefer to do it openly.
Personally, I find the statistical argument compelling. None of these minor infractions are actually likely to change the result when the electorate is sufficiently large.
Mr. Royale, indeed. For some people, they genuinely associate themselves with a class or lifestyle [I mean neither in a derogatory sense] than with a nation. The internet and cheap travel has helped to foster this sort of thing.
[Snipped]
Save that even such people rely on the nation to protect them from harm or on the nation's laws. Their class and lifestyle are dependant on the nation, even if they refuse to recognize this. When they berate multinational companies for not paying tax they are berating them for not paying tax to one country so that the money can be spent by that country for that country's benefit.
Look at the ages and jobs of those killed in the Bataclan massacre: young, mobile, many working in new techie industries, not all French. And yet, in the end, those who survived depended on the forces of law from a state, a nation - and it is the rulers of that nation who are now feeling the concerns of the people of that nation for not doing what the first duty of any state is - to protect them from enemies, at home and abroad.
And the same is true here and in other countries, no matter how mobile and tech savvy we may be, no matter how many nationalities are friends and relatives come from.
Those who think nations, tribes, groups are passé are the delusional ones, IMO. A dangerous delusion because if you do not have some recognizable political entity based on a territory how are you going to have democracy. There has to be a people, a demos and there have to be geographical boundaries to that demos.
In the absence of Harry Hayfield it looks like we have the following by-elections today: Bournemouth UA, Kinson North, Con defence Cornwall UA, Four Lanes, UKIP defence Dorset CC, Ferndown, Con defence East Dorset DC, Parley, Con defence Stockton on Tees UA, Grangefield, Lab defence Otley TC, Ashfield, LDx2 defence Lymington and Pennington TC, Pennington, Con defence.
The Cornwall and Dorset seats look the most interesting.
A brilliant non-conformist 'up the revolution, stuff the establishment' rant....but without one single argument as to why Britain's leaving the EU might be a sensible thing to do.
Because it is the moral thing to do - to leave this horrible, undemocratic nightmare, designed by and for smug, contemptuous elites - and thereby sets a noble example to the rest of the world.
Not good enough for you?
You sat on the fence .
We won. You lost. Suck it all up.
Weren't you polled in the street by a rather lovely pollster?
.
Newcastle. Should have been a solid win for Remain.
It wasn't. I placed big bets on Leave after it came in.
Said it before; the global economy passeth understanding. Nobody knows what will happen, but plenty of people are paid very handsomely to pretend they do.
Most of the folk on here are quite knowledgeable about economics, current affairs and whatever their own specialities might be. But very few (a polite way of saying 'none') of us were truly qualified to vote in any kind of expert capacity, and those that think differently are deluding themselves.
Just because we can spell EFTA, doesn't mean we grok the long term consequences of Brexit, even if we're superior to Ethel Scroggins of Burnley who thinks its a chilblain cream.
Most of the people on here are not knowledgeable about economics. About three people are and another thirty-odd think they are because they have read a few bits and pieces somewhere and think they understand them.
Meow!
I'd be interested in your list of three.
To make such a judgment, I presume you include yourself in the triumvirate. I can think of one person who clearly belongs on that list, and several other candidates, but to round up the 3 there can only be two others.
I would not pretend to be in such exalted company but I do think you are excessively dismissive of those with more than a passing knowledge of economics.
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
Mr. Borough, whilst I agree, it's worth also noting that Labour MPs were bloody thick, not understanding that their role wasn't to 'broaden debate' but to act as gatekeepers and stop someone they couldn't see as a credible leader getting the job.
Mr. Stopper, there's another issue for Labour, which is that its two wings now appear to be Practically Communist and Metropolitan. The working class could be swept up by UKIP, or simply not turn out next time.
Mind you over 40% of Tory voters voted Remain, there is a huge gap between them and Leave voting Tories who back hard Brexit, the latter are closer to UKIP than they are to Tory Remain voters and Tory Remain voters are closer to Blairite Labour and the LDs than them. We are due a realignment, the nature of BREXIT and Corbyn's re-election give a slim chance it will happen
Miss Cyclefree, quite (must admit I'd never heard of that chap before now).
The economy does matter, but making a purely economic argument, regardless of social or cultural or political impact, reduces the people to slaves selling themselves to the highest bidder. The economy often is the one crucial argument for a decision, but it isn't always so.
Remain even buggered that up with their overblown fear-mongering, which then led people to discount more credible claims that they made.
Looking to the future, and thinking of the burka ban polling, if UKIP can seize that sort of territory, they could do handily, especially if facing an open borders friend of Hamas.
Mr Dancer, I'd argue that, in a generally affluent society where the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and health are met, economic factors matter far less than higher order psychological factors such as respect, control and purpose. I'd wager that many of those (particularly Labour supporters) who voted Out felt disrespected and helpless.
And the fact that such people are being given goodies by the EU does not make them feel more warmly inclined to it. If anything people dislike being made to feel the object of charity, made to feel grateful rather than feeling able to make their own decisions about their lives. That's why, in part, the "Take Control" meme of the Leave campaign was so powerful. One reason perhaps why areas such as Wales - the recipient of so much EU largesse - voted Leave.
As did an even higher per capita recipient, Cornwall.
Yet still no motorway to even get into Cornwall. The Irish spent a lot of EU money on road upgrades. Wise people.
I've just watched Farages Trump speech for the first time.
Apparently it was a short notice thing - he was invited the night before as he was in the area.
I saw comments as to it would not resonate as brexit was not a big issue over there, but he tailored it very effectively to the USA.
Can see why Hilarys lot were on about UKIP and the Kremlin, it was quite a speech to fire up people with the don't trust the establishment, we did it, you can do it message.
Whether it has anything to do with the recent poll tightening is probably mixing causation with correlation though (unless you want to tease a liberal democrat friend who can't abide Fargle )
I think Trump's recovery was entirely due to him shutting his mouth up. Unfortunately for him, yesterday in arizona he didn't.
I haven't seen that yet - his speech in Everett on blacks voting for him was solid stuff and not shouty at all.
Journalists had already filed "Look at statesmen like Trump" pieces that had to be re-edited/ripped up after the speech. The New Your Times piece's edits are particularly hilarious.
A brilliant non-conformist 'up the revolution, stuff the establishment' rant....but without one single argument as to why Britain's leaving the EU might be a sensible thing to do.
Because it is the moral thing to do - to leave this horrible, undemocratic nightmare, designed by and for smug, contemptuous elites - and thereby sets a noble example to the rest of the world.
Not good enough for you?
You sat on the fence .
We won. You lost. Suck it all up.
Weren't you polled in the street by a rather lovely pollster?
.
Newcastle. Should have been a solid win for Remain.
It wasn't. I placed big bets on Leave after it came in.
Said it before; the global economy passeth understanding. Nobody knows what will happen, but plenty of people are paid very handsomely to pretend they do.
Most of the folk on here are quite knowledgeable about economics, current affairs and whatever their own specialities might be. But very few (a polite way of saying 'none') of us were truly qualified to vote in any kind of expert capacity, and those that think differently are deluding themselves.
Just because we can spell EFTA, doesn't mean we grok the long term consequences of Brexit, even if we're superior to Ethel Scroggins of Burnley who thinks its a chilblain cream.
Most of the people on here are not knowledgeable about economics. About three people are and another thirty-odd think they are because they have read a few bits and pieces somewhere and think they understand them.
Meow!
I'd be interested in your list of three.
To make such a judgment, I presume you include yourself in the triumvirate. I can think of one person who clearly belongs on that list, and several other candidates, but to round up the 3 there can only be two others.
I would not pretend to be in such exalted company but I do think you are excessively dismissive of those with more than a passing knowledge of economics.
I did an Economics degree. Does that count?
Maybe. I have an MBA from the top European business school, but distinctly have the feeling that that does not count. Still waiting on runnymede's shortlist.
I feel in a bit of a dilemma at the moment , and would be interested in any views as to how to proceed. Unlike last year - when I did pay £3 to register as a supporter - I have no vote at all in this year's Labour leadership election.However, I do have a friend who does have a vote as a result of being a member of a trade union. He has voted for Corbyn despite the fact that at General Elections he votes Green if he votes at all! My question is - Should I contact the Labour Compliance Unit with a view to getting his vote set aside?
“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” (EM Forster)
Also, from a statistical point if view, it is incredibly unlikely that one vote either way will make any difference to the result (one in a few hundred thousand)..
My view is that as a Green voter he had no more right to vote in an internal Labour Party election than would a Tory voter.
The fact that this even has to be asked shows what a total mess Labour are in. Ed M's brilliant bravewave to open voting to all has been a disaster.
You are correct -- the blame lies with Ed Miliband.
All Labour’s Scottish disasters occurred under Ed Miliband stewardship as well (Holyrood 2011, Sindy and Westminster 2015).
He was an absolute catastrophe for Labour, yet strangely he has eluded a lot of the blame.
Mr. HYUFD, an astute comment, particularly when you mention depth of belief. Some on both sides were very soft, others very hard [ahem]. May could get a relatively soft, middle of the way exit (not BINO) past the people easily, but her risk would be some of her backbenchers.
I feel in a bit of a dilemma at the moment , and would be interested in any views as to how to proceed. Unlike last year - when I did pay £3 to register as a supporter - I have no vote at all in this year's Labour leadership election.However, I do have a friend who does have a vote as a result of being a member of a trade union. He has voted for Corbyn despite the fact that at General Elections he votes Green if he votes at all! My question is - Should I contact the Labour Compliance Unit with a view to getting his vote set aside?
“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” (EM Forster)
Also, from a statistical point if view, it is incredibly unlikely that one vote either way will make any difference to the result (one in a few hundred thousand)..
My view is that as a Green voter he had no more right to vote in an internal Labour Party election than would a Tory voter.
He has a legitimate vote in the Labour leadership election. It's up to the NEC to make the rules and that is what they've opted for. It's less controversial than the new-ish full members/£25 window sign-ups difference, surely?
Because it is the moral thing to do - to leave this horrible, undemocratic nightmare, designed by and for smug, contemptuous elites - and thereby sets a noble example to the rest of the world.
Not good enough for you?
You sat on the fence .
We won. You lost. Suck it all up.
Weren't you polled in the street by a rather lovely pollster?
.
Newcastle. Should have been a solid win for Remain.
It wasn't. I placed big bets on Leave after it came in.
Said it before; the global economy passeth understanding. Nobody knows what will happen, but plenty of people are paid very handsomely to pretend they do.
Most of the folk on here are quite knowledgeable about economics, current affairs and whatever their own specialities might be. But very few (a polite way of saying 'none') of us were truly qualified to vote in any kind of expert capacity, and those that think differently are deluding themselves.
Just because we can spell EFTA, doesn't mean we grok the long term consequences of Brexit, even if we're superior to Ethel Scroggins of Burnley who thinks its a chilblain cream.
Most of the people on here are not knowledgeable about economics. About three people are and another thirty-odd think they are because they have read a few bits and pieces somewhere and think they understand them.
Meow!
I'd be interested in your list of three.
To make such a judgment, I presume you include yourself in the triumvirate. I can think of one person who clearly belongs on that list, and several other candidates, but to round up the 3 there can only be two others.
I would not pretend to be in such exalted company but I do think you are excessively dismissive of those with more than a passing knowledge of economics.
I did an Economics degree. Does that count?
Only if you agree with Gordon Brown's famous 'zero percent increase' when PM.
I got an economics degree from the Open University in the early 70s - surely that doesn't count in this rarefied air of Mensa candidate quality wonks?
Miss Cyclefree, quite (must admit I'd never heard of that chap before now).
The economy does matter, but making a purely economic argument, regardless of social or cultural or political impact, reduces the people to slaves selling themselves to the highest bidder. The economy often is the one crucial argument for a decision, but it isn't always so.
Remain even buggered that up with their overblown fear-mongering, which then led people to discount more credible claims that they made.
Looking to the future, and thinking of the burka ban polling, if UKIP can seize that sort of territory, they could do handily, especially if facing an open borders friend of Hamas.
Mr Dancer, I'd argue that, in a generally affluent society where the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and health are met, economic factors matter far less than higher order psychological factors such as respect, control and purpose. I'd wager that many of those (particularly Labour supporters) who voted Out felt disrespected and helpless.
And the fact that such people are being given goodies by the EU does not make them feel more warmly inclined to it. If anything people dislike being made to feel the object of charity, made to feel grateful rather than feeling able to make their own decisions about their lives. That's why, in part, the "Take Control" meme of the Leave campaign was so powerful.
One reason perhaps why areas such as Wales - the recipient of so much EU largesse - voted Leave.
I've written quite a lot about Wales, and it's worth putting this into perspective. The numbers come from a report in May 2016 from Cardiff Uni's WGC. Net, Wales receives around £245m p.a. from the four main EU funds. That's around £80 per person per year. In my book, that's not largesse.
Digging a little deeper, and looking at some of the big ticket items, they include things like a new research building for Swansea Uni (£31m), an imaging unit for Cardiff Uni (£16m), a new campus for Swansea Uni (£40m) and the dualling of the HoV road (£80m). All worthwhile I'm sure, but hardly things to get a valley boy's heart pounding.
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
Funnily enough, I was thinking of a thread on globalization and the differences between the internationalists and others - so you have spurred me on.
I think one of the distinctions between the Islamic world and the West is that the former is, to a large extent, an "honour" culture whereas the West has a "guilt" and a "doubt" culture, a legacy of its Christian heritage. Easy for the latter to become weak, as you have described. But also to be underestimated. Slow to anger and all that, but when sufficiently angered to be feared. At least I bloody hope so!
Incidentally, Seamus Heaney was an Irish poet. He died in 2013. Our very own @SeanT does not rate him. But I do.
Mr. Borough, whilst I agree, it's worth also noting that Labour MPs were bloody thick, not understanding that their role wasn't to 'broaden debate' but to act as gatekeepers and stop someone they couldn't see as a credible leader getting the job.
Mr. Stopper, there's another issue for Labour, which is that its two wings now appear to be Practically Communist and Metropolitan. The working class could be swept up by UKIP, or simply not turn out next time.
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
Should intolerance be tolerated and vice versa?
We are stuck in a circle between tolerating intolerance and intolerating tolerance. Should we be tolerating the intolerance of others or will that make us intolerant too?
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
Funnily enough, I was thinking of a thread on globalization and the differences between the internationalists and others - so you have spurred me on.
I think one of the distinctions between the Islamic world and the West is that the former is, to a large extent, an "honour" culture whereas the West has a "guilt" and a "doubt" culture, a legacy of its Christian heritage. Easy for the latter to become weak, as you have described. But also to be underestimated. Slow to anger and all that, but when sufficiently angered to be feared. At least I bloody hope so!
Incidentally, Seamus Heaney was an Irish poet. He died in 2013. Our very own @SeanT does not rate him. But I do.
I was lucky enough to be at the Colchester Borough Count (53.5% Leave) in the wee hours of the 24th of June, but part of me wishes I'd been at home with PB and AndyJS's spreadsheet in front of me, making oodles of cash.
That said, I don't know if I'd have had the nerve. I didn't believe it when I saw the Sunderland result on the TV in the corner of the gym where the count was, or when I was driving home at 3am and Vince Cable was basically conceding defeat on Radio 4. I wasn't even convinced at 20 to 5 when Dimbleby announced the BBC was calling it for Leave. Some time after that but before the final, official result I realised we really had done it, drowsily high-fived my Dad, and went to bed.
Mr. HYUFD, an astute comment, particularly when you mention depth of belief. Some on both sides were very soft, others very hard [ahem]. May could get a relatively soft, middle of the way exit (not BINO) past the people easily, but her risk would be some of her backbenchers.
Thanks and sharp comment from you too. Softish BREXIT, eg limited free movement for limited single market access, would appease most of the country but not hardcore Leavers and Tory backbenchers like IDS and Patterson and Redwood, they will find common cause with UKIP in pushing full hard BREXIT
Miss Cyclefree, quite (must admit I'd never heard of that chap before now).
The economy does matter, but making a purely economic argument, regardless of social or cultural or political impact, reduces the people to slaves selling themselves to the highest bidder. The economy often is the one crucial argument for a decision, but it isn't always so.
Remain even buggered that up with their overblown fear-mongering, which then led people to discount more credible claims that they made.
Looking to the future, and thinking of the burka ban polling, if UKIP can seize that sort of territory, they could do handily, especially if facing an open borders friend of Hamas.
Mr Dancer, I'd argue that, in a generally affluent society where the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and health are met, economic factors matter far less than higher order psychological factors such as respect, control and purpose. I'd wager that many of those (particularly Labour supporters) who voted Out felt disrespected and helpless.
And the fact that such people are being given goodies by the EU does not make them feel more warmly inclined to it. If anything people dislike being made to feel the object of charity, made to feel grateful rather than feeling able to make their own decisions about their lives. That's why, in part, the "Take Control" meme of the Leave campaign was so powerful.
One reason perhaps why areas such as Wales - the recipient of so much EU largesse - voted Leave.
Generally what happens is that the money comes from everyone - including ordinary folk - in tax.
What comesnback in subsidies tends to go to public sector or quasi public sector organisations.
So the money is perceived as being taken from ordinary people and given to establishment insiders, hangers on and cronies. A sort of reverse Robin Hood.
The worst example of that is the BBC which levies a poll tax and then uses it to spew Guardianista propaganda disguised as news and documentaries
I was lucky enough to be at the Colchester Borough Count (53.5% Leave) in the wee hours of the 24th of June, but part of me wishes I'd been at home with PB and AndyJS's spreadsheet in front of me, making oodles of cash.
That said, I don't know if I'd have had the nerve. I didn't believe it when I saw the Sunderland result on the TV in the corner of the gym where the count was, or when I was driving home at 3am and Vince Cable was basically conceding defeat on Radio 4. I wasn't even convinced at 20 to 5 when Dimbleby announced the BBC was calling it for Leave. Some time after that but before the final, official result I realised we really had done it, drowsily high-fived my Dad, and went to bed.
Your dad is presumably over 100 as we know that only octogenarians voted brexit?
Mr. Royale, indeed. For some people, they genuinely associate themselves with a class or lifestyle [I mean neither in a derogatory sense] than with a nation. The internet and cheap travel has helped to foster this sort of thing.
[Snipped]
Save that even such people rely on the nation to protect them from harm or on the nation's laws. Their class and lifestyle are dependant on the nation, even if they refuse to recognize this. When they berate multinational companies for not paying tax they are berating them for not paying tax to one country so that the money can be spent by that country for that country's benefit.
Look at the ages and jobs of those killed in the Bataclan massacre: young, mobile, many working in new techie industries, not all French. And yet, in the end, those who survived depended on the forces of law from a state, a nation - and it is the rulers of that nation who are now feeling the concerns of the people of that nation for not doing what the first duty of any state is - to protect them from enemies, at home and abroad.
And the same is true here and in other countries, no matter how mobile and tech savvy we may be, no matter how many nationalities are friends and relatives come from.
Those who think nations, tribes, groups are passé are the delusional ones, IMO. A dangerous delusion because if you do not have some recognizable political entity based on a territory how are you going to have democracy. There has to be a people, a demos and there have to be geographical boundaries to that demos.
I don't think any of those of us with an international outlook are advocating anarchy as a solution, as you seem to be implying! Personally, I'd like to see devolution of government, both upwards and downwards, with supranational entities administering supranational issues and local entities administering local issues. Nationalism, with its rigid insistence on an us and a them, is, alongside religion, what keeps the fires of hatred burning.
I was lucky enough to be at the Colchester Borough Count (53.5% Leave) in the wee hours of the 24th of June, but part of me wishes I'd been at home with PB and AndyJS's spreadsheet in front of me, making oodles of cash.
That said, I don't know if I'd have had the nerve. I didn't believe it when I saw the Sunderland result on the TV in the corner of the gym where the count was, or when I was driving home at 3am and Vince Cable was basically conceding defeat on Radio 4. I wasn't even convinced at 20 to 5 when Dimbleby announced the BBC was calling it for Leave. Some time after that but before the final, official result I realised we really had done it, drowsily high-fived my Dad, and went to bed.
It was the most profitable betting evening of my life.
SpreadEx was very generous, and had Remain as favourite for far, far too long.
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
Should intolerance be tolerated and vice versa?
We are stuck in a circle between tolerating intolerance and intolerating tolerance. Should we be tolerating the intolerance of others or will that make us intolerant too?
A classic conundrum.
Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby and Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid could give you some good advice.
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
Should intolerance be tolerated and vice versa?
We are stuck in a circle between tolerating intolerance and intolerating tolerance. Should we be tolerating the intolerance of others or will that make us intolerant too?
A classic conundrum.
I really don't see the problem. We make laws that allow people to do what they like so long as it doesn't adversely affect others. And we enforce them.
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
Should intolerance be tolerated and vice versa?
We are stuck in a circle between tolerating intolerance and intolerating tolerance. Should we be tolerating the intolerance of others or will that make us intolerant too?
A classic conundrum.
IMO we should not be tolerating intolerance when doing so risks undermining the very values which give rise to our tolerance. Toleration on its own is meaningless. It is now uttered as a mantra with little real thought ("oh we must be tolerant of this and that" no matter how ghastly).
But toleration depends on a group of people - let's call it a nation - having a broadly similar understanding and acceptance of some basic norms, of where, broadly, the boundaries are, some basic shared values. A sort of implicit understanding of who we are and how we do things round here and what is absolutely not on. Within those fairly wide boundaries, you can tolerate all sorts of eccentricities and oddities and unusual behaviours and views because, broadly, there is a recognition that we're all part of the same national family and have each others' backs, have - when push comes to shove - each others' interests at heart, will if necessary fight for each other. You need that to have toleration, a live and let live approach.
But it works much less well when you have people within that family who do not share or actively reject those norms, who seek to undermine the family, who use your toleration not as a shield but as a sword against you. And I do not believe we have an obligation to tolerate this. Indeed doing so is pathetic weakness.
I have posted this quote before but it's worth quoting again:
"The laissez-faire approach to liberty in these circumstances is an act, not of principle, but of moral cowardice. Like the pacifist whose only concern is keeping his own hands free of blood, the liberal only concerned with his own reputation for tolerance ends up complicit in the crimes he ignores."
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
Should intolerance be tolerated and vice versa?
We are stuck in a circle between tolerating intolerance and intolerating tolerance. Should we be tolerating the intolerance of others or will that make us intolerant too?
A classic conundrum.
Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby and Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid could give you some good advice.
The Water Babies is a fine children's book - I gather it's considered racist or something these days and off the approved list. What a pity.
Miss Cyclefree, quite (must admit I'd never heard of that chap before now).
The economy does matter, but making a purely economic argument, regardless of social or cultural or political impact, reduces the people to slaves selling themselves to the highest bidder. The economy often is the one crucial argument for a decision, but it isn't always so.
Remain even buggered that up with their overblown fear-mongering, which then led people to discount more credible claims that they made.
Looking to the future, and thinking of the burka ban polling, if UKIP can seize that sort of territory, they could do handily, especially if facing an open borders friend of Hamas.
Mr Dancer, I'd argue that, in a generally affluent society where the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and health are met, economic factors matter far less than higher order psychological factors such as respect, control and purpose. I'd wager that many of those (particularly Labour supporters) who voted Out felt disrespected and helpless.
And the fact that such people are being given goodies by the EU does not make them feel more warmly inclined to it. If anything people dislike being made to feel the object of charity, made to feel grateful rather than feeling able to make their own decisions about their lives. That's why, in part, the "Take Control" meme of the Leave campaign was so powerful.
One reason perhaps why areas such as Wales - the recipient of so much EU largesse - voted Leave.
I've written quite a lot about Wales, and it's worth putting this into perspective. The numbers come from a report in May 2016 from Cardiff Uni's WGC. Net, Wales receives around £245m p.a. from the four main EU funds. That's around £80 per person per year. In my book, that's not largesse.
Digging a little deeper, and looking at some of the big ticket items, they include things like a new research building for Swansea Uni (£31m), an imaging unit for Cardiff Uni (£16m), a new campus for Swansea Uni (£40m) and the dualling of the HoV road (£80m). All worthwhile I'm sure, but hardly things to get a valley boy's heart pounding.
It is more clear than that.
Westminster subsidises the valleys in multiple ways and with many benefits, but you will not hear much good said about it as a result. Ditto Liverpool or the NE. This is true even under Labour governments.
I had the spreadsheet someone kindly loaded which had the predicted result for every consitutency if nationally it was 50/50.
Sunderland was 53/47 for national draw so I waited nervously with no TV just refreshing PB as soon as I caught up with messages - so about every minute.
As soon soon as Sunderland was in at 61/39 it looked like game over.
Miss Cyclefree, quite (must admit I'd never heard of that chap before now).
The economy does matter, but making a purely economic argument, regardless of social or cultural or political impact, reduces the people to slaves selling themselves to the highest bidder. The economy often is the one crucial argument for a decision, but it isn't always so.
Remain even buggered that up with their overblown fear-mongering, which then led people to discount more credible claims that they made.
Looking to the future, and thinking of the burka ban polling, if UKIP can seize that sort of territory, they could do handily, especially if facing an open borders friend of Hamas.
Mr Dancer, I'd argue that, in a generally affluent society where the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and health are met, economic factors matter far less than higher order psychological factors such as respect, control and purpose. I'd wager that many of those (particularly Labour supporters) who voted Out felt disrespected and helpless.
And the fact that such people are being given goodies by the EU does not make them feel more warmly inclined to it. If anything people dislike being made to feel the object of charity, made to feel grateful rather than feeling able to make their own decisions about their lives. That's why, in part, the "Take Control" meme of the Leave campaign was so powerful.
One reason perhaps why areas such as Wales - the recipient of so much EU largesse - voted Leave.
Generally what happens is that the money comes from everyone - including ordinary folk - in tax.
What comesnback in subsidies tends to go to public sector or quasi public sector organisations.
So the money is perceived as being taken from ordinary people and given to establishment insiders, hangers on and cronies. A sort of reverse Robin Hood.
The worst example of that is the BBC which levies a poll tax and then uses it to spew Guardianista propaganda disguised as news and documentaries
I don't know what domestic BBC coverage of the presidential election is like, but here it is awful - biased and selective.
Yesterday morning BBC World Service had 2 commentators on discussing the week in US politics. The last questions was whether they felt the race had tightened. The first one said yes, and it's now closer than he is comfortable with. The other one said it had and he didn't like it. Both were Americans working at UK universities.
In general they cover Clinton low key and factual. With Trump every story seems to be in the style of "Can you believe what this crazy guy has done/ said now?"
You expect that from liberal hotbeds CNN and MsNBC but the beeb?
I had the spreadsheet someone kindly loaded which had the predicted result for every consitutency if nationally it was 50/50.
Sunderland was 53/47 for national draw so I waited nervously with no TV just refreshing PB as soon as I caught up with messages - so about every minute.
As soon soon as Sunderland was in at 61/39 it looked like game over.
I think Newcastle was the more interesting result. We knew that Sunderland - where UKIP was on more than 2x its national share - was always going to be a great result. It was when Newcastle was only marginally for Remain that I piled in.
Nationalism, with its rigid insistence on an us and a them, is, alongside religion, what keeps the fires of hatred burning.
I have some sympathy with this viewpoint.
However, with a global population of 7.4 billion, seeing purpose in an individual's life is problematic unless it is set at a local level. This is where smaller units with more homogenous culture are valuable. Nationalism and religion both help create such cultures, but inevitably feed the devils spirits as well as the angel spirits.
Alas, you can't have the one without the other, and until there is a purpose beyond this planet, I don't see the world's population uniting as one under some internationalist creed, even on clearly supranational issues.
On topic. Something in this, TSE, though I think a desire to troll a few notable posters may have been a factor in its writing! 20-1 is probably about right.
I was lucky enough to be at the Colchester Borough Count (53.5% Leave) in the wee hours of the 24th of June, but part of me wishes I'd been at home with PB and AndyJS's spreadsheet in front of me, making oodles of cash.
That said, I don't know if I'd have had the nerve. I didn't believe it when I saw the Sunderland result on the TV in the corner of the gym where the count was, or when I was driving home at 3am and Vince Cable was basically conceding defeat on Radio 4. I wasn't even convinced at 20 to 5 when Dimbleby announced the BBC was calling it for Leave. Some time after that but before the final, official result I realised we really had done it, drowsily high-fived my Dad, and went to bed.
Your dad is presumably over 100 as we know that only octogenarians voted brexit?
That's it. He spitefully clung onto life just so he could be wheeled down to the polling station and rob the youth of their glorious European future.
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
Should intolerance be tolerated and vice versa?
We are stuck in a circle between tolerating intolerance and intolerating tolerance. Should we be tolerating the intolerance of others or will that make us intolerant too?
A classic conundrum.
I really don't see the problem. We make laws that allow people to do what they like so long as it doesn't adversely affect others. And we enforce them.
But we are tolerating behavior that does adversely affect others. And that is not tolerance. It is weakness.
Since you are on, you posted this a few threads back: "I find it frankly bizarre that authorising a government to dictate what people are permitted to wear can in any way, shape or form be described as liberalism. It's not. It's authoritarianism." (In relation to the burqa issue.)
Germany has a law - the Strafgesetzbuch section 86a - which bans, inter alia, Nazi uniforms. We also do not permit people to walk down the street naked. I think it is permissible within reason to dictate what people can and cannot wear. That does not make a country authoritarian. Indeed it may be the liberal thing to do in order to prevent others being forced into wearing a garment they don't want to wear (eg women pressured into the burqa) i.e. to enlarge the freedom of the many rather than the few.
God, I hate this film so much. I want to set it on fire. I want to kick it to splinters in front of its crying children. I want to drown it in a bucket of horse diarrhoea. This is the worst, most offensive thing I have ever seen.
At 9.50pm the heavens opened above Beverley and I sheltered against the church hall polling station as the last voters dribbled in. Observed the ballot boxes being sealed then drove home to change before heading to the E Yorks count at Beverley Leisure Centre. Was optimistic for our count at least (60% Leave). Newcastle gave hope, Sunderland more above all it was from tallying the ballots. Not one had Remain ahead and some in Holderness were 80 / 90 % Leave. Optimism turned to certainty as the faces of the Remainers at the count (only 2 of 15 had ever been seen campaigning - revealing in itself). As their faces turned from stone-faced to teary-eyed we knew we had done it. Wonderful times.
I don't know what domestic BBC coverage of the presidential election is like, but here it is awful - biased and selective.
Yesterday morning BBC World Service had 2 commentators on discussing the week in US politics. The last questions was whether they felt the race had tightened. The first one said yes, and it's now closer than he is comfortable with. The other one said it had and he didn't like it. Both were Americans working at UK universities.
In general they cover Clinton low key and factual. With Trump every story seems to be in the style of "Can you believe what this crazy guy has done/ said now?"
You expect that from liberal hotbeds CNN and MsNBC but the beeb?
Sky are just the same - and every paper inc The Times. It's so tediously biased that I rarely even bother watching or reading it now.
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
Should intolerance be tolerated and vice versa?
We are stuck in a circle between tolerating intolerance and intolerating tolerance. Should we be tolerating the intolerance of others or will that make us intolerant too?
A classic conundrum.
I really don't see the problem. We make laws that allow people to do what they like so long as it doesn't adversely affect others. And we enforce them.
The french Burkini business is ridiculous. Face covering in public is one thing (for a start if I am walking down a dark alley is the person in a burka a muslim lady or a tattoed white male concealing a knife under it and about to mug me? But such laws would equally apply to balaclavas etc. and we dont allow public nudity so the precedent is there.
But beyond that then the law should not interfere with clothing - with the possible exception of offensive slogans written on that might cause a bleach of the police.
You expect that from liberal hotbeds CNN and MsNBC but the beeb?
As an ex beeb employee, yes, I'd fully expect it. There is a bias so deeply entrenched that it defines the very ethos of the organisation without them consciously realising it.
I'd love to see some official statistics on this. Next time they survey the sex, ethnicity and background of staff to see how representative of the overall population they are, let's find out political persuasion as well. And Brexit stance while we're at it.
Somehow I doubt the proportion of Tory/UKIP/Brexit supporters would even remotely reflect the populous.
Fair enough. Let's agree to disagree. You are one of the less annoying PB Remainians. It's the ones who tell me I'm a racist and a xenophobe for voting LEAVE and that the only moral course was voting REMAIN etc etc, that really get my insult-o-goat.
Grr.
But it's a lovely evening, and I know what you mean about warming over tired arguments. Let's just agree we are once again a sovereign nation, with no one to blame - or congratulate - but ourselves. And for that some of us would like to REJOICE.
I'm off for a walk up Primrose Hill, as the summer ebbs...
SeanT. Has been a lovely, mellow day in London. Calls to mind Keats:
'And still more later flowers for the bees, Until they think warm days will never cease'
I don't know what domestic BBC coverage of the presidential election is like, but here it is awful - biased and selective.
Yesterday morning BBC World Service had 2 commentators on discussing the week in US politics. The last questions was whether they felt the race had tightened. The first one said yes, and it's now closer than he is comfortable with. The other one said it had and he didn't like it. Both were Americans working at UK universities.
In general they cover Clinton low key and factual. With Trump every story seems to be in the style of "Can you believe what this crazy guy has done/ said now?"
You expect that from liberal hotbeds CNN and MsNBC but the beeb?
Sky are just the same - and every paper inc The Times. It's so tediously biased that I rarely even bother watching or reading it now.
There are a few pro Trump commentators eg Simon Heffer in the Mail and Katie Hopkins in the Mailonline and on LBC and the Telegraph covers him reasonably fairly but given outside of UKIP voters most Brits can't stand Trump the coverage is bound to reflect that
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
Should intolerance be tolerated and vice versa?
We are stuck in a circle between tolerating intolerance and intolerating tolerance. Should we be tolerating the intolerance of others or will that make us intolerant too?
A classic conundrum.
Mrs Doasyouwouldbedoneby and Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid could give you some good advice.
The Water Babies is a fine children's book - I gather it's considered racist or something these days and off the approved list. What a pity.
Charles Kingsley was a friend of a benefactor of my school, and it was at that friend's house where he got the inspiration to write The Water-Babies. The house has a lake in front of it.
At 9.50pm the heavens opened above Beverley and I sheltered against the church hall polling station as the last voters dribbled in. Observed the ballot boxes being sealed then drove home to change before heading to the E Yorks count at Beverley Leisure Centre. Was optimistic for our count at least (60% Leave). Newcastle gave hope, Sunderland more above all it was from tallying the ballots. Not one had Remain ahead and some in Holderness were 80 / 90 % Leave. Optimism turned to certainty as the faces of the Remainers at the count (only 2 of 15 had ever been seen campaigning - revealing in itself). As their faces turned from stone-faced to teary-eyed we knew we had done it. Wonderful times.
At the Colchester count, I was tallying ballots and a Lib Dem lady asked how it was looking at this particular polling station. I was happy to oblige as it looked good for Leave, then made some offhand comment about how I was probably too tired to be doing this after doing GOTV all day. She seemed genuinely surprised, and said that as far as she was concerned, if people were going to bother voting they'd have done so because of seeing TV coverage.
God, I hate this film so much. I want to set it on fire. I want to kick it to splinters in front of its crying children. I want to drown it in a bucket of horse diarrhoea. This is the worst, most offensive thing I have ever seen.
Shall we put him down as undecided ?
I still haven't got over her plastic surgery - I'd no idea who she was afterwards. It was Witness Protection level stuff.
Miss Cyclefree, quite (must admit I'd never heard of that chap before now).
The economy does matter, but making a purely economic argument, regardless of social or cultural or political impact, reduces the people to slaves selling themselves to the highest bidder. The economy often is the one crucial argument for a decision, but it isn't always so.
Remain even buggered that up with their overblown fear-mongering, which then led people to discount more credible claims that they made.
Looking to the future, and thinking of the burka ban polling, if UKIP can seize that sort of territory, they could do handily, especially if facing an open borders friend of Hamas.
Generally what happens is that the money comes from everyone - including ordinary folk - in tax.
What comesnback in subsidies tends to go to public sector or quasi public sector organisations.
So the money is perceived as being taken from ordinary people and given to establishment insiders, hangers on and cronies. A sort of reverse Robin Hood.
The worst example of that is the BBC which levies a poll tax and then uses it to spew Guardianista propaganda disguised as news and documentaries
I don't know what domestic BBC coverage of the presidential election is like, but here it is awful - biased and selective.
Yesterday morning BBC World Service had 2 commentators on discussing the week in US politics. The last questions was whether they felt the race had tightened. The first one said yes, and it's now closer than he is comfortable with. The other one said it had and he didn't like it. Both were Americans working at UK universities.
In general they cover Clinton low key and factual. With Trump every story seems to be in the style of "Can you believe what this crazy guy has done/ said now?"
You expect that from liberal hotbeds CNN and MsNBC but the beeb?
It was much the same before Brexit. Just swap Farage or Boris for Trump and call me Dave for Clinton.
They are so cocooned in their metropolitan bubble they cant conceive how any reasonable person could think otherwise.
God, I hate this film so much. I want to set it on fire. I want to kick it to splinters in front of its crying children. I want to drown it in a bucket of horse diarrhoea. This is the worst, most offensive thing I have ever seen.
Shall we put him down as undecided ?
Just seeing a clip of it on BBC1 news earlier, I had the same sort of visceral reaction.
Save that even such people rely on the nation to protect them from harm or on the nation's laws. Their class and lifestyle are dependant on the nation, even if they refuse to recognize this. When they berate multinational companies for not paying tax they are berating them for not paying tax to one country so that the money can be spent by that country for that country's benefit.
Look at the ages and jobs of those killed in the Bataclan massacre: young, mobile, many working in new techie industries, not all French. And yet, in the end, those who survived depended on the forces of law from a state, a nation - and it is the rulers of that nation who are now feeling the concerns of the people of that nation for not doing what the first duty of any state is - to protect them from enemies, at home and abroad.
And the same is true here and in other countries, no matter how mobile and tech savvy we may be, no matter how many nationalities are friends and relatives come from.
Those who think nations, tribes, groups are passé are the delusional ones, IMO. A dangerous delusion because if you do not have some recognizable political entity based on a territory how are you going to have democracy. There has to be a people, a demos and there have to be geographical boundaries to that demos.
I don't think any of those of us with an international outlook are advocating anarchy as a solution, as you seem to be implying! Personally, I'd like to see devolution of government, both upwards and downwards, with supranational entities administering supranational issues and local entities administering local issues. Nationalism, with its rigid insistence on an us and a them, is, alongside religion, what keeps the fires of hatred burning.
You are assuming that nationalism necessarily brings hatred in its wake. It certainly did so in the 20th century but maybe that was because the nationalism was to a very significant extent based on ethnic and/or religious roots, rather than on democratic foundations. It does not follow at all that nationalism e.g. a feeling that one is British and some sort of pride in Britain, in what it has done and what it can do necessarily leads to hating others. That is a very old-fashioned view, as if the only sort of nationalism that could possibly exist is the sort that disfigured Europe in the last century.
I am tremendously proud of the team I have built and run at work. It does not mean that I hate other teams. I am proud of my family, both my forebears and my children. I love them more than other families. But it doesn't mean that I hate other families or other children.
This idea that nationalism is - and can only be - a bad thing needs challenging.
Speaking of media bias, HLN (a CNN channel) the other day aired an interview with a man who rescued a baby from a hot car. In the initial broadcast the man is clearly wearing a TRUMP 2016 t shirt. In subsequent re-airs the logo was blurred out.
Miss Cyclefree, quite (must admit I'd never heard of that chap before now).
The economy does matter, but making a purely economic argument, regardless of social or cultural or political impact, reduces the people to slaves selling themselves to the highest bidder. The economy often is the one crucial argument for a decision, but it isn't always so.
Remain even buggered that up with their overblown fear-mongering, which then led people to discount more credible claims that they made.
Looking to the future, and thinking of the burka ban polling, if UKIP can seize that sort of territory, they could do handily, especially if facing an open borders friend of Hamas.
Mr Dancer, I'd argue that, in a generally affluent society where the basic physiological needs of food, shelter and health are met, economic factors matter far less than higher order psychological factors such as respect, control and purpose. I'd wager that many of those (particularly Labour supporters) who voted Out felt disrespected and helpless.
And the fact that such people are being given goodies by the EU does not make them feel more warmly inclined to it. If anything people dislike being made to feel the object of charity, made to feel grateful rather than feeling able to make their own decisions about their lives. That's why, in part, the "Take Control" meme of the Leave campaign was so powerful.
One reason perhaps why areas such as Wales - the recipient of so much EU largesse - voted Leave.
I've written quite a lot about Wales, and it's worth putting this into perspective. The numbers come from a report in May 2016 from Cardiff Uni's WGC. Net, Wales receives around £245m p.a. from the four main EU funds. That's around £80 per person per year. In my book, that's not largesse.
Digging a little deeper, and looking at some of the big ticket items, they include things like a new research building for Swansea Uni (£31m), an imaging unit for Cardiff Uni (£16m), a new campus for Swansea Uni (£40m) and the dualling of the HoV road (£80m). All worthwhile I'm sure, but hardly things to get a valley boy's heart pounding.
It is more clear than that.
Westminster subsidises the valleys in multiple ways and with many benefits, but you will not hear much good said about it as a result. Ditto Liverpool or the NE. This is true even under Labour governments.
I think my point may have been lost in the detail. We've often heard about the EU's largesse.
In per/capita terms its Sweet Felicity Arkwright. In practical terms it goes to academia and infrastructure companies like Costain.
Mr. Royale, indeed. For some people, they genuinely associate themselves with a class or lifestyle [I mean neither in a derogatory sense] than with a nation. The internet and cheap travel has helped to foster this sort of thing.
[Snipped]
Save that even such people rely on the nation to protect them from harm or on the nation's laws. Their class and lifestyle are dependant on the nation, even if they refuse to recognize this. When they berate multinational companies for not paying tax they are berating them for not paying tax to one country so that the money can be spent by that country for that country's benefit.
Look at the ages and jobs of those killed in the Bataclan massacre: young, mobile, many working in new techie industries, not all French. And yet, in the end, those who survived depended on the forces of law from a state, a nation - and it is the rulers of that nation who are now feeling the concerns of the people of that nation for not doing what the first duty of any state is - to protect them from enemies, at home and abroad.
And the same is true here and in other countries, no matter how mobile and tech savvy we may be, no matter how many nationalities are friends and relatives come from.
Those who think nations, tribes, groups are passé are the delusional ones, IMO. A dangerous delusion because if you do not have some recognizable political entity based on a territory how are you going to have democracy. There has to be a people, a demos and there have to be geographical boundaries to that demos.
I don't think any of those of us with an international outlook are advocating anarchy as a solution, as you seem to be implying! Personally, I'd like to see devolution of government, both upwards and downwards, with supranational entities administering supranational issues and local entities administering local issues. Nationalism, with its rigid insistence on an us and a them, is, alongside religion, what keeps the fires of hatred burning.
Great. Hermine is likely to strengthen to a cat 1 hurricane before making landfall overnight in Florida. Looks like heavy rain for me Friday and maybe Saturday, but luckily no high winds.
God, I hate this film so much. I want to set it on fire. I want to kick it to splinters in front of its crying children. I want to drown it in a bucket of horse diarrhoea. This is the worst, most offensive thing I have ever seen.
Shall we put him down as undecided ?
Just seeing a clip of it on BBC1 news earlier, I had the same sort of visceral reaction.
So it is just slightly better than the latest Ghostbusters :-)
God, I hate this film so much. I want to set it on fire. I want to kick it to splinters in front of its crying children. I want to drown it in a bucket of horse diarrhoea. This is the worst, most offensive thing I have ever seen.
Shall we put him down as undecided ?
Just seeing a clip of it on BBC1 news earlier, I had the same sort of visceral reaction.
So it is just slightly better than the latest Ghostbusters :-)
The feminist Ghostbusters is wincingly awful according to the trailer and reviews - appallingly sexist, misandrist and cardboard cut out characters.
Whilst Milo is not my cup of tea at all - he did a very funny review of it.
"Teenage Boys With Tits: Here’s My Problem With Ghostbusters"
Great. Hermine is likely to strengthen to a cat 1 hurricane before making landfall overnight in Florida. Looks like heavy rain for me Friday and maybe Saturday, but luckily no high winds.
Hey Tim
How many games is Romo's season going to last this year?
You expect that from liberal hotbeds CNN and MsNBC but the beeb?
As an ex beeb employee, yes, I'd fully expect it. There is a bias so deeply entrenched that it defines the very ethos of the organisation without them consciously realising it.
I'd love to see some official statistics on this. Next time they survey the sex, ethnicity and background of staff to see how representative of the overall population they are, let's find out political persuasion as well. And Brexit stance while we're at it.
Somehow I doubt the proportion of Tory/UKIP/Brexit supporters would even remotely reflect the populous.
I believe post Gulf War the Beeb did do an in-house review along those sort of lines in order to assess the claims of bias against it. I believe the upshot was that there was no institutional bias, as in directives from on high, but rather, as you say, a deep-grained groupthink bias arising from the fact that those who apply to the Beeb are self selecting for a particular political and social mindset. Thus the workforce at large is so unrepresentative of the populace that it is incapable of being unbiased.
I don't know what domestic BBC coverage of the presidential election is like, but here it is awful - biased and selective.
Yesterday morning BBC World Service had 2 commentators on discussing the week in US politics. The last questions was whether they felt the race had tightened. The first one said yes, and it's now closer than he is comfortable with. The other one said it had and he didn't like it. Both were Americans working at UK universities.
In general they cover Clinton low key and factual. With Trump every story seems to be in the style of "Can you believe what this crazy guy has done/ said now?"
You expect that from liberal hotbeds CNN and MsNBC but the beeb?
Sky are just the same - and every paper inc The Times. It's so tediously biased that I rarely even bother watching or reading it now.
There are a few pro Trump commentators eg Simon Heffer in the Mail and Katie Hopkins in the Mailonline and on LBC and the Telegraph covers him reasonably fairly but given outside of UKIP voters most Brits can't stand Trump the coverage is bound to reflect that
trump says crazy racist things on purpose. Most people should hate him
Mr. Royale, indeed. For some people, they genuinely associate themselves with a class or lifestyle [I mean neither in a derogatory sense] than with a nation. The internet and cheap travel has helped to foster this sort of thing.
[Snipped]
Save that even such people rely on the nation to protect them from harm or on the nation's laws. Their class and lifestyle are dependant on the nation, even if they refuse to recognize this. When they berate multinational companies for not paying tax they are berating them for not paying tax to one country so that the money can be spent by that country for that country's benefit.
Look at the ages and jobs of those killed in the Bataclan massacre: young, mobile, many working in new techie industries, not all French. And yet, in the end, those who survived depended on the forces of law from a state, a nation - and it is the rulers of that nation who are now feeling the concerns of the people of that nation for not doing what the first duty of any state is - to protect them from enemies, at home and abroad.
And the same is true here and in other countries, no matter how mobile and tech savvy we may be, no matter how many nationalities are friends and relatives come from.
Those who think nations, tribes, groups are passé are the delusional ones, IMO. A dangerous delusion because if you do not have some recognizable political entity based on a territory how are you going to have democracy. There has to be a people, a demos and there have to be geographical boundaries to that demos.
I don't think any of those of us with an international outlook are advocating anarchy as a solution, as you seem to be implying! Personally, I'd like to see devolution of government, both upwards and downwards, with supranational entities administering supranational issues and local entities administering local issues. Nationalism, with its rigid insistence on an us and a them, is, alongside religion, what keeps the fires of hatred burning.
But you are insisting on us and them. In your case, you want to get rid of religion. You think it would all be all right if it weren't for those awful people with their awful ideas getting in the way. No different than a radical Muslim wishing there were no infidels or a Christian wishing their were no heathens.
Great. Hermine is likely to strengthen to a cat 1 hurricane before making landfall overnight in Florida. Looks like heavy rain for me Friday and maybe Saturday, but luckily no high winds.
Hey Tim
How many games is Romo's season going to last this year?
Oh...
Counting pre-season? Perhaps the only opportunity to count this season
TimB - do you think Dak is for real and will he be ready against A team defences?
PS We are due to get 0.1" of rain from Hermine. Did you see the Skins game against Tampa on Wednesday? - bucketing down.
I don't know what domestic BBC coverage of the presidential election is like, but here it is awful - biased and selective.
Yesterday morning BBC World Service had 2 commentators on discussing the week in US politics. The last questions was whether they felt the race had tightened. The first one said yes, and it's now closer than he is comfortable with. The other one said it had and he didn't like it. Both were Americans working at UK universities.
In general they cover Clinton low key and factual. With Trump every story seems to be in the style of "Can you believe what this crazy guy has done/ said now?"
You expect that from liberal hotbeds CNN and MsNBC but the beeb?
Sky are just the same - and every paper inc The Times. It's so tediously biased that I rarely even bother watching or reading it now.
There are a few pro Trump commentators eg Simon Heffer in the Mail and Katie Hopkins in the Mailonline and on LBC and the Telegraph covers him reasonably fairly but given outside of UKIP voters most Brits can't stand Trump the coverage is bound to reflect that
trump says crazy racist things on purpose. Most people should hate him
Overall Trump was a benefit for the LEAVE campaign (so was Obama of course but he didn't mean it).
The left should hateTrump since he is the antithesis of all they stand for.
And FYI - Trump says lot less racist things than CNN would have you believe.
Comments
Also, the idea that there is a Labour Party compliance unit that members of the public can inform on people to just cracks me up...
Go on, grass him up, he's better off not having friends like you.
Bournemouth UA, Kinson North, Con defence
Cornwall UA, Four Lanes, UKIP defence
Dorset CC, Ferndown, Con defence
East Dorset DC, Parley, Con defence
Stockton on Tees UA, Grangefield, Lab defence
Otley TC, Ashfield, LDx2 defence
Lymington and Pennington TC, Pennington, Con defence.
The Cornwall and Dorset seats look the most interesting.
Mr. Stopper, there's another issue for Labour, which is that its two wings now appear to be Practically Communist and Metropolitan. The working class could be swept up by UKIP, or simply not turn out next time.
Your friend will presumably conclude that they have received a private tip-off. This may well have uncomfortable consequences for your friendship.
It so happens that friends of my voted in the Scottish Referendum. They were second home owners, and so they were not actually entitled to do so. I did nothing (although I told them I didn’t approve).
I think if I was going to do it, I’d prefer to do it openly.
Personally, I find the statistical argument compelling. None of these minor infractions are actually likely to change the result when the electorate is sufficiently large.
Look at the ages and jobs of those killed in the Bataclan massacre: young, mobile, many working in new techie industries, not all French. And yet, in the end, those who survived depended on the forces of law from a state, a nation - and it is the rulers of that nation who are now feeling the concerns of the people of that nation for not doing what the first duty of any state is - to protect them from enemies, at home and abroad.
And the same is true here and in other countries, no matter how mobile and tech savvy we may be, no matter how many nationalities are friends and relatives come from.
Those who think nations, tribes, groups are passé are the delusional ones, IMO. A dangerous delusion because if you do not have some recognizable political entity based on a territory how are you going to have democracy. There has to be a people, a demos and there have to be geographical boundaries to that demos.
We just talked about New Zealand last week.
This also cuts into the extremist Islam versus Western civilisation line. The former, for all its flaws, has clear confidence and a cohesive certainty. The latter, hobbled by helpful idiots*, the doubters and tolerance which sometimes stretches to accepting intolerance, lacks that to significant extent.
Given the political implications, this could actually be a good topic for a thread on a slow news day.
*Reminds me of Lib Dems suddenly discovering their inner rightwinger when they wanted the police to use rubber bullets or even live ammunition during the 2011 London looting.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/us/politics/donald-trump-immigration-speech.html?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/TSMS12FW37
You can see the original text in a few tweets like: https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/771201493730889728?s=09
All Labour’s Scottish disasters occurred under Ed Miliband stewardship as well (Holyrood 2011, Sindy and Westminster 2015).
He was an absolute catastrophe for Labour, yet strangely he has eluded a lot of the blame.
I got an economics degree from the Open University in the early 70s - surely that doesn't count in this rarefied air of Mensa candidate quality wonks?
Digging a little deeper, and looking at some of the big ticket items, they include things like a new research building for Swansea Uni (£31m), an imaging unit for Cardiff Uni (£16m), a new campus for Swansea Uni (£40m) and the dualling of the HoV road (£80m). All worthwhile I'm sure, but hardly things to get a valley boy's heart pounding.
Good decade, the 70s. Vespasian was a top chap.
I think one of the distinctions between the Islamic world and the West is that the former is, to a large extent, an "honour" culture whereas the West has a "guilt" and a "doubt" culture, a legacy of its Christian heritage. Easy for the latter to become weak, as you have described. But also to be underestimated. Slow to anger and all that, but when sufficiently angered to be feared. At least I bloody hope so!
Incidentally, Seamus Heaney was an Irish poet. He died in 2013. Our very own @SeanT does not rate him. But I do.
The author wrote a book called 'After Blair', which I must reread to see if any of his predictions came remotely true.
He's also a philosopher cum computer scientist which is an interesting mix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#The_paradox_of_tolerance
We are stuck in a circle between tolerating intolerance and intolerating tolerance.
Should we be tolerating the intolerance of others or will that make us intolerant too?
A classic conundrum.
That said, I don't know if I'd have had the nerve. I didn't believe it when I saw the Sunderland result on the TV in the corner of the gym where the count was, or when I was driving home at 3am and Vince Cable was basically conceding defeat on Radio 4. I wasn't even convinced at 20 to 5 when Dimbleby announced the BBC was calling it for Leave. Some time after that but before the final, official result I realised we really had done it, drowsily high-fived my Dad, and went to bed.
What comesnback in subsidies tends to go to public sector or quasi public sector organisations.
So the money is perceived as being taken from ordinary people and given to establishment insiders, hangers on and cronies. A sort of reverse Robin Hood.
The worst example of that is the BBC which levies a poll tax and then uses it to spew Guardianista propaganda disguised as news and documentaries
SpreadEx was very generous, and had Remain as favourite for far, far too long.
But toleration depends on a group of people - let's call it a nation - having a broadly similar understanding and acceptance of some basic norms, of where, broadly, the boundaries are, some basic shared values. A sort of implicit understanding of who we are and how we do things round here and what is absolutely not on. Within those fairly wide boundaries, you can tolerate all sorts of eccentricities and oddities and unusual behaviours and views because, broadly, there is a recognition that we're all part of the same national family and have each others' backs, have - when push comes to shove - each others' interests at heart, will if necessary fight for each other. You need that to have toleration, a live and let live approach.
But it works much less well when you have people within that family who do not share or actively reject those norms, who seek to undermine the family, who use your toleration not as a shield but as a sword against you. And I do not believe we have an obligation to tolerate this. Indeed doing so is pathetic weakness.
I have posted this quote before but it's worth quoting again:
"The laissez-faire approach to liberty in these circumstances is an act, not of principle, but of moral cowardice. Like the pacifist whose only concern is keeping his own hands free of blood, the liberal only concerned with his own reputation for tolerance ends up complicit in the crimes he ignores."
https://interestingliterature.com/2013/10/09/things-you-may-not-know-about-the-water-babies/
Westminster subsidises the valleys in multiple ways and with many benefits, but you will not hear much good said about it as a result. Ditto Liverpool or the NE. This is true even under Labour governments.
Sunderland was 53/47 for national draw so I waited nervously with no TV just refreshing PB as soon as I caught up with messages - so about every minute.
As soon soon as Sunderland was in at 61/39 it looked like game over.
Yesterday morning BBC World Service had 2 commentators on discussing the week in US politics. The last questions was whether they felt the race had tightened. The first one said yes, and it's now closer than he is comfortable with. The other one said it had and he didn't like it. Both were Americans working at UK universities.
In general they cover Clinton low key and factual. With Trump every story seems to be in the style of "Can you believe what this crazy guy has done/ said now?"
You expect that from liberal hotbeds CNN and MsNBC but the beeb?
However, with a global population of 7.4 billion, seeing purpose in an individual's life is problematic unless it is set at a local level. This is where smaller units with more homogenous culture are valuable. Nationalism and religion both help create such cultures, but inevitably feed the devils spirits as well as the angel spirits.
Alas, you can't have the one without the other, and until there is a purpose beyond this planet, I don't see the world's population uniting as one under some internationalist creed, even on clearly supranational issues.
Since you are on, you posted this a few threads back: "I find it frankly bizarre that authorising a government to dictate what people are permitted to wear can in any way, shape or form be described as liberalism. It's not. It's authoritarianism." (In relation to the burqa issue.)
Germany has a law - the Strafgesetzbuch section 86a - which bans, inter alia, Nazi uniforms. We also do not permit people to walk down the street naked. I think it is permissible within reason to dictate what people can and cannot wear. That does not make a country authoritarian. Indeed it may be the liberal thing to do in order to prevent others being forced into wearing a garment they don't want to wear (eg women pressured into the burqa) i.e. to enlarge the freedom of the many rather than the few.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2016/aug/18/same-kind-of-different-as-me-trailer-review-renee-zellweger
God, I hate this film so much. I want to set it on fire. I want to kick it to splinters in front of its crying children. I want to drown it in a bucket of horse diarrhoea. This is the worst, most offensive thing I have ever seen.
Shall we put him down as undecided ?
But beyond that then the law should not interfere with clothing - with the possible exception of offensive slogans written on that might cause a bleach of the police.
I'd love to see some official statistics on this. Next time they survey the sex, ethnicity and background of staff to see how representative of the overall population they are, let's find out political persuasion as well. And Brexit stance while we're at it.
Somehow I doubt the proportion of Tory/UKIP/Brexit supporters would even remotely reflect the populous.
Grr.
But it's a lovely evening, and I know what you mean about warming over tired arguments. Let's just agree we are once again a sovereign nation, with no one to blame - or congratulate - but ourselves. And for that some of us would like to REJOICE.
I'm off for a walk up Primrose Hill, as the summer ebbs...
SeanT. Has been a lovely, mellow day in London. Calls to mind Keats:
'And still more later flowers for the bees,
Until they think warm days will never cease'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2801157/renee-zellweger-looks-drastically-different-elle-event.html
I am tremendously proud of the team I have built and run at work. It does not mean that I hate other teams. I am proud of my family, both my forebears and my children. I love them more than other families. But it doesn't mean that I hate other families or other children.
This idea that nationalism is - and can only be - a bad thing needs challenging.
When I replied that last time I got food from a supermarket I died of food poisoning they apologised for disturbing me and hung up.
In per/capita terms its Sweet Felicity Arkwright. In practical terms it goes to academia and infrastructure companies like Costain.
Whilst Milo is not my cup of tea at all - he did a very funny review of it.
"Teenage Boys With Tits: Here’s My Problem With Ghostbusters"
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/18/milo-reviews-ghostbusters/
How many games is Romo's season going to last this year?
Oh...
trump says crazy racist things on purpose. Most people should hate him
TimB - do you think Dak is for real and will he be ready against A team defences?
PS We are due to get 0.1" of rain from Hermine. Did you see the Skins game against Tampa on Wednesday? - bucketing down.
Incredible scenes of protest in Caracas Venezuela...frustration with govt seems to have hit boiling pt https://t.co/j7JH9YB6yM
The left should hateTrump since he is the antithesis of all they stand for.
And FYI - Trump says lot less racist things than CNN would have you believe.