It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.
So, what you're saying is that if Trump wins, China will suddenly back down?
The reality is that the US is weaker now than it has been for a long time, and has a President who is susceptible to flattery and is simultaneously scared of committing military force. Obama, at least, was willing to sail a US carrier group through the Formosa strait - while Trump has been much lower key, preferring to send the occasional missile cruiser, but never something as significant as a carrier group.
China has grown in confidence and grown in aggressiveness during the Trump Presidency: to deny that is to deny that the world is round. To claim that it is due to fear of a Biden Presidency, given their increased aggression long predates Trump's unpopularity, is simply delusional.
Also this: China has built a significant advantage in missiles. They could maybe wipe out a US carrier group that got too close
To be fair, China has had nuclear weapons for more 60 years - so they have always had the ability to wipe out a US carrier group. However, what they don't have is the ability to do it without provoking WW3.
It says, in the original, that "common characteristics of US white people, most of the time" are -
Self reliance Planning for the future Nuclear families The avoidance of conflict Politeness Hard work Working before playing Respect for authority Giving kids their own rooms, so they can be independent Punctuality Objective and rational thinking Protection of property Belief in cause and effect
That's what is says "characterises most American white people"
I'd like to know Katz' sources for this, or if she just made it up. I'm certainly not giving a blanket agreement to all of it, or necessarily any of it. My issue is with you- and the original tweeter- freaking out over things which don't really seem particularly outlandish.
Is it really that shocking. for example, to claim that the protestant work ethic a) is culturally dominant in the US and b) primarily originated with white settlers? Is it fair to characterise that claim as saying that only white people work hard?
I would associate that value list far more with Korean society than the US.
Okay? The article is about how traits associated with white culture have become treated as the default or norm in the US as a result of long-standing white dominance of US institutions. If you're saying that a lot of very similar traits are also treated as the default in Korea because they're also present in Korean culture then I don't really see how that's relevant.
It suggests that the list isn’t helpful as distinguishing white culture vs Korean culture
Just a comment on the Smithsonian fracas. Try reading Kate Fox 'Watching the English'. In this book she treats English culture to a bit of simple anthropology, as if they are an exotic tribe being observed. It's very popular, and funny too. The Smithsonian is doing a similar thing, though it is much more stereotyped and sharp, so uncomfortable. It reads more like a critical outsider might see a white culture.
The PB critics have included these broad criticisms:
The picture is white supremacist by attributing a range of self evident good qualities to a white culture only.
The picture is racist and anti-white by attributing a rage of doubtful qualities to a white culture.
The picture is racist and anti non-white because it implies every non white lacks a range of self evident good qualities.
It's woke nonsense gone mad.
I doubt if all these can be true. Personally I feel stereotyped by it, which is exactly I think what happens more to other groups than to whites. So I think it is of value.
I think the meaning of the graphic is that those traits are generally perceived to be associated with whiteness. So despite Nigerians being the most highly qualified of US immigrants, science is associated with whiteness.
It says white people "avoid conflict".
So white people are peaceful. "Whiteness is peace".
.
Yes, it is literally describing the social construct of whiteness.
Race is a social construct. This mind-blowingly woke idea was arrived at in the mid 1940s.
No, it is saying these ARE characteristics of white people
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time"
I always thought that the Govt explicitly wasn’t supposed to be involved in committee selections*? How can votes on composition/chairmanship be subject to whipping? Or is there something different about this particular committee?
*i have some memory years ago of a big fuss when the Blair govt tried to rig the committees.
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
The museum document is riddled with contradictions. At its core is the pseudo-intellectual claptrap commonly known as critical race theory. What I find disturbing is that it it is being propagated by a prominent cultural institution. The implied end product is more or less Apartheid.
A lot of that “white culture” poster is specific to WASP culture, surely?
Yes, it looks to me as if some of it draws on Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism', a brilliant account of why capitalism emerged in the UK and later the USA as a consequence partly of religious beliefs, in particular Protestantism/Calvinism. That culture was, of course, specifically White, and it remains a very powerful culture, in new variants, in the USA. This does not preclude similar values being adopted elsewhere, for example in the Far East or South East Asia.
Some fascinating US polling today. Rasmussen has Biden only three points up on Trump (47-44) which is a big swing to Trump from last week. As I can't access the crosstabs, the only nugget I have is Independents favour Biden by six this week compared with twelve last week.
Page 125 has the key numbers. Biden leads Trump 49-40 with a one point Trump lead among men (46-45) outbalanced by a 17 point Biden lead among women (52-35).
Trump leads 49-42 among White voters but Biden is up 46-40 in the Midwest and tied 45-45 in the South so an excellent poll for the Democrat challenger.
The CNBC/Change Research Poll crosstabs aren't very helpful:
It was asked why China has suddenly decided to come out all nasty to the world. I think the answer is that it has placed its bets on a Biden win in November and takes the view that, if he wins, Biden will be essentially Obama Mark 2, namely will want to avoid conflict and so will bend over backwards to do anything to calm China down. So China is probably thinking that the more it sabre rattles, the more Biden (or his successor) will look to give give aways.
So, what you're saying is that if Trump wins, China will suddenly back down?
The reality is that the US is weaker now than it has been for a long time, and has a President who is susceptible to flattery and is simultaneously scared of committing military force. Obama, at least, was willing to sail a US carrier group through the Formosa strait - while Trump has been much lower key, preferring to send the occasional missile cruiser, but never something as significant as a carrier group.
China has grown in confidence and grown in aggressiveness during the Trump Presidency: to deny that is to deny that the world is round. To claim that it is due to fear of a Biden Presidency, given their increased aggression long predates Trump's unpopularity, is simply delusional.
Also this: China has built a significant advantage in missiles. They could maybe wipe out a US carrier group that got too close
Soviets could have done that any day of the week. Surprised they did not?
I read somewhere that the US Navy refuses to take part in wargaming with the other services because all simulations of an all-out war result in the entire surface fleet being sunk within the first 24 hours.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
I stand corrected. After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.
I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.
I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke". Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.
A lot of that “white culture” poster is specific to WASP culture, surely?
Yes, it looks to me as if some of it draws on Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism', a brilliant account of why capitalism emerged in the UK and later the USA as a consequence partly of religious beliefs, in particular Protestantism/Calvinism. That culture was, of course, specifically White, and it remains a very powerful culture, in new variants, in the USA. This does not preclude similar values being adopted elsewhere, for example in the Far East or South East Asia.
Brilliant... if you ignore the evidence that plenty of other cultures discovered that freedom of thought combined with intellectualism and hard work produced results.
Its not rocket science. wearing masks must be compulsory.
In Switzerland, where everything is usually compulsory if it isn't illegal, it's apparently not a requirement to wear a mask (apart from public transport, which was only introduced on 1st July). Interesting.
That's a very weird caricature, Andy. Switzerland is not in the least authoritarian in legislation. It's conformist, a different trait. It's entirely typical that they'll leave it to people to decide to wear masks and nearly everyone in the cities will.
A lot of that “white culture” poster is specific to WASP culture, surely?
Yes, it looks to me as if some of it draws on Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism', a brilliant account of why capitalism emerged in the UK and later the USA as a consequence partly of religious beliefs, in particular Protestantism/Calvinism. That culture was, of course, specifically White, and it remains a very powerful culture, in new variants, in the USA. This does not preclude similar values being adopted elsewhere, for example in the Far East or South East Asia.
Brilliant... if you ignore the evidence that plenty of other cultures discovered that freedom of thought combined with intellectualism and hard work produced results.
Have you read it? Your comment is not particularly relevant to, nor does it refute, Weber's argument at all.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
I stand corrected. After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.
I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.
I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke". Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.
Is there any social change that has happened in the last 100 years where those against it have been on the right side of history? One for our small-c conservatives to ponder
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
I stand corrected. After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.
I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.
I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke". Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.
I agree with that. The issue today seems to be that today’s “woke” for want of a better word are fighting some very dubious wars in my opinion.
Nope he's an idiot as Julian now has zero reason to give the Government any benefit of the doubt
Looks like total war between backbench MPs and Cummings from now on.
Only one side can survive now.
One small and foolish step of authoritarianism by the government which helps SKS most. The sort of event which makes centrists (the ones every party needs the votes of actually to win) stop and think.
Cummings keeps his job. Lewis loses the whip. Which one has behaved badly in the eyes of voters?
Nope he's an idiot as Julian now has zero reason to give the Government any benefit of the doubt
Looks like total war between backbench MPs and Cummings from now on.
Only one side can survive now.
One small and foolish step of authoritarianism by the government which helps SKS most. The sort of event which makes centrists (the ones every party needs the votes of actually to win) stop and think.
Cummings keeps his job. Lewis loses the whip. Which one has behaved badly in the eyes of voters?
I think it is generally accepted in politics if you collude with the opposition you lose the whip
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
I seem to recall last Parliament one of the parties defectors got kicked off a Select Committee after they jumped ship to TIG didn't they? Can't remember which one, think it was a woman.
Nope he's an idiot as Julian now has zero reason to give the Government any benefit of the doubt
Looks like total war between backbench MPs and Cummings from now on.
Only one side can survive now.
One small and foolish step of authoritarianism by the government which helps SKS most. The sort of event which makes centrists (the ones every party needs the votes of actually to win) stop and think.
Cummings keeps his job. Lewis loses the whip. Which one has behaved badly in the eyes of voters?
I think it is generally accepted in politics if you collude with the opposition you lose the whip
It is central to the function of select committees that they are run by back benchers not the government of the day, so in this case it does not apply.
A lot of that “white culture” poster is specific to WASP culture, surely?
Yes, it looks to me as if some of it draws on Max Weber's 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism', a brilliant account of why capitalism emerged in the UK and later the USA as a consequence partly of religious beliefs, in particular Protestantism/Calvinism. That culture was, of course, specifically White, and it remains a very powerful culture, in new variants, in the USA. This does not preclude similar values being adopted elsewhere, for example in the Far East or South East Asia.
Brilliant... if you ignore the evidence that plenty of other cultures discovered that freedom of thought combined with intellectualism and hard work produced results.
Have you read it? Your comment is not particularly relevant to, nor does it refute, Weber's argument at all.
I have. It seemed rather Western centric in its thesis.
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.
There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.
Those are better results for Biden in Florida and Arizona that I would have expected. I wonder if - in both - it is a reaction to the renewed CV-19 outbreak.
IF Biden takes those five states, he's comfortably home and nowhere else matters though obviously Senate and House races will.
But it seems my question of yesterday has been answered. The wild prediction of 120K deaths from Covid (in hospitals alone) for next winter is based on the Ferguson model and its 13 year old code.
With the billions being spent on the virus response could they not have found another team who could build a new model with modern code which when presented with the inputs actually gives our current death levels of ≈ 50K and not 500K as predicted in March?
Some fascinating US polling today. Rasmussen has Biden only three points up on Trump (47-44) which is a big swing to Trump from last week. As I can't access the crosstabs, the only nugget I have is Independents favour Biden by six this week compared with twelve last week.
Page 125 has the key numbers. Biden leads Trump 49-40 with a one point Trump lead among men (46-45) outbalanced by a 17 point Biden lead among women (52-35).
Trump leads 49-42 among White voters but Biden is up 46-40 in the Midwest and tied 45-45 in the South so an excellent poll for the Democrat challenger.
The CNBC/Change Research Poll crosstabs aren't very helpful:
Nope he's an idiot as Julian now has zero reason to give the Government any benefit of the doubt
Looks like total war between backbench MPs and Cummings from now on.
Only one side can survive now.
One small and foolish step of authoritarianism by the government which helps SKS most. The sort of event which makes centrists (the ones every party needs the votes of actually to win) stop and think.
Cummings keeps his job. Lewis loses the whip. Which one has behaved badly in the eyes of voters?
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.
There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.
Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.
But it seems my question of yesterday has been answered. The wild prediction of 120K deaths from Covid (in hospitals alone) for next winter is based on the Ferguson model and its 13 year old code.
With the billions being spent on the virus response could they not have found another team who could build a new model with modern code which when presented with the inputs actually gives our current death levels of ≈ 50K and not 500K as predicted in March?
What was even more ridiculous is that the model didn’t just exclude a vaccine, or further lockdowns, but even assumed no treatment including those already being used successfully!
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.
There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.
Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.
So you think the protestant work ethic is universal, not cultural? Clue's in the name.
Since when have all white people been hard-working protestants? Some are lazy sods, or even Catholics.
What about atheists?
I associate the work ethic thing with the difference between broad cultural assumptions of protestants and Roman Catholics in Europe.
You can see a not dissimilar contrast between eg activist 'Western' culture and more fatalist Middle Eastern culture.
The atheist one is interesting - did not Dicky Dawkins talk about 'catholic' and 'protestant' atheists, but the point was too subtle for a lot of his crasser followers.
The militant atheists will be in saloon bars shouting at the lampshades.
Rasmussen's final poll in 2016 had Hillary up by 2%, she won by 2%
I'm not dismissing the Rasmussen poll but I've not seen the crosstabs either and I'd rather examine those to see possible over-sampling of any particular demographic or ethnic group rather than simply raking over the coals of four years ago.
OFF TOPIC - This from Texas Monthly 2020 Runoff Roundup
Former Travis County GOP chair and B-list Austin crank Robert Morrow has suffered a stinging defeat in his bid to serve on the State Board of Education. GOP voters were apparently not in the mood for Morrow’s ideas for Texas schoolchildren, including pole-dancing classes for high-schoolers and teaching that Lyndon Johnson assassinated John Kennedy.
Morrow is losing 78-22 to Lani Popp, who has a lovely name and seems wisely to have stayed off Twitter, her challenger’s preferred medium for anime porn. Current Travis County GOP chair Matt Mackowiak must be relieved that he will not have to follow through on his promise to “light [himself] on fire” if Morrow wins.
American politics just seems so much livelier than ours. We are supposed to be amused at a joke about underpants.
Texas is bigger & brasher at most things, including politics.
BUT Lone Star politics tame in some respects compared with Pelican State.
For example, had one friend of mine (the former ambassador's son) whose uncle once threatened in a drunken rage to assassinate His Honor the Mayor of New Orleans ("I'm gonna shot the god-damn son of a bitch!") because representatives from the city had come to his house and interrogated his wife about 100 or so unpaid parking tickets. He was dissuaded, but took some doing.
Interesting, had another friend (a fugitive from a Florida chain gang) who was once detained briefly by police ("arrest the usual suspects") following the murder of the same mayor's long-time mistress.
I could tell you soooo many stories...
Like the time my cousin Derek shot the ears off a dragon during lunch ... or when the Master of Temple Church chose to let it burn rather than use our well... or... [censored] no, not that one
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.
There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.
Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.
I don’t think it needs a Tory chair - that’s an implicit assumption of the Committee composition. But the issue is whether he owes his position on the Committee to taking the Tory whip in the first place. If he’s not on the Committee he can’t be chairman.
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.
There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.
Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.
I don’t think it needs a Tory chair - that’s an implicit assumption of the Committee composition. But the issue is whether he owes his position on the Committee to taking the Tory whip in the first place. If he’s not on the Committee he can’t be chairman.
Indeed that was my question. I'm pretty sure a defector lost their committee spot last year in similar circumstances, I think it was a woman who'd defected from Labour from memory but I can't remember who.
Some fascinating US polling today. Rasmussen has Biden only three points up on Trump (47-44) which is a big swing to Trump from last week. As I can't access the crosstabs, the only nugget I have is Independents favour Biden by six this week compared with twelve last week.
Page 125 has the key numbers. Biden leads Trump 49-40 with a one point Trump lead among men (46-45) outbalanced by a 17 point Biden lead among women (52-35).
Trump leads 49-42 among White voters but Biden is up 46-40 in the Midwest and tied 45-45 in the South so an excellent poll for the Democrat challenger.
The CNBC/Change Research Poll crosstabs aren't very helpful:
Those are better results for Biden in Florida and Arizona that I would have expected. I wonder if - in both - it is a reaction to the renewed CV-19 outbreak.
IF Biden takes those five states, he's comfortably home and nowhere else matters though obviously Senate and House races will.
If Biden takes Florida, he's got 261 electoral college votes, and at that point he just needs one of - Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina.
That being said... Florida swung against the Dems in 2018, so I wouldn't count on it if I were Joe Biden.
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.
There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.
Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.
Are you sure? I think Sarah Wollaston remained chair of the health committee throughout her party meanderings in the last parliament.
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
I seem to recall last Parliament one of the parties defectors got kicked off a Select Committee after they jumped ship to TIG didn't they? Can't remember which one, think it was a woman.
The only way to remove a member of the intelligence committee is via a vote in the house of commons - the rules are there if you spend 30 seconds on google
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.
There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.
Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.
Are you sure? I think Sarah Wollaston remained chair of the health committee throughout her party meanderings in the last parliament.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
I stand corrected. After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.
I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.
I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke". Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.
I agree with that. The issue today seems to be that today’s “woke” for want of a better word are fighting some very dubious wars in my opinion.
I had this argument with my kids (10 and 12 years old) - I said, "if I can be gender fluid, why can't I be species fluid? - why can't I self identify as a dog?"
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.
There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.
Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.
I don’t think it needs a Tory chair - that’s an implicit assumption of the Committee composition. But the issue is whether he owes his position on the Committee to taking the Tory whip in the first place. If he’s not on the Committee he can’t be chairman.
Indeed that was my question. I'm pretty sure a defector lost their committee spot last year in similar circumstances, I think it was a woman who'd defected from Labour from memory but I can't remember who.
Changing party does not trigger losing membership of a committee. You are elected to a committee solely in your role as an MP - and composition of committees is a consequence (broadly) of the split of the HoC along party lines.
I suspect that neither Cummings nor Johnson really understand that much about Parliamentary politics. Johnson because he’s too lazy to get involved in it, and Cummings because he’s just got no interest in it. And therefore has a tendency to underestimate how much trouble it can cause the Govt. They got away with this, indeed were perhaps even helped by it in the last months of the previous Parliament because they were able to set up a Parliament vs the People situation. This is not actually an option with another election still four years away.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
I stand corrected. After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.
I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.
I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke". Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.
I agree with that. The issue today seems to be that today’s “woke” for want of a better word are fighting some very dubious wars in my opinion.
I had this argument with my kids (10 and 12 years old) - I said, "if I can be gender fluid, why can't I be species fluid? - why can't I self identify as a dog?"
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.
There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.
Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.
Are you sure? I think Sarah Wollaston remained chair of the health committee throughout her party meanderings in the last parliament.
No I'm not sure. I just seem to recall Labour demanding they got "their" spot back on a select committee after a defection but I am going off memory and I can't remember who it was.
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
I stand corrected. After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.
I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.
I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke". Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.
I agree with that. The issue today seems to be that today’s “woke” for want of a better word are fighting some very dubious wars in my opinion.
I had this argument with my kids (10 and 12 years old) - I said, "if I can be gender fluid, why can't I be species fluid? - why can't I self identify as a dog?"
What or who is stopping you from doing so?
Access to Doctors’ surgeries? Unless you self identify as a guide dog.
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
I seem to recall last Parliament one of the parties defectors got kicked off a Select Committee after they jumped ship to TIG didn't they? Can't remember which one, think it was a woman.
The only way to remove a member of the intelligence committee is via a vote in the house of commons - the rules are there if you spend 30 seconds on google
Don't know about everyone else, but my first thought is
"No, not even BoJo would be stupid enough to try that."
rapidly followed by
"He wouldn't be stupid enough to try that... would he?"
(To be clear, I'm sure that he could get Lewis voted off the committee if he wanted, what with an 80 78 majority. But the knock-on costs to the reputation of his government would be huge.)
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
I stand corrected. After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.
I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.
I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke". Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.
I agree with that. The issue today seems to be that today’s “woke” for want of a better word are fighting some very dubious wars in my opinion.
I had this argument with my kids (10 and 12 years old) - I said, "if I can be gender fluid, why can't I be species fluid? - why can't I self identify as a dog?"
What or who is stopping you from doing so?
"On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog". Famous New Yorker cartoon
I see the tweeter is the proud author of the following work -
THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President - and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.
What does who tweets something have to do with whether the thing tweeted is accurate or not? If it isn't, they are disreputable. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether they have views or interpretations others would not share, since we are not obliged to share the view or interpretation they hold. If their interpretation is suspect or incorrect, that's an entirely separate matter.
Please see my reply 6.35 to Pagan.
Unless it's a "2+2=4" type assertion, you should always be cautious about accepting at face value things tweeted by dubious sources with an extremist agenda.
And especially so when - as here - it's a tweet from such a source copied onto here by a poster of similar ilk. When it comes to this think Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd - Double Jeopardy.
lol. The source is real. It's been tweeted by thousands of others
The headline states that the graphic depicts "Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the USofA".
My guess is that it is predominantly white people who are making these assumptions, associating things which these people perceive as virtues, with their own whiteness.
I didn't get the impression that the author shares these assumptions, only that she observed the fact that white people, at least a majority of them, hold these views.
No. Read the headline from the original source. The author believes what is plainly said:
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time."
Meanwhile on the infographic, see the greyed out text:
It says all these are "white traditions, attitudes and ways of life" which have been "internalized" by "people of color"
I stand corrected. After a second, more thorough look at it, I tend to agree that the author, more or less, does share these assumptions, which does seem to bring her own work into disrepute.
I'm still struggling to identify what she has written as 'woke', though. It really seems to be the opposite of that.
If by woke you mean good, then no, it isn't woke. But woke isn't a synonym for good, in my opinion.
I tend to share your view that "woke" isn't a synonym for "morally good" or "logically correct", but I think that "anti-woke" is neither. I think that at the core of what some people like to call "woke", there is a progressive stance that constitutes one side of an argument and has its legitimation.
I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke". Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.
I agree with that. The issue today seems to be that today’s “woke” for want of a better word are fighting some very dubious wars in my opinion.
I had this argument with my kids (10 and 12 years old) - I said, "if I can be gender fluid, why can't I be species fluid? - why can't I self identify as a dog?"
What or who is stopping you from doing so?
Hey, furries are a thing. RCS1000 can let their fur flag fly free, if that’s what they want.
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
OGH says "This all reminds me of the moves a few decades ago on the wearing of car seat belts being made compulsory which nowadays few find controversial. The objective is the same – to save lives."
Well, it depends on whose lives we want to save---risk compensation you know. For instance, if instead of an airbag and/or seat belt cars had a spear that would stick the driver if they ran into something or somebody, then I can guarantee they would drive slowly and carefully. I think anyway that car usage in our society is largely perverse and unnatural, flying in the face of a million years of evolution. Instead, therefore, we should do more to protect walkers and, pushing things a bit, cyclists.
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
Whilst not disputing the principle behind your point, I thought that committee composition was still predetermined in line with party composition in the Commons? Otherwise what’s to stop the Govt just putting 100% majority party MPs on every committee? The chairmanships are more mixed, with the chair of the Public Accounts committee by convention being an Opposition member.
There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.
Indeed so if this particular committee needs to have a Tory Chair - and if Lewis is no longer a Tory - how can he be the Chair? Just like the TIGger I'm pretty sure from memory lost a committee position.
Are you sure? I think Sarah Wollaston remained chair of the health committee throughout her party meanderings in the last parliament.
No I'm not sure. I just seem to recall Labour demanding they got "their" spot back on a select committee after a defection but I am going off memory and I can't remember who it was.
Parties are allocated spots according to House of Commons composition at the start of the Parliament, but once elected committee members appear free to do what they want.
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
There’s not some obscure rule that means that if he’s no longer subject to the Tory whip then he must be replaced?
Not really - the whole point of Select Committees is that they have a non-partisan culture (which tends to lead to reports splitting any differences) and they aren't supposed to be decided by party vote, though in practice every committee except this one has traditionally had a small majority of Government MPs (this is the exception because security is usually thought too important to depend on government whim). IIRC, committees stay in place throughout the Parliament - or is it the session? - and the Speaker would take a dim view of trying to change that, though obviously a government with a big majority can change anything if it really tries.
I seem to recall last Parliament one of the parties defectors got kicked off a Select Committee after they jumped ship to TIG didn't they? Can't remember which one, think it was a woman.
The only way to remove a member of the intelligence committee is via a vote in the house of commons - the rules are there if you spend 30 seconds on google
Don't know about everyone else, but my first thought is
"No, not even BoJo would be stupid enough to try that."
rapidly followed by
"He wouldn't be stupid enough to try that... would he?"
(To be clear, I'm sure that he could get Lewis voted off the committee if he wanted, what with an 80 78 majority. But the knock-on costs to the reputation of his government would be huge.)
Your point is merely academic if Johnson doesn't give a s***!
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
On an unwhipped vote surely?
Not every MP who breaks the whip loses the whip normally, let alone one who breaks an unwhipped vote.
Interesting. When I was put on the Treasury Select Committee, a rival to the favoured Labour chair asked for my support, and I said I'd consider it. The Chief Whip, Nick Brown, asked me in and pleaded with me to support the favoured candidate (which I eventually did). It wasn't strictly proper for him to have a view at all, but he certainly didn't threaten expulsion if I didn't do what he said. In fact I don't remember any examples of that threat being made to anyone.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
Lewis didn’t just vote for another candidate. He conspired with the opposition and broke ranks
You seem to be overlooking the point being made that even if the Govt have justification for it, actually doing so is quite possibly bloody stupid.
Comments
"While different individuals might not practice or accept all of these traits, they are common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time"
http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf
*i have some memory years ago of a big fuss when the Blair govt tried to rig the committees.
Lewis is a cold warrior of the old school - I'd expect him to be stern on China. But he's also an independent mind, and the Government seems unkeen on those. Ironically, this restores the tradition (hitherto respected by both parties) that no one party has a majority on that committee.
Slightly, but not entirely, facetious question. Do we think Johnson makes it to 2024 without losing his formal majority?
Only one side can survive now.
I do not think Boris will be in place in 2024 but the majority will be around 80 less the odd resignation
I think that sixty or eighty years ago, had the term "woke" been around at the time, people from the conservative side of the spectrum would have dismissed the views of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and everyone who supported their views, as "woke".
Many people of a conservative persuasion did do so, they just used other expressions back then. Societal progress is a real thing, and the "anti-wokes" of yesteryear are not always considered to have been on the 'right side' of history.
Having said that they have just equalised v Liverpool
I have no idea what will happen in 2024 but I do not see an 80 seat majority or even near
Cummings keeps his job. Lewis loses the whip. Which one has behaved badly in the eyes of voters?
Labour/SNP saw a chance to embarrass the government (fair play)
Lewis broke ranks because he was offered an attractive bribe.
Arsenal leading
There was a lot of fun made/criticism of a new Labour MP at the start of the session who made a thing of refusing to vote for “a Tory” campaigning for one of the Committee positions. The point made by critics that she was choosing between Tories, not a Tory and somebody else, and this particular one was actually quite an independent mind who wouldn’t hesitate to ask awkward questions of the Govt if necessary.
But it seems my question of yesterday has been answered. The wild prediction of 120K deaths from Covid (in hospitals alone) for next winter is based on the Ferguson model and its 13 year old code.
With the billions being spent on the virus response could they not have found another team who could build a new model with modern code which when presented with the inputs actually gives our current death levels of ≈ 50K and not 500K as predicted in March?
You can see a not dissimilar contrast between eg activist 'Western' culture and more fatalist Middle Eastern culture.
The atheist one is interesting - did not Dicky Dawkins talk about 'catholic' and 'protestant' atheists, but the point was too subtle for a lot of his crasser followers.
The militant atheists will be in saloon bars shouting at the lampshades.
After all, a broken clock is right twice a day...
Like the time my cousin Derek shot the ears off a dragon during lunch ... or when the Master of Temple Church chose to let it burn rather than use our well... or... [censored] no, not that one
https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1283460840059002885
That being said... Florida swung against the Dems in 2018, so I wouldn't count on it if I were Joe Biden.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2020/0715/1153499-politics-cabinet/
"No, not even BoJo would be stupid enough to try that."
rapidly followed by
"He wouldn't be stupid enough to try that... would he?"
(To be clear, I'm sure that he could get Lewis voted off the committee if he wanted, what with an 80 78 majority. But the knock-on costs to the reputation of his government would be huge.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog
I'm afraid I am pessimistic enough to think we'll get the evidence in November.
Well, it depends on whose lives we want to save---risk compensation you know.
For instance, if instead of an airbag and/or seat belt cars had a spear that would stick the driver if they ran into something or somebody, then I can guarantee they would drive slowly and carefully. I think anyway that car usage in our society is largely perverse and unnatural, flying in the face of a million years of evolution. Instead, therefore, we should do more to protect walkers and, pushing things a bit, cyclists.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-launches-bid-to-purge-independent-group-mps-from-commons-committees
Parties are allocated spots according to House of Commons composition at the start of the Parliament, but once elected committee members appear free to do what they want.
Or rather if he does, re: the Russia Report.
Not every MP who breaks the whip loses the whip normally, let alone one who breaks an unwhipped vote.