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.
Thank you! That was the story I was thinking of, didn't realise that was the outcome.
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
The intelligence committee is supposed to be completely non partisan, and to elect its chair without outside influence. The attempt to instal the risible Grayling entirely deserved such an outcome.
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.
That's an old argument but it doesn't work. If there was a spear with a spike it would discourage you from doing an emergency stop where it was required . . . so lets say a child unexpectedly steps in front of the road then the safest option for the driver would be to run over the child rather than attempting an emergency stop.
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
The intelligence committee is supposed to be completely non partisan, and to elect its chair without outside influence. The attempt to instal the risible Grayling entirely deserved such an outcome.
Simply for nominating failing Grayling they deserved this outcome even without any other factors.
I'm not going to be disappointed that failing Grayling lost a vote, I think its hilarious!
They would have to allow for the possibility that they might lose the vote. Backbench Tory MPs are quite rebellious on Security issues at the moment, so I don’t think you could say the outcome was a slam dunk.
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
The intelligence committee is supposed to be completely non partisan, and to elect its chair without outside influence. The attempt to instal the risible Grayling entirely deserved such an outcome.
Think you are correct on this one. IF government wishes to impose a problematic committee chair THEN it would seem prudent to MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE VOTES before trying to push it though - then failing - then throwing a hissy fit.
This crew give impression they'd be hard pressed to manage a 3-hole outhouse.
That is a pretty compelling argument for mask wearing in shops.
Basically, the argument is a simple one: by accepting slightly more onerous restrictions now, you avoid a hard lock down (either de facto or de jure).
It's a compelling argument for accepting restrictions, and I think it's reasonable that masks in shops be one of them. Not the other way round though.
I must admit I am having real trouble seeing how wearing a mask is a restriction. I know more than a few libertarian minded medical professionals who would not dream of working without wearing a mask and who were quick to adopt them in general day to day interactions long before anyone suggested they should be mandatory.
Well rules, restrictions. They're something whereby freedom is slightly curtailed. Wearing a mask clearly isn't something you would do if you were on your own.
Having a rule that we should all wear seat-belts is silly - it should be blindingly obvious, but us being us, a rule seems necessary.
Masks in shops is apparently somewhat marginal in benefit, but even if it had no benefit at all it might be worth doing anyway just to keep people's attention on the risk (albeit that is now small).
Many of us have been wearing masks for months now. You get used to them, just like you get used to wearing a seat belt. The only reason they weren’t talked about months ago is because there was a massive shortage and they were needed for healthcare workers.
Watching from afar, I’m amazed there’s even a debate going on, just wear masks people.
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?"
That is a pretty compelling argument for mask wearing in shops.
Basically, the argument is a simple one: by accepting slightly more onerous restrictions now, you avoid a hard lock down (either de facto or de jure).
It's a compelling argument for accepting restrictions, and I think it's reasonable that masks in shops be one of them. Not the other way round though.
I must admit I am having real trouble seeing how wearing a mask is a restriction. I know more than a few libertarian minded medical professionals who would not dream of working without wearing a mask and who were quick to adopt them in general day to day interactions long before anyone suggested they should be mandatory.
Well rules, restrictions. They're something whereby freedom is slightly curtailed. Wearing a mask clearly isn't something you would do if you were on your own.
Having a rule that we should all wear seat-belts is silly - it should be blindingly obvious, but us being us, a rule seems necessary.
Masks in shops is apparently somewhat marginal in benefit, but even if it had no benefit at all it might be worth doing anyway just to keep people's attention on the risk (albeit that is now small).
Many of us have been wearing masks for months now. You get used to them, just like you get used to wearing a seat belt. The only reason they weren’t talked about months ago is because there was a massive shortage and they were needed for healthcare workers.
Watching from afar, I’m amazed there’s even a debate going on, just wear masks people.
There's not much of a debate. There's a few people stomping their feet and whinging but I don't see much debating going on.
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.
So now race and gender are both social constructs, if I decide to identify myself as a black woman, anyone who dares say a bad word about anything I do is sexist and racist.
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
The intelligence committee is supposed to be completely non partisan, and to elect its chair without outside influence. The attempt to instal the risible Grayling entirely deserved such an outcome.
Think you are correct on this one. IF government wishes to impose a problematic committee chair THEN it would seem prudent to MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE VOTES before trying to push it though - then failing - then throwing a hissy fit.
This crew give impression they'd be hard pressed to manage a 3-hole outhouse.
BTW, who selected the Tory members of the committee with such care?
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.
Is the intelligence committee not different again, though, in terms of its supposed independence from party politics ?
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?"
Sounds like a good idea. Will never happen of course.
Yep its an excellent idea. Second city of England since the Roman period. And much nicer than London of course. My only fear is that after 6 years, like a bus full of Millwall fans on a trip to Margate, they will have wrecked the place.
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.
So with the bill for Covid, the lost tax revenue from 4 million unemployed, the cost of implementing a WTO Brexit and fighting a cyber war with China, can we afford such an indulgence?
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.
He embarrassed the government
And now the government is embarassing itself by its hissy fit reaction.
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.
That's an old argument but it doesn't work. If there was a spear with a spike it would discourage you from doing an emergency stop where it was required . . . so lets say a child unexpectedly steps in front of the road then the safest option for the driver would be to run over the child rather than attempting an emergency stop.
Yes, it is old, but the principle remains. Maybe a governor on the engine, or some way of making car usage utterly silly (which it more often than not is)? I dunno.
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
I think you mean he followed the rules and allowed the committee to choose its own chairman rather than being dictated to by the Government.
In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
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
On an unwhipped vote surely?
Not every MP who breaks the whip loses the whip normally, let alone one who breaks an unwhipped vote.
He embarrassed the government
And now the government is embarassing itself by its hissy fit reaction.
Only according to those who post on forums like this. 99.9% of voters could not care less about Lewis.
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.
He embarrassed the government
No they embarrassed themselves perfectly well without his help.
Cultural appropriation is the one area on racism where the angry right are correct. It is indeed a nonsense.
Is Revolutionary Commie Furedi the angry right or the angry left?
Frank Furedi is a good example of how the Left/Right definitions fail us these days. His book Culture of Fear is a brilliant analysis of how both Left and Right use fear to instil compliance in the population and how the media feeds this in its chase for ratings.
His book Paranoid Parenting is a tonic for those fed up with the usual childcare manuals.
He remains an interesting academic, but his spiritual children in the RCP are much more interested in political power. They have simply followed Moscows line, from Communist days to the present fermenting of divisive Populism
Good. Anything that keeps the vested interests off balance is worth supporting.
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?"
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.
That's an old argument but it doesn't work. If there was a spear with a spike it would discourage you from doing an emergency stop where it was required . . . so lets say a child unexpectedly steps in front of the road then the safest option for the driver would be to run over the child rather than attempting an emergency stop.
Yes, it is old, but the principle remains. Maybe a governor on the engine, or some way of making car usage utterly silly (which it more often than not is)? I dunno.
And anyway, I visualised the spear sticking the driver if they HIT somebody or thing. Maybe AI could play a role in that?
Oh well, climate change will render the question irrelevant.
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
The intelligence committee is supposed to be completely non partisan, and to elect its chair without outside influence. The attempt to instal the risible Grayling entirely deserved such an outcome.
At the very least if you are going to push your own power like this you should pull it off. Trying, failing, and punishing the one who defeated you does not project strength.
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.
He embarrassed the government
And now the government is embarassing itself by its hissy fit reaction.
Only according to those who post on forums like this. 99.9% of voters could not care less about Lewis.
More like 95% methinks, you do have a point.
BUT the 5% who do care are choice. PLUS many more will see just the headlines (unless the tabloids & other papers ignore the story, which of course they will not) and NOT be impressed.
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.
He embarrassed the government
Backbenchers have a tendency to do that that sometimes.
Looks like classic 'we don't London like politically, and much of the country doesn't, so let's say we will move out of it', who knows if it is serious. I will never understand the antipathy toward retaining parliament in the capital of the country, not least since much of the time people pretend it is about saving money even though a world heritage site would need fixing up regardless, so that excuse is bollocks.
Looks like classic 'we don't London like politically, and much of the country doesn't, so let's say we will move out of it', who knows if it is serious. I will never understand the antipathy toward retaining parliament in the capital of the country, not least since much of the time people pretend it is about saving money even though a world heritage site would need fixing up regardless, so that excuse is bollocks.
I would be interested in public opinion on this to be honest
Comments
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1283488150132862977
Interesting from Kellner
I'm not going to be disappointed that failing Grayling lost a vote, I think its hilarious!
Cummings wants to decant it to York.
And isn't it handy he has a little place near Durham?
This crew give impression they'd be hard pressed to manage a 3-hole outhouse.
Watching from afar, I’m amazed there’s even a debate going on, just wear masks people.
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/newest-darling-of-the-republican-party-compares-same-sex-marriage-to-nambla-bestiality-4efa1e28a22/
That’s how it works, right?
Ok. I smell a dead cat.
Is this all to divert from Grayling?
JohnsonCummings Government shoots itself in the foot ... again.[Corrected for you]
https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1283494066710290434?s=20
Classic example at the moment... solving a problem for a friend and getting paid by someone else for doing so
You do not tell me what to post
Who do you think you are
In an ideal world the Speaker would be calling Johnson to parliament and asking him to explain his unparliamentary behaviour.
https://twitter.com/HSJEditor/status/1283425087585222657
More importantly, does that mean you do have the van!
Oh well, climate change will render the question irrelevant.
But apart from those obvious flaws it's a great idea
BUT the 5% who do care are choice. PLUS many more will see just the headlines (unless the tabloids & other papers ignore the story, which of course they will not) and NOT be impressed.
SO yet another own goal against HM govt.
But they're all from Scott_P so they don't count.
That's some seriously weapons-grade hacking
Isle of Wight infection rates dropped after launch of contact tracing app
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/15/isle-of-wight-infection-rates-dropped-after-launch-of-contact-tracing-app
It shouldn't be hard for Biden to stand up to Trump in the debates. Plus Biden has been in debates this year while its 4 years since Trump has.
Plus Trump so surrounds himself by Yesmen now that I think he'll struggle with even basic debate prep.