If the Prem have got their hands out for money, goodness knows what state the clubs down the pyramid are in.
How much more money does Sunak have left to give? Why isn;t he giving it?
To a certain extent the lower league clubs are in a better position as they're all in it together and don't have players on three-year contracts. In the PL and Championship, the differences between those in a good position and those who have gambled will be larger.
Without support I would expect 15-25 football league clubs to go out of existence by the end of the season. Without support no Premier League clubs will go out of existence.
Partly due to TV money, and secondly they have a clear asset value that ensures others will buy them for prestige and guaranteed future revenue.
Despite the furore on here, AIUI the Premier League is working with the Football League on providing a rescue package. It will probably be on a very long term loan basis with Football League income for this year borrowed against the Premier Leagues future long term TV rights.
How much money did cricket get?
So far the same amount as football.
But the ECB are also expected to ask for a handout.
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
In most blind testing people can't tell the difference. When they see the price they prefer the more expensive one. Its a very effective snob tax.
Absolutely. Most people can't tell the difference. As I said earlier, at room temperature most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a red and white wine.
But there is a significant difference between a £40 bottle of wine and a £200 bottle of wine for those that do know the difference.
It seems the Premier League are pleading for financial aid following the delay in allowing fans into grounds
You do have to wonder what planet they are on.
Apparently 100 million a month is suggested , just the amount Manchester United are considering paying for one player
Not one penny should be given to these clubs who pay millions for players and millions a week for wages
Time to take an axe to the number of players on their books and their salaries if they are so hard up
Absolutely. Let's destroy the Premier League which is not at all the envy of the world.
Do you support tax payers money being given to the premier league or not
The Government via the Bank of England gave Spurs a £175 million loan in the summer, did you object then?
I did not know that but on the wider issue of giving 100 million a month to the Premier league in this pandemic would be just wrong with so much need elsewhere
Depends. If the Government through the BOE is positioned to make a significant profit on the loan via interest, why shouldn't we make such an investment?
It is just wrong and unjustified
It’s also massively symbolic, and would lead to everyone poorer than a premier league footballer asking why they’re not being similarly bailed out.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
As far as I know the NT isn't proposing to rename any of their properties, they simply want to provide more information to visitors, which seems about as far from "rewriting history" as it's possible to be. I'm not qualified to talk about the example you give since the only thing I know about Hume is his role in developing the quantity theory of money. Mind you, I think there is a difference between naming a building after somebody and simply having the building go by its street address, since the name of the street is outwith their control, and in any case who knows which George is being referred to? Could be George Clooney.
Given that David Hume was one of the greatest figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, I'd have thought Scottish institutions should be naming new buildings after him, not removing his name from existing ones, given the astonishing degree of ignorance there seems to be about him.
That's what I thought. But this is problematic:
I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufacturer amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient German, the present Tartars, still have something eminent about them, in their valor, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.
And? We shouldn't judge what people said in the 18th century by today's standards. It was a different era, I'm sure if they could see how we live they'd find us all to be awful too.
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
You mean everywhere in the "civilised" world. Britain was hardly alone in this.
Sure. And great use of inverteds. But whilst far from alone in embarking on one, Britain's colonial project was massive in scale and long in duration. It was - and I'm going to use the inverteds now - very very "successful". Plus I live in Britain and I'm British so it's of particular interest to me.
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
In most blind testing people can't tell the difference. When they see the price they prefer the more expensive one. Its a very effective snob tax.
Absolutely. Most people can't tell the difference. As I said earlier, at room temperature most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a red and white wine.
But there is a significant difference between a £40 bottle of wine and a £200 bottle of wine for those that do know the difference.
£160 of difference.
Have such a refined palette is expensive.
And its also leads to people thinking you're a pretentious twat who's pretending to have an ultra refined palette.
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
In most blind testing people can't tell the difference. When they see the price they prefer the more expensive one. Its a very effective snob tax.
There was a famous tasting where a load of young French wine "experts" were given whites that had been secretly coloured red (without affecting the taste). The experts were unable to tell red from white. The colours fooled them into finding "red" flavours in white wines
I always find it hard to believe, but it is apparently true.
Try it at the next Covid-friendly dinner party you go to. Must be room temperature and tell people to keep their eyes shut. The most "sophisticated" probably won't be able to tell the difference.
Same with whisky and brandy but you can't let them smell it first.
Romney's statement is very carefully worded. He is not committing to supporting whoever Trump might nominate; instead, he's committing only to decide on the basis of the merits of the candidate, which is fair enough.
The timing of the decision being THE key question at the moment. Is a very faithful barometer for determining the top leadership of the church formerly called Mormon. Anti-Trumpsky
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Russia? Where under Peter the Great and Czarina Elizabeth a central African kidnapped in Cameroon and enslaved in Constantinople rose to become a Russian military engineer, general and noble.
Note that his 21st century descendants include Duchesses of Abercorn and Westminster, also Marquis of Milford Haven.
According to wiki, Puskin's Black great-granddaddy came from a family of - wait for it - slave owners.
It seems the Premier League are pleading for financial aid following the delay in allowing fans into grounds
You do have to wonder what planet they are on.
Apparently 100 million a month is suggested , just the amount Manchester United are considering paying for one player
Not one penny should be given to these clubs who pay millions for players and millions a week for wages
Time to take an axe to the number of players on their books and their salaries if they are so hard up
As for your latter point, that would be a breach of contract.
Can anyone seriously support financial aid to the Premier league
Yes, you forget the economic benefits that football clubs give to their cities and regions.
I suspect they'll end up doing a Spain, where the loans are repaid once the stadiums re-open, also for every transfer fee the club pays, they have to repay the government the equivalent amount.
The Bank of England gave Spurs a £175 million loan recently.
Everton were given a £ 300 million pound loan by the council for the new stadium.
Boris Johnson effectively wasted £323 million quid on giving West Ham their new stadium.
BiB - I'm not sure that last bit does your argument much good.
Oh I know, I'm just pointing out that Big G's pearl clutching is selective.
Mind you wait out until he finds out his club's huge debts are only being serviced by match day income.
I know they are and maybe that is why Manchester United have not yet agreed a 100 million deal
Will the Gov't be going round in a big bus with "Let's fund Harry Maguire instead" on it ?
Stupid comments by Biden. He could have avoided the beat the socialist bit and he really needs Sanders supporters to come out and vote . He was on Fox so the audience watching might have effected his comments but still it was an idiotic thing to say .
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
Oh god we've had this conversation before and you embarrassed yourself then.
You are saying that there is no difference between a £40 JK Carriere Dolores Estate Pinot Noir and, say, a Charmes Chambertin from Domaine Rousseau?
You're of course right about the tax calcs, though.
lol. You always wheel out these long French names, like it proves something. Weird.
How about something from Harlan Estate?
Have you ever tried Georgian orange wine? I had a few bottles recently. It's quite unique, and sometimes absolutely delicious.
I think this is an interesting case where a price over £40 is justified by rarity.
Looks intriguing.
But it's precisely because there are all these hidden gems that many people prefer to stick to the ones they know and, for UK wine drinkers, that is mainly France and then Italy.
Australia also has a huge chunk of the UK market. Possibly the most by sheer volume.
However I agree that the Brits generally seek out wines they feel they can trust, wines that are well known. The same goes for Chinese people: they go to Bordeaux or Burgundy because of prestige. For this reason renowned French wines from the classic regions are overpriced, to my mind.
Macedonia is making great red wine. The Greeks now do stunning whites. I had a fine mountain wine from Bolivia, in Bolivia. It's much more fun to search out the weird ones.
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
In most blind testing people can't tell the difference. When they see the price they prefer the more expensive one. Its a very effective snob tax.
Absolutely. Most people can't tell the difference. As I said earlier, at room temperature most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a red and white wine.
But there is a significant difference between a £40 bottle of wine and a £200 bottle of wine for those that do know the difference.
£160 of difference.
Have such a refined palette is expensive.
And its also leads to people thinking you're a pretentious twat who's pretending to have an ultra refined palette.
Not at all. If you have enough money to buy a £10 bottle of wine instead of a £4.95 one is it pretentious? If you have enough money to buy a £200 bottle of wine instead of a £40 one is it pretentious? Of course not.
If a bottle of wine is, say 0.XXXXX% of your net worth then the price of that wine will change depending upon your net worth.
Of course there are people who like to show off undoubtedly.
It seems the Premier League are pleading for financial aid following the delay in allowing fans into grounds
You do have to wonder what planet they are on.
Apparently 100 million a month is suggested , just the amount Manchester United are considering paying for one player
Not one penny should be given to these clubs who pay millions for players and millions a week for wages
Time to take an axe to the number of players on their books and their salaries if they are so hard up
Absolutely. Let's destroy the Premier League which is not at all the envy of the world.
Do you support tax payers money being given to the premier league or not
The Government via the Bank of England gave Spurs a £175 million loan in the summer, did you object then?
I did not know that but on the wider issue of giving 100 million a month to the Premier league in this pandemic would be just wrong with so much need elsewhere
Depends. If the Government through the BOE is positioned to make a significant profit on the loan via interest, why shouldn't we make such an investment?
It is just wrong and unjustified
It’s also massively symbolic, and would lead to everyone poorer than a premier league footballer asking why they’re not being similarly bailed out.
I'd have thought the Prem would be able to head to *any of the big banks* and acquire a loan to tide them over given the obvious future revenue potential ? If they're unable to do that, why should the taxpayer hop in ?
I guess it would depend on the vaccine news - if that's positive obviously there's a quick path back to repaying the loan (with interest) in 2022 and so forth. If not, well potential el busto.
Premier League Rugby is in dire straits I've heard on the grapevine.
A touch hyperbolic. The SC is very important but it does not govern America. Not even close. Plus if a crazily Con judge is rammed through now for a 6/3 bias the Dems will mitigate either with term limits or expansion of the court from 9 to 11.
Term limits would be the best response. A 20 year limit would retire Thomas and Breyer - and leave a 5-4 Republican court, which would be a restoration of the status quo before the Garland affair. A non partisan reform which would justify no retaliation - particularly as it retires a liberal and a conservative.
Then move in the direction of restoring balance to the Senate with statehood for Puerto Rico and North Virginia.
Stir in an exercise of Article III power, and that ought to be more than sufficient payback. In an entirely principled and non partisan manner.
A North Virginia would be safe Dem, leaving the rest of Virginia safe GOP.
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
Oh god we've had this conversation before and you embarrassed yourself then.
You are saying that there is no difference between a £40 JK Carriere Dolores Estate Pinot Noir and, say, a Charmes Chambertin from Domaine Rousseau?
You're of course right about the tax calcs, though.
lol. You always wheel out these long French names, like it proves something. Weird.
How about something from Harlan Estate?
Have you ever tried Georgian orange wine? I had a few bottles recently. It's quite unique, and sometimes absolutely delicious.
I think this is an interesting case where a price over £40 is justified by rarity.
Looks intriguing.
But it's precisely because there are all these hidden gems that many people prefer to stick to the ones they know and, for UK wine drinkers, that is mainly France and then Italy.
Australia also has a huge chunk of the UK market. Possibly the most by sheer volume.
However I agree that the Brits generally seek out wines they feel they can trust, wines that are well known. The same goes for Chinese people: they go to Bordeaux or Burgundy because of prestige. For this reason renowned French wines from the classic regions are overpriced, to my mind.
Macedonia is making great red wine. The Greeks now do stunning whites. I had a fine mountain wine from Bolivia, in Bolivia. It's much more fun to search out the weird ones.
Yes although there's a life's too short element to it and where to start.
And on that note...I must be off out to dinner. I will report back on what wine I have. Clue: it will be a white burgundy to start and a claret afterwards.
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
That's assuming the drinker can tell the difference between one wine and another theoretically 22 times better.
If they cannot - and plenty of the people buying the £20 wine will not be able to - then they're wasting their money.
Alhough we all know this poster is the archetypal good whine.
In Spain the government bailed out La Liga to the tune of 600 million euros, they understood how important football is important to the country and to the Spain brand.
But with plenty of caveats, so that's why Real Madrid have released 14 players and not signed anyone.
If the Prem have got their hands out for money, goodness knows what state the clubs down the pyramid are in.
How much more money does Sunak have left to give? Why isn;t he giving it?
To a certain extent the lower league clubs are in a better position as they're all in it together and don't have players on three-year contracts. In the PL and Championship, the differences between those in a good position and those who have gambled will be larger.
Without support I would expect 15-25 football league clubs to go out of existence by the end of the season. Without support no Premier League clubs will go out of existence.
Partly due to TV money, and secondly they have a clear asset value that ensures others will buy them for prestige and guaranteed future revenue.
Despite the furore on here, AIUI the Premier League is working with the Football League on providing a rescue package. It will probably be on a very long term loan basis with Football League income for this year borrowed against the Premier Leagues future long term TV rights.
How much money did cricket get?
So far the same amount as football.
But the ECB are also expected to ask for a handout.
Personally, speaking as an avid cricket fan who finds football as tedious as watching paint dry, I don’t think either should be in line for huge bailouts. Premier league clubs will survive, and would anyone really shed tears if Nottinghamshire, who haven’t produced a consistent England player of their own since Bruce French while stealing dozens of players from other clubs, went tits up?
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
That's assuming the drinker can tell the difference between one wine and another theoretically 22 times better.
If they cannot - and plenty of the people buying the £20 wine will not be able to - then they're wasting their money.
A fair point.
20 years ago I am sure I would have been unable to tell the difference, so it would have been wasted on me. After two decades of constant guzzling, often of very famous wines, I think I have taught myself to discern the difference. And I prefer the £20 bottle.
However, I'd still be a little bit nervous at a blindfold wine tasting. If French experts can't even tell red from white......
If the Prem have got their hands out for money, goodness knows what state the clubs down the pyramid are in.
How much more money does Sunak have left to give? Why isn;t he giving it?
To a certain extent the lower league clubs are in a better position as they're all in it together and don't have players on three-year contracts. In the PL and Championship, the differences between those in a good position and those who have gambled will be larger.
Without support I would expect 15-25 football league clubs to go out of existence by the end of the season. Without support no Premier League clubs will go out of existence.
Partly due to TV money, and secondly they have a clear asset value that ensures others will buy them for prestige and guaranteed future revenue.
Despite the furore on here, AIUI the Premier League is working with the Football League on providing a rescue package. It will probably be on a very long term loan basis with Football League income for this year borrowed against the Premier Leagues future long term TV rights.
How much money did cricket get?
I doubt anyone, even the treasury, has collated the by sport numbers, including the various loans, cjrs and other grants, so I have no idea. The loan Spurs got would have been something any big company or organisation could have applied for, whether football, cricket, fishing or widgets.
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. I've had the odd more expensive variety and I can tell the difference despite a lifetime of smoking. When I get older and know for a fact I haven't got that long left I might well start guzzling it. Because that's the trouble with me. I can't have just a glass or two, I get little pleasure from that, it has to be at least the best part of a bottle. So it feels wrong to me, right now, for it to be anything but what we're (quite rightly) calling plonk.
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
That's assuming the drinker can tell the difference between one wine and another theoretically 22 times better.
If they cannot - and plenty of the people buying the £20 wine will not be able to - then they're wasting their money.
A fair point.
20 years ago I am sure I would have been unable to tell the difference, so it would have been wasted on me. After two decades of constant guzzling, often of very famous wines, I think I have taught myself to discern the difference. And I prefer the £20 bottle.
However, I'd still be a little bit nervous at a blindfold wine tasting. If French experts can't even tell red from white......
You know who else was quite famous for boasting about the wines he drank...
In Spain the government bailed out La Liga to the tune of 600 million euros, they understood how important football is important to the country and to the Spain brand.
But with plenty of caveats, so that's why Real Madrid have released 14 players and not signed anyone.
Real and Barca might not have had anyone to play had that bailout not happened. Gate receipts are far more important to Real Sociedad than they are to Aston Villa.
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
... However I agree that the Brits generally seek out wines they feel they can trust, wines that are well known. The same goes for Chinese people: they go to Bordeaux or Burgundy because of prestige. For this reason renowned French wines from the classic regions are overpriced, to my mind. ...
I'm not so sure about that. Burgundy of course is made in small quantities and has always been expensive, as per this line from a Meredith novel: "Poor Jorian, I know no man I pity as much; he has but six hundred a year and a passion for burgundy". But nowadays the most over-priced wines are often Italian (Barolo, I'm looking at you), or Californian.
It seems the Premier League are pleading for financial aid following the delay in allowing fans into grounds
You do have to wonder what planet they are on.
Apparently 100 million a month is suggested , just the amount Manchester United are considering paying for one player
Not one penny should be given to these clubs who pay millions for players and millions a week for wages
Time to take an axe to the number of players on their books and their salaries if they are so hard up
Absolutely. Let's destroy the Premier League which is not at all the envy of the world.
Do you support tax payers money being given to the premier league or not
The Government via the Bank of England gave Spurs a £175 million loan in the summer, did you object then?
I did not know that but on the wider issue of giving 100 million a month to the Premier league in this pandemic would be just wrong with so much need elsewhere
Depends. If the Government through the BOE is positioned to make a significant profit on the loan via interest, why shouldn't we make such an investment?
It is just wrong and unjustified
It’s also massively symbolic, and would lead to everyone poorer than a premier league footballer asking why they’re not being similarly bailed out.
I'd have thought the Prem would be able to head to *any of the big banks* and acquire a loan to tide them over given the obvious future revenue potential ? If they're unable to do that, why should the taxpayer hop in ?
I guess it would depend on the vaccine news - if that's positive obviously there's a quick path back to repaying the loan (with interest) in 2022 and so forth. If not, well potential el busto.
Premier League Rugby is in dire straits I've heard on the grapevine.
Yes they can, but not at the 0.5% interest rate the govts Covid loans were offered at. Those were not specific for football, they were available for any large business impacted by Covid. Making it available to any large business bar Premier League clubs would have been a very weird implementation.
Unless something has changed in the negotiations, the discussions between the govt, PL and FL are that the FL gets long term loans from both govt and PL (around 200-250m), with the PL contribution mortgaged against PL future tv money.
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
Yes good point. Plenty on the Goldman floor like nothing better than a glass of red from a Stowell's of Chelsea wine box after a hard day's graft.
Well I wouldn't know. I have never crossed their portals. Seriously, never a single time. About the only bank I can say that of.
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
Yes, if Trump won Miami it would be a Trump landslide, Miami Dade county is one of the most Democratic parts of Florida and has not voted for a Republican for President since George HW Bush in 1988
I'm not sure what good it will do to track it. If the cases don't materialise the govt will say "there, our measures worked". If they do, then L2 good and hard here we come.
It’s very useful. Anyone going around waving it and pretending it was a prediction rather than a worst-case scenario that was stressed with the “If” being highlighted and the people presenting emphasising that it was not a prediction - well, they’re outing themselves as obvious cranks and nuts with an agenda to torture.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Reasonable point, but I am not sure what your case is either. If it is racism as part of mainstream 18th century intellectual thought - it wasn't particularly. I had no idea till yesterday about Hume's beliefs about "negroes" despite having studied the man with reasonable diligence at university, but I did know a fair bit about Francis Barber - Samuel Johnson's black servant to whom he left all his books and papers, suggesting that Johnson thought a bit differently. If it is merely general folk belief, why go back to C18th Edinburgh when in our own lifetime it was legal to put "no blacks" in any kind of contract and to call people n*ggers? And frankly I really don't detect any deeply ingrained hereditary taint of racism in myself, and there is no point in telling me I have an unconscious bias because I think by now it would have manifested itself in my actions, and it hasn't.
Stupid comments by Biden. He could have avoided the beat the socialist bit and he really needs Sanders supporters to come out and vote . He was on Fox so the audience watching might have effected his comments but still it was an idiotic thing to say .
News Flash - Sanders voters already know that Biden is NOT a socialist. The also know he is NOT the leader of the party now rushing to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing reactionaries.
Conversely, the voters who NEED to get the word that our (21st century) Uncle Joe is not a bolshevik (or even menshevik) are Republican / Republican-leaning suburban voters, many of whom are pro-choice and/or otherwise alienated from Trumpsky and Putinist-Republican Party (GOPP).
Remember that socialist == communist for most of America.
That might be the case but still there were better ways of putting it . I understand the message was more for the mid west swing states. Biden’s lucky that the GOP won’t be using that in attack ads as it’s self defeating for them . Perhaps Sanders understands the political game and won’t be too hacked off and Biden better hope that Sanders supporters understand that too .
... However I agree that the Brits generally seek out wines they feel they can trust, wines that are well known. The same goes for Chinese people: they go to Bordeaux or Burgundy because of prestige. For this reason renowned French wines from the classic regions are overpriced, to my mind. ...
I'm not so sure about that. Burgundy of course is made in small quantities and has always been expensive, as per this line from a Meredith novel: "Poor Jorian, I know no man I pity as much; he has but six hundred a year and a passion for burgundy". But nowadays the most over-priced wines are often Italian (Barolo, I'm looking at you), or Californian.
Supertuscans have shot up in value for the same reason as Burgundy, I believe: Asian money
I have ALWAYS been disappointed by Californian wine. I don't know why. I've had some famous ones. They just don't do it for me. Maybe they are tainted by my memory of hideous Californian wine from 30 years ago
At the moment I am big on Balkan and Greek wines. Israeli wines are now interesting, as well
That's quite a good poll for Trump still. Level in Dade was frankly unbelievable.
What is it with partisan pollsters in the US. At least polling companies here don't pre-announce they're a Conservative pollster or some such, it'd be thought complete mince. Anyway McSally behind with GOP polling. https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1308447175513378819
... However I agree that the Brits generally seek out wines they feel they can trust, wines that are well known. The same goes for Chinese people: they go to Bordeaux or Burgundy because of prestige. For this reason renowned French wines from the classic regions are overpriced, to my mind. ...
I'm not so sure about that. Burgundy of course is made in small quantities and has always been expensive, as per this line from a Meredith novel: "Poor Jorian, I know no man I pity as much; he has but six hundred a year and a passion for burgundy". But nowadays the most over-priced wines are often Italian (Barolo, I'm looking at you), or Californian.
Supertuscans have shot up in value for the same reason as Burgundy, I believe: Asian money
I have ALWAYS been disappointed by Californian wine. I don't know why. I've had some famous ones. They just don't do it for me. Maybe they are tainted by my memory of hideous Californian wine from 30 years ago
At the moment I am big on Balkan and Greek wines. Israeli wines are now interesting, as well
Yes, some very good Greek wines are appearing now, thanks to the EU and the protected designation system pushing up quality.
I think Californian (and Oregon) wines can be very good but they are very pricey so I don't buy them.
Claret is beginning to seem relatively reasonably priced, unless you go for the very big names.
Fair comment. But coming from such a progressive figure of the time the quote does illustrate how deeply embedded racism was in Britain not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, and thus how hopelessly naive or complacent it is to think that the legacy of this does not persist in us today.
In Britain as opposed to where?
Why is this your burning question on the topic?
Because you mentioned Britain specifically. If you had meant to say that racism (as we would now describe it) was universal - which have been true - why mention Britain? Are you trying to say there was something unusually reprehensible about your own country in this?
I know racism is near universal. Of course I do. But -
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain. 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. 3. I'm British. 4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
A twenty year term limit would fix that. Imposed by an incoming Democratic Congress, it would still allow a 5-4 Republican Court led by Roberts for the entire term of the next Presidency, so would be an entirely even handed reform.
Wouldn't a term limit hit the Democrats more than the Republicans for the next generation? Three of the GOP Justices (by then) were only just inaugurated so the term limit would hit the Democrats sooner.
It seems the Premier League are pleading for financial aid following the delay in allowing fans into grounds
You do have to wonder what planet they are on.
Apparently 100 million a month is suggested , just the amount Manchester United are considering paying for one player
Not one penny should be given to these clubs who pay millions for players and millions a week for wages
Time to take an axe to the number of players on their books and their salaries if they are so hard up
Absolutely. Let's destroy the Premier League which is not at all the envy of the world.
Do you support tax payers money being given to the premier league or not
The Government via the Bank of England gave Spurs a £175 million loan in the summer, did you object then?
I did not know that but on the wider issue of giving 100 million a month to the Premier league in this pandemic would be just wrong with so much need elsewhere
Depends. If the Government through the BOE is positioned to make a significant profit on the loan via interest, why shouldn't we make such an investment?
It is just wrong and unjustified
It’s also massively symbolic, and would lead to everyone poorer than a premier league footballer asking why they’re not being similarly bailed out.
I'd have thought the Prem would be able to head to *any of the big banks* and acquire a loan to tide them over given the obvious future revenue potential ? If they're unable to do that, why should the taxpayer hop in ?
I guess it would depend on the vaccine news - if that's positive obviously there's a quick path back to repaying the loan (with interest) in 2022 and so forth. If not, well potential el busto.
Premier League Rugby is in dire straits I've heard on the grapevine.
I’d imagine that pretty much every professional sport is in serious trouble, apart from the Premier League football they all rely on income from a live audience more than they do from TV rights.
Formula 1 took a billion-dollar refining facility, and they’re one of the few sports to have something that looks like a championship season - albeit behind closed doors so far, and at a massive cost in testing and isolating people for long periods of time.
Lower leagues of any sport are going to be much worse than top leagues, as the top leagues take the lion’s share of the TV money.
In the Premier League, it’s up to the PL, FA, club chairmen, players unions and banks sitting down and working out a plan.
These are all poor polls for Trump - as I mentioned earlier, instead of wondering if MN is going to flip, we should be looking at Georgia, Iowa and Texas as potential Biden pickups.
Remember that socialist == communist for most of America.
That might be the case but still there were better ways of putting it . I understand the message was more for the mid west swing states. Biden’s lucky that the GOP won’t be using that in attack ads as it’s self defeating for them . Perhaps Sanders understands the political game and won’t be too hacked off and Biden better hope that Sanders supporters understand that too .
The GOP super PACs will be running that in millions of attack ads - but they’ll be on Facebook and carefully targeted at Sanders supporters in swing states.
Stupid comments by Biden. He could have avoided the beat the socialist bit and he really needs Sanders supporters to come out and vote . He was on Fox so the audience watching might have effected his comments but still it was an idiotic thing to say .
News Flash - Sanders voters already know that Biden is NOT a socialist. The also know he is NOT the leader of the party now rushing to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing reactionaries.
Conversely, the voters who NEED to get the word that our (21st century) Uncle Joe is not a bolshevik (or even menshevik) are Republican / Republican-leaning suburban voters, many of whom are pro-choice and/or otherwise alienated from Trumpsky and Putinist-Republican Party (GOPP).
Agreed - no big deal if a bunch of liberals in California and New York get pissed off with Biden.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
Stupid comments by Biden. He could have avoided the beat the socialist bit and he really needs Sanders supporters to come out and vote . He was on Fox so the audience watching might have effected his comments but still it was an idiotic thing to say .
News Flash - Sanders voters already know that Biden is NOT a socialist. The also know he is NOT the leader of the party now rushing to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing reactionaries.
Conversely, the voters who NEED to get the word that our (21st century) Uncle Joe is not a bolshevik (or even menshevik) are Republican / Republican-leaning suburban voters, many of whom are pro-choice and/or otherwise alienated from Trumpsky and Putinist-Republican Party (GOPP).
Agreed - no big deal if a bunch of liberals in California and New York get pissed off with Biden.
He would probably benefit significantly in the swing states if a load of Socialists were on the airwaves every day slagging him off, indeed.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Winston Smith should have just got a new user name.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Surely the road to enlightenment is more historical context, not less. That's what we keep being told, anyway...
But let's distinguish between context and deflection.
"Millions of jews died in the camps."
"Sure. But let's not pretend it was only jews. Others did too."
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
What bad things do you think will happen in the future as a result of the National Trust providing information about the colonial past of their properties?
It'd be amusing if @LadyG lost in November, I suspect he'll hang on in the Palmetto state though.
Someone posted earlier, about SCOTUS confirmation hearings & votes meaning GOP senators in tight races won't be able to campaign due to being tied up in DC.
On the contrary, in the Year of COVID the untimely demise of RBG means that most who are on 2020 ballot will be able to campaign MORE effectively from hearing rooms, press conferences and the Senate floor FAR more effectively.
Lindsay G. is a case in point, indeed the poster child. HIS problem was not just that Democrats and many anti-Trump Republicans are planning to vote against him BUT that many pro-Trumpers are - or rather were - getting ready to scratch him from their dance cards.
NOW he has a very prominent platform - as chair of the Senate Judiciary committee - to demonstrate his love of Trump AND a conservative SCOTUS lock to skeptical right-wingers and wavering conservatives.
Stupid comments by Biden. He could have avoided the beat the socialist bit and he really needs Sanders supporters to come out and vote . He was on Fox so the audience watching might have effected his comments but still it was an idiotic thing to say .
News Flash - Sanders voters already know that Biden is NOT a socialist. The also know he is NOT the leader of the party now rushing to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing reactionaries.
Conversely, the voters who NEED to get the word that our (21st century) Uncle Joe is not a bolshevik (or even menshevik) are Republican / Republican-leaning suburban voters, many of whom are pro-choice and/or otherwise alienated from Trumpsky and Putinist-Republican Party (GOPP).
Agreed - no big deal if a bunch of liberals in California and New York get pissed off with Biden.
Rather bigger deal though if they do so in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin.
Sanders got 36%, 40% and 31% in those 3 states Democratic primaries earlier this year
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
What bad things do you think will happen in the future as a result of the National Trust providing information about the colonial past of their properties?
Indeed, far from concealing the past, they intend to shine a light on a few shadowy corners.
... However I agree that the Brits generally seek out wines they feel they can trust, wines that are well known. The same goes for Chinese people: they go to Bordeaux or Burgundy because of prestige. For this reason renowned French wines from the classic regions are overpriced, to my mind. ...
I'm not so sure about that. Burgundy of course is made in small quantities and has always been expensive, as per this line from a Meredith novel: "Poor Jorian, I know no man I pity as much; he has but six hundred a year and a passion for burgundy". But nowadays the most over-priced wines are often Italian (Barolo, I'm looking at you), or Californian.
Supertuscans have shot up in value for the same reason as Burgundy, I believe: Asian money
I have ALWAYS been disappointed by Californian wine. I don't know why. I've had some famous ones. They just don't do it for me. Maybe they are tainted by my memory of hideous Californian wine from 30 years ago
At the moment I am big on Balkan and Greek wines. Israeli wines are now interesting, as well
Hungary is another country whose wines are worth sampling, benefitting from the recent freedom to pursue quality over volume.
Stupid comments by Biden. He could have avoided the beat the socialist bit and he really needs Sanders supporters to come out and vote . He was on Fox so the audience watching might have effected his comments but still it was an idiotic thing to say .
News Flash - Sanders voters already know that Biden is NOT a socialist. The also know he is NOT the leader of the party now rushing to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing reactionaries.
Conversely, the voters who NEED to get the word that our (21st century) Uncle Joe is not a bolshevik (or even menshevik) are Republican / Republican-leaning suburban voters, many of whom are pro-choice and/or otherwise alienated from Trumpsky and Putinist-Republican Party (GOPP).
Agreed - no big deal if a bunch of liberals in California and New York get pissed off with Biden.
Rather bigger deal though if they do so in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin.
Sanders got 36%, 40% and 31% in those 3 states Democratic primaries earlier this year
Luckily for Biden, the Greens are only on the ballot in Michigan out of those three - which is probably the safest for the Dems
A twenty year term limit would fix that. Imposed by an incoming Democratic Congress, it would still allow a 5-4 Republican Court led by Roberts for the entire term of the next Presidency, so would be an entirely even handed reform.
Wouldn't a term limit hit the Democrats more than the Republicans for the next generation? Three of the GOP Justices (by then) were only just inaugurated so the term limit would hit the Democrats sooner.
Two of the current justices, Thomas (appointed by Bush 41) and Breyer (appointed by Clinton), already have over twenty years each on the bench. Most likely any move to set term limits would only be applied to new appointments. If the Ds tried to impose a term limit deposing existing justices by statute, it would probably fall foul of the prohibition on ex post facto laws. I think a bipartisan case for a constitutional amendment to set a term limit on SCOTUS justices could be made, but I don't see that getting anywhere unless the existing justices were grandfathered out of it.
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
That's assuming the drinker can tell the difference between one wine and another theoretically 22 times better.
If they cannot - and plenty of the people buying the £20 wine will not be able to - then they're wasting their money.
The vast majority of people will prefer the better wine, regardless of whether they claim they would.
There is a stupid amount of hair-shirtism and reverse snobbery around wine “oh I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference”.
Next time you hear this, try a blind tasting. It’s fun. Nine times out of ten the reverse snob prefers the better wine.
A twenty year term limit would fix that. Imposed by an incoming Democratic Congress, it would still allow a 5-4 Republican Court led by Roberts for the entire term of the next Presidency, so would be an entirely even handed reform.
Wouldn't a term limit hit the Democrats more than the Republicans for the next generation? Three of the GOP Justices (by then) were only just inaugurated so the term limit would hit the Democrats sooner.
Two of the current justices, Thomas (appointed by Bush 41) and Breyer (appointed by Clinton), already have over twenty years each on the bench. Most likely any move to set term limits would only be applied to new appointments. If the Ds tried to impose a term limit deposing existing justices by statute, it would probably fall foul of the prohibition on ex post facto laws. I think a bipartisan case for a constitutional amendment to set a term limit on SCOTUS justices could be made, but I don't see that getting anywhere unless the existing justices were grandfathered out of it.
Last time a constitutional amendment (the 22nd) set term limits, the incumbent at the time of adoption was exempted.
Truman’s exhaustion and unpopularity made the point moot, but it was there.
A twenty year term limit would fix that. Imposed by an incoming Democratic Congress, it would still allow a 5-4 Republican Court led by Roberts for the entire term of the next Presidency, so would be an entirely even handed reform.
Wouldn't a term limit hit the Democrats more than the Republicans for the next generation? Three of the GOP Justices (by then) were only just inaugurated so the term limit would hit the Democrats sooner.
Two of the current justices, Thomas (appointed by Bush 41) and Breyer (appointed by Clinton), already have over twenty years each on the bench. Most likely any move to set term limits would only be applied to new appointments. If the Ds tried to impose a term limit deposing existing justices by statute, it would probably fall foul of the prohibition on ex post facto laws. I think a bipartisan case for a constitutional amendment to set a term limit on SCOTUS justices could be made, but I don't see that getting anywhere unless the existing justices were grandfathered out of it.
Ah further to that, I just had a look at Article III, which establishes the federal courts, and it says that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour", so it follows that it would require a full-blown constitutional amendment to create a term limit, not just statute.
These are all poor polls for Trump - as I mentioned earlier, instead of wondering if MN is going to flip, we should be looking at Georgia, Iowa and Texas as potential Biden pickups.
Vermont is particularly noteworthy. Biden isn't doing as well as Clinton did, so there is no question of him piling up votes uselessly in safe States.
These are all poor polls for Trump - as I mentioned earlier, instead of wondering if MN is going to flip, we should be looking at Georgia, Iowa and Texas as potential Biden pickups.
Vermont is particularly noteworthy. Biden isn't doing as well as Clinton did, so there is no question of him piling up votes uselessly in safe States.
Who was the last Democrat to win Georgia and Texas? I’m guessing it was Carter.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
What bad things do you think will happen in the future as a result of the National Trust providing information about the colonial past of their properties?
Indeed, far from concealing the past, they intend to shine a light on a few shadowy corners.
The enemy is not ignorance, it is denial. The unthinking right says it never happened at all, but if it did it was a trivial matter a long time ago without long term consequences and anyway WILBERFORCE fuck yeah! And the left think it all happened but was exclusively the doing not of the British but of the evil British TORIES!
It’s just a fact that most of our national heroes from the past were racist. Whether you like it or not, it doesn’t change that fact, and neither does hiding it.
It doesn’t diminish their other achievements.
But hey, the whiners are going to continue to whine as they always do, about something.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Marc Ferro summed it up: To control the past is to master the present, to legitimize dominion and justify legal claims.
But the Elizabethans knew that too - "Some say treason never prospers - what's the reason? If it prospers none dare call it treason."
And the old Soviet joke - "The future is certain! It's the past that keeps changing..."
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
The National Trust have released a "woke" report today on slavery and colonialism along these lines and, as a consequence, I have cancelled my membership - having finally run out of patience with them.
I gave them robust feedback. Ultimately, though, they need to be hit in the wallet to be made to listen to it.
It doesn't seem to be widely available. What do I need to look for if I want to buy something similar? I know nothing about wine apart from that specific one being delicious.
That's not a Chardonnay, it's a Trebbiano, so it won't be the wine you had (or else you were mistaken on the grape).
There are lots of good white wines from Puglia, and indeed all over Italy, nowadays.
For some reason, Chardonnay has always tasted of soap to me.
I find it cloying. But I'm a budget wine drinker. Perhaps if I was prepared to go above £4.95.
If you pay £4.95 for wine, £2.30 of that will be tax, and another £2 will be the cost of packaging, shipping, marketing. You are actually buying a bottle of wine worth about 27 pence.
Unsurprisingly, this wine will not be very good. It will be plonk. Better plonk that you got 30 years ago, thanks to the industralised wineries of the New World, but still plonk.
The sweet spot for value is about £15-£20. A bottle that costs £20 will be four times as expensive as yours, but the value of the wine itself will be 22 times higher. This is reflected in the taste.
Go above £40 and you are paying mostly for rarity and prestige, which is fairly pointless, tho appealing to some.
Oh god we've had this conversation before and you embarrassed yourself then.
You are saying that there is no difference between a £40 JK Carriere Dolores Estate Pinot Noir and, say, a Charmes Chambertin from Domaine Rousseau?
You're of course right about the tax calcs, though.
lol. You always wheel out these long French names, like it proves something. Weird.
How about something from Harlan Estate?
Have you ever tried Georgian orange wine? I had a few bottles recently. It's quite unique, and sometimes absolutely delicious.
I think this is an interesting case where a price over £40 is justified by rarity.
Looks intriguing.
But it's precisely because there are all these hidden gems that many people prefer to stick to the ones they know and, for UK wine drinkers, that is mainly France and then Italy.
Australia also has a huge chunk of the UK market. Possibly the most by sheer volume.
However I agree that the Brits generally seek out wines they feel they can trust, wines that are well known. The same goes for Chinese people: they go to Bordeaux or Burgundy because of prestige. For this reason renowned French wines from the classic regions are overpriced, to my mind.
Macedonia is making great red wine. The Greeks now do stunning whites. I had a fine mountain wine from Bolivia, in Bolivia. It's much more fun to search out the weird ones.
In the UK by volume it’s Australia, by some margin, then USA, France, Italy, Spain, Chile, South Africa in that order. For still wine only. For sparkling, Italy beats France.
The US is the surprising one, but the Gallo empire is huge and churns out masses of mediocre wines under a lot of different brand names.
Yet in global terms the Australian wine industry is tiny. It’s just that most wine drinking countries don’t import any.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
What bad things do you think will happen in the future as a result of the National Trust providing information about the colonial past of their properties?
Folk might lose their taste for deifying Churchill and Spitfire flypasts, AND THAT WOULD BE TERRIBLE.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’
Oh no. It's the new Godwin - the inappropriate invocation of our Eric.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
Particularly egregious to recruit old Blair to the project of minimising our colonial crimes, given his well documented hatred of British imperialism.
Vermont is particularly noteworthy. Biden isn't doing as well as Clinton did, so there is no question of him piling up votes uselessly in safe States.
Oddly enough, Biden is doing disproportionately well in red state strongholds. Polls in Kentucky, Montana, Missouri, Indiana and Mississippi have all shown swings of 4-7% to Biden which is greater than that suggested by national polling.
Trump is oddly enough doing better than the national polls in safe blue states. The Vermont poll is a 1.5% swing to Trump in a state he lost by thirty last time. I recall a similar small pro-Trump swing in a California poll the other day.
I've seen South Carolina polls showing Trump up by 6 in a state he won by 14 last time so that's a 4% swing to Biden. In Georgia, it's a tie but Trump only won by 5 last time so that's a 2.5% swing to Biden. The Senate race is also very tight with Perdue leading Ossoff 47-45.
Trump won Iowa by 10 so another tie means a 5% swing to Biden. Iowa and Georgia are 22 EC votes so significant for those playing the spreads.
Another Michigan poll this time from MRG but not so good for Biden with only a 5-point lead (46-41) compared to some higher recent numbers. It's a poll of 600 voters with a 4% Margin of Error. The Senate race has Peters leading James 42-40 so that's a bit tighter than some other recent polls.
It's interesting to ponder what the unenlightened believed about race back then.
You don't need to ponder, it's all well documented in the history books. You might need to ponder a bit more about what the slave-owning and slave-trading Ashanti and Benin peoples believed in the 18th century, but I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have been entirely Woke.
It seems odd to try to contextualize our historical racist crimes against black people by reference to the historical crimes of black people against other black people. It sounds rather like the more topical and oft heard (almost undoubtedly racist) sentiment, "Yeah, sure, Black Lives Matter, yada yada. But how about they start by not killing each other so much." That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Not at all. It is simply pointing out that it is completely ludicrous to judge people from a very different age and culture, with a very different level of knowledge, by today's standards, and even more ludicrous if you are not going to be consistent about it. Would you object to a statue of the great Ashanti figure, Osei Tutu? If not, why not?
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
A re-evaluation of our colonial past is not "judging people". That is a rather tabloid way of looking at this topic.
If you're re-evaluating them by today's standards, in order to decide whether to continue to commemorate them or not, then you're absolutely judging them.
These are all poor polls for Trump - as I mentioned earlier, instead of wondering if MN is going to flip, we should be looking at Georgia, Iowa and Texas as potential Biden pickups.
Vermont is particularly noteworthy. Biden isn't doing as well as Clinton did, so there is no question of him piling up votes uselessly in safe States.
Who was the last Democrat to win Georgia and Texas? I’m guessing it was Carter.
Clinton won Georgia in 1992, but Carter was the last Democrat to win Texas.
Stupid comments by Biden. He could have avoided the beat the socialist bit and he really needs Sanders supporters to come out and vote . He was on Fox so the audience watching might have effected his comments but still it was an idiotic thing to say .
News Flash - Sanders voters already know that Biden is NOT a socialist. The also know he is NOT the leader of the party now rushing to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing reactionaries.
Conversely, the voters who NEED to get the word that our (21st century) Uncle Joe is not a bolshevik (or even menshevik) are Republican / Republican-leaning suburban voters, many of whom are pro-choice and/or otherwise alienated from Trumpsky and Putinist-Republican Party (GOPP).
Agreed - no big deal if a bunch of liberals in California and New York get pissed off with Biden.
Rather bigger deal though if they do so in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin.
Sanders got 36%, 40% and 31% in those 3 states Democratic primaries earlier this year
Luckily for Biden, the Greens are only on the ballot in Michigan out of those three - which is probably the safest for the Dems
NOT just question of progressives voting for 3rd party, also potential for skipping the presidential races entirely.
Which is REDUCED by the current SCOTUS fight IMHO. Which clearly helps Biden among progressives.
UNLESS of course Trumpsky nominee to replace RBG is OAC . . .
... 2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism. ...
Ah, I see your mistake. You don't understand the British Empire.
But are you going to answer my question about the Ashanti warrior?
Your question is asinine. Here's a better one -
Does my observation that the British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism really indicate a lack of understanding of the British Empire?
Or is your saying that it does an example of self-serving and parochial cognitive bias?
I'm being generous btw.
Happy to answer your question, once we've cleared up the question of whether you are consistent in your objection to statues. (Prediction; You are not.)
In view of PB wine wonks (and wokes) are their any Washington State wines that are exceptional, or even drinkable?
Oregon Pinot Noirs are, in the round, better than Californian, as really Cali is too hot. I gather there are some promising growers of Pinot in Washington State, certainly that’s the grape you’d want to grow there. Like New Zealand South Island, Otago.
These are all poor polls for Trump - as I mentioned earlier, instead of wondering if MN is going to flip, we should be looking at Georgia, Iowa and Texas as potential Biden pickups.
Vermont is particularly noteworthy. Biden isn't doing as well as Clinton did, so there is no question of him piling up votes uselessly in safe States.
Who was the last Democrat to win Georgia and Texas? I’m guessing it was Carter.
Clinton won Georgia in 1992, but Carter was the last Democrat to win Texas.
Indeed, the 1976 map is almost a reverse of the 2016 map, certainly in the South.
Carter won every southern state except Virginia which went to Ford, Ford also won Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut and New Jersey and every western state except Hawaii, including California and Ford also won Illinois while Carter won Ohio and Missouri and Wisconsin as well as Minnesota and West Virginia
Comments
But the ECB are also expected to ask for a handout.
It's particularly ludicrous in the case of David Hume, one of the prime figures of the Enlightenment, without which we wouldn't even have the concepts by which they are being judged.
Have such a refined palette is expensive.
And its also leads to people thinking you're a pretentious twat who's pretending to have an ultra refined palette.
Same with whisky and brandy but you can't let them smell it first.
Note that his 21st century descendants include Duchesses of Abercorn and Westminster, also Marquis of Milford Haven.
According to wiki, Puskin's Black great-granddaddy came from a family of - wait for it - slave owners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Petrovich_Gannibal
However I agree that the Brits generally seek out wines they feel they can trust, wines that are well known. The same goes for Chinese people: they go to Bordeaux or Burgundy because of prestige. For this reason renowned French wines from the classic regions are overpriced, to my mind.
Macedonia is making great red wine. The Greeks now do stunning whites. I had a fine mountain wine from Bolivia, in Bolivia. It's much more fun to search out the weird ones.
If a bottle of wine is, say 0.XXXXX% of your net worth then the price of that wine will change depending upon your net worth.
Of course there are people who like to show off undoubtedly.
If they're unable to do that, why should the taxpayer hop in ?
I guess it would depend on the vaccine news - if that's positive obviously there's a quick path back to repaying the loan (with interest) in 2022 and so forth. If not, well potential el busto.
Premier League Rugby is in dire straits I've heard on the grapevine.
With a net result of +2 GOP Senators.
And on that note...I must be off out to dinner. I will report back on what wine I have. Clue: it will be a white burgundy to start and a claret afterwards.
But with plenty of caveats, so that's why Real Madrid have released 14 players and not signed anyone.
20 years ago I am sure I would have been unable to tell the difference, so it would have been wasted on me. After two decades of constant guzzling, often of very famous wines, I think I have taught myself to discern the difference.
And I prefer the £20 bottle.
However, I'd still be a little bit nervous at a blindfold wine tasting. If French experts can't even tell red from white......
(With apologies to Ken Livingstone.)
Unless something has changed in the negotiations, the discussions between the govt, PL and FL are that the FL gets long term loans from both govt and PL (around 200-250m), with the PL contribution mortgaged against PL future tv money.
But any local poll is highly doubtful.
Anyone going around waving it and pretending it was a prediction rather than a worst-case scenario that was stressed with the “If” being highlighted and the people presenting emphasising that it was not a prediction - well, they’re outing themselves as obvious cranks and nuts with an agenda to torture.
Useful highlighting.
Conversely, the voters who NEED to get the word that our (21st century) Uncle Joe is not a bolshevik (or even menshevik) are Republican / Republican-leaning suburban voters, many of whom are pro-choice and/or otherwise alienated from Trumpsky and Putinist-Republican Party (GOPP).
I have ALWAYS been disappointed by Californian wine. I don't know why. I've had some famous ones. They just don't do it for me. Maybe they are tainted by my memory of hideous Californian wine from 30 years ago
At the moment I am big on Balkan and Greek wines. Israeli wines are now interesting, as well
What is it with partisan pollsters in the US. At least polling companies here don't pre-announce they're a Conservative pollster or some such, it'd be thought complete mince. Anyway McSally behind with GOP polling.
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1308447175513378819
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308373283985907712?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308367735336964096?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308366431017414656?s=20
I think Californian (and Oregon) wines can be very good but they are very pricey so I don't buy them.
Claret is beginning to seem relatively reasonably priced, unless you go for the very big names.
1. We were discussing a building named after a British racist in Britain.
2. The British Empire was a VERY notable example of racist colonialism.
3. I'm British.
4. This is Britain.
So it does not (to me) seem odd that I mentioned Britain. Should I put "but of course Britain did not have an exclusive on racism" in brackets after every reference to our historical racist crimes? Would that suffice?
Formula 1 took a billion-dollar refining facility, and they’re one of the few sports to have something that looks like a championship season - albeit behind closed doors so far, and at a massive cost in testing and isolating people for long periods of time.
Lower leagues of any sport are going to be much worse than top leagues, as the top leagues take the lion’s share of the TV money.
In the Premier League, it’s up to the PL, FA, club chairmen, players unions and banks sitting down and working out a plan.
But are you going to answer my question about the Ashanti warrior?
Prison Break's Dominic Purcell says season 6 of the show is happening
https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a34105521/prison-break-season-6-dominic-purcell/
"Millions of jews died in the camps."
"Sure. But let's not pretend it was only jews. Others did too."
Type thing. You know what I mean.
On the contrary, in the Year of COVID the untimely demise of RBG means that most who are on 2020 ballot will be able to campaign MORE effectively from hearing rooms, press conferences and the Senate floor FAR more effectively.
Lindsay G. is a case in point, indeed the poster child. HIS problem was not just that Democrats and many anti-Trump Republicans are planning to vote against him BUT that many pro-Trumpers are - or rather were - getting ready to scratch him from their dance cards.
NOW he has a very prominent platform - as chair of the Senate Judiciary committee - to demonstrate his love of Trump AND a conservative SCOTUS lock to skeptical right-wingers and wavering conservatives.
Sanders got 36%, 40% and 31% in those 3 states Democratic primaries earlier this year
There is a stupid amount of hair-shirtism and reverse snobbery around wine “oh I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference”.
Next time you hear this, try a blind tasting. It’s fun. Nine times out of ten the reverse snob prefers the better wine.
Truman’s exhaustion and unpopularity made the point moot, but it was there.
But back to the point. You seem to hold the absurd view that one cannot take a single statue of a racist down or re-badge a single building named after a racist without having to take ALL statues of racists down or re-badge ALL buildings named after racists, regardless of circumstances (e.g. type and use of building) or genuinely useful context (as opposed to deflection) such as who the racist was, what else did he do, just how racist was he, was it incidental (say) or did he make his living from slavery, did he as it were wallow in his racism?
"Mr X. A great man in many ways but he was VERY racist, he really was, and so we are considering whether we want to have this building named after him."
Nothing wrong or sinister with this. It's healthy. You just dislike the notion and all you're doing is using "extrapolatus ad nauseato" to try and counter it. It won't wash.
It doesn’t diminish their other achievements.
But hey, the whiners are going to continue to whine as they always do, about something.
But the Elizabethans knew that too - "Some say treason never prospers - what's the reason? If it prospers none dare call it treason."
And the old Soviet joke - "The future is certain! It's the past that keeps changing..."
I gave them robust feedback. Ultimately, though, they need to be hit in the wallet to be made to listen to it.
The US is the surprising one, but the Gallo empire is huge and churns out masses of mediocre wines under a lot of different brand names.
Yet in global terms the Australian wine industry is tiny. It’s just that most wine drinking countries don’t import any.
Trump is oddly enough doing better than the national polls in safe blue states. The Vermont poll is a 1.5% swing to Trump in a state he lost by thirty last time. I recall a similar small pro-Trump swing in a California poll the other day.
I've seen South Carolina polls showing Trump up by 6 in a state he won by 14 last time so that's a 4% swing to Biden. In Georgia, it's a tie but Trump only won by 5 last time so that's a 2.5% swing to Biden. The Senate race is also very tight with Perdue leading Ossoff 47-45.
Trump won Iowa by 10 so another tie means a 5% swing to Biden. Iowa and Georgia are 22 EC votes so significant for those playing the spreads.
Another Michigan poll this time from MRG but not so good for Biden with only a 5-point lead (46-41) compared to some higher recent numbers. It's a poll of 600 voters with a 4% Margin of Error. The Senate race has Peters leading James 42-40 so that's a bit tighter than some other recent polls.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2020/MRG_Michigan_September_2020.pdf
Does my observation that the British Empire was a notable example of racist colonialism really indicate a lack of understanding of the British Empire?
Or is your saying that it does an example of self-serving and parochial cognitive bias?
I'm being generous btw.
Which is REDUCED by the current SCOTUS fight IMHO. Which clearly helps Biden among progressives.
UNLESS of course Trumpsky nominee to replace RBG is OAC . . .
Carter won every southern state except Virginia which went to Ford, Ford also won Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut and New Jersey and every western state except Hawaii, including California and Ford also won Illinois while Carter won Ohio and Missouri and Wisconsin as well as Minnesota and West Virginia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_United_States_presidential_election