I am always surprised with the rise of every kitchen gadget under the sun, how uncommon rice cookers are in most people's homes. Every person from the Far East I know just think we are crazy that we boil rice, its just the road to ruin (or worse microwave it).
With tofu, isnt part of the secret you need a tofu press?
The South Asians also boil rice - rice is pretty ubiquitous over there!
Ubiquitous? Much more common to be served roti rather than rice in a Punjabi home.
Punjab is just one region of the Subcontinent.
Don't go all HYUFD on me!
Ubiquitous: present, appearing, or found everywhere.
I'm sure the Punjabis like their biryanis! (which are made using rice, last time I checked)
I am always surprised with the rise of every kitchen gadget under the sun, how uncommon rice cookers are in most people's homes. Every person from the Far East I know just think we are crazy that we boil rice, its just the road to ruin (or worse microwave it).
With tofu, isnt part of the secret you need a tofu press?
The absorption method (i.e. precise rice to water ratio) is the only correct way to cook rice without a rice cooker.
Eh? There are two ways, both valid but with different characteristics. The absorption method requires exactly the right amount of water, and works well if you get it right. It's the method usually used in China and surrounding areas. However, it produces a rather heavy result because the starch is retained. In Iran where they know a thing or two about rice, this is the kateh method.
Alternatively, you can get superb results with the chelo method, where you use a lot of water and drain it off before steaming in the pan over a very low heat, covering the pan with a clean tea towel to absorb excess steam This gives a lighter result because the starch is washed away. It works particularly well with Basmati-style rices.
The big error most Brits make when cooking rice is to fall between these two stools; too much water for kateh, not enough for chelo, so they end up with a sticky mess.
You need the starch, and use the steam method, if you are going to eat rice with chopsticks. Also steaming rice has one of those wonderful smells, like mown hay, baked bread and so on. It's the best way of cooking if you eat the rice plain.
Rice should be light and fluffy. Making a sticky gunk just so you can eat it with inappropriate utensils is madness.
I am always surprised with the rise of every kitchen gadget under the sun, how uncommon rice cookers are in most people's homes. Every person from the Far East I know just think we are crazy that we boil rice, its just the road to ruin (or worse microwave it).
With tofu, isnt part of the secret you need a tofu press?
The South Asians also boil rice - rice is pretty ubiquitous over there!
Ubiquitous? Much more common to be served roti rather than rice in a Punjabi home.
Punjab is just one region of the Subcontinent.
Don't go all HYUFD on me!
Ubiquitous: present, appearing, or found everywhere.
I'm sure the Punjabis like their biryanis! (which are made using rice, last time I checked)
But go to a gurdwara and all you'll get is daal and roti.
And none of my inlaws had ever served me up a biryani.
I've checked and the US Constitution doesn't have anything explicitly in it about citizens being able to receive chemotherapy. Should the States be able to ban people getting chemo?
So Roe vs Wade gets repealed tomorrow with the Texas Abortion Bounty system going into effect. You would think that would be bigger news.
Has the Supreme Court chosen not to hear the case?
Well, they've technically got 9 hours left to respond.
But that's only on the shadow docket to lay an injunction down. If they don't whilst the case could still get to the supreme court as soon as the law goes live in Texas tomorrow then that's pretty much it for safe legal abortion in the state even if the SC does eventually repeal the law.
This is truly the most cowardly way the conservatives on the SC could have faced the issue.
Personally I have no problem with it. Republicans control the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate and the Governor of Texas is a Republican, Greg Abbott and all are pro life. Voters knew what they were choosing when they voted for them.
It also does not ban abortion completely anyway, it just bans them after the first six weeks of Pregnancy.
So, if they were all in favour of slavery....
I recall a minor stink about a local politician over there a decade or so ago who explicitly made that suggestion, that what the people want they get. Anything they want.
I am always surprised with the rise of every kitchen gadget under the sun, how uncommon rice cookers are in most people's homes. Every person from the Far East I know just think we are crazy that we boil rice, its just the road to ruin (or worse microwave it).
With tofu, isnt part of the secret you need a tofu press?
The absorption method (i.e. precise rice to water ratio) is the only correct way to cook rice without a rice cooker.
Eh? There are two ways, both valid but with different characteristics. The absorption method requires exactly the right amount of water, and works well if you get it right. It's the method usually used in China and surrounding areas. However, it produces a rather heavy result because the starch is retained. In Iran where they know a thing or two about rice, this is the kateh method.
Alternatively, you can get superb results with the chelo method, where you use a lot of water and drain it off before steaming in the pan over a very low heat, covering the pan with a clean tea towel to absorb excess steam This gives a lighter result because the starch is washed away. It works particularly well with Basmati-style rices.
The big error most Brits make when cooking rice is to fall between these two stools; too much water for kateh, not enough for chelo, so they end up with a sticky mess.
You need the starch, and use the steam method, if you are going to eat rice with chopsticks. Also steaming rice has one of those wonderful smells, like mown hay, baked bread and so on. It's the best way of cooking if you eat the rice plain.
Rice should be light and fluffy. Making a sticky gunk just so you can eat it with inappropriate utensils is madness.
Risotto waves from the plate. (Where it has been greedily eaten by my family, most of whom are now asking for seconds.)
I've checked and the US Constitution doesn't have anything explicitly in it about citizens being able to receive chemotherapy. Should the States be able to ban people getting chemo?
Not only that.
But should they be able to ban chemotherapy by allowing private citizens to sue doctors for giving someone else chemotherapy?
"Delta variant has wrecked hopes of herd immunity, warn scientists There is no way of stopping Covid spreading through the entire population, experts tell MPs as they call for end of mass testing"
"Delta variant renders herd immunity from Covid ‘mythical’ Head of Oxford Vaccine Group rules out overall immunity, but also questions need for booster jabs"
I've checked and the US Constitution doesn't have anything explicitly in it about citizens being able to receive chemotherapy. Should the States be able to ban people getting chemo?
Well it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", so clearly all Americans should have a legal right to own nuclear weapons
It's one of those situations where a lot of voters want change; they've decided the Greens aren't suitable because of the recent scandals, which means the only mainstream alternative is the SPD.
I've checked and the US Constitution doesn't have anything explicitly in it about citizens being able to receive chemotherapy. Should the States be able to ban people getting chemo?
Chemo is to enhance life, abortion is to end life.
However there is clearly not popular support in any US state for banning chemo to contain the spread of cancer, there is in Texas for a pro life agenda. Hence Texas has a pro life legislature and a pro life governor.
It is not really the business of a pro choice left liberal from the UK like you what Texas policy on abortion should be
"Delta variant has wrecked hopes of herd immunity, warn scientists There is no way of stopping Covid spreading through the entire population, experts tell MPs as they call for end of mass testing"
"Delta variant renders herd immunity from Covid ‘mythical’ Head of Oxford Vaccine Group rules out overall immunity, but also questions need for booster jabs"
So Roe vs Wade gets repealed tomorrow with the Texas Abortion Bounty system going into effect. You would think that would be bigger news.
Has the Supreme Court chosen not to hear the case?
Well, they've technically got 9 hours left to respond.
But that's only on the shadow docket to lay an injunction down. If they don't whilst the case could still get to the supreme court as soon as the law goes live in Texas tomorrow then that's pretty much it for safe legal abortion in the state even if the SC does eventually repeal the law.
This is truly the most cowardly way the conservatives on the SC could have faced the issue.
Personally I have no problem with it. Republicans control the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate and the Governor of Texas is a Republican, Greg Abbott and all are pro life. Voters knew what they were choosing when they voted for them.
It also does not ban abortion completely anyway, it just bans it after the first six weeks of Pregnancy.
I support the repeal of Roe vs Wade, because it is the job of legislatures, not judges, to create laws.
However, the Texas law is properly bonkers, because it puts the power of enforcement entirely in the hands of private citizens via the law courts, and then protects them against ever bearing the costs of their actions.
The US constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. Should California be allowed to pass a law making it de facto illegal? One would think "no". But that is the logical consequence of this Texas law being allowed to stand.
There is a defined US constitutional right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment, to change that would require the agreement of every US state, the President and Congress. Though that right could come with tighter background checks etc.
There is no defined US constitutional right to an abortion, the judgement in Roe v Wade merely interpreted the due process clause under the 14th amendment of the constitution to provide one
My issue is NOT with Texas passing laws that respect their voters' wishes.
It is that the method Texas is using is such that - if not struck down - could be employed by any a state to prevent the sale of arms. Or to ban gay or interracial marriage. It's a legal loophole that the Supreme Court would be wise to address now.
Basically, the way the law works is that the State of Texas will not enforce the abortion ban themselves. Instead, private individuals are allowed to sue those who perform abortions. If the abortion clinic wins, they get nothing, not even their costs. If the individual wins, then they get all their costs back from the clinic.
The idea is that - because it is not the State enforcing the law - then it cannot be sued for the unconstutitionality of the law. But (as about 100 legal scholars, including some very conservative ones) have noted, it essentially allows States to criminalise things that are specifically permitted by the constitution.
There may be issues with the enforcement of it but most of the pressure from the liberal left against it is because it would restrict abortion, not that private citizens would lead the enforcement of the new law rather than the state
I am always surprised with the rise of every kitchen gadget under the sun, how uncommon rice cookers are in most people's homes. Every person from the Far East I know just think we are crazy that we boil rice, its just the road to ruin (or worse microwave it).
With tofu, isnt part of the secret you need a tofu press?
The South Asians also boil rice - rice is pretty ubiquitous over there!
Ubiquitous? Much more common to be served roti rather than rice in a Punjabi home.
Punjab is just one region of the Subcontinent.
Don't go all HYUFD on me!
Ubiquitous: present, appearing, or found everywhere.
I'm sure the Punjabis like their biryanis! (which are made using rice, last time I checked)
But go to a gurdwara and all you'll get is daal and roti.
And none of my inlaws had ever served me up a biryani.
It's one of those situations where a lot of voters want change; they've decided the Greens aren't suitable because of the recent scandals, which means the only mainstream alternative is the SPD.
Most likely it will be an SPD-Green-FDP deal with Scholz as Chancellor. The Greens co-leader has ruled out a deal with Linke, Scholz is on the right of the SPD and will be wary of them too and the Union will likely go into opposition if they fall that low, regroup and move on from Merkel and Laschet. So that leaves only the FDP to join the SPD and Greens in government.
Despite being left of centre, I lean towards more restriction on abortion in order to better protect unborn.life, but the end effect of Draconian laws in this area is always, always abusive, whether it is recent Ireland preventing the abortion of a child with no medical prospect of any kind of sentient life, or the routine prosecution of genuine miscarriage in parts of Central America, and that Texas law will be the same.
I do hate some on the left going on about abortion as if it is the crowning glory of women's rights rather than their last chance saloon. Surely, no woman actually having an abortion celebrates it. Rather it is most often the end of a line of failures,, often low level, to protect a woman's right to sexual agency at previous junctures.
Best practice access to good contraception, high quality support to make a choice, a fair social system and #MeToo type empowerment are all relevant here. And developing and bringing better contraceptive methods to market - you can't obviously change the biology on which contraceptive science is based, but surely more can be done.
A tangential sounding example relating to condom resistance in men. It's rarely, actually, merely "a feel thing". Over 50% of men experience some kind of condom crash syndrome, or more correctly, condom associated erection problems, and it is prevalent in the young. So more on here are thinking 'that has a name?' and 'it's common?' rather than 'is that a thing?'. And the result is understandable significant condom despisal in men. Google erectile problems and you get - well you all know what direction that one will take. Very little about how putting a condom on differently years before might solve the immediate issue and perhaps even prevent the ultimate ED for many (clue: try rolling a sock up like a packaged condom and then try rolling it on, particularly over your heel - is that an easier way to get your sock into the right position so it won't ruckle and become uncomfortable?). More care with this one, correct condom use goes up hugely, fewer abortions.
I bet there are another half dozen things of this ilk and abortion is halved before you even change the laws one jot.
It's one of those situations where a lot of voters want change; they've decided the Greens aren't suitable because of the recent scandals, which means the only mainstream alternative is the SPD.
They might end up with a continuity grand coalition.
I just had a nightmare vision of an inconclusive result leading to Ursula von der Leyen emerging as a compromise Chancellor during coalition negotiations.
I've checked and the US Constitution doesn't have anything explicitly in it about citizens being able to receive chemotherapy. Should the States be able to ban people getting chemo?
Well it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", so clearly all Americans should have a legal right to own nuclear weapons
Perhaps the equivalent would be for private prosecutions of the gunshops to be carried out for accessory to murder, with no risk to the plaintiffs.
Research co. also giving a 1% Liberal lead. Their first poll of the campaign. Ekos showing a 4.6% Tory lead today though. Slightly less than previous. It really is take your pick. Mainstreet and Ekos showing leads big enough for the Conservatives to win most seats. Everyone else giving statistical ties. Which means Liberal minority. Who is right? Who knows?
So Roe vs Wade gets repealed tomorrow with the Texas Abortion Bounty system going into effect. You would think that would be bigger news.
Has the Supreme Court chosen not to hear the case?
Well, they've technically got 9 hours left to respond.
But that's only on the shadow docket to lay an injunction down. If they don't whilst the case could still get to the supreme court as soon as the law goes live in Texas tomorrow then that's pretty much it for safe legal abortion in the state even if the SC does eventually repeal the law.
This is truly the most cowardly way the conservatives on the SC could have faced the issue.
Personally I have no problem with it. Republicans control the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate and the Governor of Texas is a Republican, Greg Abbott and all are pro life. Voters knew what they were choosing when they voted for them.
It also does not ban abortion completely anyway, it just bans it after the first six weeks of Pregnancy.
I support the repeal of Roe vs Wade, because it is the job of legislatures, not judges, to create laws.
However, the Texas law is properly bonkers, because it puts the power of enforcement entirely in the hands of private citizens via the law courts, and then protects them against ever bearing the costs of their actions.
The US constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. Should California be allowed to pass a law making it de facto illegal? One would think "no". But that is the logical consequence of this Texas law being allowed to stand.
There is a defined US constitutional right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment, to change that would require the agreement of every US state, the President and Congress. Though that right could come with tighter background checks etc.
There is no defined US constitutional right to an abortion, the judgement in Roe v Wade merely interpreted the due process clause under the 14th amendment of the constitution to provide one
My issue is NOT with Texas passing laws that respect their voters' wishes.
It is that the method Texas is using is such that - if not struck down - could be employed by any a state to prevent the sale of arms. Or to ban gay or interracial marriage. It's a legal loophole that the Supreme Court would be wise to address now.
Basically, the way the law works is that the State of Texas will not enforce the abortion ban themselves. Instead, private individuals are allowed to sue those who perform abortions. If the abortion clinic wins, they get nothing, not even their costs. If the individual wins, then they get all their costs back from the clinic.
The idea is that - because it is not the State enforcing the law - then it cannot be sued for the unconstutitionality of the law. But (as about 100 legal scholars, including some very conservative ones) have noted, it essentially allows States to criminalise things that are specifically permitted by the constitution.
There may be issues with the enforcement of it but most of the pressure from the liberal left against it is because it would restrict abortion, not that private citizens would lead the enforcement of the new law rather than the state
I've said 100 times that I think Roe vs Wade was a bloody awful decision, and it is the job of legislatures to decide on the legality of abortion.
But the law in Texas is going to end up causing so much grief to all involved, especially when liberal states start using the mechanisms in it to do things they want:
The way it’s written, a Texan who objects to SB 8 may have no one they can sue to stop it from taking effect.
For one, abortion rights plaintiffs can’t sue their state directly. The ordinary rule is that when someone sues a state in order to block a state law, they cannot sue the state directly. States benefit from a doctrine known as “sovereign immunity,” which typically prevents lawsuits against the state itself.
But they also can’t really follow the same path that most citizens who want to stop laws do. That path relies on Ex parte Young (1908), a decision in which the Supreme Court established that someone raising a constitutional challenge to a state law may sue the state officer charged with enforcing that law — and obtain a court order preventing that officer from enforcing it. So, for example, if Texas passed a law requiring the state medical board to strip all abortion providers of their medical licenses, a plaintiff could sue the medical board. If a state passed a law requiring state police to blockade abortion clinics, a plaintiff might sue the chief of the state’s police force.
Part of what makes SB 8 such a bizarre law is that it does not permit any state official to enforce it. Rather, the statute provides that it “shall be enforced exclusively through . . . private civil actions.”
Under the law, “any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state,” may bring a private lawsuit against anyone who performs an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, or against anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.” Plaintiffs who prevail in such suits shall receive at least $10,000 from the defendant.
SB 8, in other words, attempts to make an end run around Young by preventing state officials from directly enforcing the law. Again, Young established that a plaintiff may sue a state official charged with enforcing a state law in order to block enforcement of that law. But if no state official is charged with enforcing the law, there’s no one to sue in order to block the law.
With regard to canvassing, I have done a bit of this. My impression was that it was completely inefficient, the people I spoke to at the doorstep were all probably lying to me, and it was largely a form of therapy for political activists.
I accepted however that it does have some underlying function: in that you can use it to find out who is going to vote for you, and then you can make sure that they actually vote on election day.
In Totnes in 2019, our canvassing was accurate to within 0.2%% of the final result for our vote.
I've checked and the US Constitution doesn't have anything explicitly in it about citizens being able to receive chemotherapy. Should the States be able to ban people getting chemo?
Well it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", so clearly all Americans should have a legal right to own nuclear weapons
Perhaps the equivalent would be for private prosecutions of the gunshops to be carried out for accessory to murder, with no risk to the plaintiffs.
Works for me!
Oh, I think it's inevitable that this strategy will now be used by liberal states to do things that are clearly unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court should man up and just reverse Roe vs Wade. Then the states can have proper arguments over the legality of abortion.
Research co. also giving a 1% Liberal lead. Their first poll of the campaign. Ekos showing a 4.6% Tory lead today though. Slightly less than previous. It really is take your pick. Mainstreet and Ekos showing leads big enough for the Conservatives to win most seats. Everyone else giving statistical ties. Which means Liberal minority. Who is right? Who knows?
Extra. Ekos and mainstream are also giving big scores for the right wing PPC. From 4 to 7.8%. No other company has shown them above 4%. Most polls much less. Suggests they are either picking up a generalised shift to the right. Or have an issue with right leaning samples. Impossible to tell which.
I think it was @Sean_Fear who once said on here that canvassing gives a fairly reasonable picture or your own likely support but none whatever about your opponents. I completely agree with him based on almost 40 years on the doorsteps. And you definitely get a full sense of all the local issues and concerns, which is very useful if you succeed in getting elected.
But of course a large proportion of the 35% who do bother to vote locally do so on national politics anyway. When I stood in 2019 (very reluctantly as the branch concerned simply couldn't find a candidate), I knew I wouldn't win after the first morning of canvassing. It was just days after Mrs May reneged on the pledge not to extend Article 50. The weeks of campaigning were just painful, though like Nick P, I never encountered abuse or unpleasantness.
I did some canvassing for the LDs at the 2013 Eastleigh by-election. The main problem is avoiding getting your fingers bitten by dogs as you try to push leaflets through letterboxes.
So Roe vs Wade gets repealed tomorrow with the Texas Abortion Bounty system going into effect. You would think that would be bigger news.
Has the Supreme Court chosen not to hear the case?
Well, they've technically got 9 hours left to respond.
But that's only on the shadow docket to lay an injunction down. If they don't whilst the case could still get to the supreme court as soon as the law goes live in Texas tomorrow then that's pretty much it for safe legal abortion in the state even if the SC does eventually repeal the law.
This is truly the most cowardly way the conservatives on the SC could have faced the issue.
Personally I have no problem with it. Republicans control the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate and the Governor of Texas is a Republican, Greg Abbott and all are pro life. Voters knew what they were choosing when they voted for them.
It also does not ban abortion completely anyway, it just bans it after the first six weeks of Pregnancy.
I support the repeal of Roe vs Wade, because it is the job of legislatures, not judges, to create laws.
However, the Texas law is properly bonkers, because it puts the power of enforcement entirely in the hands of private citizens via the law courts, and then protects them against ever bearing the costs of their actions.
The US constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. Should California be allowed to pass a law making it de facto illegal? One would think "no". But that is the logical consequence of this Texas law being allowed to stand.
There is a defined US constitutional right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment, to change that would require the agreement of every US state, the President and Congress. Though that right could come with tighter background checks etc.
There is no defined US constitutional right to an abortion, the judgement in Roe v Wade merely interpreted the due process clause under the 14th amendment of the constitution to provide one
My issue is NOT with Texas passing laws that respect their voters' wishes.
It is that the method Texas is using is such that - if not struck down - could be employed by any a state to prevent the sale of arms. Or to ban gay or interracial marriage. It's a legal loophole that the Supreme Court would be wise to address now.
Basically, the way the law works is that the State of Texas will not enforce the abortion ban themselves. Instead, private individuals are allowed to sue those who perform abortions. If the abortion clinic wins, they get nothing, not even their costs. If the individual wins, then they get all their costs back from the clinic.
The idea is that - because it is not the State enforcing the law - then it cannot be sued for the unconstutitionality of the law. But (as about 100 legal scholars, including some very conservative ones) have noted, it essentially allows States to criminalise things that are specifically permitted by the constitution.
What will be worse is if the SC refuses to hear this case - they will effectively be approving the constitutionality of this legal mess (and overturning Roe v Wade into the bargain) without giving a substantial hearing to the arguments, or fully explaining their reasoning.
I've checked and the US Constitution doesn't have anything explicitly in it about citizens being able to receive chemotherapy. Should the States be able to ban people getting chemo?
Not only that.
But should they be able to ban chemotherapy by allowing private citizens to sue doctors for giving someone else chemotherapy?
I've checked and the US Constitution doesn't have anything explicitly in it about citizens being able to receive chemotherapy. Should the States be able to ban people getting chemo?
Well it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", so clearly all Americans should have a legal right to own nuclear weapons
Perhaps the equivalent would be for private prosecutions of the gunshops to be carried out for accessory to murder, with no risk to the plaintiffs.
Works for me!
Oh, I think it's inevitable that this strategy will now be used by liberal states to do things that are clearly unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court should man up and just reverse Roe vs Wade….
I've checked and the US Constitution doesn't have anything explicitly in it about citizens being able to receive chemotherapy. Should the States be able to ban people getting chemo?
Chemo is to enhance life, abortion is to end life.
However there is clearly not popular support in any US state for banning chemo to contain the spread of cancer, there is in Texas for a pro life agenda. Hence Texas has a pro life legislature and a pro life governor.
It is not really the business of a pro choice left liberal from the UK like you what Texas policy on abortion should be
Though apparently you still feel it’s your business to pronounce on the matter.
And unless there's undetectable movements, it seems that it's simply CDU voters switching straight over to SPD - presumably on the "I want a solid government" basis. The Linke and AfD are basically untouched.
On these figures, SPD/Green/FDP looks likely, though if it went badly it would give the Linke a boost to be the only opposition party to the left of the CDU! I can't see the CDU joining as minority partners.
What are the scandals that have damaged the Greens so much? - I've not been following it as closely as I usually do.?
Currently in a fight with my firm’s IT department over whether I should be allowed a VESA mount for home, which apparently is not firm policy. What century is this anyway? My current monitor is piss poor resolution and has zero height adjustment and its killing my neck and my eyes ffs. 🤦♂️
This was one of the best things about starting my own business: being able to choose any chair, any computer, basically just being able to buy whatever I want.
I was going to say the same thing, then I remember Mrs U giving me all sorts of grief about how much I had spent on it when we moved into our current house....but I politely pointed out all the le creuset pans that were also purchased, because apparently cheap ones from Tesco's just aren't the same (i never had any problem when I lived on my own they get hot, they cook stuff...but apparently not)... like my monitors, chair and desk....
Your wife has very good taste in kitchenware and clearly takes her cooking seriously. You cannot beat a heavy bottomed pan. Le Cru are worth every penny.
And unless there's undetectable movements, it seems that it's simply CDU voters switching straight over to SPD - presumably on the "I want a solid government" basis. The Linke and AfD are basically untouched.
On these figures, SPD/Green/FDP looks likely, though if it went badly it would give the Linke a boost to be the only opposition party to the left of the CDU! I can't see the CDU joining as minority partners.
What are the scandals that have damaged the Greens so much? - I've not been following it as closely as I usually do.?
Googled them and came across this folksy account by an American leftist (which helpfully explains the Linke slide):
So Roe vs Wade gets repealed tomorrow with the Texas Abortion Bounty system going into effect. You would think that would be bigger news.
Has the Supreme Court chosen not to hear the case?
Well, they've technically got 9 hours left to respond.
But that's only on the shadow docket to lay an injunction down. If they don't whilst the case could still get to the supreme court as soon as the law goes live in Texas tomorrow then that's pretty much it for safe legal abortion in the state even if the SC does eventually repeal the law.
This is truly the most cowardly way the conservatives on the SC could have faced the issue.
Personally I have no problem with it. Republicans control the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate and the Governor of Texas is a Republican, Greg Abbott and all are pro life. Voters knew what they were choosing when they voted for them.
It also does not ban abortion completely anyway, it just bans it after the first six weeks of Pregnancy.
I support the repeal of Roe vs Wade, because it is the job of legislatures, not judges, to create laws.
However, the Texas law is properly bonkers, because it puts the power of enforcement entirely in the hands of private citizens via the law courts, and then protects them against ever bearing the costs of their actions.
The US constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. Should California be allowed to pass a law making it de facto illegal? One would think "no". But that is the logical consequence of this Texas law being allowed to stand.
There is a defined US constitutional right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment, to change that would require the agreement of every US state, the President and Congress. Though that right could come with tighter background checks etc.
There is no defined US constitutional right to an abortion, the judgement in Roe v Wade merely interpreted the due process clause under the 14th amendment of the constitution to provide one
My issue is NOT with Texas passing laws that respect their voters' wishes.
It is that the method Texas is using is such that - if not struck down - could be employed by any a state to prevent the sale of arms. Or to ban gay or interracial marriage. It's a legal loophole that the Supreme Court would be wise to address now.
Basically, the way the law works is that the State of Texas will not enforce the abortion ban themselves. Instead, private individuals are allowed to sue those who perform abortions. If the abortion clinic wins, they get nothing, not even their costs. If the individual wins, then they get all their costs back from the clinic.
The idea is that - because it is not the State enforcing the law - then it cannot be sued for the unconstutitionality of the law. But (as about 100 legal scholars, including some very conservative ones) have noted, it essentially allows States to criminalise things that are specifically permitted by the constitution.
What will be worse is if the SC refuses to hear this case - they will effectively be approving the constitutionality of this legal mess (and overturning Roe v Wade into the bargain) without giving a substantial hearing to the arguments, or fully explaining their reasoning.
That's an excellent point. The SC is full of noted jurists (and Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito), and should therefore at least have the guts to explain any change to their thinking.
I am always surprised with the rise of every kitchen gadget under the sun, how uncommon rice cookers are in most people's homes. Every person from the Far East I know just think we are crazy that we boil rice, its just the road to ruin (or worse microwave it).
With tofu, isnt part of the secret you need a tofu press?
The absorption method (i.e. precise rice to water ratio) is the only correct way to cook rice without a rice cooker.
Eh? There are two ways, both valid but with different characteristics. The absorption method requires exactly the right amount of water, and works well if you get it right. It's the method usually used in China and surrounding areas. However, it produces a rather heavy result because the starch is retained. In Iran where they know a thing or two about rice, this is the kateh method.
Alternatively, you can get superb results with the chelo method, where you use a lot of water and drain it off before steaming in the pan over a very low heat, covering the pan with a clean tea towel to absorb excess steam This gives a lighter result because the starch is washed away. It works particularly well with Basmati-style rices.
The big error most Brits make when cooking rice is to fall between these two stools; too much water for kateh, not enough for chelo, so they end up with a sticky mess.
You need the starch, and use the steam method, if you are going to eat rice with chopsticks. Also steaming rice has one of those wonderful smells, like mown hay, baked bread and so on. It's the best way of cooking if you eat the rice plain.
Rice should be light and fluffy. Making a sticky gunk just so you can eat it with inappropriate utensils is madness.
If your rice isn't sticky then how do you make sushi?
And unless there's undetectable movements, it seems that it's simply CDU voters switching straight over to SPD - presumably on the "I want a solid government" basis. The Linke and AfD are basically untouched.
On these figures, SPD/Green/FDP looks likely, though if it went badly it would give the Linke a boost to be the only opposition party to the left of the CDU! I can't see the CDU joining as minority partners.
What are the scandals that have damaged the Greens so much? - I've not been following it as closely as I usually do.?
Googled them and came across this folksy account by an American leftist (which helpfully explains the Linke slide):
I am always surprised with the rise of every kitchen gadget under the sun, how uncommon rice cookers are in most people's homes. Every person from the Far East I know just think we are crazy that we boil rice, its just the road to ruin (or worse microwave it).
With tofu, isnt part of the secret you need a tofu press?
The absorption method (i.e. precise rice to water ratio) is the only correct way to cook rice without a rice cooker.
Eh? There are two ways, both valid but with different characteristics. The absorption method requires exactly the right amount of water, and works well if you get it right. It's the method usually used in China and surrounding areas. However, it produces a rather heavy result because the starch is retained. In Iran where they know a thing or two about rice, this is the kateh method.
Alternatively, you can get superb results with the chelo method, where you use a lot of water and drain it off before steaming in the pan over a very low heat, covering the pan with a clean tea towel to absorb excess steam This gives a lighter result because the starch is washed away. It works particularly well with Basmati-style rices.
The big error most Brits make when cooking rice is to fall between these two stools; too much water for kateh, not enough for chelo, so they end up with a sticky mess.
You need the starch, and use the steam method, if you are going to eat rice with chopsticks. Also steaming rice has one of those wonderful smells, like mown hay, baked bread and so on. It's the best way of cooking if you eat the rice plain.
Rice should be light and fluffy. Making a sticky gunk just so you can eat it with inappropriate utensils is madness.
If your rice isn't sticky then how do you make sushi?
And unless there's undetectable movements, it seems that it's simply CDU voters switching straight over to SPD - presumably on the "I want a solid government" basis. The Linke and AfD are basically untouched.
On these figures, SPD/Green/FDP looks likely, though if it went badly it would give the Linke a boost to be the only opposition party to the left of the CDU! I can't see the CDU joining as minority partners.
What are the scandals that have damaged the Greens so much? - I've not been following it as closely as I usually do.?
This was it (I think). It doesn't seem like a big problem by the standards of most countries, but maybe they take this sort of thing more seriously in Germany.
"‘Stupid oversight’: German Green chancellor candidate stumbles after failing to declare bonus"
I am always surprised with the rise of every kitchen gadget under the sun, how uncommon rice cookers are in most people's homes. Every person from the Far East I know just think we are crazy that we boil rice, its just the road to ruin (or worse microwave it).
With tofu, isnt part of the secret you need a tofu press?
The absorption method (i.e. precise rice to water ratio) is the only correct way to cook rice without a rice cooker.
Eh? There are two ways, both valid but with different characteristics. The absorption method requires exactly the right amount of water, and works well if you get it right. It's the method usually used in China and surrounding areas. However, it produces a rather heavy result because the starch is retained. In Iran where they know a thing or two about rice, this is the kateh method.
Alternatively, you can get superb results with the chelo method, where you use a lot of water and drain it off before steaming in the pan over a very low heat, covering the pan with a clean tea towel to absorb excess steam This gives a lighter result because the starch is washed away. It works particularly well with Basmati-style rices.
The big error most Brits make when cooking rice is to fall between these two stools; too much water for kateh, not enough for chelo, so they end up with a sticky mess.
You need the starch, and use the steam method, if you are going to eat rice with chopsticks. Also steaming rice has one of those wonderful smells, like mown hay, baked bread and so on. It's the best way of cooking if you eat the rice plain.
Rice should be light and fluffy. Making a sticky gunk just so you can eat it with inappropriate utensils is madness.
If your rice isn't sticky then how do you make sushi?
Deliveroo.
At the risk of getting drawn into a pointless post-lagershed argument: how you cook rice is as follows: - get the best quality chips you can for budget and time pressures - cook/aquire chips - consume chips with whatever you were considering having rice with.
Generally, the role of rice is to soak up a sauce. But if its method of preparation is to first absorb as much water as possible, it's going to be in no position to do so. Much better to use chips or an appropriate bread product for your chilli or curry, Before kids, my wife and I used to eat weekly at what I still consider to be the finest curry house in South Manchester. They were repeatedly surprised at our failure to order rice to accompany their food.
I am always surprised with the rise of every kitchen gadget under the sun, how uncommon rice cookers are in most people's homes. Every person from the Far East I know just think we are crazy that we boil rice, its just the road to ruin (or worse microwave it).
With tofu, isnt part of the secret you need a tofu press?
The absorption method (i.e. precise rice to water ratio) is the only correct way to cook rice without a rice cooker.
Eh? There are two ways, both valid but with different characteristics. The absorption method requires exactly the right amount of water, and works well if you get it right. It's the method usually used in China and surrounding areas. However, it produces a rather heavy result because the starch is retained. In Iran where they know a thing or two about rice, this is the kateh method.
Alternatively, you can get superb results with the chelo method, where you use a lot of water and drain it off before steaming in the pan over a very low heat, covering the pan with a clean tea towel to absorb excess steam This gives a lighter result because the starch is washed away. It works particularly well with Basmati-style rices.
The big error most Brits make when cooking rice is to fall between these two stools; too much water for kateh, not enough for chelo, so they end up with a sticky mess.
You need the starch, and use the steam method, if you are going to eat rice with chopsticks. Also steaming rice has one of those wonderful smells, like mown hay, baked bread and so on. It's the best way of cooking if you eat the rice plain.
Rice should be light and fluffy. Making a sticky gunk just so you can eat it with inappropriate utensils is madness.
If your rice isn't sticky then how do you make sushi?
Deliveroo.
At the risk of getting drawn into a pointless post-lagershed argument: how you cook rice is as follows: - get the best quality chips you can for budget and time pressures - cook/aquire chips - consume chips with whatever you were considering having rice with.
Generally, the role of rice is to soak up a sauce. But if its method of preparation is to first absorb as much water as possible, it's going to be in no position to do so. Much better to use chips or an appropriate bread product for your chilli or curry, Before kids, my wife and I used to eat weekly at what I still consider to be the finest curry house in South Manchester. They were repeatedly surprised at our failure to order rice to accompany their food.
I'm so sorry you should feel this way.
Have you ever had a perfect, simple risotto?
Nothing more than arborio rice, onion, olive oil, stock and parmesan. It can be utterly divine.
And then there is egg fried rice. Again: just rice, egg, and soy sauce.
"Delta variant has wrecked hopes of herd immunity, warn scientists There is no way of stopping Covid spreading through the entire population, experts tell MPs as they call for end of mass testing"
"Delta variant renders herd immunity from Covid ‘mythical’ Head of Oxford Vaccine Group rules out overall immunity, but also questions need for booster jabs"
We will reach herd immunity. It will just take longer, because lots of people will need to catch Delta.
Which they will. What with Delta being highly contagious and all.
Full technical herd immunity might not be possible. But a very low level of long term endemicity surely beckons with enough, which will look 'as good as' herd immunity. You get there through vaccination, boosters and infection. It's a political and population choice to decide the mix.
Who would have believed the CDU would have picked the hapless Laschet over the capable Soder a few months ago as its chancellor candidate?
So for Labour to replicate SPD's bouncebackability the Tories would need to replace Bozo with a total numpty.
#Williamson4Leader
Laschet was the second replacement because Kramp-Karrenbauer didn’t do very well. Unfortunately he was worse.
Like a whole series of Scottish Labour leaders. Replacing Kezia Dugdale with Richard Leonard.
I thought Anas Sarwar would be much better than Richard Leonard, the first clear improvement in SLab leadership in a couple of decades. Early days, but looks like I was wrong.
‘Labour staff warn Keir Starmer redundancies likely to lead to strike’ - Party seeking to cut 90 jobs but union ballots suggest making them compulsory would spark action
I am always surprised with the rise of every kitchen gadget under the sun, how uncommon rice cookers are in most people's homes. Every person from the Far East I know just think we are crazy that we boil rice, its just the road to ruin (or worse microwave it).
With tofu, isnt part of the secret you need a tofu press?
The absorption method (i.e. precise rice to water ratio) is the only correct way to cook rice without a rice cooker.
Eh? There are two ways, both valid but with different characteristics. The absorption method requires exactly the right amount of water, and works well if you get it right. It's the method usually used in China and surrounding areas. However, it produces a rather heavy result because the starch is retained. In Iran where they know a thing or two about rice, this is the kateh method.
Alternatively, you can get superb results with the chelo method, where you use a lot of water and drain it off before steaming in the pan over a very low heat, covering the pan with a clean tea towel to absorb excess steam This gives a lighter result because the starch is washed away. It works particularly well with Basmati-style rices.
The big error most Brits make when cooking rice is to fall between these two stools; too much water for kateh, not enough for chelo, so they end up with a sticky mess.
You need the starch, and use the steam method, if you are going to eat rice with chopsticks. Also steaming rice has one of those wonderful smells, like mown hay, baked bread and so on. It's the best way of cooking if you eat the rice plain.
Rice should be light and fluffy. Making a sticky gunk just so you can eat it with inappropriate utensils is madness.
If your rice isn't sticky then how do you make sushi?
Deliveroo.
At the risk of getting drawn into a pointless post-lagershed argument: how you cook rice is as follows: - get the best quality chips you can for budget and time pressures - cook/aquire chips - consume chips with whatever you were considering having rice with.
Generally, the role of rice is to soak up a sauce. But if its method of preparation is to first absorb as much water as possible, it's going to be in no position to do so. Much better to use chips or an appropriate bread product for your chilli or curry, Before kids, my wife and I used to eat weekly at what I still consider to be the finest curry house in South Manchester. They were repeatedly surprised at our failure to order rice to accompany their food.
But rice tastes better than chips and absorbs sauce better too.
So Roe vs Wade gets repealed tomorrow with the Texas Abortion Bounty system going into effect. You would think that would be bigger news.
Has the Supreme Court chosen not to hear the case?
Well, they've technically got 9 hours left to respond.
But that's only on the shadow docket to lay an injunction down. If they don't whilst the case could still get to the supreme court as soon as the law goes live in Texas tomorrow then that's pretty much it for safe legal abortion in the state even if the SC does eventually repeal the law.
This is truly the most cowardly way the conservatives on the SC could have faced the issue.
Personally I have no problem with it. Republicans control the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate and the Governor of Texas is a Republican, Greg Abbott and all are pro life. Voters knew what they were choosing when they voted for them.
It also does not ban abortion completely anyway, it just bans it after the first six weeks of Pregnancy.
I support the repeal of Roe vs Wade, because it is the job of legislatures, not judges, to create laws.
However, the Texas law is properly bonkers, because it puts the power of enforcement entirely in the hands of private citizens via the law courts, and then protects them against ever bearing the costs of their actions.
The US constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. Should California be allowed to pass a law making it de facto illegal? One would think "no". But that is the logical consequence of this Texas law being allowed to stand.
There is a defined US constitutional right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment, to change that would require the agreement of every US state, the President and Congress. Though that right could come with tighter background checks etc.
There is no defined US constitutional right to an abortion, the judgement in Roe v Wade merely interpreted the due process clause under the 14th amendment of the constitution to provide one
My issue is NOT with Texas passing laws that respect their voters' wishes.
It is that the method Texas is using is such that - if not struck down - could be employed by any a state to prevent the sale of arms. Or to ban gay or interracial marriage. It's a legal loophole that the Supreme Court would be wise to address now.
Basically, the way the law works is that the State of Texas will not enforce the abortion ban themselves. Instead, private individuals are allowed to sue those who perform abortions. If the abortion clinic wins, they get nothing, not even their costs. If the individual wins, then they get all their costs back from the clinic.
The idea is that - because it is not the State enforcing the law - then it cannot be sued for the unconstutitionality of the law. But (as about 100 legal scholars, including some very conservative ones) have noted, it essentially allows States to criminalise things that are specifically permitted by the constitution.
What will be worse is if the SC refuses to hear this case - they will effectively be approving the constitutionality of this legal mess (and overturning Roe v Wade into the bargain) without giving a substantial hearing to the arguments, or fully explaining their reasoning.
That's an excellent point. The SC is full of noted jurists (and Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito), and should therefore at least have the guts to explain any change to their thinking.
The SCOTUS are not jurists but a bunch of right wing activists who owe their positions to a right wing activist organization. The sooner Democrats accept this and pull a William IV-Lords threat the better.
I've checked and the US Constitution doesn't have anything explicitly in it about citizens being able to receive chemotherapy. Should the States be able to ban people getting chemo?
Well it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", so clearly all Americans should have a legal right to own nuclear weapons
Perhaps the equivalent would be for private prosecutions of the gunshops to be carried out for accessory to murder, with no risk to the plaintiffs.
Works for me!
Oh, I think it's inevitable that this strategy will now be used by liberal states to do things that are clearly unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court should man up and just reverse Roe vs Wade. Then the states can have proper arguments over the legality of abortion.
Perhaps it's better than the US ends up with elected politicians, accountable to the voters, deciding matters, rather than a bunch of right wing zealots with lifetime appointments. SCOTUS is worse than the EU Commission.
I've checked and the US Constitution doesn't have anything explicitly in it about citizens being able to receive chemotherapy. Should the States be able to ban people getting chemo?
Well it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", so clearly all Americans should have a legal right to own nuclear weapons
Perhaps the equivalent would be for private prosecutions of the gunshops to be carried out for accessory to murder, with no risk to the plaintiffs.
Works for me!
Oh, I think it's inevitable that this strategy will now be used by liberal states to do things that are clearly unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court should man up and just reverse Roe vs Wade. Then the states can have proper arguments over the legality of abortion.
Perhaps it's better than the US ends up with elected politicians, accountable to the voters, deciding matters, rather than a bunch of right wing zealots with lifetime appointments. SCOTUS is worse than the EU Commission.
There should be a 5 or 10 year term limit for supreme court justices IMO.
Police in London wielded batons and threw punches against Extinction Rebellion protesters as they battled to gain control of an open-top bus blocking London Bridge on Tuesday, in a step-change in their use of force against the group.
With regard to canvassing, I have done a bit of this. My impression was that it was completely inefficient, the people I spoke to at the doorstep were all probably lying to me, and it was largely a form of therapy for political activists.
I accepted however that it does have some underlying function: in that you can use it to find out who is going to vote for you, and then you can make sure that they actually vote on election day.
Isn't that a bit of a contradiction in terms? If they were mostly fibbing, all you did in giving them a ring and if need be a lift was helping your opponents ...?
I suppose that it must work otherwise parties would not do it.
Whether canvassing serves a genuinely useful function or not I would not assume the above is true as a general statement.
There is reasonably good evidence that canvassing increases likelihood to vote.
So Roe vs Wade gets repealed tomorrow with the Texas Abortion Bounty system going into effect. You would think that would be bigger news.
Has the Supreme Court chosen not to hear the case?
Well, they've technically got 9 hours left to respond.
But that's only on the shadow docket to lay an injunction down. If they don't whilst the case could still get to the supreme court as soon as the law goes live in Texas tomorrow then that's pretty much it for safe legal abortion in the state even if the SC does eventually repeal the law.
This is truly the most cowardly way the conservatives on the SC could have faced the issue.
Personally I have no problem with it. Republicans control the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate and the Governor of Texas is a Republican, Greg Abbott and all are pro life. Voters knew what they were choosing when they voted for them.
It also does not ban abortion completely anyway, it just bans it after the first six weeks of Pregnancy.
I support the repeal of Roe vs Wade, because it is the job of legislatures, not judges, to create laws.
However, the Texas law is properly bonkers, because it puts the power of enforcement entirely in the hands of private citizens via the law courts, and then protects them against ever bearing the costs of their actions.
The US constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. Should California be allowed to pass a law making it de facto illegal? One would think "no". But that is the logical consequence of this Texas law being allowed to stand.
There is a defined US constitutional right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment, to change that would require the agreement of every US state, the President and Congress. Though that right could come with tighter background checks etc.
There is no defined US constitutional right to an abortion, the judgement in Roe v Wade merely interpreted the due process clause under the 14th amendment of the constitution to provide one
My issue is NOT with Texas passing laws that respect their voters' wishes.
It is that the method Texas is using is such that - if not struck down - could be employed by any a state to prevent the sale of arms. Or to ban gay or interracial marriage. It's a legal loophole that the Supreme Court would be wise to address now.
Basically, the way the law works is that the State of Texas will not enforce the abortion ban themselves. Instead, private individuals are allowed to sue those who perform abortions. If the abortion clinic wins, they get nothing, not even their costs. If the individual wins, then they get all their costs back from the clinic.
The idea is that - because it is not the State enforcing the law - then it cannot be sued for the unconstutitionality of the law. But (as about 100 legal scholars, including some very conservative ones) have noted, it essentially allows States to criminalise things that are specifically permitted by the constitution.
There may be issues with the enforcement of it but most of the pressure from the liberal left against it is because it would restrict abortion, not that private citizens would lead the enforcement of the new law rather than the state
I've said 100 times that I think Roe vs Wade was a bloody awful decision, and it is the job of legislatures to decide on the legality of abortion.
But the law in Texas is going to end up causing so much grief to all involved, especially when liberal states start using the mechanisms in it to do things they want:
The way it’s written, a Texan who objects to SB 8 may have no one they can sue to stop it from taking effect.
For one, abortion rights plaintiffs can’t sue their state directly. The ordinary rule is that when someone sues a state in order to block a state law, they cannot sue the state directly. States benefit from a doctrine known as “sovereign immunity,” which typically prevents lawsuits against the state itself.
But they also can’t really follow the same path that most citizens who want to stop laws do. That path relies on Ex parte Young (1908), a decision in which the Supreme Court established that someone raising a constitutional challenge to a state law may sue the state officer charged with enforcing that law — and obtain a court order preventing that officer from enforcing it. So, for example, if Texas passed a law requiring the state medical board to strip all abortion providers of their medical licenses, a plaintiff could sue the medical board. If a state passed a law requiring state police to blockade abortion clinics, a plaintiff might sue the chief of the state’s police force.
Part of what makes SB 8 such a bizarre law is that it does not permit any state official to enforce it. Rather, the statute provides that it “shall be enforced exclusively through . . . private civil actions.”
Under the law, “any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state,” may bring a private lawsuit against anyone who performs an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, or against anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.” Plaintiffs who prevail in such suits shall receive at least $10,000 from the defendant.
SB 8, in other words, attempts to make an end run around Young by preventing state officials from directly enforcing the law. Again, Young established that a plaintiff may sue a state official charged with enforcing a state law in order to block enforcement of that law. But if no state official is charged with enforcing the law, there’s no one to sue in order to block the law.
Could you not sue the courts who are obliged to give the awards and prevent them from doing so?
To remind of the oddities of calculating pregnancy week.
- A pregnancy is deemed to have started on the first day of bleeding of the last period. - Typically, by this post-hoc calculation, the procreative act that leads to pregnancy occurs between day 10-16 of the 'pregnancy. For a long ovulation cycle, this might be as late as day 24 (i.e. you 'got pregnant' during week 4 of your pregnancy) - The fertilised egg takes 6-12 days to implant in the womb, so typically between day 16-28, but perhaps as late as day 36. - Abortion is illegal in Texas after week 6 (not sure if the cut off is day 42), which could be the same week as implantation in extreme cases. - If the cut off if the start of week 6, that would be 35 days. so in extremis that one could ban some abortion before implantation.
Comments
#Williamson4Leader
And none of my inlaws had ever served me up a biryani.
But should they be able to ban chemotherapy by allowing private citizens to sue doctors for giving someone else chemotherapy?
There is no way of stopping Covid spreading through the entire population, experts tell MPs as they call for end of mass testing"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/10/delta-variant-has-wrecked-hopes-herd-immunity-warn-scientists/
"Delta variant renders herd immunity from Covid ‘mythical’
Head of Oxford Vaccine Group rules out overall immunity, but also questions need for booster jabs"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-renders-herd-immunity-from-covid-mythical
However there is clearly not popular support in any US state for banning chemo to contain the spread of cancer, there is in Texas for a pro life agenda. Hence Texas has a pro life legislature and a pro life governor.
It is not really the business of a pro choice left liberal from the UK like you what Texas policy on abortion should be
Which they will. What with Delta being highly contagious and all.
I do hate some on the left going on about abortion as if it is the crowning glory of women's rights rather than their last chance saloon. Surely, no woman actually having an abortion celebrates it. Rather it is most often the end of a line of failures,, often low level, to protect a woman's right to sexual agency at previous junctures.
Best practice access to good contraception, high quality support to make a choice, a fair social system and #MeToo type empowerment are all relevant here. And developing and bringing better contraceptive methods to market - you can't obviously change the biology on which contraceptive science is based, but surely more can be done.
A tangential sounding example relating to condom resistance in men. It's rarely, actually, merely "a feel thing". Over 50% of men experience some kind of condom crash syndrome, or more correctly, condom associated erection problems, and it is prevalent in the young. So more on here are thinking 'that has a name?' and 'it's common?' rather than 'is that a thing?'. And the result is understandable significant condom despisal in men. Google erectile problems and you get - well you all know what direction that one will take. Very little about how putting a condom on differently years before might solve the immediate issue and perhaps even prevent the ultimate ED for many (clue: try rolling a sock up like a packaged condom and then try rolling it on, particularly over your heel - is that an easier way to get your sock into the right position so it won't ruckle and become uncomfortable?). More care with this one, correct condom use goes up hugely, fewer abortions.
I bet there are another half dozen things of this ilk and abortion is halved before you even change the laws one jot.
I just had a nightmare vision of an inconclusive result leading to Ursula von der Leyen emerging as a compromise Chancellor during coalition negotiations.
Works for me!
Liberals 33.2%, Conservatives 32.5%, NDP 19.2%, BQ 6.4%
https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-1947-ELXN44-Nightly-Tracking-Report-2021-08-30.pdf
It really is take your pick. Mainstreet and Ekos showing leads big enough for the Conservatives to win most seats. Everyone else giving statistical ties. Which means Liberal minority.
Who is right? Who knows?
But the law in Texas is going to end up causing so much grief to all involved, especially when liberal states start using the mechanisms in it to do things they want:
The way it’s written, a Texan who objects to SB 8 may have no one they can sue to stop it from taking effect.
For one, abortion rights plaintiffs can’t sue their state directly. The ordinary rule is that when someone sues a state in order to block a state law, they cannot sue the state directly. States benefit from a doctrine known as “sovereign immunity,” which typically prevents lawsuits against the state itself.
But they also can’t really follow the same path that most citizens who want to stop laws do. That path relies on Ex parte Young (1908), a decision in which the Supreme Court established that someone raising a constitutional challenge to a state law may sue the state officer charged with enforcing that law — and obtain a court order preventing that officer from enforcing it. So, for example, if Texas passed a law requiring the state medical board to strip all abortion providers of their medical licenses, a plaintiff could sue the medical board. If a state passed a law requiring state police to blockade abortion clinics, a plaintiff might sue the chief of the state’s police force.
Part of what makes SB 8 such a bizarre law is that it does not permit any state official to enforce it. Rather, the statute provides that it “shall be enforced exclusively through . . . private civil actions.”
Under the law, “any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state,” may bring a private lawsuit against anyone who performs an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, or against anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion.” Plaintiffs who prevail in such suits shall receive at least $10,000 from the defendant.
SB 8, in other words, attempts to make an end run around Young by preventing state officials from directly enforcing the law. Again, Young established that a plaintiff may sue a state official charged with enforcing a state law in order to block enforcement of that law. But if no state official is charged with enforcing the law, there’s no one to sue in order to block the law.
*buffs nails*
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
Forecast seats, Eric Grenier:
Lib 139
Con 131
The Supreme Court should man up and just reverse Roe vs Wade. Then the states can have proper arguments over the legality of abortion.
No other company has shown them above 4%. Most polls much less. Suggests they are either picking up a generalised shift to the right. Or have an issue with right leaning samples. Impossible to tell which.
And unless there's undetectable movements, it seems that it's simply CDU voters switching straight over to SPD - presumably on the "I want a solid government" basis. The Linke and AfD are basically untouched.
On these figures, SPD/Green/FDP looks likely, though if it went badly it would give the Linke a boost to be the only opposition party to the left of the CDU! I can't see the CDU joining as minority partners.
What are the scandals that have damaged the Greens so much? - I've not been following it as closely as I usually do.?
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/germany-greens-worried-about-drop-in-popularity-due-to-scandals/
So what are these scandals alleged against Scholz?
Doesn’t seem to have holed him beneath the waterline though.
That being said... I'm baking rice tonight, just for a change.
"‘Stupid oversight’: German Green chancellor candidate stumbles after failing to declare bonus"
https://www.thelocal.de/20210521/stupid-oversight-german-green-chancellor-candidate-stumbles-after-failing-to-declare-bonus/
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-greens-candidate-explains-expenses-slip-up-ratings-slip-2021-05-21/
https://www.dw.com/en/german-green-party-candidate-annalena-baerbock-under-fire/a-58192858
- get the best quality chips you can for budget and time pressures
- cook/aquire chips
- consume chips with whatever you were considering having rice with.
Generally, the role of rice is to soak up a sauce. But if its method of preparation is to first absorb as much water as possible, it's going to be in no position to do so. Much better to use chips or an appropriate bread product for your chilli or curry,
Before kids, my wife and I used to eat weekly at what I still consider to be the finest curry house in South Manchester. They were repeatedly surprised at our failure to order rice to accompany their food.
Have you ever had a perfect, simple risotto?
Nothing more than arborio rice, onion, olive oil, stock and parmesan. It can be utterly divine.
And then there is egg fried rice. Again: just rice, egg, and soy sauce.
But a very low level of long term endemicity surely beckons with enough, which will look 'as good as' herd immunity.
You get there through vaccination, boosters and infection.
It's a political and population choice to decide the mix.
- Party seeking to cut 90 jobs but union ballots suggest making them compulsory would spark action
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/31/labour-staff-warn-keir-starmer-redundancies-likely-to-lead-to-strike
Police in London wielded batons and threw punches against Extinction Rebellion protesters as they battled to gain control of an open-top bus blocking London Bridge on Tuesday, in a step-change in their use of force against the group.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/31/police-wield-batons-during-xrs-london-bridge-bus-blockade
Talking of turnout, this polling station is now
closed.
- A pregnancy is deemed to have started on the first day of bleeding of the last period.
- Typically, by this post-hoc calculation, the procreative act that leads to pregnancy occurs between day 10-16 of the 'pregnancy. For a long ovulation cycle, this might be as late as day 24 (i.e. you 'got pregnant' during week 4 of your pregnancy)
- The fertilised egg takes 6-12 days to implant in the womb, so typically between day 16-28, but perhaps as late as day 36.
- Abortion is illegal in Texas after week 6 (not sure if the cut off is day 42), which could be the same week as implantation in extreme cases.
- If the cut off if the start of week 6, that would be 35 days. so in extremis that one could ban some abortion before implantation.