Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
I think Trudeau will lose the election in Canada on 20th September, in the sense of getting less seats that the main opposition party.
If he can manage to top the seat count whilst behind on votes twice he'll be a very lucky politician indeed. My gut says he can manage that, if he is even behind in votes after all.
So, I don't know about you lot, but I've emailed WIlliam Hill to ask them to add Merkel to the list. I reckon there's a good chance that she might actually be the first G20 leader to leave her post, and I didn't want them to forget her.
She would lengthen the odd on Trudeau as well making it a good value bet IMO.
Isn't Canada 6 days before Germany? Results will be slower than usual due to pandemic postal voting. But they pretty much run to our schedule. By the next morning we know who has won or not. Either Trudeau has most seats and stays, or doesn't and goes. We ought to know that by September 21st. To run past the 26th you would need a very, very close result, likely, and multiple recounts/litigation. Very unlikely.
The latest seat estimate has less than 10 seats in it, by contrast in 2019 the Liberals won 36 more seats than the Conservatives
Yeah. My point, which I now realise I didn't actually explicitly make, was that the inclusion or not of Merkel in the betting shouldn't affect Trudeau's odds of being first out. They are entirely independent events. With Canada happening first. Except for the vanishingly unlikely event of Merkel being incapacitated or overthrown before the Canadian election.
So, I don't know about you lot, but I've emailed WIlliam Hill to ask them to add Merkel to the list. I reckon there's a good chance that she might actually be the first G20 leader to leave her post, and I didn't want them to forget her.
She would lengthen the odd on Trudeau as well making it a good value bet IMO.
Isn't Canada 6 days before Germany? Results will be slower than usual due to pandemic postal voting. But they pretty much run to our schedule. By the next morning we know who has won or not. Either Trudeau has most seats and stays, or doesn't and goes. We ought to know that by September 21st. To run past the 26th you would need a very, very close result, likely, and multiple recounts/litigation. Very unlikely.
wouldn't adding Merkel make it just a 2 horse race between her and Trudeau? unless its possible that Trudeau wins and then Merkel hangs on until something happens with Suga etc. so backing Merkel to be first out is just a bet that Trudeau loses which is presumably available elsewhere?
Bannon is a Leninist. This is entryism. The entire US Constitution badly needs an update.
That is one of the most worrying articles I've ever read. What it reminds me most of is Italy and Greece in the 1950's, when supposedly neutral institutions were stuffed full of former fascists, and democracy was in fact weak and teetering. The US was sponsoring those ex-fascist elements in southern europe at the time, confident that they would ward off communism, and equally certain that its own democratic culture was much more deep-rooted, resilient and permanent - and look at it now.
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
As everyone is talking about abortion and Roe v Wade, let me add my two cents:
Roe v Wade - and the way it was imposed via judicial fiat - acted as a recruiting sergeant for Republicans and created a clear and unfortunate gap between the political parties based on a single issue.
The Matt Santos character from the West Wing (a pro-abortion Democrat) would be unthinkable today.
The best thing for America is for abortion law to be set by individual states by ballot initiatives. Over time that will result in a patchwork of abortion legislation. But it will almost certainly (as it has done in Europe) end with it being legal in most places. And this is the right process for the legalisation of abortion: not the decision of a few judges attempting to extract something from the Constitution that simply isn't there.
Such a move also increases democratic accountability. Having the Supreme Court decide on the legality of things is not so very different to having an unelected Commission decide on things.
From a political perspective, I think this helps the Democrats in the medium term, for exactly the same reason that Roe helped the Republicans. It's a lot easier to get people out onto the streets because they want to change things, than to get them out to ask that they stay the same.
I do not think the Democrats should attempt to change the Supreme Court via adding members. A twenty year term limit for members, though, sounds like a very sensible measure. I would also suggest that membership of the Supreme Court should require 60 votes in the Senate, not 50 (plus the VP). Ensuring that whoever is selected gets the support of well over half the lawmakers would be a positive.
Getting rid of Roe makes this easier: there's not a single totemic issue that Judges can be assessed on.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so
The 14th amendment could perfectly well be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms is linked to the need for a militia. It does not have to mean the right to carry guns about one's person.
What you are missing is that the whole point about the Texas law is that it is designed to prevent the Supreme Court having a say. That is why it is so objectionable as a matter or law, regardless of the subject matter. It undermines the existence of the Constitution. And if Texas does this for abortion then other states can do it for the right to bear arms, regardless of what the Constitution says. If you prevent challenge then you prevent challenge and any Constitutional rights can be nullified by a simple state law. That's what Texas lawmakers have done. And it will apply to rights under the 14th amendment just as much as to Wade v Roe.
The right may cheer them on now. But they will find that such a development will affect them just as well. It will serve them right. In the meanwhile women will suffer.
See also restricting judicial review. Problems or abuses by campaigns notwithstanding restrict it too much and youd regret it next you are out of power.
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.
The point here though, is those who opposed it are not willing to admit they got it wrong by gambling on getting a second referendum, at the expense of a harder Brexit, rather than accepting the formality of a Leave win meaning the PMs deal with the EU being nodded through.
May's brexit deal was still Brexit. No point arguing over the texture of a turd.
The difference between May's minimal Brexit and the current situation is enormous.
The problem is that that those who opposed Brexit were not willing to admit that they really opposed Brexit and wanted a second referendum. Instead they wanted to vote down *everything* and hope that something would turn up. Despite there being no realistic prospect of "something".
Parliament voted on softer alternatives to May's deal that were still Brexit but they were voted down by Tory MPs. There are few material differences between what May offered and the current deal. To pretend that the only reason Remainers refused May's deal was because they wanted a 2nd referendum is a fanciful rewriting of history. We were all there and remember what happened!
Yes we were, but some of us remember it differently to you
And apparently Leavers think they remember better the internal motivations of Remainers than Remainers do...
As everyone is talking about abortion and Roe v Wade, let me add my two cents:
Roe v Wade - and the way it was imposed via judicial fiat - acted as a recruiting sergeant for Republicans and created a clear and unfortunate gap between the political parties based on a single issue.
The Matt Santos character from the West Wing (a pro-abortion Democrat) would be unthinkable today.
The best thing for America is for abortion law to be set by individual states by ballot initiatives. Over time that will result in a patchwork of abortion legislation. But it will almost certainly (as it has done in Europe) end with it being legal in most places. And this is the right process for the legalisation of abortion: not the decision of a few judges attempting to extract something from the Constitution that simply isn't there.
Such a move also increases democratic accountability. Having the Supreme Court decide on the legality of things is not so very different to having an unelected Commission decide on things.
From a political perspective, I think this helps the Democrats in the medium term, for exactly the same reason that Roe helped the Republicans. It's a lot easier to get people out onto the streets because they want to change things, than to get them out to ask that they stay the same.
I do not think the Democrats should attempt to change the Supreme Court via adding members. A twenty year term limit for members, though, sounds like a very sensible measure. I would also suggest that membership of the Supreme Court should require 60 votes in the Senate, not 50 (plus the VP). Ensuring that whoever is selected gets the support of well over half the lawmakers would be a positive.
Getting rid of Roe makes this easier: there's not a single totemic issue that Judges can be assessed on.
Though of course ironically in 1976 (the first presidential election after Roe v Wade) it was arguably the Ford-Rockefeller GOP ticket that was more pro choice, Ford's wife was certainly so and the Carter-Mondale Democratic ticket less so. Hence Carter won a lot of evangelical votes and swept the South apart from Virginia while Ford won California and the west coast.
It was only Reagan in 1980 and 1984 who really mobilised the pro life evangelical base for the Republicans and the Bushes and Trump then followed suit.
I agree with you though the issue should be left to the states
As everyone is talking about abortion and Roe v Wade, let me add my two cents:
Roe v Wade - and the way it was imposed via judicial fiat - acted as a recruiting sergeant for Republicans and created a clear and unfortunate gap between the political parties based on a single issue.
The Matt Santos character from the West Wing (a pro-abortion Democrat) would be unthinkable today.
The best thing for America is for abortion law to be set by individual states by ballot initiatives. Over time that will result in a patchwork of abortion legislation. But it will almost certainly (as it has done in Europe) end with it being legal in most places. And this is the right process for the legalisation of abortion: not the decision of a few judges attempting to extract something from the Constitution that simply isn't there.
Such a move also increases democratic accountability. Having the Supreme Court decide on the legality of things is not so very different to having an unelected Commission decide on things.
From a political perspective, I think this helps the Democrats in the medium term, for exactly the same reason that Roe helped the Republicans. It's a lot easier to get people out onto the streets because they want to change things, than to get them out to ask that they stay the same.
I do not think the Democrats should attempt to change the Supreme Court via adding members. A twenty year term limit for members, though, sounds like a very sensible measure. I would also suggest that membership of the Supreme Court should require 60 votes in the Senate, not 50 (plus the VP). Ensuring that whoever is selected gets the support of well over half the lawmakers would be a positive.
Getting rid of Roe makes this easier: there's not a single totemic issue that Judges can be assessed on.
Bluntly, in the political game it seems like the sides think getting judges to declare something legal or illegal on a very broad basis is just plain easier than legislating for it, and you can get those same judges to enforce it over decades with little care for elections other than the Senate who confirm them.
Obviously theres powers for all of them, but worth more than controlling the House? The presidency?
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
Absolutely not, without organised religions we would not have some of our greatest architecture and art, many schools and hospitals and universities, foodbanks, homeless shelters etc.
In any case child abuse has taken place anywhere where children are present, including schools both private and state, the scouts, football clubs, gymnastics teams, even the BBC.
It is lessons all institutions need to learn, not just organised religions (plus as 78% of the global population belongs to an organised religion it is not going anywhere anyway)
Pretty static UK figures again with +ve tests down 1%, deaths up 1% and admissions up 5. We can cope with this but the next step really has to be down and with the schools back that is looking a little unlikely.
I think Trudeau will lose the election in Canada on 20th September, in the sense of getting less seats that the main opposition party.
If he can manage to top the seat count whilst behind on votes twice he'll be a very lucky politician indeed. My gut says he can manage that, if he is even behind in votes after all.
What's interesting is the over-55 voting bloc, which has hitherto been strongly Liberal, is switching to the Conservatives.
I was surprised it was 'there' with the Wokey Trudeau in the first place, to be honest. Over 55s are solidly Tory here.
Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
And it does make one very worried for the future
Yes. If the science is right the effects are already baked in and continuing. Reducing how much more you put in is just like slightly reducing your borrowing when you are already 2.1 trillion in debt. It doesn't reduce the problem. It increases it, though the rhetoric makes people think it helps.
There are IMHO only these scenarios for planet hope:
The science is wrong The science is right but the planet changes (eg so that warming off sets an ice age) The unknowable beneficial effects outweigh the downside (Siberia becomes the world's breadbasket or something) Amelioration measures allow enough of the world to remain habitable We find a way of getting CO2 etc out of the atmosphere sufficiently. (This is the least likely in my view. There is too much air.)
Stopping putting CO2 into the air in time won't happen. 'In time' was a few years ago, as they told us at the time.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
One is that, back in 1992, there was initially a majority of SCOTUS that was open to overturning Roe v Wade in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey case. They obviously didn't but they changed the methodology used, getting rid of the trimester rules. So (1) the idea that Roe v Wade was set in constitutional stone and couldn't be overturned ever is wrong and (2) SCOTUS has already changed its views on Roe v Wade a few times.
Secondly, there has always been a view voiced by many (and not necessarily all on the right) that Roe v Wade was fundamentally a bad legal decision because of the way in which the decision was justified. Even Ginsburg criticised it originally (for not being too pro-women). In effect, you have had two fights over Roe v Wade: the moral one (is Roe v Wade "good" or "bad") and the legal one (is it good law?).
Thirdly, and a technical one I get it, the Texas law doesn't technically rules out abortion, it just provides for fines against those who carry it out. Which ties back into the issue with Roe v Wade. If it had all been about the fundamental right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, then it would be a lot more difficult for any challenge to overturn it to be successful. The problem was (1) the logic of the decision was messy and (2) Roe vs Wade accepted that Governments had the right to balance the views of the mother against the unborn child / society's values.
There are two arguments against Roe v Wade
1. It is badly argued as a matter of law. 2. This is something which should be decided democratically.
On 2 this is how we do things here. But the US is different. So the Supreme Court is entitled to rule. On 1 I'm aware of these arguments. It is the same as happened with equal rights for black people - the change from Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education.
I do not know enough about the legal arguments to comment on whether Roe v Wade is good law or whether it should have been made on a different basis. But the problem now is that Texas has passed a law which makes abortion unobtainable, which does so in a way which is hugely intrusive and horrible (see the Unherd article posted earlier) and which they have sought to make proof against any sort of challenge or review. Regardless of your views on abortion, this last point is very worrying indeed and has implications far beyond Texas.
It was made democratically, by a pro life Republican governor and a pro life Republican legislature.
How can you call yourself "pro-life" when the "God" you believe in and, presumably, worship is the biggest single practitioner of abortion on the planet?
Just that "He" refers to it as "miscarriage"...
Miscarriage is not the intentional ending of life by another human being and not all pro lifers are religious (though of course if you are you believe a miscarried baby would enter eternal life with the Lord anyway but only God has the power to decide when human life ends).
There are also people who are religious but pro choice eg Betty Ford was Episcopalian but also pro choice
It does make a nonsense of the belief that life begins at conception.
The interesting question is when does a life begin that is truly distinct from the mother? And it's not one to which I have an answer.
I'm content with current UK abortion laws. But on the other hand, one of my abiding memories is going with my wife for a scan after in-pregnancy bleeding at seven weeks (and after two previous miscarriages). Our son, as he now is, was a barely discernible blob on the sonographer's screen, but a blob visibly pulsing as his heart, in defiance of our expectations, was beating. That's life, it's proof of life, but it's life that has no viability without the mother. It's not yet independent life.
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
Absolutely not, without organised religions we would not have some of our greatest architecture and art, many schools and hospitals and universities, foodbanks, homeless shelters etc.
In any case child abuse has taken place anywhere where children are present, including schools both private and state, the scouts, football clubs, gymnastics teams, even the BBC.
It is lessons all institutions need to learn, not just organised religions (plus as 78% of the global population belongs to an organised religion it is not going anywhere anyway)
I would forgo the wonders of St Peters to save one child from sexual abuse. Surely anyone who purports to support religion or has any decency would?
Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
Absolutely not, without organised religions we would not have some of our greatest architecture and art, many schools and hospitals and universities, foodbanks, homeless shelters etc.
In any case child abuse has taken place anywhere where children are present, including schools both private and state, the scouts, even the BBC.
It is lessons all institutions need to learn, not just organised religions (plus as 78% of the global population belongs to an organised religion it is not going anywhere anyway)
You are correct it is something all institutions where the opportunity could arise face.
However it may be fair to say religious institutions may be more susceptible as the desire to defend the institution above all else is bound to be higher in a religious institution. A lot of people who think themselves decent will ignore or excuse a lot if they see it as protecting their religion, more than just their state broadcaster.
Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
I think Trudeau will lose the election in Canada on 20th September, in the sense of getting less seats that the main opposition party.
If he can manage to top the seat count whilst behind on votes twice he'll be a very lucky politician indeed. My gut says he can manage that, if he is even behind in votes after all.
What's interesting is the over-55 voting bloc, which has hitherto been strongly Liberal, is switching to the Conservatives.
I was surprised it was 'there' with the Wokey Trudeau in the first place, to be honest. Over 55s are solidly Tory here.
Campaign Research has the Conservatives narrowly ahead with 55+ but a big gender divide with males for the Conservatives and women for the Liberals.
Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
And it does make one very worried for the future
I blame God, personally.
It's very difficult to be objective with these things as they are so much more heavily reported now than in the past. The news is very much agenda driven rather than objective. The 24 hour news cycle demands ever more extreme headlines - meanwhile most people are watching catch-up and Netflix.
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
Absolutely not, without organised religions we would not have some of our greatest architecture and art, many schools and hospitals and universities, foodbanks, homeless shelters etc.
In any case child abuse has taken place anywhere where children are present, including schools both private and state, the scouts, football clubs, gymnastics teams, even the BBC.
It is lessons all institutions need to learn, not just organised religions (plus as 78% of the global population belongs to an organised religion it is not going anywhere anyway)
I would forgo the wonders of St Peters to save one child from sexual abuse. Surely anyone who purports to support religion or has any decency would?
In which case we would also have to ban football clubs, gymnastics, the scouts and private boarding schools and youth political branches as they have also had plenty of instances of sexual abuse.
A few bad eggs does not the whole organisation make.
Sexual abuse will still occur whether there is religion or not, all organisations just need tighter safeguarding for it
Bannon is a Leninist. This is entryism. The entire US Constitution badly needs an update.
That is one of the most worrying articles I've ever read. What it reminds me most of is Italy and Greece in the 1950's, when supposedly neutral institutions were stuffed full of former fascists, and democracy was in fact weak and teetering. The US was sponsoring those ex-fascist elements in southern europe at the time, confident that they would ward off communism, and equally certain that its own democratic culture was much more deep-rooted, resilient and permanent - and look at it now.
Certainly the US is teetering on the edge of something bleak. Too many voters don't care to live in a democracy if Trump can't win all the time and too many believe in utter nonsense like QANON.
Also, their manifesto is surprisingly well-thought through and detailed, and effectively advocates a "Global Canada" policy that is bang-in-line with "Global Britain":
Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
And it does make one very worried for the future
Yes. If the science is right the effects are already baked in and continuing. Reducing how much more you put in is just like slightly reducing your borrowing when you are already 2.1 trillion in debt. It doesn't reduce the problem. It increases it, though the rhetoric makes people think it helps.
There are IMHO only these scenarios for planet hope:
The science is wrong The science is right but the planet changes (eg so that warming off sets an ice age) The unknowable beneficial effects outweigh the downside (Siberia becomes the world's breadbasket or something) Amelioration measures allow enough of the world to remain habitable We find a way of getting CO2 etc out of the atmosphere sufficiently. (This is the least likely in my view. There is too much air.)
Stopping putting CO2 into the air in time won't happen. 'In time' was a few years ago, as they told us at the time.
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
Assuming that your view entails the opinion that organised religion has no purchase on truth, and that it has no independent validity to consider, all you are left with in fact is that humans, with no external aid, organise themselves as humans in ways including religious ones.
Religion would then be part of the overall human enterprise and an entirely human phenomenon. When it comes to being a menace, menace is caused not by religion, atheism, fascism, communism, the scout movement or freemasons. It is caused by humans and humans alone; and organised religion is neither better nor worse in itself than any other thing, from knitting circles to the Nazi party that have bad things in them.
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
Absolutely not, without organised religions we would not have some of our greatest architecture and art, many schools and hospitals and universities, foodbanks, homeless shelters etc.
In any case child abuse has taken place anywhere where children are present, including schools both private and state, the scouts, football clubs, gymnastics teams, even the BBC.
It is lessons all institutions need to learn, not just organised religions (plus as 78% of the global population belongs to an organised religion it is not going anywhere anyway)
I would forgo the wonders of St Peters to save one child from sexual abuse. Surely anyone who purports to support religion or has any decency would?
It's a bit weird for institutions all about morals to be so blase about moral failings, but time and again the instinctive response is to evade, excuse, distract or deny, yet never be shaken by it.
Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
And it does make one very worried for the future
why was there so much rain still in the system by the time it had tracked up from Louisiana. had it been raining that heavily across all the States in between or did it hit a trigger to let it go over NY?
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
Absolutely not, without organised religions we would not have some of our greatest architecture and art, many schools and hospitals and universities, foodbanks, homeless shelters etc.
In any case child abuse has taken place anywhere where children are present, including schools both private and state, the scouts, even the BBC.
It is lessons all institutions need to learn, not just organised religions (plus as 78% of the global population belongs to an organised religion it is not going anywhere anyway)
You are correct it is something all institutions where the opportunity could arise face.
However it may be fair to say religious institutions may be more susceptible as the desire to defend the institution above all else is bound to be higher in a religious institution. A lot of people who think themselves decent will ignore or excuse a lot if they see it as protecting their religion, more than just their state broadcaster.
Since the BBC has been overrun by sexual abuse since well before the days of Jimmy Saville, and has sculptures by a famous paedophile, incestuous rapist and renowned dog-lover over its main building, and routinely tried to cover up the abuses, are we to take it the BBC is a religion?
Given the way some people talk about, perhaps it is...
As everyone is talking about abortion and Roe v Wade, let me add my two cents:
Roe v Wade - and the way it was imposed via judicial fiat - acted as a recruiting sergeant for Republicans and created a clear and unfortunate gap between the political parties based on a single issue.
The Matt Santos character from the West Wing (a pro-abortion Democrat) would be unthinkable today.
The best thing for America is for abortion law to be set by individual states by ballot initiatives. Over time that will result in a patchwork of abortion legislation. But it will almost certainly (as it has done in Europe) end with it being legal in most places. And this is the right process for the legalisation of abortion: not the decision of a few judges attempting to extract something from the Constitution that simply isn't there.
Such a move also increases democratic accountability. Having the Supreme Court decide on the legality of things is not so very different to having an unelected Commission decide on things.
From a political perspective, I think this helps the Democrats in the medium term, for exactly the same reason that Roe helped the Republicans. It's a lot easier to get people out onto the streets because they want to change things, than to get them out to ask that they stay the same.
I do not think the Democrats should attempt to change the Supreme Court via adding members. A twenty year term limit for members, though, sounds like a very sensible measure. I would also suggest that membership of the Supreme Court should require 60 votes in the Senate, not 50 (plus the VP). Ensuring that whoever is selected gets the support of well over half the lawmakers would be a positive.
Getting rid of Roe makes this easier: there's not a single totemic issue that Judges can be assessed on.
I find this really difficult. I agree with you that Roe-v-Wade is bad law. Judges simply should not have that power. But the real issue is the power of the state against the autonomy of the woman. At what point is the woman accountable for the life that is being sustained by her body and at what point does that life have rights which override what the woman does with her own body?
This is a really difficult question and the introduction of religious beliefs into the argument has really not helped. I personally do not find deontological moral certainties written hundreds of years ago in an entirely different time useful or illuminating.
My view, FWIW, is that we have this broadly right: the point at which the life of the fetus overrides the rights of the mother is when it becomes capable of living independently of her. But I really hesitate to say that I have any right in morality or law to make that decision for someone else. I find the volume of abortions in this country appalling but I would not stop it at the cost of a woman's right to choose.
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
Absolutely not, without organised religions we would not have some of our greatest architecture and art, many schools and hospitals and universities, foodbanks, homeless shelters etc.
In any case child abuse has taken place anywhere where children are present, including schools both private and state, the scouts, even the BBC.
It is lessons all institutions need to learn, not just organised religions (plus as 78% of the global population belongs to an organised religion it is not going anywhere anyway)
You are correct it is something all institutions where the opportunity could arise face.
However it may be fair to say religious institutions may be more susceptible as the desire to defend the institution above all else is bound to be higher in a religious institution. A lot of people who think themselves decent will ignore or excuse a lot if they see it as protecting their religion, more than just their state broadcaster.
Since the BBC has been overrun by sexual abuse since well before the days of Jimmy Saville, and has sculptures by a famous paedophile, incestuous rapist and renowned dog-lover over its main building, and routinely tried to cover up the abuses, are we to take it the BBC is a religion?
Given the way some people talk about, perhaps it is...
Saville was of course actively involved in the NHS as a hospital porter and fundraiser where he undertook a lot of his sexual abuse and the NHS is almost a religion in the UK now
Hard as it is to believe today Roe vs Wade was mostly welcomed by Southern Evangelicals at the time. They thought obsessing about abortion was a Catholic prediliction.
The Southern Baptist Congress put out a statement supporting the decision and saying they hoped it settle the matter.
The actual recruiting sergeant in the period that activated the evangelical base was the stripping of tax exempt charitable status from white only private colleges.
It was only in the 80s that the Heritage foundation recast abortion provision as a benefit for for the undeserving poor (i.e. Blacks) that opposition to RoevsWade it became part of the southern evangelical political fabric.
Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
And it does make one very worried for the future
Yes. If the science is right the effects are already baked in and continuing. Reducing how much more you put in is just like slightly reducing your borrowing when you are already 2.1 trillion in debt. It doesn't reduce the problem. It increases it, though the rhetoric makes people think it helps.
There are IMHO only these scenarios for planet hope:
The science is wrong The science is right but the planet changes (eg so that warming off sets an ice age) The unknowable beneficial effects outweigh the downside (Siberia becomes the world's breadbasket or something) Amelioration measures allow enough of the world to remain habitable We find a way of getting CO2 etc out of the atmosphere sufficiently. (This is the least likely in my view. There is too much air.)
Stopping putting CO2 into the air in time won't happen. 'In time' was a few years ago, as they told us at the time.
I really am depressed now.
To be honest I do think we all need to accept that mankind cannot overcome the power and evolution of nature, and it is a question of doing what is possible but also realising and accepting that it may well be on the margins
Also, their manifesto is surprisingly well-thought through and detailed, and effectively advocates a "Global Canada" policy that is bang-in-line with "Global Britain":
If O'Toole does win he would certainly be Boris' closest ally in the G7 now, indeed Boris' only centre right fellow leader in the group apart from Suga of Japan
Also, their manifesto is surprisingly well-thought through and detailed, and effectively advocates a "Global Canada" policy that is bang-in-line with "Global Britain":
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
Absolutely not, without organised religions we would not have some of our greatest architecture and art, many schools and hospitals and universities, foodbanks, homeless shelters etc.
In any case child abuse has taken place anywhere where children are present, including schools both private and state, the scouts, football clubs, gymnastics teams, even the BBC.
It is lessons all institutions need to learn, not just organised religions (plus as 78% of the global population belongs to an organised religion it is not going anywhere anyway)
I fully agree with your 2nd two paras which is the main point you are making, but why do you think us atheist (not me personally as I can't produce anything worthwhile) couldn't have produced great architecture and art, many schools and hospitals and universities, foodbanks, homeless shelters instead of the ones produced by religious entities. The architects, artist, etc, etc may have produced something else to fill that void, maybe something better. Who knows.
Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
And it does make one very worried for the future
why was there so much rain still in the system by the time it had tracked up from Louisiana. had it been raining that heavily across all the States in between or did it hit a trigger to let it go over NY?
Hard as it is to believe today Roe vs Wade was mostly welcomed by Southern Evangelicals at the time. Nthey thoight obsessong avout abortuon was a Catholic presiliction.
The Southern Baptist Congress put out a statement supporting the decision and saying they hoped it settle the matter.
The actual recruiting sergeant in the period that activated the evangelical base was the stripping of tax exempt charitable status from white only private colleges.
It was only in the 80s that the Heritage foundation recast abortion provision as a benefit for for the undeserving poor (i.e. Blacks) that opposition to RoevsWade it became part of the southern evangelical political fabric.
There was some support from Baptists for abortion to protect the life and health of the mother in the 1970s, there was certainly not support from them for abortion on demand as now.
Most Pentecostal Black churches also oppose abortion, indeed many of their members while otherwise voting Democrat will be pro life
Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
And it does make one very worried for the future
Yes. If the science is right the effects are already baked in and continuing. Reducing how much more you put in is just like slightly reducing your borrowing when you are already 2.1 trillion in debt. It doesn't reduce the problem. It increases it, though the rhetoric makes people think it helps.
There are IMHO only these scenarios for planet hope:
The science is wrong The science is right but the planet changes (eg so that warming off sets an ice age) The unknowable beneficial effects outweigh the downside (Siberia becomes the world's breadbasket or something) Amelioration measures allow enough of the world to remain habitable We find a way of getting CO2 etc out of the atmosphere sufficiently. (This is the least likely in my view. There is too much air.)
Stopping putting CO2 into the air in time won't happen. 'In time' was a few years ago, as they told us at the time.
I really am depressed now.
To be honest I do think we all need to accept that mankind cannot overcome the power and evolution of nature, and it is a question of doing what is possible but also realising and accepting that it may well be on the margins
Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
And it does make one very worried for the future
Yes. If the science is right the effects are already baked in and continuing. Reducing how much more you put in is just like slightly reducing your borrowing when you are already 2.1 trillion in debt. It doesn't reduce the problem. It increases it, though the rhetoric makes people think it helps.
There are IMHO only these scenarios for planet hope:
The science is wrong The science is right but the planet changes (eg so that warming off sets an ice age) The unknowable beneficial effects outweigh the downside (Siberia becomes the world's breadbasket or something) Amelioration measures allow enough of the world to remain habitable We find a way of getting CO2 etc out of the atmosphere sufficiently. (This is the least likely in my view. There is too much air.)
Stopping putting CO2 into the air in time won't happen. 'In time' was a few years ago, as they told us at the time.
"Too much air" sounds like a denier argument!
Perhaps we are Gaia's negative feedback for global cooling. Ice ages are not the norm, remember, and we are still in one. The Eocene didn't lead to runaway warming, so the earth will be just fine (for now), even if we aren't.
With regard to this particular event, there's some argument that hurricane frequency will actually decrease due to the warming of the cold sink (all thermodynamic processes require a cold sink as well as a warm source), so I wouldn't read too much into this week's events. As long as we continue to build vulnerable infrastructure, these things will keep happening.
Just watching the pictures from New York's inundation and they are unbelievable with 14 lives lost
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
And it does make one very worried for the future
Yes. If the science is right the effects are already baked in and continuing. Reducing how much more you put in is just like slightly reducing your borrowing when you are already 2.1 trillion in debt. It doesn't reduce the problem. It increases it, though the rhetoric makes people think it helps.
There are IMHO only these scenarios for planet hope:
The science is wrong The science is right but the planet changes (eg so that warming off sets an ice age) The unknowable beneficial effects outweigh the downside (Siberia becomes the world's breadbasket or something) Amelioration measures allow enough of the world to remain habitable We find a way of getting CO2 etc out of the atmosphere sufficiently. (This is the least likely in my view. There is too much air.)
Stopping putting CO2 into the air in time won't happen. 'In time' was a few years ago, as they told us at the time.
I really am depressed now.
To be honest I do think we all need to accept that mankind cannot overcome the power and evolution of nature, and it is a question of doing what is possible but also realising and accepting that it may well be on the margins
Pretty static UK figures again with +ve tests down 1%, deaths up 1% and admissions up 5. We can cope with this but the next step really has to be down and with the schools back that is looking a little unlikely.
I'm not worried, everyone who needs a vaccine has one or has had the opportunity to have one and can still walk in and get one if they change their minds. The government is taking a surprisingly grown up attitude on COVID deaths, I think elsewhere in the world the level of deaths we have would have resulted in some panicked lockdown measures being reimposed. I don't see that happening here and the last time I heard deaths were still 95%+ from unvaccinated people which is the ultimate vindication of unlockdown. My cousin in a London hospital has echoed what Foxy has been saying on here, all of his COVID ICU patients are unvaccinated by choice. The nation can't lockdown to protect these people from their own stupid choices.
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
Absolutely not, without organised religions we would not have some of our greatest architecture and art, many schools and hospitals and universities, foodbanks, homeless shelters etc.
In any case child abuse has taken place anywhere where children are present, including schools both private and state, the scouts, football clubs, gymnastics teams, even the BBC.
It is lessons all institutions need to learn, not just organised religions (plus as 78% of the global population belongs to an organised religion it is not going anywhere anyway)
I fully agree with your 2nd two paras which is the main point you are making, but why do you think us atheist (not me personally as I can't produce anything worthwhile) couldn't have produced great architecture and art, many schools and hospitals and universities, foodbanks, homeless shelters instead of the ones produced by religious entities. The architects, artist, etc, etc may have produced something else to fill that void, maybe something better. Who knows.
The Democrats do not play fair. Hence the almost four years we had of undermining Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant p1ssed on by hookers, and going down the impeachment route twice.
Negative politics is (sadly) about finding accusations that sound credible because of other factors. It's perfectly easy to imagine Trump enjoying paying hookers to pee on the bed that the Obama used (the specific accusation), whereas we wouldn't have given it a moment's consideration if levelled at, say, Ronald Reagan.
Talking of the environment: China demolishes (or tries to) 15 uncompleted tower blocks in one go.
What a waste.
Shoddy workmanship or just unwanted?
No idea, but possibly both.
Looking at the more completed ones in the background, it appears that the current non-Communist Communist Chinese government is making architecture for the masses that is as ugly as 1970s-era Soviet or (some) Western architecture...
China may have a bit of a problem in the next few decades, when all the infrastructure they've built suddenly ages at the same time. The US has a big infrastructure problem at the moment from stuff built in the 1930s to 1960s; that'll be nothing compared to China's.
As everyone is talking about abortion and Roe v Wade, let me add my two cents:
Roe v Wade - and the way it was imposed via judicial fiat - acted as a recruiting sergeant for Republicans and created a clear and unfortunate gap between the political parties based on a single issue.
The Matt Santos character from the West Wing (a pro-abortion Democrat) would be unthinkable today.
The best thing for America is for abortion law to be set by individual states by ballot initiatives. Over time that will result in a patchwork of abortion legislation. But it will almost certainly (as it has done in Europe) end with it being legal in most places. And this is the right process for the legalisation of abortion: not the decision of a few judges attempting to extract something from the Constitution that simply isn't there.
Such a move also increases democratic accountability. Having the Supreme Court decide on the legality of things is not so very different to having an unelected Commission decide on things.
From a political perspective, I think this helps the Democrats in the medium term, for exactly the same reason that Roe helped the Republicans. It's a lot easier to get people out onto the streets because they want to change things, than to get them out to ask that they stay the same.
I do not think the Democrats should attempt to change the Supreme Court via adding members. A twenty year term limit for members, though, sounds like a very sensible measure. I would also suggest that membership of the Supreme Court should require 60 votes in the Senate, not 50 (plus the VP). Ensuring that whoever is selected gets the support of well over half the lawmakers would be a positive.
Getting rid of Roe makes this easier: there's not a single totemic issue that Judges can be assessed on.
Given The Equal Rights Amendment is yet to be ratified, half a century after it passed, the optimism about your proposed constitutional amendment is perhaps a tad naive.
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
The Home Office forecast was based on Germany in particular also not limiting immigration. Government, then and now, as with Afghanistan, is careless of detail and unresponsive to new information.
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/supreme-court-overturn-roe-wade-texas.html ...While Roberts’ dissent was the least impassioned of the four, it may be the most surprising. The chief justice had no obligation to note his vote in this (or any) shadow docket case. Instead, he made it very clear that he could not condone the majority’s hasty, bad-faith retreat from precedent. By doing so, he highlighted the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made all the difference in this case. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were alive, Texas women would have retained their right to reproductive autonomy.
The same would be true if Justice Anthony Kennedy had remained on the court and not been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Or if Merrick Garland, rather than Neil Gorsuch, had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia.) In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was “not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.” Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.
It was predictable that the Supreme Court would abandon Roe after Barrett replaced Ginsburg. But it is still “stunning,” as Sotomayor put it, that it would do so at midnight on a Wednesday in a shadow docket order with a few slapdash sentences of opaque reasoning....
The Democrats have until the midterms to add at least 2 more Justices to the already-politicised SCOTUS.
If they don't, more fool them.
I don't understand why DC and Puerto Rico are not states already.
Because the Democrats still believe they need to play fair. When the reality is that since 2016 those that play fair always lose.
The Democrats do not play fair. Hence the almost four years we had of undermining Trump by claiming he was a Russian plant p1ssed on by hookers, and going down the impeachment route twice.
The claim was that Trump had paid hookers to piss on a bed that had previously been used by Obama, not on him.
Comments
The sheer force and amount of rain (a month's worth in a day) demonstrates the might of nature and forcefully adds to the climate change debate
However, does anyone share my fear that the might of the earth's climate changes are so great that mankind will not be able to mitigate it, no matter how it is approached
And it does make one very worried for the future
My point, which I now realise I didn't actually explicitly make, was that the inclusion or not of Merkel in the betting shouldn't affect Trudeau's odds of being first out. They are entirely independent events. With Canada happening first.
Except for the vanishingly unlikely event of Merkel being incapacitated or overthrown before the Canadian election.
I cannot dispute that religious beliefs have encouraged many individuals to do good and generous things but organised, institutional, patriarchal religions the world would simply be a better place without.
Roe v Wade - and the way it was imposed via judicial fiat - acted as a recruiting sergeant for Republicans and created a clear and unfortunate gap between the political parties based on a single issue.
The Matt Santos character from the West Wing (a pro-abortion Democrat) would be unthinkable today.
The best thing for America is for abortion law to be set by individual states by ballot initiatives. Over time that will result in a patchwork of abortion legislation. But it will almost certainly (as it has done in Europe) end with it being legal in most places. And this is the right process for the legalisation of abortion: not the decision of a few judges attempting to extract something from the Constitution that simply isn't there.
Such a move also increases democratic accountability. Having the Supreme Court decide on the legality of things is not so very different to having an unelected Commission decide on things.
From a political perspective, I think this helps the Democrats in the medium term, for exactly the same reason that Roe helped the Republicans. It's a lot easier to get people out onto the streets because they want to change things, than to get them out to ask that they stay the same.
I do not think the Democrats should attempt to change the Supreme Court via adding members. A twenty year term limit for members, though, sounds like a very sensible measure. I would also suggest that membership of the Supreme Court should require 60 votes in the Senate, not 50 (plus the VP). Ensuring that whoever is selected gets the support of well over half the lawmakers would be a positive.
Getting rid of Roe makes this easier: there's not a single totemic issue that Judges can be assessed on.
It was only Reagan in 1980 and 1984 who really mobilised the pro life evangelical base for the Republicans and the Bushes and Trump then followed suit.
I agree with you though the issue should be left to the states
Obviously theres powers for all of them, but worth more than controlling the House? The presidency?
In any case child abuse has taken place anywhere where children are present, including schools both private and state, the scouts, football clubs, gymnastics teams, even the BBC.
It is lessons all institutions need to learn, not just organised religions (plus as 78% of the global population belongs to an organised religion it is not going anywhere anyway)
I was surprised it was 'there' with the Wokey Trudeau in the first place, to be honest. Over 55s are solidly Tory here.
There are IMHO only these scenarios for planet hope:
The science is wrong
The science is right but the planet changes (eg so that warming off sets an ice age)
The unknowable beneficial effects outweigh the downside (Siberia becomes the world's breadbasket or something)
Amelioration measures allow enough of the world to remain habitable
We find a way of getting CO2 etc out of the atmosphere sufficiently. (This is the least likely in my view. There is too much air.)
Stopping putting CO2 into the air in time won't happen. 'In time' was a few years ago, as they told us at the time.
SPD 25 (+2)
CDU 21 (-2)
Greens 19 (+1)
FDP 11 (-1)
Left 7 (=)
AfD 11 (=)
SPD+Greens+? seems nailed on for the coalition, with FDP the most likely IMO, though CDU or Left both possible in principle.
I'm content with current UK abortion laws. But on the other hand, one of my abiding memories is going with my wife for a scan after in-pregnancy bleeding at seven weeks (and after two previous miscarriages). Our son, as he now is, was a barely discernible blob on the sonographer's screen, but a blob visibly pulsing as his heart, in defiance of our expectations, was beating. That's life, it's proof of life, but it's life that has no viability without the mother. It's not yet independent life.
However it may be fair to say religious institutions may be more susceptible as the desire to defend the institution above all else is bound to be higher in a religious institution. A lot of people who think themselves decent will ignore or excuse a lot if they see it as protecting their religion, more than just their state broadcaster.
The Conservatives are also ahead with 35-54s but the Liberals are tied for the lead with the NDP amongst 18-34s with the Conservatives well behind with the Conservatives doing poorly amongst young women in particular
http://www.campaignresearch.com/single-post/ndp-is-on-top-in-british-columbia-and-is-rising-in-ontario-september-2021
A few bad eggs does not the whole organisation make.
Sexual abuse will still occur whether there is religion or not, all organisations just need tighter safeguarding for it
The shining city on the hill is in deep peril.
https://www.conservative.ca/plan/secure-the-country/
Also, their manifesto is surprisingly well-thought through and detailed, and effectively advocates a "Global Canada" policy that is bang-in-line with "Global Britain":
https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/25132033/5ea53c19b2e3597.pdf
Religion would then be part of the overall human enterprise and an entirely human phenomenon. When it comes to being a menace, menace is caused not by religion, atheism, fascism, communism, the scout movement or freemasons. It is caused by humans and humans alone; and organised religion is neither better nor worse in itself than any other thing, from knitting circles to the Nazi party that have bad things in them.
Given the way some people talk about, perhaps it is...
This is a really difficult question and the introduction of religious beliefs into the argument has really not helped. I personally do not find deontological moral certainties written hundreds of years ago in an entirely different time useful or illuminating.
My view, FWIW, is that we have this broadly right: the point at which the life of the fetus overrides the rights of the mother is when it becomes capable of living independently of her. But I really hesitate to say that I have any right in morality or law to make that decision for someone else. I find the volume of abortions in this country appalling but I would not stop it at the cost of a woman's right to choose.
The Southern Baptist Congress put out a statement supporting the decision and saying they hoped it settle the matter.
The actual recruiting sergeant in the period that activated the evangelical base was the stripping of tax exempt charitable status from white only private colleges.
It was only in the 80s that the Heritage foundation recast abortion provision as a benefit for for the undeserving poor (i.e. Blacks) that opposition to RoevsWade it became part of the southern evangelical political fabric.
What a waste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tcJJeUNH_M
http://news.sky.com/story/us-weather-news-latest-at-least-six-killed-as-storm-ida-dumps-a-months-worth-of-rain-on-new-york-city-12397260
NEWT HREAD
Most Pentecostal Black churches also oppose abortion, indeed many of their members while otherwise voting Democrat will be pro life
Perhaps we are Gaia's negative feedback for global cooling. Ice ages are not the norm, remember, and we are still in one. The Eocene didn't lead to runaway warming, so the earth will be just fine (for now), even if we aren't.
With regard to this particular event, there's some argument that hurricane frequency will actually decrease due to the warming of the cold sink (all thermodynamic processes require a cold sink as well as a warm source), so I wouldn't read too much into this week's events. As long as we continue to build vulnerable infrastructure, these things will keep happening.
Looking at the more completed ones in the background, it appears that the current non-Communist Communist Chinese government is making architecture for the masses that is as ugly as 1970s-era Soviet or (some) Western architecture...
China may have a bit of a problem in the next few decades, when all the infrastructure they've built suddenly ages at the same time. The US has a big infrastructure problem at the moment from stuff built in the 1930s to 1960s; that'll be nothing compared to China's.