It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I personally don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in normal conversation talk about ‘police officers.’ It’s always ‘policemen’ or ‘policewomen.’
I also think it is a weird subject to get so hung up over. I mean - is everything else really so hunky dory in the world (even the world of cricket) that we can afford to obsess about gender neutral pronouns?
If they really want to strike a blow for women’s rights, how about getting visas so the Afghan Women’s Cricket Team can all be safely relocated elsewhere before the Taleban has them brutally raped to death for daring to show their wrists?
It's always been the polis in my bit since before the term Cultural Marxism was a twinkle in far right antisemites' eyes.
1. China is NZ’s largest trading partner at approx 25% of trade. (Australia only half of this).
2. NZ has received large volumes of Chinese immigration since the 90s. Auckland is probably 10 or 15% Chinese.
3. NZ is a member of Five Eyes but since it banned nuclear ships in 1987 and detached itself from ANZUS it has been slightly estranged from US-led foreign policy. It did not send troops to Iraq. It *did* send forces to Afghanistan. Generally it sees itself as a friendly neutral on major issues, sort of like Norway.
4. China regards NZ as easier to infiltrate, in part because of (3) but more because NZ is a small, high trust society with no real tradition of defending civil society from opponents.
5. China has concentrated on surveilling and keeping ideological tabs on NZ’s resident population, and tries to bribe NZ politicians with directorships, funding etc. There is a small but active and presumably well funded “China lobby”.
6. NZ is usually the last to condemn Chinese outrages in for eg Hong Kong. But it does, eventually.
The NZ establishment is slowly realising it has been too complacent, which is a start. It’s not clear what’s happening behind scenes to mitigate against undue Chinese influence, but I’m sure it’s happening.
I would end by adding that Chinese tactics in NZ are not dissimilar to those tried with some success in the U.K.
Ah, so you do agree with me then. Fancy that.
NZ needs to find its courage and fight back. We will help. All of its friends will help.
It's that simple.
No, I do not agree with you.
“Craven appeasement” is an absurd description from someone who would struggle to find NZ on a map.
Ironic that Farage recognises the diminished influence of "global Britain".
Also kind of confused that a deal between the EU and the US means that Biden has stabbed Boris in the back. As far as I am aware no one (excepting perhaps La Farage) has ever claimed that the UK had any right to exclusive deals with any other country in the world. If the EU and US are pooling resources for a vital issue like vaccine production then bloody good news.
Ignoring Farage as a loon is in general a jolly good idea.
Except you didn't. You voted for him.
I voted for him to be made redundant and expelled out of the European Parliament and to no longer be an elected representative for this country.
I don't regret that.
But don't live in the south east of England so how did you vote for the Nigel?
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
This hateful use of the term 'woke' is so awful. It describes those using it far more than it does the target of their opprobrium.
If you substitute "political correctness gone mad" for "woke" whenever it is used by the red cord brigade then you will accurately identify the out of touch, retired Colonel, golf club, gin and jag tendency of the user.
An Indian friend regretted that he had not continued his part-time thing in the Indian military, so that he could write angry letters to the papers signed "Col. X, Indian Army (retired), Of Tumbridge Wells".
1. China is NZ’s largest trading partner at approx 25% of trade. (Australia only half of this).
2. NZ has received large volumes of Chinese immigration since the 90s. Auckland is probably 10 or 15% Chinese.
3. NZ is a member of Five Eyes but since it banned nuclear ships in 1987 and detached itself from ANZUS it has been slightly estranged from US-led foreign policy. It did not send troops to Iraq. It *did* send forces to Afghanistan. Generally it sees itself as a friendly neutral on major issues, sort of like Norway.
4. China regards NZ as easier to infiltrate, in part because of (3) but more because NZ is a small, high trust society with no real tradition of defending civil society from opponents.
5. China has concentrated on surveilling and keeping ideological tabs on NZ’s resident population, and tries to bribe NZ politicians with directorships, funding etc. There is a small but active and presumably well funded “China lobby”.
6. NZ is usually the last to condemn Chinese outrages in for eg Hong Kong. But it does, eventually.
The NZ establishment is slowly realising it has been too complacent, which is a start. It’s not clear what’s happening behind scenes to mitigate against undue Chinese influence, but I’m sure it’s happening.
I would end by adding that Chinese tactics in NZ are not dissimilar to those tried with some success in the U.K.
Ah, so you do agree with me then. Fancy that.
NZ needs to find its courage and fight back. We will help. All of its friends will help.
It's that simple.
No, I do not agree with you.
“Craven appeasement” is an absurd description from someone who would struggle to find NZ on a map.
1. China is NZ’s largest trading partner at approx 25% of trade. (Australia only half of this).
2. NZ has received large volumes of Chinese immigration since the 90s. Auckland is probably 10 or 15% Chinese.
3. NZ is a member of Five Eyes but since it banned nuclear ships in 1987 and detached itself from ANZUS it has been slightly estranged from US-led foreign policy. It did not send troops to Iraq. It *did* send forces to Afghanistan. Generally it sees itself as a friendly neutral on major issues, sort of like Norway.
4. China regards NZ as easier to infiltrate, in part because of (3) but more because NZ is a small, high trust society with no real tradition of defending civil society from opponents.
5. China has concentrated on surveilling and keeping ideological tabs on NZ’s resident population, and tries to bribe NZ politicians with directorships, funding etc. There is a small but active and presumably well funded “China lobby”.
6. NZ is usually the last to condemn Chinese outrages in for eg Hong Kong. But it does, eventually.
The NZ establishment is slowly realising it has been too complacent, which is a start. It’s not clear what’s happening behind scenes to mitigate against undue Chinese influence, but I’m sure it’s happening.
I would end by adding that Chinese tactics in NZ are not dissimilar to those tried with some success in the U.K.
Ah, so you do agree with me then. Fancy that.
NZ needs to find its courage and fight back. We will help. All of its friends will help.
It's that simple.
Against the yellow peril.
Does "we will help" imply that you personally mean to enlist in the armed forces, jtbc?
On topic, one Democrat- leaning publication summed it up well: Biden’s ratings are getting hit because people are now focusing on Biden himself rather than viewing him through the lens of being ‘Not Trump’.
Obviously, coming into the mid-terms, there will be a focus on tying the GOP into Trump, as happened in the CA recall election. That may work but there is a big risk voters look past that and focus on Biden’s record especially if he has no meaningful achievements to his name
Hello Ed! Agree with every word. With caveat that Biden can already claim some achievements with more in the pipeline, though it's still open question how meaningful (or positive) they will be judged by voters next year.
Speaking of 2022, the Washington State Redistricting Commission has just released and posted four proposed legislative redistricting maps, drafted by each of the 4 partisan commissioners (one appointed by each state legislative caucus (Sen Ds, Sen Rs, House Ds, House Rs)
Note that proposed maps for congressional redistricting will be released by commissioners next week.
Further note that these proposals are mostly preliminary shadow-boxing by both sides, commencing public debate and comment, but perhaps more importantly launching negotiations between Democrats and Republicans.
Under WA State redistricting law, commissioners have until the end of 2021 to finalize legislative and congressional plans, which requires a majority vote of the four voting commissioners. Which means that partisan gerrymander is NOT possible. Instead, both sides try to out-fox each other around the edges, concede when forced to choose, and dicker for what they want the most.
And strangely enough, though the law makes equal districts (based on 2020 census total population, with virtually zero wiggle room, plus or minus ten PEOPLE) and communities of interest the prime considerations, it turns out that incumbent protection is an even greater good, on both sides of the aisle.
Aside from that, major factor for WA this redistricting cycle (as in just about all) is relative growth of population across the state. Which has been strongest in the city of Seattle and a few other parts of the state such as Clark Co in SW WA (suburb of Portland OR) and Whatcom Co on the Canadian border.
Congressional redistricting will be interesting largely because two of our three GOP members of Congress voted to impeach Trump, so hard to say just how the commissioners of both food groups are gonna deal with THAT reality leading into the 2022 mid-term election.
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I personally don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in normal conversation talk about ‘police officers.’ It’s always ‘policemen’ or ‘policewomen.’
I also think it is a weird subject to get so hung up over. I mean - is everything else really so hunky dory in the world (even the world of cricket) that we can afford to obsess about gender neutral pronouns?
If they really want to strike a blow for women’s rights, how about getting visas so the Afghan Women’s Cricket Team can all be safely relocated elsewhere before the Taleban has them brutally raped to death for daring to show their wrists?
The trouble with the new cricket terminology is that ‘batters’ doesn’t distinguish between those females who were born with a vagina, and those females who were not.
Perhaps they should call the former ‘fanny batters’, which helpfully pleases everyone, including my inner 14 year old
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I personally don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in normal conversation talk about ‘police officers.’ It’s always ‘policemen’ or ‘policewomen.’
I also think it is a weird subject to get so hung up over. I mean - is everything else really so hunky dory in the world (even the world of cricket) that we can afford to obsess about gender neutral pronouns?
If they really want to strike a blow for women’s rights, how about getting visas so the Afghan Women’s Cricket Team can all be safely relocated elsewhere before the Taleban has them brutally raped to death for daring to show their wrists?
The odd thing about police officers is that they all are. There are no police other ranks.
On topic, one Democrat- leaning publication summed it up well: Biden’s ratings are getting hit because people are now focusing on Biden himself rather than viewing him through the lens of being ‘Not Trump’.
Obviously, coming into the mid-terms, there will be a focus on tying the GOP into Trump, as happened in the CA recall election. That may work but there is a big risk voters look past that and focus on Biden’s record especially if he has no meaningful achievements to his name
In the CA recall election however remember recall Newsom still got 37%, which was higher than the 34% Trump got in 2020 and the 32% he got in 2016 in the state.
Even on that swing nationwide the GOP would pick up the House given they only need to gain 5 seats for a majority
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I personally don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in normal conversation talk about ‘police officers.’ It’s always ‘policemen’ or ‘policewomen.’
I also think it is a weird subject to get so hung up over. I mean - is everything else really so hunky dory in the world (even the world of cricket) that we can afford to obsess about gender neutral pronouns?
If they really want to strike a blow for women’s rights, how about getting visas so the Afghan Women’s Cricket Team can all be safely relocated elsewhere before the Taleban has them brutally raped to death for daring to show their wrists?
The odd thing about police officers is that they all are. There are no police other ranks.
Nothing so suspect as a semi-militaristic organisation where everyone has a big title.
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I personally don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in normal conversation talk about ‘police officers.’ It’s always ‘policemen’ or ‘policewomen.’
I also think it is a weird subject to get so hung up over. I mean - is everything else really so hunky dory in the world (even the world of cricket) that we can afford to obsess about gender neutral pronouns?
If they really want to strike a blow for women’s rights, how about getting visas so the Afghan Women’s Cricket Team can all be safely relocated elsewhere before the Taleban has them brutally raped to death for daring to show their wrists?
The trouble with the new cricket terminology is that ‘batters’ doesn’t distinguish between those females who were born with a vagina, and those females who were not.
Perhaps they should call the former ‘fanny batters’, which helpfully pleases everyone, including my inner 14 year old
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
SPD at 25% (-2 from last poll), Union 21.5% (+1.5) so a tightening of the race as we've seen in other polls.
The Union gaining a little in constituencies but still behind the SPD but the gap has closed to 141-139 with the Greens ahead in 9-11 and Alternative and Linke ahead in four each.
1. China is NZ’s largest trading partner at approx 25% of trade. (Australia only half of this).
2. NZ has received large volumes of Chinese immigration since the 90s. Auckland is probably 10 or 15% Chinese.
3. NZ is a member of Five Eyes but since it banned nuclear ships in 1987 and detached itself from ANZUS it has been slightly estranged from US-led foreign policy. It did not send troops to Iraq. It *did* send forces to Afghanistan. Generally it sees itself as a friendly neutral on major issues, sort of like Norway.
4. China regards NZ as easier to infiltrate, in part because of (3) but more because NZ is a small, high trust society with no real tradition of defending civil society from opponents.
5. China has concentrated on surveilling and keeping ideological tabs on NZ’s resident population, and tries to bribe NZ politicians with directorships, funding etc. There is a small but active and presumably well funded “China lobby”.
6. NZ is usually the last to condemn Chinese outrages in for eg Hong Kong. But it does, eventually.
The NZ establishment is slowly realising it has been too complacent, which is a start. It’s not clear what’s happening behind scenes to mitigate against undue Chinese influence, but I’m sure it’s happening.
I would end by adding that Chinese tactics in NZ are not dissimilar to those tried with some success in the U.K.
Ah, so you do agree with me then. Fancy that.
NZ needs to find its courage and fight back. We will help. All of its friends will help.
It's that simple.
No, I do not agree with you.
“Craven appeasement” is an absurd description from someone who would struggle to find NZ on a map.
SPD at 25% (-2 from last poll), Union 21.5% (+1.5) so a tightening of the race as we've seen in other polls.
The Union gaining a little in constituencies but still behind the SPD but the gap has closed to 141-139 with the Greens ahead in 9-11 and Alternative and Linke ahead in four each.
Looks like on that map the Union are still going to pretty much sweep Bavaria again even if they lose nationally.
Bavaria is now not only culturally but politically clearly closer to Austria and Switzerland than it is to northern Germany
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I personally don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in normal conversation talk about ‘police officers.’ It’s always ‘policemen’ or ‘policewomen.’
I also think it is a weird subject to get so hung up over. I mean - is everything else really so hunky dory in the world (even the world of cricket) that we can afford to obsess about gender neutral pronouns?
If they really want to strike a blow for women’s rights, how about getting visas so the Afghan Women’s Cricket Team can all be safely relocated elsewhere before the Taleban has them brutally raped to death for daring to show their wrists?
The trouble with the new cricket terminology is that ‘batters’ doesn’t distinguish between those females who were born with a vagina, and those females who were not.
Perhaps they should call the former ‘fanny batters’, which helpfully pleases everyone, including my inner 14 year old
Since I can’t think of any examples of the latter, I’m not sure that that’s important right now.
I mean, ‘batter’ or ‘bat’ used to be accepted terms for those who were primarily in the side for their batting, just as ‘bowlsman’ was a Victorian term for bowler. So there’s nothing anachronistic or strange about the terms themselves. But - is this really the most important thing? Right now? Or is it just a load of drunken virtue signalling?
Like I say, what’s actually been done about those members of the Afghan Women’s Cricket team whose lives may be in some danger?
SPD at 25% (-2 from last poll), Union 21.5% (+1.5) so a tightening of the race as we've seen in other polls.
The Union gaining a little in constituencies but still behind the SPD but the gap has closed to 141-139 with the Greens ahead in 9-11 and Alternative and Linke ahead in four each.
Looks like on that map the Union are still going to pretty much sweep Bavaria again even if they lose nationally.
Bavaria is now not only culturally but politically clearly closer to Austria and Switzerland than it is to northern Germany
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I personally don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in normal conversation talk about ‘police officers.’ It’s always ‘policemen’ or ‘policewomen.’
I also think it is a weird subject to get so hung up over. I mean - is everything else really so hunky dory in the world (even the world of cricket) that we can afford to obsess about gender neutral pronouns?
If they really want to strike a blow for women’s rights, how about getting visas so the Afghan Women’s Cricket Team can all be safely relocated elsewhere before the Taleban has them brutally raped to death for daring to show their wrists?
The trouble with the new cricket terminology is that ‘batters’ doesn’t distinguish between those females who were born with a vagina, and those females who were not.
Perhaps they should call the former ‘fanny batters’, which helpfully pleases everyone, including my inner 14 year old
SPD at 25% (-2 from last poll), Union 21.5% (+1.5) so a tightening of the race as we've seen in other polls.
The Union gaining a little in constituencies but still behind the SPD but the gap has closed to 141-139 with the Greens ahead in 9-11 and Alternative and Linke ahead in four each.
Looks like on that map the Union are still going to pretty much sweep Bavaria again even if they lose nationally.
Bavaria is now not only culturally but politically clearly closer to Austria and Switzerland than it is to northern Germany
What do you mean, ‘now?’ It always was.
Culturally it was, politically now that is clearly the case too. Especially with conservatives still in government in Austria and Switzerland as the largest party
Meanwhile has anyone ever won that £25/£50/£100 voucher for letting XYZ company know what you think?
My former business partner let rip at some company about their poor service standards and then got a bland letter somewhat later telling him he had won the draw for the monthly IPad.
1. China is NZ’s largest trading partner at approx 25% of trade. (Australia only half of this).
2. NZ has received large volumes of Chinese immigration since the 90s. Auckland is probably 10 or 15% Chinese.
3. NZ is a member of Five Eyes but since it banned nuclear ships in 1987 and detached itself from ANZUS it has been slightly estranged from US-led foreign policy. It did not send troops to Iraq. It *did* send forces to Afghanistan. Generally it sees itself as a friendly neutral on major issues, sort of like Norway.
4. China regards NZ as easier to infiltrate, in part because of (3) but more because NZ is a small, high trust society with no real tradition of defending civil society from opponents.
5. China has concentrated on surveilling and keeping ideological tabs on NZ’s resident population, and tries to bribe NZ politicians with directorships, funding etc. There is a small but active and presumably well funded “China lobby”.
6. NZ is usually the last to condemn Chinese outrages in for eg Hong Kong. But it does, eventually.
The NZ establishment is slowly realising it has been too complacent, which is a start. It’s not clear what’s happening behind scenes to mitigate against undue Chinese influence, but I’m sure it’s happening.
I would end by adding that Chinese tactics in NZ are not dissimilar to those tried with some success in the U.K.
Ah, so you do agree with me then. Fancy that.
NZ needs to find its courage and fight back. We will help. All of its friends will help.
It's that simple.
No, I do not agree with you.
“Craven appeasement” is an absurd description from someone who would struggle to find NZ on a map.
Surely?
Well, there is Franz Josef glacier on both...
Really? I knew about the Franz Josef Land original naming, but a specific glacier called that as well?
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I personally don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in normal conversation talk about ‘police officers.’ It’s always ‘policemen’ or ‘policewomen.’
I also think it is a weird subject to get so hung up over. I mean - is everything else really so hunky dory in the world (even the world of cricket) that we can afford to obsess about gender neutral pronouns?
If they really want to strike a blow for women’s rights, how about getting visas so the Afghan Women’s Cricket Team can all be safely relocated elsewhere before the Taleban has them brutally raped to death for daring to show their wrists?
The trouble with the new cricket terminology is that ‘batters’ doesn’t distinguish between those females who were born with a vagina, and those females who were not.
Perhaps they should call the former ‘fanny batters’, which helpfully pleases everyone, including my inner 14 year old
1. China is NZ’s largest trading partner at approx 25% of trade. (Australia only half of this).
2. NZ has received large volumes of Chinese immigration since the 90s. Auckland is probably 10 or 15% Chinese.
3. NZ is a member of Five Eyes but since it banned nuclear ships in 1987 and detached itself from ANZUS it has been slightly estranged from US-led foreign policy. It did not send troops to Iraq. It *did* send forces to Afghanistan. Generally it sees itself as a friendly neutral on major issues, sort of like Norway.
4. China regards NZ as easier to infiltrate, in part because of (3) but more because NZ is a small, high trust society with no real tradition of defending civil society from opponents.
5. China has concentrated on surveilling and keeping ideological tabs on NZ’s resident population, and tries to bribe NZ politicians with directorships, funding etc. There is a small but active and presumably well funded “China lobby”.
6. NZ is usually the last to condemn Chinese outrages in for eg Hong Kong. But it does, eventually.
The NZ establishment is slowly realising it has been too complacent, which is a start. It’s not clear what’s happening behind scenes to mitigate against undue Chinese influence, but I’m sure it’s happening.
I would end by adding that Chinese tactics in NZ are not dissimilar to those tried with some success in the U.K.
Ah, so you do agree with me then. Fancy that.
NZ needs to find its courage and fight back. We will help. All of its friends will help.
It's that simple.
No, I do not agree with you.
“Craven appeasement” is an absurd description from someone who would struggle to find NZ on a map.
Surely?
Well, there is Franz Josef glacier on both...
Really? I knew about the Franz Josef Land original naming, but a specific glacier called that as well?
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I personally don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in normal conversation talk about ‘police officers.’ It’s always ‘policemen’ or ‘policewomen.’
I also think it is a weird subject to get so hung up over. I mean - is everything else really so hunky dory in the world (even the world of cricket) that we can afford to obsess about gender neutral pronouns?
If they really want to strike a blow for women’s rights, how about getting visas so the Afghan Women’s Cricket Team can all be safely relocated elsewhere before the Taleban has them brutally raped to death for daring to show their wrists?
The trouble with the new cricket terminology is that ‘batters’ doesn’t distinguish between those females who were born with a vagina, and those females who were not.
Perhaps they should call the former ‘fanny batters’, which helpfully pleases everyone, including my inner 14 year old
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I personally don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in normal conversation talk about ‘police officers.’ It’s always ‘policemen’ or ‘policewomen.’
I also think it is a weird subject to get so hung up over. I mean - is everything else really so hunky dory in the world (even the world of cricket) that we can afford to obsess about gender neutral pronouns?
If they really want to strike a blow for women’s rights, how about getting visas so the Afghan Women’s Cricket Team can all be safely relocated elsewhere before the Taleban has them brutally raped to death for daring to show their wrists?
The trouble with the new cricket terminology is that ‘batters’ doesn’t distinguish between those females who were born with a vagina, and those females who were not.
Perhaps they should call the former ‘fanny batters’, which helpfully pleases everyone, including my inner 14 year old
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I personally don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in normal conversation talk about ‘police officers.’ It’s always ‘policemen’ or ‘policewomen.’
I also think it is a weird subject to get so hung up over. I mean - is everything else really so hunky dory in the world (even the world of cricket) that we can afford to obsess about gender neutral pronouns?
If they really want to strike a blow for women’s rights, how about getting visas so the Afghan Women’s Cricket Team can all be safely relocated elsewhere before the Taleban has them brutally raped to death for daring to show their wrists?
The trouble with the new cricket terminology is that ‘batters’ doesn’t distinguish between those females who were born with a vagina, and those females who were not.
Perhaps they should call the former ‘fanny batters’, which helpfully pleases everyone, including my inner 14 year old
Ponders gag about Middlesex.
Thinks better on balance not.
Oh good Lord’s.
I can think of of nO valid response to that.
Oh goodness, that was even worse. Can’t you accept defeat with some Grace?
Ironic that Farage recognises the diminished influence of "global Britain".
Also kind of confused that a deal between the EU and the US means that Biden has stabbed Boris in the back. As far as I am aware no one (excepting perhaps La Farage) has ever claimed that the UK had any right to exclusive deals with any other country in the world. If the EU and US are pooling resources for a vital issue like vaccine production then bloody good news.
Ignoring Farage as a loon is in general a jolly good idea.
Except you didn't. You voted for him.
I voted for him to be made redundant and expelled out of the European Parliament and to no longer be an elected representative for this country.
I don't regret that.
But don't live in the south east of England so how did you vote for the Nigel?
I didn't vote for Nigel. 🤷♂️
I did vote for him to no longer be an elected representative. ✅
1. China is NZ’s largest trading partner at approx 25% of trade. (Australia only half of this).
2. NZ has received large volumes of Chinese immigration since the 90s. Auckland is probably 10 or 15% Chinese.
3. NZ is a member of Five Eyes but since it banned nuclear ships in 1987 and detached itself from ANZUS it has been slightly estranged from US-led foreign policy. It did not send troops to Iraq. It *did* send forces to Afghanistan. Generally it sees itself as a friendly neutral on major issues, sort of like Norway.
4. China regards NZ as easier to infiltrate, in part because of (3) but more because NZ is a small, high trust society with no real tradition of defending civil society from opponents.
5. China has concentrated on surveilling and keeping ideological tabs on NZ’s resident population, and tries to bribe NZ politicians with directorships, funding etc. There is a small but active and presumably well funded “China lobby”.
6. NZ is usually the last to condemn Chinese outrages in for eg Hong Kong. But it does, eventually.
The NZ establishment is slowly realising it has been too complacent, which is a start. It’s not clear what’s happening behind scenes to mitigate against undue Chinese influence, but I’m sure it’s happening.
I would end by adding that Chinese tactics in NZ are not dissimilar to those tried with some success in the U.K.
Ah, so you do agree with me then. Fancy that.
NZ needs to find its courage and fight back. We will help. All of its friends will help.
It's that simple.
No, I do not agree with you.
“Craven appeasement” is an absurd description from someone who would struggle to find NZ on a map.
Surely?
Well, there is Franz Josef glacier on both...
Really? I knew about the Franz Josef Land original naming, but a specific glacier called that as well?
1. China is NZ’s largest trading partner at approx 25% of trade. (Australia only half of this).
2. NZ has received large volumes of Chinese immigration since the 90s. Auckland is probably 10 or 15% Chinese.
3. NZ is a member of Five Eyes but since it banned nuclear ships in 1987 and detached itself from ANZUS it has been slightly estranged from US-led foreign policy. It did not send troops to Iraq. It *did* send forces to Afghanistan. Generally it sees itself as a friendly neutral on major issues, sort of like Norway.
4. China regards NZ as easier to infiltrate, in part because of (3) but more because NZ is a small, high trust society with no real tradition of defending civil society from opponents.
5. China has concentrated on surveilling and keeping ideological tabs on NZ’s resident population, and tries to bribe NZ politicians with directorships, funding etc. There is a small but active and presumably well funded “China lobby”.
6. NZ is usually the last to condemn Chinese outrages in for eg Hong Kong. But it does, eventually.
The NZ establishment is slowly realising it has been too complacent, which is a start. It’s not clear what’s happening behind scenes to mitigate against undue Chinese influence, but I’m sure it’s happening.
I would end by adding that Chinese tactics in NZ are not dissimilar to those tried with some success in the U.K.
Ah, so you do agree with me then. Fancy that.
NZ needs to find its courage and fight back. We will help. All of its friends will help.
It's that simple.
No, I do not agree with you.
“Craven appeasement” is an absurd description from someone who would struggle to find NZ on a map.
I choose my words carefully. It was virtually silent over Hong Kong. The same over the Uighurs.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Fair enough I’d say. Australian commentators tend to say ‘fieldsmen’ rather than ‘fielders’ which I find a bit strange, as they do use ‘batters’
I wonder if we will get a female version of "The batsman's Holding, the bowlers Willey"? Is there a female batter called "Tits" or "Fanny", and a bowler called "Rubbing" etc??
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
On topic, one Democrat- leaning publication summed it up well: Biden’s ratings are getting hit because people are now focusing on Biden himself rather than viewing him through the lens of being ‘Not Trump’.
Obviously, coming into the mid-terms, there will be a focus on tying the GOP into Trump, as happened in the CA recall election. That may work but there is a big risk voters look past that and focus on Biden’s record especially if he has no meaningful achievements to his name
In the CA recall election however remember recall Newsom still got 37%, which was higher than the 34% Trump got in 2020 and the 32% he got in 2016 in the state.
Even on that swing nationwide the GOP would pick up the House given they only need to gain 5 seats for a majority
Yes, I think the CA recall result is not necessarily without its pluses for the GOP. As you said, the recall made some inroads into the Democratic vote and there were some clear signs certain Democratic constituencies, especially the Hispanic block, were softening in their support.
In my mind, there were two winners from the CA recall vote: Gavin Newsom and Larry Elder. The former won (and I expect him to run again, as I think his national aspirations are not dead but are on life support) and the latter has catapulted himself into the de facto leader of CA's GOP.
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
And even Daniel Craig has come out against a female James Bond, which even Theresa May was advocating just 3 years ago.
It's not my fault if some are too thick and slow to catch-on though and a few of us are several steps ahead of them.
This is getting very tedious. Are there any evenings here when you aren't obsessively pursuing your war on woke? Don't you think there are more important things to think about?
On topic, one Democrat- leaning publication summed it up well: Biden’s ratings are getting hit because people are now focusing on Biden himself rather than viewing him through the lens of being ‘Not Trump’.
Obviously, coming into the mid-terms, there will be a focus on tying the GOP into Trump, as happened in the CA recall election. That may work but there is a big risk voters look past that and focus on Biden’s record especially if he has no meaningful achievements to his name
In the CA recall election however remember recall Newsom still got 37%, which was higher than the 34% Trump got in 2020 and the 32% he got in 2016 in the state.
Even on that swing nationwide the GOP would pick up the House given they only need to gain 5 seats for a majority
Yes, I think the CA recall result is not necessarily without its pluses for the GOP. As you said, the recall made some inroads into the Democratic vote and there were some clear signs certain Democratic constituencies, especially the Hispanic block, were softening in their support.
In my mind, there were two winners from the CA recall vote: Gavin Newsom and Larry Elder. The former won (and I expect him to run again, as I think his national aspirations are not dead but are on life support) and the latter has catapulted himself into the de facto leader of CA's GOP.
I'm not sure Larry Elder being the poster boy of the California GOP has done the California GOP any favours. If Elder had not been the front runner, I think the election would have been an awful lot closer.
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
And even Daniel Craig has come out against a female James Bond, which even Theresa May was advocating just 3 years ago.
It's not my fault if some are too thick and slow to catch-on though and a few of us are several steps ahead of them.
This is getting very tedious. Are there any evenings here when you aren't obsessively pursuing your war on woke? Don't you think there are more important things to think about?
It's a war that needs to be won and won as quickly as possible, I'm afraid. Woke poses a fundamental threat to our liberal enlightenment values and threatens to turn us against ourselves and tear down our institutions and nations from the inside in the process.
So, no, I don't think there are more important things to think about. This *is* the most important thing in the West today.
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
And even Daniel Craig has come out against a female James Bond, which even Theresa May was advocating just 3 years ago.
It's not my fault if some are too thick and slow to catch-on though and a few of us are several steps ahead of them.
This is getting very tedious. Are there any evenings here when you aren't obsessively pursuing your war on woke? Don't you think there are more important things to think about?
Oh, quite often he rattles his sabre for war on China instead.
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
And even Daniel Craig has come out against a female James Bond, which even Theresa May was advocating just 3 years ago.
It's not my fault if some are too thick and slow to catch-on though and a few of us are several steps ahead of them.
Christ on a bike. James Bond films are a bit of national pantomime fun, and you think a difference of opinion about the sex of the lead is a serious political issue?
The Bond of the novels was all man, of course, and had no qualms about explicitly condemning queers and dykes. No doubt you will join me in explicitly condemning that stance?
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
And even Daniel Craig has come out against a female James Bond, which even Theresa May was advocating just 3 years ago.
It's not my fault if some are too thick and slow to catch-on though and a few of us are several steps ahead of them.
Christ on a bike. James Bond films are a bit of national pantomime fun, and you think a difference of opinion about the sex of the lead is a serious political issue?
The Bond of the novels was all man, of course, and had no qualms about explicitly condemning queers and dykes. No doubt you will join me in explicitly condemning that stance?
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
And even Daniel Craig has come out against a female James Bond, which even Theresa May was advocating just 3 years ago.
It's not my fault if some are too thick and slow to catch-on though and a few of us are several steps ahead of them.
Christ on a bike. James Bond films are a bit of national pantomime fun, and you think a difference of opinion about the sex of the lead is a serious political issue?
The Bond of the novels was all man, of course, and had no qualms about explicitly condemning queers and dykes. No doubt you will join me in explicitly condemning that stance?
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
And even Daniel Craig has come out against a female James Bond, which even Theresa May was advocating just 3 years ago.
It's not my fault if some are too thick and slow to catch-on though and a few of us are several steps ahead of them.
Christ on a bike. James Bond films are a bit of national pantomime fun, and you think a difference of opinion about the sex of the lead is a serious political issue?
The Bond of the novels was all man, of course, and had no qualms about explicitly condemning queers and dykes. No doubt you will join me in explicitly condemning that stance?
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
Don't get the thread header at all. The whole point of Biden was that he was not Trump. Period.
Well, the general hatred for Trump blinded people to just how useless a candidate Biden was and how useless he would be as President. As is being proven now.
On topic, one Democrat- leaning publication summed it up well: Biden’s ratings are getting hit because people are now focusing on Biden himself rather than viewing him through the lens of being ‘Not Trump’.
Obviously, coming into the mid-terms, there will be a focus on tying the GOP into Trump, as happened in the CA recall election. That may work but there is a big risk voters look past that and focus on Biden’s record especially if he has no meaningful achievements to his name
In the CA recall election however remember recall Newsom still got 37%, which was higher than the 34% Trump got in 2020 and the 32% he got in 2016 in the state.
Even on that swing nationwide the GOP would pick up the House given they only need to gain 5 seats for a majority
Yes, I think the CA recall result is not necessarily without its pluses for the GOP. As you said, the recall made some inroads into the Democratic vote and there were some clear signs certain Democratic constituencies, especially the Hispanic block, were softening in their support.
In my mind, there were two winners from the CA recall vote: Gavin Newsom and Larry Elder. The former won (and I expect him to run again, as I think his national aspirations are not dead but are on life support) and the latter has catapulted himself into the de facto leader of CA's GOP.
I'm not sure Larry Elder being the poster boy of the California GOP has done the California GOP any favours. If Elder had not been the front runner, I think the election would have been an awful lot closer.
Agreed but I didn't say the California GOP was the second winner, I said Larry Elder. If he had not been a runner, the vote would have been a lot closer.
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
On topic, one Democrat- leaning publication summed it up well: Biden’s ratings are getting hit because people are now focusing on Biden himself rather than viewing him through the lens of being ‘Not Trump’.
Obviously, coming into the mid-terms, there will be a focus on tying the GOP into Trump, as happened in the CA recall election. That may work but there is a big risk voters look past that and focus on Biden’s record especially if he has no meaningful achievements to his name
Hello Ed! Agree with every word. With caveat that Biden can already claim some achievements with more in the pipeline, though it's still open question how meaningful (or positive) they will be judged by voters next year.
Speaking of 2022, the Washington State Redistricting Commission has just released and posted four proposed legislative redistricting maps, drafted by each of the 4 partisan commissioners (one appointed by each state legislative caucus (Sen Ds, Sen Rs, House Ds, House Rs)
Note that proposed maps for congressional redistricting will be released by commissioners next week.
Further note that these proposals are mostly preliminary shadow-boxing by both sides, commencing public debate and comment, but perhaps more importantly launching negotiations between Democrats and Republicans.
Under WA State redistricting law, commissioners have until the end of 2021 to finalize legislative and congressional plans, which requires a majority vote of the four voting commissioners. Which means that partisan gerrymander is NOT possible. Instead, both sides try to out-fox each other around the edges, concede when forced to choose, and dicker for what they want the most.
And strangely enough, though the law makes equal districts (based on 2020 census total population, with virtually zero wiggle room, plus or minus ten PEOPLE) and communities of interest the prime considerations, it turns out that incumbent protection is an even greater good, on both sides of the aisle.
Aside from that, major factor for WA this redistricting cycle (as in just about all) is relative growth of population across the state. Which has been strongest in the city of Seattle and a few other parts of the state such as Clark Co in SW WA (suburb of Portland OR) and Whatcom Co on the Canadian border.
Congressional redistricting will be interesting largely because two of our three GOP members of Congress voted to impeach Trump, so hard to say just how the commissioners of both food groups are gonna deal with THAT reality leading into the 2022 mid-term election.
Hello @SeaShantyIrish2 great to have you back!! Thanks for the update on WA, I suspect those members of Congress will actually be ok. Regardless of the consensual view, the Donald's hold on the GOP is not omnipotent.
However, I do think people underestimate DJT and just how he gets politics. He has actually been fairly quiet (yes, despite the rallies and everything else, I think he could have been a lot more vocal). I think he gets that it is better to let Biden make mistakes without the need to weigh in on every issue whilst still keeping himself the primus inter pares in the GOP.
Re Biden's achievements, yes he has definitely made some. My concern would be from the Democratic side is that many are Executive Orders and so subject to change. There are also some signs the caucus is starting to fray, with several Congressional members unhappy about the Iron Dome issue. Looking out now, Biden may turn things around but it is going to be a major task, especially given that the list of Democratic Senators who may not back his agenda is moving beyond Manchin and Sinema, and beginning to sweep up other Senators concerned about their seats such as Hassan and Cortez Masto.
Don't get the thread header at all. The whole point of Biden was that he was not Trump. Period.
Well, the general hatred for Trump blinded people to just how useless a candidate Biden was and how useless he would be as President. As is being proven now.
Yes, but even a pisspoor Biden is better than the malignancy of Trump.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
And even Daniel Craig has come out against a female James Bond, which even Theresa May was advocating just 3 years ago.
It's not my fault if some are too thick and slow to catch-on though and a few of us are several steps ahead of them.
Were you against Dame Judi Dench playing "M"?
I know its a minority view, but I really don't think she's a particularly good actress, and I thought she was especially poor as 'M' - she just basically tried to play a queen-like figure, and that was a complete misfire.
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
The issue for people who are concerned about wokeness is to choose their battles carefully. Some elements of woke are just eccentric and largely harmless, I would put gender neutral language in this category; so it is pointless to try and fight that. Other woke tendencies are much worse, it really starts with closing down freedom of speech in the name of poorly defined social justice and the madness flows out from there.
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
The issue for people who are concerned about wokeness is to choose their battles carefully. Some elements of woke are just eccentric and largely harmless, I would put gender neutral language in this category; so it is pointless to try and fight that. Other woke tendencies are much worse, it really starts with closing down freedom of speech in the name of poorly defined social justice and the madness flows out from there.
I generally agree, though gender neutral language is so harmless in an instance like this I'm not sure it even counts.
It's perfectly reasonable, for example, that we no longer speak of police 'men' or WPC's but just 'police officers'.
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
Why can't policeman refer to either a man or a woman like human or ombudsman does? What's the difference? Only recently actress was used to distinguish females from male actors and acknowledge their gender. Now, woman like Whoopi Goldberg are reclaiming the word actor to be all encompassing and gender neutral. The rules change all the time.
These obsessions are performative only and entirely facile and banal.
I can see why you think your side are losing the war on woke. When the MCC, of all bodies, introduces gender neutral language, it's clearly all over. You don't get many more reactionary, conservative institutions than the MCC. After all, until 1999 - yes, 1999 - women (with the exception of the Queen) were not allowed in the Pavilion at Lords during play, and women weren't allowed to be MCC members until 1984. One of the last bastions of traditional Englishness has crumbled before your very eyes in pursuit of woke. They'll be adorning their logo with BLM signage before you know it.
Oh, it's not over in the slightest - in fact, the tide is turning: establishment newspapers like The Economist and The Times are now running editorials against it:
And even Daniel Craig has come out against a female James Bond, which even Theresa May was advocating just 3 years ago.
It's not my fault if some are too thick and slow to catch-on though and a few of us are several steps ahead of them.
Were you against Dame Judi Dench playing "M"?
I know its a minority view, but I really don't think she's a particularly good actress, and I thought she was especially poor as 'M' - she just basically tried to play a queen-like figure, and that was a complete misfire.
I know this is an unusual take from me, but Dame Judi was rather hot in her youth
Infamously, one senior drama critic, reviewing a performance early in her career, described her as "eminently spankable"
On topic, one Democrat- leaning publication summed it up well: Biden’s ratings are getting hit because people are now focusing on Biden himself rather than viewing him through the lens of being ‘Not Trump’.
Obviously, coming into the mid-terms, there will be a focus on tying the GOP into Trump, as happened in the CA recall election. That may work but there is a big risk voters look past that and focus on Biden’s record especially if he has no meaningful achievements to his name
In the CA recall election however remember recall Newsom still got 37%, which was higher than the 34% Trump got in 2020 and the 32% he got in 2016 in the state.
Even on that swing nationwide the GOP would pick up the House given they only need to gain 5 seats for a majority
Yes, I think the CA recall result is not necessarily without its pluses for the GOP. As you said, the recall made some inroads into the Democratic vote and there were some clear signs certain Democratic constituencies, especially the Hispanic block, were softening in their support.
In my mind, there were two winners from the CA recall vote: Gavin Newsom and Larry Elder. The former won (and I expect him to run again, as I think his national aspirations are not dead but are on life support) and the latter has catapulted himself into the de facto leader of CA's GOP.
I'm not sure Larry Elder being the poster boy of the California GOP has done the California GOP any favours. If Elder had not been the front runner, I think the election would have been an awful lot closer.
Agreed but I didn't say the California GOP was the second winner, I said Larry Elder. If he had not been a runner, the vote would have been a lot closer.
This got me thinking. I think a charismatic Republican - not necessarily a "moderate", but certainly someone with broad support - could have won the recall election. Most Californians aren't that enamoured with Newsom, and if they'd been offered a decent alternative they might well have switched.
But one of the baleful influences of Trump on the GOP is that I don't see a Schwarzenegger type character being willing to put their head above the parapet right now. If you have to pronounce fealty to Trump, I think it scares off a lot of more independent minded candidates.
Separately, I wonder what's going to happen in Alaska.
Lisa Murkowski will, I'm sure, make it through to the final four. There will - no doubt - be a Trump candidate. And then there's ranked choice voting.
My gut is that the State is split roughly three ways between the Dems, Murkowski Republicans, and Trump Republicans. And while Murkowski will almost certainly get the bulk of second choice votes of Dems, what happens if she is behind the Dem at the off, and her votes are the ones that get distributed. It really could go any way.
With regards to the thread header, historic polling shows that the American public likes Presidents who "get things done" even if they don't always like the policies being enacted. The American public hate Presidents who don't do anything.
The Sinema and Manchin seem hell bent on making Biden a President who gets nothing done despite the legislation they are holding up polling insanely well.
I am genuinely perplexed because back in the Spring they seemed (especially Manchin) totally on board with the plan.
Have been taking an unpaid (unless you'd care to send a generous stipend my way?) sabbatical from PB, though am lurking from time to time.
Just back for a bit to ask, what is the translation of "strop" in English, let alone French or Finnish or what -have-you?
Here in the colonies the verb "to strop" refers to how an old-time barber uses a leather strap (or strop) to keep the edge on his straight razor.
FYI strop in the sense its being used in connection with French reaction to AUKUS is virtually unknown to Americans from sea to shining sea.
And BTW, if France ends up joining AUKUS would it then be called FAUKUS?
Note that yours truly has keen insight into nuke subs, given that the Emerald City of Seattle is only about 30 miles as the crow (or drone) flies from the USN's trident submarine base on the West Coast.
Years ago was on a small seaplane flying from Seattle to Victoria BC. It was a bright, beautiful summer morning, and as we flew over the Strait of Juan da Fuca. Looking down, we saw a rare sight: a trident submarine cruising on the surface . . .
Good to see you back, I think we were a bit worried when you stopped posting around the time of that North West "heat dome" thingy!
Thanks, Cat! Yes, our super-heat wave back in June was downright surreal, took a long ferry ride to Bremerton & back just to cool off. Only problem was it was 105 F when I got there! Back in Seattle, ended up spending a couple nights down in the slightly-cooler-than-my-apartment laundry room in the basement my building just to get some sleep.
At same time, lost internet service for several weeks for several weeks, and when I got it back needed to ration my time more than earlier in the year, and still do.
Hi @SeaShantyIrish2 . Was wondering last night what became of you. Good to see you back.
Boris didn't say they never spoke about Northern Ireland - though I get even though multiple people pointed out the difference to you that you're too thick to understand the difference.
Don't get the thread header at all. The whole point of Biden was that he was not Trump. Period.
Well, the general hatred for Trump blinded people to just how useless a candidate Biden was and how useless he would be as President. As is being proven now.
Oh no, I think people were fully aware of just how useless a candidate Biden was and how useless he would be as President.
We all knew what he was: acceptable under the circumstances.
You have to feel for Harry Kane...EFL cup on a Wednesday night against a second string Wolves line-up....off you go Harry, yet another 90 mins please. Oh its gone to Extra Time, dig in Harry, another 30 mins please.
He is going to be absolutely buggered by the time the World Cup comes.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki blamed British Prime Minister Boris Johnson for chaos in Oval Office https://trib.al/Dcv1A5u
The "chaos" being that Boris gave journalists an opportunity to ask questions and Biden doesn't like answering questions? 🤔
Its was absolutely ridiculous that supposed the most powerful man in the world is too old and confused to be able to answer some questions so a press official has to scream and shout over any of the journalists to stop any question getting caught on tape.
You have to feel for Harry Kane...EFL cup on a Wednesday night against a second string Wolves line-up....off you go Harry, yet another 90 mins please. Oh its gone to Extra Time, dig in Harry, another 30 mins please.
He is going to be absolutely buggered by the time the World Cup comes.
Is there extra time - I thought it went straight to penalties
You have to feel for Harry Kane...EFL cup on a Wednesday night against a second string Wolves line-up....off you go Harry, yet another 90 mins please. Oh its gone to Extra Time, dig in Harry, another 30 mins please.
He is going to be absolutely buggered by the time the World Cup comes.
Comments
“Craven appeasement” is an absurd description from someone who would struggle to find NZ on a map.
Never ignore a tip from Isam!
He had the required moustache
Surely?
Does "we will help" imply that you personally mean to enlist in the armed forces, jtbc?
Speaking of 2022, the Washington State Redistricting Commission has just released and posted four proposed legislative redistricting maps, drafted by each of the 4 partisan commissioners (one appointed by each state legislative caucus (Sen Ds, Sen Rs, House Ds, House Rs)
https://www.redistricting.wa.gov/commissioner-proposed-maps?fbclid=IwAR2qk2yl_DWocsJo8eHjNtIrAOk5MmdTRpDAlH7FyPLQsOm1EMbkFSTrCt8
Note that proposed maps for congressional redistricting will be released by commissioners next week.
Further note that these proposals are mostly preliminary shadow-boxing by both sides, commencing public debate and comment, but perhaps more importantly launching negotiations between Democrats and Republicans.
Under WA State redistricting law, commissioners have until the end of 2021 to finalize legislative and congressional plans, which requires a majority vote of the four voting commissioners. Which means that partisan gerrymander is NOT possible. Instead, both sides try to out-fox each other around the edges, concede when forced to choose, and dicker for what they want the most.
And strangely enough, though the law makes equal districts (based on 2020 census total population, with virtually zero wiggle room, plus or minus ten PEOPLE) and communities of interest the prime considerations, it turns out that incumbent protection is an even greater good, on both sides of the aisle.
Aside from that, major factor for WA this redistricting cycle (as in just about all) is relative growth of population across the state. Which has been strongest in the city of Seattle and a few other parts of the state such as Clark Co in SW WA (suburb of Portland OR) and Whatcom Co on the Canadian border.
Congressional redistricting will be interesting largely because two of our three GOP members of Congress voted to impeach Trump, so hard to say just how the commissioners of both food groups are gonna deal with THAT reality leading into the 2022 mid-term election.
Perhaps they should call the former ‘fanny batters’, which helpfully pleases everyone, including my inner 14 year old
Even on that swing nationwide the GOP would pick up the House given they only need to gain 5 seats for a majority
https://twitter.com/corentinsellin/status/1440716421273513985?s=21
Thinks better on balance not.
https://www.wahlkreisprognose.de/2021/09/21/im-bund-trotz-steigender-favoritenrolle-daempfer-fuer-die-spd-union-holt-auf/
SPD at 25% (-2 from last poll), Union 21.5% (+1.5) so a tightening of the race as we've seen in other polls.
The Union gaining a little in constituencies but still behind the SPD but the gap has closed to 141-139 with the Greens ahead in 9-11 and Alternative and Linke ahead in four each.
Bavaria is now not only culturally but politically clearly closer to Austria and Switzerland than it is to northern Germany
I mean, ‘batter’ or ‘bat’ used to be accepted terms for those who were primarily in the side for their batting, just as ‘bowlsman’ was a Victorian term for bowler. So there’s nothing anachronistic or strange about the terms themselves. But - is this really the most important thing? Right now? Or is it just a load of drunken virtue signalling?
Like I say, what’s actually been done about those members of the Afghan Women’s Cricket team whose lives may be in some danger?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Josef_Glacier
I did vote for him to no longer be an elected representative. ✅
I have no sympathy for that and my words are apt.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/09/04/the-threat-from-the-illiberal-left
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/peter-boghossian-the-woke-dont-give-a-reason-for-their-faith-its-different-rules-of-engagement-323hccf73
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/09/04/how-did-american-wokeness-jump-from-elite-schools-to-everyday-life
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-woke-totalitarians-conquered-america-288chkrxb
And even Daniel Craig has come out against a female James Bond, which even Theresa May was advocating just 3 years ago.
It's not my fault if some are too thick and slow to catch-on though and a few of us are several steps ahead of them.
The first prize was a three night stay in Cromer.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/16213083/southampton-sign-olly-lancashire-32-support-player/
In my mind, there were two winners from the CA recall vote: Gavin Newsom and Larry Elder. The former won (and I expect him to run again, as I think his national aspirations are not dead but are on life support) and the latter has catapulted himself into the de facto leader of CA's GOP.
So, no, I don't think there are more important things to think about. This *is* the most important thing in the West today.
The Bond of the novels was all man, of course, and had no qualms about explicitly condemning queers and dykes. No doubt you will join me in explicitly condemning that stance?
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1440759138988949517?s=19
Politics For All
@PoliticsForAlI
·
6m
Bro it’s long AF
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1440760474832834561?s=20
Sitting in the Oval Office on Tuesday, it was clear the U.K. leader has little hope of delivering it.
https://trib.al/7nsrqt8
News at 10: Bears shit in the woods.
However, I do think people underestimate DJT and just how he gets politics. He has actually been fairly quiet (yes, despite the rallies and everything else, I think he could have been a lot more vocal). I think he gets that it is better to let Biden make mistakes without the need to weigh in on every issue whilst still keeping himself the primus inter pares in the GOP.
Re Biden's achievements, yes he has definitely made some. My concern would be from the Democratic side is that many are Executive Orders and so subject to change. There are also some signs the caucus is starting to fray, with several Congressional members unhappy about the Iron Dome issue. Looking out now, Biden may turn things around but it is going to be a major task, especially given that the list of Democratic Senators who may not back his agenda is moving beyond Manchin and Sinema, and beginning to sweep up other Senators concerned about their seats such as Hassan and Cortez Masto.
Boris Johnson: the Dutch prime minister agreed to mediate over Brexit
Dutch officials: that’s not true
Boris Johnson: Biden and I didn’t speak about Northern Ireland
US officials: that’s not true
https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1440772645230825477
Infamously, one senior drama critic, reviewing a performance early in her career, described her as "eminently spankable"
But one of the baleful influences of Trump on the GOP is that I don't see a Schwarzenegger type character being willing to put their head above the parapet right now. If you have to pronounce fealty to Trump, I think it scares off a lot of more independent minded candidates.
Separately, I wonder what's going to happen in Alaska.
Lisa Murkowski will, I'm sure, make it through to the final four. There will - no doubt - be a Trump candidate. And then there's ranked choice voting.
My gut is that the State is split roughly three ways between the Dems, Murkowski Republicans, and Trump Republicans. And while Murkowski will almost certainly get the bulk of second choice votes of Dems, what happens if she is behind the Dem at the off, and her votes are the ones that get distributed. It really could go any way.
The Sinema and Manchin seem hell bent on making Biden a President who gets nothing done despite the legislation they are holding up polling insanely well.
I am genuinely perplexed because back in the Spring they seemed (especially Manchin) totally on board with the plan.
Hot Fuzz:
Danny Butterman: [about PC Doris Thatcher] She's our only policewoman.
Nicholas Angel: She's not a policewoman.
Danny Butterman: [whispers] Yes, she is, I've seen her bra.
https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-pm-sees-willingness-in-boris-johnson-to-solve-northern-ireland-row/
We all knew what he was: acceptable under the circumstances.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=302809977715039
Likely to.be a must watch
Blair and Brown....
Alternatively retitled
The Warmonger and the Financial Incompetent.
https://trib.al/Dcv1A5u
He is going to be absolutely buggered by the time the World Cup comes.
Nor is that democracy.
Good away win for the Foxes reserves.